Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spielberg says he wants to stick with film

This is topic Spielberg says he wants to stick with film 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=005246

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2007, 09:54 AM:

from imdb.com on Oct. 10:

Unlike Digital-Loving Lucas, Spielberg Sticks to Film

Unlike his producing cohort George Lucas, Steven Spielberg has rejected digital photography for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In an interview with the website CHUD.com, Spielberg said that he intends to "be the last guy in Hollywood shooting live action on film, despite the arguments Lucas makes" for digital production. Spielberg also reportedly said that while there may be some digital effects used in the film, he intends to go "as old school as he can." Appearing to violate his own non-disclosure policy, Spielberg also confirmed much Internet gossip that the villains in the new movie will be Russian Communists, not German Nazis.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2007, 10:09 AM:

Not too surprising to hear. Those comments are consistent with what Spielberg has said in the past regarding film photography.

It would have been really screwed up for this Indiana Jones installment to be shot with digital video cameras. The visual continuity with the three previous films would be severed (the first three were anamorphic 35mm).

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 10-15-2007, 12:07 PM:

Well he's shooting on film which is good, but is he shooting in scope or is it going to be Super 35, and are we going to see a 2k DI output?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2007, 02:07 PM:

Since the first two Indy's were scope, it follows that the new one should be, too. I hope.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-15-2007, 02:19 PM:

The first THREE were produced when there was no 2K DI. I hope it's shot anamorphic with no 2K DI. We'll see.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2007, 02:27 PM:

Sheesh, it must be a Monday. I knew there were 3 previous movies...but yeah, they're all in scope so I would think Spielberg would want to keep it consistent no matter what new doo-dads have come along since the last one.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-15-2007, 02:50 PM:

My favorite quote from Spielberg, "If it was good enough for everyone before me...then its good enough for me!" On shoting on film and not digital.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-15-2007, 03:50 PM:

He's ben saying that he'll be the last guy for years now. It'll be interesting to see how long that actually lasts...

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-15-2007, 06:57 PM:

Sorry, Mike. That was too easy.

[beer]

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 10-15-2007, 08:18 PM:

Yeah, well I can remember when Speilberg also said that Raiders of the Lost Ark would NEVER be released on home video. Becauase it simply can't be experienced properly. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2007, 08:29 PM:

Anyone thinking Spielberg is going to shoot this new Indiana Jones movie on video is just fooling themselves.

The vast majority of all major movie productions are still shot on film. That's because those glorified HD video cameras still suck ass when compared to analog 35mm film cameras. Digital is not always perfect, and it is very far from so when it comes to capturing moving imagery. Analog film just from sheer quality standards is still very far superior. Sharper image, no pixel smearing, more refined color quality. Just plain better.

Video is only quicker. That's it. Not better.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2007, 08:49 PM:

quote: Brad Allen
I can remember when Speilberg also said that Raiders of the Lost Ark would NEVER be released on home video.

And I remember when Disney said the same thing about their classic animated movies. (I still have a Boxoffice around here somewhere with that article in it.)

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-15-2007, 09:04 PM:

..He shoots in Anamorphic 35mm so they can blow it up for 70mm and the IMAX DMR releases.

I saw the previous three in 70mm, and the first one (saw them at the Villa in SLC..) had the best picture being that it was still being projected through Century "JJ's" and Ashcraft Super Corelights.

The other two had a very mediocre presentations due to the switch to xenon and platter operation - just dark corners and some intolerable flicker at times.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-16-2007, 07:43 AM:

I am glad Spielberg wants to use film, but it must be noted that he is such a 'big name' that if he wanted to shoot in 3-strip Cinerama, it would happen.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-16-2007, 01:36 PM:

What a great idea! Think of it: IMAX becomes a small commercial format. Also: consider Cinerama 3D. Louis

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-18-2007, 04:20 PM:

3D with polarized lenses and cheapo cardboard or plastic glasses is good only for selling headache remedies, anti nausea medicine and vomit clean up products. Too many people just can't tolerate it for long periods.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-18-2007, 06:38 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
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.

That'd never work, Mark. I'll bet half of the CBG members don't know anything at all about digital cinema, so they're in no position to make intelligent decisions but they'd certainly be willing to bog down the process with their uninformed opinions. (I know this because I've seen the same thing happen at our state meetings, just on different topics.)

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-19-2007, 08:13 AM:

Not true, Bill. Thousands of people sat through hours upon hours of polarized 3D at the two ten day 3D film fests in LA with no problems at all. I would suspect that more people threw up watching The Blair Witch Project than watching any properly presented polarized 3D movies during the 50s.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-19-2007, 09:53 AM:

Mark: There's a big difference between 3D fans at a 3D film fest and the "general public." Personally, I don't really care much for 3D except in novelty situations like Disney theme park attractions and such. That's really the only place it's "needed" except maybe in the occasional horror flick or kiddie movie.

I do expect the glasses situation to improve. If 3D catches on like the suits think it will, you'll probably be able to buy comfortable 3D glasses at any pharmacy along with the reading glasses and the sunglasses.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-23-2007, 07:18 PM:

How many of those thousands watched solid straight thru whole films and how many have to look away for a couple minutes occasionally to maintain composure? Many will suffer through the discomfort for the rest of the experience.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-23-2007, 11:58 PM:

The first time watching Friday the 13th, Part III in 3D I had to take an eyeball break a couple times through the movie.

Never had to do that watching IMAX 3D movies, but I haven't seen any where the 3D content lasted 2 hours either.

Meet the Robinsons was a fairly short movie. It didn't seem to push me to the eye-strain limit, although I did peek at the picture a couple times without the glasses just to see how "doubled" the image looked.

I watched the 3D version of Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas Monday night. Again, it's another short movie. So my eyes didn't "run out of gas" in a matter of speaking. The post-produced 3D effect was certainly better than what I saw with Superman Returns, but there were some areas where the effect was still fleeting. The 3D effect worked reasonably well on shots with deep depth of field (where everything was in sharp focus) and even better on shots where the camera was perfectly still. The trailer for New Line's Journey 3D looked pretty good.

BTW, Carmike seems to be going through another wave of Real-D system installations. The location here in Lawton now has three booths equipped with the process for three different sized houses. You can see the Z-filters through the port glass. The theater will be able to play a movie like Beowulf in 3D for its entire run, going from the biggest house to next to smallest auditorium.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Personally, I don't really care much for 3D except in novelty situations like Disney theme park attractions and such. That's really the only place it's "needed" except maybe in the occasional horror flick or kiddie movie.

Happy Feet is now playing on HBO. Hadn't seen it before. But judging how some of the "action" sequences and such were staged, it's easy to see how the movie was originally meant to be rendered in 3D. Lots of "in your face" kinds of effects.

I did see a 3D trailer for Happy Feet on the front of the IMAX 3D version of Superman Returns. The 3D on that looked really good.

I think 3D would be great for horror movies. The 3D in Friday the 13th Part III in 3D was the best thing about it. If the show had just been in 2D it would have been just another run of the mill "dying teenager movie."

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-30-2007, 08:38 PM:

friday the 13th 3 was in the less-than-ideal over-under process. i wasn't impressed with the 3-d, though you're right: that was the best thing about it.

i sat through all 39 (i think) shows at the second 3-d fest in l.a. without any problems except from pulling an almost-all-nighter at work before flying down.

during films i do sometimes rub one eye or the other. can't do that with 3-d, obviously.