To add a bit to the other answers, the minor dominant is fine in a minor (or major) key.

The pattern v-i does not have the same cadential effect as V-i.

Many composers use v rather than V in non-cadential progressions; one example is a repeated cycle of fifths in a minor key.

One often sees i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii0-v-i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii0-V7-i.

For that matter, most minor fugues go to the minor v and use the V chord in cadences.

Your sequence looks fine.

It's a bit like the minor version of the Romanesca (Pachelbel's Canon) sequence.

In a major key one gets I-V-vi-iii or I-V-vi-I64 or I-V-vi-I63 (the V and iii are often in first inversion so the bass line moves downward by steps.)

In a minor key, the sequence would be i-v6-VI-III6 which (to me) seems smoother as the iii chord is not that "strong" sounding in a major key.

The main point of the V or V7 (or vii0 or vii06 or inversions) in a major is to proceed to the tonic.

Using v or v6 (and VII for that matter) often sounds better (at least to me again) in non-cadential progressions (and makes the cadences stand out, if that's wanted.)

Firsttly, get rid of the notion that there's a natural minor key .

There isn't.

There are minor scales , including the natural minor, but a minor key can and does have several different incarnations.

It's probably more common to have the dominant chord in a minor key as a major (or dominant seventh), but there's nothing wrong with using the minor chord in its place.

Listen to Black Magic Woman.

That's an example.

All that apart, if you think it sounds good, use it.

It won't be wrong - there really are few 'wrongs' in music - those that are usually stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.

While you're learning theory, always bear in mind it tries to explain what happens far more than trying to provide a set of 'rules'.

They really become known as 'rules' because they are heard to work well.

You can use anything.

In music, all rules are made to be broken.

Analysing you chord progression, they have all 7 notes of the C Major Scale.

So, yes, it makes sense theoretically.

If you want to stay 100% on A Minor Scale, change the G notes for G#.

The chord progression will be this: Am,

E, E/G#, Dm Where E/G# is the first inversion of E Major chord.

After all that mess I made previously, guess I finally understood your doubt, Jordan.

Beg my pardon.

Let's analyse your chord progression note by note: Am:

A, C,

E Em:

E, G

, B G:

G, B, D Dm(maj7):

D, F, A, C#

As we hear chord by chord, we get an expectation that is not fullfilled on the 4th chord.

The Am and Em chords give us five notes that points towards two possibilities of Major Scales> C major or G major (it will depent if the next chord uses F or F#).

The 3rd chord, G, adds a new note, D, which belongs both to C and G major, so "there is nothing new" here.

The magic happens on the 4th chord, Dm(maj7).

Its III degree gives us the final clue we needed for which major scale the chord progression is> C major.

But, you added a note that doesn't belong to none of these scales> the C# note.

It made a change of sensations, but somehow it doesn't sound so awkward.

I'll give my 2 bets on the next reply below.

When you bring up "functional harmony" and "major dominant" in minor those are concepts from common practice style harmony, so-called "classical" music.

But these are the conventions of that particular style.

While they are normal in that style they aren't required in other styles.

A progression like i - v - VII - iv reminds me of

I V vi IV in rock music where functional dominant harmony (a true major dominant chord moving to the tonic) is deliberately avoided and part of the style.

FWIW, in such progressions where you can identify three primary chords (tonic, subdominant, dominant)

it should sound very tonally solid and you can order the chords just about any way you like.

If you are trying to work within a particular style, follow the conventions.

Otherwise do whatever you want.

Make a new style, make hybrid styles.

Question: I'm currently studing and learning about functional harmony and chord progressions.  I tried the chord progression i - v - VII - iv (A natural minor scale : Am - Em - G - Dm7/A) and get a nice and melancolic mood, for my ears.  But I don't really know if this chord progression make sense tecnically.  It's normal to use a Minor dominant in a natural minor key? Or should I use an Major dominant to turn the scale harmonic?

Can I use the chord progression i - v - VII - iv? (Am - Em - G - Dm : in A minor scale)

It makes sense theoretically. Analysing your chord progression, they have all 7 notes of the C Major Scale. If you want to be  precise on A Minor Scale, change the G notes for G#.

A minor key has have several different incarnations. It's probably more common to have the dominant chord in a minor key as a major (or dominant seventh)

You can use anything. In music, all rules are made to be broken. So, yes, it makes sense theoretically. If you want to stay 100% on A Minor Scale, change the G notes for G#.


I learned the treble clef first by a long way.

I learned it by the mnemonic FACE.

When I eventually came to learn the bass clef I simply used the mnemonic ACEG.

After quite a short while it just became natural.

I didn't ever do any calculations of any kind.

I knew that middle C was shared.

Later I connected the lower ledger lines on the treble clef with the upper notes on the bass clef.

This happened automatically.

My recommendation Don't do any kind of calculation.

Just learn the lines and spaces as you did when you learned the treble clef.

music.stackexchange.com/users/21436/chasly - reinstate Monica

Don’t read by adding semitones, this is a wrong way.

You better start reading the bass clef by studying and practicing a piece like this: Mind that the upper ledger lines of the lower system are the corresponding lower lines of the upper system and vice versa.

Study the link

In the comment of guidot.

The real cognitive insight is not transposing the names in the system.

What you must realize is that the ledger lines c,a,f,d are identical with the lines of the bass system.

When understanding this point you are able to read bass, tenor and alt clefs: you don’T have to transpose 3 semitones, you just move the system up and down.

"My question is: what is a 'right' cognitive process to read sheet music fluently?

I wonder how one does not confuse reading notes in different clefs."

I am not sure there is a 'right' process, or method.

Some of the methods we are taught as children are, in my opinion, very flawed and create more distraction than actual learning.

The best method is repetition.

You don't want to have to go through the math every time you change clefs but the more practice

you get the sooner the training wheels come off.

I think Albrecht Hugli provided a good answer, though it seems to be down voted.

For me what works is the realization that everything is relative.

All you really need to do is identify one note on the clef and pair it with your instrument.

A good example is middle C.

Then all the other lines and spaces just follow the alphabet (A -> G, repeat).

It really can't get easier than that.

Sight reading and reading for a specific instrument are different skills.

On the guitar for example you need to not only read the note but decide which version of it to play since some notes can be found in 3 or 4 places.

You can practice reading the notes by letter name out loud independently of finding them on your instrument.

That is a good way to eliminate the crutch of "Every Good Boy Does Fine", or "Add three semitones", etc.

There are books out there that recommend just this exercise.

Once I started doing that after a short while all other methods just dropped out of my mind

and I just ID

the letter immediately regardless of clef.

It's not really wrong but it's better to learn the bass (and alto and tenor a bit later) clef as a thing in itself.

Reading and playing piano and organ music helps.

The point is to think of the Grand Staff as the object of interest, (for keyboards) with a bass clef, middle C ledger line, then treble clef.

Later you can learn the C-clefs.

It just takes practice.

Lots of practice.

When you read English (or whatever your native language is, assuming it's alphabetic), do you read the letters individually and sound them out to form words?

Of course not; long ago you achieved reading fluency.

Same with music - with enough practice you just look at the score and automatically play what's in front of you.

It doesn't matter if one staff is in treble and the other in bass, or if both staffs are in bass, or if the top staff is in bass and the bottom in treble for some hand-crossing passage, or if the composer decided to write in 3 or 4 staffs to make the voicing more clear.

Just as there are debates (see phonics vs whole language) about the best way for children to learn reading English, there are debates about how people should learn to read music, but, just as for English, it probably doesn't matter that much in the long run.

If you start playing chamber music with cellists or violists, you learn to fluently read tenor and alto clef

so you can follow what they're doing.

Probably you can depend on your tenor clef experience for B-flat instruments (though the few measures Brahms wrote for clarinet in A-sharp are quite annoying).

There will be better answers but for in short

I believe your method is okay.

Because now you are counting them but

soon after you will start to memorize them one by one.

In short time it looks efficient.

Also to memorize them you can draw a staff and write all notes on it once a day.

It may help you to memorize them so that you will stop counting.

Also you can try this website

Question: I have a question about practising reading in different clefs.  I know the treble clef well. When I read a note in the bass clef,  I mentally add 3 semitones to it, so I get the note name in the treble clef.However, I'm suspecting that this method will hinder my sightreading speed: I'm not reading the note instantly.  My question is: what is a 'right' cognitive process to read sheet music fluently? I wonder how one does not confuse reading notes in different clefs.

Sheet music reading and cognitive process?

The best method is repetition.  The more practice you get the easier it gets over time.

I think Albrecht Hugli provided a good answer, though it seems to be down voted.

The best method is repetition. All you really need to do is identify one note on the clef and pair it with your instrument.  What works is the realization that everything is relative.

It doesn't matter if one staff is in treble and the other in bass, or if both staffs are in bass. Just as there are debates about the best way for children to learn reading English, there are also debates about how people should learn to read music.


The truth is that the most startling thing about the brother's death is the complete lack of exposition of its circumstances.

Nobody follows up, asks or even hints at what might have caused it.

I think this is a nice move for Malick to pull because it gives the story an almost biblical sense.

As a predominantly spiritual work, dwelling on details like how exactly a person dies are simply distracting.

Like the "she's my sister" trick and locusts in Days of Heaven, it's clear that Malick is taking some cues from the Old Testament here.

The Old Testament almost never goes into detail about the circumstances in which a person dies, it's much more interested in the spiritual lessons surrounding the death.

The lessons of the brother's death and how the family comes to grips with it are not meant to be contingent on any particular circumstance, they are meant to be universal and timeless.

People die all the time, often in ways which we find unjust.

The issue to deal with isn't how they died, it's how we relate to it.

And by breaking our narrative expectations and hiding the cause of death, Malick draws our attention to this point.

Which isn't to say that I'm against speculating about what might have killed him, it's just that taken in context, it's clear that the film is intentionally drawing our attention away from that question.

Though I have no evidence, I assumed the son died in some military-related incident because it was delivered by telegram which is a seemingly cold, sterile and impersonal fashion to deliver such news.

I just assumed the implication was this was a death related to military activity.

It makes the most sense, if one assumes suicide.

That better explains why the eldest son blames the father; in other words, formative moments in the middle son's life, and a lack of affection from the father towards his sons, are suggested as being contributors to the death...

The following, lifted from thepointmag.com , is poignant and insightful:

We cannot leave alone the question of R.L.’s death, though.

As a suicide, it is much more significant than random death in military combat, since it relates to the sorrow and meaninglessness of existence...

I think Jack’s memory of R.L., his playmate and childhood companion, coupled with the reality of his suicide, provokes his own existential quandaries, just as Larry Malick’s suicide is a ghost haunting Malick’s thoughts on meaning in his films.

I know that you are not supposed to interpret a director's work as their autobiography, but if you read a little about Terrence Malick I think it becomes clear that he has included many elements of his own life.

His brother was a creative, sensitive guitar player who committed suicide at about 19 or 20.

The movie often shows a young boy with significant burns on the side of his head, and Terrence Malick's other brother was also burned.

There is also a suggestion of a noose in the beginning of the movie.

Because of the evidence, I think it is reasonable to assume that R.L. committed suicide.

In the early days of the Vietnam War death notifications became so commonplace, and the military so unprepared for the great numbers of death notices that they were delivered by telegram.

The practice was later changed and representatives of the deceased military service would personally deliver the death notification.

The telegram delivery is a pivotal scene because it shows how "wrong" a life is that simply focuses on nature and ignores grace.

What could be worse than a strangers handing a note to a mother to read alone that her 20 year-old son was now dead.

Similarly, the grandmother stating to the grieving mother, "people die and life must go on" is so devoid of grace that we see ignoring the grace aspect of life, however inconvenient, will even override nature.

This is reinforced by the dying dinosaur scene when the dinosaur leaves the injured dinosaur without killing it.

Grace has its proper place in nature.

To be honest, I gained the impression from the film that R.L. jumped off that waterfall into the water.

That was just my opinion though.

Question: In the beginning of the movie 'Tree of Life', Mrs. O'Brien (Jessica Chastain) receives a telegram (or was it a regular piece of mail?) notifying her that her son has died. According to  Wikipedia  this happens in the mid 1960's.  Is there any suggestion of how her son R.L. (Laramie Eppler) has died? Does Terrence Malick intend to keep this ambiguous? Can we even be certain that it was R.L. who died?

How does the son (R.L.) die?

Though I have no evidence, I assumed the son died in some military-related incident because it was delivered by telegram which is a seemingly cold, sterile and impersonal fashion to deliver such news. In the early days of the Vietnam War death notifications became so commonplace, and the military so unprepared for the great numbers of death notices that they were delivered by telegram.  The practice was later changed and representatives of the deceased military service would personally deliver the death notification.

Though there is no evidence, it is assumed that the son died in some military-related incident because it was delivered by telegram. The implication was this was a death related to military activity. The telegram is a seemingly cold, sterile and impersonal fashion to deliver such news.


Well, let's think about this, why are only humans used for the harvesting power?

Where are all the organisms?

You know the ones that don't need the sun.

Morpheus:

A singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines.

We don't know who struck first - us, or them.

But we know it was us that scorched the sky.

At the time they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.

One could say that all organisms became extinct?

But that's stretching it.

The machines must have been smart enough to take some organisms with them and mass produce.

Just based on logistics, you would be able to save on computing power to run the simulation.

Seriously, the amount of 3D rendering that goes on in the Matrix must be a lot

Next part, everyone is all on the ship training Neo to be the one and all that

so after Cypher talks to Neo and gives him the drink on the ship how in the world did he boot into the Matrix for dinner with Mr.

Smith?

Was it someone else?

No, because Cypher was on shift that night to monitor code on the Matrix.

So let's say he managed to get in.

Who got him out?

There are many more holes, I will have to watch it again to remember.

Notice, this is all based on the first movie.

Now that I think about it, I think the biggest inconsistency - besides Neo suddenly gaining power in 'the real world' at the end of the second film - is the travel that Neo takes to get to The Architect in the second film, and

The Architect's implication that this Neo is the 7th (or perhaps more

- it's been a while since I saw the film) version to meet him.

There are a few problems with this: The free will of other people in each incarnation.

Does this mean that in each incarnation, there was an incarnation of Cypher that betrayed his teammates?

The fact that each incarnation was Keanu Reeves.

It would have made more sense to have 7 different people representing Neo on the screen, seeing as how Keanu Reeves couldn't possibly have been born the same way each time (in theory, if the machines had a copy of his DNA, I suppose this could be true, but this seems like a stretch even for the world of The Matrix)

The path that got Neo to The Architect.

Neo interacts with a number of 'old' programs, programs that supposedly have been around during each incarnation of The Matrix.

None of them seems to have learned anything from their interaction with Neo, and Agent Smith is radically changed in this incarnation.

If each incarnation led a similar path to The Architect (with the only major difference being Neo's reaction to the nature of The Matrix and his choice of saving Trinity or restarting the whole process), then Agent Smith should have been somehow been able to retain his power from one incarnation to another (after all, it's implied in Matrix Reloaded that he's no longer part of The Matrix, but is outside of it).

The biggest one that springs to mind is the fact that he is 'all powerful' within the matrix by the end of the first film, and actually stops it from running.

Then in the next film he's just quite good at fighting, but not really omnipotent like in the first film.

For me, the greatest inconsistency is the Neo with superpowers at the end of the second movie in the 'real world'.

It's a cheap trick that breaks the matrix own rules with the universe showed in the first movie.

Well, I was very much convinced with the first part and even the second part for that matter where the version of matrix gets upgrading.

In fact the Viral concept of Agent Smith could not have been depicted more appropriately.

But hell broke loose in the third part.

I personally prefer they never took it.

Neo being blind and having a vision in the live world is totally out of context and can be called as "nuts".

Well I think this trilogy suffers from many problems that stem from the fact that it was never "planned" to be a trilogy.

Like many other movies (Back to the Future, Pirates of the Caribbean etc.), the first movie was written as a standalone story without any purposely created plot holes for future explanation.

What this means is that additional story telling based on the first movie will have to be then "made up" on the spot and tacked on to the original story.

While there aren't any severe inconsistencies, many viewers can tell that many sequel story elements might not necessarily fit with the tonality of the the original.

This in itself could "turn off" many fans to the sequels of these films.

This of course isn't specific to just movie though.

The same can be found in TV shows, comics and books as well.

Question: Lots of people reject both Matrix sequels, but do they have a good solid reason?  Personally, I watched all three with the same level of wonder and interest.  I listened carefully and pieced together the fictional universe as details emerged.  Everything seems to fit; There's nothing I can put my finger on that is contradictory.   Please make answers specific and detailed ; leave generalized,  "sequels just suck, 'cause..."  answers for the forthcoming,  "Why do all sequels suck?"  question.

Are there specific plot inconsistencies in The Matrix Trilogy?

Well I think this trilogy suffers from many problems that stem from the fact that it was never "planned" to be a trilogy. The first movie was written as a standalone story without any purposely created plot holes for future explanation. While there aren't any severe inconsistencies, many viewers can tell that many sequel story elements might not necessarily fit with the tonality of the the original.

The first movie was written as a standalone story without any purposely created plot holes. Additional story telling based on the first movie will have to be then "made up" on the spot and tacked on to the original story. Many viewers can tell that many sequel story elements might not necessarily fit with the tonality of the the original.


Roger Avary , the co-writer of Pulp Fiction says: Originally the briefcase contained diamonds.

But that just seemed too boring and predictable.

So it was decided that the contents of the briefcase were never to be seen.

This way each audience member would fill in the blank with their own ultimate contents.

All you were supposed to know was that it was "so beautiful."

No prop master can come up with something better than each individual's imagination.

At least that was the original idea.

Then somebody had the bright idea (which I think was a mistake) of putting an orange lightbulb in there.

Suddenly what could have been anything became anything supernatural.

Didn't need to push the effect.

People would have debated it for years anyway, and it would have been much more subtle.

I can't believe I'm actually talking about being subtle. from Roger Ebert's Questions for the Movie Answer Man

Well, people try and make tenuous Links between Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction .

By that, I mean people try and see if they hold up as sequels, whether continuity-wise they can work.

A logical opinion is to say that the diamonds that are stolen in Reservoir Dogs are what are in the brief case in Pulp Fiction .

However, Harvey Keitel and Quentin Tarantino act as two different people in both films.

So, this still doesn't hold true.

I heard a theory that it was Wallace's soul that was in the case.

Evidence for losing his soul is the injury on the back of his neck.

However, that seems far fetched.

I've always assumed (despite Avary's explanation) that it was a clever movie reference to the McGuffins in two previous movies.

The most recent being the great Repo Man

(Dir Alex Cox, 1984)

where a briefcase purported to contain alien remains and which glows mysteriously is a key thread.

This, in turn, may have some relationship with the case of radioactive material in the great noir thriller Kiss Me

Deadly (Dir Robert Aldrich, 1955).

If you are going to include references to other movies (a known Tarantino trait)

those are two awesome movies to reference.

I heard the theory that @JosephLynn mentioned about it being Wallace's soul - and relating it to the injury on the back of his neck.

The theory only has slim backing - the glow, the band-aid, the combination of the briefcase (666) and the 'miracle' that happens as Vince and Jules come to take the soul back, perhaps rescuing it from the devil.

Obviously the quote from Avery saying that they didn't have a fixed idea of what it was kind of trumps that.

Until reading the other answers here I always assumes that it contained gold bars because of the orange glow.

I know this is a slightly boring conclusion

but I don't think that Pulp Fiction is supernatural in any way and the theory about Wallace's soul is just silly.

It had to be something very valuable due to Tim Roth's reaction to it and the colour of the glow

makes me think gold rather than diamonds.

I'm afraid I must also weigh in with boring old, run of the mill diamonds.

I read that Tarantino didn't want to use diamonds (even though that's what is in the briefcase according to the script) because he'd just come off Reservoir Dogs which featured a diamond heist.

Question: In Pulp Fiction, there is a briefcase which has contents that are kept very secret. What item is most likely to be in the briefcase?

What has the greatest chance of being in Marcellus Wallace's briefcase?

Well, people try and make tenuous Links between  Reservoir Dogs  and  Pulp Fiction . A logical opinion is to say that the diamonds that are stolen in  Reservoir Dogs  are what are in the brief case in  Pulp Fiction but the colour of the glow coming from the brief case makes me think it is gold rather than diamonds. I also heard a theory that it was Wallace's soul that was in the case and losing his soul caused the inury on the back of his neck.

The briefcase might contain gold rather than diamonds.

In both movies, Harvey Keit and Quentin act as different characters. It is said that it was Wallace's spirit that inhabited the case. It can be inferred that he has lost his soul because of the damage to his back of his neck. On the other hand, this idea seems far-fetched.


There is a definitive answer to one part of this question: Is it likely that the producers simply overlooked this?

No.

It was intentionally removed from the original draft .

(Obviously this version is fairly different)

Here's the original ending of the script: INSERT – CLIPPING A story with the headline, “Police Quell Near Riot At School Dance,” along with a photo of the dance that shows Marty on stage!

GEORGE stares at the photo, then shakes his head.

GEORGE Nah.

Couldn’t be.

Even if they would notice, they would never accept it as a truth, because it is much against a normal understanding of the world.

It would be probably like:

"Ever notice how much Marty looks like that one guy I nearly fell in love with?"

Yeah, funny that".

And thats it

They could never imagine/reason, that Marty did time travel.

So it is not even a possibility and therefore would not seem to be strange.

Remember that cat your parents took in for one week when you were a child?

Isn't it strange that it looks exactly like the kitten you've been raising down to the last stripe?

You don't remember what that cat looked like?

I don't remember my childhood best friend's face very well

and I knew him for years.

Had I met him and known him for only a week I doubt I would even remember the details.

This isn't a plot hole.

Suppose the parents did notice the similarity.

What would the chances be that they noticed exactly in

the '85 time frames the movie shows?

Nil.

It doesn't matter

His parents never mention the similarity in the movie because: Before the 1955 part of the movie, it would be somewhat of a spoiler.

After the 1955 part of the movie, it might have worked, but it would have been "cute dialog of convenience" and not really realistic there.

Ultimately, if you accept the underlying premise of Back to the Future which is that if key events stay more or less the same, the future will be unchanged, then you have to accept that whether his parents saw the similarity or not is irrelevant.

This is good news.

You can either choose to believe they never noticed a similarity, or you can choose to believe that at some point in Marty's alternate youth, his parents showed him a picture of this guy he bears an uncanny resemblance to, and none of them including alternate past Marty had any idea it actually was him yet, and then they went about the rest of their lives normally.

Whether either theory is correct is irrelevant, because according to the rules of the BTTF universe, it doesn't actually change anything.

Who is to say they DIDN'T notice and comment on it...

but we didn't see it?

What would they have said anyway?

Lorraine :

Wow, Marty!

You look just like a highschool friend of ours.

(To George) Honey, c'mere!

Look at Marty.

Doesn't he look like that friend of yours, Kevin?

George :

You mean Calvin?

Oh yeah, he does!

Shame

we don't have any photos of him.

Honestly, if he hadn't had disappeared all those years ago, I'd have sworn you'd been cheating on me!

Lorraine :

Oh, honey!

As if I'd cheat on you...

George : I know,

dear.

*kiss

* Hmm.

Is Biff done with that car yet?

What would YOUR parents say if you resembled a childhood friend they hadn't seen in 30 years?

It was 30 years ago for Marty's parents.

I can barely remember what happened 30 days ago, I can't imagine remembering something from 30 years prior.

Now given that Marty's parents encounter with "Calvin Klein" is what brought them together,

I doubt they could remember what he looked like some 30 years later.

I would say it's plausible that they would remember his name, but not his face.

Question: Although Marty is only in 1955 for one week, he plays a pivotal role in getting his parents together. He even briefly dates his mother. So, considering he plays such a pivotal role, does it make sense that his parents never mention that he looks so similar to their old friend?  Is it not mentioned to simply cover up a plot hole, or is it likely that the producers simply overlooked this?

Why don't Marty's parents ever mention how similar he looks to the Marty of 1955?

His parents never mention the similarity in the movie because:   Before the 1955 part of the  movie, it would be somewhat of a spoiler.  After the 1955 part of the movie, it might have worked, but it would have been "cute dialog of convenience" and not really realistic there.

Even if they would notice, they would never accept it as a truth.

His parents never mention the similarity in the movie. After the 1955 part of the movie, it might have worked, but it would have been "cute dialog of convenience" and not really realistic there. Ultimately, if you accept the underlying premise of Back to the Future  which is that if key events stay more or less the same, the future will be unchanged


Well for the first film and for most of the second, the Bride is on a revenge mission where she is hunting her victims.

Her identity would have to be a secret to make sure she doesn't get followed or caught.

It could be Tarantino's way of breaking the 4th wall and including us in the element of mystery and disguise that the Bride has to undertake to remain anonymous.

Also, this could mean we are meant to detached emotionally from her as a character until her name is finally revealed as Beatrix Kiddo by Elle Driver.

This is when we see the character as fully vulnerable and when she opens up her emotions.

So Tarantino thought of this as the opportune moment to unveil all secrets of this character.

Or perhaps it was just Tarantino being weird and awesome.

From the script : From an interview with Uma Thurman : Why do they bleep your name?

That one eludes me.

You'll find out her name.

You will definitely find out her name, I can tell you right now, but that'd ruin it.

From an interview with Vivica A. Fox :

What name do you and Uma say when they bleep it out?

Beatrix.

Her name is Beatrix.

It is weird right?

Even when I saw the screening of it the other day I thought, “Are people going to get that?

You never hear her name.

She’s just The Bride.

Whenever I go, “Sweetie this is an old friend of mommy’s, Beatrix, Beatrix, this is my daughter,” it’s bleeps.

And she goes, “Hi honey, my name is…” and it bleeps.

See, you’ve got to go see it again.

Why does he do that?

Because he wants you to come back and see it again and figure out what the hell her name is.

Just to add little things.

Just a quirk.

There were several hints about the name, giving people the opportunity to figure it out before it was eventually revealed in Volume 2 .

For example, when she buys a plane ticket to Japan her name is visible on the boarding pass : Where did the name Beatrix Kiddo come from?

From an interview with Quentin Tarantino : Uma came up with the name Beatrix -- she worked for somebody with that name.

And I came up with Kiddo.

That's what I call women -- when I really like a girl, I call her "kiddo".

Speculation:

Quentin Tarantino is a known fan of Jean-Luc Godard (

his production company A Band

Apart was named after Godard's movie Bande à part ).

In Godard's movie Made in the U.S.A. there is a running gag : Godard censors Richard’s second name with all kinds of sounds possible.

So maybe this was Tarantino's inspiration.

Her name is bleeped because she cannot be named until she deserves to.

Throughout the film she has 4 names.

In chronological order the first event of the story is the wedding massacre.

At this point she is Black Mamba.

She is shot in the head by Bill.

This is the death of Black Mamba.

She wakes up four years later.

This is the birth of The Bride.

Now The Brides sole purpose is to take up the sword and wreak havoc on those who wronged her.

She kills O-Ren with the sword and Vernita with a knife.

She becomes dependent on the sword.

So much so that she underestimates Budd.

Her plan is of course to attack Budd in his trailer with the sword.

This immediately backfires when Budd shoots her with rock salt and disarms her.

What happens next is the most significant part of the film.

Having her sword taken away from her she is now powerless.

Budd nails her in a wooden coffin and buries her alive.

This is the death of The Bride.

It is during this burial that through remembering her training with Pai Mei she realizes she doesn't need to rely on the sword.

Her power lies in her hands.

She punches her way out of the coffin.

This is the birth of Beatrix Kiddo.

From here on her name will not be bleeped and she will not use the sword again.

Beatrix doesn't kill Budd, Elle Driver does.

Beatrix snatches Elle's other eye out leaving her completely blind.

It is questioned in the end credits whether Elle dies or not as she is left blind in Budd's trailer with a deadly Black Mamba snake.

After this, only Bill is left.

She tracks him down ready to kill him when suddenly she is killed.

Well symbolically of course.

She is shocked at the sudden realization that her daughter is still alive.

Her daughter shoots her with a toy gun.

Beatrix falls to the ground (dies) and is woken up by B.B. (her daughter).

She is reborn as "Mommy".

An explanation based on secrecy from other characters isn't self-consistent or internally consistent.

She is hunting people who know who she is and beeping the name for the audience doesn't stop the characters knowing who she is (the name isn't beeped for the characters but for the audience ).

And the people she is hunting know they are being hunted by her.

Careful attention to what characters say to her before her name is revealed to the audience, however, suggests a different explanation.

Several times she is referred to as "kiddo" by other characters, especially Bill, which the audience will interpret as a term of endearment if they don't know her name is Kiddo.

They can then reinterpret the earlier scenes when the real name is revealed.

This subtle misdirection seems a plausible motivation for Tarantino.

I thought it was a humorously heavy-handed ploy to evoke Clint Eastwood's " Man with No Name " character in Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Western films.

It's basically just a reference to 'Made In U.S.A' and...

that's pretty much it.

That's the only reason anything happens in that movie; it's just there to remind you of another movie.

Question: In the movie  Kill Bill Vol.1 , whenever someone mentions the bride by her name   Beatrix Kiddo   Her name is censored with a beep. Is this explained somewhere in the movie? Or is it just a signature that Tarantino leaves?

Why is the bride's name beeped in Kill Bill Vol 1?

The bride is hunting people who know who she is and beeping the name for the audience doesn't stop the characters knowing who she is. So,the name isn't beeped for the characters  but for the  audience.

Tarantino's character's name is beeped for the audience, but not for the characters. The audience is unaware of her real name. Other characters refer to her as "kiddo" several times. When the real name is revealed, the audience can reinterpret the earlier scenes


I don't think it had any plot driven change.

The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements.

A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer.

They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done.

They then decided to switch back to more 'classic'

Bond approaches with Brosnan.

Love the other answers already given but one extra contributory factor may be that, and you may not remember this, there was a huge backlash against 'Die Another Day's over-use of frankly bullshit technology and the makers commented at the time that they knew they'd gone too far.

In particular the invisible car was just laughed at when I saw it theatrically, as was the huge laser that could destroy land targets but seemed to only warm up the plane gradually, plus the ice-hotel, the VR headset and a number of other items that not only didn't add anything but actually made the film laughable.

The new movies starring Daniel Craig were intended as a reboot of the series.

As part of that reboot it seems that they have moved away from having so many gadgets and are focusing more on the character's own abilities.

After seeing the preview to the new movie Skyfall, I think there might be another possible explanation.

In the preview, they introduce Q for the first time in the reboot.

They also seem to imply that Q is going to "revitalize" MI6, maybe with more emphasis on tech support instead of purely physical methods of getting information (as Daniel Craig has done in the earlier movies).

Perhaps there are not as many gadgets because this reboot emphasizes the beginning of 007 and is before Q is there to create the gadgets.

I don't think Bond is less "tech savvy" in the new Bond films.

It is a definite move away from the Moore/Brosnan era.

The new approach to the character is less tech driven and moves more toward the literary character.

Although the Bourne films can be credited for the more gritty fight scenes and slick editing, you only have to look back at From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service for early examples of this style of Bond.

Both of these Bond films were credited to be nearer the literary character than any other and were also very low tech in comparison to other movies.

It would seem that the Daniel Craig Bond is a step in this direction which (for me) is a very good thing.

It could be due to the now wider spread knowledge of technology.

People are more educated about science and technology now and would be less willing to forget or believe any of these technical feats.

Instinctively they reject them.

It's laughable for a person such as James Bond to know so much about gadgets and technology which would make anyone who is a little tech-savvy laugh and mock what's been done in previous movies of the franscise

(eg think about Roger Moore disarming a nuclear bomb in 'The Spy who Loved Me' and never even sweats!, or the bond-turned-star-wars in 'Die Another Day', or I can think of at least 8 other laughable occassions).

I find the approach that started with Daniel Craig definitely more realistic.

Daniel Craig's Bond is not a superhuman, he's grounded, he's in pain

, he hurts, he doesn't have an answer and a joke for everything and as such the audience can sympathize with him.

Other spy movies like Bourne (which was better than almost all Bond movies at the time) or Mission Impossible influenced this turn of the tide.

Question: The most recent installments of  James Bond  (ones featuring Daniel Craig) have fewer gadgets but more raw action (like the chase sequences in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace). Is it because of plot related changes to the MI:6 or have the movies been altered to suit the audiences?

Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies?

It could be due to the now wider spread knowledge of technology.People are more educated about science and technology now and would be less willing to forget or believe any of these technical feats.

Invisible car, huge laser, VR headset and ice-hotel among items that made film laughable. Inventive car was just laughed at when I saw it theatrically, says reviewer. People are more educated about science and technology now and would be less willing to forget or believe any of these technical feats.


The hat is a tangible representation of Byrne's dilemma.

The point to be noted is that his dilemma has so much prominence that it deserves a character of its own.

There are many scenes in the movie when the hat disappears at moments of clarity and magically reappears on the stairs, exactly at the birth of some new confusion.

Choosing a hat was also a very wise decision as it is something very personal to a character, to the extent that it could define a person, just like the confusion in his head.

Just my tuppence worth

A scene in the movie provides a lovely explanation of the hat: Verna:

What're you chewin' over?

Tom Reagan: Dream I had once.

I was walkin' in the woods, I don't know why.

Wind came up and blew me hat off.

Verna:

And you chased it,

right?

You ran and ran, finally caught up to it

and you picked it up.

But it wasn't a hat anymore

and it changed into something else, something wonderful.

Tom Reagan:

Nah, it stayed a hat

and no

, I didn't chase it.

Nothing more foolish than a man chasin' his hat.

It's a symbol of death.

"Ever since Thucydides wrote his history, it has been on record that when the angel of death sounds his trumpet the pretenses of civilization are blown from men's heads into the mud like hats in a gust of wind ."

-- George Bernard Shaw, Heartbreak House

After much conversation with my husband about this symbol, I feel that the hat symbolizes home for Tom. "

Home is where you hang your hat".

Tom spends the entire film wandering between different "families" in search of a place to belong.

Hence the dream of his hat blowing away from him.

His hat is the only home he's got.

I've only seen the movie twice, but this is the impression I got from the hat.

It represents composure and control.

While Tom would never chase his hat through the woods, he does express a want for his hat every time he loses it.

And he seems to lose it every time he loses control of a situation: someone ambushes him, he gets drunk and gambles it away, or he gets socked in the face.

The reason he wouldn't chase his hat is because he's very worried about the impression he gives others.

He values dignity and the image of keeping a cool head even when he's in very hot water.

If he has his hat, he's composed, and if he's composed, he's still got some control of the situation.

The theory, that the hat is a man's dignity is pretty damn good.

Throughout the movie, as said, several times he loses his hat, it gets thrown away or knocked off his head.

With the dream about his hat, how the woman goes on a totally different route, on saying the hat changed into something else, more beautiful.

Tommy responds: "Naah, it stayed a hat, nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat."

This implies that no man chases his dignity.

A man has dignity.

He puts his hat on firmly during the end scene.

It always seemed to me that Tom (Gabriel Byrne) says 'hat' in a way that sounds a lot like 'heart.'

"Nothing more foolish than a man chasing his heart" is a reasonable synopsis of the movie.

Leo (Albert Finney's character) chases his heart trying to win Verna, and nearly loses everything for it.

Tom spends the movie chasing his heart as well.

He may be sincerely attracted to Verna, but he seems to realize that she may be using him.

He also has deep loyalty to Leo.

He takes risks for both.

In the end his friendship with Leo wins out.

Tom fixes things for Leo and keeps him safe.

Tom is not sentimental about it, though, and sacrifices Bernie, thereby losing Verna.

The risks he takes for Leo may be a bit foolish, but Tom is not so governed by chasing his heart that he fails to take more cold-hearted calculations into account.

To me, the hat symbolizes letting go of everything and being in the moment.

In that moment, he doesn't chase the hat.

He's out of hope, out of future, head full of static.

I always took the hat as a metaphor to a lid or cap on Tom's feelings and emotions.

Like how much he does care for Verna and Leo, even though he acts like he doesn't.

Verna even has his hat once, and Leo's people knock it off a few times with punches.

He is a very closed person, and never wants people to know his true intentions because he plays everyone.

The hat signifies pride, as in one of the seven deadly sins.

Virtually every calamity in the movie stems from pride.

Caspar's pride is stung in the opening scene where he accuses Tom and Leo of giving him the "high hat."

That spurs the war.

Bernie returns after being given a second chance because his pride is stung at the thought of Tom having seen him grovel.

In the end, Leo puts on his hat, and Tom his, and they part, even though they love one another.

Their pride covers up the meaning of their relationship and ultimately drives them apart, just as it drives Vera and Tom apart.

Question: Miller's crossing pays a lot of attention to Gabriel Byrne's hat.  Does it symbolize anything in the movie or have any significance to the plot or is this a bit of a red herring?

What is the significance of the hat in Miller's crossing?

It's a symbol of death.
It's a symbol of death.

It's a symbol of death.  "Ever since Thucydides wrote his history, it has been on record that  when the angel of death sounds his trumpet the pretenses of civilization are blown from men's heads into the mud like hats in a gust of wind ."-- George Bernard Shaw, Heartbreak House


It is slightly odd, because other senses appear to be able to penetrate more than one layer, although they are severely attenuated.

For example, when they are in Level 2 - someone says "did you feel that, was that turbulence on the plane" (which is Level 0), to which Eames says "no, too close, Yusuf's driving probably".

He doesn't say - "of course not, you wouldn't feel anything down here,

must be Yusuf's driving".

Then there is the Edith Piaf song used to synchronize the kick.

That is played by Yusuf into Arthur's ears in Level 1, yet is heard (faintly) in Level 3.

Then there is the 'second kick' that they experience when the van hits the water, this is felt in Level 3

- showing that something should be felt of the free-fall even at that layer.

If senses are attenuated with each layer it would be more realistic to think that somewhat less than free-fall would be experienced in Level 2, and some effect would be experienced in Level 3.

There is too much discrepancy between the total free-fall experienced by Arthur, and the apparent normality of skiing down a mountain that the team experience in Level 3.

Still doesn't spoil my enjoyment of it though.

Best explanation is the time mechanic.

Because time and other physics means for so little that deep, it could be that they are just deep enough that they do not feel it.

Briefly going over the scenes of the movie, they appear to be strapped down in order to not cause this free-fall effect.

A more simpler explanation is that it is just an oversight on Nolan's part.

The freefall was to wake them up from the next level (so they would feel it!)

This is how I see the "falling" happen: Level 1:

Van falling

Felt at Level 2 Level 3 feels nothing -- can get stuck.

How is this remedied?

Freefall on level 2 which will bring them back from level 3.

Ok Back from level 3 up to level 2 with freefall Back up to level 1 with van freefall Back up to level 0 with main freefall

I think because when the van drives off the bridge in level 1, that is the 'kick' for the hotel level.

When JGL activates the kick in the elevator, they feel it in the snow level.

Perhaps this can be explained by assuming that: a controlled mental projection only has enough power to travel down one level, and a kick is designed to travel up, not down.

The first premise is supported by noting that Yusuf is the dream controller for level 1, and his need to visit the men's room at level 0 causes rain at level 1 but not level 2.

Arthur is the dream controller for level 2, and his free fall at level 1 causes free fall in level 2 but not level 3.

Premise (2) relies on the idea that the purpose of a kick is to wake up all of the extractors at level 0.

You may have experienced something like this when you are having a nightmarish dream and something extremely violent happens in the dream that causes you to suddenly sit up in bed.

If you think about a kick as originating inside the dream and travelling upwards, its downward effects (if any) become irrelevant other than as a warning that all of the dreams are about to end.

It seems that each level needs an upwards kick since Arthur scrambles around setting up a kick with the elevator at level 2.

Not sure why lower levels need an upwards kick, a level 1 to level 0 kick should suffice.

One possible explanation for this is that as time multiplies with each dream level, the effects from the upper level would be felt gradually.

For e.g. In level1, the van falls into the water as a result, in level2, we get the zero gravity effect because the van is in free fall- and in level3, we have the snow avalanche - now, the van hit the bridge, started its free fall in water.

Normally this would take about 20seconds.

In level2 the free fall gives them zero gravity for a longer period, assume 10min(time is multiplied in inner dream levels).

And in level3, this effect would occur even more gradually.

So now we have 10min maginified, that makes it say 2-3hours.

The other effects would have gradually occured in that level too.

But as you know, the kick : level1 van hitting water, level2 lift propulsed with explosives resulted in the avalanche.

That means, that before those effects from level1 could have reached level3, the kick from level2 actually reached level3.

And the people got out of there quickly, they did not remain in level3 long enough for the effects to have taken place.

Question: If level 0 is the reality, the characters in the van are at level 1. The van drops off the edge of the bridge and goes into freefall. At level 2, in the hotel, they experience the freefall as well. But then, at level 3, at the fortress, (and for that matter, in limbo) there is no freefall. Why is it so?

Why aren't the characters floating two levels down?

Best explanation is the time mechanic.   A more simpler explanation is that it is just an oversight on Nolan's part.

Best explanation is the time mechanic. It could be that they are just deep enough that they do not feel it. They appear to be strapped down in order to not cause this free-fall effect.


I remember talking at some stage to a makeup artist from a film set.

They had spring-loaded syringes where the actual needle would retract into the body of the syringe.

This way they get a realistic pucker effect where the needle presses against the skin.

I am late to this discussion, but the Weapons Specialist Ltd company makes retractable syringes and all sorts of other cool props.

The website includes a video of the syringe in action.

While I do not have any official sources, I do not see them getting any actual syringes for a movie.

It is fake as with most whether they do it with CGI (which seems a bit over the top when you have) trick syringes, or I've seen before where they just imply the shot with a cut-away.

All three types of techniques are used.

Fake appendages.

You can use a real needle in these.

Common when the appendage in question will be changed or explode or anything.

All practical effects. CGI.

In bigger productions, this can be a viable alternative to a prop.

Most often though, it will be a combination of a prop and CGI.

But the most common is special effects props.

Nothing beats a solid prop in your hand.

You can see the needle retracted into the syringe here:

A DIY one:

I own In The Shadows props www.intheshadows.ca.

In all unionized productions, an actor will never be punctured with a syringe.

Movie prop syringes range from $80-$100 for low end products where the needle will retract, to $400 - $800 where the needle will retract, is spring loaded, and will come back out as the needle is pulled from the arm.

Also, the High end have a second system, where liquid can be filled into the needle (blood drawn, or what ever color liquid is coming out of your alien), or liquid injected (clear, Heroin, floating particles, etc).

This is done via a 4 foot hose connected to the side of the syringe.

At the other end is a vile with a bladder.

That is where fluid goes to when injected, or fluid comes from when liquid is drawn from the needle.

We make custom props.

However, the high end syringes take very specialized materials and craftsmanship to make.

So we purchase from trusted suppliers.

One of the best effects is having a clear liquid (i.e. heroin) in the syringe.

The bladder then has red liquid (blood), and the tube is also full of blood.

The syringe is injected (pushed against skin, and spring loaded needle goes into shaft), and a little blood is drawn into the syringe to confirm you hit a vein.

This close up is a deal seller on film.

Then the syringe is depressed shooting the heroin (into the bladder at the end of the hose).

The shot usually changes here, as the specialty syringe is replaced with a real (dulled) syringe (another prop too long to talk about).

And with a little movie adhesive, left in the arm/ leg / wherever, as the actor removes the rubber band to get stoned.

Hope this helps.

P.S. as a pro in the industry, I would never recommend trying to make your own spring loaded needle.

You never want to put an actor at risk.

Question: In the movie  Contagion ,  Jennifer Ehle's  character is shown giving herself an injection.   This got me wondering - are the injections they perform on-screen real? Do needles actually penetrate the skin and flesh of the actors?  If not (and it does seem unlikely), what techniques are commonly used to fake it? Do they have trick syringes, fake skin, CG?

How are injections given without injuring actors?

In all unionized productions, an actor will never be punctured with a syringe. Movie prop syringes range from $80-$100 for low end products where the needle will retract, to $400 - $800 where the needle will retract, is spring loaded, and will come back out as the needle is pulled from the arm. Also, the High end have a second system, where liquid can be filled into the needle

In all unionized productions, an actor will never be punctured with a syringe. Movie prop syringes range from $80-$100 for low end products where the needle will retract, to $400 - $800 for high end products. One of the best effects is having a clear liquid (i.e. heroin) in the syringe, which goes into a vile with a bladder. The bladder then has red liquid (blood), and the tube is also full of blood. The syringe is injected (pushed against skin, and spring loaded needle goes into shaft), and a little blood is drawn into the needle to confirm you hit a vein. The shot usually changes here, as the specialty Syringe is replaced with a real (dulled) syringe (another prop too long to talk about)


When Sherlock says "This is low tar", Mycroft replies "

Well, you barely knew her".

This reenforces the idea that the cigarette is a way of coping with the loss - he didn't know her that well, so he doesn't need a strong cigarette.

I presumed that it was just Mycroft and John Watson's way of telling whether Sherlock was badly affected by the news of her death.

I think in the original A.C.D. stories, Sherlock Holmes does seem to have a tendency to fall into what we would now call depression and even that he has tendencies towards manic-depression.

In the original stories he is also a user of drugs including opiates (which were not illegal at the time) when depressed.

I thought that (modern) Sherlock does not routinely smoke, therefore if he accepts the cigarette then he is going to be bad.

I don't think it was just a way of helping him relax.

I can't be certain this is the right answer, but some of episode 2 makes it look like Sherlock's serious addiction is cigarettes not something a little more risque.

So cigarettes are the modern stand-in for his need for cocaine.

Letting him have one is an admission that he has had to deal with something serious (like the loss of Adler).

Mycroft and Watson mentioned a "danger night.

" I assume Mycroft gave him the stick to be nice when seeing his brother emotionally falling down.

Tobacco has also completely replaced the morphine use, but he did refer to his 7% cocaine solution in one episode.

It was just a treat.

Actually, if you paid attention to the episode he reveals his use of the Nicotine patches, he says its next to impossible to keep a smoking habit in London "nowadays" this is likely due to some form of legislation limiting areas where one can smoke or additional taxes on them.

While Mycroft most likely extends this due to the loss of Irene Addler as well, it is also because of some form of restriction to smokers in London.

At least, that is my analysis without checking in on British law.

It was a way of testing how upset Sherlock was.

In the Hounds of Baskerville, Sherlock is extremely stressed out because he doesn't have a case to work on, and can be seen trashing the flat looking for a pack of cigarettes.

When someone comes with a case, Sherlock begs him to smoke (since the person smoked) and then sniffs out all the smoke.

So, since Sherlock was upset, he took the cigarette.

That's why John swears when he finds out.

I saw it as a test to see how upset he was about Irene.

When he took it and Mycroft spoke to John, he was worried about it being a 'danger night' and Sherlock taking the cigarette provided him with the proof that that night could potentially be one.

Read Arthur Conan Doyle's first two books, or get his complete works.

Sherlock was a heavy smoker of a pipe.

The three patch problem is reference to a three pipe problem in the original.

In all the books, he only uses cocaine for one stretch of time; Watson said he used it three times a day for the three months he witnessed it.

He was once in an opium den when he was in disguise and saw Watson.

He said that if were identified there, he would be killed.

So we'll assume he didn't smoke opium or it would have blown his disguise.

Watson said in the first book he does seem distant, like on some narcotic.

So the cigarettes replace a pipe.

He's a heavy smoker and the only reference to using cocaine is in the books!

Question: Mycroft Holmes, gives a cigarette to Sherlock and says  "Merry Christmas" . Then in the following scene, Dr. Watson asks Mycroft if he gave the cigarette to Sherlock.  So, it seems to me that the cigarette has some significance. Although it might also seem like  Sherlock  was just suffering from the  supposed  loss of Irene Adler, and his brother just thought the nicotine patches weren't good enough to help him relax. Any thoughts?

What is the significance of the cigarette in 'Sherlock: A Scandal in Belgravia'?

In the episode he say's that it's next to impossibile to keep a smoking habit in London ''Nowadays'' this is likely due to some form of legislation limiting areas where one can smoke or additional taxes on them.  While Mycroft most likely extends this due to the loss of Irene Addler.

it is also because of some form of restriction to smokers in London.

It is also because of some form of restriction to smokers in London. Since it was impossible to keep a smoking habit in London "nowadays" as this is likely due to some form of legislation limiting areas where one can smoke or additional taxes on them.


Yes, he's certainly referencing Mr. Spock - everyone's favorite Vulcan science officer.

In the Star Trek TV show (and on film) Spock constantly struggled with his emotions due to his mixed blood, and sometimes had a hard time suppressing them.

Watson is likening Sherlock's own 'emotional struggle' (albeit brief) to this classic character.

An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution.

Said by Spock in Star Trek VI:

The Undiscovered Country , written among others by no other than Nicholas Meyer, who wrote The Seven Per-Cent Solution , which is regarded by many to be the best Sherlock Holmes novel not written by Doyle himself.

So it is a clever nod to the popular culture by the contemporary TV show, which becomes a mindbinding Mobius strip, when you realize that the Spock character himself is in part based on original Sherlock Holmes, in a way House is: logical to a fault and incapable of experiencing basic human emotions.

In the sixth Star Trek movie, Spock quotes Sherlock Holmes' famous line "Once you've ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbably, must be true.

Of course, since the modern-day Sherlock couldn't be quoting himself, Watson identifies the quote as Spock's, and not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's.

I really liked this reference, particularly the way it messes with time...

but in the new Sherlock, they're assuming that the original quote came from Star Trek.

Of course, the bits about struggling with emotions are rather Spock-ish, since Spock rarely shows his own emotions in the show.

Hope that helps!

Yes, he is.

Recall that the TV Series is supposed to be modernized.

From Wikipedia: "Sherlock is a British television series that presents a contemporary update of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes detective stories."

Since it is contemporary, it is in a day in age in which Spock is very well known, so the comment makes perfect sense.

Spock is a character so famous for his lack of emotion and applying logic to even the most emotionally-weighted situations that TV Tropes has named this character archetype after him .

From that page (abbreviated slightly): A character who will always think before acting, The Spock is an archetype that can be loosely summed up as the tendency to apply rules, reason and the greater good to all of his/her decisions .

This character can exist by themselves, but more often, they will have a more emotional and humanistic counterpart to contrast their decisions.

The Spock's relationship with his crewmates/comrades is often tense, because this character type is willing and able to ruthlessly consider ethically troubling situations without batting an eye — especially situations where people might be ordered to die.

While his counterpart The McCoy is interested in doing the right thing regardless of cost, The Spock is more interested in the end result.

For him, everyone (including himself) is expendable and he has no problem treating people as such.

John calling Sherlock "Spock" is like when he calls him a "machine" - he's teasing and/or criticising him for his lack of emotion and upholding of reason and logic (in circumstances in which, in John's opinion, there are more important things than reason and logic).

The scene between Sherlock and John, where Sherlock is having an emotional break down in "Hounds of Baskerville", is similar to a scene in an episode of Star Trek called "Naked Time" where Spock has an emotional break down and confesses to feeling shame when he feels friendship towards Jim Kirk, his captain and best friend.

In "Baskerville", Sherlock angrily tells John Watson, his best friend, that he has no friends.

Both characters say that they have to control their feelings.

And both break downs are caused by a drug like substance.

Sherlock was reacting to the drug mist.

Spock to a space disease that made one act intoxicated.

The character of Spock is similar in many ways to Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, so I think the writers were borrowing back as a joke, and that's why John calls Sherlock "Spock" because he is acting like the famous Star Trek character.

Sherlock and John, Spock and Jim, even the names are similar.

Question: In Sherlock: The hound of Baskervilles, Sherlock describes his feelings about not being able to distance himself from his latest  felt feeling ,  fear  and he says    The grit on the lens, fly in the ointment   To which, Dr Watson replies   Yeah, all right,  Spock , just.. take it easy   The only Spock I have ever known is this man:  Why is he being referenced here? Is Watson talking about this Spock?

Why does Watson call Sherlock, 'Spock'?

Spock is a character so famous for his lack of emotion and applying logic to even the most emotionally-weighted situations that  TV Tropes has named this character archetype after him .  John calling Sherlock "Spock" is like when he calls him a "machine" - he's teasing and/or criticising him for his lack of emotion and upholding of reason and logic .

TV Tropes has named a character archetype after him. The Spock is famous for his lack of emotion and applying logic to even the most emotionally-weighted situations. For him, everyone (including himself) is expendable and he has no problem treating people as such. John calling Sherlock "Spock" is like when he calls him a "machine" - he's teasing and/or criticising him. He's mocking him for his inability to think before acting. The character type is willing and able to ruthlessly consider ethically troubling situations without batting an eye — especially situations where people might be ordered to die.


I always assumed it was a sign that an otherwise unassuming and placid teacher had a ruthless streak and could deal swiftly and, if necessary, brutally with a situation.

---The book explains it (and it was written pre-Harry Potter).

The owl had been nesting in the disused chimney.

When Prideaux fired it up a half-dead owl was smoked out onto the classroom floor, shocking and startling the boys.

Prideaux whisks it up and out of the room.

Later the boys find the dead owl on the rubbish heap, its neck neatly twisted and broken.

The point is that Prideaux is a skilled killer.

Also in the book, Haydon is killed by persons unknown, his neck neatly twisted and broken.

The movie version compresses the more nuanced details from the book (that also foreshadow the different details of Haydon's death).

But the essence that Prideaux is a capable and ruthless killer when required are preserved in a simpler, shorter scene.

The significance of the bee scene is that, unlike the others in the car, Smiley is totally focused on the things that matter (the mole) and able to completely ignore trivial distractions like the bee.

In a flashback we see Jim is tortured wearing the headphones while being exposed to disturbing screeching sounds.

Something snaps when he hears the owl making a similar sound.

The owl scene is much more subtle, it is introduced right at the beginning of the book.

At the end, it is never explicitly revealed who killed Bill Haydon

but it is strongly implied "Stooping over him, he caught the smell of alcohol -

he guessed gin or vodka -

(Prideaux drank vodka)

It wasn't till he tried to lift him that his head flopped over, and the rest of him followed as dead weight"

(Prideaux had wrung the owl's neck).

QED

it must've been Prideaux wot dun it.

I say the owl, disturbed from his chimney, is a metaphor for betrayal or a secret let loose, a symbol of wisdom and a portent for Jim Prideaux of exposure, hence his prompt execution of the bird.

Question: There's a scene in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" where Prideaux (Mark Strong) is in the class room teaching, then suddenly an owl pops out of the fireplace. Prideaux quickly dispatches it. Later on, in the same class room, Prideaux is talking to Smiley (Gary Oldman) and we see a stuffed owl on the wall.  That (and the bee scene) always seemed rather random to me. Or am I missing some deeper meaning?

Significance of the Owl in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

I say the owl, disturbed from his chimney, is a metaphor for betrayal or a secret let loose, a symbol of wisdom and a portent for Jim Prideaux of exposure, hence his prompt execution of the bird.

The owl is a symbol of wisdom and a portent of exposure for Jim Prideaux, a metaphor for betrayal or a secret let loose.


Fred was used as a bait by the zombies, evident from the trap set there.

This leads me to think that it was the zombies who took Fred out of the store and placed him (or it) at the location in the scene.

This is only possible explanation I can think of.

It's entirely plausible that Neville simply forgot that he placed Fred there in the first place.

Don't forget, this is a man who has been living by himself for who knows how long (essentially trying to fool himself into thinking things are still 'normal' by playing video of morning programs, as if we were watching the normal morning shows), and although he had a regular routine, he could very easily have forgotten that he placed Fred there, especially since he forgot the trap he had set up there in the first place.

They are not zombies, therefore who's to question their level of intellegence?

It is a hybrid disease of measles and rabies, therefore I believe they set the trap in retaliation after he trapped the female "dark seeker" and left all of the evidence of his trap behind, and they just copied it to their favour.

My interpretation of this scene is that Robert did in fact place Fred there, to keep a sense of normality as someone stated above.

After all, it isn't set in stone that the mannequins remain in the same place all the time.

I mean, who hangs out at a Movie Store?

Moreover, Robert is clearly going insane from being alone and in such a hostile environment.

A normal person in their right state of mind would have seen the mannequin out of place from where they last remember leaving them, and rationalize "Okay, how the hell did it get there?"

But he immediately swerved into a panic and began interrogating an inanimate object.

While it's clear the mutants were changing in the movie

, I doubt it's anything more than what Robert described.

That circumstances have caused them to ignore their basic survival instincts.

One might argue that the central male mutant we kept seeing in the film is more evolved than the rest --even sentient, but I see no reason to believe that.

What we saw in the movie was basic "pack animal mentality", essentially the male was the Alpha.

The natural leader.

Stronger, more aggressive, dominant.

As for the "meaningful eye-contact", aside from that being for movie drama

it's nothing but typical animal behavior.

Looking an animal in the eye is considered a challenge in the animal kingdom.

Ever wonder why your dog can't stare back directly into your eyes for long?

I'm of the firm belief he's simply flipped his lid and gone bananas, so to speak.

After all, there were no indications in the movie that the mutants were showing any signs of intelligence

--in fact

Robert himself states that their minds have completely diminished.

However, there are signs left and right the whole time that Robert is simply a broken, lonely man in a hostile world that's constantly trying to kill him.

He went through that upwards of a thousand days.

Can anyone really testify they could last longer without snapping?

This scene could possibly be interpreted in many ways.

One possible way is if the zombies were smart enough to know where he lived at the end, they were probably smart enough to set a trap at night time.

Question: Remember Fred from  I Am Legend ?   This is the  scene .  Any idea how Fred did get there in the first place?

How did Fred (mannequin) move outside the store?

One possible way is if the zombies were smart enough to know where he lived in the end, they were probably smart enough to set a trap at night time.

This scene could be interpreted in a variety of ways.
One possibility is that if the zombies were smart enough to figure out where he lived in the end, they would have set a trap for him at night.


Beginning in the late 1980s, Sony began marketing the concept of "electronic cinematography," utilizing its analog Sony HDVS professional video cameras.

The effort met with very little success.

In 1998, with the introduction of HDCAM recorders and 1920 × 1080 pixel digital professional video cameras based on CCD technology, the idea, now re-branded as "digital cinematography," began to gain traction in the market.

In 1994 Sony executives approached Party of Five (FOX) producer Ken Topolsky and director of photography Roy H. Wagner, ASC, in an effort to photograph side by side tests with Sony's prototype High Def camera and 35mm film.

This resulted in one of the first network broadcast television series, FOX Pilot PASADENA (2001), directed by Diane Keaton, photographed by Wagner.

The results were so successful, shown to directors and Industry decision makers at the Directors Guild of America and Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) meetings, that many were encouraged by the film like images.

Soon many series were considering HD originated image capture.

In May 2001 Once Upon a Time in Mexico became the first well known movie to be shot in 24 frame-per-second high-definition digital video , using a Sony HDW-F900 camera, following Robert Rodriguez's introduction to the camera at George Lucas's ranch whilst editing the sound for Spy Kids.

In May 2002 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones was released having also been shot using a Sony HDW-F900 camera.

Two lesser-known movies, Vidocq (2001) and Russian Ark (2002), had also previously been shot with the same camera, the latter notably consisting of a single long take (no cuts).

I've read the Digital cinematography wiki page .

You can read more about that.

Hope that's what you were looking for.

Depending on how you define digital (I suppose the relevant part would be the bit that catches the light, an electronic sensor instead of chemical process), then Prospero's Books released in August 1991 may be a contender.

See the tech ref on imdb.com.

It's directed by Peter Greenaway, starring John Gielgud.

Some of the answers on this page show some confusion about the difference between digital and hi-def formats.

The question is asking about the first feature film shot with digital cameras, not high def.

The correct answer, I believe, is the film Windhorse, shot in 1996 in Tibet and Nepal and premiered at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in 1998.

The film was shot on two different cameras, both digital - a professional Sony DVW-700WS (then still a prototype) and a prosumer Sony DCR-VX1000.

The film was edited digitally on an avid system and final post and color correction was done digitally at Roland House in northern Virginia.

Back in the day (1995)

I worked at a Motion Picture Camera rental shop in Boston and it was commonly known that the under the radar Hollywood re-make "Sabrina" (1995) had been shot on early HD video but to this day I don't see any credit for that, so maybe that is the first film.

I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to say Brad Anderson's Session 9 was shot using the Sony HDW-F900 camera mentioned by previous commenters.

I know other commenters have noted films that predate Attack of the Clones

but I thought this, too, was worth noting.

Rainbow was the first all digital film shot in 1995 in Montreal.

Directed by Bob Hoskins, DOP Freddie Francis Written by Ashley Sidaway.

Produced by Robert Sidaway and me for Winchester Pictures using Sony HiDef equipment.

Question: Nowadays almost every movie is shot with digital cameras. I would like to know what was the first full-length feature film shot completely with digital technology instead of celluloid.

What was the first full-length feature film shot completely with digital cameras?

In  1994  Sony executives approached  Party of Five (FOX)  producer Ken Topolsky and director of photography Roy H. Wagner, ASC, in an effort to photograph side by side tests with Sony's prototype High Def camera and 35mm film. This resulted in one of the first network broadcast television series, FOX Pilot PASADENA (2001), directed by Diane Keaton, photographed by Wagner.  In May 2001  Once Upon a Time in Mexico  became the first well known movie to be shot in 24 frame-per-second high-definition digital video

In 2001 Once Upon a Time in Mexico became the first well known movie to be shot in 24 frame-per-second high-definition digital video. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones was released having also been shot using a Sony HDW-F900 camera. Two lesser-known movies, Vidocq (2001) and Russian Ark (2002), had also previously been shot with the same camera, the latter notably consisting of a single long take (no cuts) The first network broadcast television series, FOX Pilot PASADENA (2001), directed by Diane Keaton, photographed by Roy H. Wagner, ASC, was shot with Sony's prototype High Def camera and 35mm film. Soon many series were considering HD originated image capture, including Star Wars movies.


Beauty and the Beast was originally a French fairy tale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and published in La jeune américaine, et les contes marins in 1740.

An abridgement was published in 1756 by Jeanne-Marie Le Prince de Beaumont, in Magasin des enfants,

ou dialogues entre une sage gouvernante et plusieurs de ses élèves , with an English translation appearing in 1757.

This places the story in the mid-1700s.

Both rifles and steam-powered machines had been invented by that time, so their inclusion in the story would not be anachronistic.

It would at least be 1800 as the matches that Lumiere uses in be our guest were not invented until that time period.

In the Disney movie, the Eiffel tower is shown (during the song "Be our guest"), however construction of the Eiffel tower wasn't until the late 1880s, so it could have been set around then

(or else it's sloppy work by Disney).

In his tour Cogsworth refers to both the baroque period (1585-1700ish) and rococo period (1700-1770ish), and based on the costumes and hairstyles

it could be as early as 1730 or as late as 1870 (excluding about 1780-1830).

Factoring in the technology, 1840-1860 is the most likely answer.

The fact that the beast is called a prince is questionable, but he clearly doesn't rule any kind of kingdom, and seeing as his castle is rather hidden in the countryside his family may have escaped the ravages of the revolution.

If you discount magical musical production numbers showing yet to be built iron work towers as evidence and only look at technology in use, clothing styles, and political sensibilities it very easy to realize it is set late 1790s up to early 1800s.

steam powered machines exist they are pretty rare and mostly used in factories but the whole piston mess Maurice has going has existed since 1712 Gaston's gun is a blunderbuss which would be in use till the mid 1800s but by then there were much better guns.

both Gaston and Beast wear tailcoats which don't exist till the 1790s Belle (not counting the yellow ball gown) and

the other young ladies don't wear big poofy dresses instead

their skirts look more like empire dresses.

all the towns people seems to have zero qualms about storming a castle not something you would do if you know the royals have the power to throw you in prison, something they don't have after the French Revolution, 1789-1799.

no one seems to be missing a prince who is hiding in a remote castle in the mountains

I agree that it occurs in the mid 1700s because after 1789 there is no monarchy in France

so the Beast wouldn't be royalty if the movie/book occurred after the French Revolution.

Question: The 1991 disney adaptation of  Beauty and the Beast , we see several references to technology that seems out of place with the setting, including rifles and steam powered machines. It makes it hard for me to try and judge when the film would be set.   Is there any official answer, on when the film is mean to be set?

What time era is the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast meant to be set in?

Beauty and the Beast  was originally a French fairy tale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and published in  La jeune américaine, et les contes marins  in 1740. Later on An abridgement was published in 1756 by Jeanne-Marie Le Prince de Beaumont with an English translation appearing in 1757.  This places the story in the mid-1700s.

Beauty and the Beast was originally written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve in 1740. An abridgement was published in 1756 by Jeanne-Marie Le Prince de Beaumont. An English translation appeared in 1757. This places the story in the mid-1700s.


There are two elements to this 1)

The whole story is told from the perspective of Red, who wasn't there at the time and told it with dramatic effect.

The pressure may have built up and the explosion was a sudden release, afterwards the pressure was less.

Either way, it is pretty unpleasant.

I've done some more digging on this according to moviequotesandmore When the top of the pipe is broken open, it shoots a fountain, indicating that it is pressurized (if only by gravity).

But then the pipe drains nearly empty.

It should only have drained to the lowest point in the hole broken at the top.

and there's an even more detailed discussion on Slipups That discusses such things as fluid dynamics , the angle of the pipe and the effectiveness of the shot i.e. getting the audience to feel revolted for what Andy had to go through.

I think that this was a deliberate mistake that the director decided would enhance the shot.

I worked in underground utlities and sewage.

There is no reason.

The pipe diameter was not large enough for the fountain, so to speak.

The only way that the pipe would have produced this would be by a pump, and the pipe was breeched when the pump was working to release accumulated waste in some sort of tank.

I also think it was just for effect.

Dual use sewage system To keep from having open grates in the yard (security issue), and pipes along the outside of the building (climbing holds), rainwater from the roof might have been linked to go down the sewage line.

If there was a heavy rain that created a backup pooled on the roof before he broke the pipe, and now the rate of rain had diminished, that backup would only started to diminish but still be putting pressure in the pipe.

In this case, the water would fountain until the backup water on the roof was fully released.

Sewage systems are designed to not have waste just sitting in a pipe.

Waste sitting in a pipe causes sedimentation leading to a clog.

If he is breaking out of prison in the middle of the night, what caused there to be a flow of anything in the system at all?

Rainwater would explain why there was a flow in the sewage system.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/34503/Keeta - reinstate Monica

I agree it was "just for effect".

If the pipe had had a DIP in it (and Andy had been operating at the "dip"), then pressure could have built up to create the fountain.

The dip would have to have been at least as deep as the fountain was high.

Problem with this is that the pipe would have remained filled and been unnavigable.

Yes a pump in operation at the exact moment of opening could have produced the fountain (and then astonishingly conveniently ceased five seconds later) -- but it seems clear the system was "gravity fed" and not pumped (therefore the pipe carefully laid without dips).

There is no conceivable way for there to have been fluid pressure sufficient for the fountain, AND then for the pipe to be mostly empty.

The "shock value" was for audience sympathy ("EEEWWWWWWW!"), most not realizing it was after all just water, sawdust, and chocolate syrup...

I want to know how he knew there was going to be a STORM that night -- escape would have been so much harder without the covering thunder (and natural bathing).

And how did he get to town, where did he change,

when did he buy the car, why there weren't roadblocks, etcetera...

Let's pretend the town was near enough for walking

(he had nearly all night), the rain ceased, and midway he found a closed gas station with an unlocked bathroom for changing & grooming.

He visited one bank in town under the first alias ("Stevens") receiving enough cash to buy a car; which he did, under his second alias.

He then drove to other TOWNS (the movie states "nearly a dozen banks in the Portland AREA"), therefore eluding road blocks.

As he drove away from the first bank, he stopped long enough to buy the volcanic-glass-rock and the tin, and plant the already-written letter at the Buxton field

(he had a lot of time to prepare as he worked in Norton's office).

The glass rock could have been left 20 years ago as a memento, but he couldn't have been sure it would still be there; he likely knew where he could buy one to mark the tin.

THEN he drove to other towns and emptied the other accounts as fast as he nonchalantly could, then he headed South to Fort Hancock in his new convertible with with the sun sparkling off the ocean in his eyes, cool breeze stroking his hair, and an incredible song of freedom singing in his heart. ;-)

Question: I have a question regarding the end of  The Shawshank Redemption  when Red is narrating Andy's escape - can some one explain why the pipe erupts when Andy breaks it when he is escaping from Shawshank?  I would understand if the pipe was under constant pressure, but in the next scene we see that the pipe is only a partially filled.  Was this a goof or is the a logical reason for it?

Why did the pipe explode in The Shawshank Redemption?

Pipes along the outside of the building to remove rainwater from the roof might have been linked to a sewage line. So, if there was heavy rainfall that had created a backup in the pipes after breaking the pipe the water wouldn't stop coming out of it until  all the  water from the roof was released.

Rainwater from the roof might have been linked to go down the sewage line. Heavy rain could have created a backup pooled on the roof before he broke the pipe. Sewage systems are designed to not have waste just sitting in a pipe. The water would fountain until the backup water on the rooftop was fully released.Sedimentation occurs when waste sits in a pipe, resulting in a blockage.


Inception Wiki 's article on Cobb suggests: His Totem is a spinning top which formerly belonged to his wife, Mallorie Cobb.

This is separate from his wedding ring which is a dream based object and thus cannot be a totem.

Which supports the theory of the ring being a dream-only occurrence and not his totem.

I have seen a few theories support that his ring was his original totem when Mal first suggested them.

From that, you can conclude that he took Mal's totem because of his guilt over her death, adopting something in the world that was her's to keep her close even outside of his dreams.

In the overall story, this ring only helps support the purposely cryptic nature of this movie, deceiving and explaining the occurrence of events and objects in more than one way in order to further the ending which is basically to leave the big questions of Is he still dreaming? or What was actually real?

The ring theory is interesting but I personally find it hard to believe it.

My problem is that I also see conflicting issues with the spinning top.

First of all it is my opinion that the top is a poor totem.

If its sign is to spin forever in a dream, or fall over in the real world it seems too obvious and too easy for someone else to dream that behavior if they have seen Cobb use it or describe it.

Arthur will not let someone touch his weighted dice, and Ariadne has a chess piece who's properties only she can tell - so no-one else can dream the behavior correctly.

These seem like good totems.

This makes me think that perhaps the top is not his totem and that as someone who trusts few people, perhaps the top is a decoy.

Contrary to this however, when Cobb is distressed by the dream he experiences in Mombassa, he wakes up goes into the washroom and spins the top and is interruped by Saito.

If the ring (or something else unknown to us) is his only or primary totem then to perform this display of spinning the top seems unnecessary as he thinks he is on his own - particularly as he seems hurried to try to use it.

If forced to choose between the top and the ring, I would reluctantly choose the top as his totem.

Perhaps he knows something more about its physical properties that we have not seen.

It is very possible that Cobb used two totems.

His wedding ring and his wife's spinning top.

It's probable that his wedding ring was his original totem.

After she died though he was able to use her totem as he was the only other person to have ever touched it and known it's properties.

I found this really great article that wraps up the questions I had about Inception

It makes a bunch of great points and is endorsed by Christopher Nolan according to the site and related article.

The main thing about Cobb is that he obsessively questioned his reality.

So it's very possible that he had a the known totem, a spinning top and another unknown totem his wedding ring.

The spinning top seems to serve a different purpose from the other totems as it show's Cobb whether or not he is dreaming rather than distinguishing between his dream and someone else's.

So it makes sense that he would carry another one.

Also because he is the best extractor it makes sense that he would be a lot more secretive with his totem.

Cobb as a character to take you (the viewer) through the movie doesn't have a trust worthy perception of reality.

In my opinion Cobb uses the top to keep Mal locked away, by taking it out and spinning it after every bad dream interaction with Mal he reminds himself that she is dead and it was all a dream.

Its not his token.

He never said it was his token, Arthur was explaining token while he (Cobb) spun the top in the next room.

If you watch the movie, you'll notice that after every non Mal related exit from the dream Cobb glances at his left hand as if he has a watch (which he doesn't have).

I believe he's checking his ring finger.

He only spins the top to assure himself that, yes his wife is dead and yes the real world sucks.

the top isnt his totem, it was hers.

he would have had a totem if his wife suggested it . .

of course not being the top.

The top helps him decipher real and dream, but kept it has a mememto of his wife as he had to break the secret of his wife ie the safe, he didnt know what it was until he found it then planted his idea all the while knowing what his real totem and state was.

it doesnt matter what his totem was (to us)

so as long as we know that the actions of the top tell us that he suspects he is not in the real world.

At the end of the movie, in his dreams Cobb lets go of his wife.

His subconscious resolves his issues with his wife, recognizing that she is no longer needed.

And hence, at the end even though he is in his dreams, there is no ring on his finger.

Question: In Inception, Cobb was wearing his wedding ring in some scenes and in some scenes he doesn't. After watching the movie so many times, according to me, in  every scene of a dream he was wearing his wedding ring and in every scene of reality he was not wearing his ring .  If this is true, what was the necessity of the totem? Instead, he can easily use his ring as totem to identify what is a dream and what is reality.

What's the significance of Cobb's ring in Inception?

It is very possible that Cobb used two totems.  His wedding ring and his wife's spinning top. It's probable that his wedding ring was his original totem.

Cobb may have used his wedding ring and his wife's spinning top as his totems. After she died he was able to use her totem as he was the only other person to have ever touched it.


If you look closely, you'll almost always note that the mirror is angled so the camera is out of its view.

This is sometimes masked by the actor looking directly into [the reflection of] the camera, which gives the impression that he is looking at himself in the mirror.

However, there are at least two other options for getting a shot in which the camera should, by rights, be visible but isn't:

one is using visual effects (optical or CGI) for the reflection.

The other was used by James Cameron in Terminator 2 : Cameron wanted a trackingshot (camera moving sideways) behind Linda Hamilton removing a chipfrom Arnold's head in front of a mirror.

If done with a mirror, thecamera would have been visible as it moved around behind the actors.

Rather than do this with effects, the set was built so that the mirror was actually a window, and on the other side was a complete mirror-image version of the set on the camera side.

Schwarzenegger and Linda sat on the far side facing the camera, and a fancy Arnold puppet and Linda's twin sister sat with their backs to the camera, mimicking all of the moves of their counterparts.

Other examples of this are: In the case of Being John Malkovich , where the shot was from his POV the camera man just stood in front of an empty frame in the wall withMalkovich standing 'inside' the wall on a reverse set of the scene...

In the bad attempt of Sucker Punch scene in the dressing room when Sweet Pea, Rocket and Blondie talk about not helping Baby Doll, their movements not matching their mirror images ( especially Sweet Pea's ).

Doubles are being used.

This is done so the camera can move behind them without being reflected.

You can watch it at this link

Black Swan featured several shots in mirrored dance rehearsal studios where the crew were digitally removed - see below

One simple way is to use tilt-shift lens .

It's often used by photographers for static images although I'm not sure if it's commonly used for animated movies or not.

Simply put the camera aside from the mirror then shift the lens towards it.

The perspective will be fixed by the lens so that viewers will think that the camera is in front of the mirror.

However those lenses are very expensive so nowadays people may use a normal lens then correct the perspective later by Photoshop, Premiere or similar software.

Update

There's a great demo video on that.

Thanks Rob for the comment

Read more:

But for complex scenes people will have to use CGI anyway

There are several techniques when mirrors or reflective surfaces are involved in movies.

One is simply to remove digitally the camera and the crew that could appear in the reflection.

Sometimes this (already classic) technique involves taking pictures of the real set, and using them to "cover" what should not be in the image.

And a more interesting technique is to use another cameras to capture "what should be seen in the reflection".

This means that the main camera keep the story going, but another cameras placed in strategic points register what might be seen in reflective surfaces.

Example of this could be seen in Divergent (2014) and Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

Divergent example: http://www.fxguide.com/featured/divergent-making-the-mirror-room/ Snow White and the Huntsman example:

There are many ways to do it, depending on the scene.

A common way to do it is with post processing, by covering the camera with an image of the same static background before placing the camera.

example:

This is a very old question, and there are some good answers.

I just wanted to add another excellent example from the movie White Nights (1985), starring Gregory Hines and Mikhail Baryshnikov.

In the scene where Gregory tap dances in a studio, the camera pans with him as he runs in front of a wall of mirrors.

You can see it at 2:11 in the YouTube video below.

I had to watch the movie twice in a theater to figure out how they did that!

If you look closely, you'll notice that Gregory's reflection disappears briefly.

That's because the two mirrors that should be reflecting the camera are actually angled slightly away.

Specifically, the mirror to the right of the camera is angled to the right, and the mirror to the left of the camera is angled to the left.

Neither of them reflect the camera.

You can see this when Gregory runs past; his reflection disappears for a few frames.

The third picture above doesn't show his reflection (and not just because he's blocking it).

Question: It always makes me wonder how do they place the cameras and crew members while filming a scene which is opposite to a reflecting object, such as mirror.  Because, when filming the reflected objects we should see the camera and cameraman because of their reflection.  But this does not happen in the movies.  How do they film the scenes with an actor facing a mirror?  Why don't we see the cameras and crew?  What is the technique they use to film the scenes with reflecting objects?

How do they film the mirror scenes in movies?

There are several techniques when mirrors or reflective surfaces are involved in movies. One is simply to remove digitally the camera and the crew that could appear in the reflection. And another technique is to have the main camera keep the story going, but another cameras placed in strategic points register what might be seen in reflective surfaces.

There are several techniques when mirrors or reflective surfaces are involved in movies. One is simply to remove digitally the camera and crew that could appear in the reflection. Another more interesting technique is to use another cameras to capture "what should be seen in the reflections"