Pat Murray

That makes perfect sense Stephen. I like James' follow up. If you're in a decent sized city, you should have access to a video store with the titles he listed. Also check out Netflix. I'm pretty sure the original Scarface I referenced is on Netflix. A few of those titles mentioned by James should be there as well. Very interesting topic, btw. Good luck!

By what measure or standard are you using to dismiss films as too obscure? If they have the examples you need, don't worry if TCM doesn't show them on a regular basis, include them in your paper. Right off the top of my head, I love the way shadow is used to help tell the story in the original Scarface. In particular the symbol of a cross is shown whenever somebody is about to die. This is typicaly done with shadow and the scene that sticks out most for me is the Valentine's Day Massacre. The shadow of the Vampire creeping along the wall in Nosferatu.

In Jack Reacher, he's not a hit man, more of a James Bond/sleuth type of character. He plays a retired Military Police investigator who likes to live off the grid.

1) What you're suggesting is akin to saying that changes in watercolor manufacture will eventually make it indistinguishable from oil paints. Film is film and digital is digital. Digital should not be trying to be film, another medium, it should be trying to be as good as it can be within its own medium. Like film has been doing for the last 100 years. The only reason they are compared is due to greed because the perception is it saves money and to sell the changes to the market. Joe and Jane average who don't care about format Hollywood just tells them it's same same and they'll feel all better and continue going to the cinema. Like good little consumers. 2) Interesting that you should mention color and sound. Both of which could have been part of film, in primitive form, from pretty much the beginning, but silent B&W was a lot cheaper to produce and the audiences were happy and buying tickets. The march of technology has nothing to do with it. This isn't a better way to build a wiget, it's art and entertainment. For the producers it's all about money. Color and sound comes in when it's profitable to do so. Digital comes in at the right time for the same reason. When it's profitable. In this case, good enough to fool the average viewer plus years of propaganda about digital and HD. We should be enjoying both formats, but greed says otherwise. Technological advance is irrelevant to the demise of film. It is totally unnecessary.

Even then, visit your local rep theater as much as possible as those days are coming to an end too. My local rep theater always takes the 35mm print over digital, but is having a harder and harder time getting prints from the studios. The owner mentioned yesterday that he tried to rent a 35mm print of Grease and was told by the studio that they had tossed their copy. On a positive note, this could be a good fundraising opportunity for archival houses such as Eastman House, Cinemateque and American Cinemateque as they could get more requests from rep theaters for 35mm copies from their archives. My local theater is also collecting prints and they now have over 200 in various states of repair. I don't know how they workout the licensing issues, but they do have a free screening for members once a month and that's always a 35mm film from their own collection. Regarding, "The Master" I saw it on the last 35mm projector in a local multiplex in town just a week or two before they took it down. Just as I was sitting down I looked up to see a kid in the projection booth with what looked like written instructions in his hand whilst his other hand scratched his head and he looked searchingly over the 35mm projector. I though, oh boy this could be interesting, but he got it to work without any issues and I loved the film. For many of the reasons already stated and as a brilliant character study.

Everything here is fair comment and needs to be said in a thread like this, but there's one factor you didn't consider and I don't think it has anything to do with Hubris. It's the artistic factor. I sometimes process my own film, edit on Steenbecks, as well as make my own workprints on a modified Steenbeck and there's just something about the hands on experience of analog workflow that fires up the artistic fires within me. Granted, the OP is willing to go way further than me and if I were to shoot a feature, shooting on film and using analog synths for the soundtrack is about as far as I'd be willing to go for the reasons you suggested. The money to invest in the old equipment plus time required to learn how to use it at a professional level. Although collecting over time and spreading the use of the equipment over several projects, not all at once, might not be a bad idea. Either way, I get it. Good luck to you.

The biggest aspect of Nouvelle Vague for me is the deconstruction of convetional American film narratives. The beauty is the location. Visit Paris and the French countryside and you'll see what I mean.

Such a naive comment. It's never about progress, it's always about the bottom line. Sound and colour in cinema in the late 20s and 30s wasn't progress. The first colour film company (two strip process) called Kinemacolour was in operation at the turn of the century. The projectors required for the film were too expensive to upgrade for most cinemas and the type of films being produced by the company where of little interest to the public. So, it went out of business. Inventors were already on the verge of adding sound to film as early as 1900, but nobody wanted to spend the extra money because audiences were satisfied with the present product and it cost less. So, at the beginning of the 20th century progress is delayed by a couple of decades because there was no profit in it for the studios and film producers. At the beginning of the 21th century, it's all about progress, but only because the big studios see profit and overhead savings in digital capture and distribution. So, let's quit this whole progress nonesense. That's just snake oil salesman talk from people who stand to profit from digital. If it were truly about giving the audience the best product money and progress can provide, all the films we watch would be shot and displayed on IMAX film. Again, I have nothing against digital and welcome it as another tool in the artist's toolbox, but I get so weary of the BS from the digital side. Let's just be honest and transparent. This is about $$$$$$$. End of. Sometimes I think, subconsiously, it's not really about the lose of film that bothers some cinema artists, it's the underlining naked greed that turns them off.

What are you talking about? The Wizard of Oz, Suspiria, Lawernce of Arabia and 2001, just a small sample, shot in digital???? I don't think so. Not to mention the countless artists out there who are not conventional mainstream narrative filmmakers. Oil, watercolors, et al have a magical quality as well and they've survived the advent of photography. No reason why film can't continue for those who like that medium. Even if, as with portraiture, it will never be as dominant as it once was due to changes in technology.

Hi Rob, what's the cost for a workprint, a digital copy for editing (if I decided to edit digital instead of using workprints) and for HD digital transfer on a final cut? I'm in Canada, but for that cost, I will send you my film in the mail. Do you process Super 8 and transfer to digital as well?

Exactly. I think it was John Waters, but to be honest have forgotten who made this point, but he said that a pencil and paper is the cheapest means of production for art out there and the 20th century didn't produce a bunch of Shakespeares. I also think it's a bit of a myth driven by those who profit from digital that filmmaking is more egalitarian or democratic now. Cheap cameras and equipment have always been available to aspiring filmmakers. No, it wasn't as easy as shooting on your camcorder and then downloading to your computer, but really, how much more difficult was it for Spielberg to shoot a short on a Super 8 one day, pick it up from the developer the next day and then spend the evening with his little hand cranked Super 8 editor that night cutting and splicing his final piece together? Just go to You Tube and check out all those old 70s and 80s home movies made on Super 8 and 16mm that people like to post. Some pretty impressive stuff there. I'm not trying to start a film vs digital argument here, what I'm saying is that the ability for anybody to make a film on the cheap has been around for decades. For filmmaking to be truly egalitarian or democratized, it has to happen in distribution. So long as major Hollywood studios control 97% of the screens, the mumblecore folks et al can make as many films as they like, very few people are going to see their films outside of film schools and fringe film festivals. Where there is an argument that movie making is democratized is in the internet where the mumblecore people and other independant filmmakers can create a website and dvd copies of their movies on the cheap and self-distribute. It's also easier to send out your film to film festivals around the world when all it costs you is a stamp as dvds/blu-rays don't weigh the much. Production isn't easier or cheaper, really, IMO, it's the distribution of films.

****please delete the previous post, technical error**** Robert Harris attended a 70mm festival here a couple of years ago. He was definitely 100% pro digital by then and what you've written pretty much echoes what he said that night. I'm sure it looks great, I've seen digital prints of Renoir that looked marvelous too. But If I'm being charged a premium, I still want to see it in the medium the artist intended. Same applies for Lawrence of Arabia. Granted, I'm not going to have a lot of choice soon, but that's ok, I understand the economics just don't justify it. As for the look of the film from the original, I'm fine with that based on what I saw at the film festival. I am happy that there is also a digital version that can show me how it is supposed to look. Although doesn't it depend on if the original camera neg was properly stored and not abused or tossed in the dumpster? I seem to recall Mr. Harris lamenting that the reason why he couldn't restore films like Vertigo and Lawrence to exactly their original look (ie grey suits should be blue) was due to missing original camera negs and other elements.

Robert Harris attended a 70mm festival here a couple of years ago. He was definitely 100% pro digital by then and what you've written pretty much echoes what he said that night. I'm sure it looks great, I've seen digital prints of Renoir that looked marvelous too.

one ofthe feels more like movie and the other more like TV, but why? That's because one was shot for the cinema and the other was shot for TV. At least that's what I've read on the original trilogy. Not as common today, but it has happened in the past where movies originally intended for tv received a theatrical release instead. The pilot for Buck Rogers and Rocky are a couple of made for tv movies that got theatrical releases.

A second review might help although I should have added that I think you do have valid points. The movie does seem to sell itself as smarter than it is. Especially with the way the trailers were released. Not surprising if people thought they were going to be treated to a "generational" Science Fiction movie. Plus, my POV is hardly flattering to the picture when I think about it. I'm basically saying it's Prime Time network drama/network movie of the week level stuff.

I think if you see it again, you'll notice that everything happens quite quickly due to a series of unfortunate events, plus you have some conflicting agendas. One or two hidden. Making it difficult to regroup and as for the worm in the eye, I took that scene as the character not being sure if he saw what he thought he saw. - The storm forces everybody to pack up quickly and leave - David grabs one of the pods in the rush to get out without telling anybody - The geologist and biologist get lost in the complex and are forced to spend the night and are unfortunate to encounter the "biological" weapons that were "activated" by the presence of the survey team. These set off a series of events that make it difficult to come together and regroup. Especially with some people wanting to head back soonest, whilst others wanting to try harder to find a living engineer and/or get answers. They covered that by knocking out the two people who came to get her, revealing earlier in the film that the only people who go into the surgery area of the ship without an invite are Miss Weylan and David and then later revealing after the surgery that those two were elsewhere with "daddy" Whelan. I don't think he was shocked, I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Especially if you go by the myth of the Titan Prometheus. He was standing next to a water source on earth before humans and he created mankind on earth by sacrificing himself. Well, he got the evolutionary process started. This was either intentional or like the myth, a rogue move, which angered the engineers when they found it and is likely the reason why they developed the biological weapons to wipe out humans on earth. We'll find out for sure in the next film. I'm leaning towards the latter due to Mr. Weylands' erroneous retelling of the myth - that mankind was given equal status with the Titans and humans were punished for this. In the actual myth, Prometheus gives fire to humans (thus elevating them from savages to civilized) and only Prometheus is punished. Again, from my POV, this isn't that confusing (whether or not it's believable is up to the viewer, of course). The biological weapons (as theorized by the Capt of Prometheus) are (very rapid) evolutionary (IMO). The goo becomes worms, the worms become arm breaking snake like creatures who impregnant a host and become those face suckers from the original series, who in turn impregnant another host with the pointed headed killing machine we see at the end. Between the spiked tea and the geologist doing a face plant in the black goo, it seems that if you get the black goo in your blood stream it'll turn you into a monster. A different evolutionary process. The pods might have something to do with guiding the black goo's evolutionary process towards the end goal of pointy headed killing machines wipping out mankind. The puffy face anthropolist guy, IMO, was headed for the same transformation as the geologist who went on a rampage in the loading bay. I don't think the black goo infection necessarily made him more horny all of a sudden. I don't need to be infected to want to make love to my wife. :D Although worth asking why she gets pregnant and he turns into a monster. There's a plot hole. You'd think with the passage of fluids, she'd get infected too and become a raging puffy faced monster. You're probably ahead of the story. Your answer is probably in the next movie or the one after it. I don't see the problem here. Runways are for landing and taking off on. Somebody had mentioned confusion over the tall man trying to kill the humans as well as how would primitive civilizations know about the star system etc. The answers are in the theory that their creators had turned against humankind and were planning to destroy planet earth. As for the "invitation", as stated by the biologists, the ancient pictures show "Engineers" standing amongst a human audience describing the star system. Indicating they came back and paid visits to their creation when humans were still primitive. Maybe its man's hostility towards each other that disappointed them and that's why they were planning on wiping out the human race? We'll find out in the next movie I suppose. The dead body of the Engineer was carbon dated to around the time of Christ. At that time life was particularly brutish between human tribes. Maybe the prequels will reveal themselves to be a kind of bloody Noah's arc analogy. Instead of a flood, it's acid blooded alien killing machines. To be continued.... Chris, I'm not picking on you, please don't take it the wrong way. Yours was just the most detailed, so I just used your post to illustrate my point that the story is pretty much on par with dramas you might see on network tv at 10PM. Simple, not overly complicated and if you don't think about it too much, it'll make sense.

I think some of you are trying to read too much into the film. It's as if you're expecting a cerebal film on par with Kubrick and Tarkovskiy, but forgeting that what you're really getting is Ridley Scott (visual style over substance) and adjusting your expectations accordingly. I went into this film with an expectation level of 4/10 and an anticipation level of 0/10. My anticipation was much higher until I found out the screenwriter for Lost was in charge of the story. So, last night I sat back and just let the story tell itself to me. I found it to be a fairly simple story, certainly didn't feel the incoherence and plot holes people are talking about here and I think it's set up beautifully for a sequel. The story pretty much boils down to these questions: Why did you create us? Why did you change your mind and now want to destroy us? My biggest complaint regarding the acting was Theron. I've found her acting to be excellent in other movies, but she sucks as a villain. It was the kind of performance I expect to see at a Pantomine. All she was missing was a comedic wacky flamboyant partner in villainy to play off her.

Has Ridley ever produced an intelligent epic? When you look at his resume of films he isn't really known for profundity. Perhaps we are simply mesmerized by his visual style and set designs? Otherwise, he's mostly a popcorn salesman just like his younger brother. A damn good one at that!

I haven't seen the trailer in awhile, but the 3 main actors that I recall are Theron, Rapace and Fassbender. All of whom I consider talented actors based on previous work and I didn't notice anything in the trailer to indicate an appaling performance. Am I missing somebody? Or am I just a horrible judge of acting talent? <_< This is quite possible. :D As for Ripley's gumpiness, apparently he's always been that way. From the Blad Runner IMDB page: Towards the end of principal photography an incident occurred which has become known as the T-shirt war. The majority of the crew didn't enjoy working on the film, and didn't like working for Ridley Scott, who they considered to be cold and distant. In an article in the British press, Scott commented that he preferred working with English crews because when he asked for something they would say, "Yes gov'nor" and go get it, but things weren't that simple with American crews. Makeup supervisor Marvin G. Westmore saw the article and was disgusted. In retaliation, he had t-shirts printed with "Yes gov'nor my ass!" on the front, and either Will Rogers never met Ridley Scott" or "You soar with eagles when you fly with turkeys" on the back. In retaliation, Scott and several of his closer collaborators had t-shirts made with "Xenophobia sucks" on them.

Something like the Canadian content rules for music on commercial radio stations is probably the kind of legislation you're after. Here in Canada it has its supporters and its detractors, but (I think) 30% of air time mandated to Canadian recording artists does make a huge difference. If you did the same for UK theaters (30% UK content), I think there would definitely be a revival of UK cinema. And just like Canada's content laws for recording artists, films will be produced that people "actually want to watch". The competition for that 30%, plus the new companies/studios/distributors that would go into business to fill that 30%, will naturally try to produce films that can compete with what's playing on the other 70% of screens. Now that I think about it, I'm surprised the Canadian government has legislated content rules to protect recording artists, magazines and domestic television productions, as well as pro football players, but there's no such protectionism for Canadian films in our cinemas.

We have a rep theater here in Ottawa that is about to make it to its 80th birthday in the same situation. They need to come up with $55K by the end of the calendar year to buy a new Digital projector so they can show second run Hollywood features in 2013 and beyond. As much pride they take in showing rare 35mm prints of "Deep Red" and "Once Upon A Time In The West" (the owner had to beg the studio to send that print as they thought it wasn't presentable, it was actually a very nice print), they sustain themselves with a steady diet of Avengers, 5 Year Engagement etc. after they've gone through the Cineplexes. It appears that the classics will only be available in digital projection too. Although the owners of the Ottawa rep theater do have around 200 privately owned 35mm/16mm prints and are always hunting the film markets for more. Being able to show them legally to the public can be dicey depending on the film though.

No more versus. Put them both in your filmmaker tool box and use them when you need them.

It would also be wiser for me to save the $300 I spent on U2 tickets. Spend $20 on the tour DVD instead and put the remaining $280 into some home improvement project that needs my attention.

Rex, for most part I`m following you, but you are way off base on the quality talk, IMO. Especially when you associate hard-copy as crap. Au contraire, the best quality for a consumer of music is through a hard medium such as tape, vinyl or CD. Ditto for film, some digital file on my netbook isn`t going to surpass the quality of a properly projected film in a movie theater. My original well cared for vinyl pressing of Moondance (meaning it`s 40+ years old) provides me with better quality performances of Into The Mystic, Crazy Love etc. then what I`d get from an Itunes download. It`s not about quality, it`s about convenience for the consumer and cost savings for the producer of the media. Don`t get me wrong, I`m not stuck in some Chuck Berry dance, I do embrace the possibilities that technology provides us, just don`t make the mistake of confusing convenience with quality. Especially when part of that confusion has to do with companies hussling their product and telling consumers what they want to hear. Personaly, the more options the better. The zero sum game for artistic media is stupid as it lets technology dominate art rather than technology working in equal partnership with art. Purchasing a DVD with a digital file is the kind of thing I like to see. Directors only distributing their films through a stream from their website is cool too. I`m just not going to buy some snake oil argument that I`m better off quality wise watching the director`s movie through an online stream over a presentation on a Blu Ray on my HD tv or in a movie theater.

LOL, reminds me of Canada. Her in Canada I think of actors like Gordon Pinsent, Paul Gross, Sarah Polley etc. Get these people involved in your project and you`ll have a chance with Telefilm. :D :rolleyes: