Jump to content


Episode 189 - Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow: LIVE!


103 replies to this topic

#1 July Diaz

    Earwolf Buddy

  • Administrators
  • 5,793 posts
  • LocationUnder a roof

Posted 24 May 2018 - 10:37 PM

Comedians Joe Mande (The Good Place) and Tawny Newsome (Yo, Is This Racist, Bajillion Dollar Propertie$) joins Paul and Jason to discuss the 2004 science fiction action adventure film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Recored live from Largo at the Coronet in Los Angeles, they talk about the awful blue screen effects, Gwyneth Paltrow getting punched, bird planes, and much more.


Subscribe to Unspooled with Paul Scheer and Amy Nicholson here: http://www.earwolf.com/show/unspooled/
Check out our new website over at www.hdtgminfo.com!
Check out new HDTGM merch over at https://www.teepubli...wdidthisgetmade
Where to Find Jason, June & Paul:
You can see Jason, June, and Paul in The Disaster Artist.
Paul’s new comedy Drive Share is available on Go90. Paul can be seen on A Futile and Stupid Gesture, Wet Hot American Summer: Ten Years Later, Opening Night, and Veep. You can see June and Paul on NTSF:SD:SUV:: on HULU. June stars in Blockers, Grace and Frankie on Netflix, as well as Lady Dynamite alongside with Jason.
Jason can be seen in The Good Place, The House, The Lego Batman Movie, How to Be Single, Sleeping with Other People, and is still indeed in The Dictator.
listen to carmen christopher on the latest ep of my podcast trends with benefits twb.cool

#2 Edded by dawn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 11:37 PM

The lens cap is off

Attached File(s)



#3 registradus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:05 AM

why does this trailer use the music from Stargate???

#4 FrancisRizzo3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 03:01 AM

View PostEdded by dawn, on 24 May 2018 - 11:37 PM, said:

The lens cap is off


Did old camera have lens caps? I can't remember seeing any.

#5 FrancisRizzo3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 03:02 AM

Posted Image

#6 FrancisRizzo3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 04:11 AM

Based on some behind-the-scenes stuff on the DVD, the movie was intended to be a relatively small film done by a small group working in the middle of the porn industry (Van Nuys), but as it was being shot it was decided that the animation should be 3D rather than the planned flat look, which required rebuilding the group's entire hardware system and an expansion of the crew working on the film. It feels like a lot of the blame for what happened could fall on producer Jon Avnet, who probably should have had tighter reigns on his first-time filmmakers. It also sounds like a classic case of a niche film getting blown up by ambition and the involvement of big names. If Sky Captain had been produced like the indie effort it was intended to be, it wouldn't have cost so much and wouldn't be viewed so negatively (even if the story is pretty weak because it was essentially a tech demo by people more interested in visuals than plot.) I still feel bad for director/writer Kerry Conran. To be one and done like this must suck.

Also, Marsha Oglesby, the producer who brought this film to the attention of Avnet, was a co-producer on the HDTGM movie 88 Minutes, and the likely-one-day HDTGM movie Righteous Kill.

#7 phyzzi

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:08 AM

Just an observation...

Gwyneth Paltrow stars in Sky Captain, which is essentially a superhero movie, as a character named Polly Perkins. A few years later she goes on to star in Iron Man, another superhero movie, as a character named Pepper Potts. Can we please crowdfund an Underdog movie and have her star as Polly Purebred so Gwyneth can complete her "superhero movie character whose names have P.P. alliteration" trifecta.

#8 omaxem

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationEuropia

Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:30 AM

YEAH Indiana Jones! I kept thinking that Kate Capshaw could of nailed Polly, and i feel like that could of maybe made this watchable.

All in all i didn't dislike it as much as the gang seems to, but it was real dark, there where some real big problems with the script ( plot, timelines... ), Polly Perkins is a horrible reporter, Gwyneth Paltrow is an horrible actress, Michael Gambon payed some bills and Lawrence Olivier is probably still rolling in his grave. It wasn't good.

View Postphyzzi, on 25 May 2018 - 05:08 AM, said:


Gwyneth Paltrow stars in Sky Captain, which is essentially a superhero movie, as a character named Polly Perkins. A few years later she goes on to star in Iron Man, another superhero movie, as a character named Pepper Potts. Can we please crowdfund an Underdog movie and have her star as Polly Purebred so Gwyneth can complete her "superhero movie character whose names have P.P. alliteration" trifecta.


May i suggest a remake of the Garbage Pail Kids, with the kids now being the... heroes? and with Goop playing Patty Puker?

#9 grudlian.

    Debbie Downer Award Winner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:51 AM

I think I read on imdb that this movie was originally supposed to be presented as actual serials stitched together as a full length movie. Fifteen minute segments with cliff hangers, then a quick ending before resuming.

While I think this would have been a spectacular failure, I think this movie would work better as serials. Something where I watch 15 minutes then don't see it for a week. I think the film's biggest flaw is it never offers anything new after the opening. But in 15 minute chunks with tiny arcs, I probably would have liked it.

Also, I think this look really worked on Gwyneth Paltrow. Someone should make a good movie set in the 1940s with her.

#10 taylor anne photo

    A Most Peculiar Mademoiselle

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,686 posts
  • LocationDeep in the heart of Texas

Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:53 AM

View PostFrancisRizzo3, on 25 May 2018 - 03:01 AM, said:

Did old camera have lens caps? I can't remember seeing any.

Some yes. It depends on the maker. I have a Yashica that looks a lot like that and it came with a lens cap.
"Taylor doesn't comment often, but when she does, she burns the whole fuckin' place down." - CakeBug Tranch

#11 FrancisRizzo3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:56 AM

View Postgrudlian., on 25 May 2018 - 05:51 AM, said:

Also, I think this look really worked on Gwyneth Paltrow. Someone should make a good movie set in the 1940s with her.


I do think she plays the "brassy broad" well. She didn't have much of a character, but she's fun to watch.

#12 FrancisRizzo3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:59 AM

I think one of the biggest examples of the shortcomings of the shooting style on this film is Paltrow's running around the robots. That's the most half-hearted running ever captured on film. and it's likely because she had limited running room, as the blue-screen area was set up in a relatively narrow space (per the DVD.)

#13 taylor anne photo

    A Most Peculiar Mademoiselle

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,686 posts
  • LocationDeep in the heart of Texas

Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:14 AM

Paul, based on my name I hope you are ready to be schooled in the camera talk.

An automatic camera doesn't really mean anything. Most, if not all, cameras have an automatic feature, which just means that you wouldn't have to worry about resetting the shutter speed or f-stop. But automatic lenses only mean that you also wouldn't have to worry about focusing by your own eye and so you would only need to hold down the shutter button and it would automatically focus for you. What you are referring to is a fixed lens, which means that yes it has no zoom function, but that does not determine the quality of the photo itself. In fact I would say that fixed lenses have a higher quality than zoom lenses because they work faster and tend to have a lower f-stop number. (Basically the f-stop is what makes the background go all blurry, or as we say in the business, have a bokeh effect.)

In terms of this certain scenario you pointed out it makes just as much sense for her to have a fixed lens over a zoom lens. Sure she could zoom in to grab a closer shot of the robot, but chances are she's using a 35mm or a 50mm lens so that would actually grab the robot pretty accurately for where she is sitting.

Also tbh, Leica only represented around 5% of cameras used by photojournalists at the time, despite that being what everyone pictures when you talk about cameras back then. They were considered not as professional as the Contax and were even referred to as the "Beggar's Contax."

Now I didn't watch this movie, but based on the photos of her holding that camera it definitely looks like they gave her an Argus, which as I look up that camera it literally looks spot on, and I'm happy to say that if they did indeed give her a C-3 like I think they did then they got the timing spot on because there were models made from 1939-45 and then another post war model made from 1945-1957.
"Taylor doesn't comment often, but when she does, she burns the whole fuckin' place down." - CakeBug Tranch

#14 taylor anne photo

    A Most Peculiar Mademoiselle

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,686 posts
  • LocationDeep in the heart of Texas

Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:19 AM

Based on this photo I found it looks like you could absolutely put on a telephoto lens (which is a fixed lens that is already zoomed for you), but I imagine that if she were already in the thick of the action she wasn't carrying around a bag of photo equipment with her.

Posted Image
"Taylor doesn't comment often, but when she does, she burns the whole fuckin' place down." - CakeBug Tranch

#15 Quasar Sniffer

    Elitist Prick

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,346 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:26 AM

View Posttaylor anne photo, on 25 May 2018 - 06:14 AM, said:

Paul, based on my name I hope you are ready to be schooled in the camera talk.

An automatic camera doesn't really mean anything. Most, if not all, cameras have an automatic feature, which just means that you wouldn't have to worry about resetting the shutter speed or f-stop. But automatic lenses only means that you also wouldn't have to worry about focusing by your own eye and so you would only need to hold down the shutter button and it would automatically focus for you. What you are referring to is a fixed lens, which means that yes it has no zoom function, but that does not determine the quality of the photo itself. In fact I would say that fixed lenses have a higher quality than zoom lenses because they work faster and tend to have a lower f-stop number. (Basically the f-stop is what makes the background go all blurry, or as we say in the business, have a bokeh effect.)

In terms of this certain scenario you pointed out it makes just as much sense for her to have a fixed lens over a zoom lens. Sure she could zoom in to grab a closer shot of the robot, but chances are she's using a 35mm or a 50mm lens so that would actually grab the robot pretty accurately for where she is sitting.

Also tbh, Leica only represented around 5% of cameras used by photojournalists at the time, despite that being what everyone pictures when you talk about cameras back then. They were considered not as professional as the Contax and were even referred to as the "Beggar's Contax."

Now I didn't watch this movie, but based on the photos of her holding that camera it definitely looks like they gave her an Argus, which as I look up that camera it literally looks spot on, and I'm happy to say that if they did indeed give her a C-3 like I think they did then they got the timing spot on because there were models made from 1939-45 and then another post war model made from 1945-1957.

I... I'm just quoting this because I love it so much. Experts in cool fields: This message board HAS THEM!
"Warning: Detected synaptic seepage. Neural failure within 24 hours... Welcome to Newark."
- Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

"I love that the demographic for this podcast is, like, college professors." - Rob Huebel

#16 Quasar Sniffer

    Elitist Prick

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,346 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:33 AM

Also, the gang frequently mocked this movie for its obsession over maps and charts, but maybe one of the reasons why I didn't dislike it is (I would never say I liked it) is that I have read this book and ENJOYED IT!

Posted Image

Granted, it's not as engrossing as the other Simon Winchester book I've read, The Professor and the Madman (aka The Surgeon of Crawthorne), which deals with the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary and the involvement of Dr. W.C. Minor, an American Civil War Veteran who committed murder in England and was then committed to an insane asylum. It's both a crazy story and exceptionally English. Good times.

I like minutia, you guys.
"Warning: Detected synaptic seepage. Neural failure within 24 hours... Welcome to Newark."
- Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

"I love that the demographic for this podcast is, like, college professors." - Rob Huebel

#17 Blast Hardcheese

    Advanced-er-er Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Location, Location, Location!

Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:38 AM

Of the various problems with this movie, I think the lack of charisma of its stars is one of the main culprits to it being as horrible as it is.

In particular, Judd Law is woefully mis-cast in a roll that should have gone to someone who could pull off that certain Indian Jones/Han Solo-like smart ass swagger. I'm thinking of an actor along the lines of the Ryan Reynolds, Sam Rockwell or James Roday. Someone who can provide levity, charm and is instantly relatable to the audience. Judd Law is a great actor, but in this roll he came off as stuffy, poncy and smug. You know: traits the hero's nemesis should have.

Or better yet, re-cast this role as a strong, intelligent female daredevil with the confidence and joie de vivre of a character like Roxy Rocket. Ta-da!

#18 tomspanks

    jaded meowndarin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,838 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:46 AM

View Posttaylor anne photo, on 25 May 2018 - 06:19 AM, said:

Based on this photo I found it looks like you could absolutely put on a telephoto lens (which is a fixed lens that is already zoomed for you), but I imagine that if she were already in the thick of the action she wasn't carrying around a bag of photo equipment with her.


She kind of was, but it got exploded :(

#19 Smigg.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:48 AM

I watched about 15 minutes of this movie, and ended that 15 minutes with the lone note I made being "I want to kick Paul's ass for trying to make me watch this".

So, in the spirit of participation, I'm just going to randomly throw in comments about things I like in general.

So, here's the first.

I'm playing God of War, I LOVE The Witch, she's just so great, to the point of wanting Santa Monica Studios to do DLC which has more of her. Lovely character.

Posted Image

#20 taylor anne photo

    A Most Peculiar Mademoiselle

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,686 posts
  • LocationDeep in the heart of Texas

Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:58 AM

View Posttomspanks, on 25 May 2018 - 07:46 AM, said:

She kind of was, but it got exploded :(

Oh that's sad cause that was probably a lot of money for her that she just lost. I certainly hope whoever sent her out there to cover this whole thing reimburses her.
"Taylor doesn't comment often, but when she does, she burns the whole fuckin' place down." - CakeBug Tranch