GrimTangent

The scene you're referring to is mentioned in the article. The article doesn't mention specifically about how they stitched together the shots, because the general process was already explained when talking about the opening scene.
The scene we're talking about is still a remarkable accomplishment. The VFX world article says that the exterior parts were done in two takes, which would suggest one take before the entrance into the building and one take after their exit (I can't remember if their leaving the building was part of the same "virtual" single shot). Therefore I don't see the quotes by Cuaron in the Atlanta paper's article and the technician's explanations in the VFX world article as being contradictory. The exterior sequence could have taken 13 days to set up. It probably was extremely difficult and frustrating. I think the writer of the newspaper article has made the scene out to be one single shot - exactly as it appears to be - when in fact he is mistaken. He almost certainly wasn't on set and therefore had to combine what the director said to him in interview with what he saw in the movie's screening and fill in the blanks left by Cuaron's recounting of the filming, which led him to believe Cuaron was talking about the whole scene, not just the exterior.

fmian

I hate to say it but after Theo enters the building the camera unnecessarily pans over a black area of the scene and when it comes away the blood on the lens is gone and the scene seems to have a slightly different vibe.

Not to try and coin my own phrase or anything but it looks like the film makers used the 'Coight' effect to fool us into thinking it was all the one shot.
I've seen the same thing done in Irreversible during the fire extinghisher scene.

Wikipedia link to 'Russell Coight'

and

Youtube video of the effect in motion

Damn, I hadn't read the third page before posting this.
Can I still be responsible for coining the phrase or has someone else already done that too?

B.A.

I finally saw it yesterday w/ my dad. A top-notch film - **** out of five. I think it actually lived up to the hype that I have been reading about for months, which in this day and age is a pleasant surprise.

My dad isn't too much of a fan of dark films anymore, but he came away thoroughly impressed.

RichC2

...and for the last time, the blood is NOT gone after the 'dark' spot. Though I think it's generally figured that it isn't a single shot, after the VFX world article, the blood is very much there after the dark part.



glad you liked it.

Shonn

I was reading Jeffrey Overstreet's top 25 list and he mentioned some controversy over the adaptation of the novel (he asks director Scott Derrickson about it as well) but doesn't really go into detail about it. I watched the movie last night, and really enjoyed it, but can't seem to find much on the controversy. Anyone know what this is about?

Mr. Cinema

Unless there's some surprises, I have a feeling the Academy voters won't reward this film as much as they should. In several years, this will be one of the films where people scratch their heads that it didn't get nominated for Best Picture. I hope I'm proven wrong in an hour.

Patman

CoM only got 3 noms: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography. Babel took up the slot that CoM had the best chance of getting for Best Director and Best Picture.

MBoyd

I just started reading the book and I am only about 50 pages in. Maybe it's just that the book is so completely different? That always seems to piss off fans of the book.

Some interesting differences


I like the movie better so far. There are bad adaptations of course, but this isn't one of them.

splattii2

The Academy Awards are nothing more then a way to market films. Anyone who watches film doesn't bother with such awards. What are they going to do? Tell me what is good and what isn't? Let's face it, anyone who watches a movie because;

1) It was nominated
2) It won an award

...doesn't have a mind of their own anyhow. I respect and appreciate that the "winners" will see an increase in DVD sales, but at the end of the day I'm not going to try to convince or discuss film with someone who can't seek or watch films before they are backed by an award.

It's not different then when a movie is released in another region, and it isn't until an R1 DVD or a commercial comes out before there is interest. I used to wonder why some films were made until I realized the majority of the movie watching population in North America needs to be spoon fed. Babel and Children of Men were both good films, but in the end they are getting these nominations more because of the fact they had North American distribution over quality of film. There are very, very powerful International efforts this year such as;

Crónica de una fuga
Red Road
Ghosts of Cité Soleil
This is England

Now I won't suggest any of those are "better" then COM, more then I question why they have no nominations as they are *EASILY* on par with COM or Babel?

I'm guessing because Sony is releasing one of them in 2007, and they want the nomination to come with their name on it.

lol

Sondheim

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? I watch films. I also enjoy predicting and watching the awards shows, even as I acknowledge that in the end they don't mean much at all (but even if I did think they meant something significant - would that mean I most definitely don't watch films?)So lets look at this scenario: I am at my local library, which happens to have a very large selection of classic films. As I look at the extensive list of films I just can't make up my mind - they all look interesting. So then as I'm reading about each film I notice that one of them was nominated for best actress back in 1949. Because I then choose that film, that means I don't have a mind of my own?While I agree that it would be silly to limit yourself to only films that were nominated for or won an award, I kind of doubt that there are many people who do that. I do occassionally watch a film simply because it was nominated for an award, but I also watch an abundance of films that never were - rather they weren't critically acclaimed, or they were "too weird", or they were too obscure.I think it's fairly common knowledge that U.S. distribution will affect a film's chances of getting nominated. I also think it's common knowledge that the Academy has certain biases against foreign films and certain genres and so on and so forth. But let's take a purely hypothetical situation here - what if those films you mentioned had all received extensive U.S. release (at least as extensive a release as foreign films can get in the U.S.) - and what if they still didn't get nominated for best foreign film or any other awards, while four other foreign films got the nominations. Would this be *proof* that the Academy got it "wrong"?
Easily?

While I understand and appreciate your point that we shouldn't let awards shows dictate what we watch, I can't fully agree with some of the other things you say. Your point, summed up, seems to be "that anyone who wastes their times watching awards shows doesn't know anything about film" and that "Anyone who carries ... opinion about ... film obviously hasn't seen this other, equal or better film," which is kind of a silly attitude and, in my opinion, kind of offensive.

It's impossible for anyone to see every film that gets released theatrically each year throughout the world. But let's take another completely hypothetical situation here (I've been using these a lot, I know) - what if two people were able to see every single film that came out every year. Would these two people have identical favorites list? If each was forced to choose their favorite film of the year, would they both choose the same film? Would you be absolutely shocked and astonished and baffled at how "wrong" the person is if one of those people chose "Children of Men" as their favorite film of the year? Over those "EASILY equal" films you named?

I guess I'm just not a huge fan of the "If you thought --- was the best film of the year then you obviously haven't seen ---" train of thought. No, you're probably right that most people here who loved "Children of Men" probably have not seen the films you made. In fact, maybe everyone here (including you) is missing an absolutely astonishing masterpiece of filmmaking, one that we'd all agree was thus, but we don't have a chance to see it because it was only released in a single theater in a small town in Romania. But even if that is the case, I'd like to believe that that doesn't make our opinions any less valid. We all have a limited knowledge to some extent, and I'd suggest that that's not such a bad thing. I'm going to go on believing that "Children of Men" is the best film of 2006, even as I acknowledge that I didn't see every movie made in 2006 (and I still don't see that as much of a handicap.)

Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you here or to say that everything you say is wrong because I disagree with some of your points (which would be an exceptionally stupid thing to think, I must say.) I'm just trying to argue my point-of-view - that it's best to avoid "cinematic absolutes" ("Anyone who thinks this... obviously hasn't..." or "... is at LEAST equal to..." when such statements are given as a matter-of-fact, rather than a matter of opinion.) And that we all, to some extent, have some ignorance in the area of film (or in any other area for that matter.)

Giantrobo

I saw COM tonight and I really liked it. I liked all the performances and I thought the casting was great. Clive Owens is "the man" and I love just about everything he does.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I believed the Fish or Gov to be evil. I do think that in their own way they both thought they were doing "good" or "the right thing" for people but I think the ways that both sides went about it was where things became FUBAR.

I guess one thing that did kinda confused me was that I had heard from 1 or 2 people that the, "ending was dark". I'm not sure what they meant by that. I guess one could look at the end as somewhat dark with what happened in the boat, but I think that in my mind no one was as important as the girl and her baby so what happened made sense on many levels. Not to minimize what happened but while typing this I just thought about the Star Wars line about, "Many Bothan spies"....

FinkPish

I heard a couple of people mention that they thought it was dark too, but to me it was very hopeful. I don't see a movie being dark just There are some dark movies where that does happen, but it didn't apply in this case.

Giantrobo

I agree.

hongkongdvd

I left the movie before the credits end, was there anything I missed by not staying?

I noticed many people staying for the credits.

Great movie like everyone said!!! I don't know if I would buy the DVD though, not much rewatch value for me personally.

auto

Someone mentioned the fantastic soundtrack earlier. For those interested:

Children of Men (Soundtrack) and Children of Men (Score)

calhoun07

On the region two DVD they do show how they did the single shot in the car, when the group gets attacked.

My one question after watching it tonight was regarding towards the end...

SeekOnce

Yeah I didn't get that part either. Definitely a WTF moment and my only major issue with the movie.

Otherwise, it was a great film.

Giantrobo

...just may take on it.

calhoun07

Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact scene, but it was when they were talking about if the British government discovered the baby they would take it and give it to a well to do woman, I assume a UK resident in good standing.

Giantrobo

But wasn't that all just paranoid specualation?

The Bus

It was. It was said buy one of the Fish. If you need proof that paranoid speculation exists, take a look at some of the more extreme posters in the Political Forum (on either spectrum). Then realize the Fish are worse than them.

Bothan spies...

OldBoy

what exactly was Luke and his rogue groups' true intentions with the baby?
and why hasn't there been a birth in 18 years?

OldBoy

i stayed for a little bit just because i was in awe of what i just saw and didn't want to leave to quickly...wanted to let it ruminate.

The Bus

I believe they said the baby was going to get people on their side. When the public knows the Fish "came up" with the solution of childbirth, they will back them, not the government.

The reason for the infertility was never given (better that way imo ).

I've seen this twice in theatres and will buy it the day it hits HD DVD: since HD DVD still has no region coding this will be a nice bonus.

Giantrobo

Yeah, as mentioned above by The Bus Luke, the Fish who took over after Julian was killed, wanted to use the baby for the Fish cause. He thought the Gov would take the baby and do something to keep the Fish cause down. Theo's wife Julian wanted to get the baby to The Human Project because she thought that was the most improtant thing and obviously this didn't sit well with Luke or some of the others in the Fish group. It seems Julian didn't trust Luke or the Fishes with the baby or Kee and that's why she told Kee to trust Theo.