painfulcrash Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I just came out from the first (late night screening) of the SpiderMan-2. I know its not just to say one cinematographer did a better job than the other one. Because you it is hard to argue , if Rambrant was greater then Michalengelo. But I like- sorry let me correct myself.. I Love Bill Pope's style. He did a mad job on spiderman-2.. I put him in my top-5 cinematographers list to admire.. Even tough I like Don Burgess and what he does.. Bill Pope just bursted his skills all over the picture and made it a beatiful one. I cannot wait to study this film .. Its just insane .. It always makes me jelous and angry seeing such a good work. thanks for the inspiration mr.pope. -(crash) aydin ozer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Kevin Zanit Posted June 30, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 30, 2004 I also really liked the look of this film (both films in fact). My only gripe is that some scenes looked a little flat, but that was a very rare occasion. I saw a pristine print, and Mr. Pope's work really shined. Very talented guy. Kevin Zanit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 What about the DI transfer? Were there any visible signs of DI in the print? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 30, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 30, 2004 Didn't they use at least 4K DI, both scanning and recording? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 30, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 30, 2004 Didn't they use at least 4K DI, both scanning and recording? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I'll be seeing this on my birthday (tuesday) at the local 70mm screen. A 35mm print, but the big screen with the sound system going full-bore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted July 1, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 1, 2004 See "Spiderman 2" now, but it's likely that in a few weeks there will be 70mm IMAX prints blown up from the 35mm using the IMAX DMR process. B) I've heard it will be later in July. The IMAX DMR release of "Catwoman" has been cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Ok, I'm mad. I just went to order my tickets for Spiderman 2 for tomorrow on the big screen, and the theatre is no longer presenting it on the big screen. The big screen is now showing Shrek 2. A major dissapointment for me, as I was looking forward to the "big screen" experience on my birthday and don't want to waste it on Shrek 2 (which is a great movie, but I've seen it three times so far). I wanted to see something of a grand spectacle, a grand statement, a grand vision. While Shrek is funny (my son calls it the Donkey and Shrek movie) it's not the kind of scale I was hoping for. Ah well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfulcrash Posted July 5, 2004 Author Share Posted July 5, 2004 i'm sorry to hear that .. i dont know why , but this info seems fitting : spider-man-2 (3day gross) $95,500,000 shrek-2 (40day gross) $396,782,535 40 it amazes me to see how succesful the second Shrek is. There wasn't as much of a hype nor adverts .. but .. 400mil in 40 days .. not bad. and of course spiderman-2 has an unarguable success. I know its going to be a little out of topic but : how do 'hotshot' cinematographers get paid ? -crash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Which scenes were too flat? I was actually astonished that the studio let him get away with using so much negative fill on close ups. A technique he brought over from The Matrix. Which I think creates a more interesting composition, I'm kind of tired of perfect hair and rim light no matter what enviornment the character is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfulcrash Posted July 5, 2004 Author Share Posted July 5, 2004 thats what i thought .. the contrast ratio was a lot , in a good way .. georgues. nothing was flat .. and he used orange kickers so well .. it blew my mind .. i wish i was half the cinematographer he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 @Paul Think of the years and troubles taken to get to this point. Then again, some people, like moi, have the natural talent. j/k 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 6, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 6, 2004 Hi, I'm always cautious about heaping praise on work like this. The guy had infinite money, what d'you expect? I find things like "Northfork" more impressive, if only because I know exactly what Northfork would have been like if it'd been made here, probably on some bleak moor up north somewhere with a 2K over camera. To take something that begs bleakness and make it both appropriate, attractive and interesting is far cleverer than being given all the money in the world to produce something which cuts fast around a lot of special effects. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryprayiv Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I actually thought that this movie fell way short of great cinematography because of the skin tones the DI produced. I mean, the second one was much better than the first as far as this point goes, but it still had that unnatural, platic skin tone that I so loathe. Also, I found the amber kicker in the final scene completely unmotivated since the rest of the movie didn't really strive for the comic book look (see Batman Forever for a good look at some consistent comic book lighting). Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfulcrash Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 hey there .. you can take your two cents back :P :) just joking. first of all you dont need to motivate light all the times. second .. the orange kicker was motivated: it was the industrial orange harbor lights (the scene on the crane) and i have to disagree with the skin colors .. I liked them. You made it sound like DI is an automatic program that arranges the colors randomly. Lets say, if you shot something and cross processed it. then you say , i dont like the skin tones.. because of the contrast they are too pale .. But when you talk about tones and DI, it doesnt work that way. DI is the battleground for tones and colors. So , personally, i did like the skin tones. They are handpicked like fragile strawberries. You can go where ever you want with them .. and i liked the way they went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted July 15, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2004 So , personally, i did like the skin tones. They are handpicked like fragile strawberries. You can go where ever you want with them .. and i liked the way they went. Funny that you should think that, since Bill Pope said that he tought the DI made the skintones a bit plasticy looking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfulcrash Posted July 15, 2004 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 i never said the skintones did not look plastic. i said they are handpicked strawberries.. the image was matte.. "plastic" in a beatiful way. it amazes me that how many people hates DI. I would cut my arm too shoot a feature and DI it in the end. barbie dolls are plastic too.. and they are "perfect" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted July 15, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2004 i never said the skintones did not look plastic. i said they are handpicked strawberries.. Okay, so they are 'handpicked strawberries', whatever that means. What does it mean, in fact? I've just come from the film and I really don't share your enthousiasm about the cinematography. While I thought it was solid, it certainly never struck me as outstanding. I found it quite conventional looking. They didn't really push any artistic boundaries. Also there were some close-ups of Kirsten Dunst where she just didn't look good. As for the film itself, there are so many scenes in that movie that are just plain bad. The scenes with people talking to themselves, explaining their motivations. The train scene with Spiderman getting carried over people's heads like a rockstar and then the kids saying: 'We're glad you're back', 'We won't tell anyone'. Practically any scene with the Aunt. it's just too much. I take T2 over this film any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Hamrick Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 What about the DI transfer? Were there any visible signs of DI in the print? I've been projectionist on Spiderman since it came out.I haven't seen any artifacts or anything else that would stand out indicating it was from a DI. Marty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted July 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 16, 2004 What about the DI transfer? Were there any visible signs of DI in the print? I've been projectionist on Spiderman since it came out.I haven't seen any artifacts or anything else that would stand out indicating it was from a DI. It being a 4K DI, it looked very sharp. Better than most 2K DIs. But from the look itself, you can still recognize that it is a DI. I didn't mind the DI look too much actually, I found it acteptable for a comic book movie. It looks a bit flat and glossy and the colors are not supposed to be realistic anyway. As I said, my main problem was with the photography which didn't strike me as particularly inspired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 16, 2004 Hi, I just got in from seeing this. God, what a bunch of ill-written old drivel... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryprayiv Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 hey there .. you can take your two cents back :P :) just joking. first of all you dont need to motivate light all the times. second .. the orange kicker was motivated: it was the industrial orange harbor lights (the scene on the crane) and i have to disagree with the skin colors .. I liked them. You made it sound like DI is an automatic program that arranges the colors randomly. Lets say, if you shot something and cross processed it. then you say , i dont like the skin tones.. because of the contrast they are too pale .. But when you talk about tones and DI, it doesnt work that way. DI is the battleground for tones and colors. So , personally, i did like the skin tones. They are handpicked like fragile strawberries. You can go where ever you want with them .. and i liked the way they went. I just don't think that the colorspace available on a DI is at the level it should be at yet...at least compared to what actual film stock is capable of. Also, I was not referring to the harbor shot...that didn't bug me at all...I was talking about in Peter Parker's apartment in the final scene...you know, that "go get em, tiger!" part? The lighting in the background was interesting, but also stuck out like a sore thumb as studio lighting. I was only saying that a sunset would never cast this color light and then, when Spiderman makes his way around the city in the final part (with helicopters and a completely CG city) it looks like a completely different time of day....more like high noon. So back to what I actually meant. What I am mostly referring to is the fake characteristics of a lot of the CG and it's inability to be transferred into the film believably (at least to my eyes/mind)...definitely the way that Maya (or Houdini or 3D Studio Max, etc?) imitates lighting/motion blur/depth/aperture/grain/motion. I just don't believe it in any way and it's not like it's really even trying not to look real. Also, the part where the balcony breaks off of the building in the first Spiderman has severely plasticy skin tones on Kirtsen Dunst's face. And it is my opinion that she is shot really unflatteringly (as far as her face goes compared to other movies I have seen her in) in both movies. I am not suggesting that the amount of negative fill made the scenes too contrasty, but I thought makeup/lighting/skin tones on transfer/DI weren't up to par with how I know Kirsten Dunst can look on screen. I would think that one would want to make the audience attracted to love interest and not paint her in an unflattering light, but maybe I am wrong....I just thought she looked........"busted" in the film. Sorry, but that's the word that came to my mind throughout both films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I would agree those helicopters in the end looked completely fake. We could've done without them. The film took more than a few CGI liberties. There is no above ground elevated trian through midtown Mahattan like that. Part of that scene when he goes down to ground level and slides through traffic took place on the west side of Harlem where the 1 and 9 are above ground elevated trains. Then in the movie goes back into a midtown type envoirnemnt. When in reality the 1 and 9 go back underground, and if you kept going north you'd go into the Bronx. But I suspended disbelief and went along for the ride. It worked for the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted July 18, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 18, 2004 Hi, I just got in from seeing this. God, what a bunch of ill-written old drivel... Phil Interesting you should say that. Lisa Schwartzbaum of Entertainment Weekly LOVED THIS MOVIE yet HATED Pay it Forward. From a story point of view I didn't find the movies that different frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 18, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 18, 2004 Hi, I just felt that Kirsten Dunst's character was made out to be a pretty horrible person, dumping her fiance at the altar and running off back to Spiderguy. We were never given much of a reason to dislike the fiance, other than that he was connected - for some reason, again never explored - to the newspaper editor, who was clearly comic relief. The discovery that the rich kid friend was actually the son of the bad guy from the first movie felt tacked on; why couldn't they have had her fall in love with -him-, thus giving her an actual reason to leave him when he ends up becoming the bad guy for the next film. Awful. Six months prep on the effects, six minutes prep on the storyline. Drivel. And oh yeah, even I could probably have told you that elevated railways aren't a common feature of Manhattan. I thought that was a Chicago thing? Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now