Entertainment desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 3

Television reporters being ignored?

Quite often on TV I see reporters walking through a scene talking to the camera, and nobody in the scene is reacting to them at all. How is this done? They often are walking in front of, and behind, people at the scene, so it is not just a simple overlay. Is there a name for this? Thanks in advance.122.108.189.192 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a trick. The camera may be farther away than you think or not very noticeable. People are used to cell-phone users appearing to talk to themselves all the time. Many people are also used to cameras and don't think much of it. The reporter may have their own unnoticed microphone and/or the sound may be edited so their voice appears much more dominant than it actually was. There may have been multiple takes with the "best" by some criteria being broadcast. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, does this procedure have a name?122.108.189.192 (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the last name of Rick?

There was a popular television morning workout show in ESPN channel, that was broadcast in the years 2002-2003, with participation of two personal trainers: Christian Boeving and Rick..., this Rick that I searched for his last name, but I couldn't find it. Do you know this man? 82.81.15.113 (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have the right person or the right years? His IMDB profile doesn't show anything that looks to be a workout show between 2002 and 2003. If you can find the show on that list though, it should then list his co-star. Dismas|^(talk) 08:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I found it. His name is Rick Valente. 82.81.15.113 (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fellowship of the Rings editions/versions differences.

Are there any special features on the 2-disc Widescreen DVD version of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that aren't on the Blu-ray 5-disc Extended Edition? Thanks! Nicholasprado _talk 15:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it. The Extended Editions, whether blu-ray or DVD, will contain everything that the standard 2-disc versions have, plus more. — Richard BB 07:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actor in Platoon.

Who plays the character that, near the end of the movie, hides in a battle under a dead body? Nicholasprado _talk 15:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I seem to recall the John C. McGinley character (Sgt O'Neil IIRC) being a bit cowardly, which is played up a bit ironically when he's given command of the platoon after his two superior sergeants are killed in the climactic scene. --Jayron32 16:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was him. The plot summary section in the article you linked above actually describes the event. I thought so. --Jayron32 16:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spots and dots in old film

In old film (usually pre 1995), there are small speckles and dots that appear on the film upon viewing, what are these? They seem to be more common, the older the film is. Although some films have very little, if not any at all, even some in the 1960's/1970's. Hope this makes sense. --Kertial (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dust, scratches, etc: [1]. --Jayron32 17:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do these scratches and stuff have a name ? --Kertial (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "scratches" not a good enough name? --Jayron32 18:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Dirt. Film is a physical medium which can collect marks on the film surface such as dirt, dust, hairs, and other contaminants - usually sticking to the film by static electricity. This can happen when the film is first exposed in the camera, during the developing and editing process, or during projection. When finally projected in the cinema, the film passes through the projector gate, light is shone through the film and the projector lens and the image appears on the screen; except where the dirt has interrupted the light. People involved in the handling of film will generally make sure the equipment and the film is kept clean, and this is particularly important during copying to an electronic medium such as video tape, DVD, or Blu-ray. With increasing incidence of digital cinematography, the addition of CGI post-processing, and then digital projection, it has reduced the opportunity for dirt to appear on the final image (and to stay there). Astronaut (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, Thank you. I'm surprised that this very common incidence does not have a 'name', but great answer nonetheless. --Kertial (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do, as Jayron pointed out above. Dirt and scratches. Mingmingla (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are one other set of dots that exists in older films but only if you saw them in the theater. a long time ago in a galaxy far far away In the days when films were shown on multiple reels you would see, in the upper right hand corner, a flash of (usually) two dots and they would repeat a few seconds later. Projection booths had at least two projectors and the first flash told the projectionist to start the next reel and the second flash told them to turn off the light in the first camera. A good projectionist could make this transition run smoothly. Occasionally the film would break or - more dramatically - snag and then burn through due to the heat of the light in the projector. Several minutes could go by while the harried employee tried to re-thread the film and get things going again. Some projectors also had bells to warn the projectionist of the impending changeover. Sometime in the 90s they started putting the whole film on one giant spool and these went away. I think that, in the early days of film releases on VHS that you would still see these dots as some companies just transferred the film to this home release format without cleaning it up. By the time the DVD format came along they would clean the film up and these dots haven't been seen in years. Now, I could have some of these details off a bit but I am sure others will be able to correct me. MarnetteD | Talk 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're thinking of cue marks – I've detailed it below. — Richard BB 07:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to film dirt a DVD extra about the cleanup of the film print (I can't remember which one at the moment but I think it is a Kurosawa film) mentions that they got so enthusiastic about cleaning up the dirt from the negative that they actually eliminated a bird off the original print. MarnetteD | Talk 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making new films look old is a widely-used technique. Surely the technique has a short name, but the best I can find so far is Getting That Old Grainy Film Look. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that you are right. There should be a name or an acronym for the technique. Hopefully someone will find it. Of course, today's digital world does it with a computer like the item you linked to illustrates. I seem to remember a DVD commentary - I think it was an early season The Simpsons episode where they talked about how they made the animation cels look like an old and scratched black and white film. For a pre-digital film you might check and see if there are any articles out there about how Woody Allen's film Zelig was made to look like old time newsreels. MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distressing --Viennese Waltz 13:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Good work VW. I should have remember that term from reading the Lovejoy novels. MarnetteD | Talk 13:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a wet blanket, but that article is in reference to the decorative arts and it makes no mention of film, so I'm wondering if the same term is used in the film industry. Google suggests it's used of still photography, but not of cinematic film. I'm waiting on a call/FB message from my son, who's a professional TV cameraman and independent film maker, currently having a long working holiday (more holiday than work) in Honduras. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he is not aware of any jargon term. He just calls it "the old film look". The term "distressing" means nothing to him (in this context). He's a bad-ass word guy (naturally) so it's not likely the industry jargon would have passed him by. Fwiw. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought OP would be referring to cue marks: "...a visual indicator used with motion picture film prints, usually placed on the right-hand upper corner of a frame of the film". The film Fight Club drew attention to them by mistakenly calling them cigarette burns. — Richard BB 07:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too R BB for coming up with the name and the link for what I was so long winded in trying to describe. MarnetteD | Talk 13:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]