Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lucas disappointed with lack of digital installations for Episode II

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Lucas disappointed with lack of digital installations for Episode II (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Lucas disappointed with lack of digital installations for Episode II

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2002 05:10 PM

Wow! A 40th Anniversary release of Lawrence of Arabia! But is there anyone in Utah still capable of showing it in 70mm? I had the pleasure of seeing it at the Regency 12 years ago... a distant memory now. Will I have to go to Los Angeles to see any of the other 70mm releases you're talking about?

Of course, I could use this 40th Anniversary re-release as evidence of my point. How close has Hollywood gotten to matching the visual grandeur of Lawrence of Arabia in the last 40 years? All the 70mm films I ever showed were blow-ups.

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

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

posted 02-15-2002 10:35 PM

Remember that Episode One was 95 percent digital. Now episode two is all digital. I doubt that we will know the difference, especially since we will have such a strong story line and great direction from the master.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Christopher Duvall
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-16-2002 04:36 AM

Sniff, sniff...Dave is that sarcasm I smell?

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-16-2002 09:53 AM

It's interesting to read this thread while I'm already reading the one about Olympic bribery. George Lucas didn't do anything illegal to make his billions and there's nothing illegal about the way he's making even more by producing bad Star Wars movies using a bad, new technology. It's plain, old capitalism (and not as heartless as it is sometimes carried out). A lot of American producers are going to Canada... because that way they can get Candian taxpayer dollars pumped into their pockets. He didn't even do that! (But... does the Australian government subsidize the movie industry? I don't know.) But... we hate him anyway.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 02-16-2002 10:46 AM

If the government of a country chooses to subsidise an intusrty that is its business only. Also that only increases the cost of living for the people of that country as well.
Also the subsidies for US productions are not that large either the main reason for so much production up here is lower labour costs and a exchange rate on the dollar that the free market sets

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-16-2002 10:53 AM

Ep1 and Ep2 need to be judged as movies, first and foremost. Not Lucas movies or digital movies. So the first question is, do they work well at that level? Ep1 was sorely lacking. I have a bad feeling about Ep2, but hope I am wrong. I don't think Lucas should be directing his own material, but if he wants to do that, just be fair and don't trash him and the movies just because you don't like George "The Looney Movie Mogul". Judge his movie the same as any other "normal" director/writer/producer's movie.

As far as George being "disappointed" at the slow pace of the d-cinema rollout, well, if he believes in d-cinema, he is free to speak his mind, even if he's being unrealistic. Lucas has done much to improve the movie-going experience for audiences and he obviously believes d-cinema is the next big thing. Everyone knows it's still too early and the technology isn't mature, and it's way too expensive, and there are the content delivery issues still to be resolved, so duh, d-cinema is not here yet. But when he speaks, he gets the attention of exhibitors etc. and raises the awareness level, and that's probably a good thing.

------------------
- dave
Look at this! His chin strap has been cut!

| IP: Logged

Dave Macaulay
Film God

Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-16-2002 11:42 AM

The story that Canada subsidizes film production is bogus, spread by California politicians and the US craft unions.
There are some tax writeoffs for Canadian productions, and grants are available for some kinds of Canadian productions. Government subsidy for foreign productions, although once substantial to support a growing industry, is negligible now. The US governments will spend many times that cost for security at the American AMPAS Oscar award ceremony soon - a direct subsidy to US producers.
The problem is, much like the Projectionist union did, the US stage/film production unions have priced their members out of competition. Canada has capable workers in non-IA craft unions who seem to appreciate that lots of work at a decent pay is better than no work at excellent pay.
Film producers can choose to take their business to another country and save a pile on production labour costs, and - being businessmen - they do.
Canada gets a lot of their business - we are closer than most countries and have a large pool of experienced workers. The dollar disparity is gravy.

Before parroting the union propoganda, consider that Canada is considered part of the domestic market for US films. Canada is counted as just like another state to US distributors, albeit only second largest. Why should we not get some of the production profit for contributing to their presentation profit?

(Broadway producers can't leave town though, and they have to pay the insane union wages. I'm sure they wish they could come here.)

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-16-2002 01:18 PM

If George Lucas is so "disappointed," then maybe he should use some of his millions and millions of dollars to help subsidize his beloved digital conversion, and try to get some of the mega-rich corporations that are going to benefit from the conversion to pony up as well...not go around whining about being "disappointed" that so many of us are reluctant to replace a proven, reliable, workable technology with something that won't benefit most of us that much, and is likely to be obsolete in two years.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-16-2002 01:25 PM

Settle down, gentlemen. There are plenty of non-union film production workers here in Utah who don't care to work in Los Angeles. But the pecking order seems to be 1) Shoot it in Los Angeles or, if you don't have quite enough money for that 2) Shoot it in Utah or... 3) Just go to Canada. (Lots of people have gone for option 3 over the years and the added hassle of a Salt Lake City Olympic party has hurt the Utah film production business for quite a while now.) That's the business and if we don't like it, we need to find another. It's perfectly legal, too... but that doesn't mean we live in a perfect world.

When the production of X-Men moved to Canada, the director of photography was only allowed to bring along one of his normal crew members from the U.S. to work with him. Union propaganda aside, I rarely hear about such job discrimination flowing the other direction.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 02-16-2002 02:14 PM

Actually Greg Canadian performers are routinly barred from bring any of there canadian crew with them when they tour the US And there is a shortage of soundstage space now that some Canadian productions are filming in LA and with totaly US crews as the US doesn't allow canadian dept heads to work on a Canadian production in the US
Also over half the production in Ontario is either Nabet or IA crews

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-16-2002 03:00 PM

"But is there anyone in Utah still capable of showing it in 70mm? "

Gerg,
Fortunately, Yes there are at least a half dozen places. The Villa, SCERA Theatre, Trolly Corners and a few others. Plus I ahev a rental 70mm setup so it could literally be shown anyplace. Equipment is not a problem anyplace, the problem is fimnding smart enough theatre owners to book it in the first place.
You mean to tell me that you never ran 2001, Vertigo, or My Fair Lady,? Those are all large format originals.

Dave S. Ok, I'll judge Episode 1 as pure crap! Didn't do a darn thing for me.....

Mark @ GTS

| IP: Logged

Keith Peticolas
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 108
From: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 02-16-2002 04:36 PM

Maybe Georgie should quit whining, and spend some money on a script writer. Pretty picutres are nice, but if there isn't a decent story why bother?

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

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

posted 02-16-2002 05:29 PM

Yes, I have plenty of sarcasm. I live for it. I eat it for breakfast.

As for olympic bribery in the other thread.... I love to keep that one going.

And there is more to movies than good stories. Lately much more than good stories.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Owen Shave
Film Handler

Posts: 34
From: Manchester, UK
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 02-16-2002 07:47 PM

Personally I think part of the problem is that digital is seen as a level playing field. We have a DLP projector here but its like 2 years old at least. Ok so imho films look great on it (most notably Vertical Limit, Emperor's New Groove and Monsters Inc.. Atlantis looked kinda grainy/pixellated

) But when you say 'in digital' what does that mean? i'm sure a brand spanking new latest generation DLP projector would make it look much better than a 2 year old model. Its like grouping together a 500 MHz pentium with a 2Ghz machine and saying they are the same. Just like film, the paying public will get varying qualities of DLP presentations, and as each new DLP model comes out, the gap will widen. Its not like they will upgrade the projectors very often. they're expensive.. trust me, I want one for my bedroom

having a mix of DLP and film can also show up poor film presentation in your theatre too.. but you just can't beat being able to fast forward/rewind... I just can't get enough of those outtakes at the end of Mon. Inc

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 02-16-2002 08:14 PM

Perhaps I am ignorant but why would anyone want to shoot in Utah, of all places? I've been there twice and have yet to be impressed. Sure, there are some small to medium sized mountains around and a huge lake, but I don't really remember much of anything else in the state. I do remember seeing a LOT of guys (in pairs... hmmmm) riding on bikes while wearing ties. Must be the "thing to do" in Utah.

| 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.