- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Just saw Arrival: Filming technique that just gets to me at times
Posted on 12/4/16 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 6:42 pm
This is a technique used very frequently and usually doesn't cause issues.
It's that kinda blurring of background characters in movies. I'm assuming the general idea is to make sure that the viewer's attention is focused on the main characters.
It was used way too frequently in Arrival where it actually took my attention away from the characters themselves.
There were times where secondary important characters were blurred until they interacted with the main character.
Overall, a pretty good movie, but it really wasn't what I was expecting. It didn't feel like a sci-fi movie.
It's that kinda blurring of background characters in movies. I'm assuming the general idea is to make sure that the viewer's attention is focused on the main characters.
It was used way too frequently in Arrival where it actually took my attention away from the characters themselves.
There were times where secondary important characters were blurred until they interacted with the main character.
Overall, a pretty good movie, but it really wasn't what I was expecting. It didn't feel like a sci-fi movie.
This post was edited on 12/4/16 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 6:51 pm to Scruffy
Really good movie. One of my favorites of the year so far.
I didn't notice the filming technique you mention.
I didn't notice the filming technique you mention.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 6:58 pm to Scruffy
If you're talking about shallow depth of field, that's part of what gives movies their "cinematic" look.
This post was edited on 12/4/16 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 7:43 pm to shutterspeed
Yes, otherwise they look more like home movie or amateurish .. Especially close ups... You'll hardly ever see a film where there are close ups an the background isn't blurred . When you focus a lens on a subject that close, the background becomes out of focus... Hence the term "shallow depth of field"
You can can also take it to extremes... If fact, some directors will even use a mid-range shot and the background is heavily blurred... Kind of just personal artistic preference or a story telling device.
I know Kubrick used shallow depth if field extremely sparingly on The Shining, yet he used it to its apex on Barry Lyndon, but basically because he had such a fast lens so he coudl film with only candlelight. The consequence of having such a small f/stop however is it creates a very shallow depth of field. Only things right in front are in focus when the lens is opened up.
You can can also take it to extremes... If fact, some directors will even use a mid-range shot and the background is heavily blurred... Kind of just personal artistic preference or a story telling device.
I know Kubrick used shallow depth if field extremely sparingly on The Shining, yet he used it to its apex on Barry Lyndon, but basically because he had such a fast lens so he coudl film with only candlelight. The consequence of having such a small f/stop however is it creates a very shallow depth of field. Only things right in front are in focus when the lens is opened up.
This post was edited on 12/4/16 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 7:54 pm to Patrick_Bateman
quote:I liked it, but wasn't overly wowed by it.
Really good movie. One of my favorites of the year so far.
The premise was very well put together though.
I think it was good, just wasn't my favorite.
Just for reference my favorite sci-fi movie recently is Ex Machina.
As for the shallow depth filming, it really only caught my eye once, but I just remember it well.
It didn't take too much away from the movie.
This post was edited on 12/4/16 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 8:26 pm to Scruffy
quote:
my favorite sci-fi movie recently is Ex Machina.
Mine too. By far.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 8:31 pm to Scruffy
I liked the movie, but remember one poster saying it blew movies like interstellar out of the water because of the ending and what not.
I loved both, but Arrival's ending/big surprise was honestly stupider IMO than Interstellar in terms of 'realness' or whatever some people are looking for.
I loved both, but Arrival's ending/big surprise was honestly stupider IMO than Interstellar in terms of 'realness' or whatever some people are looking for.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 8:41 pm to McCaigBro69
It's just really hard to wrap up stories like this in interesting ways that aren't hokey, preachy, or simple gun battles.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:06 am to Patrick_Bateman
Wife and I saw it last weekend and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. It's one of the best movies I've seen in awhile, and will be added to my favorites list for the future.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:24 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:I've seen it 3 times. I didn't notice it either.
didn't notice the filming technique you mention.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:25 am to McCaigBro69
quote:Arrival's ending blew Interstellar out of the water. Interstellar's ending was terrible.
I loved both, but Arrival's ending/big surprise was honestly stupider IMO than Interstellar in terms of 'realness' or whatever some people are looking for.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:27 am to StrongBackWeakMind
The only time it stood out to the point that it annoyed me was when she meets the CIA agent for the first time.
It just seemed strange that they maintained the shallow depth view until she shook his hand, unblurring his face.
It just seemed strange that they maintained the shallow depth view until she shook his hand, unblurring his face.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News