Recent comments in /f/movies

SmoreOfBabylon t1_ja3uvcf wrote

Reply to Movies or documentaries that successfully capture a real-life city and what it's like by AChocolateHouse

Taxi Driver captures the essence of grimy, depressed late ‘70s New York City pretty well, I think.

Also, NYC’s reputation was still not great by the early ‘80s and productions generally declined to actually film there instead of places such as LA, but for Ghostbusters, Ivan Reitman was adamant about actually filming exterior shots in the city itself. And it was Dan Aykroyd’s suggestion to use a particular NYC firehouse (the still-active Hook & Ladder Company 8) for exterior shots of the Ghostbusters HQ.

8

Ebolatastic t1_ja3ucae wrote

Reply to What did Kim Basinger did in LA CONFIDENTIAL that warranted an Oscar win? by Anastasia_Lockheart

Pretty sure it was a 'had it coming' oscar win. Basinger had been tearing it up for like a decade before LA Confidential. The movie was excellent, her performance was great, but I think sentiment is really what nabbed it for her. This type of thing happens. DiCaprio got an Oscar for one of the worst films he was ever in, for example.

0

MontyAtWork t1_ja3u3hc wrote

Reply to comment by kleptophobiac in Anna Faris Joins Dave Bautista in ‘My Spy: The Eternal City’ by Bennett1984

Dude wants to be a not-superhero actor so bad he'll just take wherever the studios will give him.

I give it 10 years max before someone's interviewing him and asks about Drax, and he flips out, saying he's been in hundreds of hours of more movies than Guardians, and that he's a real actor and should be asked about literally any other role.

Edit Ohhhh I see - this post was an astroturf ad, which explains why everyone's acting like Bautista and Faris are somehow huge enough to get upvotes for a sequel to a middling child comedy with a 43% Rotten on RT, which also barely made over half its cost at Box Office ($18M movie, $10M in theater sales). Maybe if more of the downvoters who hit my post had actually been paying customers to the movie, this would have more real excitement.

−35

Consistent-Annual268 t1_ja3t6lz wrote

Reply to comment by niklasd2003 in How big is a high format movie file theatres get for their screenings, and can we also access these versions as consumers in any way? by niklasd2003

Essentially, the full image frame as captured by the film or the digital camera sensor, usually in a tall 4:3 aspect ratio before being cropped down to a cinematic wide screen format (1.85:1, 2.35:1 etc.). So it shows off much more vertical space. To be fair, the director and cinematographer would compose the shots for the target aspect ratio, so the extra vertical space is usually visually uninteresting (sky, ground) because all the production design and composition will be set up for the frame they wanted to shoot. But purists are always after it for preservation reasons.

Also, of note to this discussion, it is typically very lightly compressed as it is the version intended to be used for post production and editing so is in the highest available quality.

3