Talk:Sarah and the City

can anyone REALLY see the camera guy in the vase?

to Me it looks like its just a bedpost of a sort...

I thought that I saw it. But it could be a bedpost. I don't know. It's not really clear enough to figure out. -Greenie 10:12, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

well, i've seen about 5 people say its a cameraman, so now i can't see it as anything else. he doesn't seem to move as far as i can tell though. --Milowent 10:13, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

I would say they (yes, two) are people, for three simple reasons:

1. Sarah's bed doesn't have bedposts
2. If both were bedposts, their placement would make no sense at all
3. If those are bedposts, they're gigantic

I, personally, assume it's the camera man and a director.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 11:24, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

It is a sculpture. If it was the camera man, it would have arms up and also, it wouldn't be so far back because the scene is close to Sarah's face. Chelseyrl 13:14, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

• • Yea I was gonna say something about that. If that was the cameraman, he would be filming edge-on. (murdock_cb)

1. Sculptures don't stand in the middle of the room
2. Sculptures don't stand in the middle of bedrooms
3. Sculptures don't have such a wide stance
4. The "missing" arms make perfectly sense if it's the director with his arms folded in front of his chest, waiting for the take to finish
5. The "missing" arms make perfectly sense if it's the cameraman and he's filming with a handheld camera in front of his face, using the right arm in front of the body to hold it, and the left arm to steady it.
6. The "distance to the camera" argument is complete and utter bullshit, because going further away and zooming is not only possible, but might actually have been necessary to not cast a shadow on her face.
7. In addition, distance+zoom creates a different angle of view effect than closeness+no zoom, so the choice may also have been made for purely artistic reasons.

Please...if you wanna argue, use arguments that make sense.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:34, 2 November 2007 (CDT)

First off, I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Second off, there is no way it is the camera man. There is no way that they would miss a huge detail like that. They are not dumb to know what reflects in a scene and what doesn't that they have to stay away from. The only time I have seen the camera was from Uncle Dan and it is very, very, very, VERY tiny spot and very hard to see. The C's know that yes, we know this is a work of fiction but they still retain the aspect that it is filmed by the TAAG. Even if it was to be perceived as a work of fiction, they STILL wouldn't have an accidental slip up that you are believing to be true. Chelseyrl 00:14, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

Relax, people! I just want to say that in KM, which I hate, has a few things like that. I dunno which video it is, but a female voice is heard saying, "action." Everyone makes mistakes. So. That said. It's a mistake of the Creators and there's no reason not to acknowledge it. Besides, what's the big deal if it's not or is. Some people can get real heated. --free2liv4evr 12:01, 3 November 2007 (PST)

Well yes, I understand that. But the difference there is that it is a different production team over there. So that's another factor. Also, now DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THIS but I'm pretty sure on one of the behind the scenes things (on tv) they showed a boom mic operator. Well now I'm tired and not making sense. Chelseyrl 02:38, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

It's no question of "dumbness" for christ's sake - it's a question of "DAMN! Do we have time to reshoot this? No? ARGH. *sigh* ...oh well, maybe no one will notice..."

I am very open to other explanations for that huge, man-like figure, but "they would know what reflects", when you, again and again, see camera and production equipment in multi-million dollar productions is just nonsense. Are you telling me the LG15 set designer is better than anyone who has ever worked on a $50,000,000+ production? I think not.

Both figures don't move at all - that is an argument against them being human. But a sculpture in the middle of the room, because you think the set designer "knows what reflects"? That's on the outter edge of making sense, if at all.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 08:06, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

All you're doing is twisting my words. I'm going to PM the Creators and ask them. Chelseyrl 14:20, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

I have removed the tag about the slide editing tequinique, since this is not the first time it has been used, it has also been used in Sluttiness Prevails. That is all. Coffeeaddict 12:31, 4 November 2007 (CST)