novick@cornell.UUCP (12/15/85)
From: novick (Mark B. Novick) ---- I watched 'Moonlighting' for the first time (all the way through) last Tuesday, Dec. 10, and one thing I noticed was that whenever "Mattie" (sp?) was in a close-up the image seemed to blur as though it were somewhat out of focus. I don't think it was an accident as other characters in close-up looked sharp. Is this some ploy to make her appear more 'beautiful' (hiding wrinkles :-)), or what? Doug Elrod (sent by Mark Novick, so send responses to novick@cornell-gvax.arpa, who will forward)
chod@gypsy.UUCP (12/18/85)
I can't believe the line the censors let by in this episode. David Addison had just come down a chimney dressed as Santa. After extricating himself with some difficulty, he said: "This is the last time I jam myself into a tight hole with my clothes on". I mean come on! Is this just my dirty mind, or what!?
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (12/19/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MASSAGE ***
well folks, this weeks episode of _Moonlighting_ was fantastic!
You want to talk meta-humor? Ok, we'll start with that. The show
opens, the normal titles are going by, the music cressendos and here
comes the episode title. What is it? I'm glad you asked.
'Twas the episode before Christmas
No lines, no new footage and I'm already laughing! then about 12 minutes
from the end of the show, Maddie says, "What are we going to do?" Dave's
reply is, "Wrap this up in about 12 minutes cause another show is comming
on?" And of course the ending, both walking through the office talking about
Mary and Joseph and the way the office is decorated Dave says, "You think
this could be the christmas show?" All Great stuff!
(Flame material forthcomming)
The ONLY thing I didn't like about this show was Richard Belzer. When
he started out, as a comedian, he was great. Somewhere along the line
somebody told him he had to say F**k or S**T every other word, so they moved
him to cable. Then Cable realized he wasn't worth the paper *THIS* is
printed on, so they moved him to the gutter! I must admit though, the
casting is perfect. They had him play a scum-sucking senseless
thoughtless animal (for those who didn't see the show) which is exactly
what he is.
(There, that ought to get this group going!)
Addison
ihlpa!ibyf
My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (12/20/85)
Maddie's "fuzzy face" is due to a common cinematic process known as
"soft focus". It is intended to make women look more beautiful, by
giving their faces a glow, almost producing a halo effect.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarterryl@tekcrl.UUCP (12/23/85)
> > Maddie's "fuzzy face" is due to a common cinematic process known as > "soft focus". It is intended to make women look more beautiful, by > giving their faces a glow, almost producing a halo effect. > -- *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR VASOLINE *** True, also useful for hiding things like pimples, etc. to make them less notable in a picture.
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (12/23/85)
> > > > Maddie's "fuzzy face" is due to a common cinematic process known as > > "soft focus". It is intended to make women look more beautiful, by > > giving their faces a glow, almost producing a halo effect. The "cinematic process" you refer to is more commonly known as "shooting through gauze" yes, gauze. get some out of the first aid kit, cover you camera lens sith it and yes friends, you too can produce this wonderful "cinematic effect" Addison ihlpa!ibyf My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.
gm@trsvax (12/23/85)
I noticed the exact same thing in Mel Brooks "To Be Or Not To Be". Every
time they showed a close up of Anne Bankcroft, she was slightly out
of focus with a soft glow around her. Just like in "Moonlighting". I
thought it looked kinda silly, like they were trying to hide something.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What makes Teflon stick to the pan? It doesn't stick to anything else."
------------
George Moore (gm@trsvax.UUCP)roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger Klorese) (12/23/85)
In article <12300046@uiucdcsb> render@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > >> I watched 'Moonlighting' for the first time (all the way >> through) last Tuesday, Dec. 10, and one thing I noticed >> was that whenever "Mattie" (sp?) was in a close-up the >> image seemed to blur as though it were somewhat out of >> focus. > >I noticed the same thing. I think that it is a special filter or gel >which they use to soften the focus and, thus, the mood of a scene. It is >an old technique, commonly used in movies of the 30's and 40's romantic films, >though it seems kind of odd to use it these days. But, of course, "Moonlighting" is an homage to the "screwball comedies" of the 30s and 40s; how appropriate, then, to spoof their techniques as well. > I have even heard that one >of the old directors used to film all of his female stars with a silk stocking >over the camera lens. Well, whatever floats your boat. > Tallulah Bankhead, upon hearing of this, said: "Well, dahling, he'll have to shoot ME through linoleum!" -- ... "What were you expecting, rock'n'roll?" Roger B.A. Klorese Celerity Computing, 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701, (617) 872-1772 UUCP: seismo!harvard!bu-cs!celtics!roger ARPA: celtics!roger@bu-cs.ARPA
render@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (12/25/85)
Written 5:09 pm Dec 14, 1985 by novick@cornell.UUCP: > I watched 'Moonlighting' for the first time (all the way > through) last Tuesday, Dec. 10, and one thing I noticed > was that whenever "Mattie" (sp?) was in a close-up the > image seemed to blur as though it were somewhat out of > focus. I don't think it was an accident as other > characters in close-up looked sharp. Is this some > ploy to make her appear more 'beautiful' (hiding > wrinkles :-)), or what? I noticed the same thing. I think that it is a special filter or gel which they use to soften the focus and, thus, the mood of a scene. It is an old technique, commonly used in movies of the 30's and 40's romantic films, though it seems kind of odd to use it these days. I have even heard that one of the old directors used to film all of his female stars with a silk stocking over the camera lens. Well, whatever floats your boat. Hal Render University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign {pur-ee, ihnp4} ! uiucdcs ! render render@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
waynet@tolerant.UUCP (Wayne Thompson) (12/27/85)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MASSAGE *** > > well folks, this weeks episode of _Moonlighting_ was fantastic! > You want to talk meta-humor? Ok, we'll start with that. The show > opens, the normal titles are going by, the music cressendos and here > comes the episode title. What is it? I'm glad you asked. > 'Twas the episode before Christmas > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm catching up after a short hiatus from the net. I missed the intro above but I took the time to write down the following EXACT quotes from the show. Maddie: You know what we have to do don't you? Dave: Wrap this up in about 12 min., there's another show coming on the air? One that you seem to have missed and certainly worth mentioning... As Dave descends from the chimney with a groan.. Dave: That's the last time I jam myself into a tight hole with my clothes on. And then, of course there was the finally, as Dave and Maddie walk off the the set thru cameras, cables, props, etc. to join the production staff(sectretaries, gaffers, cameramen, family members, et al) in a carol on the sound stage. Merry Christmas. W h a t a s h o w ! ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Wayne Thompson ..{bene,mordor,nsc,oliveb,pyramid,ucbvax}!tolerant!waynet source .disclaimer
urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban) (12/29/85)
In article <959@ihlpa.UUCP> ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) writes: >> > >> > Maddie's "fuzzy face" is due to a common cinematic process known as >> > "soft focus". It is intended to make women look more beautiful, by >> > giving their faces a glow, almost producing a halo effect. > >The "cinematic process" you refer to is more commonly known as >"shooting through gauze" yes, gauze. get some out of the first aid >kit, cover you camera lens sith it and yes friends, you too can >produce this wonderful "cinematic effect" The gauze effect was used HEAVILY throughout the run of Star Trek for all of the "love-interest" female characters. It was also used in the Split-Kirk ("Enemy Within"?) episode for the meeker Kirk while harsher lighting was used for the "animal" Kirk. Film's got a language all its own. -- Mike Urban {ucbvax|decvax}!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban "You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"
imd@ihlpl.UUCP (Ira M. Dworkin ) (12/30/85)
> Maddie's "fuzzy face" is due to a common cinematic process known as > "soft focus". It is intended to make women look more beautiful, by > giving their faces a glow, almost producing a halo effect. > Ever notice that the only time you see Maddie with a fuzzy face is when she is on the screen with Addison? Could it be that this is intended to be how Addison sees Maddie? Ira Dworkin ihnp4!ihlpl!imd
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (12/31/85)
> Ever notice that the only time you see Maddie with a fuzzy face is when > she is on the screen with Addison? Could it be that this is intended to be > how Addison sees Maddie? > > Ira Dworkin I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Mostly, the technique is used on a close-up to hide blemishes, wrinkles, etc. or in a full figure shot to enhance her beauty by taking away from the sharp lines of the costume. I have only noticed a few instances where Dave gets the soft focus as well, mostly when he is being nice. (which ain't too often) Addison ihlpa!ibyf My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.
gjb@unirot.UUCP (Greg Brail) (01/03/86)
In article <836@spp2.UUCP> urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban) writes: >In article <959@ihlpa.UUCP> ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) writes: >>The "cinematic process" you refer to is more commonly known as >>"shooting through gauze" yes, gauze. get some out of the first aid >>kit, cover you camera lens sith it and yes friends, you too can >>produce this wonderful "cinematic effect" > >The gauze effect was used HEAVILY throughout the run of Star Trek >for all of the "love-interest" female characters. It was also >used in the Split-Kirk ("Enemy Within"?) episode for the >meeker Kirk while harsher lighting was used for the "animal" Kirk. This is almost an understatement. I "love-interest" female character is any female guest character who Kirk looks at. This must happen at least once per episode. It must be in William Shatner's contract. Next time you see Trek, you'll see what I mean. Also, gauze is not the only thing than can be used for soft focus. Most photography books list Vaseline and panty hose (yes, panty hose!) as possibilities. -Greg P.S Sorry, but our EMACS doesn't seem to justify yet. -- -------------- Greg Brail (Greg @ The Soup Kitchen) UUCP : ..{ihnp4,seismo,harvard,ut-sally,allegra}!caip!unirot!gjb ARPA : unirot!gjb@caip.rutgers.edu USNAIL : Don't bother.
danb@ihlpg.UUCP (Beitz) (01/23/86)
On the episode of 01/21/86, most of the show was about Miss Dipesto.
Towards the end of the show:
(Something like this)
Maddie: Let's get back to work, David.
David: Work, what work?
Maddie: We have to talk to the writers about getting a bigger part in
next week's show.
--
Daniel E. Beitz
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, IL 60566
ihlpg!danb
(312) 979-5364
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (01/23/86)
> On the episode of 01/21/86, most of the show was about Miss Dipesto. > Towards the end of the show: > Maddie: Let's get back to work, David. > David: Work, what work? > Maddie: We have to talk to the writers about getting a bigger part in > next week's show. > > Daniel E. Beitz Yes, to which dave replies (very sarcasticly) I'll buy that. Just as a side note to any ony who may have been watching the show for the first time: Please!!!! Do not judge the show on this episode!! The only parts which are true to form is the first 5 minutes and the last 2. To those who have watched the show before: Although the show was a bit slow, wasn't it nice that they didn't spend the first 5 minutes arguing about wether or not to take the case? Addison ihnp4!ihlpa!ibyf My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.
evan@pedsgo.UUCP (Evan Marcus) (01/24/86)
Organization : Concurrent Computer Corp. (a P-E subsidiary), Tinton Falls, NJ Keywords: In article <1061@ihlpa.UUCP> ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) writes: >> On the episode of 01/21/86, most of the show was about Miss Dipesto. >> Towards the end of the show: >> Maddie: Let's get back to work, David. >> David: Work, what work? >> Maddie: We have to talk to the writers about getting a bigger part in >> next week's show. >> >> Daniel E. Beitz >Yes, to which dave replies (very sarcasticly) I'll buy that. >Just as a side note to any ony who may have been watching the >show for the first time: > > Please!!!! Do not judge the show on this episode!! > The only parts which are true to form is the first > 5 minutes and the last 2. >To those who have watched the show before: > Although the show was a bit slow, wasn't it nice that they didn't > spend the first 5 minutes arguing about wether or not to take the case? > > Addison Why shouldn't new viewers judge it from this episode? Were you just upset, Mr. Addison, that you had a small part this week :-) ? While I admit, that even for Moonlighting, it was an offbeat episode, it still kept much of the style and charm of a regular one. It WAS nice not to see them arguing whether or not to take the case, and while I did miss Dave and Maddie, I thoroughly enjoyed the show. I have enjoyed every single one since I started watching it early this season. The current Rolling Stone (page 29) has a quick (1 page) article on the show and how it is produced. Some nice insight. ENOUGH REPORTS OF META-COMMENTS FROM MOONLIGHTING!!!!!! thank you. -- NAME: Evan L. Marcus UUCP: ...vax135!petsd!pedsgd!pedsgo!evan USnail: CONCURRENT Computer Corporation (formerly Perkin-Elmer DSG) M/S 308, 106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 MA BELL:(201) 758-7357 LIVE: "Hey, Evan" QUOTE: What is life? Life is one damned thing after another. - M. Twain.
render@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/19/86)
This episode of Moonlighting is the second I have seen which features
Shepherd and Willis doing a prologue before the beginning of the show
and the first to use that time-honored tradition of Late Night, namely
VIEWER MAIL. Anyone who has not seen the show because they normally
don't like detective shows, give it a go. You may not like it, but
it is arguably one of the more inventive show on network television. So
far the most negative comment I have heard from anyone I have recommended
it to has been, "That was pretty strange."
Hal Render
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
{pur-ee, ihnp4} ! uiucdcs ! render
render@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
DISCLAIMER: if the above opinion differs with yours, fine. But I don't want
to hear it.lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) (02/21/86)
In article <12300049@uiucdcsb>, render@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > This episode of Moonlighting is the second I have seen which features > Shepherd and Willis doing a prologue before the beginning of the show There have been a total of four episodes this season with a prologue: "Brother, Can You Spare A Blonde?" "The Dream Sequence Always Rings Twice" "In God We Strongly Suspect" "Every Daughter's Father Is A Virgin" The prologues aren't as funny as the rest of the show, so why don't they just write a longer show instead of using a prologue to kill time? ::: :::::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :::::: :::
meehan@ihlpg.UUCP (Meehan) (02/22/86)
> > This episode of Moonlighting is the second I have seen which features > Shepherd and Willis doing a prologue before the beginning of the show > and the first to use that time-honored tradition of Late Night, namely > VIEWER MAIL. Anyone who has not seen the show because they normally I especially liked the McMahon headband that he wore on that prologue. Pat Meehan ihlpg!meehan Naperville IL
naj@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/12/86)
I was distracted last night in the middle of Moonlighting and didn't get to
see the unravelling of "whodunnit" at the nursing home. Could someone please
email me a synopsis?
Thanks,
Alan Josephson
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1304 West Springfield Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801
USENET: ...!{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!naj
CSNET: naj%uiucdcs.csnet@csnet-relay
ARPANET: naj@a.cs.uiuc.edu