Benson Marks

O Brother, Where Art Thou? was decent, but not necessarily what I would call a classic. Casino Royale is still a continuation of the bond series, so I'm not going to count it as a classic yet. Only the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was great, but if you're saying the entire trilogy was excellent, I have to disagree. I will agree with you on one thing James, the best hasn't yet arrived, and if Hollywood keeps on doing what they're doing right now, I don't think the best will come again.

Well, Josh, I'm 18, and I'm far from interested (That's in your young enough range, isn't it?). I think this movie is going to drift off sort of like "Sex and the City did. By now, I think all the fans have seen it (37 million dollars makes a lot of people, don't you think?) and it's also Thanksgiving week, where it will be competing against Australia and Transporter 3. So, I think it's going to drift off next week considering the outcomes. As for your question on Spider-Man 3, no. What I meant was that even though it made a lot of cash (It made number 1 on the top ten box-office moneymakers of 2007.), it was still a stinker. In fact, Spider-Man 3 is probably the worst of all three Spider-Man flicks.

Top 5, eh? Well, here goes... #1 Rear Window #2 Casablanca #3 Star Wars #4 Arsenic and Old Lace #5 North By Northwest In case it interests you, I saw Rear Window for the first time in my life 2 days ago! I've never seen a movie that made me go "That's definitely gonna be on my top 5 list," this one did.

Maybe not in the 25th century but this short proves you made a close guess. http://video.yahoo.com/watch/42704/964606

Yeah, II, III, and VI were probably the best ones in the entire movie series (II's the best, III's in third, VI's the in-between). Come to think of it, arguing over which ones were the best makes me think this new Trek movie's gonna be even worse than I originally thought.

I can't wait to get my hands on that DVD. :)

Actually, I thought Generations and First Contact were pretty good, but, hey, that is only one man's opinion.

Of course not, but looking at it again, I see why you felt that way. Nobody's perfect. Yeah, it looks like the moderators put the thread in the off-topic section too.

I noticed you put this in the General Discussion forum. But what do avatars have to do with cinematography anyhow? Remember, this is a website on issues involving cinematography, and when it comes to avatars, it doesn't make much sense to post in a general discussion area. That said, I'd recommend putting it on the Off-topic forum. This issue doesn't really have anything to do with cinematography, so it would fit in that area.

Yup. They probably bought into Oliver Stone's "Greed is good" philosophy. :P

I wonder how many will see the sequel if this one turns out to be a bomb. Right now, the ratings at IMDB for Twilight have already reached a low of 5.3 stars out of 10. I've also heard that the sequels in the book series are worse than the first one which is now on the big screen for all to see. I don't know if that will effect how the next one will turn out, but it does make me wonder.

I hate to disagree with you David. You make a good point that there may have been some really bad movies back in the 30s and 40s, but there's a big difference between today's movies and yesterday's movies. The old days have some very great movies that can now be called classics. Movies like Citizen Kane, The Wizard Of Oz, Casablanca, and many more. Today's movies, however, are not so. In fact, I think the last movies we've seen that have the potential to become classics are the Lord Of The Rings movies. That's it.

Spike, you need to change your name on this site. The rules and regulations section says to use your full name (First and Last) or else, your account will be disabled or something like that.

I don't think the Revolution is dead. Yes, most indie-filmmakers are trying to imitate Hollywood (Which is very disappointing and makes me feel terrible inside as a newbie.), but there are still some very strong supporters of digital video, like Robert Rodriguez and George Lucas (Although I think he's terrible with them) who do have influence on people and could get more to go digital with their movies. Another thing to consider is that a lot of the most successful independent films these days are being done digitally. Those films include "28 Days Later," "Once Upon A Time In Mexico," "Spy Kids 2," "Youth Without Youth," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and (partially) "The Blair Witch Project." So while most independent filmmakers may choose film, the success of independent digital features is something to think about. As for Deakins, there wasn't any digital technology when he was getting his start, so the guy had to go film. Now I don't know the "people like him" part, so I'm not going to answer that for the time being until I know more.

I'm a little confused by your post Jesse. You just said that its ALL about the equipment and not the guy who makes the movie, yet now you're using Roger Deakins as an example of somebody who could do things with DSLR better than most people can with a 35mm Panavision, which is contradictory to what you said before? If it was all about the equipment, Deakins would be shooting everything with the largest camera he can get his hands on. I don't know if I'm taking your post out of context, but something in it has me confused.

Robert Rodriguez went from the bottom up. Quentin Tarantino went from the bottom up. Spike Lee went from the bottom up. Kevin Smith went from the bottom up. I'd say, keep going this route even if your colleague doesn't think it'll work. I don't know your colleague, but I'm not sure he'll get anywhere going in another direction. To be able to get the right equipment, you'd have to be a rich person, or have a family member who is a millionaire. The truth about filmmaking is that most independent filmmakers don't have the right equipment. The key to making a great movie (or short, in this case), in my opinion, is to have a fantastic script and have the ability to make something great with the limited equipment you have. The Blair Witch Project, I think, is a good example of that. I'd recommend reading Dov S.S. Simens "From Reel To Deal." It explains the basics of filmmaking and tells you some good ways to make a great movie with the limited budget and equipment you have. I haven't done any shorts or movies of my own yet, but if I pursue a career as a filmmaker, I'm probably going to take the route from the bottom up.

I know about his track record. I'm just hoping that he doesn't get too fancy and makes it more spectacle than story like a lot of today's great filmmakers seem to have done (George Lucas of the Star Wars prequels, Spielberg of Indy and the crystal skull). I hope Cameron delivers with Avatar, but I just don't see it being fantastic. I guess I'll just have to wait for all the advertising before I say anymore about it.

Don't say that too soon. It's still up against James Bond who did really well this week at the box-office. It's also facing Bolt, which is getting very good reviews as I speak. That could sway some families to watch Bolt over Twilight (FYI, around 80% of moviegoers tend to be families.). So even if it has a large audience, it still has the possibility of failing at the box-office. Keep in mind that the box-office won't dictate how well it does in the end. An awful lot of movies made the top at the box-office and turned out to be stinkers. See: Spider-Man 3.

I'm not so sure. I hear this movie is supposed to be in 3-D, which really makes me want to go "ugh" after Spy Kids 3-D and Journey To The Center Of The Earth. So far, most of Cameron's work has been with IMAX since Titanic. My fear is he'll use techniques that should only be seen in an IMAX theater, not at the average theater screen. Finally, this film is going to use that "performance capture" technique used by Beowulf and The Polar Express. Only difference is that it's supposed to be more advanced than the others. Yeah, more advanced-looking computer candy that's been proven better in IMAX, which still may look fake. I've got a bad feeling about this.

So, anybody else have something to say?

Sorry, but this is a movie we're talking about, not a book. Just because it's based on a book doesn't mean it's going to be good. Prince Caspian wasn't great. The first few Harry Potter movies were ok, but still not very good. To be fair, we don't know how this movie's going to turn out. I might be wrong and it could be a great movie. I could be right and the movie will turn out to be a disaster. We just don't know how it's going to turn out until everybody has seen it. It's also worth noting that the two mediums are vastly different from each other. Movies are supposed to be a visual work. In other words, you use images to create an art. Books, on the other hand, are a literary work. They use words to create an art. To show you how incompatible the two mediums are, read "The Count Of Monte Cristo," and then watch the movie version. In the end, they're both great, but which one is better? (Now how out of touch am I?)

Also, I just checked the early reviews. So far, Rotten Tomatoes has it at a not-so-fantastic 45% rating. You need to be over 60% for a movie to garner a fresh rating. Okay, so it isn't a horrible rating but with all the hype going on. That's a bad sign.

I think it's just hype. I haven't read any of the books, but, judging from the advertising, I'd rather spend my $10 buying a couple of lattes at Starbucks than going to the cineplex. The film's director is Catherine Hardwicke. Her biggest movie was the docudrama "Thirteen," which was well received by critics but didn't do so well at the box-office. Her other movies haven't been really good thus far. "Lords of Dogtown" was not very well received. "The Nativity Story" felt more like an advertisement for who the reason for the season is than compelling drama, which should've been the latter. Looking at her record, I'm not so sure she can pull this off. And if you've seen the TV ads for "Twilight," it doesn't look good. To give out a reason why, one should just listen to the main dialogue in the ads: Boy: So, you know who I am, don't you? Girl: Yes. Boy: Say the word. Girl: Vampire. Boy: Say it again. Girl: Vampire. Umm... OK, whatever.

Not even the best camera in the world can match that of the human eye. Our eyes are just too complex. For one, our eyes do have a lens. This lens, however, is impossible to imitate. For one, it is believed to be biconvex (A type of lens that most camera facilities don't seem to have, at least, from what I know). Second, the lens changes shape. To see objects that are closer, the lens has to thicken in order to focus on that object. To see objects that are far away, the lens flattens in order to focus on those objects. As for DOF, do you happen to have a pair of glasses? I know I do and the DOF looks infinite to me. Frame markings are a tough one. I'd assume open matte because our eyelids, in their normal state, tend to close a slight bit of the top and bottom of our eyes. It is only when our eyes are wide open that this isn't true. Do our eyes see in circles or figure 8, you ask? Well, I'd say figure 8, but I don't really know. Even with all this stuff I'm telling you, nothing comes close to human eyesight. First, our eyes are like having two cameras, not one. Second, film only captures half of what the human eye sees (Digital video captures less than that). Third, as I explained above, the lens of the human eye is just too complex. So here's what I say, quit worrying about comparing cameras to our eyes. There is no camera that comes close to human eyesight, anyway. Just remember, 1st person perspective is another piece of the art of filmmaking, so be creative, and come up with an unusual way of presenting that perspective. That's all I can say about this topic.

Indeed. I limited my time on the news drastically after the election was over. All this apocalyptic hype going on has made me so dead mad I'm ready to scream if I hear the word "depression" one more time. It's reassuring to know things are not like they were in the past. Sure, we've got problems right now, but it's always good to learn that we've been in times worse than this. That said, it might take a while for things to improve, but I don't think this economic trouble is going to last forever. The Great Depression had to end somewhere even though it took more than a decade to fix. Sure, I may be too optimistic, but there has to be a light at the end of this economic tunnel. The only question is, "Where does it end?"