|
Post by gillianren on Jan 3, 2012 22:51:50 GMT -4
I don't think that's true, actually. I think it's more that most people never even consider that it might be faked, and when they hear a suggestion that it was, they can't even comprehend it. The hoax doesn't make sense, and I think most people know that instinctively.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 3, 2012 15:27:09 GMT -4
Oh, I'm sure they exist. The thinking is too pervasive. They're just not as vocal. Yes, I believe the hoax movement is dying, but I also believe that some people will believe anything.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 31, 2011 17:19:32 GMT -4
Yes, that was discussed after Laurel posted.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 31, 2011 17:18:59 GMT -4
Are you kidding? I don't have a YouTube account. And the creator of this site has been gone since long before I got here, having been so embarrassed at his errors.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 31, 2011 16:58:39 GMT -4
No, you're not. The original creator of this site was a hoax proponent who gave up the forum when he was persuaded that Apollo was real. The important thing is to stick to the facts when discussing the hoax and not call people "idiots" or "crazy." Don't make it about the person, because nothing makes a person stick to their guns more than being judged. We've seen it happen before, and we'll see it again.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 25, 2011 15:50:23 GMT -4
That is a good one; I got it from the library a few months ago.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 23, 2011 18:00:52 GMT -4
What was funniest to me is that for Episode 1, Jar-Jar was actually my favorite character. Probably because he was rendered after the CGI environments, he was the only character who actually seemed to look around and otherwise take an interest in where he was. The webcomic Darths & Droids makes him the best character, too. He's played by an eight-year-old girl, which explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 22:53:03 GMT -4
Has digital video changed this? Because the cameras are much smaller and the recording medium is essentially free, I assume it's now far more practical than it ever was with film to cut between several digital cameras filming a single take. This would save much time on the set, but it still wouldn't work if you had to change the lighting or rearrange the set between camera angles. You still have to be careful about the cameras' catching one another in field of view. That hasn't gone away just because the cameras are smaller--if for no other reason than that cameramen aren't.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 20:06:12 GMT -4
Everyone knows mob hits are always at barbershops or restaurants. Don't these people watch the History Channel?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 18:00:42 GMT -4
The other day, a conspiracist on BAUT was so clearly ignorant that he thought Oswald had gone to work on the bus. Do these people do any research other than reading conspiracy websites?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 17:57:16 GMT -4
That would make sense. I'm also given to understand that it was the biggest challenge for actors of Cinerama--in long shot, if they looked at one another, it looked like they were looking in random directions because of the camera setup.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 17:55:41 GMT -4
Technically, "forced perspective" is any use of camera trickery which makes one object look bigger compared to others than it is. Sean Astin on his knees next to Sir Ian McKellan technically counted, and it's only one of quite a lot of tricks Peter Jackson used.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 16:49:07 GMT -4
Yeah, I think all of us know that. If not the specific numbers, than the principle. Forced perspective.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 16:47:35 GMT -4
I thought the secret is just to have something -- a prop, a piece of equipment -- take the place of the cartoon character so the actor can focus his eyes on it. E.g., during the weasels' raid of his apartment when Eddie Valiant hides Roger in the kitchen sink, Bob Hoskins is actually holding a pipe that sprayed the water that we see coming from Roger's mouth in the finished film. For most of the movie, the part of Roger Rabbit was played by a tennis ball on a stick. I don't know what they did when Eddie was literally surrounded by Toon characters, which happens several times, but that must have been the hardest part for Bob Hoskins to do.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2011 18:17:49 GMT -4
It's also instructive how many times a critic will say "That CGI looked really fake" in reference to a movie scene that included no CGI whatsoever. Or how many times they will miss the small but effective trickery that happens all the time in scenes that aren't rampaging dinosaurs or crashing spaceships. Such as mat extensions, or the digital removal of television aerials from rooftops in a period shot, and so on. But people sure notice when they don't remove those aerials! Personally, I have a lot of respect for well-done visual effects, and "well-done" doesn't always mean flashy. In fact, I think it seldom does. It mostly means "as seamless as possible."
|
|