Messages

Now that you mention it, yes, that's a behind-the-scenes shot from Kubo, but it's definitely not in the film. (Unless... I'm second-guessing myself here, but could it be that they show some of the animation process in the end credits?)

No, that's all there is to it.

If it works for you, great! If not... I'm not sure when I'll have time to look into it, I'm afraid. Others have had problems related to the same part of the code, but I don't have any immediate ideas about what the problem might be. The ideal solution would be to extend the AGS Wait() API to cover all the cases you need for dialogue blocking.

Yes, I noticed this when I tested your game.

I'm fairly sure it's a problem with the custom blocking script. I don't have time to look into it right now, but you should try setting a transparent font. That will bypass all the custom blocking code and rely on the normal AGS speech blocking instead.

[imgzoom]https://i.imgur.com/E3To10v.png?1[/imgzoom]

Now, I may be crazy, but is that an awkward freeze-frame of John Cleese?

By God, apparently it is! I would never have guessed. I still don't see it, in fact.

Compare the monster transition here with the raw footage from a workprint here and tell me that's an in-camera effect. (Edit: The Wikipedia page for Gryphon Software Morph lists Bram Stoker's Dracula as one of the movies it was used in – though citation is needed for the claim – so I'm going to assume that's how it was done.)

Shortly afterwards, the workprint also shows Mina without the scar in the shot where it's supposed to vanish, proving that this effect was not achieved practically or by double exposure of the original negative (if it were, no print without the effect would exist – a point you could also make about the transition), but is done optically. (Though it's a very simple optical effect that probably didn't even require a matte.)

The other shot I strongly suspect of being an optical composite is at 1:55:48 – I think the fringe around the falling figure (which I don't believe you'd get with a simple double exposure – also he'd be transparent) gives it away. And finally, someone on Reddit claims that the blue rings of ghost fire were also done in post, which seems plausible. I do note that the special effects crew listing on IMDB includes a number of credits for "optical supervisor", "optical lineup", "optical effects", etc. ... as well as "digital effects artist (uncredited)".

So while the bulk of the effects (not counting simple cross-fades, which are probably mostly optical) were no doubt done in-camera, I'm also convinced that there are some optical and even computer effects in the film. Probably the aim was to have it all done without, but in the end there were a handful of shots they just couldn't get any other way.

Wikipedia does claim that there's no CGI or optical compositing in the film, that it's all in-camera, but that's obviously not true. A lot of it was, but not all of it. If you look at the deleted scenes, you can see that e.g. when the burn mark on Mina's forehead evaporates at the very end, that was added in post. And I'm convinced that some of the Dracula transitions (between monster and human form) are CGI morphs, but in any case they're certainly not done in-camera (again, the deleted scenes show some of them unfinished, with just simple cuts between each makeup version). Also certain shots, like one of the gypsies falling into the gorge, look like definite optical compositing jobs to me.

Is that Gary Cole?

It totally is.



People have guessed it incorrectly a few times before, but it's never actually been posted in this thread as far as I can tell.

1. is when Dracula and Mina drink absinthe.
2. is Lucy running through the garden during the first storm (as the Demeter is crossing)
3. is just before that, as Mina and Lucy read the letter from Jonathan.

I watched it last night on 4K UltraHD HDR. It looks very good in the format (the movie has its detractors, but I don't think anyone can deny that it looks gorgeous), but honestly you're probably just as well off watching the complete 1080p rip currently available on YouTube (which is where I got these caps).

One thing I noticed this time around is how often the film fudges the timelines. It helps build the dreamlike atmosphere, but is very different from the careful and systematic chronicling of events in the novel.

Nope. Maybe this helps?

No and no.

Not a bad guess (this film takes place around the same time), but not correct.

Cool. It's had a fair bit of backlash, but I liked it.
Those who haven't seen it: could you tell that that's a dollhouse diorama?

Hereditary?

Preacher?

Chilling Adventures of Sabrina?

BTW, Buckethead, sorry to leave you to dry. I thought the first screen was pretty obvious (I mean, that Aziz Ansari right there), and since I didn't have a chance to answer right away I just assumed someone else was going to get it.

The Big Sick?

Good clue! I figured out that it was on a train (those are not airplane doorways), but her being Korean didn't strike me; that should have been enough to piece it together, dammit!

I thought the same at first but that was black and white... Well, at least the only good one was...

Oh, yes of course. I knew that. Good movie (haven't read the book) but I liked The Innocents better.

As for The Changeling, I always mix it up with the (trashier?) The Entity.

The Haunting?

I guess "The Lawnmower Man" is catchier than "Evil Flowers for Algernon â€" in VR!"

Once Upon a Time in the West?