Asklemmy

43963 readers

1252 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Is there any movie in which the actor naturally aged and portrayed the younger and older version of character ? Not a prequel sequel thing. One movie. (lemm.ee)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by red_pigeon@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just wondering if someone was committed enough to make such a movie

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Susaga@ttrpg.network 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Aged naturally... to play both older and younger... within a single film...

Given how most films only take a few months to film at most, I don't think natural aging will have enough impact on a character to have a distinct "younger and older". If the film took years to make, then parts would seem really low quality compared to other parts. If the character was only a few weeks older, you wouldn't notice the difference between the accurate age and the reshoots.

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Given how most films only take a few months to film at most

Got any sources for that claim? I was always under more of an impression that movies took at least a year and a half to make, if not 2-3 for a longer movie.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 27 points 8 months ago

Filming isn't the longest part of movie production. They spend a significant time editing, piecing stuff together, getting the audio and color balance right and so on.

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/discover/how-long-to-make-a-movie.html

For the average movie, the actual shooting of footage usually takes between one and three months. The time depends on the length of the script, but the going is slow. “One or two script pages will take a whole day to film,” says cinematographer Margaret Kurniawan.

[–] Susaga@ttrpg.network 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I didn't say "make", I said "film". You don't film the actors until the script, sets and costumes are ready, and you can't edit the movie until after you've finished filming.

According to wikipedia, filming for Avengers Endgame started in August 2017 and finished in January 2018, with reshoots later that year. This was a big Marvel production with a ton of big-name actors doing complex action scenes, so I'm pretty sure this is on the high end of how much filming would need to be done.

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago

I imagine the average person would take the phrase "film a movie" as synonymous with "make a movie", even if they are technically distinct. If you're being more specific with your usage than the typical person in your audience, that's on you; don't blame your audience for not understanding.

[–] JonnyRobbie@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

He's talking about principal shooting, you about production of the whole film.