Paul Bruening

.

It's not easy determining the information you're looking for. If your question assumes that the lighting will remain the same between the wide shot and the mediums/close-ups the answer is, "Yes. The lighting will be more noticeable." That may not be a bad thing, though. It may be a useful look. Generally, it's more common practice to let light be harder on wide shots and somewhat softer the closer you get. The reasons have, in part, to do with our brains and the perceptive experience of a movie. In a wide shot, more definition of shape from sharper lighting can make the acceptance of facial shape easier. But, at close-up, harsh light and sharp shadows can be disturbing and compete for recognition and perceptive participation of that face. Softer light and softer shadows define a close-up'd face fine without jarring the viewer with harshness. That's not a rule, just a tendency in lighting. And as Adrian pointed out so well, it's normal for the lighting units to behave that way anyway. That help? We can take a stab at anything, you know.

...and before you put it in and break it off:

How's about this for a helicopter/sailing combination:

...or get swept into someone's rigging. That'd make for an interesting rules calling from the officials.

.

.

.

First post. Please, add more.

As party of the second part I (henceforth known as "Distributor") am acting as Distributor for the party of the first part's (henceforth known as "Producer") birthday. Distributor's announcement: "Today is Richard "the Stick" Boddinton's birthday." Of course, as distributor, I will need a return of 2/3's on all received gifts. Ain't the movie business grand!

Let's try this perspective: If an unfamiliar idea or message is placed on the market through a movie, it's safe to assume that half the market will be okay with the idea and half will balk at it. Would you want half of your viewers bad mouthing your movie simply because you put an idea on them that was too much or disagreeable to them? Who can afford such an artistic indulgence in the face of harrowing industry economics? The principle message in Avatar was safe. It had the highest likelihood of broad approval. I really can't think of any person that I know taking offense at it and assuming the defense of the evil and exploitive corporation. The 1D characters were a weak support for the corporation's case. It would not have been hard to create stronger characters in circumstances that made the plight of an exhausted Earth more justified in the consumption of other planet's resources. The use of 1D characters steers the viewer toward the creator's desired conclusions. All of this is indirection to carefully place the blame on we movie consumers. In our present time, we consume the Earth. Then, our future selves must chew up other planets to continue our ways. This is a strong condemnation of we (you and me) the viewers. One that we definitely and indefensibly deserve. Why is that message not enough for you?

Filmos?

I can't possibly account for James Cameron. But, may I ask, what ideas or messages would have satisfied you more, for example?

This might sound a little crazy. Think about it first before you automatically reject it: A steadicam is made to compensate for the bobs and shakes of a walking human, not a powerboat skipping wakes and crossing chop. As well, a powerboat is made to crease the water in order to pass over it efficiently. That means it has to stay on top of chop which makes it bounce too violently for a smooth camera shot. Wouldn't a wider footprint help? Let's say, a catamaran? Pull the mast and rigging off. Install some cross-bracing and hang a passably fast but not insanely heavy outboard on the new bracing. Now, you've got a wide footprint boat that can take some flat decking installations, and have the kind of bows that pierce through chop instead of bounce over. Then maybe a steadicam.

I don't think your perspective is incorrect. I can't really find a strong argument against it. Nor, can I take the bait on your questions without going where you want me to go. All I was doing was offering you a frame of mind that is used by large-scale movie creators. They think this way, each to their personal preferences. Rest assured, no accountant, high up in the company is going to allow 300-400 million dollars to be risked over a thing so useless to the entertainment industry as an "idea" that will challenge the bottom line.

Yes.

.

Hello Georg, May I offer a useful perspective? Clearly, you are an intelligent movie consumer. Your posts make that evident. You're not who most movies are made for. Have you ever interviewed "the average movie-goer"? I strongly feel that this script was calculatingly designed to fit the "average movie-goer". It's not that I have a snobby attitude, or a better-than-them attitude. It's just that big investments have to protect themselves by anticipating the capabilities of it's largest consuming mind-sets. Avatar does that very well, as is evident from it's box office numbers.

You know, this situation absolutely screams for a mafioso style nickname for you...

So, the black coating is one sided only?

Hey John, I've been thinking about your perspective of getting simpler, not more complicated. I remember plenty of buildings at the local university where the stairs led straight into a long hallway of offices. If Josh found one where the stairs started without a landing, used that trick of Scotch taping green construction paper all around the open door and door sill of the stairwell, put some mattresses a few steps down and out of frame, he could have the actors run down the hall a little and jump through the open door and out of frame onto the mattresses. Then, he just has to lay the office exterior still onto the green construction paper key. Cheap, disposable, easy. Just my kind of gag.

Welp... It turns out I had pneumonia. If I possessed an ounce of good sense I would have gone to the doctor two months ago instead of only yesterday. He put me on whopping loads of antibiotics. So, for the umpteenth time I am announcing, "I should start shooting in a week or so if nothing pops up to get in the way."

Thanks again, Hal.

Well, that answers that burning question about Richard that I've been carrying for years, "What kind of stick is that Boddington, anyway?" I just don't know whether it's an insult or a compliment.

Theoretically, contracts can be anything. If both parties agree and make sufficient gestures towards that (signatures on a paper contract) then each is liable to their terms. That's it and that's all. If it were my gear and they proposed they weren't liable for their actions, I wouldn't rent to them. The mere fact they think this way tells me to stay away from them. Even with a rock-solid contract, people with broken brains are a big hazard. If they can't think right, they can't act right.