Lucas' Digital Impact?

[Brian Drysdale]

Interesting that these "indies" (who are not backed by studios; hence being independent) can afford to fund films that cost enough to pay off a single family residence without a mortgage and there are so many out there that can! I guess I am just very poor indeed.

 

Not wanting to get diverted again into indepentant profuction funding, but this is the producer's job to get funding. People invest in these films for a variety of reasons, be it tax breaks, ego, rich parents, or, in the past (if not today), even some mob money was used to fund them.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Not wanting to get diverted again into indepentant profuction funding, but this is the producer's job to get funding. People invest in these films for a variety of reasons, be it tax breaks, ego, rich parents, or, in the past (if not today), even some mob money was used to fund them.

Agreed. But on many low-end productions, the Director/Writer/Producer are all one and the same.

[Brian Drysdale]

They still have to do the job, just as high end people filling the same roles on a major feature film. I've done all three roles on a film and you spend more time doing the producing than the other two roles.

[Phil Rhodes]

One of the things that is often overlooked in these discussions is the difference between actual risk and perceived risk.

 

Something that irritated me no end during the transition from film to video was the terror with which the new technology was viewed by many of the people who were best placed to benefit from it. The idea that an F900 with HDCAM tape in it was objectively any less reliable than 35mm is dubious in the extreme; there was no increased technological risk here. Personally, I'd been recording video to various types of server more or less since it had become vaguely possible to do it in the early 90s, and when we started doing that for film production in the mid-2000s I couldn't understand why people were so terrified of it. Frankly, I'd been doing it for years. It was unremarkable. It was obvious that these new techniques could be held to a far higher level of reliability than film ever could have, and so it turned out to be.

 

Lucas was not required to make these truths true.

 

P

[George Ebersole]

Well, wasn't that snobbery fueled by wanting to be competitive, and a good degree of uncertainty that a digital image would look as good as film?

 

I should be working..............

[David Mullen ASC]

When you make a movie with a budget of over 100 million dollars, then there is a lot of pressure to not experiment, even if in retrospect the experiment was not particularly risky -- the attitude being "why take a chance when there is an established way of doing these things?" Clearly Lucas bucked the trends of the day, the only risk being whether a 2/3" HD betacam image would hold up on a big screen, something easily tested for in prep. So yes, technically using HDCAM tape in essentially a beefed up 1990's Digital Betacam but running at 24P was not particularly taking a chance on failure since the technology had already proven itself throughout the decade in TV -- but it was challenging expectations and norms of the day, which is not easy to do when there is so much money riding on the project. The only new twist in the case of "Attack of the Clones" was dealing with the 24 PsF format for post, and that was not particularly hard -- given the fact that so many low-budget people jumped onto the F900 and posted movies before "Attack of the Clones" even got released.

 

But it happens all the time, there are some movies of the past that had to argue with a studio to shoot in anamorphic instead of Super-35 because anamorphic was considered riskier in terms of getting sharp focus. There are movies that had to argue to shoot on Fuji instead of Kodak. Hollywood is risk-adverse and that filters down into the most mundane decisions made daily.

 

Probably Lucas would agree with you, Phil -- he pushed for a digital capture and workflow not because he was a risk-taker but because it just seemed more logical to him, I think he wanted to prove that it wasn't risky.

[Tyler Purcell]

Lucas is also a "fix it in post" sorta guy. Shooting his last few movies, almost exclusively on green screen stages. When you work that way, when you just can't wait to get into post, shooting digitally makes more sense. When you look at Episode II and III, there isn't some great in-camera cinematic vision. In fact, I'd say those prequel's were almost devoid of cinematic vision, compared to the films that came later. All the manipulating, still didn't help the meager story and weak characters.

 

Rodriguez and Fincher are also "fix it in post" guys as well. Both, noodling with their films in post to a level other filmmakers would think "obsessive". Fincher clearly a master wanting to make his art perfect and Rodrgiuez, trying to save money.

 

In my eyes there are two completely different filmmaking techniques. One that requires digital technology to move along fast and have instant results so visual effects artists can be working non-stop to create the on-screen vision during production. The other technique is to display what was shot in camera, on the screen. This requires more prep and a potentially longer production. So if you don't like production, if you like sitting in a chair at home to "make" your movie, this form of filmmaking just doesn't work.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Fincher clearly a master wanting to make his art perfect and Rodrgiuez, trying to save money.

 

I know I am alone in this, but I have never found a Fincher film that I "got." I mean, I keep hearing how great he is so I assume that I am missing something or just do not have that classic "film school" appreciation. His movies grab me with the premise but then they move in a direction that makes me question why I kept watching in the first place. But what do I know? I still don't see the big deal in Citizen Kane either which I know is the golden goose of film school (Great technically though!)

[Justin Hayward]

I know I am alone in this, but I have never found a Fincher film that I "got." I mean, I keep hearing how great he is so I assume that I am missing something or just do not have that classic "film school" appreciation. His movies grab me with the premise but then they move in a direction that makes me question why I kept watching in the first place. But what do I know? I still don't see the big deal in Citizen Kane either which I know is the golden goose of film school (Great technically though!)

I posted this yesterday, but if you want to be a singer, but can't hear pitch... sorry.

[Tyler Purcell]

Seven is awesome, it's such a great detective movie. My favorite fincher movie, mostly due to the cinematography and phenomenal cast.

 

Citizen Kane broke new ground at the time. Today, we all use the same techniques, BECAUSE of that movie.

 

It's funny, my parents who are not film people, had never seen Citizen Kane until recently and we all saw it together and they loved it. So there are people who really like the movie. It's not one of my favorite films, but it absolutely is one of the best movies ever made. The devil's in the details, same goes for Fincher. Not saying Fincher is perfect, he's made his bobbles, but he's made some great movies and his work is top notch. If I had a great script and was not a director, Fincher would be a the top of my list.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I posted this yesterday, but if you want to be a singer, but can't hear pitch... sorry.

Okay, so someone has to like Fincher to make films? I think that is about the dumbest statement I have ever heard. What if musicians made pretentious statements like that about other musicians? There is such a thing as "preference" and "genres." I think you sound incredibly narrow minded to suggest that not liking Fincher movies is akin to a singer not hearing pitch.

 

Truth is, the Fincher thing is only among the film community. I have heard many "lay people" who think his movies are downright stupid...my wife being one of them. She thought Fight Club had a good story that turned absolutely ludicrous at the end with him shooting himself and asking for gauze afterward.But I am sorry that us "laypeople" do not have the refined taste that you do, Justin. Thank you for informing me that I should cancel my feature and go do something else since I obviously cant cut it because I do not get Fincher.

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, Justin does have a good point.

 

To come on here and say you don't "get" one of the industries best filmmakers, that's kinda like saying you've never heard the Beatles or Zeppelin.

 

I mean it's ok... but you don't have to LOVE his movies to "get" them. I'm absolutely not in love with his work, but I do think he's quite an amazing Director. There are top Directors in this industry who would sell their soul to make a movie like Fincher does.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Well, Justin does have a good point.

 

To come on here and say you don't "get" one of the industries best filmmakers, that's kinda like saying you've never heard the Beatles or Zeppelin.

 

I mean it's ok... but you don't have to LOVE his movies to "get" them. I'm absolutely not in love with his work, but I do think he's quite an amazing Director. There are top Directors in this industry who would sell their soul to make a movie like Fincher does.

I am gathering that you are implying that taste is no longer subjective but is an objective truth? It isnt. I would rather listen to Bach or Vivaldi than The Beatles. Fincher has good visuals and the films are technically proficient but what I meant by not "getting" him is that he doesn't really connect with me. Kubrick connected with me. He made me think. I left the movie still pondering it sometimes days after I saw them. Fincher is...well...I just move on with life and usually I end up having conversations with film snobs about why I can dare have the nerve to have an opinion that isnt the perceived prevailing view.

[Max Field]

 

Okay, so someone has to like Fincher to make films?

Gotta know how to respect and appreciate the greats' techniques to achieve greatness yourself. He isn't like an Avengers director that aims for the surface of action appeal (which still needs the right kind of talent as well), he's a genius who translates screenwriters' concepts so well, that everyone wants him on their film. He makes the concept of "think about the plot" a lowest common denominator thing. VERY hard to do.

 

For example, I don't have anything too kind to say about the picture "Her", however I can view a scene and pick up on how Jonze is pacing/shooting/cutting/instructing on a higher level than the industry standard, a standard in which the vast majority of people attempting this industry never even get to.

[Max Field]

that's kinda like saying you've never heard the Beatles or Zeppelin.

Yeah they're pretty awesome

 

...If you're a dad.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Matthew W. Phillips]

he's a genius who...

 

Sounds like a tautology to me. He is a great filmmaker because he is a genius.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Gotta know how to respect and appreciate the greats' techniques to achieve greatness yourself.

 

We arent practicing science here...this is ART. Artists do not need to do anything special or appreciate anything to make art. Fincher is YOUR idea of greatness. I personally love Baroque art and style and music. Others prefer impressionism...some like abstract...deal with it. Not everyone regards everything in the same way. i feel that if Fincher never existed, cinema would still march on.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Seven is awesome... phenomenal cast.

 

Brad Pitt? The man who nearly ruined 12 years a Slave with that terrible accent? I suppose I really am a hack because the Brad Pitt love is...

[Max Field]

 

Brad Pitt? The man who nearly ruined 12 years a Slave with that terrible accent? I suppose I really am a hack because the Brad Pitt love is...

If you think a small performance can " nearly ruin" a movie, you might need to reconsider some things lol.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

 

If you think a small performance can " nearly ruin" a movie, you might need to reconsider some things lol.

 

I cannot take credit for that line. I have seen it on at least a dozen reviews. I loved that movie but Pitt was cringeworthy in such a pivotal scene.

[Max Field]

 

I cannot take credit for that line. I have seen it on at least a dozen reviews. I loved that movie but Pitt was cringeworthy in such a pivotal scene.

The following is the greatest advice of 2016:

Stop watching Youtube movie reviewers.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

 

The following is the greatest advice of 2016:

Stop watching Youtube movie reviewers.

 

So what makes your opinion better than anyone else's? I merely stated that I dont get Fincher's work (or more specifically why people nuthug him so much) and you, Tyler, and Justin start being condescending. I would like to honestly know what makes you three's opinion so damn special? I realize I am an butt sometime but I did not indeed to be this time. I only added an opinion in reference to Tyler's initial comment (which praised Fincher and subtly put down RR all in one quote.) But I even tried to qualify it by stated that I knew my opinion was in the minority. But you three had to be pretentious butts and take it personal like I slapped your mother.

 

Fine then, I'll give you what you want...I'll stop commenting on this site because I do not subscribe to the groupthink of the "Directors" here that havent done anything of note anymore than I have. I'll just go make my two-bit useless and hack feature that isn't worthy of this site.

 

Peace out.

[Max Field]

I can't speak on behalf of Tyler or whoever (again credits to him for actually answering the original question), but I'm simply stating that people need to recognize talent even if they aren't a fan.

Also I don't think Tyler was jabbing at RobRod, being an innovator in "saving money" is a compliment where I come from.

 

But I highly doubt that'll be your last post. If it is, it's really funny that you'd leave a pretty nice forum just over that.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

that's kinda like saying you've never heard the Beatles or Zeppelin.

 

I have heard the Beatles and, by and large, I don't like their stuff very much.

 

This is all a matter of opinion and it's very subject to the following, which is true for me at least: I understand why people like it, I just don't.

 

My personal bugbear in this regard is Barry Lyndon, which everyone seems to adore but looks to me like it was shot on a foggy, overcast day, pushed two and graded such that no part of the frame is ever less than about 50% luminance. I can see the consistency, I can see what they're trying to do, I just don't think it was a very good idea.

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

All these things are subjective. I know of some one who was on a selection panel who looked through the film projects and thought it was a pretty obivious choice only to discover that when they met everyone on the panel had made different choices.