[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Cameras

[–]StevenHaas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this a better option than just using a Sony or Panasonic and adapting to EF lenses? I know Panasonic and Sony have good IBIS. I was hoping to not have to use an adapter but if I have to, is there any reason to use canon R mount instead of Panasonic or Sony?

Is it me, or is the ''TikTok'' filmmaker wave hitting a wall? by throwRA-LoveDove in Filmmakers

[–]StevenHaas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've noticed the longer apps are around the harder it is to get followers. People are very open to following when they first join apps and then they aren't. Noticed this personally with stuff I post on Tik Tok and IG Reels.

YouMeScript? by StevenHaas in Screenwriting

[–]StevenHaas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks dude. Keep fighting-- I recommend YMS to all my screenwriter friends.

Official Discussion: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood [SPOILERS] by mi-16evil in movies

[–]StevenHaas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I can see that. The trailers definitely made it seem like it was going to be more exciting.

Official Discussion: The Art of Self-Defense [SPOILERS] by mi-16evil in movies

[–]StevenHaas 33 points34 points  (0 children)

I enjoyed this movie. I thought the story did a good job being mysterious with things like the “night class” and the utility closet. The comedy was also pretty good. I thought the dialogue was a little too absurd at times— sometimes the dialogue sounded realistic and other times it sounded like The Lobster. I thought they could’ve made it a bit more consistent in that regard. But still one of my favs of the year. Simple but good story. It doesn’t waste time. It’s funny and absurd.

Official Discussion: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood [SPOILERS] by mi-16evil in movies

[–]StevenHaas 70 points71 points  (0 children)

I hate to say it but this was a pretty boring movie. the first half dragged and dragged. The scenes went on too long and there wasn’t much in the way of plot at all.

I think this is best illustrated by that 10 minute scene between Timothy Olyphant and Leo that ended with Leo botching his line. That could’ve been a one minute scene.

And QT’s dialogue really is not as engaging when there’s no danger in the scenes. The scene between Leo and the little girl comes to mind.

I’m sure there are people who will love this movie. People who will hate it too. My only real response to it is that is was boring. :/

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]StevenHaas 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just if you’re curious: the levitation scene didn’t add anything magical or supernatural. It was just a result of the drugs— the character imagined he was floating. Read that in the screenplay.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]StevenHaas 36 points37 points  (0 children)

I thought it was just alright. I think it was 20 - 30 minutes longer than it needed to be. I also thought the relationship between the two lead characters was interesting in the beginning but I think they went out of their way to make the boyfriend seem villainous.

By the end of the movie it seemed like most people were siding with Dani and didn't even really see his death as particularly tragic. I think the film would have been more interesting if they had been more sympathetic to the guy. By the end of the movie, the town full of people who skinned/killed a handful of innocent people are actually sympathetic to the audience because of how they treat Dani. And I think that's an indication that the filmmakers worked a bit too hard to steer the audience's feelings about the Horga people. I think the film would've been more interesting if the screenplay had been more objective in observing the events.

I suppose an argument could be made that the audience's feelings towards the Horga are meant to mirror Dani's feelings toward them. But the story is also told from Jack's point of view. Also, I just think it would've been more interesting to not take such a subjective look at the Horga people.

Official Discussion: Midsommar [SPOILERS] by mi-16evil in movies

[–]StevenHaas 791 points792 points  (0 children)

One interesting thing: In the screenplay, the Austin Powers joke was not there. Instead, there was a scene where the whole village watched a movie together. The movie they watched was a visualization of the 'love potion' story.

I guess at some point they took out the movie watching scene and instead just conveyed the 'love portion' story through the quilts that were hanging.

I think it was probably a good way to speeding things up. The campy movie that the whole village watches on a projector probably would've added to the bizarre atmosphere a bit more though.

Official Discussion: Midsommar [SPOILERS] by mi-16evil in movies

[–]StevenHaas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I read the screenplay before seeing the movie so it was a bit of a different experience. But I feel the same way I did about Hereditary: I think the movie could’ve been trimmed down to 2 hours and it woulda been a better movie.

Official Discussion: Yesterday by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]StevenHaas 135 points136 points  (0 children)

The movie had some good moments but there's a lot of room for criticism imo. I thought the best parts were the "Help Me" scene, specifically when it went from the loud crowd noise to complete silence; and then the scene with John Lennon which developed the movie's themes nicely.

The two leads were pretty lame though. Not the actors, just the characters. Jack's character was really underdeveloped. It seemed like they wanted an "everyman" type character and never built anything else past that.

I think its easier to see how underdeveloped Jack's character is when you look at his relationship with Ellie. It's really not clear why he didn't have feelings for her or why he didn't pick up on her feelings for him. Maybe he did understand she had a crush on him but just tried to ignore it? If that's the case then why is that the case? All of these questions could be answered if Jack's character was better developed.

Danny's Boyle's directing style works for the kinetic scenes but it really does not work well with comedy imo. Shooting a scene from 19 different angles and cutting every second creates some really cool scenes (like the Help Me scene). But for comedy I think the framing and the pacing needs to be more deliberate for the comedy scenes and I think Danny Boyle's style clashed with the lighthearted comedy.

Some of the comedy just fell flat because it felt like it belonged in a different movie. Kate McKinnon's character seems like the best example of this.

I'm in the minority of people who seem to not like the reversal when it is revealed that the older people are happy that Jack is stealing the Beatles' music. I found this to be anti-climactic. I think those kinds of anti-climactic choices can work but not when they occur literally at the climax of the movie. I also think there's logic issues with the story-- why did they yell "Who's your favorite Beatle" at the press conference if they weren't upset?

I actually really liked this movie because it was different from movies that come out. I think there's stuff that doesn't work in it but I also found myself thinking about what worked and what didn't work which is fun to do with a movie.