Just saw Underworld

[Gregor Mac]

This film is a vampire vs werewolf film, beautifully shot in Hungary.

 

It was shot in colour, then to video where it was digitally desaturated to make it look more bleak and black and white.

 

The digitally edited video was then filmed again for the print.

 

It has a nice effect and I wonder really how they lit the film. There are some clues on the dvd's special features.

 

I wonder if they did that Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow film the same way...anyone know?

 

Also, in Underworld, if you are filming onto High Def for digital editing, doesn't that mean that you will lose quality? I mean, when you refilm it, won't there be a loss in quality from the original 35mm print? I really don't understand how you can convert from film to digital and then back to film without losing quality - how do they do this?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Underworld was shot 3-perf 35, scanned on Northlight and graded in Baselight by Framestore CFC, probably implying an Arrilaser filmout. This is rather a different situation to scanning it onto HDCAM or something like that. With a scan, every frame is an uncompressed, 10-bit, 2048x1100-and-some image file on a hard disk, and the degradation is very minimal. Scans at that resolution do lose some sharpness.

 

Sky Captain was shot on HDW-F900 cameras to HDCAM tape then treated on Apple Macs using desktop software. Most of the softness comes from the heavy digital diffusion that was used, but the HDCAM origination format doesn't help. Sky Captain is, in its way, almost as desaturated as Underworld.

 

I thought both films looked great, although I think the desaturated, colour-tinted (Underworld blue, Sky Captain sepia) look is sometimes just an excuse not to art-direct.

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

I thought both films looked great, although I think the desaturated, colour-tinted (Underworld blue, Sky Captain sepia) look is sometimes just an excuse not to art-direct.

 

To me 'Underworld' looked like they had slapped the desaturated blue look on only in post. When you look at the film you can see that they used red in the set (like some carpets) which doesn't make any sense if they planned on taking it away anyway later. I think most of the look could have been achieved with art direction and lighting during the shoot alrady and it wouldn't have looked so artificial as it does now.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> To me 'Underworld' looked like they had slapped the desaturated blue look on only in

> post.

 

Yes. I agree that's not the most effective way to do it, although it probably is cheaper. I'm not sure that the interiors of the vampire house were actually sets anyway- seemed quite location-y to me.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

To me 'Underworld' looked like they had slapped the desaturated blue look on only in post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They may have wanted it to look different than a movie lit and dressed with blue.

 

It's just like the difference between warming up an image with filters versus post -- it can look like two different effects.

 

I had to create a POV of a brass urn in a movie (a dead mother's POV, whose ashes were interred there). We first geometrically distorted the image. I then tried just color-correcting the shot yellow-orange but that just looked like a mistimed shot in the sequence. So I ended up first pulling the chroma way down to nearly b&w and then overlaying a yellowish color -- only then did it take on a metallic brass look.

 

I don't think it is necessary for DI color effects to limit themselves to only things that could be accomplished photo-chemically.

 

I thought "Underworld" looked great. My only criticism is that the blue is a little too agressive and repetitive sometimes; I would have gone for more desaturation and less blue for a steely, cold look. As for the red carpets, etc. obviously that symbolizes blood, probably they decided in prep that that would be the only strong color that wasn't blue.

[Max Jacoby]

As for the red carpets, etc. obviously that symbolizes blood, probably they decided in prep that that would be the only strong color that wasn't blue.

 

What I meant to say was that the carpets in the mansion were red, but then they dessaturated them so that they didn't look red anymore, but almost black. One could still guess their original color and I think that only drew attention to the fact that they changed the color in post. I too thought the look of the film in general was very interesting if heavy stylized, but in my opinion a little more color control during shooting would have helped a lot. I had the same feeling when watching 'Un long Dimanche de Fiançailles' which also featured heavy dessaturation in post.

[Guest fstop]

I must disagree- I thought the whole thing looked completely sub-anonymous sub The Crow, Dark City, Matrix, Blade and other derivitive Bfodder from Hollywood- all faux monochrome waterered down Nu-Metal music promo to suit direction of Len Wiseman (derserves to be dragged over the hot coals)- HUGELY disappointed to see Tony Pierce Roberts took time out from all of his superior Merchant Ivory jobs to make something that looks like a film student pretending to be Darius Wolski.

 

What a waste.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

But it's cool. It sells. If we made more films like that in the UK we'd have a film industry.

 

Phil

[Gregor Mac]

Hi,

 

But it's cool. It sells. If we made more films like that in the UK we'd have a film industry.

 

Phil

 

 

Have you seen the sequel, Underworld Evolution?

[Mike Kaminski]

Hi,

 

But it's cool. It sells. If we made more films like that in the UK we'd have a film industry.

 

Phil

 

 

If they are all like Underworld (ie cinematography that sells, but devoid of any story, character, or hint of a talent in its writing and directing) then i sure am glad that the UK doesnt have a film industry.

 

Underworld is a terrible, terrible movie, obviously cashing in on the then-current success of the Matrix by emulating its style (even using the EXACT SAME SEQUENCE--the opening train shootout that is obviously derived from the climax of the matrix) with attrocious acting and writing, and absoluetly abysmal directing. Yeah, it looks pretty. Its slick. But its all technical; theres absoluetly no emotion in its cinemtrography, its just jumping on the matrix trend, and that is what i consider BAD cinematography.

 

I believe they were even sued for stealing the story, but who would want to claim credit for that script is beyond me.

 

This film just screams HACK. I cant believe they made a sequel; maybe the learned from their mistakes

(something tells me no though).

 

Anyway, sorry to derail this, this film just bugs me in a very certain way.