Mall Lights - Were they on or not?

[Philly_SWAT]

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. The van in the truckyard is not waaaaay in the background, it is very visible. 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. Not only does it take half the screen, it takes like half a second, hence the request for a screencap to begin with....it can not be seen. If you actually watch the scene, the oft mentioned "what is on the screen", the timer on the DVD literally does not even tick off a second the entire time the schedule is on screen. So apparently, the phrase "perfectly visible" means different things to different people.

[EvilNed]

Not only does it take half the screen, it takes like half a second, hence the request for a screencap to begin with....it can not be seen. If you actually watch the scene, the oft mentioned "what is on the screen", the timer on the DVD literally does not even tick off a second the entire time the schedule is on screen. So apparently, the phrase "perfectly visible" means different things to different people. When you're framing a shot, it's definetly "perfectly visible".

[Philly_SWAT]

I get the feeling that you never admit you are wrong, regardless of any amount of logic or evidence or "misé-en-scene" that may or may not be, whether in regards to this topic, or any other. Perhaps I am the same way. However, in my argumentation class, we were taught to back up our comments with logic, and actually specifically adress comments made by the other team. Perhaps that is why you and I go on so long. Sometimes, we were forced to argue in favor of points that we totally disagreed with in order to keep out argumentation skills sharp (which also forced us to study the other side rather than just reject it out of hand). You still havent explained what the existence of the football schedule supposedly contradicts.

[EvilNed]

How can I be wrong about anything? Seriously. What is there to be wrong about? The football schedule is there, it's not a goof, it's simply there. There's nothing to be wrong about. Please, tell me what it is you want me to admit I was wrong about. If not, stop making such accusations. You keep comparing a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds, crew reflections in mirrors... Well, guess what, there's things that break immersion. We call them goofs. And then there's things that give life to the frame. We call that misé-en-scene. When you've learnt the difference between the two, come back and we'll talk. And I never said the football schedule contradicted anything. That was the whole point OF it, you see. Read my posts better. Now I'm off. I know I've got my point across, and I know you understand it, you're just playing dumb. So I've got nothing further to add. The football schedule is there, accept it or edit it out of your damn copy of the film.

[DubiousComforts]

Well, guess what, there's things that break immersion. We call them goofs. And then there's things that give life to the frame. We call that misé-en-scene. When you've learnt the difference between the two, come back and we'll talk. What about when Fran calls Stephen "David" in the TV studio? Is that a "goof" or is it "misé-en-scene"? I sure can't tell based on your definition, so perhaps you can help to learnt me properly.

[EvilNed]

What about when Fran calls Stephen "David" in the TV studio? Is that a "goof" or is it "misé-en-scene"? I sure can't tell based on your definition, so perhaps you can help to learnt me properly. That, my friend... Is the Twilight Zone!

[Philly_SWAT]

How can I be wrong about anything? Seriously. What is there to be wrong about? The football schedule is there, it's not a goof, it's simply there. There's nothing to be wrong about. Please, tell me what it is you want me to admit I was wrong about. If not, stop making such accusations. You keep comparing a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds, crew reflections in mirrors... Well, guess what, there's things that break immersion. We call them goofs. And then there's things that give life to the frame. We call that misé-en-scene. When you've learnt the difference between the two, come back and we'll talk. And I never said the football schedule contradicted anything. That was the whole point OF it, you see. Read my posts better. Now I'm off. I know I've got my point across, and I know you understand it, you're just playing dumb. So I've got nothing further to add. The football schedule is there, accept it or edit it out of your damn copy of the film. As far as comparing "a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds", the only comparison that I am making is that they are both irrelevant. Whatever high flalutin' terms you want to assign to them, neither has impact on the film, or they both do. It cant be that one does and the other doesnt. I have never claimed to not understand that the football schedule is there. Obviously, it is there. Whether it is "giving life to the frame" or not, the fact is that is does not give insight into what the year it is in the movie. If a civil war musket is shown in a scene, are we to take it that the timeframe of the movie is in the 1860's? I think you HAVE to understand that fact, so I assume you are playing dumb.

[EvilNed]

As far as comparing "a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds", the only comparison that I am making is that they are both irrelevant. Whatever high flalutin' terms you want to assign to them, neither has impact on the film, or they both do. It cant be that one does and the other doesnt. I have never claimed to not understand that the football schedule is there. Obviously, it is there. Whether it is "giving life to the frame" or not, the fact is that is does not give insight into what the year it is in the movie. If a civil war musket is shown in a scene, are we to take it that the timeframe of the movie is in the 1860's? I think you HAVE to understand that fact, so I assume you are playing dumb. You're still comparing apples and oranges, while still refusing to accept the difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers. Both are not irrelevant, unless you want them to be. Because one is a blooper, and one is filling the frame with life. So yes, I can choose to disregard the blooper as much as I damn well please. And I do! Because it's a blooper! As for the musket, you are aware of that many people collect that stuff. Whereas not to many people collect handwritten football scores from the year 197X and hang them up on their security walls. I, sir, think that you have to understand that fact. I will not simply write down a message that I will copy and paste until you've accepted the fact that Misé-en-scene is not interchangeable with bloopers: The piece of paper in the security office is there to fill the frame with life. It is irrelevant if you choose it to be, but it's still there and it's open for interpretation for it is in the misé-en-scene. It is there, and nothing will change that fact. The cars moving are also in the film, unfortunetly, but the differences are quite clear. For one, they do not take up a third of the screen in a close up. Second, they contradict the story of a lifeless, dead surrounding. Apples. Oranges. Now, please. Accept it or agree to disagree. I still say that you're playing dumb because you do not want to accept defeat. So be it. I can accept a cease of hostilities just to get me out of this stupid argument, which is a crystal clear case to begin with... Why do I torture myself in this way...

[Philly_SWAT]

You're still comparing apples and oranges, while still refusing to accept the difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers. Both are not irrelevant, unless you want them to be. Because one is a blooper, and one is filling the frame with life. So yes, I can choose to disregard the blooper as much as I damn well please. And I do! Because it's a blooper! As for the musket, you are aware of that many people collect that stuff. Whereas not to many people collect handwritten football scores from the year 197X and hang them up on their security walls. I, sir, think that you have to understand that fact. I will not simply write down a message that I will copy and paste until you've accepted the fact that Misé-en-scene is not interchangeable with bloopers: The piece of paper in the security office is there to fill the frame with life. It is irrelevant if you choose it to be, but it's still there and it's open for interpretation for it is in the misé-en-scene. It is there, and nothing will change that fact. The cars moving are also in the film, unfortunetly, but the differences are quite clear. For one, they do not take up a third of the screen in a close up. Second, they contradict the story of a lifeless, dead surrounding. Apples. Oranges. Now, please. Accept it or agree to disagree. I still say that you're playing dumb because you do not want to accept defeat. So be it. I can accept a cease of hostilities just to get me out of this stupid argument, which is a crystal clear case to begin with... Why do I torture myself in this way... I can accept things that you say. You can not accept things that I say. That is apparently a difference between us. To prove my point.... 1. I agree there is a difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers 2. I am aware people collect muskets 3. The schedule "fills the frame with life" So I ask you direct questions... 1. We both agree people do not "collect" football scores from 197X (unless they were on the team and that was a great memory for them that year), but do you agree that sometimes old stuff tends to just sit around sometimes and not get thrown away? 2. If we do not take the film as happening "now", dont we care less about the story? (If we take the film as happening in 197X instead of "now", then the story is not compelling...we know that there was no zombie outbreak between 1979 and now) 3. Do you really, truly think that the schedule was put in there ON purpose to show the year? If so, how do you explain it is on the screen for less than one second, and can not be seen upon normal viewing?

[EvilNed]

I can accept things that you say. No, that's exactly what you haven't done. 1. We both agree people do not "collect" football scores from 197X (unless they were on the team and that was a great memory for them that year), but do you agree that sometimes old stuff tends to just sit around sometimes and not get thrown away? Yes, I agree with that. 2. If we do not take the film as happening "now", dont we care less about the story? (If we take the film as happening in 197X instead of "now", then the story is not compelling...we know that there was no zombie outbreak between 1979 and now) Art is personal, so that's not for me to say. Personally? I've never actually thought that the film takes place in any time except the seventies, because it's kinda obvious to me, with the old arcade games, fashion clothing and all that, that it's not happening in the present. But that's just my way of interpreting it. So no, I feel no such thing, but I understand your angle. Which is why the wonderful thing about art is that it's personal. Which is what I've been saying all along. 3. Do you really, truly think that the schedule was put in there ON purpose to show the year? If so, how do you explain it is on the screen for less than one second, and can not be seen upon normal viewing? This point is irrelevant, because it's there. That's what I've been saying all along.

[Philly_SWAT]

Originally Posted by Philly_SWAT View Post 3. Do you really, truly think that the schedule was put in there ON purpose to show the year? If so, how do you explain it is on the screen for less than one second, and can not be seen upon normal viewing? This point is irrelevant, because it's there. That's what I've been saying all along. It is not irrelevant to the discussion we are having. The van driving in the truckyard is there as well. Just because something is there does not mean necessarily that it has any particular significance.

[EvilNed]

It is not irrelevant to the discussion we are having. The van driving in the truckyard is there as well. Just because something is there does not mean necessarily that it has any particular significance. Wouldn't you say that it's up to the viewer? It is irrelevant why it's there (and in this case, it's there to bring life to the frame, not because some script girl messed up). Or is your command law when it comes to the analysing of Dawn? (Remember, you've already accepted the difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers, so don't bring up the car again. I've got you on tape! Haha!)

[AnxietyDilemma]

Or they just chose the shot they were most happy with. Still, cars contradict, football schedule does not. You said it's subjective right? Well, maybe I believe his theory then that there was a car gang that intended to raid the mall, I mean, it's a part of the movie, clearly visible.

[EvilNed]

You said it's subjective right? Well, maybe I believe his theory then that there was a car gang that intended to raid the mall, I mean, it's a part of the movie, clearly visible. Who am I to stop you from believing that, right?