#timmy things in movies

[the-poets-might-disagree]

Timmy things in movies 38/x: blood

[cubbihue]

So, a changeling is sort of like a p-zombie?

(For the unaware, “p-zombie” stands for “philosophical zombie”. It’s a thought experiment in philosophy that describes a being that’s outwardly identical to a human, but does not have a consciousness; that is, a p-zombie does not think whatsoever, although it looks like it thinks to an outsider observer. There’s a whole wikipedia article on it that explains the concept better than I can!)

They don't exactly think, as in "I dont want this" "I like that". But, Changelings do have a form of "Consciousness". It's just that their consciousness is more like a series of commands or tasks than actual formulated thoughts.

Timmy's Changeling has a very advanced "consciousness". It can predict future actions and reroute its tasks to pick only the best options for its situation.

We fill their heads with static to ensure that the Changeling does not form thoughts about anything. Thoughts leads to opinions, and opinions leads to incorrect actions. A proper Changeling should have more static in their mind than a TV screen on a defunct channel!

Bitties Series: [Start] > [Previous] > [Next]

[msnihilist]

New headcanon: Peri's comfort movie is The Chosen One: Ninja. It's a terrible movie, objectively speaking, but it's one of the only things he has left of Timmy. He watches it when he's sad and the awful cinematography cheers him up.

[whocaresaboutyourlonleysoul]

batfleck in batman vs superman is a version that desperately needs a robin.

[vonlipvig]

i know emilia pérez is enemy number one right now, but personally i'm leaving that to y'all for now and setting my sights on a complete unknown.

[goblinintheblog]

Never really got the hype around Timothée Chalamet until now.

[hellafluff]

Watched Secret of NIMH the other day and then put on Secret of NIMH 2 on right after. How the fuck did I like that movie so much as a kid???? I know all Don Bluth movie sequels are just Like That but that one felt especially egregious in how deep the quality fell

[hwajin]

why are tiktok ppl always hating on someone new every week

[serethereal]

9 + 15 hiii 💌

sephhhh hi hello <333

9. 3 things you like doing on a rainy day

read -> order in -> watch a movie at night (preferably while blitzed out of my fucking mind). in that order xx

14. 3 professions that you would like to try

celebrity PR manager bc im nosy asf and want to know everyones business

sky diving instructor cause im an adrenaline junkie

casting director bc i feel like id be really good at it idk...

3 things ask game

[the-poets-might-disagree]

Timmy things in movies 38/x: fireplaces

[carl0p]

"is it better to speak or to die?"

[msnihilist]

"'Channel Chasers' was the perfect ending to the original run of the show" No it wasn't, what the fuck are you talking about.

[thealogie]

The thing about Timmy Chalamet is that he’s truly a great actor and he even has good taste in projects and he’s not even overexposed when you calibrate for how overexposed all that group of 25-30 year old big stars are……however something is still off. any time he gets cast in something it feels like that movie instantly turns into a parody of a movie. I cannot explain this

[vanweezer]

"i always get that feeling that whenever everyone gives something hype or likes the same thing im probably gonna think its bullshit" rip trevor moore you wouldve hated the everything

[demon-of-the-ancient-world]

HOKAY I've been staring at these screenshots for A While now trying to figure out what's going on on a technical level and I think I was wrong before re: some comments I made on this post.

I think what's *actually* going on with the earlier/later closeups, the intimate ones, is that the character's eyes are never quite facing the camera and/or it's never a head-on shot. Either it's in profile, with the subject (Paul in this case) therefore facing away from the camera, or it's from an angle that's slightly "off", so the character's eyes are either not fully in the shot at all or they're looking somewhere slightly off frame. Which makes these shots feel voyeuristic; we aren't right in front of the character looking into their eyes, we're off to the side, even just slightly, observing them in a moment of privacy.

And I think that's why the shots of Paul in the 2nd act of the film look more "distant" from him - they're almost always either 1) from an angle that another character (or multiple characters) are *also* shown to be watching from, therefore this is not a unique character-audience connection, but a viewpoint we are sharing with one character that is about another; or 2) if not that, they're head on with Paul framed centrally, looking straight out - and often actually over the heads of the audience or down at them. You can always see his eyes in their entirety. It feels therefore like he's looking at the viewer, like he is very aware he's being observed.

Take the 7th picture shown above (where he's walking through the crowd of Fremen) vs. the last one. In the first, his eyes are up (it looks to be just slightly above the traditional rule of thirds eyeline actually), alert, and central to the frame, and he's head on. Also, contextually, there's clearly a ton of people standing around him in this shot. It's not an angle we alone can see. This is what everyone else in that scene who is ahead of him is also seeing.

Now the last shot. It's a similar angle, but viewpoint-wise it's completely different. Now he's a little more off frame, his eyes are downcast and the eyeline is a little lower, more in line with ours. And most importantly, like I mentioned in one of my earlier comments, you can see in wider shots of this scene that nobody is in front of him. Even if you don't notice it consciously, you subconsciously pick up on the fact that this is a moment the audience alone is sharing with the character.

tl;dr : either the eyeline/framing is Too Central aka Paul looks like he knows he's being watched & the shot becomes less intimate, *OR* it's shown that this perspective is shared with (often many) others and this breaks the connection between character & audience . Or at times it's both.

So Denis Villeneuve has this particular type of close-up shot that he uses to varying degrees in all his movies but uses a lot in Dune, particularly when shooting Paul. In fact he uses one for the very first shot of Paul in Dune Part One.

There are some common cinematographic elements that define what I would consider the Villeneuve Close-Up (TM), but I'll admit there is also a vibes-based, you-know-it-when-you-see-it element to picking out these shots, which means all discussion here is somewhat subjective and we're talking about general trends instead of fixed categories. But in general, in these shots the camera tends to be at eye-level with the character, which means it can be very low or even on the ground if they are having a floor-based experience.

Sometimes we're in a SUPER extreme close-up where the character's face is filling the frame.

Other times we are not actually that close but we know we are seeing something that other characters are not.

The character may be alone or they may be surrounded by people, but the point of these shots is to reveal something to us the audience that no one else in the scene sees, pulling us into a private emotional world where it's just us and the character. It's a very effective tool for building sympathy and emotional intimacy.

I'm not the only person who's noticed that we lose this specific kind of close-up of Paul entirely in the section of the movie after Paul drinks the Water of Life. I've seen this described as "we're no longer seeing from Paul's POV" or even "he stops being the protagonist of the movie at that point" but I don't think either of these are exactly what's going on. Seeing the world of the story through a certain character's POV is different from what I'm talking about here, and Dune Part Two takes us through many shifts in POV over the course of the movie.

What happens is that we, the audience, recoil from our close, intimate visual and emotional relationship to Paul--or maybe he withdraws from us--for a portion of the movie after he drinks the Water of Life. But, crucially, not right away.

This shot in the "we're Harkonnens" conversation is such a classic Villeneuve Close-Up (TM). We're positioned as if we're sitting right next to Paul, seeing something on his face that is mostly hidden from Jessica, who's standing across the room and slightly behind him.

I think this shot is super important for telling us (even if we only register it subconsciously) that the Paul we know is not completely dead. Drinking the Water of Life may make you see things that others can't, and it may make you a little unhinged, but it doesn't make you inhuman. There's still a person in there.

I would argue that the distancing from Paul starts in these shots:

This is still a close-up; we are not much further away from Paul than in the shot above, but the vibe is totally different. Now we are seeing him the way his followers do, closed-off and purposefully intimidating. We are seeing the image he chooses to present to the world and none of the human vulnerability underneath.

We stay at this emotional and visual distance from him for most of the rest of the movie--but not the whole thing. Because after watching Paul be a terrifying force of destruction for half an hour, we get slammed into remembering he is a person--young, hurt, alone; a person who didn't want any of this--at the very end of the movie.

I think you could make an argument for a few different shots being the first Villeneuve Close-Up of the end of the movie. But where I always notice it is here, when the Emperor is talking about Leto.

While not a particularly close close-up, I'm always struck by this shot as well:

And then we really get pulled in close to Paul during the duel--particularly at the end of the duel when he's already wounded and it seems like he might lose. We get this angle several times:

We get this shot that I'm particularly feral about...

...because while the focus of this shot is (1) the knife and (2) Feyd, someone made sure that the features you notice on Paul's face are his eyelashes and the curls of hair falling in his face, the features that make him look most soft and vulnerable.

And then of course after Paul has won the duel we get this shot, another peak Villeneuve Close-Up (TM) that I have already written about, where Paul is surrounded by people chanting his name but no one to pull the knife out of his shoulder for him.

And we hold onto that connection with Paul right up through "Lead them to paradise."

Which is an insane choice for that moment actually! Once again, this is not a super close close-up, but we're watching him from a perspective that no other character can see and we understand that there's no personal triumph in this moment for him.

Now, obviously, there are a lot of other choices being made in these scenes, in terms of writing, performance, lighting, score, everything. The camera placement is just one element supporting the overall storytelling. But it's one that's very easy to track through screenshots and a good example of how one specific element of filmmaking can be used to influence how we see a character, whether or not we even consciously notice it while immersed in the film.

[knittedbond]

i was gonna watch dune because it's off netflix tmrw and like whatever i feel an obligation to watch it because that's how they get you but i just realized that killing of a sacred deer is on tubi so i'd much rather watch that gbyeeeee weirdo timmy c