Just wondering if someone was committed enough to make such a movie
Boyhood was shot over 12 years following the same cast.
deleted by creator
It’s a great movie too.
Anything with Richard linklater and Ethan Hawke is usually amazing
IT TOOK TWELVE YEARS TO MAKE!!!
I’m surprised they mentioned it in their latest BOTW, I thought they had completely forgotten it even existed by this point.
Oh wow
Add in the Before Sunrise trilogy, also by Linklater
“Not a prequel sequel thing” -op
I suck
There’s the “Seven Up!” series by the BBC. They filmed a bunch of kids at age 7, and then again at 14, 21, 28, etc.
The first was filmed in 1964 and 63 Up was filmed in 2019.
That’s a great series!
It’s not as impressive as some of the other projects mentioned here, but there was a one-year hiatus during the filming of Cast Away to allow Tom Hanks to lose all (and more) of the weight he had gained for the first part of the movie. His beard and tan were earned honestly during that time as well.
the percentage of body weight that Disney made Carrie Fisher lose to come back for the sequels put her at a much higher risk for dying the way she did.
Not a single movie but that happened with several actors in both Star Wars and Star Trek. Or in Harry Potter. Puberty was good to Neville’s actor.
It has also happened in many TV series where you can see a kid grow up to adulthood.
It could have happened with the movie Coffee and Cigarettes which started filming in 1986 and was released in 2003. It consists of several short episodes. But as far as I recall none of the actors of the earlier episodes came back for one of the later episodes.
Puberty was good to Neville’s actor.
Dudley’s actor, Harry Melling, also got a fair bit more attractive. Maybe not as much as Matthew Lewis (Neville), but I’ve seen him in a couple of other roles where the makeup department isn’t actively sabotaging his appearance.
Flight of the Navigator.
David Scott Freeman was 12 at the start, and still with us eight years later…
My favorite Disney movie!
Not sure this meets the requirements. Sure, there’s time travel in the story, but the film was shot in 2 years.
You seem to be suggesting the time travel was faked.
Naw, they just didn’t age. 'sall makeup.
deleted by creator
Not a prequel sequel thing. One movie.
Came in to say Boyhood.
A bit off-topic, but apparently this is one of Denis Villeneuve’s reasons for wanting a hiatus before making a third Dune movie. Besides just wanting a break, he said he would also like to have the actors age a few years for the next one.
Not really what you’re after OP, but sort of similarish - David Lynch’s Eraserhead took about 5-6 years to make due to start-stop funding issues.
The story goes that Jack Nance kept his hair like this throughout that whole period.
“Die Kinder von Golzow” is a documentary following 18 children from 1961 to 2007 and consists of episodes like “Lebensläufe”, which was included in the Guinness Book of World Records as the movie with the longest production period:
Pacino in The Godfather
Sounds like the movie Boyhood
Ha! I was going to say Tron: Legacy until you said no sequels. Damn.
Do flashbacks count?
Yes if it was intentionally and carefully planned according to the actors age. I understand it takes a lot of commitment, but wondering if there is such a movie out there where it is an important part of the plot as well.
Oh. Erm, never mind then. I only know of examples of “I took footage from earlier that wasn’t planned but we realized was usable”.
Aged naturally… to play both older and younger… within a single film…
Given how most films only take a few months to film at most, I don’t think natural aging will have enough impact on a character to have a distinct “younger and older”. If the film took years to make, then parts would seem really low quality compared to other parts. If the character was only a few weeks older, you wouldn’t notice the difference between the accurate age and the reshoots.
Given how most films only take a few months to film at most
Got any sources for that claim? I was always under more of an impression that movies took at least a year and a half to make, if not 2-3 for a longer movie.
Filming isn’t the longest part of movie production. They spend a significant time editing, piecing stuff together, getting the audio and color balance right and so on.
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/discover/how-long-to-make-a-movie.html
For the average movie, the actual shooting of footage usually takes between one and three months. The time depends on the length of the script, but the going is slow. “One or two script pages will take a whole day to film,” says cinematographer Margaret Kurniawan.
I didn’t say “make”, I said “film”. You don’t film the actors until the script, sets and costumes are ready, and you can’t edit the movie until after you’ve finished filming.
According to wikipedia, filming for Avengers Endgame started in August 2017 and finished in January 2018, with reshoots later that year. This was a big Marvel production with a ton of big-name actors doing complex action scenes, so I’m pretty sure this is on the high end of how much filming would need to be done.
I imagine the average person would take the phrase “film a movie” as synonymous with “make a movie”, even if they are technically distinct. If you’re being more specific with your usage than the typical person in your audience, that’s on you; don’t blame your audience for not understanding.
He’s talking about principal shooting, you about production of the whole film.
there was some movie I read about where the actor had a heart attack walking through a doorway while filming, and the second half of the scene was shot much later after his recovery so he looks like he ages 10 years and loses 20 lbs as he walked through the door in the movie. can’t remember what film
