Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jackass the Movie

This is topic Jackass the Movie in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001383

Posted by Frank Rapisardi (Member # 435) on 10-28-2002, 02:30 PM:

This was shot on video and looks horid on a large screen. I saw it this weekend and was shocked at the quality. No one in the audience complained.They sat and laughed there asses off! What's going on? Our audience seems to be adult;with the brains of twelve year olds.

------------------

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2002, 02:49 PM:

Would you really want to see those antics shown with greater image detail and color fidelity?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-28-2002, 02:50 PM:

Frank, there are a couple of factors to remember here. First, aesthetics are most likely not of the biggest concern to the filmmakers. (The obvious exceptions being the opening of the movie, and the trailer at the end) They are trying to capture whatever insanity is happening in front of the camera, period. Secondly, people that are seeing the movie are already used to the look and quality of the image from the tv show, and their expectations pertaining to the image quality are probably not much higher. As far as the intelligence level of your audience is concerned, I'd agree to a degree, but I have to admit that Jackass is somewhat of a guilty pleasure, as I'm sure it is for many, but I don't count myself among the dumb and dumber.

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 10-28-2002, 08:26 PM:

The cameraman also has to be very quick on his toes and move a whole lot. Most film cameras used on films are way too bulky for this kind of flexibility. The smaller, more agile, although less aesthetic, digitals are what works for them. Not to mention that they are most likely of the MTV/average joe mindset that digital equals better.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2002, 09:13 PM:

Jacob Huber wrote: "Most film cameras used on films are way too bulky for this kind of flexibility"

NOT true!

A Super-16 camera like the Aaton A-Minima provides image quality greatly superior to any DV camera, and weighs in at less than 2 kilograms, film and batteries included! This small Super-16 camera was used to photograph "Monsoon Wedding":
here Monsoon Wedding
here A-Minima Article
here Kodak Info About A-Minima Films
here Aaton A-Minima

Even some sound capable 35mm cameras weigh in at less than 6 kilograms:
here ArriLite Camera

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-28-2002, 09:20 PM:

I think the choice of digital had more to do with money and experience than anything else. They had been shooting video for years and could still do so without compromising anything from their audience's perspective. Pluys they had a "limited" budget from what I hear, and I'm sure that part of the logic was that the less they spent on production meant more money in their pockets. I would have made the same choice if I was in their shoes.

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 10-28-2002, 09:52 PM:

I stand corrected.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-29-2002, 01:05 PM:

According to an article in Entertainment Weekly, the budget was $5 million. A drop in the bucket these days! But about $4,999.999.95 more than that movie's worth, IMHO.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-30-2002, 09:45 AM:

With using Digital rather than film, they didn't have to worry about the film can getting smashed open during some of their stunts (golf carts come to mind) and becoming exposed. The camera may have got trashed, but they could recover the tape.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 10-30-2002, 09:51 AM:

Mike said:

"budget was $5 million. A drop in the bucket these days! But about $4,999.999.95 more than that movie's worth"

Mike, you were over charged. I would ask for a full refund.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-30-2002, 02:02 PM:

Many film productions use expendable "crash cams" in situations where the camera is in jeopardy of damage. Severe damage to a digital camera tape transport is just as likely to ruin the footage as damage to a film camera magazine.

IMHO, film would have added to the quality of this production, if that is possible.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-31-2002, 04:03 AM:

Such a type of "crash cam" was HOPEFULLY used on the tail end scene of "Fast and the Furious" where the car goes airborne. Watching the DVD extended bits, you can view the footage from all eight cameras, as only one take was done. When you watch from the long distance, you can see the crash cam getting creamed by the car after it lands. But the film inside was safely protected, as it was used in the scene.

So really on this film Jackass, they know that the intended audience is so brain dead they wouldn't know the difference, and that way, you wouldn't need any film crew really.

Dave

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-31-2002, 09:45 AM:

quote:
you can see the crash cam getting creamed by the car

Those are usually B&H Eyemos or Arri II's in a crash housing. They're pretty solid, as evidenced by the surviving shot.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-01-2002, 01:03 AM:

The thing is none of these guys is probably experienced with film. I know that sounds like a lame excuse, but these aren't just a bunch of actors brought together to do a movie, they're friends who happen to be making money by doing what they do best-acting like idiots. Its all very spontaneous and un-scripted. My point is, if they would have shot it on film they would have had to bring in an outsider who had experience with film. You can't just add someone to a group of friends and expect them to act the same. Bringing in someone new would have changed the group dynamic.

Or I could just be talking out of my ass, who knows.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 11-02-2002, 01:38 PM:

The most "intelligent" idea I could give is that the filmmakers wanted to preserve the look and feel of the show. It's bad enough that the people who went to see this movie had to venture outside and try to interact with the rest of the "normal" world, but I guess Johnny Knoxville thought that his audience would be scared by a traditional movie feel