Ruairi Robinson

Ughh, I'm not more entitled than anyone else to criticise anything. But I am entitled to, just as much as anyone else. I have a problem with people being given 25 million dollars to make a movie, and they don't even try. If you can't see this, fine, but stop trying to twist my words into some kind of agenda that isn't there. It's really irritating.

I didn't bring it up in the first place. Just correcting your statements, which were factually innacurate. The FACT was that I thought your post smacked of jealousy. If not, then fine, I guess you just think you're better than them and wanted to make fun of their movie. Mission accomplished! I wish you would stop trying to tell me what I think about things. R.

Yes.

Posted what before the announcement was made? This thread was started at the end of June. The announcement was back in February. Except the part about me being jealous about it. But think whatever you like. Just don't confuse your opinion with fact. R.

Where?

If you think this movie was bad, here's a quick reminder of how far we've come. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWpmPGCR1c R.

Forget it Scott, it's Borowskytown.

But... as you have already stated, you couldn't tell the difference yourself, so what are you even arguing the point for? Visual effects companies have to care about efficiency, because they work to shrinking budgets, and ridiculous deadlines. If they can save time and money on something the audience WON'T NOTICE, then they will. Shooting key scenes in IMAX is something everyone that sees in Imax will notice. At the two Imax screenings I saw, people were gasping at the first shot. At the two 35mm screenings I saw, they were not. This is a very silly non-argument. R.

Not when compared with a digital workflow. I think Scott already answered all of your points pretty succinctly.

So you are suggesting they trade a semi-automated workflow for one that requires scanning and manual data entry across MILLIONS of images, even though you couldn't spot the difference in the end result?

Here's some articles on the vfx: http://www.fxguide.com/article487.html http://vfxworld.com/index.php?atype=articles&id=3705 http://vfxworld.com/?atype=articles&id=3707 http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/9703.html

"never" is a dangerous word!

It's not like its Red themselves blaming the customers. It's just a small number of over zealous fanboys that are giving reduser a bad name. The lamest example of this ever was when Claudio Miranda stopped posting after being attacked for having run tests that didn't show red as awesome. God that was embarassing to read.

Most people DO notice the peripheral areas in theatrical presentation because filmmakers frame stuff in the far corners of the screen and guide the viewers eye there ALL the bloody time. So you are suggesting we trade a system that has equally high resolution on every part of the screen, so the filmmaker can guide the viewers eye wherever he wants at any time, and there is no visual loss of quality anywhere, to a system where the DOP has to swap the bloody sensor out of he wants the left side of the screen to look sharp? You are off yer rocker mate. Never, ever, ever gonna happen, in a million years.

I never said there were no good suggestions made here. Interesting that you seem to be attempting to include me in your own sweeping staements. I'm simply saying it's a bit of a reach to claim any kind of credit for the fact that some of those suggestions may have been implimented, when there is no way for ANY of us to know what other information and ideas other people are giving the manufacturers. I have no idea why you imagine I'm trying to censor anyone. But leap to whatever conclusions you like.

Just because Phil made some good suggestions, doesn't mean that fifty other people hadn't made them before him, only without calling them liars and frauds... R.

Hirsch does it at one point while he's sitting on a bridge. He looks in the lens and grins goofily. Also when William Hurt has a breakdown in the middle of the road, he looks in the lens at one point too, then looks away self consciously.

Actually, now that you mention it, he was very good. A lot of the performances were excellent - in particular Kirsten Stewart who lit up the screen for the brief moments she was onscreen. Catherine Keener and the guy that played her jusband were great too. My problem was not with the performances - Penn certainly has a knack at illiciting natural honest behavior from actors. My problem is that he has no bloody self control. He's made a movie that's so self indulgent that he's willing to destroy all possibility of the audience being able to suspend their disbelief, because he can't say no to a take where the actors completely break the 4th wall by looking in the lens and goofing. What the hell was he thinking? It's so self indulgent it makes my head explode. That and the movies central philosophy being expressed as "if you really want something in life, you just gotta reach out and grab it..." A sentiment so trite that it would not even make it onto a fortune cookie. R.

Alright, I'll bite. I thought the film was a load of self-indulgent twaddle. I got more out of seeing a single still frame of the Christopher McCandless at the end of the movie than the previous 17 hours or whatever it was of Sean Penn yanking off in the audience's faces. I've liked Sean Penn in other movies, and I've even liked other movies he's made... but this one is like sitting next to some drunken idiot at the bar who has no interest in what you have to say, and spends the next 2 hours talking AT you, until you eventually realise... wow - he's got nothing to say. Oh yeah, the cinematography. I guess there were some pretty pictures. I was too busy being bored out of my mind to care. Yes, I do realise I am being somewhat caustic here. It's just my opinion, and I give it to you, the internet, for free. R.

Awesome, so the only true filmmakers are the financiers.

yeah, but... in movies, sometimes important stuff happens at the side of the frame... so... this idea is rubbish. Yours sincerely, A fan of widescreen photography.

The 35mm anamorphic shots were scanned at 4k, and the Imax were scanned at 5.6k and 8k. That is, if American Cinematographer is to be believed.

You know calling people idiots might be considered divisive too... Just saying.

lol!

it was among the first THOUSAND hehe. Iit was the first film to have the majority of the shots go through a DI back in 1998 - Oh Brother Where Art Thou was the first to have it done to the whole thing... but vfx shots were being scanned and recorded to film for YEARS before that... The Cineon 2k/4k scanner was released in 1993...!