unforum

[crazedstapler]

[MonTag]

<<< Bizzaro NewYork, where buildings attack monster.

[InAFieldofClover]

Sounds more like an Australian thing.

[Euchre]

I know that since I was essentially the first to ask some probing questions about her discourse, I am seen as one of those that 'jumped down her throat' (that phrase is curious in a way I'll discuss later). I didn't saying anything personally insulting, but I did say that her assertion of timeline was not accurate based on what we know thus far. If she had insight she could have offered a clarification that would explain the disparity. If she was mistaken, and honest about it, she would be more likely to say as much ('I'm not sure about the timeline, it's just a guess' or the like). Instead she makes reference to something we already have in evidence as if to corroborate her story and put it beyond reproach. Consider that a while...

My next response to her was a request for elaboration on the things she cited, and a counterpoint based on more information we've seen from more conventional and presumably reliable sources. Consider again what you'd expect from an honest person that knows they are telling the truth - the same sort of 'I am not sure' or elaborating on facts we don't know but that would be plausible and fit.
To that post I basically got stonewalled by her. Others provided the footage, suggesting to me that she was unable to locate it herself.

After that, and other parts of her responses that basically implied 'how dare you question me' and a slight air of arrogance. She also tried to deflect into bolstering her credentials with information we could not effectively corroborate and she never went on to elaborate upon. This to me showed a shift to establishing her own unquestionability, instead of giving us something we could validate or at very least admitting how little she really did know. Feeling that sort of attitude, I felt no fear (and no regret) for being blunt in further questions and commentary.

In this 'final' flame post, she uses arguments and verbage gleaned from the posts of the various members. She tries to nurture more conflict among us (extras and SAG membership). The real topper is using Kona's phrase 'jump down her(my) throat'. Someone incensed in their own defense is more likely to come up with something original. The 'you are all internet losers' basically puts her as better than all of us. This to me is like someone trying trick someone else at their own game, and when caught tries to play down those they felt were so important to trick.

If this woman is telling any sort of truth about being in the movie, she's got a rather ridiculous sense of self-importance for being such a pathetically minor part in a much grander project. If such is the case, heaven forbid we diminish that and make what she might know far more important than her.

Now I've explained my course of reasoning.
Do I feel sorry for any of my actions here? No.
Do I think I know for sure what the case is? No.
Is my rationale plausible? You tell me.

[Finch]

Oh, its plausable and then some. I can give her the benefit of the doubt about not knowing how forums in general work and more specifically how this one works (or at least has been working the past week or so). Its to the point where we have to scrutinize anyone who claims to have any "insider info" so we can smell out a rat earlier and move on. Its to the point where we can sometimes be at each others throats over disagreements on here and frankly I see that to be the more sinister of the two of Abram's monsters. Its a shame if she was telling the truth, however, at this point we had no other options.

[UnseenPresence]

Haven't posted in a long while, as there's been (until recently) nothing I wanted to say. But I just read this entire thread, and there are some things I specifically do want to make clear about the film industry in general:


1. SAG/non-SAG Extras/Background Actors: The comment in this thread about requirements of using SAG and non-SAG are correct. Productions that are not considered 'independent' (which, generally, are films with a budget under $1 million) that are funded by -any- production company that has signed contracts with SAG (which certainly includes Paramount Pictures) are required to give a specific percentage of their extra roles to SAG and can then fill the rest with SAG or non-SAG. The reason for this is because it's one of the ways SAG attempts to get more jobs for its members.

2. Extras on set: The amount of access an Extra has on the set is -entirely- dependent on several factors:

* The size of the crew
* The security arrangements of the specific production
* How the Director/Crew/DP/Producers want it
* How the AD wants it (which generally trumps anyone but the Producer, as the AD really runs the set)
* How big the area is that's being used to shoot
* How determined the crew is to keep extras out of the way

On some sets, yes--extras only sit in one place, eat AFTER everyone else on the set (or before, depending, or sometimes to the side--rarely ever WITH the rest of the crew and actors), and only have access to their holding area and whatever place they shoot.

On other sets, however, I have seen extras chatting with crew and actors, walking around various sets and not being yelled at as long as they weren't getting in the way of the shoot.

So it really depends on how the particular production wants to do it. My guess, honestly, is that the shoot for this film is smaller than a normal production--and given how easily nooneimportant (or whoever it was who was walking around the shoot with a camera way back when) was able to see what was going on, I wouldn't be surprised if an extra could do so.

3. NDAs and so forth: Again, it depends on the film as to whether or not Extras (SAG or no) have to sign any form of NDA. The most common thing, actually, is for an extra simply to sign the form that allows their image to be used in any fashion. NDAs for extras are pretty uncommon. Not unheard of, but uncommon. No idea whether this film is being -that- specific. But then again, the amount of information that leaks is the reason why sites like AICN first got popular.

And as far as what Denise said, none of it would even remotely cross the lines of an NDA, as the lawyer post in this thread suggests. I've said a lot more about films I've been involved in without getting near the NDA limits.

4. Actors often don't know the first thing about the production side. They -should- know as much as possible, and the better actors make an effort to learn it...but I've run across more actors than you can imagine who would have no idea what a "dolly shot" is, nor the difference between a boom, omnidirectional or wireless mic is.

I think it's certainly possible that Denise was exactly what she claimed to be. I also think there were a good many posts in this thread that were stating opinions as to validity without a lot of knowledge of the industry behind them, and if I had been her and was legit...I might well have lost my temper, too.

And "jumping down someone's throat", btw, is a really common LA term. Since I live here, I know.


My 2 cents, in case anyone is interested.

[McPhearson]

According to other reports that I've come across, executives of this film clearly state that each and every cast and crew member was made to sign a privacy contract ensuring that no dialogue, plot points, or technicalities were revealed.

So, by even talking about it with us, DeniseB, you would be infringing on your contract, resulting in a fine and/or imprisonment.

I find this shady, and refuse to refer to this information again until what she says is officially confirmed.

[Euchre]

Unseen, that was a very well composed post and certainly sounds like reasonable insight into the reality of filmmaking. However my own assessments were based on the nature of her responses as much or more than the content. Content can, however, matter - for example:

[JaeDom]

 

[kosmopol]

[rhialto]

I don't know if she was really an extra on the film, but if you watched that trailer and tough the monster is mythological half-man-half-bull... wow.

[Everything's Magic]

Well, she cold be right; she says "is that a minotaur?" not "OMG I know 100% that I am looking at a minotaur right now. OMGz it's eating me. But at least I know it's a minotaur" in the film, and we haven't seen the monster's head yet. I'd say... well, maybe she's right. But she could be just as easily lying as she is telling the truth so this is something we'll have to wait for when the film comes out.

[rhialto]

Maybe it being a Minotaur is a hint what she is saying is bull?

And if so I say: good show.

[Everything's Magic]

[konamouse]

What if the monster has long horns on it's head?