 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (5)Hyperflake big belb DADONCK recycle ...and 70 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2615846 Today 50 Topics 127670 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In Russian Ark a DV camera with a bigger hard drive was used. It was custom made from what I read. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they just make it so that when they have to change roll, they scroll past a uniformely or single colored area or something.. something where you won't notice... not to ruin it, but I'm pretty sure they do it just when going in behind either a person or column or whatever in that scene with the fire extinguisher, and I also suspect it to be the point where the actors head is either substituted or put heavy make-up on... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah, yes, that's video, not movie... zer iz diferenz |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, to make a truly one-shot movie on photosensitive film, you would need a gigantic reel. If they havan't done it till today, I guess it's not possible, or rather not worth it. Using digital technology, you can theoretically make an infinitely long movie (if you transfer the data from the camera via some connection). What you lose is the quality. It all comes down to the finite number of pixels, right? Russian Ark doesn't look all that spectacular on big screen. It is astonishing in other ways, but the picture quality is so so. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah yeah, ofcourse.. me stupid. they surely had some HD cam stuff for the russian ark. i still think seamless stock switch is possible though. and if i recall things correctly, the last time i worked on set (which was about one and a half year ago) they had 9 minute stock, which should be enough for just about any scene.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, it is possible of course. Just like DM describes it. Hitchcock used it to make one of his movies seem one-shot, I forgot which. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the director had been planning for years to shoot russian ark, the second shot they got it right some credit goes to the cameraman as well |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, major WORD. The whole equipment carried by the cameraman weighed almost 30kgs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
QRDL: Rope is the Hitchcock film that plays like it is all one shot. cuntychuck: I Stand Alone was Noés first film (not counting shorts) - Irréversible is his second. The butcher from I Stand Alone appears at the very beginning of Irréversible, sitting in a hotel room talking about how he was in jail for sleeping with his daughter. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like this film very much, i see it as hell and heaven. the ending (of the film, not the story) is really some of the most beautiful and touching stuff between a couple that i have ever seen in a movie. i liked seul contre tous as well very much. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know that if i watch this movie then i'll end up feeling awful for days. however, i'd be interested in any of the director's films that lack explicit scenes of violence and rape. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no.. actually the movie IS about a rape scene.. i've read interviews with the director and he practically says that. half the movie is camera movements.. how can you call that good? when I saw it i didn't see anything really... just a short (noninteresting) story and 2 mega violent scenes. what's good about it? and moby sucks too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the plots alot to do with her getting raped, yes, but i don't find it to be bad or boring at all.. most movies have some sort of dramatic theme to build upon. but yeah, moby sucks. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It is centered around the rape, yes, which is why that scene is in the middle of the movie - but there is more to it. For instance, the dynamic between the three main characters, the two lovers and the ex-lover, is quite interesting to me at least. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what I thought was good about it being the way it is, is that when you get to the "idyllic" scenery towards the end of the film, you can't really feel good about it because you know all the bad things that are going to happen.. their love and whatever becomes truly creepy... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what the eff? the "the dynamic between the three main characters, the two lovers and the ex-lover" hmm.. like you can't see that in any sitcom, ok you'd have a point if the movie actually developed the characters a bit more.. all you get it's few lines of them joking around not real "dynamic development". anyway i think the movie is one of the worst ever, up there with titanic. extremely overrated. like moby. so i won't argue anymore. drunken: yeah i guess that's the only other thing you could think the director was trying to do. but in reality that's your interpretation wich is as valid as anyone elses but I don't think that was the intention of the movie. I don't want to get into a intention vs interpretation argument. so goodbye. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
