Mall Lights - Were they on or not?

[EvilNed]

The difference here, in regards to misé-en-scene is this.....there is obviously a difference between a built set on a lot, and using an actual location. Do you not agree with this??????????? Like it or not, it was shot, it was developed, it was edited into the film. And it's the film that counts, not what precious little time the crew had. Deal with it. This is common sense. I'd like to see how you actually analyse films... It's in the film, and we're discussing it. It kinda seems to me like you're trying to make art less subjective and personal, and more objective. Well, that's not the case. Art is personal, and not objective. That's just the way it is, sorry. Now if you want to stick to your opinion, then fine. But don't expect us to do it, or at least not me, because I simply won't accept that art isn't personal (even if I do find your "practical" reasons for why it shouldn't be highly amusing).

[Philly_SWAT]

Like it or not, it was shot, it was developed, it was edited into the film. And it's the film that counts, not what precious little time the crew had. Deal with it. This is common sense. I'd like to see how you actually analyse films... It's in the film, and we're discussing it. It kinda seems to me like you're trying to make art less subjective and personal, and more objective. Well, that's not the case. Art is personal, and not objective. That's just the way it is, sorry. Now if you want to stick to your opinion, then fine. But don't expect us to do it, or at least not me, because I simply won't accept that art isn't personal (even if I do find your "practical" reasons for why it shouldn't be highly amusing). OK, so just to be clear let me see if I understand.....if something is shot, developed, and edited into the film, then it is an important part of the film, and not regarded as a goof (even though by your own definition, crew reflections are in fact shot, developed, and edited into the film, but whatever). So if a football schedule that just happens to be in an office qualifies, then surely automobiles do as well. So let me ask you about 4 specific things that we see in the film, that were shot, developed, and edited in, and see if you regard them as inconsequential (as I regard the football schedule) or if you think since someone noticed them, they are worthy of analysis. ITEM 1: approx timestamp 16:53 When Roger and Peter pull up to the dock to meet Flyboy for the first time, they are clearly driving a car that has "Pittsburgh" police emblems on it. Are we to assume this is a mistake (since they are supposed to be in Philly) or is it valid to assume they stole a car in Pittsburgh? That Roger isnt who he claims to be, etc? ITEM 2: approx timestamp 59:16 When Roger and Peter are getting the first truck, as the trucks pull out, we can see a car driving in the distance behind them. Are we to assume this is a mistake, or is it valid to assume that people are casually going out for Sunday drives during a zombie outbreak? That they arent as alone as they think they are? ITEM 3: approx timestamp 1:01:36 When Roger and Peter are getting the 2nd truck, right as Peter is saying "three more baby, three more!" we can see a van driving, not in the distance, but right there in the truck yard. Are we to assume that this is a mistake, or is it valid to start asking why no one notices this van driving right in front of them? That someone else has snuck in, and since Peter and Roger are busy stealing trucks, they decide to steal a van (unnoticed and uncommented on by Peter and Roger?) ITEM 4: approx timestamp 1:43:19 Right after Flyboy tells Fran they are going to shut the gates, we see the bikers approaching the mall. We can clearly see some cars stopped at an intersection, waiting for the bikers to pass. We can even see the second car in line move forward a little bit. Are we to assume this is a mistake, or that there was a car gang out there as well? That the car gang was gathered for a raid on the mall, but decided against it after they saw the biker gang was already making a raid? Of course, ANYTHING in the world is a subject for debate. The assumptions I made could be argued if you were trying to prove a point (for example, a car gang was about to raid the mall). However, they fact that it CAN be debated, doenst mean that it is logical, or that it exhibits any common sense on the part of the debater. All four of these items were in fact shot, developed, and edited into the film. I say simple common sense dictates that they are mistakes, just as crew reflections are, and just as the football schedule is. What do you think?

[EvilNed]

Well, again, you're mistaking misé-en-scene with goofs. But as to answer all of your items: Make up your own damn mind, and don't think about what the director thinks. There, 'nuff said. And please, stop equating goofs to misé-en-scene as they are two different things.

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, again, you're mistaking misé-en-scene with goofs. But as to answer all of your items: Make up your own damn mind, and don't think about what the director thinks. There, 'nuff said. And please, stop equating goofs to misé-en-scene as they are two different things. What I am saying has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what the director thinks. It is what you and I think that I am talking about. Seeing as you did not really reply to what I typed, I guess you are saying that the 4 car items I mentioned are in fact goofs. That totally flies in the face of your filmed, developed, edited in comments. The 4 car items are the exact same thing as the football schedule. Unintended things that were shot, developed, and edited into the film.

[EvilNed]

Goofs are filmed, developed and edited all the time. But the difference is that they are mistakes that contradict other things in the set story. The football schedule does not, so no, I'm sorry. Not the same thing.

[Philly_SWAT]

Goofs are filmed, developed and edited all the time. But the difference is that they are mistakes that contradict other things in the set story. The football schedule does not, so no, I'm sorry. Not the same thing. They are the same thing. But I guess what you are saying is that if something supports your argument, it is a goof, but if it doesnt it is misé-en-scene.

[EvilNed]

No, as I and others have explained, if something is contradicting the storyline, then it's more likely to be a goof. Such as the phone and license plate issue. There is no such issue with the football schedule. Infact, it takes up the better part of the screen. I have a hard time thinking the DOP or script girl "simply missed" it. And even so, the film stands on it's own merits. Not what any artist claims. It's not a mistake, sorry.

[Philly_SWAT]

No, as I and others have explained, if something is contradicting the storyline, then it's more likely to be a goof. Such as the phone and license plate issue. There is no such issue with the football schedule. Infact, it takes up the better part of the screen. I have a hard time thinking the DOP or script girl "simply missed" it. And even so, the film stands on it's own merits. Not what any artist claims. It's not a mistake, sorry. What is showing on the screen is Roger grabbing the keys, not looking at the football schedule. But I guess the DOP or script girl "simply missed" all the really big cars in the shots.

[EvilNed]

Or they just chose the shot they were most happy with. Still, cars contradict, football schedule does not.

[Philly_SWAT]

Or they just chose the shot they were most happy with. Still, cars contradict, football schedule does not. Well, obviously I am not the brilliant student of film analysis like you are, and I dont use phrases like "misé-en-scene" in casual conversation, but however you want to look at it, the football schedule was not the intended thing you are supposed to see in the scene, Roger grabbing the keys is, and whether it "contradicts" anything or not, whether it is a "mistake" or not, it still has no bearing on when the movie takes place. The movie could have taken place in 2008, and there was just an old 1978 football schedule that has sat there 2 decades. But it is interesting to learn from such a knowledgeable film analyst like yourself that cars driving in the background where they should be no cars is simply a case of the film makers "choosing the shot they were most happy with", not worthy of analysis, but a scrap of paper in the background of a scene shot in a real location is worthy of iron clad knowledge about that particular scene.

[EvilNed]

Well, obviously I am not the brilliant student of film analysis like you are, and I dont use phrases like "misé-en-scene" in casual conversation, but however you want to look at it, the football schedule was not the intended thing you are supposed to see in the scene, Roger grabbing the keys is, and whether it "contradicts" anything or not, whether it is a "mistake" or not, it still has no bearing on when the movie takes place. The movie could have taken place in 2008, and there was just an old 1978 football schedule that has sat there 2 decades. I have actually studied filmanalysis, so you are correct there. And one of the first things we got to accept was "The director be damned, it's what's on film that counts". And of course, this is reasonable. Because art is personal. If you can't accept that, then whatever. I think you very well see my point, but you just won't accept it. As for the shot itself, you do of course realize that every shot in most every movie ever made is littered with things which are not important to the story itself, but they bring life to the shot, and by extension, the film. That football schedule is one such example. The shot would be pretty dull if there was nothing on the table except a keyring. George A. Romero probably looked at the table and said "Leave it as it is! Looks like someone actually worked here." In anycase, it's in the film and unless GAR changes his mind and does a Stephen Spielberg and changes that piece of paper into something completely different with CGI, it still will be in ten, twenty years.

[Philly_SWAT]

I have actually studied filmanalysis, so you are correct there. And one of the first things we got to accept was "The director be damned, it's what's on film that counts". And of course, this is reasonable. Because art is personal. If you can't accept that, then whatever. I think you very well see my point, but you just won't accept it. I see your point, but you dont see mine. Either the motto "it's what's on film that counts" matters, or it doesnt. Either we see both the date on the schedule AND the cars driving around in the background, or we see neither. As for the shot itself, you do of course realize that every shot in most every movie ever made is littered with things which are not important to the story itself, but they bring life to the shot, and by extension, the film. That football schedule is one such example. The shot would be pretty dull if there was nothing on the table except a keyring. George A. Romero probably looked at the table and said "Leave it as it is! Looks like someone actually worked here." Of course I realize this, and I agree with everything you say here. GAR probably also did not notice something was there with a date on it, as he wasnt planning on focusing on the wall, instead focusing on Roger grabbing the keys. In anycase, it's in the film and unless GAR changes his mind and does a Stephen Spielberg and changes that piece of paper into something completely different with CGI, it still will be in ten, twenty years. This is something we both can agree on 100%.

[EvilNed]

I see your point, but you dont see mine. Either the motto "it's what's on film that counts" matters, or it doesnt. Either we see both the date on the schedule AND the cars driving around in the background, or we see neither. Goofs and misé-en-scene. There's a difference. One does contradict the story. The other does not.

[Philly_SWAT]

Goofs and misé-en-scene. There's a difference. One does contradict the story. The other does not. How does one contradict the story and the other doesnt? I mean, specifically the schedule and the cars.

[EvilNed]

Well, the earth is supposed to be still and zombieinfested, so if we see a moving car, somewhere far off, waaaaaaay off in the background, we assume that it's a blooper. If there's a piece of paper, perfectly visible, that takes up about half the screen, and is simply a piece of paper with some information on it, then that's... Well, eh, a bit different. As I'm sure you realize.