lizzpop2003

lizzpop2003 t1_iwy7jo3 wrote

Even then, that's not how it works. Filming is typically grouped by location and actors in said scenes. So, if there are 7 scenes spread through a movie filmed at one location you would film them back to back and if 4 of those scenes featured the same actor you would film those back to back as well.

This saves time and money because that set is already built and dressed and they are already at it, so it only makes sense to stay there till you are done with it.

8

lizzpop2003 t1_iujntq6 wrote

They already are... they are recognized on the AFI top 100 and regularly come up in the conversation as among the best ever made.

These sorts of posts always annoy me as they largely either try to elevate movies that aren't that good in the first place or they proclaim films that are widely praised as being somehow underrated. A quick Google search of the films would tell you how they are viewed in the context of history though.

Take a look at any of the best of all time lists and it is likely one of the trilogy, if not the whole thing is on there.

4

lizzpop2003 t1_itklqbi wrote

Yes, it can be great when done right. But it's absolutely terrible when it's not done right. The vast majority of them are not done right. They are mostly done on the cheap with no attention to detail or craftsmanship, it is just an easy way to throw in lazy jump scares.

Look at the Paranormal Activity films. The first one is a masterclass of slow burn, effective horror. The rest are increasingly forgettable trash.

0