Tom Lowe Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Slumdog wins. This breaks a very, very long winning streak for film. ;) I'm sure certain people who hate digital are probably crying scorching tears down their cheeks tonight. Congrats to the guys at Cineform!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hall Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I know I am fuming. Not because it didn't deserve to win, but because now every HV30 owner is going to mention it ad-infinitum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allen Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Congrats to Anthony Dod Mantle for his win. I still think that Benjamin Button deserved to win, but I think Slumdog was a very well shot film as well. Congrats again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted February 23, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) Congrats to Anthony Dod Mantle for his win. I still think that Benjamin Button deserved to win, but I think Slumdog was a very well shot film as well. Congrats again! That was my exact feeling on the subject. It is pretty interesting that the first digital cinematography oscar winner didn't come from one of the systems that is trying to emulate film such as the RED, the Genesis or the D20/21. It came from the humble little thousand-dollar HV30. It's fine proof that the problems of any format can be overcome or even turned into unique beauty. Edited February 23, 2009 by Chris Keth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Sorry to disappiont you Tom, but I consider this a tie. It was, after all shot on SI-2K, Canon DSLR, and 35mm neg. If "BB" won, I'd be drinking, not crying. I honestly can't comment as to whether it was worthy or not. Haven't had a chance to see it yet. I know that Dark Knight *was* worthy though. I feel it is a shame that there won't be any award given to this technical first for dramatic film-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 I don't actually think Slumdog deserved to win. But it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Slumdog is a mixed format, not a digital film. Some of it was digital, some was film, but all of it was absolutely brilliant. that being said, I still thought Dark Knight was the stronger shot film, but that's me... 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 But it did. I still don't know why you're declaring victory. It wasn't all digital, or all digital except the slo-mo shots, or all digital except for teh plates. It wsa decidedly mixed-format. Hell, assuming it was shot ion Kodak, Kodak can still declare victory. From what I understand a full third takes place at night, where film was used. I could understand your gloating if "Benjamin Button" won. But it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted February 23, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 23, 2009 That was my exact feeling on the subject. It is pretty interesting that the first digital cinematography oscar winner didn't come from one of the systems that is trying to emulate film such as the RED, the Genesis or the D20/21. It came from the humble little thousand-dollar HV30. It's fine proof that the problems of any format can be overcome or even turned into unique beauty. If you can get significant numbers of bums on seats using a crap format like that, yes, you deserve a prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hall Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 TDK was mixed format from 35mm and 65mm :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted February 23, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 23, 2009 I know I am fuming. Not because it didn't deserve to win, but because now every HV30 owner is going to mention it ad-infinitum Well, you could point out that all this means is that instead of the acquisition cost being 1% of the budget, it's now 0.001% I still doubt too many HV30 owners are going to be able to come up with the other 99.999% :D In any case, the Oscar is for cinematography, there is no such category as Digital Cinematography. And what does it it mean exactly? I tend more to the view that it won in spite of **parts of it** being shot with an HV30, not because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 TDK was mixed format from 35mm and 65mm :lol: Any point that you are trying to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) It is the talent of the filmmakers rather than the formats used what gave them the award. But it is the first feature winning an Oscar having been at least partially originated digitally, that part is what is "shocking." http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry274639 Edited February 23, 2009 by Saul Rodgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted February 23, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) It is the talent of the filmmakers rather than the formats used what gave them the award. But it is the first feature winning an Oscar having been at least partially originated digitally, that part is what is "shocking." http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry274639 I would have thought all the digiphiliacs would have been shocked that this has only happened ten years after a small but perfectly formed maverick by the name George Lucas declared that film was dead. Not bad. -_- : And that was about ten years after an equally prescient statement by noted Canadian producer of Low Budget Children's TV shows, John Galt.... Edited February 23, 2009 by Keith Walters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I would have thought all the digiphiliacs would have been shocked that this has only happened ten years after a small but perfectly formed maverick by the name George Lucas declared that film was dead. Not bad. -_- :And that was about ten years after an equally prescient statement by noted Canadian producer of Low Budget Children's TV shows, John Galt.... and 51 years after the original pronouncement...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allen Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 After a ton of wins for Slumdog, I am seriously starting to think that the Oscars, as always, are getting bias in there picks. I mean honestly, Slumdog is a good movie, but it to win this many Oscars is just ridiculously odd. It's definitely a politically proper thing to do, which makes me wonder if that's what's been going on. But I can't say for sure, after all I'm just speculating of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hall Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) After a ton of wins for Slumdog, I am seriously starting to think that the Oscars, as always, are getting bias in there picks. I mean honestly, Slumdog is a good movie, but it to win this many Oscars is just ridiculously odd. It's definitely a politically proper thing to do, which makes me wonder if that's what's been going on. But I can't say for sure, after all I'm just speculating of course. Oscars have always been this way. Notice how in the best picture montage they show Saving Private Ryan and Citizen Kane? You know the two greatest Oscar snubs in history. Edited February 23, 2009 by Tom Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Slumdog wins. This breaks a very, very long winning streak for film. ;) I'm sure certain people who hate digital are probably crying scorching tears down their cheeks tonight. Congrats to the guys at Cineform!! Not at all, film shot projects still dominated the over all wins and nominations. It hasn't changed my view that digital acquisition is inferior to film. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allen Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Oscars have always been this way. Notice how in the best picture montage they show Saving Private Ryan and Citizen Kane? You know the two greatest Oscar snubs in history. Yeah totally. It's such a bummer. Oh and let me get this straight. I've noticed that ppl have been saying that Slumdog was shot somewhat on an HV30. Is this true? Cause I didn't see that when I looked at the IMDB.com spec page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted February 23, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 23, 2009 I mean honestly, Slumdog is a good movie, but it to win this many Oscars is just ridiculously odd. It's definitely a politically proper thing to do, Why is it the politically proper thing to do? I see no political motivation for it to win. If you'd said that about Milk, it would make sense. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin Lane Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Wasn't Benjamin Button mixed format as well? I read that Tarsem shot select scenes on film during the "Ben Button travels the world" montage... I personally was rooting for The Reader, though it seems far less expansive compared to Slumdog and Ben Button.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Pritzlaff Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 anyone else upset by Ben Stillers little stunt? I thought it was distracting from the awards being presented and in poor taste. It shows a lack of respect for the craft and I am disapointed that the producers let that happen during the presentation of the award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davon Slininger Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Who cares if its digital? Cinematography is still about considering everything, and making all the decisions it takes to represent a narrative (or non-narrative) visually in the best way possible. Benjamin Buttons was mixed format but primarily digital. With the exception of a few things like higher frame rates it was mostly shot with Vipers. If it had won, would anyone really be questioning its validity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lary Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 anyone else upset by Ben Stillers little stunt? I thought it was distracting from the awards being presented and in poor taste. It shows a lack of respect for the craft and I am disapointed that the producers let that happen during the presentation of the award. Yes. He made a mockery of the award. It looked like he deviated from the script when he walked away from the podium, though. I doubt the producers knew he was going to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny N Suleimanagich Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I'm starting the think Deakins is the Scorsese of cinematographers. 8 nominations, considered one of the most successful and skilled of his generation, and yet, has never won an Academy Award. 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