Re-creation ... scene from Angels and Demons
Posted on 04/27/2009 9:49:42 AM PDT by NYer
How do you film a movie set largely in the Vatican when the Holy See itself has banned you from shooting within its walls? If you are the producers of Angels and Demons, the prequel to the church-baiting worldwide blockbuster The Da Vinci Code, you send in cameramen posing as tourists to take more than 250,000 photographs and shoot hours of video footage.
The team behind the new film, which is based on an earlier book by Dan Brown, used the surreptitiously-gathered material to digitally recreate many of the famous papal buildings, Tuscan colonnades, fountains and monuments within St Peter's Square.
Special effects supervisor Ryan Cook told Italian film magazine Ciak: "The ban on filming put us in serious difficulty because we were not able to carry out the photographic surveys necessary to reconstruct the setting. So for weeks we sent a team of people who mixed with tourists and took thousands of photos and video footage."
The move was necessary because leaders of the Catholic church, still smarting from The Da Vinci Code's assertion that Christ married and fathered children with Mary Magdalene, had banned the film-makers from filming in or around any of Rome's churches. Father Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the diocese of Rome, said at the time: "Normally we read the script, but this time it was not necessary. The name Dan Brown was enough."
Angels and Demons director Ron Howard hinted in an interview in December on US TV show Shootout that his team had been forced into unusual measures by the ban. "We didn't shoot at the Vatican officially. But cameras can be made really small," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Angels and Demons director Ron Howard hinted in an interview in December on US TV show Shootout that his team had been forced into unusual measures by the ban. “We didn’t shoot at the Vatican officially. But cameras can be made really small,” he said.
Always keeping it classy, eh opie?
Is taking stills and video prohibited to the average tourist?
Some of the works they are likely to have captured on film should be protected by copyright. I hope Ron Howard and this company get taken in court for all they have. They are abusing images that they stole, and they are sending a message that is the opposite of what Jesus and the Catholic Church stand for. It’s the church’s property, and the film studio needed permission to do this.
Opie knows he can trash the Catholic Church because Christians won’t behead him. Next time, Ron, why don’t you make a movie about Islamofacism and see how long it is before you meet up with Ali Ka Boom.
Let’s take the truth here - this article is nothing more than rehashed press release from the studio crowing what they did in a thinly veiled attempt to drum up more attention for the upcoming movie release.
Someone shot pictures at the Vatican - wow, what a blockbusting news story there - like there isn’t a million pictures on Flicker to look at to see every inch of the public areas of the Holy City, not to mention high definition video shot by the Vatican and broadcast during John Paul’s funeral.
Actually, I think it’s kind of funny that the set producers couldn’t consult the thousand book titles and the tens of thousands of hours of video footage in archives and had to resort to ‘on the ground’ photographers. No wonder these ‘blockbusters’ cost so much to produce, recreating what is already out there in spades.
No it isn't, which is why I doubt there is anything that the Vatican could do if all the film was used for was to create sets for the movie filiming. But if they snuck people into the Vatican to film with the intent to use that footage as part of their movie then that's another matter entirely.
It’s been possible for a long time to mingle in with Japanese tourists and steal any location shots you need without paying for permits or location fees. Indies do it all the time.
Tourists don’t use their footage for profit or broadcast.
There are rules that must be adhered to before entry into St. Peter's Basilica is granted and they are as follows: no hats (laymen), no shorts or skirts above the knee, no shirts which expose the navel or without sleeves, no indecent items of clothing and no excessive jewellry. The very notion of photography in the Sistine Chapel is banned. Flash photography elsewhere is permitted, excluding canvas paintings and inside the Picture Gallery (Pinacoteca). Flash photography is permitted, reason being that all the original canvas paintings were removed (most are now in the Vatican Museums) and replaced with mosaics.
In 1996, John Paul set down rules to protect cardinals from "threats to their independence of judgment." Cell phones, electronic organizers, radios, newspapers, TVs and recorders were banned.
From the Papal conclave, yeah. But not from the Vatican as a whole.
‘Actually, I think it’s kind of funny that the set producers couldn’t consult the thousand book titles and the tens of thousands of hours of video footage in archives and had to resort to ‘on the ground’ photographers. No wonder these ‘blockbusters’ cost so much to produce, recreating what is already out there in spades.’
If they did as you write above the unions supporting these productions would suffer. Poring over internet images and posted video isn’t a union job.
Why not just go to Toronto? It’s subbed for almost every other city on the planet, put a couple bits of stock footage in and make sure you don’t film in front of anything that’s obviously not Vatican City and you’re golden.
“The very notion of photography in the Sistine Chapel is banned.”
Hmmmm....thought police? “You shall not think of photography in the Sistine Chapel”. How ‘dya enforce that one?
Colonel, USAFR
“Someone shot pictures at the Vatican - wow, what a blockbusting news story there - like there isn’t a million pictures on Flicker to look at to see every inch of the public areas of the Holy City, not to mention high definition video shot by the Vatican and broadcast during John Paul’s funeral.”
Actually they were shooting specifically to create a digital reproduction of the locations - and that requires better digital files taken at specific viewpoints - things not available on the net.
Ron Howard is likely to be tried in a much higher court than any he can be sued in or prosecuted in on Earth, if he has done wrong by photographing in the Vatican. It is most unwise to meddle in matters Spiritual for benefits that are merely Temporal and fleeting.
My other response is that I have (for my sins) read “Angels and Demons”. Whereas “The Da Vinci Code” was merely puerile rubbish — and poorly-written puerile rubbish at that, “Angels and Demons” is utterly implausible poorly-written puerile rubbish. Even episodes of “The A-Team” are more believable and realistic than “Angels and Demons”, which is a calculated insult to any living being more sentient than a garden slug.
On the basis that almost no movie is as good as the book (as puerile as that may be), “Angels and Demons” will be a movie to miss at the theaters, and to avoid in the unlikely event it gets made into a DVD.
I do hope Ron Howard loses a fortune over this.
The Church really doesn't want to give up on the concept of "thought-crime"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.