Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Wars: Episode 2... Shooting soon, but not on film.

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Star Wars: Episode 2... Shooting soon, but not on film. (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Star Wars: Episode 2... Shooting soon, but not on film.

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-18-2000 06:20 PM

Pytlak's Personal Opinion was...
>>When you are making a film costing over 100 million dollars, image quality should be higher on your list of priorities.<<

I couldn't agree more! Considering this movie will make (about) $800 million worldwide, why isn't it being shot on film? Cost? Bull#*&)!

These guys are PROFESSIONALS. They should be leaving the digital shooting to those on REAL budget constraints instead of pumping out sub standard quality to the masses and passing it off as 'breakthrough technology'.

Honestly George, get your hand off it. When is enough millions enough? He was once one fine director... now he's nothing but a show pony.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

| IP: Logged

Scott Magie
Film Handler

Posts: 73
From: St. Albans, VT USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-19-2000 12:41 AM

Gordon,
I agree that everything should be right before you start filming, but stuff happens... cool ideas don't work out, cool ideas spawn an even cooler idea that will mean re-shooting... actors forget lines... the guy flagging a light with his jacket burns himself and swears, causing the actors to forget their line... etc. All the storyboarding and rehearsals in the world (and I believe "the more, the better" for both those) won't give you a 1:1 ratio, it'll just lower your ratio a bit. For the penniless filmmaker, being able to actually redo stuff that gets messed up without worrying about your budget or how much stock you have remaining is priceless because they're not forced to sacrifice their story for budget reasons. I remember shooting a roll of MOS footage on the last day of one production. It was our last roll of stock and we had way too much stuff left to shoot. We ended up not shooting slates to save film and calling "action" and "roll camera" simultaneously. This resulted in some horribly unusable shots. A few were salvagable, but that's no way to shoot a film. Especially when you're spending your own money and trying to do justice to a story that is close to your heart. Digital provides a reasonable compromise for beginning filmmakers... sacrifice some image quality for the sake of being able to tell your story the way you wish it to be told.

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-19-2000 08:29 AM

Sorry but I very much disagree it is not the way a beginner learns with out restaints I feel that is why the current films are so grossly over budget (after excessive talent costs) is the loss of planning and control process and regretably the budget is the best way of controling that
If a beginner is not displined then it is the kid turned loose in the candy factory syndrome they get sick

| IP: Logged

Scott Magie
Film Handler

Posts: 73
From: St. Albans, VT USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-20-2000 12:27 AM

Gordon,
yet again, we disagree. I DO see your point and agree with it to a degree but I think it can go the other way. Look at Clerks vs. Mallrats. Kevin Smith was so restrained by his budget on Clerks that once he HAD a budget to work with, he didn't know what to do with it. Yet, when you compare the performances by the actors, you can tell they were allowed more takes to hone their performance in Mallrats. I've totally lost myself in my own point (I'll admit it), but basically what I'm saying is that whether someone learns under a restrained budget or not, when they get a relatively unrestrained budget from a studio they're gonna be like a kid in a candy store, either way. Think of all the good independents... now think of that director's next film (for a studio). Swingers vs. Go... El Mariachi vs. Desperado... take your pick. It happens every time.
Whether I'm shooting film or digital, I put the same amount of preparation into each shot. Digital just allows me the freedom to tell the story that I want to tell for a reasonable budget. Hopefully, if someone ever gives me a project with a huge budget, I won't change my approach.
I actually don't think we disagree as much as it may appear, Gordon. You sound like you are right up my alley as far as perfectionism goes. To me, any production is 95% pre-production, which allows my shooting ratio to be made up of less mistakes and more room to experiment.

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 05-23-2000 03:11 PM

My approach to filmmaking is simple. Do NOT let your cast have the script until its time to film. When working with inexperienced actors, it is much better to get them at thier most innocent. When they have time to mull over the lines, they tend to start "acting", then the project falls apart, and looks bad. Keep them honest, keep them who they are, let them be who they really are when they do thier lines. The honesty will come out in the final project. Thats why blair witch actually worked, because most of it was so unrehearsed, you had real, true, honest behavior that people identified with. I am not saying that the movie rocked, but it was honest, at least until it got to the marketing phase, but hey its all about money right?

What the hell was I talking about? Oh yeah, acting. Acting sucks. I just finished an acting class where we finished off with an actual performance of improv comedy games in front of an actual living breathing audience. And for the first time I knew what it was to be an actor. NOW I KNOW, what these people have to deal with. It will be a great help in my efforts to help these young actors in my film. AND NOW I KNOW why I am NOT an actor. I REALLY REALLY SUCK AT IT!!!

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.