Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

So you want to discuss silent drama, science fiction, horror, noir, mystery and other NON-COMEDY films? Look no further, this is the place.
Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Richard M Roberts » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:36 pm

Hey, at least there was a new twist of delusional stupidity over there as I gave it a quick perusal today, apparently they now liken running silent films at the correct 24 fps to the goose-stepping latent Nazism of the Weimar Republic Germans:

http://nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 60#p163278

What jack-offs.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Rob Farr
Godfather
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Our Nation's Capitol

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Rob Farr » Wed Dec 23, 2015 10:16 am

Just as there are people who cannot perceive 3-D movies and others who for whom strobe lighting risks triggering epilepsy, I am convinced that there are people who simply cannot watch undercranked motion without experiencing time/space disorientation. It doesn't matter if we painstakingly explain historical precedent. They can watch Ben Model's undercranking studies till the cows come home. They simply cannot watch undercranking without feeling as if the world they know and love has lost its temporal bearings.

At least those people who cannot abide 3-D happily watch the 2-D versions and people who cannot risk strobe lighting generally avoid discos. But the anti-undercranking crowd persists in arguing that undercranking should not exist in a rational world and must be not be tolerated in theatrical or home video. There's a simple solution: Don't watch anything made before 1930. And avoid Benny Hill at all costs.
Rob Farr
"If it's not comedy, I fall asleep" - Harpo Marx

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Richard M Roberts » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:44 am

Rob Farr wrote:Just as there are people who cannot perceive 3-D movies and others who for whom strobe lighting risks triggering epilepsy, I am convinced that there are people who simply cannot watch undercranked motion without experiencing time/space disorientation. It doesn't matter if we painstakingly explain historical precedent. They can watch Ben Model's undercranking studies till the cows come home. They simply cannot watch undercranking without feeling as if the world they know and love has lost its temporal bearings.

At least those people who cannot abide 3-D happily watch the 2-D versions and people who cannot risk strobe lighting generally avoid discos. But the anti-undercranking crowd persists in arguing that undercranking should not exist in a rational world and must be not be tolerated in theatrical or home video. There's a simple solution: Don't watch anything made before 1930. And avoid Benny Hill at all costs.




In short, there are people too stupid to be able to deal with these films as they are meant to be seen, and need them slower so they can take in the pretty pictures and make sense of it all.

They seem to populate Nitratevile, along with equally brain-dead denizens who are convinced that Silent Films had posted definite running times.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

William Ferry
Cugine
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby William Ferry » Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:39 pm

Having seen plenty of silent films over the last fifty years, I confess I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other over projection speeds, with the exception of step-printing (if I'm using the correct term). Watching a Chaplin "two-reeler" that runs 26 minutes (and seems to be moving a bit faster than real life) only evokes this reaction from me: "Oh, I guess a two-reeler ISN'T limited to 20 minutes. How about that."

Generally, I don't get into arguments with people - having had enough of that with the old AMS newsgroup (and especially the Chaplin newsgroup). But I really think Real_McCoy needs to double up on his Prozac.

Louie Despres
Associate
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Louie Despres » Fri Dec 25, 2015 9:33 am

oh hell, not THIS again!

Bill Sprague
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 9:49 am

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Bill Sprague » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:41 pm

Yes, this is a very old subject. In my opinion those Video Yesteryear silent films were the worst when it came to projection speed. They had two reelers at 35 minutes

Joe Migliore
Cugine
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:57 pm

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Joe Migliore » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:55 pm

Bill Sprague wrote:
In my opinion those Video Yesteryear silent films were the worst when it came to projection speed. They had two reelers at 35 minutes



...and Rosa Rio at the Hammond Organ!

Bill Sprague
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 9:49 am

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Bill Sprague » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:19 pm

In Video Yesteryears' case , the musical scores were the best part of the film. If only they adjusted the projection speed

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Nitrateville General Jackassery: Film Speeds

Postby Richard M Roberts » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:53 pm

Bill Sprague wrote:In Video Yesteryears' case , the musical scores were the best part of the film. If only they adjusted the projection speed



Yeah, Rosa Rio was a fine accompanist when the films were running at the correct faster speeds that gave her a chance to have real pacing. Video Yesteryear was definitely the worst, but far from the only ones with historically-incorrect ideas about "natural speed" in silent films.

RICHARD M ROBERTS


Return to “SILENT MOVIE MAIN”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests