How in the hell did it get pitch black suddenly......
....when dannys plane crashed and ben Affleck ran to save him?
shareTank, it's a Michael Bay movie. No further explanation is necessary!
sharePearlmagddon!!!!
share
MovieChat Forums > Pearl Harbor (2001) Discussion > How in the hell did it get pitch black s...
It also gets pitch black when Raff swims up from his spitfire that crashes in the ocean.
Daylight during the dogfight. Then pitchblack when he recounts escaping the plane (flashback)
Bay don't care!
Bay goes out of his way to CAUSE goofs in his films.
Just because his crap looks "cooler" to the uneducated dumbsh!ts that lap up his films.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
his crap looks "cooler" to the uneducated dumbsh!ts that lap up his films.
You really need to learn to let your feelings out. Keeping them bottled up like this will just cause an ulcer. If you've got something to say, say it.
SpiltPersonality share
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
To be fair CGSailor most movies, especially major releases, only can work for a certain period of time per day and are tasked to complete before a specific period or else they risk getting into trouble with studio big wigs. Big movies need lots of time to block scenes which can take hours to days. So, in certain circumstances filmmakers have no other alternative but to try to "fake it" and hope it doesn't bring too much attention to itself if the story they're telling is exciting enough. Bay is not the only man to do this, many others have run into similar situations.
Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Mr. Bay considers the people who pay to see his films, or his fan base at the very least, to be "uneducated dumbsh!ts", or to suggest that those who go to and usually enjoy his work are such( Neil DeGrasse Tyson, James Cameron, Chris Nolan, Ridley Scott, Christopher McQuarrie and Steven Spielberg have all gone on record to say they enjoy Mr. Bay's films, Tyson used The Island was one of his favorite scifi films). People just have different preferences in entertainment and are likely aware that what they're watching is just an illusion, if they take it for fact its there problem.
Actually, where I get the idea that Bay considers the majority of his targeted audience is dumbsh!ts, comes from how he has on occasion gone out of his way to create really ignorant goofs where none needs be and serves no purpose but to dumb the film down and would have been cheaper to do it CORRECTLY in the first place. He has blown tons of money to deliberately frak up a shot.
Every film has goofs in them. Most filmmakers at least try to minimize them, but they happen regardless.
Bay doesn't even try to minimize goofs (even when he is not deliberately CAUSING them).
The only explanation for that level of *dontgiveash!t* is that he considers his audience too stupid to know better, or too apathetic to care.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Negative assumptions based on singular opinion does not create a fact, I'm afraid. The closest thing we have to facts is that Bay can make questionable decisions as a creative but it is also a fact that is backed up by plenty of anecdotes from co-workers that he is very dedicated to his job and practically works non-stop. Opinion - I don't think he would be as much into his work as plenty of anecdotes describe him as being if he views his fan base as buffoonish, unintelligent, uncaring, hairless chimps. I would think if he felt little about those who pay to see his films he would not defend them when critics trash them or have a website where his fans can communicate with one another via discussion board and address them if something arises.
sharePerfect example....
When you have a fictional location and you are not filming entirely on a constructed set, you often use other locations, disguised or otherwise as stand-in's.
Demolition man used shots of the exterior of the San Diego Convention Center (where they hold Comic-Con) as a set for a futuristic City of San Angeles.
Total Recall used an abandoned shopping complex in Mexico City redressed to be the Apartment/Shopping blocks of Quaid's home on Earth.
Mountainous areas of California was a perfect stand in for the Highlands of Vietnam in "We Were Soldiers"
Perfectly acceptable practice.
Even if someone familiar with the real shooting location recognizes it... it isn't really a goof, just a bit of trivia.
However when you are supposed to be at a REAL location, you either shoot at the real location or to try to match the real locations as best you can.
If you are trying to match the location because you cannot shoot at the real location, it's always likely there will be some goof. Those cannot be helped but you work to minimize them as best you can.
So now let's go to a Michael Bay Film... I forget exactly which transformers sequel it is, 2 or 3... but it is the one where they meet a very old transformer that was sleeping away as a museum display of an SR-71 Blackbird at the Dulles annex of the Smithsonian Air and Space museum, the Udvary-Hazy Center.
The Udvar-Hazy center is a real world location.
They filmed the interiors on site, then had a quick shot of them running across the tarmac outside the hangar building the museum is in.
The simplest thing to do is to just set up the cameras outside and take the shot right quick. They are already there on site filming the interior. If for some reason (construction, Security) they could not film exterior, then they could have done the shot at any decent sized airport, even right back in LA.... and have it stand in for the real world, matching it as best they can.
But noooo......
Instead, at great cost... Bay sends a film crew, the cast, and all the travelling caravan of support crew, caterers, costumers, etc.., transportation, Lodgings, all to send them clear to Arizona, into the Desert outside Tuscon, to the famous Davis-Monthan AFB and the Aircraft Boneyard. Which is nearly instantly recognizable for what it is and does not even in the slightest resemble Dulles Airport where the Udvar-hazy Center is located.
All for a shot of about 10 seconds, of them running between some planes.
Instead of doing it at the actual location, or an easily found closely matching location... he literally went out of his way to find the worst match possible for a well known location.
This is not a case of trying to keep it accurate and still something accidentally slipped past as a goof.
You cannot even make a case for it being he really didn't care to be accurate, because it was actually easier and cheaper to do it right in the first place.
He had to have made a deliberate and conscious effort to frak up that shot and at expense too.
And doing it that way did not Add value to the film, it created a goof and thus detracted from it.
What's your explanation for it?
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
I'm gonna dive into the part where you begin talking about Mr. Bay, because everything else is common knowledge to the average IMDb user, Captain Obvious.
So now let's go to a Michael Bay Film... I forget exactly which transformers sequel it is, 2 or 3... but it is the one where they meet a very old transformer that was sleeping away as a museum display of an SR-71 Blackbird at the Dulles annex of the Smithsonian Air and Space museum, the Udvary-Hazy Center.
The Udvar-Hazy center is a real world location.
They filmed the interiors on site, then had a quick shot of them running across the tarmac outside the hangar building the museum is in.
The simplest thing to do is to just set up the cameras outside and take the shot right quick. They are already there on site filming the interior. If for some reason (construction, Security) they could not film exterior, then they could have done the shot at any decent sized airport, even right back in LA.... and have it stand in for the real world, matching it as best they can.
But noooo......
Instead, at great cost... Bay sends a film crew, the cast, and all the travelling caravan of support crew, caterers, costumers, etc.., transportation, Lodgings, all to send them clear to Arizona, into the Desert outside Tuscon, to the famous Davis-Monthan AFB and the Aircraft Boneyard. Which is nearly instantly recognizable for what it is and does not even in the slightest resemble Dulles Airport where the Udvar-hazy Center is located.
All for a shot of about 10 seconds, of them running between some planes.
Instead of doing it at the actual location, or an easily found closely matching location... he literally went out of his way to find the worst match possible for a well known location.
This is not a case of trying to keep it accurate and still something accidentally slipped past as a goof.
You cannot even make a case for it being he really didn't care to be accurate, because it was actually easier and cheaper to do it right in the first place.
He had to have made a deliberate and conscious effort to frak up that shot and at expense too.
And doing it that way did not Add value to the film, it created a goof and thus detracted from it.
What's your explanation for it?
No completed script. Rushed production. Winging everything on the fly(One of the leads said they had to resort to jotting down ideas on napkins as each day went by) and hoping everything would come together, and not enough time for editing(Bay was still editing the film on the night of its premiere overseas). That said, that was definitely one of many WTF moments in the second Transformers film, which in my opinion is Bay's worst movie and the worst entry in that series thus far and of which Bay himself has criticized, said it was crap, and doesn't encourage its method of production to anyone in the industry( Going ahead with filming without a completed script and guessing the entire step of the way). Not to say your criticism of the location change isn't a valid one, same with your solution, it is, but I don't think its enough to say Bay isn't a hard worker or doesn't think very highly of the people who see his movies, crazy and complicated scheduling can make anything more ridiculous than it should be and the making of the second was a nightmare so I've heard. Just about every anecdote I've heard about Bay on set is that he is a very hard worker, extremely dedicated to his job, has a take no prisoners approach, and works like a machine - According to one actor a friend of mine met he can do the crew's job better than they can. You don't have to like him, but you can't say he isn't a hard worker or doesn't care about his own movies or the people who go to see them, if he didn't he'd have retired some time ago after joining the billionaire club in LA. At the end of the day he's no Spielberg or James Cameron but he's no Lee Tamahori or Oliver Megaton. And, personal preference, I don't think its fair to cite an example of a director's worst film when discussing their average, it's like discussing Joel Schumacher and only using Batman & Robin when he's done other films like Falling Down, Flatliners, The Lost Boys and Phonebooth...
share
Four days and not a reply, interesting. So I take it you've got nothing to say to my response? Don't want your perspective on a man you don't know or have ever met challenged by another's?
shareAaaaaaaand a whole week just went by, still no response. I guess as they say on the internet...Ya got "pwned" in a debate ,fella.
shareMy lack of response is not evidence I lost. You are no longer worth responding to.
This is my only remaining response on the matter.
Your taking a lack of response as proof of a win, Proves that you are not worth responding to.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
And your lack of response can be viewed as a losing of the debate, sorry but that's how most readers would interpret it as, especially given that after a full week your only response is a short and simple "you are no longer worth responding to" and having zero acknowledgment of the points I made in my original response from last Sunday. And if I'm not worth responding to...Why did you respond anyway? The appropriate thing to do, given the projection of your attitude in your little response here, would be to have continued to ignore the discussion and leave me hanging with the assumption that I'd make a few more responses that would give readers the idea that I'm starving to win an online discussion for a film that came out 15 years ago. But no, you replied anyway and only made yourself look potentially silly and lazy to readers of the thread. Good job. For somebody who likes to say the people who usually go to see Mr. Bay's movies are unintelligible, dimwitted, poop throwing, hairless baboons and that Mr. Bay himself is dumbing down society as we speak...You did something pretty foolish and made yourself look lazy and uninspired, self-own as they call it.
Do not bother, the CGSailor guy is a known troll on IMDB that gets into arguments he cannot win in any board he visits. I suggest just ignoring him.
------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair
I would attribute something like that as something had to be redone after the editing started. That happens a lot and actors often have recall clauses to cover such issues. I agree that studios limit hours per day due to union issues but also insist on professionalism such as if a night scene is required then it needs to be filmed at night or in the dark if conditions will allow. In earlier eras such as the 1960's if a "night" scene needed to be done (during daylight hours) the studio would make use of "filters" for cameras to give the illusion of night even if the results were terrible. This changed over the succeeding decades and the production schedule was done to give the appropriate number of hours that a studio hand had coming for a week but reserved the right for it to be at any time required by the studio. No guarantees of starting at 8AM and quitting at 6PM.
share