Tyler Purcell

Yea, I've see'em, but don't really consider those films "SciFi" even if the industry does. Just because something is set in a dystopian future, doesn't make it "SciFi". If that were the case, films like 'The Road' and 'Children of Men' would also be "SciFi" and they are most certainly not. This is part of the problem, the definition of SciFi is kinda sporadic. Yep, but for that time period, there was nothing like it on television. It was unique, but it was also purposely made to be cheesy. Remember, it also failed miserably and was only successful AFTER it's death in syndication. It was only re-born thanks to "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", with successful feature films, made by good filmmakers with LOTS of money behind them. Ever since that first Star Trek movie, the franchise has been pretty strong and lots of money spent on the worlds, sets, props and the technical side of things that make it so interesting. Star Trek is TRUE SciFi because it's "science" and "fiction" mixed into one. There is NO SCIENCE in "Road Warrior". It could have been a western, that's what it really is in the first place. It wouldn't have been successful though because frankly, Western's during that time period, were old hat. Moving his story into space, rejuvenated everything and it worked. Eh, I felt 'Interstellar' did an acceptable job. It didn't resort to CG in order to tell a story, it did it through physical prop's and lots of clever slight of hand tricks like rear projection and being able to move sets around to create weightlessness. Now I absolutely loved 'Interstellar' and I understand a lot of people didn't. I think a lot of people couldn't relate to the characters, especially through the rushed character development early on. It's a great example of how you can muck up a story, but the net result can still be awesome. In my mind, outside of a few silly things like the big wave, it's one of the best and truest to the genre "SciFi" films ever made. Well, $5k would produce a 7 minute (inciting incident) to a longer story. It's a way to get viewers hooked, so they'll watch the next episode or maybe find funding for a feature. I haven't even written anything more then 2, 7 minute episodes. Truth be told, I do have a "SciFi" trilogy that I'd love to produce someday, but because it's not something I can do right now, the concept sits in my "concepts" folder on my computer for a time where maybe I'll have a moment to sit down and develop it further. I, like many others who grew up in the 80's, absolutely love the "classic" SciFi Films and would love to bring them back. I do think there is an audience for them, but I think they have to be made very inexpensively and without heavy visual effects. Yep, it's all crap and because they brainwash teenagers (through heavy marketing) into going, they will always make their money back.

Yea, it's probably the leader. I'd try some junk camera negative first and see what happens. The mechanics of the K3 are pretty robust and leader in of itself, is inherently not made well. I actually stopped using it entirely because it rarely runs through my projectors properly.

Boston Camera was purchased by Rule broadcasting in 2016 because they were going out of business.

Well, there is a reason they didn't do that. There is a reason most SciFi films from the very beginning, are more complicated then a few people walking around on a planet. Heck even 'Forbidden Planet' one of my favorite movies, still has space scenes and spaceships. I do think general audiences need to see more, especially today. If you made something that simple, I think it would be a complete failure. Maybe that's ok, but generally if you fail, you don't get to try again. People are scared to fail due to this reason. Movies like 'Interstellar' and 'Arrival' have done a great job at defying the heavy effects driven, action SciFi movie of today. So it's possible to make decent SciFi and get people to show up, as both of those movies did ok in the box office. It really just comes down to the elements I discussed in my previous post, the money vs the risk. These kind of movies appeal to a more adult audience in the US, but they appeal to a wider audience in other countries. So it's all about understanding your audience and insuring there is some reason for your creation to exist. Remember, it's like any "product", if nobody wants it, then what's the point of making it? If you can't get the money and a few A- stars, then you can't get distribution and nobody will see your movie. "Star Wars" had Sir Alec Guinness in it, doesn't get better then that! There are plenty of very cool SciFi series on television, 'Stranger Things' and 'Westworld' could both fit into that genre and were pretty decent. Neither one resorted to the kind of things you see in theatrical SciFi. Yet, both of them were very expensive to make, because the worlds were complex and impossible to make in your back yard. Again, people have graduated from the era where a backdrop and a few home-made prop's are "good enough". Heck, even an entirely green screen show, would be too unrealistic to modern audiences. So in a lot of ways, it would be cool to tell simpler SciFi stories, but unfortunately it's a genre that requires money. This is why genre's like Drama and Comedy are so much easier to make, talking heads in real situations... now that's something anyone can accomplish. Again, if you sell the environment, if you sell the actors, if you sell the characters, you can sell a weak story. This information is based on experience and dealings with sales agents over the years. Right now LGBT family drama's are what people want to buy and that's the genre I'm focused on.

Yes, I'm in 100% agreement and NOT AT ALL arguing with you guys about it. I was just trying to understand why everyone is advertising Alexa 65.

How do you know they aren't on there already? LOL :P I'm so anti-christmas, nobody on set even mentioned it. Though we DID get a nice layered cake with some green and red frosting on it. :) I start production first week of January yet again. It never seems to end. :(

Related to Star Wars? Honestly, I've never much cared for the franchise outside of the 4 and 5. I'm much more scientific and "logic" driven, rather then pure "fiction" for the sake of fiction. Star Trek is my cup of tea, but honestly even Star Trek got too big for it's own britches. Earlier in this thread, I posted a comment with how I'd start the movie and what changes needed to be made. It took me 20 minutes to think and write it. I assume the original filmmakers shot it all and Mickey Mouse cut it out because it wasn't "entertaining" enough. The only reason Disney bought the franchise from Lucas was to make billions and that's the only reason they paid for 'Rogue One' to be made. The point wasn't to attract young people to the series, that's what JJ Abrams did with 'The Force Awakens'. The point of 'Rogue One' was to make money pure and simple. This is the problem with modern movies, they don't need to be good, they just need to fly poop at your face so you'll tell your friend it was "cool" and they'll go see it. Honestly, with the SciFi genre, I personally believe selling the environment is more critical then story. The filmmakers can muck up the story a bit, if the audience believes what they're seeing. If you don't believe it, then it doesn't matter how good the story is. 'Rogue One' is hardly what I'd consider typical SciFi anyway, it's an action film set in space, there is no "science" in it. I have a phenomenal SciFi series that I'd love to produce. In fact, "production" wouldn't be that costly at all, since it takes place in the desert. However, the prop's, sets, costumes and actors are all super critical to selling the environment and those are the expense. I've developed the pilot episode and have some ideas for the next few episodes, but it's something that COULD be made in pieces to eventually turn into a feature length piece. The problem is, even if I pull every single string I have, it would cost around $5k to make and when you're working freelance, it's hard to throw-away $5k. I'd much rather invest in better equipment that will allow me to nab better jobs, which earn more money, then simply spending $5k on a single 7 minute pilot episode for a new SciFi series. I am unfortunately a slave to money and it's why you don't see a lot of my work posted here. Busy as I am, I rarely get to make the stuff I want and when I do, there is never any money involved, so it's never really that great. Give me a few grand? Well... I can make quite a bit of magic, even if there is no personal financial gain. Unfortunately, I don't know enough people willing to risk the money in order to crowd fund the $5k I need to get started on the short. Maybe in a few years $5k will be a drop in the bucket, but for this second, it's two months worth of living expenses covered. It's also a lot easier to get a feature off the ground then a series of shorts, which is why I'm still focused on making a feature. And no... it's not SciFi, it's a crime drama to be shot on Super 16. :) The truly great SciFi films of the late 70's and 80's, they will never be seen again. It's a simple economic condition because audiences these days wouldn't be wow'ed by a movie like 'Blade Runner' or 'Alien' as they were when they initially released. Today's largest audience group (male teenagers) need to have their minds blown in order to make something successful enough to recoup it's budget. It's a catch 22... you either focus a product for adults and make it super low budget, OR you focus it towards teens and you have to spend more in order to make more in the back end. The more you spend, the more the studio has control over the finished product. So real great SciFi, needs to be made on the cheap in order to stay a live and that's hard when small-time production budgets are so low. Most feature-length productions are made for less then a million dollars today and that's down from the mid 2000's height of 5 million. It's HARD to make a movie like 'Alien' or 'Blade Runner' for less then a million dollars. Again, you could have the best story in the world, but if people are convinced in the environment, they simply won't care and the product will be a flop. Ohh trust me, when I go onto production on "Girl and the Robot" my SciFi short, there will be many posts about it. :)

Arri advertised as being shot on the Alexa 65. IMDB and Shot on what.com both say Alexa 65. Plus, Rogers own forum, doesn't mention what you found. I didn't know about Roger Deakins dot com, never heard of it. I always go to deakinsonline.com Not being a hard-ass, I google searched and came up with nothing. You found the only evidence and it kinda shows something is amiss. Maybe the 2nd unit shot Alexa 65?

Ya know, I dislike 90% of the crap in theaters today, I was just hoping Rogue One would have been "acceptable" rather then space trash. The Force Awakens was tolerable, but that's because we already knew the characters. I for one am not a big JJ Abrams fan. I do have a bunch of fantastic SciFi stories, but unfortunately they all cost money. So I have shelved all of them for a day in the future. In the meanwhile, I will stick to making smaller films and becoming recognized so one day I CAN make those bigger movies.

The only thing I found on there was from mid 2015, which was WAY before they started production.

I make movies on CHRISTMAS!! YEAY! #ARRI #RED #DIGITAL #WHYNOTFILM #WTF #CHRISTMAS #WHYISTHEGROUNDORANGE Merry Merry everyone! :D

And it doesn't matter what the equipment is! When I purchase anything, I test it thoroughly before putting it into service. If that's new piece for my home theater or a new camera, lens, mic, doesn't matter... everything is fully tested before using it.

Me too, I'm all about sparse score. Can't say the film was lacking in score, it just wasn't a "full" score. You can hear it on iTunes, it's pretty good. Actually the death scene was super well done, gory and in real time. Had a few shocks from the audience.

One more thing to mention... I saw this film at the AMC Burbank and they have some strange screens there that look very funny. Last time I went to this theater (few years ago) I thought it was the projectors, but they're all Sony 4k models, so I doubt that was the issue. Today however I looked more carefully and it seems like the screens are designed to reflect light differently then most screens. They aren't completely flat I believe, I think they have some reflective material to them. This makes movies look very strange and more soft then normal I feel. I was very unimpressed with the presentation I saw of this movie. Yet another example of theaters trying present things differently and failing miserably.

One more thing to mention... I saw this film at the AMC Burbank and they have some strange screens there that look very funny. Last time I went to this theater (few years ago) I thought it was the projectors, but they're all Sony 4k models, so I doubt that was the issue. Today however I looked more carefully and it seems like the screens are designed to reflect light differently then most screens. They aren't completely flat I believe, I think they have some reflective material to them. This makes movies look very strange and more soft then normal I feel. I was very unimpressed with the presentation I saw of this movie. Yet another example of theaters trying present things differently and failing miserably.

The film was not made in 3D, it like MOST 3D movies was converted in post. They only do it because they get $20 per ticket for 3D vs $14 - $16 for 2D and that extra money is worth it.

Maybe... I was actually at fotokem when the IMAX truck picked up the print a few weeks before it opened. I didn't even think to ask him where it was going, figured it was being shipped out of state.

Umm.. You can buy 10 of the same second hand camera for ONE of the Kodak cameras and cannibalize those 10 for the next 100 years. The new Kodak camera is ALL ELECTRONIC. Just an FYI, the great thing about film cameras is they're all MECHANICAL, insert motor on the input shaft and the movement does the work. This new Kodak camera is controlled by a processor and software. It doesn't even have an optical viewfinder! With all that complexity, there's bound to be a problem much sooner then a 40 year old, all-mechanical camera that simply needs some lubrication every 10 years to keep running. When Kodak sells out of the new camera and stops making them (I assume it will be a limited production run), once their 7 year federally mandated support period is over, that will be the end of it. When one breaks, who is going to support it? Sometimes the truth is boring. New... in most cases, isn't "better"... It's just "different". In this case, there is nothing "different" or "better" with the output from this new camera. The video is 100% public, it's on youtube and facebook, random people are seeing it. So far nobody is impressed.

'Jackie' is far better then a normal bio pic. The story of Jackie Kennedy during the days after the presidents assassination, isn't exactly the kind of movie I'd normally be interested in. However, Natalie Portman playing Jackie Kennedy, french filmmaker Pablo Larraín and the stunning use of Super 16 to bring the audience back to 1963, were enough to peak my interest. 'Jackie' in of itself is a very simple story and from what I can tell, is completely true and told mostly in her own words. The filmmakers used many devices to tell the story, all of them pretty unique and interesting like the re-creation of old live broadcasts and the use of original 16mm footage from events around the capitol post assassination. The filmmakers did a brilliant job showing the confusion and depression that followed the assassination, making it realistic and heartfelt. Natalie Portman was outstanding in her (hopefully) oscar-winning performance portraying Jackie. It's been years since I've seen someone play a person in history so well. Not only did she talk just like her, but she even looked like her. I was convinced from the first frame to the last frame, which is very impressive. Technically, the film was just brilliant. The use of S16 (retaining the formats 1.67:1 aspect ratio) was fantastic. The film wasn't very grainy/noisy, but it did look as if the film was underexposed slightly because it looked very flat, without a lot of dynamics. The filmmakers were obsessed with the "single" shot during any dialog scenes. This technique helped them get right into the emotion of whoever was talking. I felt the lens choices were also spot-on, using a lot of the same focal length except for some well-placed zooms that worked so well. At one point, with the very unique score whaling in the background with a long zoom shot, 'Jackie' felt almost like a Kubrick film. The sparse score felt like something out of 'There Will be Blood' rather then a normal bio pic. This was to intensify the confusion and it worked very well, I just loved the score. As my analytical mind chewed on the film I noticed, there wasn't a single scene that felt out of place or unwanted, every frame was necessary to tell the story and the use of "floating" time, helped keep it interesting. I was impressed the filmmakers re-created much of the White House on a soundstage somewhere in Europe, rather then use the sets here in the states. Most of the film was shot in France, which seems like an exorbitant expense, but I gather it was necessary for some reason, maybe due to financing. Filmmaking wise, 'Jackie' was a lesson in how to tell a very simple story without letting it bore the audience. It's a character study and unfortunately, it's about someone don't even know about. The film itself is about Jackie trying to make the American people remember John Kennedy and in a lot of ways, the film exists to remind people who Jackie was. I loved 'Jackie' and not because I'm some film snob, it's because the filmmaking within the movie was so well done. It's rare to see such GOOD filmmaking in main stream theatrical movies. Portman has two hands on the Golden Globe and Oscar for her role, nobody can touch her heartfelt and perfect performance. It's sad because there are so many great performances this year, but I think she's got it in the bag. 8.5/10 4 stars out of 5.

'La La Land' is the new "standard" for fun in cinema. From the very opening number, 'La La Land' delivers a perfect mix of fantastic characters and excellent acting, mixed with vibrant musical numbers that harken back to an era of filmmaking many people forgot about. 'La La Land' is aptly named because the filmmakers are clearly in love with Hollywood, not just in location, but also in the story itself, which revolves around "making it" in the industry. So much of the story hit home, everyone in this industry has the struggles these characters go through and to me, that association made the story ever more entertaining. I must admit, I've never been a huge fan of musicals. However, the way 'La La Land' dealt with their music, worked very well. They didn't tell the story through singing, they told the story through music. If you think about it, that's the RIGHT way to make a musical because most people don't want to be sung to, but they will gladly hear a nice song that helps fill in a normal dialog scene. This film dives deep into music of various kinds and how people in the music industry are forced to do work they normally wouldn't do in order to fulfill their dreams. In a lot of ways, it's the sad reality of being in a more creative field these days and this film hit's a home run when it comes to telling the truth. Technically 'La La Land' is extremely proficient with a brilliant concept of dimming lights around actors to "pause" certain moments and sing a song for instance. It's a great device that I haven't seen used in this fashion in a long time. The dance numbers were also shot with one flowing camera move, that made them much more exciting then the more classical fast cutting method. The amount of steadicam work is absolutely insane, it seems like every scene with someone moving was shot with steadicam. You could see the cuts between takes, where they did a digital splice between two takes in order to break long takes up, but it worked well. The film was shot on 35mm with anamorphic lenses (2.40:1 aspect ratio) and it looked pretty good. Very little noticeable grain, though it was for sure a 2k finish. I was a bit dismayed with some over-exposed scenes in harsh daylight, something that could have easily been fixed on set, but it was clearly unfixable in post or they would have fixed it. There were also some issues with focus pulling, but with film cameras and anamorphic lenses, it's really hard to judge focus on complex camera moves. Lighting wise, the film was proficient, but nothing crazy. Lots of big sources at night with a key of some kind. Lots of controlled "set" lighting, which worked SOO well! I felt the set's were fantastic and so professionally done, those moments really stole the show lighting wise. The music/songs were catchy and some of the jazz numbers within the movie, were even better then the score. Of course, the actors sung and performed all of the songs on their own, including Ryan Gosling having to learn the piano from scratch in a few months of tutoring. Even John Legend has a role in the movie and does a great job, not only acting, but with writing a really nice track for the film. I loved how the film was edited (most likely written this way), which wasn't as chronological as most movies. There is even an epilogue, kind of a 4th act so to speak, that was absolutely brilliant and unexpected. That mixed with the editing style that held onto longer takes and single's vs the more standard 2 shot, it was just brilliantly made. There were moments where the filmmakers just stayed on a single, non-moving actor talking facing the camera, just looking to the right or left of the lens, for a good solid two minutes. The takes were EPIC and it worked so well thanks to the fantastic cast and I would assume, a lot of ad-lib. Over-all, I absolutely loved 'La La Land' in every way. Even though there were some technical snafus', and the big tap dance number could have been way better, I felt the movie over-all was extremely strong and VERY fun. You could tell the filmmakers were having fun making it and honestly, I was having a blast watching it. To me, more intelligent "fun" movies like this, are what is lacking in Hollywood. It seems more and more, the studio films would rather be stupid and fun, rather then intelligent and fun. This is where 'La La Land' really changes the paradigm and is just one excellent ride! I don't say this much but I do believe this is the best "general audience" movie I've seen in decades and for sure the best one this year by leaps and bounds. 9/10 4.5 stars out of 5.

Fo sho! If you have the money and you're trying to make a living off of the results, you have no choice... the risks are too high. It's just, a lot of people who shoot super 8, can't afford to spend that kind of money. They'll shoot 3 rolls a year if they're lucky. So the $50 investment on an ebay camera is worth the risk.

Right, scanned camera negative and then adjust. You're also right that it's harder to make corrections after a print is made. With that said, shooting daylight stock indoors, in a "warmer" environment, can generally be corrected out no matter what. It's shooting indoor stock outdoors without a filter, that's where things get tricky because you get into a noise issue when you try to bring up the warmer color tones to compensate.

With a old school telecine, it's better to try and correct during the transfer if you're capturing REC709. With a scanner, you'd fix it in post. If you only have access to a telecine, sometimes operators know how to capture the image in a more flat "log" style, which will give you more room for correction in post. I've never had a problem shooting exteriors and interiors on the same roll of film, without filtration and fixing it in post. As David points out, a contact print will have loss crispness to the image. This is why everyone today scans the negative and doesn't bother making prints. I have a tendency to make a print and project one roll of film from each movie I make, just to understand the color pallet so when I get into post, I have a better understanding of what the negative actually looks like, rather then what just the scan looks like.

Umm, the IMAX website says "laser digital 3D". So when you go to a movie and expect it to be 3D, but it's not... that's called false advertising.

Well, its fairly inexpensive to test. Any NEW camera would need to be tested anyway.