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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Spielberg says he wants to stick with film (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Spielberg says he wants to stick with film Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-16-2007 06:46 PM                     Christopher Nolan is shooting certain sequences of The Dark Knight in native IMAX 15/65 format. It's actually do-able for a major movie production to originate on IMAX. 5/65 wouldn't really be all that difficult either. The downside is with the whole shift to 2K-based digital cinema projection setups (4K doesn't look like it will happen for awhile) as well as the shrank to mere weeks release windows between theatrical and home video, there's little interest in shooting a movie in a much higher quality standard. Too many attitudes are in the "let's do it barely good enough to get by" camp, even to a fault of using video cameras and foolish hype about "digital filmmaking" in vain attempts of winning over audiences to generally lower quality standards in filmmaking.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 10-17-2007 09:07 AM                        When Hollywood bragged about technologies like 3-D, color, Cinerama, 70mm and CinemaScope they were, in part, trying to compete with television and convince people that the theatres were a much better experience. Today, television isn't a threat. It's another apendage and the same companies are getting the financial benefit whether something is shown on TV, in a theatre or on DVD. I, like so many of my friends, can often get sucked into watching something I'd never normally watch just because it's availabie in HDTV or just because it's playing at my favorite theatre with the coolest sound system. But I'm getting too old for that stuff anymore. If they shot the "Oprah" show in IMAX, would I watch it? No. Whatever happens to Indiana Jones, will I eventually have it on DVD and watch it dozens of times that way (as opposed to once or twice in a theatre)? Probably. Do I generally enjoy the experimentation of Janusz Kaminski, no matter the format? No. And if the new Indiana Jones movie looks as horrible as, say, Minority Report (which was Film!), then I'm finished. The previous Indiana Jones movies looked elegant... something I rarely see these days in any format.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-17-2007 01:01 PM                     I agree the "styles" of grainy, gritty, overly green and generally desaturated imagery has become very very tired. It's high time for directors and cinematographers to start doing something else. We get the "newsreel" joke and it isn't funny anymore. Douglas Slocombe was DP for the first three Indiana Jones movies and essentially retired after filming the third one. The guy is 93 years old now. So there's little chance of him actually doing work on this new movie (other than perhaps providing some creative input if asked). However, I strongly hope Janusz Kaminsky has for once stepped away from the grain-o-vision look and tried to revive the visual style Slocombe gave to the first three. And that also means shooting in anamorphic 35mm film format. Not Super35. I'm sure most, if not all, of the principal photography has been finished on this movie. Whatever Spielberg and Kaminsky chose to do in filming this movie has already been done.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-17-2007 07:49 PM                     I have to read all this tounge in cheek because at Shoeast there was ome talk of Speilburg shooting a film in 3-D digital. I guess the shoot on film till hell freezes over thing didn't last all that long... 3-D is going to be the biggest thing over the next several years. Disney has gone to originating all of it's productions in 3-D for the forseeable future... over 10 productions just at Disney. It will cover both animated and live filming with the animated stuff done for 3-D specifically... not just a cheapo rendered in 3-D thing. Mark  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-17-2007 07:53 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen I have to read all this tounge in cheek because at Shoeast there was ome talk of Speilburg shooting a film in 3-D digital. I guess the shoot on film till hell freezes over thing didn't last all that long... It's still very cold and frozen over until you provide some specific factual evidence. Grapevine he-said she-said crap doesn't really count. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen 3-D is going to be the biggest thing over the next several years. Disney has gone to originating all of it's productions in 3-D for the forseeable future... over 10 productions just at Disney. Just exactly how many of those claimed titles are "live action?" 3D CGI doesn't really count in the film versus video thing. BTW, it's not all that difficult to shoot a 3D movie on film. It's been done before.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 10-17-2007 07:59 PM                        quote: Mark Gulbrandsen 3-D is going to be the biggest thing over the next several years. I find that 3D really doesn't enhance the moviegoing experience in any way. 3D is cool to look at in stills, but not really in movies. Having to wear glasses is pretty lame as well. I don't know why it would be as huge as you predict. It's nothing special. Seems like the theater industry is really grasping for straws as it tries to keep giving reasons to go to real theaters instead of wait for the home versions of any given movie like I do.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-17-2007 08:17 PM                        3D is a gimmick, has always been one and will always be one. What matters is the story. If you have a good story you don't need 3D. Joe's right, except for his last sentence. There is no grasping going on yet. That part will come when all the digital projectors start going obsolete and there are no 'virtual print fees' to buy new ones. Then you'll see a lot of grasping, or soaring ticket prices...maybe both.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 10-17-2007 09:38 PM                     After watching the Reel-D demo this morning, the only thing that was really that exciting was the U2 concert. Probably that had more to do with the uncompressed digital sound in a (I believe still certified but unadvertised) THX auditorium. The animation was somewhat cool in 3D, the live action 3D Brendan Frazier thing looked like people floating in front of a background. And when will James Cameron let the titanic rest? First it was CGI and Super 35 titanic, now it's digital 3D Titanic what's next, animated Titanic musical?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-18-2007 06:14 AM                     You will be caught up in it by then too! Film is going to disappear real fast from the majority... I see than in just 5 to 7 years film be but a curiosity. Those that didn't get to shoeast missed alot... I recommend that if you are serious about your biz then start attending both shos to keep abreast of whats developing and is going to happen. Digital is no longer "maybe" its a "going to be" and its going to happen VERY fast. CBG has said they will begin their roll out in 2008. Mark  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 10-18-2007 09:26 AM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen CBG has said they will begin their roll out in 2008. When did they say this? The word I got from the meeting is that they don't have a deal yet and that everybody should be patient and stick together.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-18-2007 09:33 AM                        There was a CBG meeting at ShowEast (members only) where supposedly an announcement was going to be made. I heard they expect to have a deal with a supplier by the end of this year.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 10-18-2007 09:53 AM                     My partner was there and the second hand information I got from him was that they have some proposals but nothing good and that everybody should be patient and stick together so that eventually they can get a good deal. I was hoping that CBG would take the approach of RegAMCinemark or whatever they called their alliance and actually negotiate diretly with studios and financers. Instead it looks like they pretty much just went to Technicolor, AccessIT, etc. and asked for proposals.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 10-18-2007 10:03 AM                    3D is not necessarily a gimmick, and when used correctly can make watching a film like watching a well produced stage play with live actors. Dial M For Murder has practically no gimmicks in it at all and was one of the most enjoyable 3D movies from the 50s for me. As long as the elements originate in 3D, and they figure out a way to synchronize the frames on the screen properly, I'm all for it. I firmly believe that it's more work to shoot in 2D and then try to convert it to 3D later than to just shoot it in 3D in the first place. Don't believe that? Ask George Lucas, a guy with an absolute army of supreme technical innovators in his corner, what happened to Star Wars 3D.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-18-2007 02:22 PM                     The shoot in 2d/convert to 3d process should be abandoned. It's just plain stupid. The process is too freaking expensive and labor intensive. On top of that, it just doesn't work very well. Business-wise, it's wholly unprofessional. Think about 3D and plan for it UP FRONT. Not as an afterthought. If movie producers have any desire for their product to be shown in 3D, then they must shoot it for 3D using two cameras during production. They can use the "left eye" or "right eye" image for 2D-only release.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-18-2007 02:31 PM                     quote: Lyle Romer When did they say this? In either the latest Box Orifice or Filum Journal.... can't remember which... er might have been both. Ultimately its the members that should decide on which deal is best for them... not the Waynster... I'm afraid it is he who is going to end up do the deciding and the members need to let him know it should be them. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.