George Ebersole

Interesting, I did not know that. I've always been of the opinion that UK films always seem more refined and polished than American films. Which is kind of amazing since when I was working a lot all crew from the UK were salty as anything .... Ef-this, ef-that, everything was preceeded by "ef-ing". With many apologies to UK and European types who come to this forum. Not to beat a dead-horse here, but to me "Outland" is a better film both story-wise and technically than "Mission to Mars" I think largely because "Mission to Mars", at its core, had teenagers in mind. So that film had a kind of candy gloss look to it, and the hokey mega-sized twirling alien at the end. I won't say "Outland" didn't have teenagers in mind, but it's a film that all reasonably mature or adult minded people can enjoy, assuming they don't mind the scifi / outer space backdrop. Again, I'm surprised we didn't get more like it. I mean, I now know what it takes to get a project greenlit, but it's like if you can make a reasonably budgeted project that's solid, then why not shoot those instead of dumping a half-bil of US currency into one "mega-hit" which is speculative? That's what I don't get. Ergo why I don't see why more "Outland" kind of movies were made, and instead to this day we get "Guardians of the Galaxy" or the new "Thor" movie. Just me. Enough bitching. I need to go kick off the rust and shoot some footage. Laterz.

I think I mentioned this earlier up in the thread, but one of the criteria for shooting a major release is that the project needs to be socially positive and inspirational in that same vein. That wasn't always the case, but it is now. If you go back the 70s and prior, you'll note that films just had good stories (mostly), and were usually socially responsible without trying to send too much of a message. The story had ethics built into it by virtue of good writing. When I saw "Mission to Mars" I didn't feel like I was watching a scifi film for adults, but one that was framed as being adult, but that had this cgi payoff at the end that I think appealed more to teenagers. And that's the sense I get for a lot of scifi films shot in the last 20 years. Whatever. Like I said, I'm sorry there weren't more films in the 80s like "Outland"--visually and story-wise.

Well, I think story-wise it's clear that the whole place is corrupt, except for Connery and the doctor. To me that lends credibility to the idea that rowdy miners probably have their own sense of worth and fear. Not to detract from your points, but I guess the thing that gets me is that this film, if pitched, would not get made today, or would not get made the way it was way back in 79 / 80. When I went and saw "Guardians of the Galaxy" (against my better judgment) I kind of knew what I was in store for. And sure enough the film had lots of effects, lots of put down humor, a space raccoon, body function gags, and just a ton of pre-adolescent BS. But that's the kind of film it is. And when I think of films like "Outland" or "2010", or even "Alien", it's like no one makes good serious scifi anymore. Even films like "Gravity" or "Interstellar", to me at least, have issues no matter how impressive some of the visuals are. "Outland" doesn't try to be something that it isn't, which to me at lest, makes it a good classic scifi film. If "Outland" were pitched today, then odds are it would not get made. Or, if it did, then Connery's character would be cast with someone like Wil Smith, there would be lots of pre-teen put down humor, everything would be lit with egg-crates and 5Ks, the miners would have a G-rated kind of rowdyness, and so forth. It wouldn't be made for adults, but for pre-teen and teenage boys, and boys specifically. I mean you're arguing about having a respect for the audience, but I would submit to you that films like "Gravity", "Interstellar" or even slightly older films like "Mission to Mars" have absolutely no respect for any audience member save the young wide eyed kid who doesn't know enough to know what a good film is. So yeah, I'm asking what you would have shot in terms of a story. Some of the most obnoxious and rude people are some of the biggest cowards around.

Well, one of the reasons I had a writing emphasis instead of a production emphasis in film school was because I was freelancing a lot while trying to earn my degree, and as robust as Dean Coppola's program was (ranked 3rd in the nation at the time behind USC and UCLA, which also included the writing/lit dept at the opposite end of campus) I was learning on the job about divisions of labor, set operations, gear and so forth. What I didn't learn was the corporate shift that took place in the 70's that took the old traditional way of making films, and trying to fix the method until it was broke. If you have an idea about ... I don't know ... anything ... a store keeper in the midwest whose daughter wants to marry a farmer's son, then the marketing division would try to find out who the target audience was for that film, and hire writers to change the story accordingly. And if there wasn't a large enough market, then the story would be tweaked so that it could seemingly appeal to a mass audience. So you get absolute sh_t stories being filmed because of that process, because the marketers want those films to appeal to the largest swath of people possible. A good story is a good story and doesn't need tweaking. And all the mass marketing in the world isn't going to improve on it, whatever that story is. There's a few exceptions, but those are largely artistic interpretations ... I think "The Natural" originally had a downer of an ending, but it was changed so that Redford's Hobbes' character hits a homer instead of striking out. You could argue that that's a kind of marketing, and that that's what today's corporate studio marketers are trying to do, but it really isn't. If I had known way back in 1985 the direction of major motion pictures today in 2016 (post-2000s), I'm not sure I would've gone into the local industry ... I might've given aerospace engineering another shot. But I'm stupid and idiotic enough to believe that now that the technology has caught up to where it was promised 20 years ago, that I can take a second crack at this bull-sh_t. Superhero films are junk, Guardians of the Galaxy is made for 12 year old boys who like fart jokes, and the new Ghostbusters was shot to try and inspire women to get more involved in science and law enforcement (uncovering fraud). And all those films have mega-budgets, didn't do as well as they could have (or maybe flopped), and only appeal to the audience that they're custom tailored for. But, films are making more money, so maybe I'm just out of my mind and talking crazy here. But I think old fashioned stories have a place, and are not only better stories, but will make better films. Thanks for reading.

That's true with any tale. To quote Lucas "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." All major mass release features have the agenda of needing to inspire audiences. That wasn't always the case, but has been post 1960s. There was a time when you shot something and if it was a good story and if the audience got something out of it, then that was a bonus. Nowadays there's so much sh_t being written and shot in terms of stories (junk stories that you guys have made look good, but the stories are still crap) largely because of post mid 1970's market research project development. Stuff like the Emoji Movie, or Guardians of the Galaxy 2, or name your superhero film, all go through that marketing research process. That verse something out of the early 70's or before, where a studio grabbed a popular book and just produced the thing. A timeless story can be shot in any setting. You could have taken "Outland", that is its core story, and set it in prehistoric times with a bunch of cavemen, or in the Roman Empire or medieval Japan. But nobody does that anymore. Whatever. My dreams are crushed, but I still come here because I'm a hobbyist, and optimistic enough to think that anything I shoot and post on YouTube or vimeo might entertain someone. And if I can tell a scifi story without giant death rays or alien invaders, then cool.

It's not rubbish at all. It's an old story that predates Beowulf. What would you have shot? I like science fiction, but I get really sick and tired of it being hijacked by the mental health community and political diatribes who want to push their own agenda. This is a good basic story that has a really good look to it. As a scifi fan I got tired of "save the universe" or "kill the deathstar"-like story concepts being rehashed. This was a good basic script that didn't rely on aliens, super weapons, or some of the other crap that some scifi film makers rely on.

Cool. It's a good film. I'm sorry we didn't get more like it back in the day.

I just saw it on bluray, with a very crisp color corrected print. Wow. Some personal thoughts before I get into the camera stuff,... I remember after Star Wars how the scifi fans were expecting more good stuff, but it was paltry offerings from the majors. A lot of space movies came out, but a good chunk of them were bad. But this was one of the really good ones, and I'm sorry we didn't get more of the same; i.e. serious scifi that was adult, plausible, and had a gritty realism to it but didn't rely on pre-teen gags and "save the universe" kind of junk. To me this film holds up, even though the characters are using CRT technology for Skype like video mail. When I saw this film I really wanted to create something like this, perhaps with a bit more energy ... but I got sidetracked. Enough of that. The SFX, particularly the IntroVision really look fantastic. For models and pre-CGI practical effects, this film looks damn good. When I was in my twenties and gripping a lot I liked the Star Wars feel (which in many ways resembles Outland, particularly in the darker shots), but I was hoping to master the "Outland" look, and hoping beyond hope that I could bring that to a kind of monthly or bimonthly "movie of the week" kind of series of films. And yeah, there's not as much smoke in this film as in Alien or other scifi films with similar looks ("Superman" has a similar look). And I like the practical fluorescent lighting. Toning down the light, to me, always brings that level of intimacy out in a shot. It makes a film more tactile for the eyes--or so I think. Scifi films that throw a lot of light on a subject ... I don't know ... like the Bab-5 TV series, or even the Star Trek reboots by Abrams, just look really comic-bookish to me. I'm just sorry there weren't more films like "Outland", and I'm sorry I didn't stick with the industry to try and make and bring my imitation of the "Outland" look to other stories. I just wish there was a shot log of this in the public domain somewhere. I hate having to reverse engineer a shot.

The lighting does look understated and very surreal as well as creating a lot of soft shadows. I really like that.

I'm not a big fan of smoke, but it does add a layer of depth, especially on older films (I'm guessing it's partially because of older and slower film stocks). I did not know Hyams did the live action. I really like the relationship between the foreground and background. I'm just curious how you achieve that. I remember the SFX write up and short shown on TV about Outland's effects.

I've been going through AC's mag archive looking for a writeup on Stephen Goldblatt's work on "Outland" back in 1981, but I can't find anything. Does anyone have any production references for this movie? I really like the look, in particular the medium two shots, and want to see if I can duplicate that kind of look. Some sample shots; http://www.heavymetalmagazinefanpage.com/outlandshot05l.jpg http://www.heavymetalmagazinefanpage.com/outlandshot04l.jpg

Dave, as usual, you can cut through my incompetent wording and get to the chase. That's exactly what I'm asking. It just seems like most of the "more artsy" films use long lenses, and I actually like that style. Sorry for asking a naive question here, but most of the stuff I've worked on has been corporate. I'm going to experiment. Thanks for the replies.

Well, were getting our signals crossed here, and I think a large part of that is not making myself clearer. I actually don't mean zoom-shots. To me those are artifacts of 1960s action films, and have always looked hokey to me. No, what I mean what criteria do you use for how tight a shot verse how far away you have your initial setup. A-list films always seem to have the camera set very far away, but are tight on the subject, with the result being that the background is blurred and.or compressed depending on the lens. Thanks for the replies.

Well, it tells me I should have had a production emphasis in college instead of trying to learn on the job. But thanks for the reply. It's just that when I see test footage of different lenses for the same shot I wonder what the criteria for choosing one over the other. It was always my thinking that there was some criteria (either mathematical or aesthetic) that determined how much background you wanted to show. Interesting. So you just wing it, huh? Again, interesting.

A website full of DPs and no one knows what I'm talking about? Let me ask it another way; how do you decide the focal plane of your shot?

Lower budget projects, notably B-movies from the 70s up through the late 90s, either used lenses with a fixed focal plane or typically zoomed all the way out and positioned the camera accordingly. Someone with more artistic training will do a test shot at various focal lengths, and usually set the camera out such that the composition of the shot requires that the operator or DP zoom in part of the way. The effect tends to flatten the background for effect. I'm not a trained DP. I'm just a former grip/PA who started as a stage manager, so I'm wondering if there's a formula that dictates how far away to setup the camera and how far to zoom in to mitigate the distance and create a more picturesque effect.

Is there a formula for how much to zoom in on a shot prior to shooting? So far the stuff I've been shooting over the last year has just been me eyeballing the shot until it looks right, but better looking and higher budgeted project have the camera partially zoomed in for dramatic effect. How much, how far, and what's the criteria?

I reccommend you head over to Francis Ford Coppola's virtual studio; www.zoetrope.com, register as a user, and ask the gaggle of professional screenwriters there. A lot of them, regrettably, are actors and not real screen writers, but the few hobbyists and pros there will have an answer for you. This actually is a big issue, so tread carefully (and I used to know the answer years ago, but it actually is a case specific instance of use and in what context, so there is no simple legal answer).

The idea is to give you higher visual fidelity. Blurays are better than DVDs, and DVDs were better than VHS, and Beta was better than VHS but lost out because of cost and restrictive content. I still prefer bluray over streaming. There's no information loss. The picture is just clearer, and when I stream from Amazon or Vimeo it's always a little soft, or softer than anything bluray can offer. I didn't buy a bluray play until last year, and shelled out something like $50 for a small Sony. I remember when they were hundreds of dollars if not a thousand or more for a single player. The idea is to milk the novelty of the technology by pricing it high. I'm not sure where you live, but here in the San Francisco Bay Area broadcast looks pretty crisp. Much better than analog. It'll always be around, and has caught up and surpassed home video technology. But I'm not sure blurays are pointless. I've heard that some in the younger generations are migrating to all online content, but to me a DVD or bluray is like having a book on your shelf, and I still find it easier to pop in a disk than to hunt around on Amazon or some other website for a movie I really want to see. I think bluray is just superior media. That may change, but like I say, when I compare my streaming from a marquis website like Amazon or Vimeo to the image quality of the same film I have on bluray, the bluray, or even sometimes the DVD, wins out every time. Just me. p.s. I remember getting SONY's first Walkman ages ago in the early 80s, and the sound quality there still beats Apple's iPod. The fact is, however, you can access more with a tiny HD than an audio casette or CD, but I prefer quality of portability or accessibility. Most people go the other way assuming the technology is affordable.

p.s. part of the reason I ask is that I keep hearing on the radio that crime rates go up during warm weather, and we've had some pretty hot days here in the bay area. I'm a decent sized guy, and not easily intimidated, but at the same time I don't want to have to "defend my gear" as it were.

Thanks aapo. San Francisco is one of the safer cities in the US, but there've been a few spikes in crime around the tourist areas, and there's always the annoying drunks here and there. The continued tech boom has changed the demographics for the better, in my not so humble opinion, but there's still some crime and rowdy individuals who want what you got. It's funny, 20 years ago I would have just grabbed my gear and start shooting stuff, collecting really cool shots wherever. I guess when you get older you get a little more cautious about everything.

So, what I'd like to do is grab a bunch of night shots of San Francisco, notably around the downtown area, and maybe around North Beach or Koit tower. I bought a relatively cheapo DSLR for the task, but am a little concerned about going out at night by myself to gather footage, even in the relatively safe areas of the city. Has anyone ever done this? When I was a teen I used to do this king of thing, but now that I'm middle aged I'm a bit more concerned about myself and my gear. Any safety tips are welcome.

It's been a while. Quick story, in 1992 I was shooting a bikini contest and the camera guy I was working with wanted me to come with him to Russia. Wouldn't you know it, there was a coup, and the Spetznas opened up with full automatic fire into the protesters at the very spot where he was. There wasn't a chance in hell I would have gone anyway, my schedule was full at the time, but it's like I don't want to go into that kind of situation for a job. A very far cry from girls in two piece swim wear.

If you're in an ENG situation at a demonstration that gets wild or out of hand, what are some good safety precautions?

Kurosawa's "RAN" with all of the extreme long shots, has always been a favorite of mine.