"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Yeah, so if "enhance" is stupid and silly in 99% of films, we should be happy when it's done right (like in, say, Blow Up, a film about the very art of photography and the inadequacy of the camera to "witness" without a person to carefully view the photo)

If a tree falls in the forest, does the pope poop in the woods?

I'm not catching your point.

I believe Bobby was referring to how movies often have a character "enhancing" a photo beyond what one would be able to do in reality. I was recently watching an episode of one show or another in which I found myself laughing at the absurdity of how much they were able to get from a photo... seriously, it was laughable!

~Alan

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I'm not catching your point.

I believe Bobby was referring to how movies often have a character "enhancing" a photo beyond what one would be able to do in reality. I was recently watching an episode of one show or another in which I found myself laughing at the absurdity of how much they were able to get from a photo... seriously, it was laughable!

~Alan

Yeah... Seen Blow Up? The pics get grainier as they are "enhanced". Despite his attempts, the truth gets more opaque the closer he looks. In other words, in this case, the film takes that trope and turns it on its head.

Plus, I guess you missed my Youtube link above....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9y...layer_embedded

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

...I believe Bobby was referring to how movies often have a character "enhancing" a photo beyond what one would be able to do in reality...

The same thing always bothered me about Blade Runner. Deckard is able to get his voice-activated photo enhancer to peer around and inside a doorway in a photograph to spot Zhora! I know it's scifi, but they even refer to them as photos in the film, not holographs!

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Yeah... Seen Blow Up? The pics get grainier as they are "enhanced". Despite his attempts, the truth gets more opaque the closer he looks. In other words, in this case, the film takes that trope and turns it on its head.

Plus, I guess you missed my Youtube link above....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9y...layer_embedded

No... I haven't seen "Blow Up", and yeah, I'm not big on checking out YouTube links at work.

Originally Posted by JamesN

The same thing always bothered me about Blade Runner. Deckard is able to get his voice-activated photo enhancer to peer around and inside a doorway in a photograph to spot Zhora! I know it's scifi, but they even refer to them as photos in the film, not holographs!

What we're capable of now is not necessarily what we'll be capable of in the future.

~Alan

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

What we're capable of now is not necessarily what we'll be capable of in the future.

Well, I doubt we'll have that in 9 years.

It sounds to me like his issues with it are similar to your issues with the way photography is portrayed in films, and your cop friends with the way police work is often portrayed...

When we are casual observers, we can suspend disbelief, but when we know better, sometimes, even the small things can ruin the whole thing for us.

Yes, but the problem is that a lot of people watching this will take it as actual history, and what is going on there now. Even Patton had 25 years from the end of the war for some perspective.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I agree. This year's Oscar telecast was not very impressive. It just didn't seem very organized. I have visions of a broadcast director and technical director screaming over their head sets for certain camera guys to "get a shot" and then just hitting whatever button on the switcher seemed right at the time. And the format they started using last year for the Best Actor and Best Actress categories is a real time vampire.

Well, I hate, hate, hate it. To me it's just mutual fawning & ego stroking, not to mention a giant waste of time.

Did they go back to "...and the winner is..." instead of the PC "...and the Oscar goes to..." last year or this year?

For a show with 2 hosts we really didn't see a lot of them after the opening monologue.

Finally, the feeback from the stage microphone was killing me. Nobody there noticed it? It seemed to go away later in the show but damn! Anybody who's followed my posts in the sound format wars knows about my sensitive hearing, and the at least a couple of people there should have picked up on it.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by JamesN

he same thing always bothered me about Blade Runner. Deckard is able to get his voice-activated photo enhancer to peer around and inside a doorway in a photograph to spot Zhora!

I'm willing to suspend some disbelief when the movie is a science fiction genre piece that takes place in what is still dated to be the future (Los Angeles, 2019).

When the photo enhance nonsense is being applied to ordinary 2D, pixel based digital camera photos in the present day I'm going to laugh and shout "B.S." just about every time.

Last week's episode of 24 had some laughable photo enhance hum-dingers. The computer would zoom into the hospital surveillance camera's shot and at the last zoom level the picture is just magically close up and high resolution -as if the little hallway camera was equipped with a 400mm zoom or something. Trouble is the last zoomed shot was a completely different camera shot from a different angle altogether! Pretty funny.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Does your dad (or you) have a better work to point to, one that is more effective at showing this conflict in a more palatably realistic light?

So far, most dramatic movies involving the war in Iraq have missed the mark in one way or another. My father really liked Taking Chance, the HBO movie starring Kevin Bacon as an officer escorting a fallen Marine home to his final resting place. That show was more simple in its scope, very accurate in its portrayal (due to some help from Dept. of Defense cooperation) yet very emotionally powerful.

Some documentaries seem to be doing a much better (and more fair) job with how the war is portrayed. I was impressed with the HBO documentary Baghdad ER. The PBS show Frontline recently aired a documentary from Danfung Dennis about Marines in Afghanistan, shot using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Dennis is now working on expanding the documentary into a feature called Battle for Hearts and Minds. Documentaries like those can be very dramatic, but not in the contrived manner we're used to seeing with conventional dramatic movies and TV shows.

Movies that are obviously geared as escapist entertainment (as most action movies are) kind of get a pass. We're willing to look past some liberties in exchange for the big, crowd pleasing momnets. But war movies that are sold on the "this is how it is over there" angle need to have all their details straight. Unfortunately, they take many dramatic liberties just like any escapist movie does.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Finally, the feeback from the stage microphone was killing me. Nobody there noticed it?

Yeah. I noticed it. Terrible. Wasn't Michael Giacchino the one on stage accepting his Oscar when the feedback tried to completely drown out his speech? Or was it someone else?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I'm willing to suspend some disbelief when the movie is a science fiction genre piece that takes place in what is still dated to be the future (Los Angeles, 2019).

What gets me is on the Star Trek shows where they will be talking to someone on a viewscreen and it will shift from a wide shot to a dramatic close up and back again, all still being framed by the screen.

PS: The Klingons have some cool pixel-interpolation technology too (Star Trek: Generations).

[sharkshark]

ah, I guess I couldn't convince any of you to read the link to the response to GK. Ah, well...

As for feedback during last night's broadcast, the international feed to CTV up here didn't seem to have that issue. Frankly, we just had to live with the same commercials over and over, and the general pointlessness of the show.

I guess Penton's still hungover, eh?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

What gets me is on the Star Trek shows where they will be talking to someone on a viewscreen and it will shift from a wide shot to a dramatic close up and back again, all still being framed by the screen.

PS: The Klingons have some cool pixel-interpolation technology too (Star Trek: Generations).

Weirdly, I'm typing as I'm listening to this CD I bought yesterday:
http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg...0:azfpxqesldde

Yeah, I still buy shiny discs... even for music!

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

So far, most dramatic movies involving the war in Iraq have missed the mark in one way or another. My father really liked Taking Chance, the HBO movie starring Kevin Bacon as an officer escorting a fallen Marine home to his final resting place. That show was more simple in its scope, very accurate in its portrayal (due to some help from Dept. of Defense cooperation) yet very emotionally powerful.

Interesting that your claim makes it sound that DoD involvement would infact make for a more accurate representation.

Top Gun (escapist crap), for example, had loads of DoD involvement, as did something like Pearl Harbour (something that purported to be non-escapist crap).

Others would argue that since the DoD controls has veto over the script that you'd in fact get a more sanitised version. I'm in no position to decide one way or another, but (active) DoD involvement certainly raises more questions than it answers, in order to get to play with the official "toys" and not have to go to Africa (or, in the case of HL, Jordan) to shoot your story.

(that's not, of course, to put Hurt Locker in the same league as GK, Oscar or no. Frankly, I kinda wish The Wire would get a Nobel already).

For GK, you have the involvement of the actual marines that served, from the officers (the key Lt.), cast members that were former Marines, senior milittary advisors that are portrayed by other actor in the film, and, most intriguingly, two parts are played by the -actual- Marines who witnessed events. One key character of the film is, of course, playing the producer/author of the work, and was a witness to events.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, and do think we've probably exhausted any attempts at trying to convince you (or your dad) otherwise, but I humbly suggest that GK deserves another chance from you and him, that that it's unfairly being lumped in with the other dreck.

That said, the Kevin Bacon film sounds indeed interesting, I'll have to track it down, thanks for the recommendation.

[Jeff Kleist]

Others would argue that since the DoD controls has veto over the script that you'd in fact get a more sanitised version. I'm in no position to decide one way or another, but (active) DoD involvement certainly raises more questions than it answers, in order to get to play with the official "toys" and not have to go to Africa (or, in the case of HL, Jordan) to shoot your story.

The DOD has scuttled dozens of movies they felt didn't portray them in a proper light. My brother was in the fleet during the shooting of "The Core", and the announced over the 1MC that everyone should smile for the big helicopter shots. The thought they meant "The Corps" So whenever that movie comes out on Blu (and if you want a multi-discipline scientific nightmare (KILLER WHALES AREN'T IN HAWAII!!!!!!), my brother should finally be 2-3 pixels in HD

On the upside, a friend of mine was working on the FX for it, and described some kind of wooly mammoth boneyard that made even less sense than the rest of the movie, that they wisely cut at some point where the movie sat on a shelf for close to a year

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

ah, I guess I couldn't convince any of you to read the link to the response to GK. Ah, well...

I did read the link. I just don't feel like filling Penton-Man's thread with loads of stuff on this topic. Michael Shoup's comments echo some of my father's negative reaction to Generation Kill. The mini-series has quite a bit of unfair sensationalism placed in there, some of which show the Marines in a very negative light.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Interesting that your claim makes it sound that DoD involvement would infact make for a more accurate representation.

Yes, DOD involvement can help a military movie look and feel more authentic. The production is granted access to certain military facilities, personnel and equipment -much of which is unaffordable or unobtainable to a production going it alone without any help.

One example is The Hurt Locker including a sequence with three EOD guys riding in one lone Humvee out in the desert to do a controlled detonation. In reality they would travel in a well armed convoy. The Hurt Locker didn't have the budget for that. And a US military convoy would have stepped in the way of sequence with the British security contractors and the phony sniper sequence that followed.

It's true the DOD wants the US military portrayed in a positive manner, or at the very least a fair manner. Very often, movie studio conventions of story telling want more conflict and controvery. That often means throwing in some atrocities or Marines laughing and smoking cigars over dead civilians inadvertantly killed and chalked up as collateral damage.

Also, just because a Marine or a few Marines are "attached" to a production like Generation Kill or Jarhead or whatever else, that doesn't guarantee those Marines get "final cut" on what hits the screen.

Speaking of Jarhead, even I shouted "bull****" to a couple scenes. One scene at "sniper school" depicts Marines crawling under barbed wire through the mud while live fire shoots over their heads. One recruit panics, raises upward and catches a bullet to the head. Baloney. The crawling under the wire stuff happens in bootcamp. Not a specialty school like scout/sniper training. Live fire is also aimed way above the wire on such exercises in case some dummy does try to stand. Pure Hollywood nonsense. But I guess it's too boring to keep things realistic.

BTW, I agree Top Gun is pure Hollywood escapism. Even the pilots who participated in the movie agree on that. Further, they had to make the movie that way because realistic jet combat wouldn't make any sense to an average viewer. The real cockpit displays are far more visually complicated and pilots fight each other from distances so far they might not be able to see each other at all with their own eyes. Not exactly cinematic. Pearl Harbor was just silly. And so is any notion of expecting pure authenticity from a military movie directed by Michael Bay. That's just not his forte.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Also, just because a Marine or a few Marines are "attached" to a production like Generation Kill or Jarhead or whatever else, that doesn't guarantee those Marines get "final cut" on what hits the screen.

Agreed. Except, in this case, one of the witnesses was the author of the work, and the guys are playing their own roles.

Yes, it's a drama. Yes, it takes liberties. But comparing GK to Jarhead is, I think, disengenuous. Again, I'd posit that GK has a greater level of authencity than you or your dad (or that blog post) gives it credit for, as I personally find the comments from the Marines that were there, the excerpts I've now been reading from Fick's own accounts, and, of course, the comments from the author himself. I'll go further - I doubt any DoD approved production would have bettered the narrative. I think it's at least on the level of "authenticity" as something like Band of Brothers, if not more so. I adore BoB as a work, I really do, but I think that Simon/Burns have crafted this nuanced and complex little narrative that even I partially dismissed on first viewing.

Yeah, I think it's that good, and was suprised how much better it was the second time through, not waiting a week between episodes. I shouldn't have been, given my HBO experiences, but there you are....

I respect your position, I do, I just think it deserves another look. I'm sorry for jumping to the conclusion you hadn't bothered to read the link, that was stupid.

But, yeah. Fun to discuss, at least we together help Penton's thread remain interesting... And we're not kvetching about bitrates

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Good evening,

There is a certain member in this thread, residing on the West Coast, that I believe would be interested in knowing what the current membership number is

Have a wonderful week.

Pro-B

I see ……….Blu-ray.com is now in the 6 figure membership realm (over 100,000).
BIG Congratulations to the Owners, the Site Administrator, all the mods and all the movie reviewers.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

WR didn't win, but I did think of you when Sony Pictures Classics got a shout out... Kudos!

Did you catch this one?……….
http://oscar.go.com/video/index?play...&clipId=253222

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

BIG Congratulations to the Owners, the Site Administrator, all the mods and all the movie reviewers.

What about all us lowly members who generate all the ENTERTAINMENT!?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I have far better methods of doing it, besides that's totally bait. He'd probably stay at the hotel next door just to take pictures of the stakeout

Besides, hiring paparazzi is totally beneath me. If it's not a plan worthy of Bond it's not worth doing

Nice attached pic ^.
I think it was the Apache that called coyotes....."shapeshifters".

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, I hate, hate, hate it. To me it's just mutual fawning & ego stroking, not to mention a giant waste of time.

One big redeeming point of the whole extravaganza that critics seem to forget is that there is a real segment of the population who would never have known or been introduced to some of the motion pictures nominated without all the pomp and circumstance of this Awards event because they aren’t quite the cinephiles, as for instance, the people on this forum. The show brings public awareness to certain movies like The Hurt Locker so that folks can maybe still catch them at their local Cineplex or at home on Blu-ray.

Even reading this forum, brings a special tidbit or two to those that live in SoCal and in retrospect, might have wished they could have attended……..Peter .
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post2806741

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, I doubt we'll have that in 9 years.

... but when "Blade Runner" was made in 1982, it was a lot more than 9 years. Kind of like the "Space Seed" episode of "Star Trek" in which we have long since past the timeline in which Khan and his people should be up and running around...

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yes, but the problem is that a lot of people watching this will take it as actual history, and what is going on there now. Even Patton had 25 years from the end of the war for some perspective.

... and I bet there are a lot of people who had different perspectives then too.

As for the GK discussion, perspective is a funny thing.

I know several people who served in the latest Iraq war, and each one has a different perspective. I know several who talk about it as if it ran like a smooth well-oiled machine. I know others who say the complete opposite. While I have a tendency to know the people who say the opposite better than those who think it ran smooth, I don't discredit either person's words... as they didn't exactly run in the same circles.

~Alan