Gregor Mac

Thats all true. I suppose then that I am thinking of bad angles and handheld footage when I am thinking of immediacy. Or the 480 lines or so on most TVs when growing up. That imparts "real" to me. Bad angles ? I mean like the shots of the Hollywood Robbery, the WTC 911, OJs white bronco - shot from helicopter or from bad angles by news cameramen who couldnt control the set or the angle. Handheld, shaky and DVCam or Betacam. All broadcast on a 480 line TV to your lounge room. But we never see that in any film. I thought that Lost in Translation had a more documentary feel than Miami Vice. But as I posted earlier, a lot of the shots have stuck in my memory and are growing on me. That meeting with the bad bearded guy in the back of the truck in particular.

Thanks, I wasn't aware that Hindenberg was 35mm. But does everyone agree or do you disagree with my point about Super 8 or 16mm footage being shot handheld? It looks real. As used by Greengrass in Flight 93, Bourne etc. Take the format down a notch to 8 or 16, and you get what many families since the 50s have seen as a real experience - a la front line combat footage or home movies (or holiday movies etc). Thats real to the mind and eye. Your thoughts? On the other point, was this an intended look. Thinking about the film and its subject matter, I can begin to see what they wanted. There are a lot of night scenes, and the shot at the end of the film with the sunset was great - yes in digital, just even to get the depth of field. The immediacy of it is growing on me, I am thinking expecially of the club scenes, and the meeting with the bad bearded guy in the truck/limousine. I think that it will grow on me. Less grain in some of the scenes would have been nice, but I guess they couldnt control it.

David thanks for your input and wisdom. I guess that I find the super 8 feel tangible. I think that video is not tangible, as I use a minidv to take holiday films which are mostly constructed and false in their story. I control whats in them. And Im only a young guy in his late twenties. When I think super 8 I think: Combat footage (was mostly 16mm I know) Zapruder Hindenburg Other old films that were real. Thats why I find Super 8 realistic. Also, it was used for a lot of home movies. Yes they were in the past, but they were real. Thats why I think super 8 is gritty.

There is nothing wrong with a new interpretation. If you view the original Dambusters today, frankly it does not impart realism and grit. I feel more fear riding the local fair rollercoaster than watching that film. What we want is a fear inducing seat of the pants experience. Flying bombers over Euriope to bomb a bearings factory or railyard in WWII was just that. This mission was 100x that. If the movie imparts a sense of realism, Ill be happy.

Interesting and I do agree that they intended the film to look that way. My view is that if you want immediacy - then shoot on Super 8 - that way it looks like "you were there". I suppose our exposure to the Zapruder tape, home movies, combat footage shot on super 8 gives us that impression of involvement and realism. Grainy video - yes, but I would have preferred it shot in a more documentary fashion ala COPS and MV is no documentary - its a drama. I think that Bourne Supremacy had more of a realistic immersive feel than MV did. Your thoughts?

Thanks for the input everyone. I think I'll stick to Super 16. I like the portability of the media (no need to worry about storing uncompressed footage). I also like its compact nature. And if I drop the rig its a lot less expensive. A real pain editing however. Maybe I'll regret it. Oh no wait I just saw Miami Vice - would I ever regret not using GRAINY HDV after seeing that? I don't think so. *Removes tongue from cheek*

Dont know the answer to that Jim. But I do know that it allowed the audience to be present there in Miami more than Miami Vice did, a sad fact. It seemed more like "TV Miami" or "Real Miami" much more than that sack of noise (Miami Vice) will ever do. Great colours, great backgrounds; you can feel yourself on Washington Avenue/wherever on an early July afternoon with the thunderstorms coming in and planes flying over the beach.

I didnt mind the plot. I didnt mind the actors. I didnt mind the script. I did mind the awful grainy mess that presented itself on screen. If the producers wanted it to look like COPS, with blurry video work and immediate presence of the audience in the story, they missed the target entirely. They should have filmed the whole film with handheld cameras and they could have done it with film and it still would have looked more "immediate". What really upset me (as an audience member, not as any sort of filmmaker) was only one thing: the o b v i o u s difference in quality between some shots (eg the learjet over the Carribean) and others (the awful grainy firefight, night scenes near the trailer and others). It's the producers film, not mine. I paid 10 dollars and went and saw it. Will I purchase the DVD? No. The producers wanted a gritty reproduction of Miami in all of its colourful glory and the fact is that, (plot and script aside) "The Transporter 2" did a better job of capturing the visuals of Miami at the cinema than this film did. That of itself is a dissapointing fact.

Sure. but I want to shoot in HD for archiving and cable tv. So what rig fits the description. I usually shoot on film, to me MiniDV is yucko.

I have a fast laptop but am looking for a good decent cheap HD rig for production of a cable internet tv show. Would prefer a camera that can take an anamorphic lens. What cameras are becoming readily available second hand.

Have you seen the sequel, Underworld Evolution?

For still photos, I notice that a lot of Travel Magazines still insist on Medium Format for still photographs. Also, Playboy still use Medium Format for the centrefold and the cover. I am not content to use video (of whatever format) for a travel documentary. So what format do they shoot most travel docos in? eg Lonely Planet's Six Degrees? Editing problems aside, would super 8mm (in a proper DS8 camera) with the right film be ok? Or would 16mm? Or Super 16?

I don't know about you guys but just on the visuals and the story alone, it doesn't suck me in - it just didn't look real. I've seen other science fiction/fiction films with supposedly less "credible" happenings, like Fantastic Four, and Sin City - and for whatever reason - they all seemed more credible. On the topic of the story alone - read this post for an example of some amazing things that seem so fantastic as to be fiction - but actually happened: http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html See what I mean about the "war of the worlds" - it's more "real" yet more fantastic because it is real, no? I still think the film could have been made in an even more gritty and realistic way than it was and less sugar coated than it was - it would have been more believable and would have drawn us all in.

I agree totally Mark. The reasons this film doesn't connect is, in my view, one thing - the story is implausible, but nevertheless interesting. Interesting doesn't make emotional connection. Real and plausible and relevant to all of us does. I am not saying that the acting and production wasn't top notch - it clearly was. There were a couple of moments in the film where the story was totally plausible - such as when the mob was trying to get the car - but that's because we see this type of thing in the news when there is a civil emergency - think of what happened last year on Boxing Day...we can all experience that feeling of panic. My 2 cents - I find reading about the Pacific War and listening to veterans stories about "feeling like ants" on the beach when the Navy was bombarding the entrenched Japanese, and reading about the sword wielding, fanatic and desperate Japanese much more dreadful, fantastic and heart wrenching than this story and this movie.. That's because it was real. For an "unlikely" story with all of its limitations in finding connections with our lives, I think Spielberg et al did a great job. Your thoughts on this issue about the subject matter?

Just saw the movie. Great lighting and sense of perspective - especially the scene where the martians were advancing over the hill in the distance as Cruise and family got out of the water when the boat sank. I think that has to be the best shot in the movie. The urban scenes in NYC were well done too and I think that the actors did a good job in the context. Overall in combat scenes I think that there was not too much camera shake which was good. The film did give a sense of reality, in the context of the subject matter. So top marks to the DPs and the CGI people. You have to remember, it's not going to look real because it simply isn't real and isn't ever going to be real. Remember, there really was a war of the worlds - it was called Saipan 1944, or Iwo Jima 1945, or the Battle off Samar 1944 - take your pick - if they shot that it would look 100% more authentic. Your thoughts?>