Premium Member Chris Keth Posted September 27, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 27, 2007 I suspect that the 100mm and 150mm Master Primes shot at T/1.3 at night will become known as "AC killers"... *shudders* and understandably so. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William A Chapman Jr Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 This looks like it will be a good film, do you know the release date and how wide a release? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williamson Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Thanks for posting your journal as well as the stills David, it's always great to read about your films and see a little piece of what you're doing with them. The still of the first AD is great, look forwards to seeing the film when it comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 28, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 28, 2007 This looks like it will be a good film, do you know the release date and how wide a release? Too early to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Hey David, congrats on the wrap! Judging from your posts it sounded like you really enjoyed the experience. Just a quick question on that prom scene. Do you remember what wattage daylight photoflood you had in that chinaball? I look forward to seeing the film and comparing these photos & setups to the final product! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 28, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 28, 2007 Just a quick question on that prom scene. Do you remember what wattage daylight photoflood you had in that chinaball? 250w I think... I probably could have lit that dance better except that almost every set-up was a 360 degree shot, first on circular track and then on a Steadicam. So it would have been hard to go for a romantic backlight, let's say, unless I rigged an elaborate dimmer board cue. As it was, the electrics were already complaining that they were understaffed to do all the manually sweeping lights and dimming lights I already was using throughout the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Key Grip Anthony Gamiello (left) and Gaffer Kevin Janicelli (right) at the swimming pool location, lit with hanging flos and one HMI Source-4 bounced off of the ceiling: I'm interested, David. There seems to be a very strange beam coming from that Tungsten. Was anything done to it to cause that? Or is that normal Tungsten behavior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 29, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 29, 2007 I'm interested, David. There seems to be a very strange beam coming from that Tungsten. Was anything done to it to cause that? Or is that normal Tungsten behavior? It's a Source-4 ellipsoidal unit (like a Leko stagelight) but with a Joker HMI lamp inside, so it is daylight-balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 29, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 29, 2007 To be fair you could make a tungsten source 4 look like that in a photo if you wanted to! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Rosenbloom Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 it's the smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Rosenbloom Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Ok, David ... I just shot a short film and used smoke 3 out of 7 days ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mun Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Nice job David. Its always great to hear whats going on with you and your production details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Hmmm...strange title change: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1018818/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 4, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted November 4, 2007 "Assassination of a High School President" was always the real title, but for shooting purposes, we used "The Sophomore" because it would be impossible to get permission to shoot in a real school with a title like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted November 5, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 5, 2007 "Assassination of a High School President" was always the real title, but for shooting purposes, we used "The Sophomore" because it would be impossible to get permission to shoot in a real school with a title like that. Am I correct in understanding that the film will, as had been planned all along, be released as "Assassination of a High School President", and that "The Sophomore" was merely used as cover for clearance purposes? If that's the case, are there any potential legal ramifications? (If not, that would suggest all kinds of creative possibilities for obtaining otherwise impossible permissions by intentionally misrepresenting either the title or content of an intended production.) Please clarify. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 5, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted November 5, 2007 There was no misleading since the school superindendent got the script; and there is no killing anyway, the title is ironic, it's a comedy afterall... but you just can't throw around the word "assassination" when filming on a campus these days, nor obviously carry around guns, put up signs with bold letters saying "ASSASSINATION" all over a campus and town for driving directions, etc. Schools are very touchy on this subject, but the content of the movie was not a secret. But "The Sophomore" title just means that you don't waste a lot of time explaining to potential locations why the word "Assassination" is in the title, even if it turns out to be harmless. It is not usual to work under a false title for whatever reasons, like to deflect public attention while filming (a sequel to a popular movie being an obvious example.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 That reminds me, I've been meaning to buy myself a "Blue Harvest" t-shirt :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted November 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 6, 2007 It is not usual to work under a false title for whatever reasons, like to deflect public attention while filming (a sequel to a popular movie being an obvious example.) I can understand the above example. Let's say, for instance, that one wants to incorporate some actual footage of military maneuvers, and gets clearance by telling the military the title of the project is "War Heroes", when the actual intention is to use this footage as part of an anti-war movie entitled "War Criminals", knowing full well you'd never get clearance using the real title. (Perhaps Michael Moore has already used this ruse.) Would that possibly encumber the production with potential liabilities? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted November 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 6, 2007 When I was at school in Southern Illinois, a film was shooting in and around town called "The South" or something (I can't remember), but the locals were very excited. They got to be extras and stuff? When the film came out it was called "Poor White Trash". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 6, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted November 6, 2007 You can't really be liable for changing the title of a movie, plus any production gets clearances signed to protect them. The location, in turn, may demand certain things like a sign over the building not be used in the movie (you may, for example, have to change the name of the high school.) We did have some odd clearance issues, nitpicky, legal-wise. The story is not set in any named state but it was filmed in New Jersey, even though there is no mention of that in the movie. We had clearance on a name ("Mullen" was the last name, oddly enough) but then the legal people tried to clear "Mullen" specifically in New Jersey for the name of a doctor who does not even appear in the movie, is just mentioned by name -- and I think we couldn't clear it because there was a Dr. Mullen in New Jersey who might object. Now it was a bit silly because there is no mention of New Jersey in the movie, but for some reason the legal people, once they got a notice saying that the name was not cleared, could not go back and re-submit it for a non-specific state so we couldn't use the phrase "Dr. Mullen" in the movie. We never got an answer as to why they were submitting a clearance report request with the name of the state specified but it created some problems -- I think, for example, the name of our main Catholic school had to be changed from "St. Dominic" to "St. Donovan" because there was a St. Dominic School in New Jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted November 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 6, 2007 That is very silly when it's not even set in New Jersey. Surely "Dr. Mullen" occurs in a fair number of states... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted November 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 6, 2007 That is very silly when it's not even set in New Jersey. Surely "Dr. Mullen" occurs in a fair number of states... That was the point of my line of questioning. To obtain E & O (errors and omissions) insurance for a theatrical release, you need to have all your bases covered. You can count on some lawyer insisting on written clearance for stuff that you might not even think twice about. As an adjunct to Murphy's Law, if there's a potential lawsuit about anything, someone is bound to file it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) David, will this film get released over in Blighty? Do you know just yet? I haven't been to a cinema since Star Wars Ep3 (obvious embarrasment). And I'd like to see a film of yours on the big screen. Edited November 6, 2007 by Matthew Buick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 6, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted November 6, 2007 Seems nothing I'm shooting makes it way to the cinema screens in the U.K. anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 I haven't been to a cinema since Star Wars Ep3 (obvious embarrasment). This explains so much. Get out there and see some film on the big screen Matthew, it's the most honest presentation of a film you'll get (compared to your TV at home). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now