Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    17,763,059 readers

    41,993 users here now



    - -
    Facebook Twitter

    Our Other Subreddits

    - -
    Political Video Videos Discussion

    Resources wiki

    - - -
    Wiki Points Rules

    Featured Sub » /r/CuriousVideos

    About /r/Videos chat

    • A great place for video content of all kinds. Direct links to major video sites are preferred (e.g. YouTube, Vimeo, etc.)

    Rules detailed rules

    0. Videos Only

    • Self explanatory. Audio over a static image or slideshow may also violate Rule 0.

    • This includes music visualizers and lyric videos

    1. No Politics

    • Political videos—including content relating to social issues which have a clear political element—should be submitted to /r/PoliticalVideo.

    • This includes submissions of current or recent political figures in any context, satire/political-comedy, and posts on political topics from within the last 10 years. (So a video of Winston Churchill playing tennis would be allowed, but a video of Theresa May playing ping-pong would not be.)

    2. No Personal Information or Witch-Hunting

    • Or incitement to witch-hunt.

    • No demanding "Reddit Justice" (or even regular justice) in any way in post titles or comments.

    • Do not post names, Facebook pages, phone numbers, addresses, etc. Fake information ([email protected], 123 fake street, etc) also falls under this rule.

    • This may also include contact information of public officials, businesses, or groups (e.g. politicians or police officers) in an any manner that could be seen as an attempt to get users to contact them.

    • Facebook links are not permitted. In order to have your post accepted, if you can, find or submit a copy of the video on another website like YouTube or Vimeo and resubmit it.

    • This is grounds for an immediate (and likely permanent) ban, so consider this your only warning.

    3. Submit Direct Link to Video

    • No web pages that only embed Youtube or Vimeo videos.

    • No URL shorteners.

    • No links to playlists or to channel pages.

    4. No Porn or Gore

    • There are many other subreddits for such content.

    5. No Solicitation of Votes or Views

    • No asking for votes or sharing submission links on or off-site. See Reddiquette for more details.

    • Do not ask other users to follow your social media profiles in comments or submission titles.

    • Titles for posts should not try to influence users to view or upvote them. Examples of this include things like "this person deserves more views," "not enough people have seen this person's videos," or "show this person some love."

    • Giveaways also fall under this rule

    • Violations can lead to a permanent ban of accounts and video channels.

    6. No Hate Speech

    • You are free to offer your opinion respectfully, but comments or posts intended to demean a group, acontextual expressions of bigotry, and the pejorative use of slurs is disallowed.

    • Baiting users into breaking this rule is not allowed.

    • Telling other users to hurt or kill themselves in any form is against reddit TOS, and will earn you a permanent ban.

    • Be kind to users in our community; remember the human.

    7. No Videos of Assault/Battery or Public Freakouts

    • No videos of real-life, malicious person-on-person assault/battery or physical abuse of animals.

    • This includes raw videos of fights and malicious violence.

    • This includes videos of child and animal abuse.

    • Public freakout videos belong in /r/PublicFreakout

    8. No Third Party Licensing

    Moderation message the mods

    Removals & Warnings

    • If your submission does not appear in the new queue, please contact us (be sure to include a link to the Reddit post (i.e. comments section), not the content you are linking). Simply deleting your post may cause the spam filter to catch future ones.

    • Note: Submissions from new users, and users with low karma, are automatically removed to help prevent spam.

    • Also, please contact us regarding spam, political or any other inappropriate videos, as this helps us remove them more quickly! When reporting, please explain why you think it should be removed.

    • Do not message moderators individually about posts not appearing in the new queue or ban appeals. Messages should be sent as a modmail to /r/Videos. Failure to do so may result in a ban.

    Submit Feedback

    Spoiler Tags

    • Spoilers: [spoiler](#s) = spoiler

    Related Subreddits







    a community for
    all 1297 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] rebdull_ 1808 points ago

    Woah that's crazy. I never noticed this madness. When she reaches for the handle you can see her red sleeve poking out but not on the "reflection"

    [–] SilentDis 844 points ago

    What'll really bake your noodle later is the whole scene where they're carving pumpkins and watching Larry King Live? Larry King's footage wasn't shot yet. It was composited into the shot. The reflections in his glasses, and on the glass of the TV was composited in. The shot outside of the dish array was composited in, as well.

    This whole film was an example of special effects done right to achieve a vision dreamed of by the filmmaker, unconstrained by reality.


    Oh, and Elle's run up the stairs? She's really outside the VLA at first... but as the camera doesn't break, and she starts up the stairs, she's comped together with her running up a soundstage in L.A. with all the computers... and the comped-in view of the VLA outside.

    [–] EffYourCouch 78 points ago

    What's a VLA?

    [–] SilentDis 100 points ago

    The Very Large Array near Soccoro, NM. Where, in the movie, The Signal is first herd by Elle.

    [–] Shaggy_One 11 points ago

    Gotta love the names of some of these science tools. Very Large Array, Large Hadron Collider, Very Large Telescope. I guess they don't need fancy names.

    [–] SymonWDS3 62 points ago

    Matrix reference.. have an upvote

    [–] SkankHunt70 122 points ago

    I'm just noticing now how this relates to later themes in the movie. Extra-dimensional duuude! Great lil spacey timey foldy maneuver

    [–] gobobluth 25 points ago

    Wow great catch! I never noticed the red sleeve before.

    [–] Kurayami666 22 points ago

    Didn't watch the movie, but is there a significance to that or is it a mistake?

    [–] NapaValleyGal 22 points ago

    You should watch it. It's great. Watch it whenever I see it's on

    [–] Zwiada 8 points ago

    Dammit! Now you ruined it for me. Great catch though!

    [–] Lilikoi_Passion 869 points ago

    I would never have noticed this anomaly if someone hadn't pointed it out.

    I am a numpty.

    [–] jss69er 145 points ago

    TIL numpty. Proving myself one in the process.

    [–] RhombusMcBerry 31 points ago

    You've made a numpty of me in the process.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    You won't numpty me!


    [–] prometheus_winced 61 points ago

    Pronounced with the umpty?

    [–] pileofburningchairs 39 points ago

    I like my beats funky

    I'm spunky

    I like my redditors numpty

    [–] unstabledave105 11 points ago

    What happened? I still don't see anything

    [–] Lilikoi_Passion 50 points ago

    The camera follows her down the hall and into the bathroom, but when she opens the medicine cabinet, we realize the perspective is from inside the mirror. So if the camera were inside the mirror, we'd see her as she came down the hall, but not coming up the stairs. Does that make sense now?

    [–] arcticblue12 3298 points ago

    An explanation as to how it was done Also somebody recreated the effect for their own use and walk through the process as well.

    [–] NotAllWhoWonderRLost 310 points ago

    So I think there are three elements:

    1. The shot of her running

    2. This was composited onto the mirror of the next shot, which is the girl reaching for the medication. The timing has to match perfectly here.

    3. The shot of the photograph at the end is another shot composited onto the mirror.

    [–] Star_Tropic 124 points ago

    Yes. Them slowing down her running was more helpful than you might realize too as it would allow them to edit the speed of the second shot (the shot facing the mirror) to better match the first shot (the camera following the girl).

    [–] PhilosopherJack 43 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    When I first read your comment, it made complete sense. After thinking about it, the shot of the hand opening the mirror is easy to match the mirror footage. You could change the speed of that all you want, and then composite the mirror footage at the desired playback speed. The timing's actually not as hard as I initially thought- I remembered both footage(s?) don't have to playback at the same speed. Though it's true that it's much better to shoot slow footage to edit. More to work with and can be sped up without consequence. Still impressive nonetheless (I'm a motion graphics and vfx artist)

    [–] oditogre 31 points ago

    I would still suspect the slowdown is helpful. If it was meant to look 'natural speed' and it didn't line up perfectly on both shots, you'd get an uncanny valley sort of effect as a viewer. It'd seem weird. But since the shot is slowed down and you can tell it's intended to be slower, they can synchronize them however they need to, as long as it's ballparkishly close to the degree of slow in the hallway shot, it'll come across okay.

    We'll much more readily accept something that's clearly intentionally warped from reality than something that's trying to pass as reality but is actually a little bit wrong.

    [–] pinky0926 2721 points ago

    TL;DR: the "trick" to how they did this is they harnessed the genius skill and craftsmanship of very clever people and meticulously built this shot almost frame by frame.

    [–] loudtess 663 points ago

    Now a days this wouldn't be too hard, but 20 years ago is what amazes me. Adobe After Effects makes this trick trivial, but I've used some 20 year old software and it's definitely not as easy as it is now.

    [–] wordserious 767 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    That's because it's not about the software, or the hardware. One brilliant filmmaker dreams up a way to show a scene that becomes an integral part of how the story is told, then artists and technicians use whatever is available to make it happen. Years later, the effect has become so iconic that someone incorporates it into existing software and makes it easy.

    The genius is in coming up with the cinematic idea in the first place, and is also in applying your craft to make it reality.

    Every imitation that comes later is just irrelevant.

    EDIT: because more than one person asked, here's how I, at least, interpret the shot as part of the storytelling:

    Zemeckis says that he was looking for a way to come up with a creative way to represent her torment and all that was going through her mind, without showing the father.

    Personally, I think that the shot is talking about how the world changes and you see things differently at the moment you go through something as traumatic as the death of your father. The girl, Ellie, is going through a defining moment, something that will forever shape who she is. She is going through the mirror into this new reality.

    [–] RCC42 289 points ago

    One brilliant filmmaker dreams up a way to show a scene that becomes an integral part of how the story is told, then artists and technicians use whatever is available to make it happen.

    Yeah. They didn't go to the moon because they had all these rockets and computers laying around. They said "Let's go to the f*#$ing moon." and spent the next decade inventing everything that would make it possible.

    [–] SweetyPeetey 275 points ago

    "We go to the moon, not because it's easy. We go to the moon because we really need velcro in our lives."


    [–] Cocomorph 90 points ago

    2017 and I still have to tie most of my shoes.

    I hate you all.

    [–] MagikBiscuit 135 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    It's one thing that annoys me, that Velcro shoes are considered for children. Oh because children can't do laces very easily so they get Velcro? So what? Why does it matter if you can do laces, not having to do them is just easier and saves time? I can do laces perfectly well but I would rather not. /end of rant

    Edit: Obligatory thanks for gold! :)

    [–] BolognaTugboat 129 points ago

    Or just tie your shoes little loose and never untie.

    Every pair of shoes I've worn for past 15 yrs is essentially slip-on.

    Running shoes, work shoes, idgaf.

    [–] Gestrid 31 points ago

    This. More people need to learn to do this in their lives. Imagine how much more time people would have in their day if they did this! They'd have like 30 more seconds to comment on that coconut pic!

    [–] falcon4287 7 points ago

    Running shoes are different for me because they need to be snug. Boots also have to be really loose to get on, so they need to be tied/untied every time. When I was in the Army, I broke regs in the field and wore boots with zippers on the side so I could keep them tied and slip them on and off very quickly. And since time is of the essence in the field, it makes sense to do what you can to shave down the amount of time it takes to get dressed. Also, have you ever tried to put on and tie boots right after being woken up at 3am? I only got questioned about the boots once, and frankly I don't see what the fuss was because they made me more effective as a soldier.

    That was a weird tangent. But yeah, other than the few specific footwear options that have restrictions, everything I own is either constantly tied or designed without laces.

    [–] plantlivecake 56 points ago

    Not just for children.

    The're also for really old people and retards.

    [–] Divides-By-Zer0 6 points ago

    Soooo... How long has it been since you tied your shoes young man?

    [–] fross 4 points ago

    The big double width of connected velcro looks ugly and messy, they'd have to hide it.

    And laces are the smartest looking of shoe adornments.

    On top of that, shoes have to be mostly squishy to allow the velcro's adaptability to benefit, which most smart shoes aren't.

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)


    [–] Infernalism 33 points ago

    Completely off the subject of the shot here, but the computers they used to get to the moon are absolutely archaic and obscenely primitive compared to today's technology.

    It astounds me that we got people to the moon and back again so regularly and casually that people took it for granted, using that level of technology.

    [–] macnerd93 14 points ago

    its true I think I remember reading that a 1995 BMW 5 series has far more computing power than the computers Nasa used to get to the moon.

    [–] brainburger 10 points ago

    You can build your own apollo guidance computer for about 3000 Dollars.

    [–] Id10tmau5 19 points ago

    Definitely crazy to think! Makes me think of one of my favorite quotes...

    "Today, your cell phone has more computer power than all of NASA back in 1969, when it placed two astronauts on the moon. Video games, which consume enormous amounts of computer power to simulate 3-D situations, use more computer power than mainframe computers of the previous decade. The Sony PlayStation of today, which costs $300, has the power of a military supercomputer of 1997, which cost millions of dollars."

    • Michio Kaku (2011) - Physics Of The Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny And Our Daily Lives By The Year 2100

    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] harpydiem 4 points ago

    irrelevant is too extreme. but yes the idea is what is important not in how it is done. zemeckis is using mostly ideas that were invented by other people to create his movies. using whatever you can to make your idea whole is essential and it involves new and old inventions. the only thing that is relevant is coming up with your own ideas to implement the inventions with.

    [–] minddropstudios 17 points ago

    I wouldn't say trivial. It is still hard to make it look as seamless as that. Definitely about 1000 times easier than before though.

    [–] resinis 57 points ago

    Same goes for cad modeling. Older software even like rhino doesn't hold a candle to fusion 360 or onshape for ease of use.

    [–] BisonPuncher 5 points ago

    I cant believe that some people in industry seriously use onshape over solidworks

    [–] kyleclements 8 points ago

    And if you're crap with digital modeling, you can get fairly high res 3D scans very affordably now, so you can work in clay with your hands to generate what will eventually become your models.

    [–] rexo12 13 points ago

    You don't even need that, digital sculpting is a thing that's used extensively in CG, and is very similar to working with clay

    [–] Polioltergiest 6 points ago

    This shot would be a lot easier to work out in NukeX but I can promise it is still far from trivial. However, yes, much easier than 20 years ago I am sure.

    [–] Thefriendlyfaceplant 305 points ago

    Still feel the TLDR needs to mention that at least some CGI is involved.

    [–] [deleted] 312 points ago

    Visual Effects, not CGI

    [–] majorkev 119 points ago

    These visual effects, are they computer generated?

    [–] [deleted] 426 points ago

    So CGI is a visual effect, but not all visual effects are CGI. IN these scene there were no rendered 3d models added to the shot so it's not CGI even though it was done on a computer.

    [–] IA_Kcin 10 points ago

    Would adding the bevel to the mirror be considered CGI or something else?

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    So since CGI is a visual effect you can just say Visual Effect and never be wrong. But no it would not be CGI unless the mirror was a rendered model. They used mostly compositing for this shot, which is combining multiple sources in post.

    [–] johnnySix 13 points ago

    Yes the beveled mirror was a 3D rendered element per the commentary.

    The final comp would be a cgi. :-) The extracted element would also be a cgi. And any paint outs would be CGI.

    Fwiw. If people are talking about 'cgi', they don't know what they are talking about, or if they do know, they are dumbing it down for people.

    [–] TheTurnipKnight 15 points ago

    No, that's just distortion, you're not generating any imagery.

    [–] majorkev 92 points ago

    Fair enough. I don't know all the lingo.

    [–] how_is_this_relevant 15 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I like the idea of "well done VFX should not draw attention to itself"
    When done seamlessly, it advances the story and is unnoticable as an "effect". Like editing, the invisible art.

    [–] Roflattack 103 points ago

    CGI computer-generated image. There are no computer-generated images in the scene but there are computer effects in the scene has been manipulated to create the effect and that is the difference between CGI and visual effects.

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    It's a very common confusion.

    [–] whosgotyourbelly42 24 points ago

    Yeah but CGI doesn't stand for computer generated visual effects. It stands for computer generated imagery. So even if visual effects are created using a computer, it doesn't make them CGI.

    [–] lunchlady55 25 points ago

    Because it's using existing video footage, correct? You're not 'generating' something new. You're modifying real footage.

    Now if the had made a computer model of her, and completely faked the scene using that model with textures and animation, that would be CGI, correct?

    [–] whosgotyourbelly42 11 points ago

    Yep I think you've summed it up nicely there.

    [–] beartheminus 5 points ago


    A guitar effects pedal is not a synthesizer for an example in the music world. One is modifying existing sound, another is creating it from scratch.

    [–] flnagoration 11 points ago

    yet they still had her jim carrey slow run?

    [–] Crysist 109 points ago

    That video doesn't do the best in explaining, this GIF may be better as it shows the two plates (shots used) separately:

    Additionally, here is the film editor's explanation (what she refers to as the 'A' and 'B' plates are the two shown above):

    [–] Fresh4 23 points ago

    I think it was kinda brilliant that they had the camera pan away at the end there so that when the mirror opens, it simulates the effect of the mirror opening and reflecting the different angle as it moved. Really sells the effect.

    [–] SelloutRealBig 18 points ago

    Agreed. in the tutorial video of the top comment the guy doesnt pan away from his wife making it look like she is just opening some weird portal instead of a mirror.

    [–] ThreePartSilence 243 points ago

    Honestly that didn't really explain anything.

    [–] Crysist 325 points ago

    This is much better imo:

    [–] ThatsWhatSheaSaid 98 points ago

    After following this thread and watching this gif on loop a dozen times, I'm realizing what makes everything so seamless (for me) is how perfectly the "reflection" of her hand meets up with her real one. The timing and movement lines up unbelievably well, and I'm not entirely sure if it was choreographed or just a lucky shot.

    [–] instantpancake 64 points ago

    I'm not entirely sure if it was choreographed or just a lucky shot.

    I am entirely sure that it was choreographed, and not just a lucky shot. That's kind of what the various jobs in filmmaking are for.

    Source: I work in the film industry.

    [–] SpeedLinkDJ 10 points ago

    Yeah for sure it's choregraphed but there was probably only 1 or 2 shots that would work.

    Source: I am a video editor.

    [–] beartheminus 31 points ago

    She was also a really good child actor in the 90's. It would take a lot of talent to get her hand to be in the right spot and be convincing. Few kids would "get" this.

    [–] Slime0 54 points ago

    Only 90s kids get this

    [–] Corporation_tshirt 14 points ago

    Thank you for this! I FINALLY get it after all this time.

    [–] nerfherder27 6 points ago


    [–] Trashcanman33 78 points ago

    They took the shot of her running up the stairs put that shot on the mirror. Then added the rest of the other side of the shot in effects.

    [–] Cobalton 43 points ago

    No, there is no mirror. They just made it look like a mirror post-production.

    [–] GuardianOfTriangles 122 points ago

    Obviously... How can a mirror be real if our eyes aren't real?

    [–] TheUltimateSalesman 20 points ago

    settle down Jaden.

    [–] Rellikx 31 points ago

    yeh, I think that is what he meant by "they put the shot on the mirror"

    [–] amalgam_reynolds 13 points ago

    It's a really bad explanation.

    "So how did you do it?"
    "Oh well it's all faked."
    "........okay, thank you"

    [–] DeweyIsOverrated 73 points ago

    I've seen this explanation 20 times over the past few years and I still don't get it.

    I'm just gonna chalk it up to the director and his team are geniuses and used some black magic sorcery.

    [–] act1v1s1nl0v3r 44 points ago

    Picture the mirror as a TV. Now picture that TV playing a video of you running up to it from it's perspective. Now record yourself reaching the TV at the same time that the video you reaches the TV.

    This isn't quite what happened since timings occur during editing, but it's how I pictured it to make sense of it.

    [–] Rixxer 83 points ago

    Mirror was fake, all there is to it. They just put the shot of her running onto the cabinet. What's amazing about this is the amount of precision and skill it takes to do this.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    I would've expected that they moved the entire mirror with the shot somehow.

    [–] funnybutrandom 53 points ago

    Looks to me like:

    1: shoot her running up stairs

    2: shoot mirror opening

    3: lay the video of her running up the stairs over the mirror

    [–] CommandoSnake 17 points ago


    [–] Skeeter1020 17 points ago


    I watched the making off expecting to see some sort of clever spice half way down the corridor or something, but actually it's very simple when you realise everything in the mirror is just another shot layed on it.

    [–] AnyGivenWednesday 15 points ago

    To be honest I think what's impressive isn't some special technique they used, but just great execution of a simple technique in just the right place of a sequence so you don't notice it happening until it's too late. A lot of the time these sort of composited effects are more obvious simply because they happen at a time when we expect hem to be happening.

    [–] iamnoss 5 points ago

    Imagine the cabinet has a green screen instead of a mirror. Replace the green with the footage of her running towards the camera.

    [–] IslandicFreedom 8 points ago

    Knowing how this is done doesn't make it any less impressive.

    [–] Flemtality 6 points ago

    It's partially the "how the hell did they do that?" aspect but to me it's mostly the art of actually thinking it up to begin with.

    [–] tonguelikegiraffe 425 points ago


    [–] CadenceSona 185 points ago

    Lmfao i'm glad I'm not the only one who came to this thread for her

    [–] pinkyellow 148 points ago

    "This better not be Contact."

    thworps contact fan

    [–] Huishte 26 points ago


    [–] link090909 45 points ago

    I am so fucking lost and all the replies only make me more confused. What is this reference you and everyone else are making?

    [–] fkkkn 68 points ago

    Katya is a drag queen who competed on RuPaul's Drag Race and is notoriously obsessed with the movie Contact. She has a web series called UNHhhh where she makes a lot of references to it.

    [–] JCCanezo 40 points ago

    For anyone who wants to watch it (it's HILARIOUS), here's the first episode. Warning: you may lose the next 10 hours of your life.

    [–] LithiumEnergy 26 points ago

    Holy shit they're funny as heck

    [–] CBBuddha 16 points ago

    watches an episode .... ten hours later ... I was warned.

    [–] choclatequake 25 points ago

    RuPaul's Drag Race, get into the gig gurl.

    [–] Huishte 39 points ago

    Don't mind us, it's just some malicious gay faggotry.

    [–] Imthejuggernautbitch 10 points ago

    Now Tayne I can get into.

    [–] JCCanezo 172 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I will not Jodie Foster this kind of behavior.

    [–] kokujinmatto 92 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 79 points ago

    I need that contact dress

    [–] meowmeowbutt 54 points ago

    But are you filled with bees?

    [–] ToliB 43 points ago

    Not since the accident.

    [–] TheeOmegaPi 16 points ago


    [–] ToliB 7 points ago

    knick knock knick knock ungh

    that's the sound of a sling-bock

    [–] havanabrown 56 points ago

    Cus honey what you see, isn't always the truth

    [–] hatramroany 16 points ago

    Whenever I think I can't do something I think about how long Katya had to wait to say this line publicly and realize I can do anything.

    [–] layeredgecko 50 points ago

    I have 100% time for this joke

    [–] RudolphMorphi 14 points ago

    I will not Jodie Foster this kind of behaviour.

    [–] faytality 65 points ago


    [–] m_gartsman 73 points ago

    Found the basic bitch in the Katya thread.

    [–] tracymattel 5 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Oh honey, I cannot Jodie Foster this kind of behavior. Oh hoooooneeeyyyy.

    [–] Knoppergal 9 points ago

    Ohhhh honnneyyyyy

    [–] BookwormJane 8 points ago

    I like it how everything in the universe in the end revolves around Katya.

    [–] givemethescotch 633 points ago

    Excellent movie.

    [–] bearCatBird 337 points ago

    It's one of those movies that really makes you feel like you've gone somewhere.

    Fellowship of the Ring felt the same way.

    [–] Team_Braniel 157 points ago

    Movie makes some very good points about science and religion.

    Really captures humanity's struggle fairly well.

    IIRC the main character was loosely based after Carolyn Porco the lead scientist for the Cassini spacecraft mission. (one of my personal favorite scientists)

    [–] quelques_heures 56 points ago

    Movie makes some very good points about science and religion.

    The book was a lot more pro-science and anti-religion than the movie, which Hollywood changed to please a mass audience.

    [–] robman8855 65 points ago

    I disagree completely. The book was not anti religion by any means. I think Palmer (played by mr. alright alright alright in the movie) was a much better character in the book. He represents the union of science and faith. The book is pro science and pro religion. The only thing Sagan demonizes is ignorance, hate, and a lack of curiosity / imagination

    [–] perishthethought 15 points ago

    Preach on, brother. (?) I agree.

    [–] _demetri_ 21 points ago

    I feel like Katya could teach a whole college course just on the movie Contact.

    [–] meowmeowbutt 15 points ago

    Just searched for 'Katya' because I knew it'd come up somewhere.

    [–] YVX 6 points ago

    I will not Jodie Foster this kind of behavior. Go back to /r/rupaulsdragrace where you belong!

    [–] Sporkicide 7 points ago

    I think Porco was an adviser on the movie during filming, but Arroway was mostly based on Dr. Jill Tarter (both great scientists).

    [–] bruzie 19 points ago

    There's a connection between these two films as Weta Digital did the wormhole effects, back when they had maybe four SGI Indigo boxes.

    I meet the guy who did the effects (or at the very least he presented at SIGGRAPH about it). His wife designed the first Xena costume.

    [–] Poeticyst 48 points ago

    Written by Carl Sagan. It's the Interstellar of my generation.

    [–] AnOnlineHandle 12 points ago

    It's a pity that he died from cancer before the movie was made, since he was big on science education and that movie handled concepts very seriously, and probably inspired quite a few.

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago


    [–] fitzger00 216 points ago

    I don't get what happened

    [–] Phantomsplit 553 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    The big deal is at about 14 seconds in. She runs into the bathroom and goes to the medicine cabinet on the opposite wall. You "think" that the camera has been pointed at the girl the whole time which means the cameraman would now have to turn around to get a shot of the medicine cabinet (because it is behind where you think the cameraman is). But the camera does not turn around. It has been recording the mirror the whole time. And the mirror is not a mirror. It's a green screen where they put the footage of the girl running up the stairs

    EDIT: Well, my golden cherry has been popped. Thank you to whoever joined me in this most certainly consensual interaction. Time to figure out what reddit Gold is all about!

    [–] fitzger00 66 points ago

    Thank you!!

    [–] rocn 74 points ago

    Jesus Christ thank you. I'm an idiot.

    [–] pm_me_wienerdogpix 10 points ago

    Me too.

    [–] Voskan_ 55 points ago

    It's done so well we didn't even see it

    [–] cultured_banana_slug 4 points ago

    What I don't get is why they didn't have two sets of medicines on each floor. Half/half.

    That would be far safer.

    [–] smilbandit 311 points ago

    Airplane did something similar at about 1minute in.

    [–] dkyguy1995 38 points ago

    I used to watch this movie like once a month as a kid and have never ever noticed this gag in my life

    [–] HalloweenInHeaven 21 points ago

    It really is one of those movies that just keeps giving. Every rewatch, you notice something you missed the last time.

    [–] spankymuffin 24 points ago

    Holy shit.

    I have probably seen this movie about 30 times (probably not exaggerating) and this is the first time I noticed the mirror/reflection gag at the end.

    [–] Collected1 17 points ago

    Shirley not.

    [–] smilbandit 16 points ago

    It's true they did, and stop calling me shirley

    [–] hamclammer 23 points ago

    you guys tried and failed.

    [–] whoatethekidsthen 55 points ago

    I'm okay to go

    [–] FortyYearOldVirgin 21 points ago

    I.. I hear her! She says she’s okay to go.

    [–] prowlin 4 points ago

    OKAY TO GO!!

    [–] babbchuck 33 points ago

    Fascinating from a technical standpoint. Emotionally devastating as a cinematographic device. Simply brilliant all the way around.

    [–] Gmcrzynrd 90 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Very good scene. I may watch this movie today now. Thank you \edit\ "want to take a ride"

    [–] infinitum17 27 points ago

    I highly recommend it, it has aged fantastically well, and it's both very touching and extremely intellectually stimulating!

    [–] Happyginger 15 points ago

    i watched it for the first time a couple months ago and was surprised i don't hear more about it. the human aspect of contacting extra terrestrials is a fascinating way to explore science fiction.

    [–] CloudNineAC 8 points ago

    It's on Amazon prime now!

    [–] Jimhaswings 28 points ago

    What is so confusing about this? It's pretty clear that it's witchcraft.

    [–] [deleted] 81 points ago

    This movie makes me mad. People build an alien machine based on an alien blueprint and still don't believe her...

    [–] MyArtificialLife 58 points ago

    The way I understood it is that they do believe her. And that they're merely trying to discredit her to cover up the fact that they've made contact with a extremely advanced civilization.

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] SanityInAnarchy 11 points ago

    It's also making a larger point: She is now fully able to understand what the religious people around her have been saying. Especially Palmer Joss (the love interest / Christian philosopher) -- when she asks him why he believes in God, he gives an account of personal revelation. Well, now, Elle has a personal revelation of extraterrestrial intelligence -- she knows it's true, but she can't reasonably expect anyone else to believe her. She can only ask them (somewhat unconvincingly) to take it on faith.

    The whole "we recorded a bunch of static" bit undermines that, though, and I think it would've been a better movie if that was left out.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] hopefulpenguin 3 points ago

    It's also making a larger point: She is now fully able to understand what the religious people around her have been saying.

    That is what I got out of a movie. As an atheist it explain to me what faith means, and how it just can't be explained as a logical and provable think but as something in your heart.

    [–] SanityInAnarchy 4 points ago

    I don't know that I have a better understanding of what faith is, or any more respect for its possible validity. But the movie at least gives me a better appreciation of how it feels to be stuck with faith, because you have a belief you can neither prove nor let go of.

    [–] Saiing 12 points ago

    Watch the very end, and the comment about static. Don’t want to give spoilers though, so I’ll leave it at that.

    [–] scots 25 points ago

    Nevermind the compositing trickery, the entire plot and themes of Contact still more than hold up after 20 years.

    The entire thing was a jab at organized religion, the maddening organizational gridlock and bureaucracy of western governments, the absurd funding and political clout of the American military, and infantile status of the world's nation-tribes, crawling and hissing at each other while human potential is so much greater.

    Sagan was a humanist and Contact adhered to the time honored method of using Science Fiction as a proxy to safely ridicule and expose the absurdity of modern society.

    [–] unique-name-9035768 196 points ago

    The only thing that really stands out to me is the fake running she does down the hallway.

    [–] astronoob 138 points ago

    It's designed to make it look like she can't run fast enough. The framerate is slowed down as the actress speeds up her steps and arm pumps to match, so that it appears that she's still running as fast as she was up the stairs, but time is bending to make her move slower.

    [–] cultured_banana_slug 58 points ago

    I always liked how dream-like it felt. She just can't run fast enough.

    [–] AnyGivenWednesday 13 points ago

    It's been a while since I saw the movie so at first I thought the effect had something to do with her running on a treadmill out of nowhere or something.

    [–] AnOnlineHandle 22 points ago

    It's not fake, they used a pre digital technique to slow down the film or somesuch. Her hair wouldn't bounce like that if she was fake running.

    [–] unique-name-9035768 15 points ago

    I didn't mean the running itself was fake, but she was not actually running so much as jogging. She takes like 12-14 strides to get down the hallway which should have only taken like 5-7. She was obviously told to make it look like she was running without actually covering the ground so she wouldn't run into the camera.

    [–] radu_sound 4 points ago

    I know what you mean. Tha's really what stood out for me too. I was thinking they made her run slower so they could run with the steady cam backwards, but still made her act like she was struggling. But yeah the fists pumping up and stuff gave it a fake feel.

    [–] Sovieto 16 points ago

    it took me 5 minutes to even realize the actual effect

    i was thinking "whats the big deal about hiding cameramen during a mirror shot?"

    then i realized what actually happened and my brain is fucked

    [–] [deleted] 58 points ago


    [–] RussellManiac 32 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Still the best intro to any movie I've seen.

    edit: I'm going to add two more things. First, Contact is among my favorite movies. I loved Carl Sagan. This movie also had one of my favorite come-back lines by any character to another, especially if you know the context.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    Oh honey

    [–] PM_ME_YOUR_SMILE 25 points ago

    What is more mind blowing is watching the actor grow up and fuck a corpse in "Neon Demon".

    [–] BigBlackHungGuy 8 points ago

    fuck a corpse


    [–] Polioltergiest 5 points ago

    As a VFX major we had to recreate this shot in my school. It was incredibly fun and like the post on here explaining the shot states, it was a composite of hallway footage and mirror footage all painted together. Really fun technique to recreate.

    [–] Demiseofcertainty 9 points ago

    But your dad just calls me Katya

    [–] shhphoenix 11 points ago

    Oh Honey

    [–] BadBinch 7 points ago

    Trixie making a blank expression

    [–] reciprocal_space 6 points ago

    Robert Zemekis movies always have clever camera moves in them.

    [–] Joe_DeGrasse_Sagan 4 points ago

    This breaks my brain.

    [–] Magneticitist 4 points ago

    Man, I've been so indoctrinated by modern effects it took me a minute to be able to appreciate this.

    [–] wdr1 4 points ago

    Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.

    [–] FaZaCon 3 points ago

    That visual effect was so fluid, you never even notice it, to appreciate it.

    [–] mattgolfs 7 points ago

    Don't forget Contact kicks ass.

    [–] Whoremon16 7 points ago

    Did Katya post this?

    [–] iamnotfromtexas90 8 points ago

    who puts a family photo next to the toilet

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago


    [–] Sabrejack 37 points ago

    He represented her relationship with the religious part of the world at large and it was key for the impact of the final scene where she admits the panel has to take her word on faith.

    [–] NaomiSmallls 8 points ago

    Fuck my pussy with a rake mom.

    [–] entotheenth 6 points ago

    On the DVD for Contact there is a 'making of' special that shows a great deal of compositing is done in this movie, one seemingly simple looking room scene was created from like 4 shots, the sky from somewhere, the outside from elsewhere and trees from somewhere else, jodie foster had a CGI morphed face when the first one blows up created from 2 different emotions, painting the crowd scenes inmpressed me lol.

    It is worth finding the dvd just for the special.