Why is Nine showing The Castle tonight?

ant · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 1

There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?

And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot in
very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound is
excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using such
harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.

--
Don't try to email me;
I'm using the spammer
du jour's email addy

David Z · External Since: Aug 25, 2003 Posts: 166

I didn't think this movie was that bad 10 years ago, but watching it now, it
has really dated. Not only the poor quality film, but the low budget and
non-existant effects. For example, when the family is in the car on the way
to Bonnydoone, they actually aren't moving at all. They don't even *try* to
make it look as if it's moving. I've seen black and white TV shows from the
1950s that were more convincing - moving backgrounds have been used for well
over 50 years now.

"ant" <britishcouncilgrant01 DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5c2j6hF2stpbmU1@mid.individual.net...
> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
> show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>
> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot
> in very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound
> is excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using
> such harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>
> --
> Don't try to email me;
> I'm using the spammer
> du jour's email addy
>

TG'sFM · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 1

On May 30, 9:03 am, imorf <i....DeleteThis@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote:
> Gooseberri wrote:
> > "Chock" <c....DeleteThis@nospam.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:465c23e9$0$18003$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> "ant" <britishcouncilgran....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:5c2j6hF2stpbmU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
> >>> show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>
> >>> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot
> >>> in very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound
> >>> is excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using
> >>> such harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>
> >> Not a cheap film? It only had half a million dollar budget and took 11
> >> days to film.
>
> > Great cast. That was the key, otherwise I'm sure they would have needed
> > much more shooting time to get what they wanted.
>
> totally agree, and the casting for the 3 sons really fit the family
> (weird looking blue eyed morons).

They were catholics, not mormons. Didn't you notice the cross on the
pool room wall?

Astro · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 2

On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:04:35 +1000, "ant"
<britishcouncilgrant01.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
>show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>
>And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot in
>very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound is
>excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using such
>harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.tv/browse_thread/thread/18bb91cc...381e2/b

Lofts · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 2

ant wrote:
> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
> show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>
> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot in
> very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound is
> excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using such
> harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>

Weird thats it in widescreen on digital but the dvd isn't...

Barrabas · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 2

ant wrote:
> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
> show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>
> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot in
> very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound is
> excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using such
> harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>

16mm film?

Barrabas · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 2

Lofts wrote:
> ant wrote:
>> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday
>> they show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong
>> with them?
>>
>> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been
>> shot in very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as
>> the sound is excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of
>> Effect in using such harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend
>> what it was.
>>
>
>
> Weird thats it in widescreen on digital but the dvd isn't...

Did I see that converted from NTSC jerk in there?

Lofts · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 2

Barrabas wrote:
> Lofts wrote:
>> ant wrote:
>>> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday
>>> they show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong
>>> with them?
>>>
>>> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been
>>> shot in very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as
>>> the sound is excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of
>>> Effect in using such harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend
>>> what it was.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Weird thats it in widescreen on digital but the dvd isn't...
>
> Did I see that converted from NTSC jerk in there?

Not sure.. as far as I can tell its the Australian version (content wise)

Chock · External Since: Feb 04, 2007 Posts: 12

"ant" <britishcouncilgrant01.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5c2j6hF2stpbmU1@mid.individual.net...
> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
> show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>
> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot
> in very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound
> is excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using
> such harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>

Not a cheap film? It only had half a million dollar budget and took 11 days
to film.

--
- Chock

Google is the Chinese government's friend

Gooseberri · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 1

"Chock" <chock.DeleteThis@nospam.com.au> wrote in message
news:465c23e9$0$18003$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "ant" <britishcouncilgrant01.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5c2j6hF2stpbmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
>> show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>>
>> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot
>> in very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound
>> is excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using
>> such harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>>
>
> Not a cheap film? It only had half a million dollar budget and took 11
> days to film.
>

Great cast. That was the key, otherwise I'm sure they would have needed
much more shooting time to get what they wanted.

David Z · External Since: Aug 25, 2003 Posts: 166

Their screening of it could have something to do with it being the 10th
anniversary (roughly) of the film being released in cinemas.

"Astro" <ad RemoveThis @ad.com> wrote in message
news:kr5o53ldb241hjdkiqikqmvju9nsn59sac@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:04:35 +1000, "ant"
> <britishcouncilgrant01 RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
>>show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>>
>>And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot
>>in
>>very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound is
>>excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using such
>>harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.tv/browse_thread/thread/18bb91cc...381e2/b

imorf · External Since: May 08, 2007 Posts: 12

Gooseberri wrote:
> "Chock" <chock DeleteThis @nospam.com.au> wrote in message
> news:465c23e9$0$18003$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "ant" <britishcouncilgrant01 DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:5c2j6hF2stpbmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> There's all these nights with sod-all on TV, and then on a tuesday they
>>> show The Castle during late prime time. Weirdos. What is wrong with them?
>>>
>>> And, I dunno if it was always like this, but it appears to have been shot
>>> in very harsh light. You know it's not a cheap film though, as the sound
>>> is excellent. so I imagine they were after some kind of Effect in using
>>> such harsh lighting/filming, but I cannot comprehend what it was.
>>>
>> Not a cheap film? It only had half a million dollar budget and took 11
>> days to film.
>>
>
> Great cast. That was the key, otherwise I'm sure they would have needed
> much more shooting time to get what they wanted.

totally agree, and the casting for the 3 sons really fit the family
(weird looking blue eyed morons).

Astro · External Since: May 29, 2007 Posts: 2

On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:29:22 GMT, "David Z" <dave.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I didn't think this movie was that bad 10 years ago, but watching it now, it
>has really dated. Not only the poor quality film, but the low budget and
>non-existant effects. For example, when the family is in the car on the way
>to Bonnydoone, they actually aren't moving at all. They don't even *try* to
>make it look as if it's moving.

It mustn't be that bad, because I've seen the movie 5+ times and I've
never noticed. I will keep an eye out next week when channel Nein
shows the movie again though :-0

> I've seen black and white TV shows from the
>1950s that were more convincing - moving backgrounds have been used for well
>over 50 years now.

I believe the budget for the film was only $500k AUD and it was made
in only 11 days.

Not a bad effort I think, considering the actors, producers etc
probably chewed up most of that budget.

David Z · External Since: Aug 25, 2003 Posts: 166

"Astro" <ad.TakeThisOut@ad.com> wrote in message
news:k9mp539nfh10pnnnhqkfkic8ajte24o1lq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:29:22 GMT, "David Z" <dave.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I didn't think this movie was that bad 10 years ago, but watching it now,
>>it
>>has really dated. Not only the poor quality film, but the low budget and
>>non-existant effects. For example, when the family is in the car on the
>>way
>>to Bonnydoone, they actually aren't moving at all. They don't even *try*
>>to
>>make it look as if it's moving.
>
> It mustn't be that bad, because I've seen the movie 5+ times and I've
> never noticed. I will keep an eye out next week when channel Nein
> shows the movie again though :-0

Maybe not on a small TV but on a large widescreen set it's certainly
noticable. The background is still, not moving at all (I think there might
be a tree or sign post or something that gives it away). The first time I
saw this I kept waiting for the punchline as Darryl was singing .."er dad,
can we pull out of the driveway and get going?" but it never came.

I think Stephen Curry playing a 15 (?) year old was also pretty
ridiculous... he was obviously much older than that.

Chock · External Since: Feb 04, 2007 Posts: 12

"David Z" <dave RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ggb7i.6261$wH4.6115@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Astro" <ad RemoveThis @ad.com> wrote in message
> news:k9mp539nfh10pnnnhqkfkic8ajte24o1lq@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:29:22 GMT, "David Z" <dave RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't think this movie was that bad 10 years ago, but watching it now,
>>>it
>>>has really dated. Not only the poor quality film, but the low budget and
>>>non-existant effects. For example, when the family is in the car on the
>>>way
>>>to Bonnydoone, they actually aren't moving at all. They don't even *try*
>>>to
>>>make it look as if it's moving.
>>
>> It mustn't be that bad, because I've seen the movie 5+ times and I've
>> never noticed. I will keep an eye out next week when channel Nein
>> shows the movie again though :-0
>
> Maybe not on a small TV but on a large widescreen set it's certainly
> noticable. The background is still, not moving at all (I think there
> might be a tree or sign post or something that gives it away). The first
> time I saw this I kept waiting for the punchline as Darryl was singing
> .."er dad, can we pull out of the driveway and get going?" but it never
> came.
>
> I think Stephen Curry playing a 15 (?) year old was also pretty
> ridiculous... he was obviously much older than that.

Why are you assuming his character was 15 at all, especially if you can't
pinpoint the exact age? It appeared to me that he was just a young adult
still living at home.

--
- Chock

Google is the Chinese government's friend

David Z · External Since: Aug 25, 2003 Posts: 166

"Chock" <chock RemoveThis @nospam.com.au> wrote in message
news:465d449d$0$18006$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ggb7i.6261$wH4.6115@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Astro" <ad RemoveThis @ad.com> wrote in message
>> news:k9mp539nfh10pnnnhqkfkic8ajte24o1lq@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:29:22 GMT, "David Z" <dave RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I didn't think this movie was that bad 10 years ago, but watching it
>>>>now, it
>>>>has really dated. Not only the poor quality film, but the low budget
>>>>and
>>>>non-existant effects. For example, when the family is in the car on the
>>>>way
>>>>to Bonnydoone, they actually aren't moving at all. They don't even
>>>>*try* to
>>>>make it look as if it's moving.
>>>
>>> It mustn't be that bad, because I've seen the movie 5+ times and I've
>>> never noticed. I will keep an eye out next week when channel Nein
>>> shows the movie again though :-0
>>
>> Maybe not on a small TV but on a large widescreen set it's certainly
>> noticable. The background is still, not moving at all (I think there
>> might be a tree or sign post or something that gives it away). The first
>> time I saw this I kept waiting for the punchline as Darryl was singing
>> .."er dad, can we pull out of the driveway and get going?" but it never
>> came.
>>
>> I think Stephen Curry playing a 15 (?) year old was also pretty
>> ridiculous... he was obviously much older than that.
>
> Why are you assuming his character was 15 at all, especially if you can't
> pinpoint the exact age? It appeared to me that he was just a young adult
> still living at home.

I just got the impression that he was around 15-16. Just little things,
like the way he narrates, how he keeps asking about the movies they showed
on the plane, and so forth. The kind of questions someone that age would
ask. The middle brother I'm guessing would be 18-21, as he has a car and
all. We can figure they're at least a few years apart.

imorf · External Since: May 08, 2007 Posts: 12

David Z wrote:
> "Chock" <chock DeleteThis @nospam.com.au> wrote in message
> news:465d449d$0$18006$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "David Z" <dave DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ggb7i.6261$wH4.6115@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "Astro" <ad DeleteThis @ad.com> wrote in message
>>> news:k9mp539nfh10pnnnhqkfkic8ajte24o1lq@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:29:22 GMT, "David Z" <dave DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't think this movie was that bad 10 years ago, but watching it
>>>>> now, it
>>>>> has really dated. Not only the poor quality film, but the low budget
>>>>> and
>>>>> non-existant effects. For example, when the family is in the car on the
>>>>> way
>>>>> to Bonnydoone, they actually aren't moving at all. They don't even
>>>>> *try* to
>>>>> make it look as if it's moving.
>>>> It mustn't be that bad, because I've seen the movie 5+ times and I've
>>>> never noticed. I will keep an eye out next week when channel Nein
>>>> shows the movie again though :-0
>>> Maybe not on a small TV but on a large widescreen set it's certainly
>>> noticable. The background is still, not moving at all (I think there
>>> might be a tree or sign post or something that gives it away). The first
>>> time I saw this I kept waiting for the punchline as Darryl was singing
>>> .."er dad, can we pull out of the driveway and get going?" but it never
>>> came.
>>>
>>> I think Stephen Curry playing a 15 (?) year old was also pretty
>>> ridiculous... he was obviously much older than that.
>> Why are you assuming his character was 15 at all, especially if you can't
>> pinpoint the exact age? It appeared to me that he was just a young adult
>> still living at home.
>
> I just got the impression that he was around 15-16. Just little things,
> like the way he narrates, how he keeps asking about the movies they showed
> on the plane, and so forth. The kind of questions someone that age would
> ask.

oh bull, he's not acting young, he's acting stupid. He is portraying a
simpleton, most of his verbal redundancies are those of a 6-10 yr old,
not a 15-16 yr old. The whole premise of the fillum is it's a bogan
family (beating the high end of town), whose main claim to a secondary
education is a certificate in hair styling. Therefore the age of the
actor is no issue (and I certainly felt nothing incongruous about it)

> The middle brother I'm guessing would be 18-21, as he has a car and
> all. We can figure they're at least a few years apart.

Why? they could be only 2 years apart, which puts him at 16-19.

David Springthorpe. · External Since: May 31, 2007 Posts: 1

On Thu, 31 May 2007 08:09:40 +1000, imorf <imorf.DeleteThis@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote:

>.....The whole premise of the fillum is it's a bogan
>family (beating the high end of town), whose main claim to a secondary
>education is a certificate in hair styling

Tertiary.....