Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Super 8 (2011)

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Super 8 (2011) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Super 8 (2011)

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 06-20-2011 04:56 PM

quote: Tony Gallimore
I did notice several times especially during the train wreck, discoloration and splotches, some I'm sure were lens reflections from filming at night, but other times it appeared as if someone just purposely placed horizontal streaks across the print. They were somewhat annoying and happened more than a few times. It looked like pretty shoddy work in processing the print. Maybe it was an attempt to turn patrons off to film... but, I don't think they will ever clean up digital enough in my lifetime to merit abandoning film.

I saw Super 8 in IMAX. The streaks across the image were present, apparantly they were put there intentionally by the director. At first I thought there was something wrong with the IMAX digital, when I saw it again in 35mm at my friends theatres, I noticed the horizontal lines on teh 35mm print

quote: Tony Gallimore
Maybe it was an attempt to turn patrons off to film...

lol, I highly doubt that. It was present in IMAX digital. I actually seeked out the IMAX screening in digital becuase I have always had a great experience.

| IP: Logged

Mike Croaro
Master Film Handler

Posts: 394
From: Millbrae, CA
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 06-21-2011 11:01 PM

Folks:

Saw this last Saturday at the Vogue Theatre (single screen) in San Francisco. Nice single that seats 300.

The picture started out good. Engaging etc. Then it slowly turns into a by-the-number alien film. Not a total loss but not that great either.

The best part was being able to enjoy the film at the quaint Vogue Theatre.

Mike

| IP: Logged

Lionel Fouillen
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 230
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2002

posted 06-21-2011 11:46 PM

Saw it yesterday during lunch time.

SCREEN #2, Cinema City (Galeria Kazimierz), Kraków PL.
35mm on a Kinoton projector, Dolby Digital on JBL speakers.

Flawless projection, but one of those dreadfully steep stadium-seating theaters making you feel like in the Mount Rushmore sequence of North by Northwest, with a wall-to-wall screen in a theater as wide as deep, so you see the grain (or pixels) even when sitting at the very back.

The Goonies meet Close encounters of the third kind, with an attempt for an emotional touch from E.T. for teenagers who will be weak enough to buy it. The film was enjoyable to some extent, and well made, although totally unnecessary. What's the point with Super 8 there?

The story could have been set a few years ago and called MiniDV, or today and called Smartphone. That way we could all have agreed on how unnecessary this film is. But marketing played well, and even I went to see it because of the 8mm thing. Which reminded me of the films I was making with my friends 25 years ago. And probably the most captivating part is, as Sam Graham mentioned, the completed Super 8 amateur production playing during the end credits, all with mechanical noise from the projector in the surrounds.

| IP: Logged

Gregory Jones Jr.
Film Handler

Posts: 10
From: West Hills, CA, United States
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 06-22-2011 01:55 AM

Arclight Sherman Oaks, CA
Screen 2
35mm Presentation

I saw it during Arclight's all day sneak preview. I'd like to use my first post to say that Super 8 is just about everything I was hoping it would be. I'm a huge fan of pretty much every movie that inspired it so I found myself geeking out throughout the whole thing. It's not perfect, but few films are.

I have to say, I was quite delighted to see that it was on 35. I hadn't been to the Arclight in a while and I thought they went all digital. It just seemed appropriate considering the premise. We're finally getting it at my theater so I'll definitely be seeing it again.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-03-2011 05:44 PM

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Don't insult the movie by comparing it to Michael Bay crap. The style is definitely more Speilbergian than Bayish.

Only on the most superficial level.

Just as with vomit, this regurgitation bears some resemblance to the original, has the same ingredients. But isn't anywhere near as delicious. Better to disregard (or analyze to learn what went wrong).

SUPER 8 lacks the heart of the Spielberg movies it seeks to imitate. Which is a remarkable shame, since Abrams had direct access to "the man himself."

Spielberg is also a far more efficient storyteller. The plot of SUPER 8 took waaaay too long to kick in. Spielberg would have likely collapsed the first 70 minutes of this movie down to just 30 minutes.

As a side note - Spielberg does not like the 2.39 format. And not even he would subject us to THIS many lens flares! Personally, I agree they are an annoying distraction.

I'm not surprised that so many people bolted out of their seats at the final fade-out. Many stopped in their tracks to watch the mini-movie at the end, but most did not. They just kept moving. I, too, agree that the mini-movie was better that the actual movie.

AMC Showplace 12 (formerly Kerasotes)
Bloomington, Indiana
Auditorium #6
35mm with Digital Sound (format uncertain)

Focus was a tad soft.
Aperture plate not adequately masked.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-10-2011 12:41 PM

This wasn't the greatest movie ever, but I enjoyed it.

Regarding lens flares, JJ needs to cool it. I wasn't particularly thrilled to run across town with a light engine from our shop only to find out that the blue horizontal lens flares was the problem and not a failed light engine. [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 07-10-2011 03:37 PM

Not to drift too far off topic, but...

quote: Manny Knowles
Spielberg does not like the 2.39 format.

Says who?

If you analyze Spielberg's theatrical filmography (as director), the flat vs scope breakdown is practically 50/50. I count twenty-four and one-fourth* films that he's directed, with the format breakdown being thirteen and one-fourth (flat) and eleven (scope).

(It's 13 1/4 to 12 if you want to count Poltergeist, and 13 1/4 to 13 if you want to count his upcoming War Horse.)

Now, does that sound like a filmmaker who hates scope?

* The 1/4 represents his segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983). Also, the formats represent projection format, not origination, as some of Spielberg's scope films have been originated in Super-35.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-10-2011 09:32 PM

The reason some of us are convinced that Steven Spielberg doesn't like the 'scope format is that we read stuff like this back when he was talking about Saving Private Ryan...

quote:
Why did you choose to shoot Private Ryan in the 1.85:1 format rather than a widescreen format?

Spielberg: To me, widescreen formats like CinemaScope were a Hollywood invention of the 1950s. I find widescreen to be an artificial aspect ratio, whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we see as high to low as we do from side to side. If I had to make a choice, I’d rather see from high to low. I think the most human perspective is [the range] from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The slickest format for theaters is 2.35:1. I’ve chosen 1.85:1 for my last four pictures because they were intended to be more lifelike.

Source: American Cinematographer interview, August 1998 issue

Seriously, Michael, you're gonna lose your position as "Mr. Research" around here. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-10-2011 10:12 PM

Keep in mind Steven Spielberg has filmed other movies for 'scope format since the 1998 release of Saving Private Ryan:

War Horse (2011) Super 35 2.39:1
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) anamorphic 2.39:1
Munich (2005) Super 35 2.39:1
Minority Report (2002) Super 35 2.39:1

I can't find anything detailing the aspect ratios of Lincoln (2012) and Robopocalypse (2013) although I would guess the robot movie would likely be 'scope.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)
IMDB lists three aspect ratios for this one: 1.44:1 for IMAX 3D, 1.85:1 for digital 3D and 2.35:1 for 2D release.

quote: Brad Miller
Regarding lens flares, JJ needs to cool it.

I agree Abrams really overdoes it with the flares. His reboot of Star Trek was littered with the anamorphic style things, even in the CGI which isn't really anamorphic.

I think the anamorphic look is pretty cool at times, particularly when so many 2.39:1 movies are shot Super 35 or digital and merely cropped down to that ratio. OTOH, the 1970's movies from which Super 8 riffs really don't have very many of the light artifacts. A few shots with elliptical halos and horizontal flares do stand out in films like Jaws, Sugarland Express and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but I think movies like Die Hard and Heat played up those anamorphic artifacts more dramatically. Certain P.T. Anderson movies have quite a few of them. But I think J.J. Abrams outdoes them all and pushes it to a distracting level.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-10-2011 10:30 PM

quote:
...blah, blah, blah...whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we see as high to low as we do from side to side.

Absolutely no offense at all Mr. Spielberg, but most people see with BOTH eyes. The last time I checked, I could see more than double the width as I can height.

Maybe Steve wasn't too good in math classes.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 07-11-2011 12:11 PM

I've got a Tintin trailer in front of both my IMAX movies presently (Cars and Transformers), and the trailer is formatted at 2.39:1.

As for Super 8, it's 80% a good movie, which is about 60% better than I expected. The lens flares didn't bother me, since I expect that from this director.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 07-11-2011 01:41 PM

If Spielberg's Tintin is scope, then that further supports my contention that he doesn't dislike the scope format and that he selects format on a title-by-title basis. His upcoming Tintin and War Horse now push his scope total higher than his flat films. Take that, naysayers!

As a longtime reader of American Cinematographer, I'm well aware of that Saving Private Ryan interview, and I fully expected someone to mention it as their "proof" that Spielberg dislikes the scope format. The thing is, Spielberg in that interview never actually stated a dislike for scope; he simply stated that he had a preference for flat for certain films. The fact that he has made several scope films since Saving Private Ryan supports my contention.

I think some may interpret Spielberg's comments in that interview to mean that he felt scope was an old-fashioned, out-of-date and unrealistic format, that he regretted using it on his earlier films, and that his intent for all future films would be to shoot flat.

You'd have a point about a dislike for scope if Spielberg had made no scope films since 1982 (the year he released his first flat film), and you'd have a point if, say, the Indiana Jones sequels had been the only scope films he made since 1982 since in such a case it would be easy to conclude scope was only used to preserve visual continuity with the original movie. But the fact is he's made several scope films since then, and not just the fantasy/escapist fare.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 07-11-2011 03:40 PM

quote:
As a longtime reader of American Cinematographer, I'm well aware of that Saving Private Ryan interview, and I fully expected someone to mention it as their "proof" that Spielberg dislikes the scope format. The thing is, Spielberg in that interview never actually stated a dislike for scope; he simply stated that he had a preference for flat for certain films.

If I am correct, the whole scope vs flat this is because home video and tv. He is not a fan of pan and scan. Flat helps. For dramas, no big deal with flat.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-11-2011 06:13 PM

Spielberg is choosing aspect ratio purely based on the subject matter of the movie and how best to compose it within a given frame.

Saving Private Ryan was meant to convey the look or feel of old combat film footage. CinemaScope wouldn't be invented for another several years. The flat format was more appropriate for Schindler's List.

Many disliked his choice of shooting Jurassic Park in the "flat" 1.85:1 ratio. However, he gave a good explanation for the choice. The flat format allows for more headroom in compositions and that was needed for the height of the dinosaurs. The reasoning was the same for War of the Worlds. The "tripods" could be composed to look taller in the 1.85:1 ratio than they would in 'scope.

I don't think the 'scope format is in any immediate danger. Spielberg and J.J. Abrams are both likely to shoot more movies in that aspect ratio.

If anything too many movies are made in 'scope. Lots of throw-away dramas and comedies are shot in Super35 or digital and cropped down to 'scope. Even some low budget indie movies shot with relatively low cost video gear have the footage cropped to 2.39:1. It's pretentious. I've seen it lots of times in recent years where every single movie playing in a multiplex is formatted in 'scope.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-11-2011 09:10 PM

I always felt Spielberg shot the Indy movies in scope because of George's insistence. Just a guess, though.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.