All language subtitles for Movie Mistakes When does Film Continuity REALLY Matter.en

af Afrikaans
sq Albanian
am Amharic
ar Arabic
hy Armenian
az Azerbaijani
eu Basque
be Belarusian
bn Bengali
bs Bosnian
bg Bulgarian
ca Catalan
ceb Cebuano
ny Chichewa
zh-CN Chinese (Simplified)
zh-TW Chinese (Traditional)
co Corsican
hr Croatian
cs Czech
da Danish
nl Dutch
en English
eo Esperanto
et Estonian
tl Filipino
fi Finnish
fr French
fy Frisian
gl Galician
ka Georgian
de German
el Greek
gu Gujarati
ht Haitian Creole
ha Hausa
haw Hawaiian
iw Hebrew Download
hi Hindi
hmn Hmong
hu Hungarian
is Icelandic
ig Igbo
id Indonesian
ga Irish
it Italian
ja Japanese
jw Javanese
kn Kannada
kk Kazakh
km Khmer
ko Korean
ku Kurdish (Kurmanji)
ky Kyrgyz
lo Lao
la Latin
lv Latvian
lt Lithuanian
lb Luxembourgish
mk Macedonian
mg Malagasy
ms Malay
ml Malayalam
mt Maltese
mi Maori
mr Marathi
mn Mongolian
my Myanmar (Burmese)
ne Nepali
no Norwegian
ps Pashto
fa Persian
pl Polish
pt Portuguese
pa Punjabi
ro Romanian
ru Russian
sm Samoan
gd Scots Gaelic
sr Serbian
st Sesotho
sn Shona
sd Sindhi
si Sinhala
sk Slovak
sl Slovenian
so Somali
es Spanish
su Sundanese
sw Swahili
sv Swedish
tg Tajik
ta Tamil
te Telugu
th Thai
tr Turkish
uk Ukrainian
ur Urdu
uz Uzbek
vi Vietnamese
cy Welsh
xh Xhosa
yi Yiddish
yo Yoruba
zu Zulu
or Odia (Oriya)
rw Kinyarwanda
tk Turkmen
tt Tatar
ug Uyghur
Would you like to inspect the original subtitles? These are the user uploaded subtitles that are being translated: 1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:11,400 Take a look at this scene... 2 00:00:27,020 --> 00:00:35,180 ( Oh my... ) 3 00:00:35,180 --> 00:00:42,410 ( Oh my... god! ) Notice anything? If you did, good for you. 4 00:00:42,410 --> 00:00:49,160 You have a very keen eye. I cut that 5 00:00:49,160 --> 00:00:51,440 scene and I probably watched it more 6 00:00:51,440 --> 00:00:53,930 than a hundred times, often sitting with 7 00:00:53,930 --> 00:00:55,820 the director together, and I never 8 00:00:55,820 --> 00:00:58,270 noticed the mistake. 9 00:00:59,210 --> 00:01:06,380 And then one day, I happened to stop 10 00:01:06,380 --> 00:01:12,710 right at this frame and it hit me. 11 00:01:12,710 --> 00:01:14,960 I asked mark: Did you notice anything? But 12 00:01:14,960 --> 00:01:19,759 he didn't. Mark is wearing no jacket and 13 00:01:19,759 --> 00:01:21,500 now he's wearing a jacket. 14 00:01:21,500 --> 00:01:23,869 This is a failure of continuity editing. 15 00:01:23,869 --> 00:01:27,050 ( Thank you. ) 16 00:01:27,050 --> 00:01:30,259 Continuity editing is the process of 17 00:01:30,259 --> 00:01:32,840 combining more or less related shots so 18 00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:34,910 as to direct the viewers attention to a 19 00:01:34,910 --> 00:01:37,820 pre-existing consistency of story across 20 00:01:37,820 --> 00:01:41,178 both time and physical location. And here, 21 00:01:41,179 --> 00:01:43,880 we're breaking that rule. Clearly when 22 00:01:43,880 --> 00:01:46,220 you make a mistake like this it can 23 00:01:46,220 --> 00:01:49,070 really hurt the success of a film. 24 00:01:49,070 --> 00:01:52,220 Did you see it? How about this one? 25 00:01:52,220 --> 00:01:55,670 It seems that continuity gaffes are rampant 26 00:01:55,670 --> 00:01:57,950 in film. ( If you watch closely during the 27 00:01:57,950 --> 00:01:59,420 scene with the Velociraptor you may 28 00:01:59,420 --> 00:02:01,970 notice an out-of-place hand. ) ( In the first 29 00:02:01,970 --> 00:02:03,439 Pirates of the Caribbean you can 30 00:02:03,439 --> 00:02:05,059 clearly see a crewmember over jack 31 00:02:05,060 --> 00:02:07,310 sparrow's shoulder. ) ( Predictable damage ensues. 32 00:02:07,310 --> 00:02:09,709 But seconds later that same 33 00:02:09,709 --> 00:02:11,989 windshield is seen in perfect condition. ) 34 00:02:11,989 --> 00:02:14,360 And many are not shy to make fun of the 35 00:02:14,360 --> 00:02:16,430 filmmakers. ( And how this floating broom 36 00:02:16,430 --> 00:02:18,079 pantomime made it into the finished film 37 00:02:18,079 --> 00:02:20,510 is anyone's guess. ) ( Let's just enjoy that special 38 00:02:20,510 --> 00:02:25,730 star wars moments again. ) ( We're just saying that 39 00:02:25,730 --> 00:02:28,010 some script supervisors or editors could 40 00:02:28,010 --> 00:02:29,989 have done their jobs just a teeny bit 41 00:02:29,989 --> 00:02:30,950 better. ) 42 00:02:30,950 --> 00:02:34,339 Should we put the blame on the script 43 00:02:34,340 --> 00:02:37,370 supervisor onset or later, the editor who 44 00:02:37,370 --> 00:02:39,769 for some reason or another did not cut it 45 00:02:39,769 --> 00:02:40,820 correctly, 46 00:02:40,820 --> 00:02:46,100 like I did? And then how do some of the 47 00:02:46,100 --> 00:02:49,630 greats feel about continuity errors. 48 00:02:49,630 --> 00:02:58,510 Thelma Schoonmaker,the iconic editor who 49 00:02:58,510 --> 00:03:01,840 worked on many of Scorsese's films says in an 50 00:03:01,840 --> 00:03:04,540 interview: 51 00:03:04,540 --> 00:03:06,940 52 00:03:06,940 --> 00:03:08,770 53 00:03:08,770 --> 00:03:10,540 54 00:03:10,540 --> 00:03:12,820 55 00:03:12,820 --> 00:03:14,440 56 00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:17,140 57 00:03:17,140 --> 00:03:19,899 Martin Hunter, the editor for Stanley 58 00:03:19,900 --> 00:03:22,660 Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket says: There's 59 00:03:22,660 --> 00:03:24,640 a cut when the drill sergeant punches 60 00:03:24,640 --> 00:03:27,250 Mathew Motley in the stomach and in one 61 00:03:27,250 --> 00:03:29,170 shot he pulls back with his left hand 62 00:03:29,170 --> 00:03:31,420 and in the cut he punches with his 63 00:03:31,420 --> 00:03:33,280 right... 64 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,100 65 00:03:36,100 --> 00:03:38,079 66 00:03:38,080 --> 00:03:40,570 67 00:03:40,570 --> 00:03:42,250 68 00:03:42,250 --> 00:03:43,060 69 00:03:43,060 --> 00:03:46,450 Walter Murch is so uninterested in 70 00:03:46,450 --> 00:03:49,060 continuity editing he actually give it the 71 00:03:49,060 --> 00:03:52,120 least priority in terms of when to 72 00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:57,040 make a cut. He writes an ideal cut for me 73 00:03:57,040 --> 00:03:59,170 is the one that satisfies the following 74 00:03:59,170 --> 00:04:01,480 six criteria at once... 75 00:04:01,480 --> 00:04:04,690 76 00:04:04,690 --> 00:04:07,300 77 00:04:07,300 --> 00:04:09,760 78 00:04:09,760 --> 00:04:12,070 Emotion if the thing that you should try 79 00:04:12,070 --> 00:04:14,350 to preserve at all costs. If you find you 80 00:04:14,350 --> 00:04:16,329 have to sacrifice certain of those six 81 00:04:16,329 --> 00:04:18,969 elements to make a cut, sacrifice your 82 00:04:18,970 --> 00:04:21,070 way up from the bottom. 83 00:04:21,070 --> 00:04:24,010 So three legendary editors, all don't 84 00:04:24,010 --> 00:04:25,300 really care all that much about 85 00:04:25,300 --> 00:04:28,120 continuity. Are they just full of it or is there 86 00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:30,790 actually some science behind it? 87 00:04:30,790 --> 00:04:34,210 Tim J Smith is a lecturer of 88 00:04:34,210 --> 00:04:37,030 physiological sciences, Birkbeck 89 00:04:37,030 --> 00:04:39,309 University of London, and he studies all 90 00:04:39,310 --> 00:04:41,620 kinds of visual cognition. He did some 91 00:04:41,620 --> 00:04:44,890 extensive tests with eye tracking, where he 92 00:04:44,890 --> 00:04:47,020 traces the eye movement to find out 93 00:04:47,020 --> 00:04:49,299 where audiences look and what they pay 94 00:04:49,300 --> 00:04:52,210 attention to. Attentional Synchrony is where 95 00:04:52,210 --> 00:04:54,669 the majority of viewers will have their 96 00:04:54,670 --> 00:04:57,550 eyes focused in on the same element of 97 00:04:57,550 --> 00:05:02,560 the screen. The number one predictor of 98 00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:04,870 where most people are going to look in a 99 00:05:04,870 --> 00:05:06,880 frame - or rather what they will pay 100 00:05:06,880 --> 00:05:09,520 attention to - is whether there's a human 101 00:05:09,520 --> 00:05:12,580 face in the shot. If it is science tells 102 00:05:12,580 --> 00:05:14,560 us that all the attention is geared 103 00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:16,540 towards that. And that's why so many 104 00:05:16,540 --> 00:05:20,360 continuity problems go unnoticed. 105 00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:23,030 It actually turns out that Hitchcock who, 106 00:05:23,030 --> 00:05:25,818 is a master at composing shots, really understood this concept. 107 00:05:25,819 --> 00:05:27,979 108 00:05:27,979 --> 00:05:41,210 109 00:05:41,210 --> 00:05:44,599 ( I'm not required to answer this question? This is scary me. ) 110 00:05:44,599 --> 00:05:47,569 Humans study other human faces. When it 111 00:05:47,569 --> 00:05:49,580 comes to still images we tend to look 112 00:05:49,580 --> 00:05:51,318 at the eyes. When it comes to moving 113 00:05:51,319 --> 00:05:53,419 images we tend to look around the nose 114 00:05:53,419 --> 00:05:56,180 and move up and down between the mouth 115 00:05:56,180 --> 00:05:58,430 and eyes, as we're trying to understand 116 00:05:58,430 --> 00:06:00,650 what somebody is saying or the emotions 117 00:06:00,650 --> 00:06:03,739 that their express. ( One question, short and sweet? ) 118 00:06:03,740 --> 00:06:07,939 ( Where's my bed, what's better than that? ) 119 00:06:07,939 --> 00:06:10,819 I have to say, first-time filmmakers tend to 120 00:06:10,819 --> 00:06:12,830 point out continuity errors and they're 121 00:06:12,830 --> 00:06:15,020 very concerned about fixing these 122 00:06:15,020 --> 00:06:17,240 problems - to the point where they're 123 00:06:17,240 --> 00:06:19,219 willing to sacrifice the performance or 124 00:06:19,219 --> 00:06:20,300 a moment. 125 00:06:20,300 --> 00:06:24,919 So for example, in this scene Mark has to 126 00:06:24,919 --> 00:06:27,620 wake his three-year-old son and move out 127 00:06:27,620 --> 00:06:29,479 of the house because he can't afford the 128 00:06:29,479 --> 00:06:37,699 rent anymore. And as he's walking down 129 00:06:37,699 --> 00:06:40,370 the stairs a continuity error happens 130 00:06:40,370 --> 00:06:50,569 ( Baby Crying ) See it? You can see the camera. And we 131 00:06:50,569 --> 00:06:52,610 could have decided to cut around it but 132 00:06:52,610 --> 00:06:54,409 it would have broken this moment that 133 00:06:54,409 --> 00:06:59,740 really played most powerful in real time. 134 00:07:01,700 --> 00:07:06,950 So when does continuity matter? Pretty 135 00:07:06,950 --> 00:07:09,860 much never. And if it does then maybe 136 00:07:09,860 --> 00:07:11,240 there's something else wrong with the 137 00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:13,700 scene. I asked you if you thought that 138 00:07:13,700 --> 00:07:16,550 continuity is important and in a poll, the 139 00:07:16,550 --> 00:07:18,440 majority pretty much better said that they 140 00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:21,620 don't care as long as the scene works. But 141 00:07:21,620 --> 00:07:23,420 Larry writes, i often noticed them. 142 00:07:23,420 --> 00:07:24,830 Especially now that i'm studying 143 00:07:24,830 --> 00:07:27,530 filmmaking. Burt says, I don't look for 144 00:07:27,530 --> 00:07:29,570 them so if i end up noticing them they tend 145 00:07:29,570 --> 00:07:32,210 to bother me. Steve says I have an error 146 00:07:32,210 --> 00:07:33,710 that I actually find more interesting than an 147 00:07:33,710 --> 00:07:35,570 actual flaw. In martin scorsese's 148 00:07:35,570 --> 00:07:37,670 Shutter Island there's what i believe to 149 00:07:37,670 --> 00:07:39,980 be an implied continuity error during the 150 00:07:39,980 --> 00:07:44,030 interrogation scene. For me personally, I 151 00:07:44,030 --> 00:07:46,520 think it was both Scoreses and Schoonmaker decision 152 00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:49,640 to use it as a device to throw 153 00:07:49,640 --> 00:07:51,919 the audience into a "nothing is as it seems" 154 00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:54,500 state of mind. I hope you got a kick 155 00:07:54,500 --> 00:07:56,150 out of this episode. Check out the video 156 00:07:56,150 --> 00:07:57,950 description for more research on the 157 00:07:57,950 --> 00:07:59,990 topic and hopefully, I'll see you see soon. 158 00:07:59,990 --> 00:08:06,459 Thanks for watching. 11549

Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.