Tree of Life trailer

[Adrian Sierkowski]

If anything I'd've though RED for some FX shots or FX elements.

[Kemalettin Sert]

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=692614&postcount=10

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14166&highlight=malick

[Kemalettin Sert]

 

photos from tree of life set.

[Vincent Sweeney]

If anything I'd've though RED for some FX shots or FX elements.

 

That's about all it was good for at the time of the movie's production dates but you'd think Malick would have gone for Vistavision or 65mm for those elements still.

 

Regardless, I have a feeling the movie's quality was of great concern and controlled better than any other in recent times and should be a rare experience for us.

 

Thanks for posting the pics. Any further details to go along with them?

[georg lamshöft]

Looks magnificent!

 

4k DI and Master Primes - a nice combination widely available since nearly 5 years and how often used? Little Children, No Country for old Men?

 

But how we are going to see "Tree of Life" in an appropriate way? At least in Germany cinemas have no interest in using their 4k-projectors in 4k-mode... :blink: Will they release it as an IMAX-print?

 

If there are many scenes from RED in the trailer, they're well hidden. Even judging from the compressed HD-trailer it doesn't look REDish anywhere.

 

By the way: "The Thin Red Line" looks like a Blu-Ray really should look like and is definitely worth watching!

[Guest]

 

photos from tree of life set.

 

Hmmm, those all look eerily like 35mm cameras to me?

 

I'll add this to my digital is dead thread as this is just further proof of my point.

 

Ta

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

When I did my movie in Texas this summer, some of my crew worked on "Tree of Life" and told me that the Red One was used in general for the modern scenes, one of them was a 2nd Unit DP. Just because the Red One footage is hard to spot in a trailer is not proof that it wasn't used!

[Mike Lary]

Interesting that Malick went for 20 years without making a movie from 1978-98.

 

Any of our Malick experts care to comment on what he did during this 20 year period?

 

I've read in a few places that he was teaching during his hiatus, but I don't know the university. I'm sure he was researching and writing in that time as well since he does extensive research for his projects.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

You know, honestly. i'm still quite on the fence about the whole mix digital with film origination in a single project. I agree that it can help to differentiate periods of the film, but at the same time, I almost feel as though it brings too much attention to itself-- as though in order to see sequence "X" as different from "Y" we need a new medium when in truth the same can be accomplished via lighting, production design, or even just covering it in a different way. While, at the same time, it's an approach which is as valid as any other-- that is the mis-match of digital with film. For me. personally, at least, I always tend to dislike it, and notice is far too much so.

[David Mullen ASC]

You know, honestly. i'm still quite on the fence about the whole mix digital with film origination in a single project. I agree that it can help to differentiate periods of the film, but at the same time, I almost feel as though it brings too much attention to itself-- as though in order to see sequence "X" as different from "Y" we need a new medium when in truth the same can be accomplished via lighting, production design, or even just covering it in a different way. While, at the same time, it's an approach which is as valid as any other-- that is the mis-match of digital with film. For me. personally, at least, I always tend to dislike it, and notice is far too much so.

 

Personally I like mixing media when it has a definite formula in mind, and I don't think that we are talking about a big jump in visual texture anyway, people have already been blending Red shots into film projects where you aren't supposed to see a difference. I think it's cool when a movie like "Delores Claiborne" for example, shoots the past on Fuji and the present on Kodak ("Somewhere in Time" did the same thing).

 

Besides, many movies have done things like stick a #1/4 ProMist for scenes in the past, filterless for the present, and that's fairly noticeable.

 

I mean, you can take a philosophical objection I suppose, that the past or dreams should look like the present, but where's the fun in that?

 

I think the problem with "Tree of Life" is perhaps more that they weren't rigorous about when they would use Red versus 35mm, since a number of modern scenes were also shot on 35mm, it's a little like the haphazard mix of a few 65mm elements in "New World". But maybe I'm just not as fluid a thinker as Malick, who shoots a lot of footage over time and builds a movie in the editing room, so the shooting side of things is a bit freewheeling. From what I heard, also, Lubezki was more in favor of shooting 35mm for everything and finding other ways of making the present feel different than by using the Red, so perhaps he got Malick to use more 35mm for scenes that were slated for the Red One.

[Michel Hafner]

A (loose) acquaintance of mine was on set during some Penn shots. It was 35mm as well. Malick apparently rejected some or all of the red stuff that was tried out. No surprise there.

No surprise... But he shoots his new film again on RED. So how unhappy could he have been?

[Vincent Sweeney]

No surprise... But he shoots his new film again on RED. So how unhappy could he have been?

 

I believe that was 2008 and part of 2009 so I would think pretty unhappy at that time. Good thing they have improved steadily since then. Regarding his new film, which seems low budget for him, I think they are mixing formats; why I don't know. He seems to like hyper clear/texture-less images so moving to more digital acquisition makes sense as it gets more acceptable, esp. when 65mm isn't practical.

[Evan Ferrario]

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thetreeoflife/

 

After reading the descriptions that have been written of this movie and seeing the trailer a few times, I feel like something is way off.

 

From the trailer I gathered, and of course this is a complete guess, that the modern segments are about Sean Penn being involved with saving the world from a comet/metiorite which has affected water throughout the world. Look how many images of water there are in the trailer, there are a LOT. Also notice the USA hardhat towards the end of the trailer behind Sean Penn, perhaps he works for NASA or a similar organization. It's hard to tell what is supposed to be based in reality of the film, or if we are seeing dreams of the character, but I think it is an Apocalypse movie where Sean Penn must overcome something from his upbringing in order to save the world from environmental disaster.

 

Of course this is a complete guess, I've just been puzzled the last few days after seeing the trailer and reading the descriptions and feeling there is something missing from the description.

 

Also, it looks like some of the best child acting in movies I have seen, and by acting, it doesn't seem like they are.

[Vincent Sweeney]

Well... I guess that is one way to interpret what is known about this movie. Though you might want to consider the director's and crews' past work and go from there. Someone saving the world from a meteor is probably the last premise they would be involved with. Think more along philosophical themes.

 

If you were joking, I didn't get it.

[Evan Ferrario]

haha, I'm not joking. Yes, the last thing I expect from Malick is a 2012 Day After Tomorow, but I'm sticking with it, it has something to do with environmental disaster.

[Jason Reimer]

I think the voice over in the trailer pretty much tells you what all of the nature and space cutaways are for: Sean Penn's character is going through some crisis that has him wondering what the point of his life is, and he's going all the way back to the origins of life. The voice over says there are two paths, nature or grace. To me, they're setting up nature to be more of the dog-eat-dog, cut-throat, possibly nihilistic, Darwinian view of nature, versus something bigger, like a Creator creating beings with purpose. If he's nothing more than a bag of chemicals, then it doesn't really make any difference what happens to that particular bag of chemicals, whether that bag of chemicals is being thrown under the bus or if it's getting over on other bags of chemicals. If, however, he was made by a Maker for a purpose, then there may be a reason for his suffering, and a reason to go on and to hope. If you look at the arc of his past two movies, the themes of innocence and depravity, of trying to get back to Eden and a state of moral purity, yet always being dogged by something sinister that man seems to carry around with him/her, and then you look at what's going on in the trailer, my money is on the theological and philosophical take.

 

I really hope he's able to keep making movies like this. In the book world, if someone tried that, for instance if you wrote The Brothers Karamazov and tried to get it published today, no one would touch it. Too many big ideas people are wrestling with, blah blah blah, can't we just cut to some sex and a few explosions? I fully expect this movie to make zero money, but as long as someone is willing to keep giving him money to continue doing what he does, that's good enough for now.

[Chris Millar]

wow!

 

insurance commercial to disaster film to that - all from a trailer. Sure, there is the rest of his oeuvre to pull meaning from, but ...

 

Anyways, some film makers might appreciate it or work towards it, but I'd be concerned if my work was always being forced into some kind of arc or theme according to my last works.

 

I've seen (in cinema if its of concern) all of his last apart from Day of Heaven - I am no Malick expert

 

(I hope this isn't read as provocative, just interested I guess)

[Jason Reimer]

No provocation taken, Chris :) I know what you mean about potentially painting yourself into a corner, and I don't think that's what he's doing here (he said, not having actually seen the movie). I haven't seen Badlands, so I can't comment on that one, but The Thin Red Line and The New World in particular seem to be addressing the whole issue of human depravity and innocence, whereas, at least from the fairly cryptic trailer, it seems like he's moved on to questions about purpose. To fan boys like myself, that's a departure, although I'm sure there are some who would say, why do you have to be so philosophical/theological/poetic all the time, Terry? But I don't think he will ever be able to get that stuff out of his system; afterall, he went far enough down the philosophy road to have nearly completed a PhD at Oxford, and was teaching at MIT. It's in the man's bones, and I think we're all the richer for it (not that you were suggesting otherwise). Granted, I could be biased, since I went and got myself a philosophy degree, too, before bailing on the idea of academia to go do photography :) But look what he's done already; he's got people talking, trying to figure out what to make of it, and hopefully we'll all go see it and be stoked, whatever we might have thought it was going to be about.

It's also possible that all of us will be surprised, pleasantly or otherwise; I read an article that one of you guys posted earlier in this thread, and some of the studio people were saying this is going to be his most accessible film yet, so who knows? I'm going to see it either way, though! Haha

 

wow!

 

insurance commercial to disaster film to that - all from a trailer. Sure, there is the rest of his oeuvre to pull meaning from, but ...

 

Anyways, some film makers might appreciate it or work towards it, but I'd be concerned if my work was always being forced into some kind of arc or theme according to my last works.

 

I've seen (in cinema if its of concern) all of his last apart from Day of Heaven - I am no Malick expert

 

(I hope this isn't read as provocative, just interested I guess)

[Kemalettin Sert]

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thetreeoflife/

 

After reading the descriptions that have been written of this movie and seeing the trailer a few times, I feel like something is way off.

 

From the trailer I gathered, and of course this is a complete guess, that the modern segments are about Sean Penn being involved with saving the world from a comet/metiorite which has affected water throughout the world. Look how many images of water there are in the trailer, there are a LOT. Also notice the USA hardhat towards the end of the trailer behind Sean Penn, perhaps he works for NASA or a similar organization. It's hard to tell what is supposed to be based in reality of the film, or if we are seeing dreams of the character, but I think it is an Apocalypse movie where Sean Penn must overcome something from his upbringing in order to save the world from environmental disaster.

 

Of course this is a complete guess, I've just been puzzled the last few days after seeing the trailer and reading the descriptions and feeling there is something missing from the description.

 

Also, it looks like some of the best child acting in movies I have seen, and by acting, it doesn't seem like they are.

trailer reminds me The Fountain.

And i guess Malick using red because its CHEAP.you know he wants to shoot over thousand hours footage..thats just expensive and long process with film

[Chris Millar]

No provocation taken, Chris :) I know what you mean about potentially painting yourself into a corner, and I don't think that's what he's doing here (he said, not having actually seen the movie). I haven't seen Badlands, so I can't comment on that one, but The Thin Red Line and The New World in particular seem to be addressing the whole issue of human depravity and innocence, whereas, at least from the fairly cryptic trailer, it seems like he's moved on to questions about purpose. To fan boys like myself, that's a departure, although I'm sure there are some who would say, why do you have to be so philosophical/theological/poetic all the time, Terry? But I don't think he will ever be able to get that stuff out of his system; afterall, he went far enough down the philosophy road to have nearly completed a PhD at Oxford, and was teaching at MIT. It's in the man's bones, and I think we're all the richer for it (not that you were suggesting otherwise). Granted, I could be biased, since I went and got myself a philosophy degree, too, before bailing on the idea of academia to go do photography :) But look what he's done already; he's got people talking, trying to figure out what to make of it, and hopefully we'll all go see it and be stoked, whatever we might have thought it was going to be about.

It's also possible that all of us will be surprised, pleasantly or otherwise; I read an article that one of you guys posted earlier in this thread, and some of the studio people were saying this is going to be his most accessible film yet, so who knows? I'm going to see it either way, though! Haha

 

Yup, can say its top of my anticipated movie list - (that and/or the new Scott Alien film)

 

and yes Kemalettin I agree, The Fountain - which featured the tree of life quite prominently itself

[Peter Moretti]

I'm wondering if anyone wants to chime in on what may be some of the signature aspects of Terrance Malick's "look," so to speak?

 

I saw the "Tree of Life" trailer during the previews before "Black Swan" last night. It was clear to me and by the responses (gasps and "wows") of the other people who were also in the theater at 10+ pm that that trailer was visually heads and shoulders above everything else we just previewed.

 

Looking back on it, it seems that Terrance favored setting up farther away and using longer lenses to create a distorted perspective with almost a lack of a vanishing point. Don't know if this accurate or not.

 

Would love to hear other people's perspective on this (no pun intended). ;)

[Mathew Rudenberg]

 

Looking back on it, it seems that Terrance favored setting up farther away and using longer lenses to create a distorted perspective with almost a lack of a vanishing point. Don't know if this accurate or not.

 

 

Hmm, I would say quite the opposite - a lot of wider lenses, often up close.

[KH Martin]

Hmm, I would say quite the opposite - a lot of wider lenses, often up close.

 

Yeah, very wide, reminded me of the mindvision sequences in BRAINSTORM they were so wide. Also, some of the universe shots look like they use the 'light refracted/reflected off a piece of metal" artwork that was employed for the background of Trumbull's heaven in BRAINSTORM. You can achieve the same thing by letting sunlight bounce off your cheese grater in the kitchen, though it probably won't look quite as good.

[Peter Moretti]

Okay,

 

I just watched the trailer again you Youtube. And you guys are right, my memory couldn't even be accurate for 16 hours, :o.

 

So what is it that makes these shots so effective? Looking at this over and over, two things come to mind. One is a subtle movement of the camera, which I tend to like. (But even still frames look very good.) The other is a very nice color composition; everything looks natural but in a poetic more than realistic way. There is no color that in the frame that takes away from what's going on. An example would be an orange tube on Sean Penn's desk, that might look appropriate on a busy desk, but it would hurt the composition.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlYYreuK8vo

 

Any thoughts?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Time, money, and production design work wonders. One thing about his films, in general, is a lot of control over what's going on. I suggest grabbing The New World, and watching some of the behind the scenes where they go into the level of control he tries to create, and there's a lot of film he'll go through to get it right.

 

I think he's a bit like Kubrick in as much as the films don't necessarily look alike, but the types of feelings they'll give you will be similar which all stems from the total control of the illusion. He controls what's going on as much as possible and through that, gives it his look.