Benson Marks

I'm kind of a Trekkie, but a bizarre one too. However, I thought The Next Generation was the best. Actually, I'm not very excited for this Star Trek movie. I don't really like stuff from J.J. Abrams and hearing him working on this makes me worried. But then again, that's just my feelings. Ira, you're right on with the trailers. They don't mean a thing. I was excited over Prince Caspian after seeing that trailer, look how much of a dud that movie turned out to be.

Yeah, I hope so too. I live in a family of 7 which costs us $70.00 for all tickets! You bet I would love to see those prices come down too.

Most Americans have short memories and have too much on their schedules to know what year the Constitution was signed. The average American Joe usually wakes up, takes a shower, has his breakfast, kisses his wife goodbye on his way to work, works all morning, takes a lunch break, works all afternoon, goes home, has dinner with his family, watches the news, gets ready for tomorrow and goes to bed, and the process goes all over again. An awful lot of Americans are just too busy to read the Constitution, let alone know what year it was signed. Indeed, it's a sad story but that's the way most Americans are. It's not like they'll know what year the Constitution was signed immediately when they're asked about it, so they're more likely to say 1776, which is the year America declared its independence. I am probably one of the few people who have such a good memory, but even then, I have a hard time remembering that the constitution was signed in 1787. That's because we have a bad education system over here. One reason is because the kids don't need to learn from it, They just have to remember it for the next few days for that big test and then they can forget about it completely. Another reason is because it's a chore to pay attention without falling asleep. A sad situation indeed. :(

"BTW, is the Second Amendment actually part of the US Constitution or is part of the Bill Or rights? Is the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution the same thing? Dunno? Just asking." The Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution and the US Constitution is part of the Bill Of Rights.

"You mean YOUR constitution, not mine." Of course not. David and I live down here in the USA, the thing at the bottom of your post says you live or work in Ontario, Canada. In other words, yeah, it isn't your constitution. "Yes I see cameras not guns, so why does the quote beside it refer to "arms"?" For your information, that quote you're referring to IS the second amendment. David's just using it as a comparison of what he likes to do.

I couldn't agree more with all this. I once heard that Akira Kurosawa said "a first-rate script can be great even in the hands of a third-rate director, but a third-rate script can never be great even in the hands of a first-rate director." But, in my opinion, having both a first-rate script and a first-rate director can produce wonders! Indeed, putting your best foot forward is very important and crucial to whether you'll make it into this business or not.

Thanks, Andrew! I'll keep this stuff in mind when I get working in the business. Anybody else have some advice for me too?

But there weren't any steam powered robots back then! In fact, they didn't have any robots at all! :lol:

As for the rest of your post, I agree. Filmmaking is definitely a business, you need money, and yes, you should (at least) rent stuff for your first feature. By the way, how much do those training DVDs cost? I couldn't find the price for any of them.

It may not be taking off as predicted, but this might be a sign that digital will take over in the future: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10055919-52.html

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that sounds more reasonable if you're a film producer. I said I was going for a career in writing and directing. Then again, maybe I'm interpreting your post incorrectly.

I am planning to be a writer and director and will probably shoot most of my films digitally. The main reason for digital is because most of my films are probably going to be independent or low-budget films. What advice would you give to this kind of person? Oh, and yes, I do want my movies to make it to the big screen. Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I have the 2005 DVD of The Wizard Of Oz and it is absolutely INCREDIBLE!!!!! It's possible that the transfer came from that DVD, But I don't know. Is it on Blu-Ray yet?

Resistance is futile! Pretty soon, human civilization will have to surrender to her and, eventually, will be assimilated. :P

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I was just given an excerpt from the book "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood" and I think it explains what makes 35mm more popular than digital video. Here's what it says. "Traditional standard definition video has a definitive "sharpness" and looks "real" like you'd see the action as if you were actually standing there. Film has a "softer" almost more "ethereal" look. It is not capturing "reality" per se, but a more "romantic" and "hyper-real" version of what happened in front of the lens. Some of this difference can be attributed to the variations in how film stock and how a video camera process the light. And some of the difference is on account of the frame rate that is used to capture images. Traditional standard definition video in the United States is shot and viewed at 30 frames per second, meaning that it takes roughly 30 still image frames in quick succession to represent one second of real time (29.97 fps to be more precise). A standard film frame rate is exactly 24 frames per second, a difference of merely 6 frames per second. What's the big deal? Plenty. Our eyes and our minds perceive that slight frames-per-second difference in significantly different ways. The higher the frame rate that you are viewing, the more "real" and "sharp" the image will be perceived by your mind. The slower the frame rate that you are viewing, the more your mind will perceive the moving images as "not as real." This is why some programming is captured using film stock and some programming is captured using video technology. Generally, fictional narrative and "dramatic" programs are shot using film stock and film cameras. And generally, non-fiction or "live" events are shot using video cameras. For instance, all news programming now is shot using video technology for two reasons. The first is that the purpose of news is to give you a true sense of what is happening in reality. They don't (or shouldn't be trying to) dress up the world around us to make it seem more "romantic" or "hyper-real." Video is perceived as capturing a more authentic picture of what reality actually is, so it is the perfect medium for the job. The other reason that news programming and video work so well together is because of the immediacy that video offers. Because it is an electronic process, the images can be seen right away, as opposed to film stock, which must be "canned-out" of the camera, taken to a film lab for processing, and then printed for viewing. Video can either be sent "live" or can be saved for later viewing on videotape. In contrast to news programming, most movies are shot on film, which gives the audience a slightly less-reality based version of what was going on in front of the camera. And because fictional entertainment doesn't have to be put on your television by 6 o'clock tonight, there is time to take film to the lab and go through the methodical process that eventually becomes a movie or dramatic TV show."

I stand corrected. Man, do I wish we had all those film stocks. The only thing that gets close to a wide variety of film stocks today is a digital intermediate. I'm not saying that DI is a bad thing, just that it isn't the same.

But why is it still like choosing a certain paint when there is all this evidence by Karl going against your opinion? You didn't give out a single reason why it's exactly like that. Care to explain?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but actually, Vistavision is 1.85:1. Go to this link to find out why. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingvv1.htm

I couldn't agree more. Some movies are better when shot on video than on film. Personally, I don't give a care whether a movie was shot on 35mm or on some fancy prosumer-level digital camcorder. Nobody really cares what the movie was shot on as long as it was great. You can make a great low-budget movie shot on digital video ("The Blair Witch Project" is partly video), just as you can also make a really lame movie that was shot on 35mm (I don't even need to make an example. Most movies, I'm guessing 90-95% of them, are shot on 35mm.). I would pick digital video if you're doing an independent or low-budget film, but I would do 35mm only if you're doing a larger-budget film that is over the $1,000,000 mark. Then again, I'm not in the directing business yet, so I don't necessarily have experience with either of the two formats. All I know is that I don't have a preference myself. Who knows? My attitude could be different some years from now.

Adam, this is stuff you should expect as a writer and director. I'm planning to be a writer and director (but haven't even written my first script yet) and I'm expecting it to be one wild roller-coaster ride for every movie I do. Even I have fears that my movies won't be great either, and it isn't just the serious ones. My advice to you the person who is already in the business is this. Control your emotions. Just keep your cool, get to work, and think about getting the movie finished. Being a writer and director means being able to control your own emotions and getting the movie done. Just stop panicking. Your first movies probably aren't going to be your best movies anyway, so just hang in there. Unfortunately, and I don't mean to say you shouldn't be in this business, but if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you can't handle these emotions, I suggest you pursue another career elsewhere. I think that as you go on to bigger and bigger projects, the tension will probably be worse. If things are bad enough, then you might need to think about where you're going from here.

Maybe my advice is wrong, but I think it depends on your senses. For example, if you're an auditory person, you tend to use your ears more often than other senses. If you're a visual person (Like me), you tend to use your eyes more often than other senses. Music is an auditory artform, because you use your ears more often, while movies are a visual artform, because you tend to use your eyes most often when watching a movie. If you like using your eyes a lot, I think cinematography will give you quite a feeling. If, however, you prefer your ears to your eyes, you'll probably find that music still makes you go ecstatic and cinematography does not. I don't know you personally, so I can't figure out what makes you excited. Considering your love for reading, you might like cinematography (Considering that you have to use your eyes to read), but I wouldn't say that you will. Books are a special kind of artform that actually use the mind rather than a certain sense, so there's no actual way to tell if you're able to look at things visually or not. That's something you'll have to look into yourself. I guess the first question you should ask yourself is: "How much do I like movies compared to music?"

Well, that's quite a shame, isn't it? But then again, maybe it isn't necessarily bad news. I went to an IMAX theatre once in eastern washington, and learned that the screen was 67' x 60.' The experience was great (Even if it wasn't cheap). Now, if the average IMAX screen is 100' x 80' (The dimensions of that Lincoln Square auditorium), then this isn't much of a big deal. If I still had a good experience, and the screen was smaller than most, then it's really nothing to sneeze at. I still enjoyed my time there despite the fact that it wasn't as big as all the others.

I'm no cinematographer, and I am not in the filmmaking business...Yet (So, maybe you shouldn't take my advice, who knows?), but from my point of view, I don't see the cinematographer disappearing anytime soon. Why? Let's look at the possibilities. What if film were to go extinct? Would that mean complete annihilation of all cinematographers? Of course not. In fact, digital video captures even less light than film and thus digital video needs more light than film does. So, even if we replace film, there will still be a need for cinematographers who are experienced and know how to light up a movie. How about CG? Is that going to bring about the extinction of the cinematographer? Doubtful. As somebody else said there will always be green screen where lighting is badly needed. Green screen is not the only thing that indicates cinematography won't die anytime soon. Very few mostly CG movies have been extremely successful. Beowulf did well, but it didn't make really huge achievements. Sin City made the top spot on its first week but then dropped by more than 50 percent on it's second week. The last time a mostly CG film actually did well was 300, which made no. 7 at the top ten box-office results at the end of the year it came out. The thing is, there would have to be an awful lot of computer geeks who are obsessed with CG to cause the extinction of cinematography, and since that probably isn't going to happen anytime soon, I don't see the end of cinematography as we know it. Even if Avatar makes a fistful of dollars at the box-office, I wouldn't freak out. Here's my opinion, if cinematography is your passion, pursue it. I have a passion to be a screenwriter and director, and I'm pursuing that career myself. If you want to be a cinematographer, go for it.

I agree. I've seen this film more than once and I don't think I liked it more after seeing it a second or third time. Sure, all that CG glory was great, but the story wasn't that good and the characters just seemed rather unintelligent. I didn't even care about what happened at the end because the characters were so dull, it didn't matter what happened to the characters because you just didn't care. That, I think, is why the movie wasn't fantastic. Not even all the great eye candy in the world could fix those problems. If only we could've had great CG and a great story at the same time.