John Allen

Ok so maybe I'm just too young to know the real "bond", but to me this was one of my favorite bonds. My reason is because all of the bonds had this cheesy "I'm James Bond and I'm better than Superman so you should come sleep with me tonight." That corniness is absolutely absurd. In my opinion all of the other James Bonds had no realism what so ever. The last one Casino Royale, even tho I must admit that I did enjoy it, I still think that it looked like it was made in the 90's. It was much too colorful, low contrasted, and it was like they were trying to go for the same old cheesy, sleezy Bond film. I personally think that if Quantum of Solace looked like a Bourne then GREAT!!! Thank goodness that a Bond film is actually getting to where it should be. Instead of it being a bunch of lame films where the hero just gets layed all the time. It's supposed to be a thriller, NOT Austin Powers.

And as for the Action shots, I liked what I saw. It felt very 60's like. I liked how each shot was no longer than 2 or 3 sec. long. It added confusion which in my mind is very realistic and smart. It gets you watching closer to see what's happening. Oh and I loved the idea of using silence to enhance the action shot.

I think overall the Quantum of Solace was a great film, and I think all of you guys are way too critical about this, AND other things. Sometimes I wonder if you all have a life, cause all I see is that everybody on here just likes to complain and tear apart things that you were never able to work on yourself. It reminds me very much of kids in high school. I'm getting very sick of all the crap that I have to read through on this forum. Everybody has a very critical view of everything.

But again I think this Bond was a good one. It's finally getting away from the old lame Bond films and is trying to move on to something new. I think that Mark Forster did a great job!!

Yeah, that's a very interesting point.

I found two ten foot tall glossy high quality posters for that film in a dumpster :lol:

 

must have been a print error.

Did you keep them? Dude, I would......ten feet would be awesome for my room. lol

Thanks a lot for all you help and suggestions guys. I am in Cedar Rapids, IOWA U.S.A. I am looking for a school which would give a lot of pratical approach and learn as much as i can. And i am checking the list gave me.

 

Thanks a ton :)

Naveen

I live in Iowa myself, and I'm planning to attend Columbia College Chicago. It's a really nice school. The director I'm working with goes there and told me that they are rated in the top 5 for cinematography in the nation. Also, incidently, Janusz Kaminski went there. :)

Wow, really great!!

Yeah, that too.

Hmmmm.........that looks like it might have been created by an on camera light, but by the look of the shapes, it doesn't look to be a ring light.

I'm going to try and get in there in about four years time. I can't think of much I want do more, except perhaps go to space!

haha yeah, it's pretty amazing.

You didn't say where you lived, so I'll input this anyway. National Film and Television School somewhere near London does a cinematography course.

Just to add to that. Roger Deakins went there. But I don't want to say that will make it automatically a good school. Schools don't make you professional, but they can help. Anywho, hope you find what you're looking for. :)

One thing about rules that I've found is this; they're not rules. They're just things to help you learn basics and then create your own look. Like a lot of times I'll just use a key and a back light, or sometimes just a key. Where as the "rule" is that you go by 3 point light which quite frankly is my least favorite look. So see first you learn the rules and then the best thing to do sometimes is to break them. The main point is to do the thing that will get you the look you want even if it means you have to break all the "hollywood" rules to do it. That's the only way we move forward, by finding the new.

And sorry, that was kinda random, but it kinda had to do with the idea that you have to have an eye light, which is totally the wrong way to look at it. One of the things that separates the pro's from the amatuers is that the pro's have learned not to follow by the rules if it means that it won't look the way they want. Where as the am's do. But I'm not saying that's always the case.

Yeah.

Oh and btw, if your wondering, example (A) would be created by the Rembrandt key light arrangement; putting the key 45 degrees to one side and 45 degrees above the talent on that side. And that's just a basic rule, but you don't need to follow it. It just gives you a starting point.

That idea that the french came up with that an eye-light in either the bottom or top half of the eye suggests different feelings sounds interesting, however I don't believe it to be true.

Yep, it is. I'm not sure where I heard or saw it or else I would give you a link, but I want to say "Visions of Light", but I don't think that was it. Oh and I meant to say "some french cinematographers". Sorry, that might have confused you. Eyelights are a very interesting subject, but you want to make sure it doesn't conflict with how you talent to be lit with the key. Because sometimes trying to get your eyelight perfect can ruin your keylight. Good question though. :)

Yeah definitely. Like you said, I(DP) don't really need pay a whole lot right now cause it helps me get jobs, or in my position maybe scholarships and jobs in the future. But I agree, I wouldn't want to make a grip or gaffer, etc work for free. Even if I had to pay them out of my pocket rather than the budget I would.

Yeah, so far we've had pretty low budgets, mostly coming from our pockets. So we've had to get actors/actresses who will do it for free, but we've always gave them a percentage in what ever profit we'll make. Sometimes you just can't pay them out of the budget, and if they're ok with not getting paid, then it's fine. But it would be nice to pay them, and that's what we want to do.

Oh sweet! Thanks Adrian.

Oh and Chris, if anyone asks, I'll just say it was a drive by too. lol ;)

It's certainly a good plan. Also raffles, parties etc can raise money. On top of all of that, if there is any topical "issue" in the film then you can also try for grants. that may be a long shot for a narrative short; I don't know, I've only heard of grants --rumored like El Dorado -- from docs though.

Oh very cool. Thanks!

Hehe, nice, sounds like a good film, I'd like to see it. :)

Yeah our plan was to present at least a 1st draft, then concept art and location shots as well as show our other shorts and reels and awards that we've received. Oh and since I'm the DP, the director thought it would be good that I find out the cost of lighting and other expenses for the budget, which should be surprisingly low, cause I have own most of the bigger lights and grip I'll need that I have collected from the previous films I've shot. So that's our plan for now, and the director probably has other things he would like to prepare.

Steve that was some great stuff, thank you! :)

Thanks Adrian! Yeah we haven't been shot at yet, thanks goodness. :)

But yeah thanks for the helpful advice. So far that's been kinda how we've paid for our films, just getting money anyway we can.

Well my director could probably tell you a hundred more things than this, but just recently on our short film, we have had to shoot in blistering snow days and among other things, our lead actress goes and gets drunk on Halloween and punched in the face so we had to find another actress. That's just a couple of our easiest complications that we've had to endure. This is our life guys, on every film we have ever shot, we have been sooooo close to not being able to finish it because of something that went wrong that wasn't our falt. Our determination and love and "seriousness" as you call it has been what keeps us going. Cause quite frankly if I didn't love this art as much as I do, then I would've gave up, because sometimes it's crap to get it finished. But I could never just give up on it, cause this is my life! So we are most definitely "serious" about filmmaking, we are about as "serious" as it gets.

But this topic was NOT asking if you guys think we're "serious" or not. It was asking about how we go about getting ppl to fund our movie. So please give us helpful questions. It means, what things have helped you guys to get funding, how have YOU gone about getting funded.

One thing about this forum that I absolutely hate, is that ppl don't answer the questions straight foward. Please, DON'T treat this forum as if it were a court room. We're all learning from each other, and so we all need to give informative answers, and maybe you were, but it sounded critical, which is what I've been seeing plague this forum.

Thanks to those who have been helpful and have answered the question asked. And I know I'm not a moderator, but I'd really like to see more helpful comments instead of critical. And like I stated before, I'm sorry if I misunderstood anyone. Maybe you were truly trying to be helpful and instructive and if that was the case I would love to know, and thank you. :)

I wasn't the biggest fan of Indy 4, that stupid monkey scene just killed it from then on. but I think Kaminski did a fine job.. maybe not the best hes done, but it wasn't horrible. How can anyone who is not shooting projects of that scale able to comment on it? If it turned out that way with him there on set everyday, how would it have turned out if you were there in his shoes?

Exactly! We shouldn't be criticizing someones cinematography so much that it makes us sound as if we're better than him. Criticizing is a lot of times a good thing. It keeps this art moving forward, but when we're talking about someone who maybe didn't do his greatest job in his career, but it wasn't that bad either. Then we shouldn't just tear it apart. That shows a great deal of ignorance on our part, thinking that we are all such great cinematographers that we can tear apart a multiple oscar winning dp's work.

But if you really think it was sooooo bad that you need to say that it sucks and it's the worst job of lighting, PLEASE let us know WHY you think its bad. Don't just ramble on that you hate it and stuff, that's pointless. The only way we move ahead from criticizem is when we know why its being criticized. Then we will learn from that person's mistake, and move forward.

I might not have told you this earlier but I actually have some legal advice I'm planning on discussing this with.

But thanks for asking for me anyway :-) You just keep hitting up your family for some cash :-)

Oh yeah I forgot you told me that yesterday. Sweet. :)

I'm asking this, cause the poster and I work together.

Anyway, my question was about legal documents. Do we need to get a lawyer or can we make or find legal documents that insure us that ppl who give us money can not sue us later if they don't make a profit? So let's say that someone gives us 10 grand and we only make him 9 grand back, then we need to have him sign some document that states that he can not in any way sue us for not making money in return. Where would we find a document like this? And do we need a lawyer to do this kind of transaction?

As Roger Deakins always says is that he doesn't pay a whole lot of attention on the eye lights. He usually lights the talent the way he likes and then leaves the eyes the way they are, which gives them a realistic look.

The French also did a study where they found that eyes lit above the iris stood for happiness and eyes lit below stood for sadness.

But If I picked from the choices A or B then I would pick A.