Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Slo-Mo Whiplash - Ben's New Intro


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Actually the audience rotates around the fixed stage.  It lives on and and is still rotating in 2021 at the Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World (without the GE sponsorship)

Thanks for crushing my joke.  From the audience's perspective, the stage is rotating in front of them.  Only Disney would choose to rotate an entire audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmovieviewer said:

Thanks for crushing my joke.  From the audience's perspective, the stage is rotating in front of them.  Only Disney would choose to rotate an entire audience.

Sorry.  The choice of rotating the auditorium was a practical one.   The machinery and electronics for the audio-animatronics had to remain fixed in place.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tuned in yesterday and, lo, what do I see? It's Ben Mankiewicz on the high seas! The whole set is now gently rolling, as if we're all standing on the deck of the Pequod. How annoying is that? Well, pretty dang annoying, actually. In real life, people typically stand still when they're talking to you. The old set said "old Hollywood". The new set says "3D-CAD-generated-render-with-a green-screen-of-Ben-in-front-of-it".

And the new "quick cut" animated graphics are perfect for triggering an epileptic seizure, which I don't particularly want. Why have they suddenly decided they have to appeal to the ADHD millennials? They're still not gonna watch TCM until they get to my age, anyway. 

And again I'm sorry, but the new logo doesn't exactly scream "classic". As a graphic designer of over 30 years, all I could think of was, "Gosh, they weren't trying very hard, were they?". 

Yes, I'm a boomer. Yes, there's nothing cool about me. And Ben is right, I don't like change. But that's only because it's been my experience that most change isn't really necessary or helpful. They already had a great product, with great brand appeal. Now, I dunno what they're trying to be, or to whom.

Well, obviously they know their product better than I do. My comments aren't intended to be a "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!" moment. I'm just a firm believer in supplying feedback to a company who's product I consume.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CharlesFosterKane said:

Yes, I'm a boomer. Yes, there's nothing cool about me. And Ben is right, I don't like change. But that's only because it's been my experience that most change isn't really necessary or helpful. They already had a great product, with great brand appeal. Now, I dunno what they're trying to be, or to whom.

I can relate. I am perplexed.  I am grateful though I missed Ben in front of a green screen on a rolling ship.  Sheesh.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's on green, but that back and forth movement of this camera "slider" is beyond annoying.  If they want to go one direction and then let the camera settle, fine, but the back and forth is just movement for the sake of movement. It's meaningless. To me, this separates lazy, modern film-making from classic directors and DPs.  In those olden, golden days, the camera moved with purpose.  It dollied into a CU to accentuate a dramatic moment.  It tracked to follow action.  What it didn't do was just move because it could.  The best directors and DPs used dollies and cranes judiciously.  Today, and perhaps due to the invention of the Steadicam, they simply can't stop moving.  In commercials, this might  be fine.  It takes a dull scene and animates it a bit, but on long shots like these intros, it is noticeably stupid.

The "language" of film was developed very early on.  Not "crossing the line" was something that people learned quickly, so that viewers weren't confused about where the actors were in space.  The concept of the "dirty over the shoulder" helped in this regard as well.  That out of focus shoulder of the other person let us go, "Ah, I know who's talking to whom."

I get it that breaking these rules in a lot of fun for many people, but for TCM to go this route is just silly.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've only watched 4 or 5 of the new intros, but the ones with Dave Karger and Alicia Malone that I've seen didn't have the side-to-side movement.  They both had a slow zoom-in to center them in the frame, and then the picture was held still.  But in every one of the Mank intros I've seen, there's the disturbing side-to-side panning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

So I've only watched 4 or 5 of the new intros, but the ones with Dave Karger and Alicia Malone that I've seen didn't have the side-to-side movement.  They both had a slow zoom-in to center them in the frame, and then the picture was held still.  But in every one of the Mank intros I've seen, there's the disturbing side-to-side panning.

Unfortunate victims of an MTV upbringing.

Oops, I meant to reply to @overeasy too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmovieviewer said:

Did anyone else go to the 1964 World’s Fair in New York City?  The GE pavilion had a “Carousel of Progress” where the stage rotated in front of the audience to present scenes that showed how technology in the home had progressed over time:

psWKZf3.jpg

Maybe TCM is rotating the set that Ben is on in front of the camera!

That's pretty good.  That also brings to mind the trick David Copperfield did where he made the Statue Of Liberty "disappear" to a crowd and on camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CharlesFosterKane said:

They already had a great product, with great brand appeal.

Now, which one was that?  The one before this, which nobody liked when it was introduced?  Or the one previous, which nobody liked, either?  

Formats are never liked coming in, and are always sentimentality pined for going out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Now, which one was that?  The one before this, which nobody liked when it was introduced?  Or the one previous, which nobody liked, either?  

Formats are never liked coming in, and are always sentimentality pined for going out. 

This, silly.

https://moviecollectoroh.com/pics_to_hotlink_on_TCM/tcm-original-clipart-collage.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slaytonf said:

Formats are never liked coming in, and are always sentimentality pined for going out. 

You do have a point. However, in this instance, I can tell you I'll never grow to like this needlessly moving camera. It's sily, pointless and unimaginative

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, overeasy said:

It's meaningless. To me, this separates lazy, modern film-making from classic directors and DPs.  In those olden, golden days, the camera moved with purpose.  It dollied into a CU to accentuate a dramatic moment.  It tracked to follow action.  What it didn't do was just move because it could.  The best directors and DPs used dollies and cranes judiciously.  Today, and perhaps due to the invention of the Steadicam, they simply can't stop moving.  In commercials, this might  be fine.  It takes a dull scene and animates it a bit, but on long shots like these intros, it is noticeably stupid.

The "language" of film was developed very early on.  Not "crossing the line" was something that people learned quickly, so that viewers weren't confused about where the actors were in space.  The concept of the "dirty over the shoulder" helped in this regard as well.  That out of focus shoulder of the other person let us go, "Ah, I know who's talking to whom."

I get it that breaking these rules in a lot of fun for many people, but for TCM to go this route is just silly.

Spot on. I could not agree more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, unwatchable said:

You do have a point. However, in this instance, I can tell you I'll never grow to like this needlessly moving camera. It's sily, pointless and unimaginative

Wait till the format is changed again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Wait till the format is changed again. 

Ok, slayton, up tp a point you're right,  in that people often dislike change and resist it,  even when it's just a cosmetic change that doesn't really make a lot of difference.  This goes for websites,  newpaper and magazine formats,  and even renovated restaurants.  It's true,  it's very common for people to go,  "Well, I liked it better before", just because getting used to a change requires a bit of effort  ( although not much, really.)

However,  in this case,  I will say that I've been watching TCM since at least 2005, and while there have been a few changes to their graphics etc. over the years,  there's never been as drastic a change as this.  And the new look is uglier than the old one  (  ones, there were a few ),  and kind of cheapo-looking.   Also,  always before,  there was a unified overall style that fit well with a television station that celebrates films made a long time ago. The new TCM look has no connection with that style, it looks like it was conceived by a committee of people  who spend a lot of time on TikTok.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Wait till the format is changed again. 

I look forward to the opportunity to test your theory. The sooner, the better. How about tomorrow? Is tomorrow good for everyone?

Then again, you may be saying "it could be worse" and if so, that is most certainly true.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is pathetic, but my husband and I spent the whole of Ben's intro to the first Paul Robeson movie tonight complaining loudly to each other about how we hate the constantly moving background behind Ben. As a result, we didn't hear a word Ben said about Paul Robeson. Usually we can't wait to hear what Ben says, but now I'm so distracted, I can hardly stand to watch.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

The new TCM look has no connection with that style, it looks like it was conceived by a committee of people  who spend a lot of time on TikTok.

Slings and arrows. I love it, because you are so right. 👍

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, unwatchable said:

I look forward to the opportunity to test your theory. The sooner, the better. How about tomorrow? Is tomorrow good for everyone?

Then again, you may be saying "it could be worse" and if so, that is most certainly true.

You will have to wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

The new TCM look has no connection with that style, it looks like it was conceived by a committee of people  who spend a lot of time on TikTok.

This is exactly what we have here. Modern culture is devolving into a quick-cut, short-attention-span, convoluted mess. Which is fine for MTV or VH1, but I think a classic movie channel does not benefit from trying to present itself as something it really isn't. I watch TCM to get away from modern culture. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ok, slayton, up tp a point you're right,  in that people often dislike change and resist it,  even when it's just a cosmetic change that doesn't really make a lot of difference.

There has never been a change in format on the channel or website that has not been soundly trounced.  And each time, the previous format was longed for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

So I've only watched 4 or 5 of the new intros, but the ones with Dave Karger and Alicia Malone that I've seen didn't have the side-to-side movement.  They both had a slow zoom-in to center them in the frame, and then the picture was held still.  But in every one of the Mank intros I've seen, there's the disturbing side-to-side panning.

I believe that may be due to limits of their technology. It is easy for camera to center on Dave K. and Alicia M. because they are focused people. It may be that Ben M. is so fuzzy that the software is continually searching for clarity.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SansFin said:

I believe that may be due to limits of their technology. It is easy for camera to center on Dave K. and Alicia M. because they are focused people. It may be that Ben M. is so fuzzy that the software is continually searching for clarity.

Oh, my. 😊 Feeling a bit mischevious, are we?

You can come to my birthday party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...