Talk:Sarah and the City
From LGPedia
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:
- Sarah's bed doesn't have bedposts
- If both were bedposts, their placement would make no sense at all
- If those are bedposts, they're gigantic
- I, personally, assume it's the camera man and a director.
- I would say they (yes, two) are people, for three simple reasons:
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)
- Sculptures don't stand in the middle of the room
- Sculptures don't stand in the middle of bedrooms
- Sculptures don't have such a wide stance
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
