gary@think.ARPA (Gary Sabot) (06/02/85)
There are two girls bright blue dresses that you can see along the riverbank, and they appear a few minutes AFTER the girl that rescued Rambo is killed. Do mistakes like this, or the very visible tow rope that pulls the car Grace Jones is supposed to be pushing into a lake in A View To A Kill, often appear in major movies?
lmv@houxa.UUCP (L.VANDERBILT) (06/05/85)
someone asked if mistakes as the girl in the blue dress and a tow rope pulling a car in AVTAK happen often. I say YES!! ALL THE TIME. my all time favorie goof up is Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. Tippi Heddon (sp) goes into the shop to buy the love birds and her hair is down to her shoulders but when she comes out of the shop it is up in a bun........
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/06/85)
In article <1765@think.ARPA> gary@think.ARPA (Gary Sabot) writes: > > There are two girls bright blue dresses that you can see along >the riverbank, and they appear a few minutes AFTER the girl that rescued >Rambo is killed. > > Do mistakes like this, or the very visible tow rope that pulls >the car Grace Jones is supposed to be pushing into a lake in A View To A >Kill, often appear in major movies? They are moderately common in lower budget Hollywood films (I'm talking about budgets around $3-$5 million) and in films with lots of complex action sequences, particularly those which are expensive or difficult to repeat. For instance, in the car scene in "A View to a Kill", every time they reshot it they had to drag the car out of the water again, give it time to drain completely so that it wouldn't drip on camera, probably wash it and do some refurbishing to make it look OK, before they could reshoot. (They might have used several identical cars, but since it was a Rolls Royce, if memory serves, I doubt if they would have gone to that expense.) In fact, they may have just shot this scene once. In "Second Blood", probably no one noticed the girls in the background until after they had wrapped up shooting. Once you notice, you don't take the film crew back to Mexico at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, you just try to make sure that the mistake isn't too visible. Alternately, if this sequence involved lots of explosions, etc., in the same shot, then the producer may have thought it too expensive to set everything up again just to cover one small problem. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/12/85)
Wouldn't it be possible to use some editing or special effects trick to blur out the defects, whether it is a visible rope or a misplaced person? After all, couldn't the rope image have been fuzzed into the image of the water & shore, or the "woman in blue dress" be obliterated by a patch of greenery or rock, again blurred and unfocused, via some sort of post-production optical wizardry? (Or for that matter, somebody could spend some hours going over the film frame by frame with a retoucher!) Why not do this? It can't be THAT expensive, especially when compared with the enormous costs of the film shot! Will
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (csdf) (06/19/85)
In article <11275@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes: >Wouldn't it be possible to use some editing or special effects trick to >blur out the defects, whether it is a visible rope or a misplaced person? > >Why not do this? It can't be THAT expensive, especially when compared >with the enormous costs of the film shot! It expensive as all hell to do well, the blur has to look natural. The time spent wouldn't be worth it. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep