napoleon dynamite

zrszach · August 28, 2004

Does anyone know if napleon dynamite was shot in super16.

Itjust didn't look like 35

thanks

mattharding · August 28, 2004

The aspect ratio looked like super16 and not 1.85

Josh Hill · August 29, 2004

Technical specs on IMDB say it was 35mm at 1.85. I tend to trust them, and from all the shots/trailers I've seen from it, it does look 35mm to me.

Matt Pacini · August 29, 2004

I thought the same thing when it first started rolling in the theater, but then I changed my mind when I looked at the grain.

Not grainly at all, but it didn't look very sharp.

Given the fact that in the credits, it lists Panavision cameras, I'd say there's almost zero chance it would have been anything but 35mm.

My guess is that they got some special deal going with Panavision, probably using older lenses, which gave it that "look".

The budget was $400,000 by the way.

Matt Pacini

Chance Shirley · August 29, 2004

Definitely 35mm. Some of my friends met the producer, and he told them that Panavision gave them a deal on one of their older 35mm cams, one that was used on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, in fact. Not too shabby.

I would assume the look was due to lens choice and the lighting, which worked well for the movie but was a little on the "flat" side compared to bigger-budget movies.

-Chance Shirley

Birmingham, Alabama

Xuefei24p · August 29, 2004

Damn, that was a funny film. It's very odd to think that Bergman made Cries and Whispers for the same price. Can't wait for the sequel.

Matt Pacini · August 31, 2004

Yeah, I loved the movie.

Funnier than heck.

It just goes to show you how important good glass, production design and lighting is though, considering the fact that they're using modern day film stocks, a great camera (35mm doesn't look any different on an old camera, than a new camera, except regarding what lenses they used), and still it looked kinda like an episode of Starsky & Hutch or CHiPS, which by the way, are far more likely what was ACTUALLY shot on that camera, than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

It's funny, it seems like every old camera you come across was supposedly used by Speilberg or Lucas or Coppola.

Some guy on ebay was selling a Canon Scoopic, and stated in his ad that Speilberg and Lucas used it at USC before they became famous.

I emailed him and pointed out the fact that Speilberg never went to either USC or UCLA, just a year at Long Beach City College, and he had already made JAWS, and Lucas had already made STAR WARS before the Scoopic was even made.

He didn't change his ebay ad though, and I'm sure he got a couple hundred extra for the camera with that little piece of BS!

Matt Pacini

zrszach · August 31, 2004

Thanks for all the info, it was rather good for the budget

Thanks again

Zachary

Brad Grimmett · September 1, 2004

The production design and wardrobe were so well done in this film that I found myself thinking at one point, "Wait a minute, is this film set in the late 70's/early 80's?" And then I remembered that Napoleon's brother chats on the internet, and I realized that I'd been fooled.

I never thought I'd find myself going to, and enjoying, a movie produced by Mormon's and financed (this is what I've heard) by the Mormon Church, but I did. If they had preached to me it would have been a different story.

Matt Pacini · September 1, 2004

It was really done well, and you're right about the wardrobe, but my guess is, if you travel to small depressed midwestern towns (like the one in the film), those people most likely STILL OWN all that 70's / 80's furniture.

I've been to many places like that even in Northern California.

So i'm not sure they actually furnished anything!

It would be interesting to find out though, and you're right, I was wondering if it was made in 1979 until the internet thing.

Flippin' funny movie (to use the film's jargon).

Matt Pacini

zrszach · September 2, 2004

Hay I am from Kansas and we don't dress like that.

but I think the look of the film made it look like it was shot in the time it was set in

as far as clothing. tho it was set in modern times.

So in the end the look aided the story.

but it was flat out funny.

Matt Pacini · September 2, 2004

Oh, I wasn't talking about the wardrobe at all.

I mean, that there are lots of people who still eat on tables and sit on couches that they bought in 1977, that's all.

My point was, that the "art direction" probably consisted of just finding a town that already had homes that looked like this.

It was shot in Idaho, I think it was, and the filmmaker and star are from Salt Lake City & Oregon, so that's a good guess, if you ask me.

Matt Pacini

Joe Carney · October 2, 2004

I heard it was filmed in a small town in Idaho.

Preston Herrick · October 3, 2004

I never thought I'd find myself going to, and enjoying, a movie produced by Mormon's and financed (this is what I've heard) by the Mormon Church, but I did. If they had preached to me it would have been a different story.

The film was written and directed by two BYU students (which is a church sponsored school) but was not financed by the LDS church. The church simply does not do this. And it was shot in Idaho - which is also "Mormon" country.

And speaking of Mormon producers, did you know that producer Gerald Molen (Jurrassic Park, Schindlers List, The Minority Report) is LDS?

Brad Grimmett · October 4, 2004

The film was written and directed by two BYU students (which is a church sponsored school) but was not financed by the LDS church. The church simply does not do this. And it was shot in Idaho - which is also "Mormon" country.

And speaking of Mormon producers, did you know that producer Gerald Molen (Jurrassic Park, Schindlers List, The Minority Report) is LDS?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, I may be wrong about the Mormon church funding the film, which is why I qualified it in my previous post. I didn't mean to offend, so hopefully I didn't. I'm not a big fan of organized religion, so that was my main point in my previous post.