31–40 of 81 posts
An interesting anecdote is when the producers couldn't contact the language creator and had to make up a line on the spot. The language creator then back-fitted the made up gibberish into the language. http://www.dothraki.com/2012/06/hash-yer-ast-fin/
Er, wrong link?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that. But spending a lot of money on things that don't make it to the final cut always felt like a waste to me. I'm very very marginally into filmmaking (see bio), and I've always had the impression that costs and time could be cut drastically just with better planning. I often wonder what would happen if you applied startup principles to making a movie. Thinking in terms of MVP, customer value, efficiency, on…
Reminds me of "The Matrix" with detailed sketches of how exactly should it look.
I wish they‘d use real, dying or dead languages instead of inventing advanced gibberish for movies. We could preserve languages for posteriority and the result would be more realistic.
Bonus points if it's sold as random fantasy language of a strange country and the main cast doesn't understand it either.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/12/24/utopian-for-be...
I wish they‘d use real, dying or dead languages instead of inventing advanced gibberish for movies. We could preserve languages for posteriority and the result would be more realistic.
But the moment you start using existing language in a new context, you get into issues. You've got words and whole concepts missing that you have to add to something that's more or less complete.
Dothraki needs horse-related words. You need to be able to express certain social concepts that are unique to this fantasy culture.
So you set up to build this words and phrases. You derive phonotactics of a real language and patch it with your stuff. Now you've got new language based on an existing one. So you didn't preserve anything. And if I were a user of the originl lang, I'd be upset you appropriated and twisted it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see how this explains those massive costs. It’s one salary out of hundreds of millions, and it’s a one-time investment. Plus, once you have a language, you can translate an English script into it vs constantly making up (inconsistent) foreign dialogue as you go.
By " partially explains" I meant that if you spend money in this kind of thing, minor details that sometimes don't even end on the final cut, the costs can add up. I'm wondering to what extent the producers get good value for their money, or whether the Pareto principle applies here - is it possible to make something 80% as good for 20% of the cost, by focusing on the 20% that matters? For an extreme example, think T…
Certainly there are good "little" movies that get made on a relative shoestring. And even more shorts and arthouse fare. And modern video equipment makes it a lot easier to mostly use natural lighting and the like.
That said, mainstream TV and movies have made most of our standards pretty high. I'm always somewhat amazed by how much gear gets brought in by a video crew to shoot a few minutes of talking heads to use on a company web site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see how this explains those massive costs. It’s one salary out of hundreds of millions, and it’s a one-time investment. Plus, once you have a language, you can translate an English script into it vs constantly making up (inconsistent) foreign dialogue as you go.
By " partially explains" I meant that if you spend money in this kind of thing, minor details that sometimes don't even end on the final cut, the costs can add up. I'm wondering to what extent the producers get good value for their money, or whether the Pareto principle applies here - is it possible to make something 80% as good for 20% of the cost, by focusing on the 20% that matters? For an extreme example, think T…
The box office result says otherwise.
(Note: I'm explicitly making an economical argument, not an artistic one, since that's what the thread focuses on.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that. But spending a lot of money on things that don't make it to the final cut always felt like a waste to me. I'm very very marginally into filmmaking (see bio), and I've always had the impression that costs and time could be cut drastically just with better planning. I often wonder what would happen if you applied startup principles to making a movie. Thinking in terms of MVP, customer value, efficiency, on…
Reminds me of "The Matrix" with detailed sketches of how exactly should it look.
I wish they‘d use real, dying or dead languages instead of inventing advanced gibberish for movies. We could preserve languages for posteriority and the result would be more realistic.
By that logic, movies should just use existing props or set designs rather than creating any new artifacts. Conlanging isn't just gibberish, it's a legitimate artform like anything else. However, I don't have any issue with using real-world languages to give the desired exotic flair for certain settings. I actually think that was one of the things that was great about, for example, the Avatar: The Last Airbender cart…
I wish they‘d use real, dying or dead languages instead of inventing advanced gibberish for movies. We could preserve languages for posteriority and the result would be more realistic.
You would not be preserving anything, you'd be stomping on a culture. Old and lesser known languages are rarely well researched. You're lucky if you have morphosyntax written down. But the moment you start using existing language in a new context, you get into issues. You've got words and whole concepts missing that you have to add to something that's more or less complete. Dothraki needs horse-related words. You nee…