Jennifer's Body

[K Borowski]

The other issue with bandwidth limitations is that the compromise is a lot of data compression. People are now buying music online in MP3 files, which is worse than CD quality.

 

[. . .]

 

I'd still rather go out an rent a Blu-Ray disk, or buy it, rather than watch it on HD broadcast or pay for pay-for-view.

 

But all of this belongs on a different thread... unless you want to discuss how the Blu-Ray of "Jennifer's Body" looked.

 

MP3s aren't just worse than CDs, David, they are worse than cassettes (fmr. lowpoint of audio technology), 33-1/3 RPM records/LPs, and even 78 RPM's, new.

 

They actually take us back 100 years in terms of audio quality, back to cylinder recorders, and other primitive phonograph technologies designed by hobbyists in their spare time.

 

. . .

 

I've seen HD on-demand, and can't see a substantial reduction in quality. There are some instances of compression during drastic scene changes, but overall the efect is subtle. I guess other services, providers, might have different bandwidths/compression schemes, though. SD TV took a big hit when it went to digital compression in this market.

 

I would say that Blu-ray itself is compressed, even past the reasonable limit. Having bought my parents a Blu-ray player (which, unfortunately they don' really enjoy) for Christmas, I noticed a lot of compression artifacts between a 35mm print (essentially a sub-2K file these days) and the Blu-ray file played just a few days after the 2nd run's leaving.

 

 

SO IDK, Blu-ray is an improvement over DVD by at least one order of magnitude (10x), but I think it could've been better.

 

 

 

You're right though, David, I am off-topic on your thread. BTW, I stole not one, but two 35mm trailers of "Jennifer's Body" for you. I'd be happy to send one to you, just PM me. . .

[David Mullen ASC]

You're right though, David, I am off-topic on your thread. BTW, I stole not one, but two 35mm trailers of "Jennifer's Body" for you. I'd be happy to send one to you, just PM me. . .

 

Thanks, but a 35mm print of anything would probably just sit in my closet, like my old test prints from long ago, aging... Without a 35mm projector, I'm not interested in becoming a collector of 35mm print material, though I'd love a 35mm print of some of my movies. I used to show the director's print of "Northfork" at some film schools until the director told me that some European film festival destroyed it or lost it.

[Tenolian Bell]

Yes in the long run streaming and downloading are going to win. I agree at this point it isn't practical to download a movie with the quality of Blu-ray.

 

But there was actually another option I was talking about. Its possible at this point to store Blu-ray quality content on solid state ROM cards. They could build SD card slots into all televisions and computers. The problem with that is that it destroys the stand alone player market and its profits. Which is only inevitable, but they are trying to hold it off as long as possible.

 

 

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

While I agree there is plenty to be gained by being rid of CD, DVD, Blu-Ray media, and all of their finicky issues, once and for all, it'd probably take more than a DAY to download an HD movie with my current internet connection.

[James Steven Beverly]

I used to show the director's print of "Northfork" at some film schools until the director told me that some European film festival destroyed it or lost it.

 

Or stole it and SAID it got lost or destroyed. Northfork would be a great addition to any 35mm print collection. When I have a bit of cash that's NOT earmarked for movie making, I'd like to start collecting prints. I have that SuperSimplex portable dalies projector to show them on. I Know Hal collects prints as well. I think he has a Century projector, I'm not sure what model. If anyone is interested.

 

http://www.35mmforum.com/forums/index.php?showforum=1

 

http://www.film-tech.com/

[James Steven Beverly]

HAH!!! I just saw an interview with Diablo Cody on that After Filmschool FX channel program. It showed a LOT of scenes from the film. She talked a lot about the director and Megan Fox but didn't even MENTION David which kinda annoyed me. His contribution was unmistakable, course the bozo "film students" didn't ask any questions about cinematography which begs the question "What the hell are they teaching in film school? Ah well, at least they did a show about the film. B)

[Shaan Aslam]

I watched it and I thought it was pretty good. The acting was actually far better than I imagined, (yes, including Megan Fox's) I found it sort of tragic. I'd say the cinematography was stunning, but that would be stating the obvious.

 

Does David operate camera on his projects?

[David Mullen ASC]

I had the best operator in Vancouver on "Jennifer's Body", John Clothier. What a pleasure to work with. I also had cinematographer Karl Herrmann working as B-camera operator and 2nd Unit DP. He shot that nice lake sequence with Megan Fox in the movie while first unit was off shooting something else.

 

I don't operate much these days ever since I started shooting union projects. Last major sequence I operated on was probably the opening credits to "Astronaut Farmer" out in White Sands, NM -- because that was almost a splinter unit before production began.

[Shaan Aslam]

I had the best operator in Vancouver on "Jennifer's Body", John Clothier. What a pleasure to work with. I also had cinematographer Karl Herrmann working as B-camera operator and 2nd Unit DP. He shot that nice lake sequence with Megan Fox in the movie while first unit was off shooting something else.

 

I don't operate much these days ever since I started shooting union projects. Last major sequence I operated on was probably the opening credits to "Astronaut Farmer" out in White Sands, NM -- because that was almost a splinter unit before production began.

 

Oh okay. I knew your first unit didn't shoot the lake sequence, but wasn't sure on who exactly shot it. Thank you for the info!

 

A question, if I may: Why is it that you don't operate now that you work on union projects? I'm guessing it's a contract thing?

 

Thank You for you time David.

[David Mullen ASC]

A question, if I may: Why is it that you don't operate now that you work on union projects? I'm guessing it's a contract thing?

 

Until recently, there was an IATSE requirement to hire an operator, even if only to stand-by while I operated. That requirement was dropped in the last contract signed, though I still insist on an operator, especially when shooting HD (I need to be at the HD monitor) or with multiple cameras (I need to see what each camera is shooting). And though I'm good at composition, and am a fair handheld shooter, complicated dolly moves requiring a lot of complex operating following fast action, especially if best done on a geared head... well, let's put it this way, there are more experienced operators out there than me for that sort of thing.

 

Also I prefer sitting with the director during takes, and I like having the time to fiddle with lighting during the camera set-up and tech rehearsals.

[Shaan Aslam]

Until recently, there was an IATSE requirement to hire an operator, even if only to stand-by while I operated. That requirement was dropped in the last contract signed, though I still insist on an operator, especially when shooting HD (I need to be at the HD monitor) or with multiple cameras (I need to see what each camera is shooting). And though I'm good at composition, and am a fair handheld shooter, complicated dolly moves requiring a lot of complex operating following fast action, especially if best done on a geared head... well, let's put it this way, there are more experienced operators out there than me for that sort of thing.

 

Also I prefer sitting with the director during takes, and I like having the time to fiddle with lighting during the camera set-up and tech rehearsals.

 

Thanks for the clear up. I can't even imagine how fast a production would be moving on a shoot with an ASC member on board. Operating, as Sven Nykvist put, is more of a sport than most would think.

[Max Field]

Sorry for necro-threading but I just saw this in full after only viewing clips back in high school years ago. To reiterate what everyone's already said 7 years ago; you did a great job, David. I respect anyone and everyone with the proper creative mindset to give visuals that Hollywood flare.

 

This might sound lame when speaking of an era that was only 8 years ago, but the dialogue and licensed soundtrack really took me back to the late 2000's. Although it wasn't a period piece, productions that firmly market the concept of being "in the now" age like a fine wine. Queen bee of a high school verbally (and physically) abusing Goth/alt kids is interesting to see when most high school movies follow a "Revenge of the Nerds" type structure.

 

Diablo Cody's writing, which I've heard labeled as "Juno-Style" multiple times, definitely had a bit of that Juno feeling. I've always tried to keep up to date with slang to improve my own screenwriting, and when analyzing her dialogue in lighthearted moments it seems like she's trying to create her own slang rather than letting art imitate life. Taking that creative endeavor is never something to be knocked for by default, but it's high risk-high reward in my eyes.

An example would be when one of the leading girls refers to a boy as "salty (in the film, meaning beautiful)", however it's been widely accepted for at least 20 years that "salty" is slang for "bitter", "upset", "angry". Little things like that are only important to me when a film tries to present a culture, in this case, high school pop-culture of the late 2000's.

Short-comings like that can be overlooked if there's merit in other areas, and there definitely were. Cody dropped amazing lines in this picture. Jennifer undoing a Goth kid's chain riddled belt and letting his trip pants fall to the floor is humorous in itself, but following it up with "Nice hardware, Ace." is fantastic entendre. What may have been my favorite part of the screenplay was when the same kid asked Jennifer if she wanted to see Rocky Horror Picture Show and she replied with "I don't like boxing movies".

 

To David (if you're still reading posts on this very old thread), it's cool to express enjoyment for a project of any kind to people that have actually had a part in it.

 

I had 2 questions for this one, and if an NDA (if still effective 8 years later) prevents you from answering either one, I apologize for asking.

1. There was a significant amount of fire/candlelight in this film, is 35mm film actually sensitive enough to pick up the real thing or is a crew member manually flickering an 1800k tungsten?

2. This being a comedy in addition to horror, was there a funny story or two that still sticks out in your mind nearly 10 years after production?

 

Anyway, thanks for playing a crucial part in a great viewing experience.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, 35mm film can register real flickering candlelight -- after all, "Barry Lyndon" did it in the 1970's. Depends on how close the actors are to the candles, how many candles there are, and if you can use double or triple-wicked candles for a bigger flame. Also depends on how fast your lenses are.

 

In my case, I augmented the real candlelight with additional orange-gelled small lights that were flickering to create a blend that gave me enough exposure to shoot at T/2.0 to T/2.8 on Panavision Primo lenses on 500 ASA film.

[Max Field]

Very cool, how close did you have the candle flame to the actors on set? In the abandoned house scene for example, were the many candles seen by the audience also serving the practical purpose of light flickering on the characters for that scene?

 

Thanks again.