99
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
99 points (95.4% liked)
Asklemmy
42525 readers
1198 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
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
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.
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.
He's talking about principal shooting, you about production of the whole film.