<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dumb question time</title>
	<atom:link href="http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/</link>
	<description>Movie reviews from award-winning journalist Christian Toto</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:55:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cftoto</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15402</link>
		<dc:creator>cftoto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15402</guid>
		<description>Good point. A screenwriter can avoid those kinds of issues rather easily. Reminds me of Robert Rodriguez&#039;s &quot;El Mariachi&quot; - shot for $7, o00. I&#039;m sure he wrote around a million little problems caused by his lack of funds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point. A screenwriter can avoid those kinds of issues rather easily. Reminds me of Robert Rodriguez&#8217;s &#8220;El Mariachi&#8221; &#8211; shot for $7, o00. I&#8217;m sure he wrote around a million little problems caused by his lack of funds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zmster</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15401</link>
		<dc:creator>Zmster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15401</guid>
		<description>A recent and suprising example of this is &quot;Hotel Rwanda.&quot; I just recently saw this otherwise excellant film but I was pulled right out of it everytime one of the all-too-frequent &quot;scene in a moving vehicle&quot;  moments  was on screen. I realize it was a lower budget film but rewrite if you have to to avoid these. It was like an early James bond film. I half expected to see somene&#039;s silouette behind the screen. In this case it was a gree screen I&#039;m sure but the results were the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A recent and suprising example of this is &#8220;Hotel Rwanda.&#8221; I just recently saw this otherwise excellant film but I was pulled right out of it everytime one of the all-too-frequent &#8220;scene in a moving vehicle&#8221;  moments  was on screen. I realize it was a lower budget film but rewrite if you have to to avoid these. It was like an early James bond film. I half expected to see somene&#8217;s silouette behind the screen. In this case it was a gree screen I&#8217;m sure but the results were the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Sucher</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15361</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Sucher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15361</guid>
		<description>The most extraordinary example of  the above  to me is in Spielberg&#039;s War of the Worlds.  Every time I see it I am amazed.  But interestingly the effect on my absorption in the film is about as damaging as those phony screenshots or yore.  It maakes no difference that in one case the reason is the crudeness of the technology, in the other its eyecatching perfection.

And this, in my judgment,  gets down to the core:  Whatever technology is used should be remain hidden.  Anything that grabs the viewers focus - whether in a positive or a negative way - should be avoided. The best film makers of any period have understood this.

-ds</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most extraordinary example of  the above  to me is in Spielberg&#8217;s War of the Worlds.  Every time I see it I am amazed.  But interestingly the effect on my absorption in the film is about as damaging as those phony screenshots or yore.  It maakes no difference that in one case the reason is the crudeness of the technology, in the other its eyecatching perfection.</p>
<p>And this, in my judgment,  gets down to the core:  Whatever technology is used should be remain hidden.  Anything that grabs the viewers focus &#8211; whether in a positive or a negative way &#8211; should be avoided. The best film makers of any period have understood this.</p>
<p>-ds</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: opus</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15343</link>
		<dc:creator>opus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:42:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15343</guid>
		<description>Depending on the production and budget they might not be using rear projection, but rather green or blue screen.  Motion tracking has come along way in visual effects. It allows them to move the camera around both in and outside of the car and be able to stick in any background they wish and the scenery outside will match up with car exactly.
If I&#039;m not mistaken the technique was pioneered on the Steven Segal movie Under Seige 2.  The one that took place on a train, but it was all shot in a studio, however the view through the windows is so realistic you&#039;d never know.
So some of the car scenes that you think were filmed outside may really have been filmed in a studio after all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depending on the production and budget they might not be using rear projection, but rather green or blue screen.  Motion tracking has come along way in visual effects. It allows them to move the camera around both in and outside of the car and be able to stick in any background they wish and the scenery outside will match up with car exactly.<br />
If I&#8217;m not mistaken the technique was pioneered on the Steven Segal movie Under Seige 2.  The one that took place on a train, but it was all shot in a studio, however the view through the windows is so realistic you&#8217;d never know.<br />
So some of the car scenes that you think were filmed outside may really have been filmed in a studio after all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cftoto</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15319</link>
		<dc:creator>cftoto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15319</guid>
		<description>Invasion, Heidi? That might be it. But a lot of Kidman&#039;s movies get bad reviews.

Yeah, JIC ... it seems a no brainer way to go about shooting car scenes...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Invasion, Heidi? That might be it. But a lot of Kidman&#8217;s movies get bad reviews.</p>
<p>Yeah, JIC &#8230; it seems a no brainer way to go about shooting car scenes&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heidi</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15311</link>
		<dc:creator>Heidi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15311</guid>
		<description>Wasn&#039;t this how Nicole Kidman got hurt?  In a car driving scene in the sci-fi film she did last year?  Can&#039;t remember the name of the movie - it got bad reviews.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wasn&#8217;t this how Nicole Kidman got hurt?  In a car driving scene in the sci-fi film she did last year?  Can&#8217;t remember the name of the movie &#8211; it got bad reviews.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jic</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15308</link>
		<dc:creator>jic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:30:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15308</guid>
		<description>As I understand it, most close-up driving sequences involving significant dialogue or action are actually filmed with the car on a low trailer that&#039;s towed behind a truck.  The actors are simply playing at driving, the same as they would in a studio.  Why this wasn&#039;t more common forty years or so ago, even on big-budget movies, I have no idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I understand it, most close-up driving sequences involving significant dialogue or action are actually filmed with the car on a low trailer that&#8217;s towed behind a truck.  The actors are simply playing at driving, the same as they would in a studio.  Why this wasn&#8217;t more common forty years or so ago, even on big-budget movies, I have no idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cftoto</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15305</link>
		<dc:creator>cftoto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15305</guid>
		<description>Thanks for checking in ... I understand, to a degree, especially since film budgets have blown up over the past 20 years. But even on big films (am watching the 1967 feature &quot;Casino Royale&quot; now) you&#039;d think they&#039;d spring for more live car shots. They have to shoot the scenes anyway -- they just avoid closeups that would reveal the fact that the stars aren&#039;t in the driver&#039;s seat.

I guess stars back in the day were far more protected than today. Think about William Shatner&#039;s fight scenes in &quot;Star Trek.&quot; They used a ton of stunt doubles, and all they&#039;re doing is faux fighting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for checking in &#8230; I understand, to a degree, especially since film budgets have blown up over the past 20 years. But even on big films (am watching the 1967 feature &#8220;Casino Royale&#8221; now) you&#8217;d think they&#8217;d spring for more live car shots. They have to shoot the scenes anyway &#8212; they just avoid closeups that would reveal the fact that the stars aren&#8217;t in the driver&#8217;s seat.</p>
<p>I guess stars back in the day were far more protected than today. Think about William Shatner&#8217;s fight scenes in &#8220;Star Trek.&#8221; They used a ton of stunt doubles, and all they&#8217;re doing is faux fighting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boffo</title>
		<link>http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2008/10/14/dumb-question-time/comment-page-1/#comment-15304</link>
		<dc:creator>Boffo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:53:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/?p=736#comment-15304</guid>
		<description>The reason is the obvious one: It was difficult and dangerous to film real driving.  You would have to have a cameraman strapped to the hood of the car, and even then he&#039;d be filming through curved and angled glass.

Doing it in a studio is safe and cheap, and lets the DP set up exactly the angle and lighting he wants.

I think car scenes are still frequently shot in studios.  It&#039;s just that the technology is better so you don&#039;t notice it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason is the obvious one: It was difficult and dangerous to film real driving.  You would have to have a cameraman strapped to the hood of the car, and even then he&#8217;d be filming through curved and angled glass.</p>
<p>Doing it in a studio is safe and cheap, and lets the DP set up exactly the angle and lighting he wants.</p>
<p>I think car scenes are still frequently shot in studios.  It&#8217;s just that the technology is better so you don&#8217;t notice it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

