Do you think they film movies and pre-plan dvd extra's? (1 Viewer)

[Chris PC]

Who out there thinks that movies are thought way ahead now to the point that dvd extra's are planned? They do "the making of" for movies knowing that they intend to release it on a dvd, but I wonder if its even more deliberate than that. Is it possible filming is now a bit like this imaginary example...

"Ok everybody, its take two of scene 2 of the dvd alternate ending number three. Places everybody..."

or..

"Ok, this is take four of the "deleted scene for dvd" number 3.....and action!"

or...

"Cut...very good, excellent. That wraps up the outakes for today...thanx everybody"...

And perhaps they even have people taking notes on set for use in commentary tracks etc.

I just wonder how much of the supplementary material on dvd's is really planned. I know there is obviously plenty of raw material for dvd's already if you didn't do it pre-meditated, and I am sure many dvd extra's are just co-incidence and/or the result of the normal process...but do you think they film the movie a little more planned including the dvd extra's?

 

[JeremySt]

Yes.

 

[Chip_HT]

i think that deleted scenes and outtakes are going to happen regardless, but they don't specifically go out of their way to make them...

 

[Marc Fedderman]

To a certain extent, but this is not a new phenomenon. I know that in the (recent) past, films like Zemeckis' Cast Away were shot with an eye toward their eventual home releases. Zemeckis, shot his film at 1.33, but matted it to an academy flat ratio for its theatrical showings. I know there are numerous other examples. I realize that this doesn't exactly answer the question posed, but it does highlight the degree to which dvd/video shapes the filmmaking process.

As for extras? Peter Jackson, 'nuff said. It's not only good business sense, but allows the artist to present two distinct visions for the same film. All are happy, as long as both visions are available for public/fanboy consumption.

Aaron Barlow's, The DVD Revolution: Movies, Culture, and Technology (Praeger, 2005) offers an interesting, semi-scholarly examination of this and other DVD related phenomena. Highly recommended.

 

[JeremyErwin]

If the director spends too much time trying to get that "perfect" deleted scene or that 'hilarious" out-take, he's not going to complete principal photography on schedule. Which means that instead of having the resources to creatively edit his film, he has to cut what he's shot, or call back some of his crew to reshoot. The latter is expensive, and the former results in a less than polished film.

I'd imagine that a good many movies try to skate on the very edge of what is acceptable for a particular rating. So the script might call for a few more raunchy jokes, a few more alternate camera angles, just in case the workprint lacks a certain something. Obviously, incorporating them all in would lead to a higher rating and a longer running time. But having several additional scenes allows the director to choose the one that best fits the mood of the picture.

It's like writing with the benefit of a thesaurus.

On the other hand, shooting an open-matte film may mean that the composition of the 1:1.85 frame is less than perfect. Spending too much time on extraneous material may mean that the essential core of the movie suffers. So perhaps you are right to be cynical.

 

[Justin W]

peter jackson and kevin smith obviously do that for docs and such. sin city is the only time i can recall deleted scenes being filmed specifically for the dvd.

 

[Mark Lucas]

Yeah, that's never been done before, right?

 

[Scott Simonian]

^
|
|

Super 35?

 

[MarkHastings]

Considering how close DVD releases are to theatrical releases, the studios know that they are going to profit a lot better if they also focus on DVD material while fiming the actual movie. So I do believe a lot of stuff is planned out for 'extras', while principle photography is going on.

Dodgeball is a perfect example of where they filmed scenes of Ben Stiller in the fat suit, specifically for the DVD, while filming the actual movie (i.e. the easter egg on the DVD).

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Many commentaries are being recorded before the movie even hits theaters these days. There was a dvd-extras video crew on hand throughout the production of King Kong.

 

[Marc Fedderman]

Mark,
I sense the sarcasm, but honestly have no idea what you're picking on. Please enlighten me.

 

[Ravi K]

I bet some "raunchy" footage is shot specifically for all these unrated DVDs that are being released.



Mark, that's common procedure. 1.85:1 films are shot at 1.37:1, but are framed for the wider ratio. The mattes are opened up for the fullscreen TV/video transfers. Super 35 is similar, with a slightly wider original area from which to extract 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. Using Super 35 for 1.85:1 is uncommon these days.

How film is transferred to video

 

[Marc Fedderman]

Thanks Ravi.

I guess I wasn't clear in my initial post. I know that matting is standard procedure, but as I understand it, Zemeckis actually composed shots with the film's home video release in mind. So it wasn't like your standard opening up of the matte, to reveal (occasionally) equipment and superfluous backdrops. Zemeckis seemingly had an eye toward both theatrical and home viewing when he constructed the film. A quintessential example of catering to the DVD audience.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Didn't Kubrick do the same? After all, movies like Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket are only available "full-frame" on home-video, by his decision.

Likewise Jim Cameron, who shoots exclusively on Super 35 with a view towards the then-home video 4:3 version. With 16:9 TVs slowly becoming the norm, I guess it makes his job a little easier, shooting a 2.35:1 theatrical release and only juggling for a 1.78:1 home-video version -- assuming he actually gets back to shooting a movie for a change...

 

[Cees Alons]

(Theatrical reply)

No, I don't think they ever do that. Just take the shots that are in the script and perhaps an occasional different ending when the director really didn't make up his/her mind yet.


Alan Smithee

 

[Cees Alons]

(Alternative reply
Read-it, before it's deleted!)

Yeah, they do it all the time. Don't forget these are extremely professional and gifted people. That's the reason I like to work with these guys, because I learn so much from them on a daily basis.

(Here, this is where he's almost going to cry... See? See that tear? We changed the lighting a bit for this scene. Difficult, but it works for me.)

Wonderful experience! Great people! Difficult project, but I think we pulled it off.


Cees

 

[Cees Alons]

(Extra reply)

There's more of my character in the extended version. It was toned down a bit and shortened for the theatrical showing, but I really like it this way. She's more fleshed out, see. I have more screen time, and you just can do so much more with a little more time and a few close-ups.

Liked the make-up people. They did such a wonderful job here. Yeah, people recognize me in the street, it's sooo annoying sometimes.

My character is very angry at times, but she doesn't show it, just hints of that rage, like in the great scene with John, who plays her father. We had a lot of fun that day. He's really not so much older than I am.


Chara

 

[Marc Fedderman]

Add The Shining to that list. This is a huge can of worms and there's a whole recent thread on it:

Kubrick 16:9

I'm not gonna touch that one with a ten-foot pole.


LOL Cees. Hey, I hope you're getting paid separately for each of those posts. After all, they each have something "special" to offer.

 

[Mark Lucas]

I think some people are getting confused with composing for the home version vs just protecting. Some directors will mask off the top and the bottom on the video assist monitor to only compose for 1.85:1. Others will have guidelines which will show them the whole frame including the extra areas below and on top of the theatrical frame.

For some reason I doubt Zemeckis actually composed shots for the 1.33:1 version. More like protecting those areas for later use. The pan and scan version I saw a few days ago on tv looked cropped too.

 

[JeremyErwin]

At first glance, Super35 seems like it would be ideal for compromising a 1:2.35 shot with "protection" for that ... uh... "other" medium. All of the artistic credibility that comes with a "scope" film, but none of the pesky "David Leanish" compositions that make cutting a videotape cash-cow so damned difficult.

However, Super35 allows the use of cheaper, more precise flat lenses. Flat lenses provide more depth of field, and are more suitable for filming under low-light conditions. They're often lighter, which is sometimes a factor in steadicam work. And lens flares are said to be a real pain with scope.

Kubrick is a conundrum. Here's a photographer who's much more comfortable with narrow aspect ratios. A photographer who developed techniques for filming by candlelight. A photographer whose said to be a perfectionist. And yet, you're telling me that the only way to enjoy his films is ntsc video? It doesn't really make much sense. But another thread is devoted to Kubrick....

As for Zemeckis, you'll have to make an artistic argument. Look at the frames. Is the extra information extraneous, or does it add to the composition?

On many DVDs, the director explains why he's cut out the various "deleted scenes". In Gosford Park Altman explains that he originally intended to have a subplot about the changing of Sir William's will-- a classic element of many country house mysteries-- but decided that it would make the film too complicated. So, many scenes were discarded.