Michael Bay Pain & gain (dark edge in some frames)

[Younes Boudiaf]

Hi everyone,

 

 

 

I just want to share these two frames from Michael Bay's Pain & gain movie (Attached images), in which we can notice that there is dark edges on the periphery of those frames (1st one just in the upright side). whatever are they ( matte box, or helicopter leg in the aerial shot)

 

My question is, is this acceptable in filmmaking business !? especially when we are talking about blockbusters like Michael bay's ones ?

 

if yes !!! why should we do this ??

 

 

[Brian Drysdale]

You'll find all sorts of things on the edges of frames (or even near the centre in some cases) if you look. Of course, they shouldn't be there, but you'll find camera shadows, helicopter shadows, hairs, mic booms and vignetting. Unfortunately, it's an imperfect business, sometimes not helped when film is screened in the wrong aspect ratio.

[Younes Boudiaf]

I agree it is not a perfect business but at least something that not everybody can see ! the movie has been shot on Film and I am sure that they watched their dailies carefully, and also while editing ! those are shots of some seconds especially the second one, I bet that someone saw this !

[Tyler Purcell]

Man, the theatrical release of Bad Boys II had Micheal Bay in the background holding a monitor in several shots. They literally didn't have enough time to paint out all the issues. Its a common problem on movies, the issues are seen, but do they have the money/time to fix them? You'd think they would for the video release though…

[Brian Drysdale]

I'm sure they did notice it in the editing room and possibly during the shooting stage. One of the Bond films has something similar in some underwater shots with a wide angle lens. Schedule pressures let things through, especially if it's the best take..

[Gregory Irwin]

I agree it is not a perfect business but at least something that not everybody can see ! the movie has been shot on Film and I am sure that they watched their dailies carefully, and also while editing ! those are shots of some seconds especially the second one, I bet that someone saw this !

Hi Younes,

You are absolutely correct about the sloppiness of the work. I was the "A" camera First AC on PAIN & GAIN and although I can't make excuses for this, I can offer some possibilities why it happened. I'm a veteran of five Michael Bay movies.

 

I don't think Michael always gives his audience the respect they deserve. What I mean by this is that he knows the flaws are there but he chooses not to either avoid them or fix them in post when he chooses to use that piece of footage. The first example you posted is a helicopter shot and the camera operated simply back panned into the gyro sphere housing to keep the boat in frame. That moment didn't need to neccessarily be used since there was a lot of footage shot on that boat. The second example was shot on a Red Epic and the anamorphic lens was simply too wide for the 4K we were shooting. That vignette could have been avoided or fixed but obviously was left in the movie. It wasn't a priority in Michael's world. Of course, we know that they are there and the audience sees them as well.

 

Michael creates an absolute environment of chaos when filming and most of the time any crew member is just not allowed to do their job properly. It's a daily struggle to maintain any sense of standard when working with him. Unbelievably, in PEARL HARBOR, you can see my hands on the edge of frame pulling focus on a Preston handset. Last time I checked, we didn't have Preston's in 1941. We knew it when it happened and Michael said not to worry about it and he would paint me out in post. Well, that never happened and I'm in the movie!

 

In the end, it's a real testimony to the professionalism of all of the cast and crew who perform their jobs very well under fire. Working with Michael is not for everyone. Many have washed out under the pressure. It takes a very special personality to block out all of the craziness that has engulfed you and focus solely on the job at hand.

 

G

[Prashantt Rai]

Loud Applaud for Gregory. This man is made for working under pressure cooker environment.

 

And regards to the vignettes, On a 50 ft screen if someone is watching the extreme corners of the screen instead of the story which is mostly in the centre sweet spot then the movie doesn't deserve the audience.

 

I don't care about the vignette.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I pretty much so agree with Prashantt. I even watched Pain and Gain on my small screen and neither of those two shots stuck out to me-- of course now that I know they're there, if i ever watch it again it'll drive me nuts lol

[John Holland]

Mr Bay is a waste of space most[ not all] of his films stink ! . If i was staving for lack of work no way would i get involved in an production of his . It saddens me that Spielberg who i respect puts his name as Producer to his rubbish movies.

,

[Phil Rhodes]

On the other hand, I have a bit of a soft spot for them. Having grown up on a diet of british cinematography (make sure everything in the frame is a dull brown, fire a 2K into the ceiling, meter for exposure, turn over) I'm a sucker for fireworks, both metaphorical and literal.

 

Bigger explosions! BIGGER!

[Gregory Irwin]

The way I look at it is that I would probably go back for more. He is a known entity and you just have to have the right attitude and your Kevlar suit! And let's face it: we make a lot of money working on his movies and he is very loyal. I actually like him. As my dear cinematographer friend says, " We don't write 'em, we just light 'em!"

 

G

Edited August 10, 2014 by Gregory Irwin

[Younes Boudiaf]

Before I start I would really thank Gregory for his testimony.

 

I like some of Michael bay movies but not this one, and I am really shocked to see such a thing in a big movie, this guy is guy jeopardizing his reputation with such stupid things, also

I the movie has been produced by Michael Bay, Ian Bryce and Donald De Line, does anyone of the other guys complained about it or they didn't pay attention to it ?

 

After all I am just someone who is learning from those movies, but I like perfection, a movie is a piece of art and it has be near perfect, something that we can learn from, and give respect to the audience !

 

 

thanks all of you for sharing your opinion

[Younes Boudiaf]

Loud Applaud for Gregory. This man is made for working under pressure cooker environment.

 

And regards to the vignettes, On a 50 ft screen if someone is watching the extreme corners of the screen instead of the story which is mostly in the centre sweet spot then the movie doesn't deserve the audience.

 

I don't care about the vignette.

 

Hi Prashantt,

 

I respect your opinion but I personally I care for every frame with its corners, maybe the day I watch a movie as an audience in Cinema it will not affect me a lot, but watching a movie carefully at home to learn some Cinematography, Editing or Directing from it, will affect me a lot, I came form no film school, and big movies are my school and also forum like these. and I am convinced now that some of Bay's movies are not good to learn from.

 

My regards

[Gregory Irwin]

 

Younes,

I couldn't disagree with you more. Michaels's sense of visuals is spectacular. His editing skill is remarkable. There is much to absorb about a cinematic style that you don't have to like in order to learn.

 

G

Edited August 10, 2014 by Gregory Irwin

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Furthermore, even if you learn what you don't like, you still learned.

[Younes Boudiaf]

I totally agree with you guys!

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't necessarily think that art, being made by fallible human beings, should be perfect since no human is perfect. It's OK for me to see some evidence of the handiwork left behind. If anything, today's digital post-production makes it so easy to erase mistakes that in some ways, it gives a false impression of just how hard it is to make a movie. The other night I was watching "Touch of Evil" on blu-ray and the high-definition transfer really showed how rough the focus-pulling was on that movie, but in some ways, that also made the movie more accessible to me, a mere mortal: I could imagine Orson Welles and Russell Metty out in Venice Beach at night trying to achieve a deep focus look with limited time and resources and overly relying on holding a split focus using the hyperfocal setting on the lens.

 

You've got to take a big picture approach to judging a movie, no pun intended, rather than focus on minor technical mistakes. You can find mistakes even in the greatest movies ever made, but they are still great.

[Gregory Irwin]

I don't necessarily think that art, being made by fallible human beings, should be perfect since no human is perfect. It's OK for me to see some evidence of the handiwork left behind. If anything, today's digital post-production makes it so easy to erase mistakes that in some ways, it gives a false impression of just how hard it is to make a movie. The other night I was watching "Touch of Evil" on blu-ray and the high-definition transfer really showed how rough the focus-pulling was on that movie, but in some ways, that also made the movie more accessible to me, a mere mortal: I could imagine Orson Welles and Russell Metty out in Venice Beach at night trying to achieve a deep focus look with limited time and resources and overly relying on holding a split focus using the hyperfocal setting on the lens.

 

You've got to take a big picture approach to judging a movie, no pun intended, rather than focus on minor technical mistakes. You can find mistakes even in the greatest movies ever made, but they are still great.

HEAR HEAR!!!

[Younes Boudiaf]

I don't necessarily think that art, being made by fallible human beings, should be perfect since no human is perfect. It's OK for me to see some evidence of the handiwork left behind. If anything, today's digital post-production makes it so easy to erase mistakes that in some ways, it gives a false impression of just how hard it is to make a movie. The other night I was watching "Touch of Evil" on blu-ray and the high-definition transfer really showed how rough the focus-pulling was on that movie, but in some ways, that also made the movie more accessible to me, a mere mortal: I could imagine Orson Welles and Russell Metty out in Venice Beach at night trying to achieve a deep focus look with limited time and resources and overly relying on holding a split focus using the hyperfocal setting on the lens.

 

You've got to take a big picture approach to judging a movie, no pun intended, rather than focus on minor technical mistakes. You can find mistakes even in the greatest movies ever made, but they are still great.

I agree totally with you Mr Mullen,

 

I didn't judge the movie from those mistakes and I agree that we're human being and we do make mistakes, we usually see some mistakes in Hollywood movies that we don't even talk about, I just noticed that those scenes (3 seconds for the 1st one and 5 seconds for 2nd one) was bit noticeable and long relatively enough to discover the mistakes ( which in fact I thought that was in purpose) and for the first one it can be cut ! (I bet the Editor can notice them)

 

I just didn't really like this movie which I guess pushed me to be a bit aggressive against Michael bay which I used to like his blockbusters massive destruction movies which is in fact full of depth and long camera moves (super long), which always make us feel the huge things and space, I am a fan of Transformers, and I really liked Armageddon, and watched the rock about 20 times when I was young !

 

but still insisting on being very careful to avoid making such mistakes specially when it comes to blockbusters and in the era of digital when we can easily fix problem like that.

 

Finally, I am not really in a place to judge directors and staff at that level, I am just trying to learn from the best people doing this job and I hate to see them making mistakes, I guess the more I learn the more I can tolerate things, I still have no Idea about schedule problems and working pressure in Cinema world.

 

Thank you Mr. Mullen

[cole t parzenn]

Younes,

I couldn't disagree with you more. Michaels's sense of visuals is spectacular. His editing skill is remarkable. There is much to absorb about a cinematic style that you don't have to like in order to learn.

 

G

 

 

I found this thought provoking.

[Younes Boudiaf]

 

 

I found this thought provoking.

 

[Bill DiPietra]

Hence my argument against digital. The imperfections of the medium of film make it all the more human.

[Gregory Irwin]

 

I found this thought provoking.

 

Wow. I've never seen that before. Really interesting and so many (too) familiar shots! And I always thought that Bayhem and Bayos was simply our work environment! :)

 

G

[David Mullen ASC]

Hence my argument against digital. The imperfections of the medium of film make it all the more human.

 

You can shoot imperfect digital as well... it's just that we are used to the imperfections of film and have decided that they can be aesthetically pleasing (probably due to having 100 years of history living with those artifacts) and yet we have decided that the imperfections of digital are aesthetically unpleasing. One problem is that some digital artifacts like clipping, banding errors, moire and pixelation can be very eye-catching and distracting when done to extreme.

[Gregory Irwin]

Man, the theatrical release of Bad Boys II had Micheal Bay in the background holding a monitor in several shots. They literally didn't have enough time to paint out all the issues. Its a common problem on movies, the issues are seen, but do they have the money/time to fix them? You'd think they would for the video release though…

 

If you can show that to me, I'd appewciate it. I've never seen that and I not sure that exists.

 

G