Jump to content

George Ebersole

Premium Member
  • Posts

    1,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by George Ebersole

  1. I have egg on my face. I was looking at his acting credits. Still, the whole film, to me at lest, is one giant 1980's graphic novel.
  2. How a long a lens do you think was used for each of those shots?
  3. Are you sure about that? Green's got a lot of superhero stuff to his name, where Fancher has all kinds of genres under his belt. Legend looks like a high budget high-concept two-hour long commercial. It's got about as much substance as this film. Seriously though, this film really felt like a two-hour long graphic novel.
  4. As per my "Outland" thread; saw it, didn't like it much. Visually it was bleak though interesting, and also couldn't decide what kind of look it wanted. Story wise, as per my review and commentary on other forums, it feels like a giant graphic novel. Replicants are supposed to be artificial beings who may or may not develop emotions they don't know how to deal with. That's never touched on in the film. They are in essence sociopaths. There's no explanation for their sudden realization of life and valuing life. There's one story twist, but even before that the story is kind of predictable, and after it's resolved the film become extremely predictable. Original Blade Runner had its issues as well, but there was a kind of mystery and ambiguity that left you hanging on the edge of your seat. There's no real mystery here, and the villain is just another megalomaniac psychopath--a graphic novel stock villain. The science, again unlike original Blade Runner, is never really put forth. There's a lot of emphasis on "the child", and "finding the child" without really explaining why that's important. Again, no science as to how replicants start to become normal humans. Even in old 1950's films or the old Japanese Godzilla movies they usually say something like "radiation mutated the thing" or some such. But we don't even get that. I didn't understand the part about K not being able to get out of the precinct or cop HQ alive after blowing his test. Couldn't they just incarcerate him until he got back to normal? And going to Las Vegas was a little hazy. And the bee hive just seemed like another graphic-novel-ism, something that's supposed to be interesting and perhaps forward the plot; i.e. why pick up bees and their hive? Couldn't K just pick up the dog on his scanners in one of the abandoned hotels instead? Lots of female supporting cast, which had me a bit baffled. Why couldn't K be a woman with lots of male supporting characters? Or a mix of both sexes? The film tried to push the miracle of birth, but it's like we know how conception takes place, but again no one ever tries to explain how or why it took place in replicants in this movie. I think Green, who wrote the script (Fancher I'm pretty sure polished it, and had nothing to do with creating the plot) really needed to crack a text on micro-biology, or at least basic chemistry to get put some science in the science fiction. At least make it sound plausible, because then you can build a plot and not have to rely on your DP and on-screen talent to sell your story. Good science fiction is about challenging ideas. There are no ideas challenged here. And the final scene with K and the flakes falling on him, again, that's out of Graphic Novel authorship 101. I guess my other real pet peeve is that they didn't let Rachel and Deckard have a happily ever after life. Again, more graphic novel story tropes. Take the characters from the previous story, and screw with them; divorce, accident, death, breakup over something. With this story you really didn't need them at all. They're just there to put asses in theatre seats. Pretty vapid stuff. On the plus side the audience was civil and the theatre was clean with nice plush seats.
  5. Well, I went and saw Blade Runner 2046 (or whatever the title is), and I can't say I was all that impressed with the story. The visuals are so-so on the impressive side, but the story, however well acted and well shot, was pretty low on the sophistication meter. I'm glad a slower paced film as made, but it wasn't that smart of a story. There was one major story twist, but once that was over the whole thing was fairly predictable. Not to mention a lot of loose ends are never tied up. I don't care how arrogant I sound in saying the following, and it'll probably cost me several career opportunities from pros reading this forum, but I would have shot a different script, and maybe go back to the visual color-noire look back in the 80s. I understand why it was made, I understand who the audience is, but it's like did you really need to use the Blade Runner setting to tell this story? It really feels like a different film that borrows from the 80s to put backsides in seats. That's pretty blunt, but that's how I see it. Compare it to the film which this thread is dedicated, and "Outland" almost looks like Shakespeare in space next to the new "Blade Runner". Oh well. Replies, retorts, any comments on my comments I'd be interested to hear.
  6. Thanks. I'm thinking shooting my own stuff might be a job too many. The most I've ever done is call up PAs, a few grips and a gaffer or two (people I already knew). I've never been a production manager. Thanks for the replies.
  7. Of all the shoots I've been on I've never had to hire a DP. What questions should I ask, and should I ask for a reel?
  8. I never saw "Cries and Whispers", and I hate to admit it, but the only part of "Easy Rider" I've ever seen is the famous intentional "lens flare" mistake ... part of that experimentation. I remember as a kid it was a strange time to go to the movies, because back then movies pre 1970 were night and day compared to stuff after 1970 1971 ... maybe as late as 73. I mean I didn't think to ask about it then, but it did strike me as odd that stuff like "Marathon Man" looked radically different "Hello Dolly". I think the last splashy film I saw from that era was "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". that had that traditional candy gloss look to it. You could even see it in the still photography books. I picked up the hobby around 1977, and at Tower Books they were still selling books from the late 50s up through the late 60s where you had clean cut American males with crew cuts talking about F-stops and focal planes. And then next to them were the long haired full facial hair types talking about the basic, but offering different subjects to take pictures of. Yeah, I remember those times, and there was also a lot of politics attached to the different artistic styles in media. I think the dissatisfaction was just born out of that era or protesting everything. I guess the subject matters also dictated a more realistic style. Again I remember sitting in front of the TV and wondering why the older movies being aired didn't look like the movies in the theatre. Interesting. I think Disney was a holdout. I remember seeing stuff like the Herbie films, the original Pete's Dragon or one of the re-released animated films, and it seems like even with new and faster stocks they were still flooding their sets with lights, and doing that very distinctive ADR in post which always made the films sound like they were recorded in a bathroom or something. Yeah, that was a time to be alive. Very interesting. Thanks for the reply.
  9. Is that also true for a change in look between films in the 60s and films in the 70s?
  10. Yeah, I didn't go back to see it a second time, and only watched it casually when it hit HBO. From a writer's standpoint the film was a departure from the TV series, and rehashing a monster episode probably wasn't the best choice. The movie felt more like a studio trying to play catch-up with another studio's film. Then a year later "The Empire Strikes Back" hits the screens, and in retrospect I wonder why a Trek feature film couldn't have that level of energy. I mean to me, again in retrospect, it seems like Lucas and Kirschner out did Trek at its own game ... going to a snow world, a massive memorable chase sequence in space coupled with a little bit of laser fire, visiting a jungle world, and going to a city floating int the clouds (which I think both Trek and Flash Gordon did in previous TV and serials). But yeah, I mostly liked STTMP's model shots. There's one or two that have me scratching my head. There's a shot where the Enterprise comes within 500 meters of V'Ger, and the POV shot you see of the bridge crew looking at the screen shows some out of focus stuff for the V'Ger miniature. Given the sterling Enterprise shot I wonder why that was out of focus. There's also a top down shot with some shotty matte work as we see the Enterprise traverse that same section of the alien....more of a lab issue, but I wonder why they didn't clean that up. I think the story concept was okay, but that film maybe needed more Klingons, needed Kirk and Crew to beam aboard and get into some fisticuffs and fire fights with V'Gers energy-probe crew .... and maybe another space battle or two along with all of the high falutin stuff about humanity evolving with machines and saving the Earth. Just my inane opinion here. And yeah, the extra footage in the "special extended" edition doesn't add too much.
  11. I wonder if that's also how the SFX team for The Motion Picture got the Enterprise shots when she was still in space dock. I mean talk about giving a thing scale, everything's in focus as like setting a camera down on a navy ship or supertanker and taking a few snaps. To me that's a real art.
  12. That's interesting, because I could have sworn I saw the concept sketches or storyboards for the Klingon release sequence. Either way it never happened. I just remember leaving the theatre down in LA (in some mall...I can't remember which one) and thinking that I hadn't seen much of anything. I still liked the idea of a big feature film, but I think my unarticulated boyish subconisous mind noted; the Enterprise only killed an asteroid (and only with one shot); no phasers were fired, Kirk didn't get into a fist fight, Spock uses his neck pinch one time, I saw way too much of the ship, and no red-shirts got zapped. Oh well.
  13. The original script had the three Klingon battlecruisers being released once V'Ger had gone up in sparks and evolved, but I seem to recall that the sequence was cut because both of budgetary and story issues. The V'Ger thing supposed had entire galaxies stored and digitized, so if the Klingons from the beginning of the movie get released, then what about all the other junk V'Ger had stored? That, and then you have to shoot the battle ... which, depending on how it was scripted, might not have made sense ... unless the newly evolved V'Ger thing came back and put a stop to it. Which just means more animation composited with the model shots.
  14. I saw book in the mi 90s that said as much. It even had a pic with a caption.
  15. I think Robert Wise commented that he felt it was important to show off the ship for the fans. But, fans and critics alike panned that angle. I think Paramount's thinking was that a "space movie" needed to show off "space stuff", and so let Wise do this thing (or they asked him to do it).
  16. Roughly 6 grand for a cystal-sync motor upgrade and carrying case, and possibly replace the lens mount to a standard PL depending on what you have. I got mine back in 89, and it wasn't cheap. But, it's a durable little beast ... I guess you need to be if you're second unit hardware.
  17. Well, to me "2001 a Space Odyssey" still has the best SFX model shots. Star Wars was able to refine the technique to tell a more dynamic story. And I always wondered why the original Star Trek series didn't have 2001 like model shots of the Enterprise and everything else she encountered. The models for the feature films look better, but I think still suffer from the TV image syndrome of the director or production crew feeling the need to light every inch of the ship, giving it a kind of model-like look. I didn't much like Robert Wise's STTMP feature for the story and somewhat static film, but I think the model shots in that film beat the subsequent model shots in the sequels.
  18. Well, maybe whoever was narrating it got their signals confused. But I found this clip, and to me it doesn't look like go motion. https://youtu.be/GHFhp594RlU?t=81
  19. Maybe I'll start another topic, but the thing is when I was a kid watching recycled shows from the 60s during the 70s, police shows weren't the only things that used to be produced. You had adventure shows, spy shows, scifi anthology like Twilight Zone and what have you. I guess IntraVision didn't open new horizons for new scifi, much less scifi on TV. That's too bad. Whatever.
  20. I think one of the older documentaries it was a programmed stop motion move. When you take another look at it you can see the stop motion in action. Incredible stuff.
  21. Star Wars; the opening shot where both models are in focus really sells the enormity of the two space craft. How do you get that kind of a shot? How do you keep everything in focus as it moves away from the camera?
  22. So far I've only seen the bluray on my computer, and not my larger 70" TV which I've yet to unpack until I get new carpeting put in. But from what I've seen everything looks okay. I don't notice any scale discrepancies. There's one shot that uses traditional animation in a real ham-fisted way, and that's the SFX shot where one of the bad guys during the green room show down gets shot into the zero atmosphere of Io (Jupiter's moon). There they used traditional animation to show the guy's body breaking apart, which, compared to the other effects in the film, looks kind of hokey. The shuttle landing uses traditional smoke effects for the thrusters. There they might have helped themselves by spending some money on animation for the engine exhaust, but otherwise it looks okay to me.
  23. I've heard a bit about The Wire over the years, but never saw an episode. There's so many police shows that a man gets exhausted of them (and family sitcoms too). And I guess the other reason I brought up "Outland" on this forum is because the SFX are mostly minis. There's no CGI...maybe Jupiter's atmosphere, but the looks more like traditional animation to me (this is afterall 1981, and the kind of hardware to render that would have made the film prohibitively expensive ... but I could be wrong). Regardless, the minis and use of ImtraVision, to me at least, looks more real and convincing than digital inserts.
  24. Wow, a really well shot film, and the thing that really blew me away visually was that there was no ghosting. Very pan, every dolly move, every zoom (yes, there was a zoom out; slow, subtle, but there), had crystal clear images. I haven't seen a film deliver that kind of motion on screen in forever. Ghosting (at least that's what we call it in videographer country) used to be a real problem in the late 80s up through the 90s at a lot of local theatres. Lots of light used. The exteriors were impressive. The interiors were standard fare. I can't find any technical specs on the IMDB. Story wise it was very British. It's about what I expected, still a good film.
  25. I used to read a lot of it in the 70s and 80s. Some of it was very rich and worthy of having a shoot script translated from it. Other books were garbage, just like any other genre. Jack Chalker, Stasheff, Alan Dean Foster, Piers Anthony were some of the good authors. Dalton, Culbreath, and a few others, in my opinion, weren't that good. They weren't even hacks, just people writing any old thing that some publisher took a chance on. I think most studios and production companies back then just didn't know enough about the genre to take any chances on it. I still think that's the case, but there's enough technical talent out there that it doesn't make a difference, you can make whatever it is you don't understand look good. Dump a lot of cash in a project, and watch the returns.
×
×
  • Create New...