Is “too nostalgic” a valid excuse for not shooting on film ??

[John Shell]

One of the reasons stated by DoP Greig Fraser as to why they decided not to shoot Dune on film was because it looked too nostalgic and I’m just wondering, is this really a valid reason considering all the tools available today in digital imaging which can create basically any look you want ?? Also there are several movies shot on film that look very modern.

[Mark Dunn]

Nostalgic.......... in the year 10,191. Hmm.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I think film is nowadays mainly used because people like the workflow, not strictly because "a certain look could only be obtained if using real film". It might be easier to get certain looks with real film but most can be emulated well enough that the audience gets the same feeling and mood from the end result even if it does not look exactly the same.

Modern films have had so good technical image quality for the past 30 or 40 years that it is often difficult to get a "moody film look" by just using film and doing nothing else, one really needs to work on the look on film too to get it right and if being lazy it will just look "too good" or "too boring" or "average" and no one might even notice any real film was used after all ?

As for the Dune project, I think it would gain nothing from film origination and would just have slightly lower technical quality without any real storytelling benefits if film woud had been used. If the different workflow would had benefit the project in some way (concentrating on different details because of the workflow difference) then it might have different end result.

But my main point is that subtle differences almost always go unnoticed and have no real benefit in the end. If wanting to have a different look, make it really stand out instead of trying to "just add little bit salt over it" and people complaining that the film was otherwise good but one scene had some slightly distracting noise in the shadows (real film grain which only made a difference in one scene of the whole feature film because you tried to make the format subtle instead of making it stand out)

[Frank Wylie]

IMHO, "nostalgia" has become a generic derogatory term used for any technology that is not stone-cold, technogeek current. 

Ironically, the technology ball moves so fast that these pundits have undeniably produced "nostalgic" product unless they live-stream their product as it occurs.

I think people should think long and hard before they toss out this sloppy meme; it will come back to degrade their own work.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

8 hours ago, Frank Wylie said:

IMHO, "nostalgia" has become a generic derogatory term ..... I think people should think long and hard before they toss out this sloppy meme; it will come back to degrade their own work.

That's how I feel about that word too when it's used to describe the use of film. It's not a particularly useful description or indicator of what film can do. It's usually used by someone who is not into film themselves. I'm also not greatly fond of the term "vanity project" to describe a movie shot on film. Why is film more 'vain' than anything else?

I think Aapo has it right. You shoot film because you like working with it. It's not better or worse than digital. It's as simple as that.

[Robin Phillips]

Its Greig Fraser, and hes put in the work with his collaborators to really dial in digital and make the most out of a given sensor and make something unique out of it. I dont think that can really be said for a lot of the work thats out there. And yet they still saw value in printing to film and re-scanning it for the final image. 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I don't think that Greig Fraser was being too literal. Perhaps he chose the wrong word? Either way, if getting the look he wanted entailed digital origination, and printing to film, then so be it.

Edit: The reason I don't shoot film anymore: "too expensive"!

Edited July 18, 2023 by Karim D. Ghantous

[Tyler Purcell]

It doesn't make sense to shoot film on movies with heavy VFX, green screen and virtual sets. The Arri LF and Arri 65 deliver a very good full frame image which satisfies any movie goer in my opinion. The first Dune movie was recorded to 35mm and that was used to make the final output for theatrical. Don't know about the new one. I felt the first film looked great, it was dark where it needed to be dark, the subtle realistic lighting played very well. Masterclass on the cinematography. They created a world with the timing as well. 

[Jon O'Brien]

On 7/18/2023 at 2:26 PM, Karim D. Ghantous said:

...The reason I don't shoot film anymore: "too expensive"!

Yes ..... well, I hope that one day soon the client will cover the cost. Otherwise it's an expensive hobby, and maybe a once-in-a-blue-moon hobby at that. So far I'm shooting digital gigs only, except for a brief foray back into film a few months ago.

I still say it's all worth it. Film is such a great look and it's a lot of satisfaction to film with it. But then again digital is very satisfying, too.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Jon O'Brien
Spelling mistake. I click save too quickly sometimes.