Jump to content

Miami Vice Reactions?


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
unfounded presumptions...do you think i would bother replying, mate? i was just trying to make you reflect on how appropriate was the choice of raw video for this film, and how well it worked, but it seems like you dont get it so help me god, who gives a damn.

The majority of the people who have posted so far did not think that the look worked so maybe you should come up with more convincing arguments than you have so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
... but still the movie grabbed me... especially the shootouts and violence seemed to have more impact than any full on splatter flick...

Don't overlook the impact of audio on the overall perception of a scene. If there's one thing Michael Mann flicks excel at, it's gunshot audio (Heat, Collateral, and Miami Vice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the people who have posted so far did not think that the look worked so maybe you should come up with more convincing arguments than you have so far.

 

leave it, jacobi. if you dont get it, dont worry, just leave it. i dont need to give you more convincing arguements, i said what i needed to say...maybe you should give a more convincing reason why you call yourself a director when you mostly do clapper/loader work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
i said what i needed to say...maybe you should give a more convincing reason why you call yourself a director when you mostly do clapper/loader work

The answer to that question, which you asked so eloquently and politely, is quite self evident: ever since I earn my living SOLELY as a director. What it has to do with this discussion escapes me though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, sorry. the imdb link you provided shows that you mainly do clapper/loader work, hence my assumption. maybe you should update it with the feature films you directed. anyway theres no point of discussing this further, i dont really care, if you didnt like the film its fine, everyone has a different opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
oh, sorry. the imdb link you provided shows that you mainly do clapper/loader work, hence my assumption. maybe you should update it with the feature films you directed. anyway theres no point of discussing this further, i dont really care, if you didnt like the film its fine, everyone has a different opinion.

 

Hi,

 

FYI Max received an award for a film he directed last year!

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...., if that's th best you can do with an F900, thank god we've got the D20 and Genesis. ...

Suffice to say I really hated this movie...

 

 

Just a note... that Miami Vice was shot mostly on a Viper Filmstream and used the new LUThier system. There were only a few scenes shot on the F900 (and it looks like they used Digital gain at +12 with another 6 on top of that.)

 

What I would say about the movie is that I like how Mann used the different gain and saturations. I thought the different video styles were the first time I have seen someone use these different gains like different grains.

He used various styles of video (some looked like amateur video, like a home movie, some clear and pro) to convey particular messages. We are used to this with film stocks and lighting; but we have not really seen this on video.

 

Kudos to MM for the first coherent attempt at that with a sub text and point.

 

[this is my first post on cinematography.com]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the inconsistency only really bothered me when I couldn't find a motivation, like a wide shot of a Jamie Foxx and his wife in bed being less noisy than the immediate pop-in to a tighter (noisier) angle in the same lighting.

 

 

I think this is the main critical point that motivates responses like, "Looks like a student film".You can overlook inconsistency when it IS in a student film,but not something of this budget and calibur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Finally saw this on DVD and have to say that the "look" IMO doesn't work. Looks like complete poop. Proves without a doubt that good images come from the lighting.

 

What I can't understand is why people have said that this look is 'right' for this movie. Why is that exactly? What makes this movie want dirty, underexposed, unlit, noisey, badly operated images?

 

How do you explain the sequence where Crockett is outside the hospital and gets some guns out of one car trunk and puts them in another? No one, except somebody in Mann's position, would ever get away with rendering images like that even if it is supposed to be a style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think it was a decent movie. It's nowhere close to "Heat", but it's still pretty cool. I was a big fan of Robber Homicide Division on TV which was mann's first foray into the digital cinema, although he only produced it. Nevertheless that set him on track for Collateral and MV. I hope he does some more urban crime movies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
dear god

 

WHY DONT YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?????? do you really think that mann and beebe made a mistake? do you really think they shot what they shot expecting an amazing look? THIS FILM WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THIS. yea yea yea it looks like hell, videoish, unprofessional...THANK GOD! thank god these people have the guts to make something that looks different from the average GORGEOUS 35 MIL STUFF. i thought it was great, the roughness and the grittyness made me think "its harsh, but i have never seen that before".

the fact that the story wasnt that good, well thats another thing, i agree with that. it sucked

but i am sick of people expecting everything on that screen to be shot on film, to have all those eternal and predictable qualities that have been around forever. i am so glad miami vice came out. it pushes people to experiment with the new technologies and to make something completely different. dont get me wrong, i love the look of film, but i really cant stand the choice of using film just because its film. i bet a million pounds that if someone shot a movie tomorrow on a Z1E with the micro 35, proper lighting and proper film lenses the average joe wouldnt spot a difference or mention anything unusual. things are changing and i love it.

and another thing: if miami vice was shot on 35 mil i guarantee you it would be just another action flick, but because it looks like hell and videoish people are attracted to it and it wont be forgotten easily.

 

there you go, mate

 

Interesting and I do agree that they intended the film to look that way.

 

My view is that if you want immediacy - then shoot on Super 8 - that way it looks like "you were there". I suppose our exposure to the Zapruder tape, home movies, combat footage shot on super 8 gives us that impression of involvement and realism.

 

Grainy video - yes, but I would have preferred it shot in a more documentary fashion ala COPS and MV is no documentary - its a drama.

 

I think that Bourne Supremacy had more of a realistic immersive feel than MV did.

 

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
My view is that if you want immediacy - then shoot on Super 8 - that way it looks like "you were there". I suppose our exposure to the Zapruder tape, home movies, combat footage shot on super 8 gives us that impression of involvement and realism.

 

You need to change your Display Name to a first and last name, Gregor. Go to My Controls.

 

For younger people, video -- not Super-8 or 16mm color reversal -- is what they grew up for news, war footage, and home movies. So using Super-8 does not give you more raw, unprocessed immediacy, but the opposite -- it creates nostalgia, a feeling that something happened in the past, like the 1970's or 1960's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
You need to change your Display Name to a first and last name, Gregor. Go to My Controls.

 

For younger people, video -- not Super-8 or 16mm color reversal -- is what they grew up for news, war footage, and home movies. So using Super-8 does not give you more raw, unprocessed immediacy, but the opposite -- it creates nostalgia, a feeling that something happened in the past, like the 1970's or 1960's.

 

David thanks for your input and wisdom.

 

I guess that I find the super 8 feel tangible. I think that video is not tangible, as I use a minidv to take holiday films which are mostly constructed and false in their story. I control whats in them. And Im only a young guy in his late twenties.

 

When I think super 8 I think:

 

Combat footage (was mostly 16mm I know)

 

Zapruder

 

Hindenburg

 

Other old films that were real.

 

Thats why I find Super 8 realistic. Also, it was used for a lot of home movies. Yes they were in the past, but they were real.

 

Thats why I think super 8 is gritty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David thanks for your input and wisdom.

 

I guess that I find the super 8 feel tangible. I think that video is not tangible, as I use a minidv to take holiday films which are mostly constructed and false in their story. I control whats in them. And Im only a young guy in his late twenties.

 

When I think super 8 I think:

 

Combat footage (was mostly 16mm I know)

 

Zapruder

 

Hindenburg

 

Other old films that were real.

 

Thats why I find Super 8 realistic. Also, it was used for a lot of home movies. Yes they were in the past, but they were real.

 

Thats why I think super 8 is gritty.

 

 

David thanks for your input and wisdom.

 

I guess that I find the super 8 feel tangible. I think that video is not tangible, as I use a minidv to take holiday films which are mostly constructed and false in their story. I control whats in them. And Im only a young guy in his late twenties.

 

When I think super 8 I think:

 

Combat footage (was mostly 16mm I know)

 

Zapruder

 

Hindenburg

 

Other old films that were real.

 

Thats why I find Super 8 realistic. Also, it was used for a lot of home movies. Yes they were in the past, but they were real.

 

Thats why I think super 8 is gritty.

 

 

The Hindenberg footage is 35mm.

Color combat footage is usually 16mm, while B/W combat footage would have been shot in 35mm.

Kodachrome for WWII; Ektachrome,often sync, for Vietnam. While the North Vietnamese were shooting 35mm MOS B/W.

 

But aren't holiday films and home movies basically the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The Hindenberg footage is 35mm.

Color combat footage is usually 16mm, while B/W combat footage would have been shot in 35mm.

Kodachrome for WWII; Ektachrome,often sync, for Vietnam. While the North Vietnamese were shooting 35mm MOS B/W.

 

But aren't holiday films and home movies basically the same thing?

 

Thanks, I wasn't aware that Hindenberg was 35mm.

 

But does everyone agree or do you disagree with my point about Super 8 or 16mm footage being shot handheld?

 

It looks real. As used by Greengrass in Flight 93, Bourne etc.

 

Take the format down a notch to 8 or 16, and you get what many families since the 50s have seen as a real experience - a la front line combat footage or home movies (or holiday movies etc). Thats real to the mind and eye.

 

Your thoughts?

 

On the other point, was this an intended look. Thinking about the film and its subject matter, I can begin to see what they wanted. There are a lot of night scenes, and the shot at the end of the film with the sunset was great - yes in digital, just even to get the depth of field. The immediacy of it is growing on me, I am thinking expecially of the club scenes, and the meeting with the bad bearded guy in the truck/limousine. I think that it will grow on me. Less grain in some of the scenes would have been nice, but I guess they couldnt control it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Take the format down a notch to 8 or 16, and you get what many families since the 50s have seen as a real experience - a la front line combat footage or home movies (or holiday movies etc). Thats real to the mind and eye.

 

Sure, but you have to then admit that handheld video should also remind people of news and documentaries shot in video, if you're arguing that handheld grainy film reminds people of newsreels and documentaries shot in film. Just how "real" one technique is more than the other is merely conditioning and personal taste -- it has nothing to do with reality per se. There are now a lot of viewers who are too young to remember the news (and home movies) being shot in any other format than video. So I can't see why something that looks the way real events were shot up through the 1970's should seem more "real" than something that looks the way real events have been shot for the past twenty years now. It's just personal taste at that point. If you did a faux documentary style for a WW2 movie you'd use grainy b&w mostly but if you did it for a faux Iraq War documentary, you'd use video -- grainy b&w would look too stylized, and even grainy 16mm color would be borderline stylized but plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but you have to then admit that handheld video should also remind people of news and documentaries shot in video, if you're arguing that handheld grainy film reminds people of newsreels and documentaries shot in film. Just how "real" one technique is more than the other is merely conditioning and personal taste -- it has nothing to do with reality per se. There are now a lot of viewers who are too young to remember the news (and home movies) being shot in any other format than video. So I can't see why something that looks the way real events were shot up through the 1970's should seem more "real" than something that looks the way real events have been shot for the past twenty years now. It's just personal taste at that point. If you did a faux documentary style for a WW2 movie you'd use grainy b&w mostly but if you did it for a faux Iraq War documentary, you'd use video -- grainy b&w would look too stylized, and even grainy 16mm color would be borderline stylized but plausible.

 

Thats all true.

 

I suppose then that I am thinking of bad angles and handheld footage when I am thinking of immediacy. Or the 480 lines or so on most TVs when growing up. That imparts "real" to me.

 

Bad angles ? I mean like the shots of the Hollywood Robbery, the WTC 911, OJs white bronco - shot from helicopter or from bad angles by news cameramen who couldnt control the set or the angle. Handheld, shaky and DVCam or Betacam. All broadcast on a 480 line TV to your lounge room.

 

But we never see that in any film. I thought that Lost in Translation had a more documentary feel than Miami Vice. But as I posted earlier, a lot of the shots have stuck in my memory and are growing on me.

 

That meeting with the bad bearded guy in the back of the truck in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...