*related=https://videosift.com/video/The-Walker-Brothers-1967-The-Sun-Aint-Gonna-Shine-Anymore

Love me some Alan Rickman! *related=https://videosift.com/video/Truly-Madly-Deeply-The-Sun-Ain-t-Gonna-Shine-Anymore

I don't know that Carlin's voice would be the right one, but doing so wouldn't necessarily be an issue for the character of Blaine. Seems reasonable to have a computer simulation of a particular voice rather than a voice actor specifically acting out each line. I'd argue however that if we're going to resurrect someone to voice Blaine, let's go with Alan Rickman. Just the right blend of civilized / polite and deadly serious / menacing.

Edit:
I've been a fan of the books from sometime between 3 and 4, and love most of the story. The last three books lost me some, as they felt quite different in tone. Even Wizard and Glass felt a bit of a miss, though it was a solid story in its own right. I frequently avoid watching trailers for films I know I'll see, so as to avoid spoilers and being mislead if the trailer happened to be poorly made. I plan to see this movie, and originally came here for the comments exclusively; having read them, I chose to watch it. I get the impression that the actors treat the characters well, and they feel like good interpretations. McConaughey's Walter is hard to read with what little we see here, but I've generally liked him in other things.

My biggest worry is that visuals all seem too clean, and the more sci-fi direction bothers me some. To me Mid-World always seemed like a character itself. An ancient thing, being stretched thin, fighting to hold itself together and losing. High tech doesn't feel right there, like the extreme entropy would have rendered it all non-operative. There was some tech here and there in the books, but most of it was broken or breaking down.

Wow, it sounds like Alan Rickman did the caterpillar voice. I think this might have been his last performance.

When someone is interviewing another, like when John Oliver interviewed Edward Snowden, two cameras are used so that factual continuity can be maintained.

In the movie Broadcast News, the character Tom Grunick did an extremely powerful interview where he started crying during it. It was later found that he only had one camera with him, so how could he have cut to him crying as the lady spoke... That's why shot/reverse shot interviews are always filmed with two cameras simultaneously.

In movies, there is usually only one camera, they will set up one side of the conversation, film it all the way through, then set up the shot from the other direction, film IT from that direction, taking however many takes each way, then edit the two together.

In the Die Hard example, Rickman was obviously filmed first, and Bochner's ad-lib made a "happy mistake" they got on film.

If Bochner had been filmed first, you would never have seen Rickman's perfect reaction.

...then again, Rickman was a God. He probably could have made the same reaction a couple dozen times after the initial confusion.

You film Alan Rickman's face while Ellis gives his 'guns...pens...what's the difference' speech offscreen. He gives the 'Hans...Bubby' line. It throws Rickman off for a moment and makes his reaction that little more genuine.

Then you film Ellis giving the speech. Probably after it has been tidied up and reworked a little bit.

Then you edit them together.

I was hoping this was going to answer a question I have asked for a long time but still don't have a clear answer. Is it common to have 2 cameras filming actors simultaneously during a shot/counter-shot scene in a standard Hollywood production, so it's recording their interactions in real time?

Or is it more likely done with one camera, with the actors filmed sequentially and responding to off-camera dialog as they speak their lines. And then the shot/counter-shot are strung together in editing.

Seems to me the one camera would be more logical, as otherwise the lighting resources themselves would have to be doubled and kept out of view. Also I don't ever remember seeing any pictures or footage from a movie set where they have 2 cameras and 2 sets of lights, etc.

The reason I keep asking is that on IMDB in the trivia section you always read some nonsense about somebody's onscreen reaction to some unscripted ad-libbed line being genuine.

Well if they aren't both in the same shot how could it be a genuine reaction if the shot/counter-shot are filmed with one camera at different times? And the dialog may be spoken and recorded hours apart?

Like this scene from the "Die Hard" trivia section:
Hart Bochner's line "Hans... Bubby!" was ad-libbed. Alan Rickman's quizzical reaction was genuine.

They weren't in the same shot, so how can his reaction be genuine when the line may have been ad-libbed several hours earlier or later. If it was ad-libbed at all.

It strikes me as stupid made-up shit that passes for trivia and knowledge on the Internet but wanted to get some opinions on this.

How bout Rickman in Dogma https://youtu.be/fDJq0bNJbQA

http://videosift.com/video/Alan-Rickman-Died-Today-Please-watch-this-He-would-want-it

And RIP Alan Rickman, at his personal David Bowie concert in the sky.

He sounds like Alan Rickman when he sings

He looks like Alan Rickman and Nicholas Cage got into Brundle's Telepod by accident.
Unless it was not an accident....
MUHAHAHAHAHA!

I'd say he looks very similar to a bloated Alan Rickman

WHOA! Hijacked the Holy Father's throne, YOINK!

I ain't Catholic but I sure dig how this new pope rolls-He's not stambling around like some sedated stroke-victim either...like the last 3 creepy ones and, he's Argentinian (BBQ's @ Vatican City) and kinna looks like Alan Rickman

Your video, Alan Rickman and Michael Gambon prank Daniel Radcliffe!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^kulpims:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Epic-Tea-Time-with-Alan-Rickman


*timeshift=http://videosift.com/video/Epic-Tea-Time-with-Alan-Rickman