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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85) (Page 4)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85) Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 07-04-2005 11:16 AM                     Spielberg and his DoP never cared about what ended up on the screen. Both CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and MINORITY REPORT had the worst prints I have seen during the last years. Good DPs and directors create a look and mood through proper lighting. Sloppy DPs and directors always grab for devices which degrade the image - like push processing, bleach bypass done wrong, anything you can imagine that will degrade sharpness, details and pleasant color rendition. They forgot there's a difference between "control" and "degradation", which is why we have to see hundreds of movies with decaying flesh tones and burned out skies. What makes me really mad is that some of these "untouchable" directors (Spielberg is one of them) rave about classics like the films of David Lean, Powell+Pressburger, John Ford - all great artists who did not need to make their audience seasick by shaking the camera and destroying all colors. It's not a technical question, it's a creative problem. Brad said in the JJ/70mm thread that even a shitty movie like WAR OF THE WORLDS would look better in 70mm, but I disagree. All the mediocrity and stupidity of this type of cinematography would stand out painfully even more than in 35mm! More fine-grained, I agree, although they surely would find a way to degrade 5-perf 65mm sharpness to "give the movie a look".  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-04-2005 05:51 PM                        So the following films were made by a sloppy director, who, because he's sloppy, hires sloppy DPs: Close Encounters (winner Best Cinematography 1977) 1941 (nominated 1979) Raiders of the Lost Ark (nominated 1981) ET (nominated 1982) The Color Purple (nominated 1985) Empire of the Sun (nominated 1987 and should have won) Hook Jurassic Park Schindler's List (winner 1993) Amistad (nominated 1997) Saving Private Ryan (winner 1998) AI (should have been nominated) Minority Report (worked for me) Do you think he's always been sloppy and all those awards were flukes? I mean, come on, Schindler's List, Best Cinematography??!! It's not even in color! Or is this sloppiness a more recent "development" (ha ha, bleach process, I made a little joke).  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 07-04-2005 06:07 PM                     You're perfectly right, I should have specified that I was talking about the last few years of Spielberg's career. I started to wonder in the mid-eighties why so many Spielberg-produced movies suddenly were shot spherical - I even remember people coming to ask the projectionist whether he had forgotten to open the masking because they were used to seeing Spielberg/Lucas-type entertainment on a really wide screen. Things started to get funny when S. announced that 1.85 was better because the T-Rex was walking upright. Since then, I have seen a lot of sloppiness in each film except SCHINDLER'S LIST and PRIVATE RYAN. Personally, I enjoy the look of films like RAIDERS, 1941 and CE3K (each one shot in a different style). Maybe Spielberg believes that type of cinematography would be regarded old fashioned today - I think the bleach bypass/Super 35/DI twiddling-look of today will look pathetic in a few years. But I was speaking about cinematography only - and although I do not care about Spielberg's film any more, he certainly knows how to tell a story and keep his audience on the edge. Was it Harry Cohn who said that film business is about putting asses into theatre seats?  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-04-2005 06:32 PM                        Spielberg can do anything he wants and hire anyone he wants. So what's on the screen isn't an accident or a result of carelessness. Granted, sometimes he hits, sometimes he misses. Anyway, it's one thing to not like the bleach bypass "look", but that look is a conscious artistic decision and not the result of not caring. Now, the part about shooting flat, I agree with. I don't get that at all.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-04-2005 08:01 PM                     Color is not mandatory for good photography. Besides, it's only been his last couple of movies that started to look like ass.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-04-2005 08:57 PM                        I know -- I was just being obnoxious to make a point. Schindler's List is a work of art. Color would have been "wrong" for it. And I completely agree that his apparent stubborn stand about shooting so many of his films flat seems ridiculous. I did like the bleach process look of Minority Report, even if I wouldn't necessarily want to see more films that copy that look.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-04-2005 11:42 PM                     I dunno David...I actually have for a long time stated that Spielberg isn't the Director that people make him out to be and his films vary in quality based on DP more than Steven himself. His styles seem to be used as gimmicks like 3-D as much as for effect. Shooting in B&W is fine but I thought the cinematography was absolutely horrible on Schindler's List. I don't care who nominated him or what he or his DP won for it...compare it to other people's B&W photography and it was very much amature hour. Steven's films seem to have almost gotten worse, technically over time. For me, his best peaked with Raider's of the Lost Ark. Most everything was dialed in on that one. I have a theory that Steven Spielberg can't really compose his frames very well and prefers the 1.85 ratio because it is smaller. Compare Steven to a team like David Lean with Freddie Young (DP) and you will see what I mean. David could really compose his frame. Stanley Kubrik could also really compose his frames...any ratio...shoot in B&W or color and regardless of what you thought of the story, the films could be watched a dozen times and still not get it all. In fact, Steven should shoot in 3-D...it would just be another gimmick for him. Now then he could use B&W, 3-D, shaky cam with gauze filters to really make it special (and 1.85:1, of course). The one gimmick I wish he would try is to shoot in 65mm. The one thing that I will give Steven Spielberg is that he has made a lot of popular films. It is good that he has made films that people like (that is the point, to some degree) and I like many of them too.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-05-2005 11:41 AM                        Many (not all) of the Spielberg films I listed left lasting visual impressions on me. That can't be said for a lot of movies. I thought Schindler's List looked the way it needed to look for the story it was telling. Empire of the Sun is another work of art. Many (all?) of Spielberg's early films were shot in real scope (Sugarland Express, Jaws Close Encounters, Raiders) and he seemed to know how to compose the shots. I guess somewhere along the way he decided (or someone convinced him) to shoot with video in mind as the primary market. This business about "making the [whatevers] look taller" by shooting flat seems like a crock to me. Bah.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-05-2005 04:57 PM                     Everyone get out your video of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in letterbox. Now put some tape on your tv to mask what would be 1.33 ratio in the middle of the scope image and watch the ENTIRE first scene with River Phoenix. Save for 2 shots of River hanging on the sides of the boxcars, the entire thing works!!! Good composition? Hardly. Better than shooting in 1.85? Oh hell yeah. He still gets his "tunnelvision" by keeping the action centered on screen, yet he gets all of the technical quality increases by the anamorphic format AND those of us who actually HAVE peripheral vision, it brings us more into the movie, even if the stuff to the side is just wasted space.  |  IP: Logged Wolff King Morrow Master Film Handler Posts: 490 From: Denton, TX, USA Registered: Feb 2004 posted 07-05-2005 05:12 PM                        The solution is simple: All good movies should be in scope. All bad movies should be in flat.  |  IP: Logged William Valdes Film Handler Posts: 37 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Sep 2004 posted 07-05-2005 06:38 PM                     Just my opinion, Spielberg has made many great entertaining films over the years that have made a whole lotta money. If the man wants to shoot his films in FLAT, he's earned his right to do so. AND... War Of The Worlds wasn't too bad. It was a nice entertaining popcorn summer blockbuster movie. NOW, White Chicks, From Justin To Kelly, You Got Served, Gigli, THOSE are examples of BIG FAT TURDS!  |  IP: Logged John Anastasio Master Film Handler Posts: 325 From: Trenton, NJ, USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 07-05-2005 09:40 PM                        Having spent some of the scarier moments of my life in Newark, I was pleased to see what Spielberg did to it. The little girl's screaming really put the tweeters to the test...but isn't that what Sci-Fi is all about anyway? Little girls screaming?  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-06-2005 12:33 AM                        Mr. Spielberg shoots in 1.85 most of the time because he believes that "the human eye sees in a frame closer to 1.85 than to 2.35, so it makes the film more natural to look at if the screen more closely matches that of what the natural eye can see". Ciao ps... loved the movie, big fan of the book and original film, felt it was quite good, but not really for a second look. Too dark and dreary, needed better and brighter colors and a real actor. Ciao again  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-06-2005 12:41 AM                     Steve needs to open his other eye.  |  IP: Logged William Valdes Film Handler Posts: 37 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Sep 2004 posted 07-06-2005 01:38 AM                     Personally, I've never had a problem watching films in flat. As a matter of fact, I find I'm able to watch it easier from closer up which is definitely a plus for those sold-out situations where patrons are left with only the first couple of rows of seating in an auditorium.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.