Max Jacoby

This is the bet:

I would be fine with looking at the first six months of releases in 2011 and going off that - since a lot of those releases would have been shot in 2010. But that means I will not collect my 100 smackaroos until mid- or late 2011. :(

Major studio films (30M+) released in the first half of 2011. Most of the 3D films currently shooting digitally won't be ready for that timeframe. Films like Tron that are released this month don't count either.

I never forget when Jim stepped in and offered to back my side of the bet for $100,000, Stephen's shoes left smoke and rubber burns on the cement as he ran for the hills.

I find it hilarious that Tom seems to be completely unaware of the irony of his post. To a billionaire betting for 100K is about as much as 50$ is to a person with a normal income. And for somone who fancies himself a modern day Nostradamus like Tom, betting only 50$ is definitely NOT putting your money where your mouth is. But then again he always struck me as the kind of guy who, when he has to stop at a red light, turns to his passengers and says: 'Don't worry, it will be green soon'. And when the light does turn green, he goes: 'I told you so!'

The trailer for my feature DUST is now online:

http://vimeo.com/6005964

It'll get released in Luxembourg at the end of the year. Releases in other countries will hopefully follow in 2010.

"My main criterion to judge art is honesty, and these kinds of films are anything but."

 

Go see the film and then you can yack and complain, (childish name calling removed by admin) .

Stop trying to pick fights with me Joe. I clearly stated that I was talking about films in general, not Slumdog Millionaire in particular.

John, I guess you need to read the fine print between the lines. The problem and the real argument that you are getting here, is this. "This film is bad and I refuse to enjoy it, let alone see it, because it was not shot on Film."

Stop being such a (childish name calling removed by admin) Joe. The format has nothing to do with it, so do us a favor and and keep your silly comments to yourself.

Well that's hard to interpret given you earlier agreed with a statement that supports that position in a thread that is entitled "slumdog millionaire" My apologies for ascribing that opinion to you.

Well I did not agree personally, I just said that I have friends who share Tim's opinion.

Gosh, now I really have to go see that film to see what all the fuss is about. ;)

I was not referring to Slumdog Millionaire (which I don't have an opinion on, because I haven't seen it yet) but to films in general.

Did you read the threads elsewhere that say that PV anamorphic are just rehoused Nikon's & Primos are rebarreled Leica? Funny thing is Leica does not make the same lenses for their still cameras.

That's unfortunately just wishful thinking by a bunch of amateurs. Panavision designed these lenses and Leica made the glass to their specifications. As we all know, the look of a lens is determined by the design (both optical and mechanical), not the place that makes the different glass elements. Hence why the Academy gave an Oscar to the Panavsion designers.

The best lens in the world is useless if you don't have proper focus scales. That's one of the reasons the Primos are so popular. When they got released in the late 80s, their focus scale was much wider and more precise than that of Zeiss Superspeeds, Standards and Cooke S2/S3s. It took Zeiss and Cooke almost a decade to make lenses that were in that category.

I am wondering if that it actually matters to be honest.

 

Im trying to read between the lines so maybe I should spell out exactly how it's coming across to me and you can correct me in case i have the wrong idea.

 

The inference seems to be that Danny Boyle, AKA a rich white man, is exploiting poverty stricken Indians to make a film masquerading as a masterpiece of cinema ??

 

Do i have that wrong ?

 

jb

I don't think that Tim was suggesting that Danny Boyle exploited Indians. Well at least not in a direct manner of course, but rather in the sense that he uses their plight to make one of these manipulative films about a 'worthy' and/or 'important' subject that people like to watch because it makes them feel better about themselves. Which is the exact same feedback that I've heard from other people too.

We've had some conversations about these kind of films, those that win awards not based on their artistic merits, but because of the subject matter. It's my belief that many people have trouble separating the subject matter from the film itself. Just because a film is about a 'worthy' subject does not make it a 'worthy' film. It's kinda like the family dog that gets killed after twenty minutes. More often than not that's a cheap manipulation that's incredibly effective to get an emotional reaction.

My main criterion to judge art is honesty, and these kinds of films are anything but.

You do know that it's an adaptation ?

Adaptation of a fiction or non-fiction novel?

And Max--yeah! I heard of day interiors and night exteriors! But did you ever hear that you can actually screw (or twist) your lens off the camera and replace it with another that's more suitable for the conditions?

So if you have a faster 20mm lens, why would you want another one that's slower at F4.5? Unless the F4.5 lens can do things a regular 20mm couldn't do, like macro or so. And with such an atrociously slow stop, it better be pretty amazing in that other area, otherwise there is absolutely no point in you starting a thread about a new lens whose availability you consider a 'curse'. No one is forcing you to buy it.

Yet a number of people are already claiming that they have done this on the RED, and even gotten away with no focus-pullers, shooting at wide apertures just by the operator (usually themselves) live-focusing.

I remember one shot on my film where we were on a 75mm Hawk, the actress was watering plants and slowly working her way into a close-up. I was standing next to the focus puller and could see how he was adjusting for every single time she leaned backwards and forwards. That really was a work of inches. There's no way an operator could have done this.

Does anyone else think this looks vile and manipulative? Yet another, dreadful, shooting fish in a barrel film festival box ticker? Quite offended to see the word "masterpiece" being banded around.

 

Let's all breath in the gooey music, uber cliched "relevant" handheld work (REALLY shot in India by REAL, rich white Western people) and and feel good about ourselves. While the maker's of Millionaire make a fortune off of this.

That's what I've been hearing from friends as well.

The RED zoom is a rehoused still lens. Creating the very fine mechanics to spread out a focus scale is expensive and, as we all know, the RED company is so very 'economical.' <_<

I had a look at the new Zeiss 8mm lens (for 16mm) the other day and what really struck me that once you went down into the minimum focus region you had a marking for every single centimeter! And that's on a wide-angle lens.

Really, all these people who think they can use stills lenses for narrative filmmaking are in for a surprise.

Max, ever hear of sunny Florida? We simply don't have those clouds and rain that you guys have to deal with--only an occasional hurricane now and then. A fixed 20mm, even at 4.5, shooting naked chicks sunbathing in South Beach, is just fine.

Ever heard of day interiors? Or night scenes? Good luck trying to shoot those at F4.5.

F4.5, that's not very useful.

Completely overrated film.

But Heath Ledger really should get a posthumous oscar his role in my opinion was truly brilliant.

It's the kind of show-of performance that Academy voters love. Kinda like the way David Fincher is an eternal filmstudent favorite, because there are so many obvious 'cool' shots in his films.

The film seemed more of a practice in style rather than content for Singer.

The good man is very fond of shooting dialogue scenes with 2 cameras moving laterally on dollies and zooming in at the same time. Not sure I'd call that directing though.

It's shot on Cooke S4s, you can tell from the bokeh.

On top of this the new G-series anamorphics were the core set with the E-series 135 & 180mm primes, AWZ2 & Angenieux zooms.

Hmm, sounds like the only argument to go see such a film. Too bad they did a DI, anamorphic printed photochemically always looks so gorgeous.

Kubrick was an established photographer while still in high school. From what I have seen and read i believe he could have assumed most roles in a film production if he chose to do so.

There's a still of Kubrick on the set of Eyes Wide Shut with a lightmeter in his hand. I bet he wasn't it just holding it while Larry Smith was getting himself a cup of coffee.

I'm just watching "The girl with the pearl earring" and while not looking grainy or imperfect at all it simple looks marvelous, more "natural" and I can't help but thinking that Mr. Finchers work is compromised by his choice of technology? Will he regret his choice in 10+ years when seeing his work still only in 1080p?

Just think how George Lucas must be feeling when watching his HDCAM Star Wars in 10 years.

As for 'Girl', Eduardo was robbed of an Oscar, there is no way that 'Master & Commander' was the better looking film that year.

Haha, this dubbed video is so much better!

Here in Europe, all trailers are flat and the projectionist has to change the lens before a scope main feature. That's a bit annoying, because if the focus is off, you only see it once the film has started.

I really doubt there are films in different aspect ratios, especially going from scope to 1.85 or vice versa would require either an optical or a digital step and no filmmaker would stand for that.

The only instance I seem to recall is 'The Painted Veil' where Adam said that although it was shot Super 35, it was projected 16/9 in theatres with a digital projector.

I've seen 'Elephant' which was Academy, projected 1.85 because the theatre didn't have the correct lens. Luckily the filmmakers had protected the framing for that eventuality and it wasn't too annoying (no cropped heads...)

The weirdest thing I've ever seen was a 4/3 Pan & Scan print of a scope film that was projected 1.85. That was truly disturbing, as less than half of original the image ended up on screen...