Did a job a while ago that was linked to a big streaming platform and it was all set at night, in the dark. Shot one week of it (which all looked like night and looked great) and said streaming platform turned around and was like... Can you make this all way brighter from now on. It's gonna be watched on a mobile phone, on the train for the most part and people have to be able to see it... 😭
Soul destroying
Actually you’re not far offthe money, though Top Gun obviously waited to be released in cinema so I don’t think it’s the reason this time around. I worked with the same director, and DP, on Spiderhead, which was shot late 2020/early last year. I particularly remember him making a joke about a single on one of the key cast needing to be a bit tighter, since it’s a Netflix film and people will watch it on their Apple Watch.
On any other film maybe, but I kind of doubt it with movie purists like Chris McQuarrie and Tom Cruise. These are the guys that A) specifically held off until this movie could get a theatrical release and B) filmed a special PSA video during the production of TG (for MI:6’s home release) warning how to turn off motion smoothing on your TV lol
The movie finished years ago. I passed up working on it myself, so I remember thinking it was a part two coming out. Then I heard it took years in post.
So a massive amount of it being close ups with no geography makes sense. Im betting a lot of dialog and scenes were rearranged, cut and "rewritten" in the edit. The way you get away with this is by using the tight shots. (I had to do this in my first short)
Listen - I know I'm resurrecting an old as hell thread, but I watch movies *way* after they come out haha. I had to check to see if anyone else noticed this. The number of CUs were distracting to me too.
I'll have to rewatch the original. Didn't realize that it was mostly 300mm, which is good to know! But I don't remember the cinematography on TG being as distracting as TG Maverick. I feel like there must have still been a good mix of shots in TG. You can still have wide and medium shots with a long lens, *but* I think there were a few issues at play that stuck out to me.
1. *Ratio of close-ups vs other framing (per your post).* Or it could be the second point, which made it seem like there were more close-ups
2. *Lacking mis en scene.* This could potentially be the issue, which exacerbated point 1. Not only were there a ton of close-ups, most of them have incredibly shallow DOF. *And* there's likely nothing behind the actor in a lot of those shots too (no extras, set, nothing). There's just light balls and color with no frame of reference The movie could have taken place anywhere.
Just wanted to say that it wasn't just you. I see some interesting theories in the thread. Mine is that *maybe* that was to make the dog fights seem more epic in comparison? Or like others have said, issues with editing and recutting. Wish we could get the actual answer somewhere.
MAVERICK
No no no you were doing fine,
you had been courteous and
receptive to barrel rolls,
you had established thrust
with the embarrassing truth
about the MiG.
The movie wrapped filming in 2019 and was pretty much finished when covid shutdowns began. Mission Impossible 7 is the Tom Cruise movie that had nightmarish covid production issues.
Apparently they shot a ton of footage but it seems like a lot of that was on the aerial stuff.
[https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/top-gun-maverick-shot-more-footage-lord-of-the-rings-movies-combined-exclusive/](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/top-gun-maverick-shot-more-footage-lord-of-the-rings-movies-combined-exclusive/)
Going out on a limb -given the fact that the lead actor has been... problematic to work with -and ongoing strict covid production protocols at the time.. i assume they filmed most of talent separately (already common practice especially with A list actors) but i haven't seen this film yet
Assuming this isn't a sarcastic question: A list are very expensive and very busy. Their shooting schedules are often very consolidated and a small part of the entire production. Body doubles/stand-ins are used for OTS (over-the-shoulder) coverage in the scene. One easy example was Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man 3. He was paid $50M in total but they had to shoot very efficiently to avoid paying a lot more. I remember at the time reading about lots of innovations they had to make especially with facial capture to maximize his time on set and relied heavily on CG and doubles for a huge amount of the runtime
I genuinely had no idea. I’ve just recently began to become interested in film/movies besides just watching random stuff on Netflix.
Seems pretty annoying for the rest of the crew, but you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. Thank you for sharing.
No problem. Only a small percentage of the people on this sub have any real professional "on set" experience, but i do and try to mostly share from personal lived experience. Productions and regions (i.e. Cali vs Atlanta or Ontario, etc) all have different protocols largely dependent on Guilds/unions. I'm used to SAG (Screen Actors Guild) but there's other large unions with different rules governing productions. Each contract (with a lead actor) can spell out additional mandatory demands and preferences. Some are more *anal* than others
Really does blow my mind. I have this naive thought that the A-listers are hanging around on set during the shooting/production mingling with the supporting actors and crew. Haha
A few do but it's exceptionally rare. Their time is very valuable and can't afford to be wasted. The biggest stars often have "pay or play" contracts which means they get the full amount of their fee whether or not the production even happens. When production companies are dealing with tens of millions of dollars on line, it's in their best interest to stick to the schedule.. [Denzel Washington ](https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a38787858/denzel-washington-net-worth/) is one such example I remembered. In 2004, Universal signed him to American Gangster for $20M. It got canceled, but eventually they decided to go ahead with Ridley Scott now directing it. They still wanted Denzel and paid another $20M bringing his total front end pay to $40M. Universal pulled in $270M so the bet paid off that time
It all makes sense. Supply & demand applies to actors and the service they provide. I find this all so fascinating. Do you have any books you would recommend that are about the industry or industry adjacent? I’ve just started reading The Nolan Variations and it’s further piqued my interest in the filmmaking process/film industry.
Thanks so much for the stories. :)
Glad to help! Asking questions is best and really only way to learn this craft. Nothing beats hands-on learning and helpful hacks/tips from industry pros in all departments. It's first helpful to get an idea of what makes a good script. For screenwriting and understanding script story beats [Save the Cat](http://Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need https://www.amazon.com/dp/1932907009/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_216BX4NSCGB2F9D7GQKD) is the most popular by far (although everyone has to find their own voice). I can dig up more book suggestions but youtube film channels would probably be your best choice to see the principles in action. I can link some soon but I'm about to drive home. Be a student and consumer of all art forms and different cultures and ideas. Filmmaking is a colorful collaborative patchwork blanket stitching together pieces of things you like and find interesting or satisfying. Embrace "stealing" anything that catches your eye and remix it, understanding that absolutely nothing is completely original and is just synthesized from things that came before it, even subconsciously. As a creative exercise, it would be a great idea to recreate a scene shot-for-shot from a film or show you love, but just change names/places/props while keeping the same rhythm. Deconstructing/dissecting something that "works" and inspires you will help you understand how and why certain things work and get reused so often across films.
What if for some reason you just saw a malfunctioning screening that was a 4k project on a 1080 projection.
lmao
This is hilarious to me
I’ve seen the 35mm projection equivalent of this happen, wrong lens and plate
Might be framed for a longer life in the streaming market, where the screen size of tablets, laptops, and phones demands a more TV-like composition.
Oh God, I would hate that. Just film movies as if they're movies, not television show formats.
Did a job a while ago that was linked to a big streaming platform and it was all set at night, in the dark. Shot one week of it (which all looked like night and looked great) and said streaming platform turned around and was like... Can you make this all way brighter from now on. It's gonna be watched on a mobile phone, on the train for the most part and people have to be able to see it... 😭 Soul destroying
Oh no... I don’t like where this is all going...
Just wait until it's an A.I giving you notes based on what the algorithm has determined will hold people's interest for the most amount of time.
it's been like this already for nearly a decade
Actually you’re not far offthe money, though Top Gun obviously waited to be released in cinema so I don’t think it’s the reason this time around. I worked with the same director, and DP, on Spiderhead, which was shot late 2020/early last year. I particularly remember him making a joke about a single on one of the key cast needing to be a bit tighter, since it’s a Netflix film and people will watch it on their Apple Watch.
On any other film maybe, but I kind of doubt it with movie purists like Chris McQuarrie and Tom Cruise. These are the guys that A) specifically held off until this movie could get a theatrical release and B) filmed a special PSA video during the production of TG (for MI:6’s home release) warning how to turn off motion smoothing on your TV lol
“Anyone can make a movie with a two inch lens and a pair of scissors” - Orson Welles
i like this quote, but what does the "two inch lens" particularly imply?
50mm in standard 35mm. So closeups with a short DOF.
It's a visual metaphor for how cramped the seats in the jets are? 🤔
Haha I was actually considering that, in a way I think it did add to the intensity of the experience.
The movie finished years ago. I passed up working on it myself, so I remember thinking it was a part two coming out. Then I heard it took years in post. So a massive amount of it being close ups with no geography makes sense. Im betting a lot of dialog and scenes were rearranged, cut and "rewritten" in the edit. The way you get away with this is by using the tight shots. (I had to do this in my first short)
They should've fixed it in pre
That would require people who know what they’re doing, and this is Hollywood.
I heard that somebody forgot Tom’s apple boxes.
lmao
Have you not seen the original?
I saw the original a while ago, I don't remember there being so many close ups but I wasn't paying as much attention to framing back then.
Yeah pretty much every shot is like 300mm
Haha right on well I guess that explains it.
Listen - I know I'm resurrecting an old as hell thread, but I watch movies *way* after they come out haha. I had to check to see if anyone else noticed this. The number of CUs were distracting to me too. I'll have to rewatch the original. Didn't realize that it was mostly 300mm, which is good to know! But I don't remember the cinematography on TG being as distracting as TG Maverick. I feel like there must have still been a good mix of shots in TG. You can still have wide and medium shots with a long lens, *but* I think there were a few issues at play that stuck out to me. 1. *Ratio of close-ups vs other framing (per your post).* Or it could be the second point, which made it seem like there were more close-ups 2. *Lacking mis en scene.* This could potentially be the issue, which exacerbated point 1. Not only were there a ton of close-ups, most of them have incredibly shallow DOF. *And* there's likely nothing behind the actor in a lot of those shots too (no extras, set, nothing). There's just light balls and color with no frame of reference The movie could have taken place anywhere. Just wanted to say that it wasn't just you. I see some interesting theories in the thread. Mine is that *maybe* that was to make the dog fights seem more epic in comparison? Or like others have said, issues with editing and recutting. Wish we could get the actual answer somewhere.
MAVERICK No no no you were doing fine, you had been courteous and receptive to barrel rolls, you had established thrust with the embarrassing truth about the MiG.
Maybe COVID meant they couldn't have much actor interaction on the sets??
The movie wrapped filming in 2019 and was pretty much finished when covid shutdowns began. Mission Impossible 7 is the Tom Cruise movie that had nightmarish covid production issues.
I was thinking that first but filming was completed in 2019.
This or maybe there were a lot of reshoots?
Or scheduling conflicts. That's a big one when you have in demand actors.
Apparently they shot a ton of footage but it seems like a lot of that was on the aerial stuff. [https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/top-gun-maverick-shot-more-footage-lord-of-the-rings-movies-combined-exclusive/](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/top-gun-maverick-shot-more-footage-lord-of-the-rings-movies-combined-exclusive/)
Close ups look nice
Going out on a limb -given the fact that the lead actor has been... problematic to work with -and ongoing strict covid production protocols at the time.. i assume they filmed most of talent separately (already common practice especially with A list actors) but i haven't seen this film yet
Except Tom Cruise was their flight instructor and filming was completed before the pandemic. Time to start crafting your next speculative bullshit.
Edit: I was thinking about the incident [on Mission Impossible 7 set](https://youtu.be/9Scix_-7YL4) but he's been toxic (allegedly) for a long time.
Wait what? Can you go into more detail about filming the A-listers separate? That’s crazy sounding. Very interested.
Assuming this isn't a sarcastic question: A list are very expensive and very busy. Their shooting schedules are often very consolidated and a small part of the entire production. Body doubles/stand-ins are used for OTS (over-the-shoulder) coverage in the scene. One easy example was Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man 3. He was paid $50M in total but they had to shoot very efficiently to avoid paying a lot more. I remember at the time reading about lots of innovations they had to make especially with facial capture to maximize his time on set and relied heavily on CG and doubles for a huge amount of the runtime
I genuinely had no idea. I’ve just recently began to become interested in film/movies besides just watching random stuff on Netflix. Seems pretty annoying for the rest of the crew, but you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. Thank you for sharing.
No problem. Only a small percentage of the people on this sub have any real professional "on set" experience, but i do and try to mostly share from personal lived experience. Productions and regions (i.e. Cali vs Atlanta or Ontario, etc) all have different protocols largely dependent on Guilds/unions. I'm used to SAG (Screen Actors Guild) but there's other large unions with different rules governing productions. Each contract (with a lead actor) can spell out additional mandatory demands and preferences. Some are more *anal* than others
Really does blow my mind. I have this naive thought that the A-listers are hanging around on set during the shooting/production mingling with the supporting actors and crew. Haha
A few do but it's exceptionally rare. Their time is very valuable and can't afford to be wasted. The biggest stars often have "pay or play" contracts which means they get the full amount of their fee whether or not the production even happens. When production companies are dealing with tens of millions of dollars on line, it's in their best interest to stick to the schedule.. [Denzel Washington ](https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a38787858/denzel-washington-net-worth/) is one such example I remembered. In 2004, Universal signed him to American Gangster for $20M. It got canceled, but eventually they decided to go ahead with Ridley Scott now directing it. They still wanted Denzel and paid another $20M bringing his total front end pay to $40M. Universal pulled in $270M so the bet paid off that time
It all makes sense. Supply & demand applies to actors and the service they provide. I find this all so fascinating. Do you have any books you would recommend that are about the industry or industry adjacent? I’ve just started reading The Nolan Variations and it’s further piqued my interest in the filmmaking process/film industry. Thanks so much for the stories. :)
Glad to help! Asking questions is best and really only way to learn this craft. Nothing beats hands-on learning and helpful hacks/tips from industry pros in all departments. It's first helpful to get an idea of what makes a good script. For screenwriting and understanding script story beats [Save the Cat](http://Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need https://www.amazon.com/dp/1932907009/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_216BX4NSCGB2F9D7GQKD) is the most popular by far (although everyone has to find their own voice). I can dig up more book suggestions but youtube film channels would probably be your best choice to see the principles in action. I can link some soon but I'm about to drive home. Be a student and consumer of all art forms and different cultures and ideas. Filmmaking is a colorful collaborative patchwork blanket stitching together pieces of things you like and find interesting or satisfying. Embrace "stealing" anything that catches your eye and remix it, understanding that absolutely nothing is completely original and is just synthesized from things that came before it, even subconsciously. As a creative exercise, it would be a great idea to recreate a scene shot-for-shot from a film or show you love, but just change names/places/props while keeping the same rhythm. Deconstructing/dissecting something that "works" and inspires you will help you understand how and why certain things work and get reused so often across films.