Tyler Purcell

Absolutely and anything with VFX is more like 80% production design because you can make ANYTHING in a computer. The "cinematographers" role is unfortunately fading away. Yes, it's still important to understand lighting, composition and how shots work together in post, but CG guys are learning those tricks fast. It's only a matter of time before the cinematographers role is relegated to "art" films and the vast majority of standard theater fodder is done in post with a really good story board artist and a visionary director. It's a lot easier to hit the "undo" button on a keyboard when you don't like something, then it is to "undo" a practical set. This what I mean by "lazy" filmmakers.

100% It's not a "cinematographers" movie and likewise, it shouldn't be voted on as such. It's like giving best cinematography to an animation film or 'Life of Pi' which was the biggest travesties in recent Academy voting. "It's pretty, that means the DP is awesome" give me a break! I agree with Richardson when he said, there should be a new award for digital nonsense. That way you can separate real filmmaking on set from eye popping visual crap.

Its funny you mention 'The General' because I haven't yet seen a film that comes close to it. I have that film on Super 8, 16mm, laserdisc and DVD. LOL :) Probably seen it 200 times, tinted, non-tinted, you name it! We still haven't come near the quality of that film and it's SILENT! My big beef about today's film is that action seems forced, it rarely moves the plot forward. It's like an episode of the Simpsons, where you start and end the show with everything back to normal. That's how action films are made today and people are so caught up in spectacle, they get so over-powered by the visuals, they just freak out! That emotional freakout is what causes them to like it. The film moves so quickly from scene to scene, you don't have a moment to contemplate anything. You have no time to think, so you won't catch all the obvious ridiculous stupidity spread throughout, stuff that just flat-out doesn't make sense. Remember 'Gravity' and how everyone just loved it when it came out? Yet NOBODY talks about it anymore... it was last weeks flavor, today it's Mad Max and tomorrow it will be something else. These modern films have zero staying power, they're simply here to make money and disappear. Look... it's quite simple. If you throw a bunch of poop at my face, I'm going to turn your film off. I don't care who makes it, the film is being shut off and it gets a zero. If you're going to think the audience is bunch of dumb-asses and treat them as such, your film is also going to be shut off. 'The Martian' is a great example of that... the whole film they treat the audience like idiots. Yes, I know it's based on a science nerds book, but man it's all wrong. Dust storms big enough to topple space ships? Undeniably impossible. Thin wet-suit looking space suits? IMPOSSIBLE. Big glass helmets? No way in hell. Ohh.. you can turn the head of a robot, but you can't send morse code? Give me a break! Big space ship with thousands of square feet of wasted space? Yea right. 'The Martian' gets a big fat thumbs down because it tries to be clever, but fails to deliver anything but stupidity. Yes, Matt Damon's dialog was witty and worked well, there were some funny moments that sucked the audience away from the obvious bullshit. But as a movie that's suppose to be grounded in some realism, it was the stupidest thing I've ever seen. This is where 'Interstellar' worked, because they had actual scientists working on the film, developing the technology and making it hyper realistic. However, it went over people's head and people didn't like it, yet it has immense staying power. It's a film that will be looked back upon 20 years from now and maybe it will take that long to understand, like so many other films. 'Fury Road' has nothing, it's fluff, it's air, it doesn't move the soul or give any reason to exist other then to waste time. At least 'Hateful Eight' had dialog and told a story! Only reason Fury Road got a nod is because people don't care anymore. Most voters probably ask their kids or worse, go on google and see if other people liked it. I doubt most voters even see the movies, they're too busy watching pay television because in a lot of cases it's far better then what we put in theaters today.

Sweet! I always heard of something like this, but never knew where to nab one! :) Thanks for the link!

Did they miss the cutoff or something? Why wasn't it eligible?

What is the story? In the future we have poisoned our water supply through fracking and it's become the highest valued commodity? Why? Most of the film is shot with the vehicles at a stand still and a bunch of artists sitting in comfy chairs have re-created the scenes in their computers and made them look like they were in motion, when they really weren't. YES, there were some amazing stunts done in the film, some absolute top notch stuff that looked very challenging. However, without a story, without character development, without a screenplay, the action is simply there to waste time. I could care less if someone falls off and gets killed, who cares? That's because it's just eye candy and honestly it shares zero... and I mean absolutely NOTHING with films like Terminator 2, which is one of the best action films ever made. Why? Because T2's action only exists to move the plot forward. The bad guy catches up to the good guy after a long dialog scene and it pushes the film into a different direction. You care about the characters and you don't want them to be injured, so during the action scenes, your on the edge of your seat! Not so with Fury Road. None of it makes any difference because it's all show and spectacle. Cameron shot T2 with his eye in the viewfinder for most of the film. There is a very famous still picture of him riding in the side car of a motorbike, facing backwards with an Arri III on his lap looking in the viewfinder. Man, it doesn't get much better then that! In my eyes, that's real filmmaking. Miller sat in a comfy chair watching a monitor and screaming through the "god mic"... yea, that's what filmmaking has come down to. 'Life of PI' and 'Gravity' went all the way, yet both films are completely forgettable (comparable because they're VFX driven). Here we are though, 25 years later and still talking about T2. Which by the way, was nominated for 6 academy awards including best cinematography and won 4. I bet Fury Road takes those same technical achievement awards and disappears into obscurity. Yep! So sad... Only ONE person I know loves it. But she loves obscure cinema and the shock factor so I get it.

It's all good... I have different feelings then you do based on my deciphering of what I've seen and read. Still, I just listened to Seale talk again in a different interview, stating once again that the film was all Miller's, with no real script and he had little to no input on shot composition. What does a DP do in that case?

True! But it's the state of the film industry which gets me riled up, rather then "film" itself.

Hey now, I shoot digital 99.5% of the time and probably won't be changing that anytime soon. I've been shooting film since 1987. ;)

Well, I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I merely stated, I don't feel Mad Max Fury Road deserves a nomination for cinematography because Seale's hands were tied behind his back because the director, VFX crew and DIT. It appeared to me, reading about and listening to him talk, that he was relegated to C camera (kind of a joke) because there was nothing else to do for him but look at a monitor. In my mind, a cinematographers job is more then staring at a monitor, even if you have a well lubricated crew. Thank god guys like Lachman, Richardson, and Deakins STILL have their eye in the A camera viewfinder, where it belongs. That's where Seale wanted to be for the entire shoot, but clearly was UNABLE to. That to me is the travesty... a WONDERFUL artist relegated to C camera.

How can one NOT be bitter in the current state of things?

All I need is a sample of full white, full black and of course example of what it looks like in motion. It wouldn't look identical, but very close.

Funny you say that, I've heard similar things.

My whole point is that he wasn't really the DP of the film, Miller was and he used the DIT/VFX guys to make that film happen. Seale was put on the back burner, relegated to running a C camera. If you can't see that through Seale's body language and how unexcited he was about talking about the film. I saw his frustration throughout the entire interview. There are also more interviews I've read in ICG and AC which were interesting side notes that backup what he said.

He abandoned even being involved with the A camera.

I do have an axe to grid because people are UNEDUCATED and it drives me crazy! If cinematographers knew, what they shot wouldn't last forever and was going to be down-sampled to the lowest acceptable resolution for theatrical release, don't you think they'd make changes? The problem is that everyone keeps their mouth shut about this topic. The rug is lifted up, the topic is swept underneath and nobody is the wiser. I have been in production meetings as a technical expert, trying to persuade filmmakers to shoot film so it will last forever and the moment I show them my worksheet on data loss and longevity, they flip their lid. Yet, most people still shoot digital because it's easier. The problem is, everyone is nearsighted, they can only see whatever project they are working on next. VERY few people care about longevity and no... I can't think of a single cinematographer who has outwardly stated they prefer the look of digital over film. As in, the reason they aren't shooting film is because they dislike it's looks. In fact, MOST cinematographers on MOST movies comment how difficult it would be for them to shoot film, so they "SETTLE" for digital. So here we are, it's been 15 years since we started shooting digitally and nothing has changed.

Yep, I saw that and it clearly shows you how frustrated Seale was. Re-watch it and you can see for yourself. I did a bit of digging and pulled up some other interviews in magazines and such, which re-count his frustrations even further. The bits about the DIT were hilarious and scary. The cinematographer, the one who's job it is to do things like make sure the exposure is correct, make sure there is proper lighting on the actors face, make sure the lens selection is right for the shot, make camera decisions and work with the director on delivering his vision, was overruled by some punk ass computer nerd sitting in a black van. So Seale got bored, grabbed a unit and shot C camera. Otherwise, per his own words, he'd be sitting around watching a monitor. Besides, the WHOLE MOVIE was made in post. I've seen raw camera material and it looked like ass even with a decent LUT applied. Not to mention every shot had effects. Also... I have no idea why ANYONE in their right mind would even give that movie the time of day. It was exactly what is wrong with cinema today; just throw a bunch of poop at people's faces, where decent films like Beasts of No Nation doesn't even get a nod? For ANY category? Swap all the nods (outside of VFX) for Fury Road with Beasts of No Nation and that would be the best thing the Academy would have done. But yet again, let the stupidity reign!

Yea like lighting? They didn't really use lights. The director selected the lenses, he selected the cameras, he selected the compositions of each shot. According to John Seale, he literally was pushed out of the normal cinematography job and into that of a camera operator. So to say Mad Max Fury Road's "cinematography" is good... that award doesn't belong to Seale, it really belongs to Miller. I mean Seale was there, he was just incapacitated and a "requirement" from the studio. I'm sure Miller would have rather not had a DP on location at all. Now it's hard for me to work with DP's because I went to school for it and ALWAYS run the camera. However, there is no way I'd push the EXTREMELY TALENTED John Seale away from adding his creative input during production. However, Miller did just that and it pisses the ever living poop out of me. If I were Seale I would have said **(obscenity removed)** you all, I'm going home. By the way, this is all well documented.

Wait PXL2000 arguably the worst camera ever made, is a "great camera" for doing different stuff? If you aren't shooting film... if your whole world is digital... you can make digital look like ANYTHING in post. No reason to waste time, money and energy on making old video cameras work, when you can buy a decent camera for not much more money. I know I sound like a broken record and everyone is probably tired of hearing this, but the blackmagic pocket cameras are going for $600 on ebay. You can buy a piece of junk M43 lens for $150 bux and be done with.

Ohh now that's pretty sweet! :) Now only if it did 65mm! (yes I'm obsessed) :)

It's actually worse then that as well. The vast majority of filmmakers just flat-out don't care! To them, the ease of shooting digital is all they care about, even if they could rent the on-site instant dailies mobile lab, it doesn't matter. Sure, MOST films are just garbage anyway, entertainment for bored people. But there are some AMAZING movies being shot on digital and the excuses for not shooting on film range from, no lab near the production location to X-Ray issues on The Revenant. Everyone has an excuse why they can't make their movie on film, yet there are still at least 20 big movies each year being shot on film. Now for the worse part... There is no long-term storage program for digital media. We have a huge collection of 100+ year old films, some were destroyed in fires, but those that exist, we can still see today in many cases. Modern RGB separation prints, which are struck for MOST movies to this day, will last upwards of 300 years! At this point in time, outside of RGB separation prints, the life expectancy of a digital camera master file is roughly 10 years. We made this huge leap into digital filmmaking, around 15 years ago and it's come A LONG WAY. We have these crazy 6 and 8k cameras today, we have all theaters outfitted with digital cinema projectors and we have a workflow that's downright easy. Yet, MOST films are finished in 2k resolution. The RGB separation prints would be struck off that 2k master file. So the "archive" of the film is 2k!!! Doesn't matter if you shot it on a 10k camera, it's still a 2k finish. So 50 years from now when studio's go back through catalogs and re-release things in 8k, that high resolution master file, won't exist! We will have a 12 bit 2k DCP and a 2k originated RGB separation print. One could argue that theatrical prints were 4th generation and in a lot of cases, lower resolution then today's digital films. However, that's only because nobody bothered improving the technology. All the money went into faster camera stocks, digital audio and smaller/quieter cameras. Nobody bothered to sit down and make an all-new workflow for motion picture film, a format that hasn't changed much since the beginning of WWII! Imagine what our current digital projects will look like 80 years from now. They'll be like VHS to High Definition (1080p). Go watch Gone With the Wind or Wizard of Oz and tell me they don't look flat-out amazing on BluRay. Do you think any of the current digital acquisition films will look that good? No way... we'll STILL be watching restored versions of those movies saying to ourselves, why did filmmaking take such a left turn. Thank god we have so many awesome filmmakers who understand this problem and are using film to it's benefit. The 70mm acquisition and distribution with photochemical finish workflow/revolution, has just started. Theaters are now realizing, hey... we can get 3D prices for screenings! Maybe FILM will put an end to 3D! Only time will tell.

John Seale had very little to do with the cinematography of that film according to himself. The DIT took over principal A camera photography and Seale ran C camera with a long lens for most of the production. Plus... it's a HEAVY VFX film and slow-mo film, relying on "gimmicks" and substantial post work to make it pretty. In my eyes, it shouldn't even be nominated... there is really nothing "special" about it. 100%. I thought Carol was the most outstanding achievement in Cinematography with Bridge of Spies right on it's heal. Even though I didn't like a few things in Bridge of Spies cinematography wise, I thought the good stuff was flat-out perfect. The open of the film for instance in old New York, those scenes were so well done. It's so true and it was my biggest beef with that film AND Hateful Eight. It was like, meh... anyone can go outside and shoot nature. I mean for gosh sakes with Hateful Eight, they had one room to light... "best cinematography" don't think so. Carol blew my mind away, the simplicity of each setup, the color pallet, framing and staging, it was so well made. I REALLY hope he win's, but we all know the most pretty films win. In my opinion, cinematography should be based on what comes through the lens, not what one highly trained specialist does sitting in a chair for a week or two AFTER the film is done.

The Alexa 65 has a 6k imager that's more or less equivalent in size a 5 perf 65mm frame. But it's still 12 bit and there currently isn't a higher quality distribution format then 4k. So where it's awesome to have a 6k camera, nobody is going to see that resolution until we have 8k cinema projectors, which is A LONG WAY OFF, considering MOST projectors are still 2k and MOST movies are finished in 2k. 65mm camera negative resolves 32bit @ more than 8k resolution. Prints resolve a bit less then 6k. So it's still a FAR superior format to anything we can shoot and distribute digitally. The problem is, the moment it hits a computer, you're most likely dropping bit depth and resolution.

Yep agree. I do know the lens/imager are "fixed" on the demo's I saw. But you could theoretically make a longer lens to "zoom" the image and of course crack the software to compensate.

Well... yea. People try to spend all this time and money making a consumer format look good. No matter what, it's a consumer format... Reminds me a lot of hi-8 and svhs. Consumer formats that had "professional" equipment made, but the results were still far lower then betacam. I posted on one of the other kodak super 8 threads that super 16mm is still far better quality and similar cost to a logmar super 8 camera and using super 8 as a format.