Matthew W. Phillips

I am not sure if this is where we are supposed to put trailers as I have never done one before. I know I said I wouldn't come back but I wanted to announce that, for better or worse, I completed my first feature film. I had a tiny budget and non-union talent but I got it done and learned a ton. I wanted to thank everyone here in the past who gave me advice that saved me from some pitfalls. I also want to apologize to others whose advice I ignored to my own peril and I ended up learning the hard way. Nonetheless, no amount of research and talking to others can ever substitute for actually making a feature...even a cheap one. I admire all of you who have made features in the past and still continue to do so (Richard B...please forgive me for my negative words in the past.) Okay, enough talk...here is the trailer for my new film entitled "Malum." I have also attached the movie poster as well. https://youtu.be/GAWi3gtL5Ok

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

I find it interesting that #3 is legitimate when many people in the Olympics are amateurs yet the best in the world at their craft.

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!)

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

Justin, you obviously did not read what I wrote in any sort of context whatsoever.

David, on a side note, but still indirectly related because of his early adoption...would it be too provocative to ask you what your opinion of Robert Rodriguez is? I mean this in the context of both his role in digital filmmaking and also as a Director who DPs. Do you feel he is technically competent as a DP? Do you personally like his work? If you do not feel comfortable answering such a question in public then I am sorry for asking it. Feel free to disregard it.

What in the world makes you say that? :D I am teasing. At least I didn't go absolutely off the rails like that fellow on the bad cinematography thread. Even i was cringing.

There is value in history. But the problem with discussions like this is because there is no way to objectively conclude something like this. I mean, facts can be spewed out but it is largely a qualitative study. How does one gauge, objectively, who or what had the most impact? How does one even measure impact? I post because it is fun to give my own personal account but it seems that everyone has to start second guessing each other's subjective experience and trying to prove their point. Yes, i do that too but I am not the only one. I swear, I dont know why, but when I get on this site I turn into a crank. It might amaze you to realize that I am actually a nice guy in "real life."

Having never worked with the RED, I can take your word for it. But I happen to know that many on this forum (and DVXUser) back in the day did not share your optimism for that workflow and did not find it as cheap of an overall solution. But I suppose I have derailed this enough since the OP made it clear that he was satisfied with what David and Tyler told him. The truth is...what company or camera makes digital special these days is largely based on who you ask. Someone who has the opportunity to make great images now because they can afford to when they couldnt in the past will probability have a different take on things than someone who is established, studio backed, and can name whatever gadget they desire. For me personally, digital became viable for me thanks to Blackmagic and Sony. I am sure others have different views. I am not even sure why this topic is relevant anyway. People can shoot on whatever the hell they want to regardless of who did it first.

I guarantee that, after the housing crash, you could buy a house with that outside of major metro areas. Even now, there are places in the USA where that will get you a house mortgage free.

I never said that you were wrong on the matter of proper terminology. Only that it is not nearly the case of what is typical in smaller markets. I live in California (granted Northern) and people are lucky if they can even get paid gas money to be part of a film. Theater work is no different as it is almost entirely voluntary. Canon MKII is considered a "premium" camera around these parts and most "DPs" have some variant of the Canon Txi. I suppose I need to work on the set in an area where people actually have money to spend on making a film so I can get some perspective.

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.

So can you answer my query of how long it took to render a feature length export at 4k on an indie system?

Saul, I can tell you that a "fast drive array" (which I assume you mean some protocol of RAID) is not enough to render massive amounts of data because your Processor or memory can become a bottleneck. 2008 was a long time ago in computing terms. I would think a good system for that sort of thing back then would be some server type setup like Intel Xeon with dual Processors....$$$ not cheap.

I see. So there was still a Post house in the pipeline. I still stand by BM being a turning point for indies to achieve superb results with the maximum control and minimum of cash outflow. Most indies I know locally do all of their own post work and we dont even have a Post House in these parts (Northern California.) unless you go to SF.

I would be curious to know what the export time of a feature film in 4k would be on one of those machines? Can you enlighten me?

Depends on the Mac desktop...MacPro? Looking at a few grand plus FCP X...

Oh, I am sorry. I did misread. But what a ridiculous point to make that an indie can "transcode" footage but not edit it?