Justin Hayward

I think you should go to Roger Deakin's website and ask him if he's just too lazy to shoot on film, or if he's too stupid to know he has bad taste. :P :D

This whole thread is so stupid, I can't help but keep watching. :lol: and laughing!!! (Whoops, my son just told me I'm not supposed to say "stupid". He's right. Sorry about that.) Yessir.

In retort, I will now declare my subjective opinion as fact! So there. :P

Its interesting, I watched the newer Paul Thomas Anderson video he did with this group and it didnt affect me at all. One blew me away and the other was simply fine. I feel like its a testament to our personal taste. Strange how that works. Its also a testament to making work that pleases you, because theres no chance you can guess what will please someone else.

Yes good point. And I agree I dont think this movie had the low con look that seems to be popular these days. But since it was brought up I mentioned the trend. Love the look of this blade runner. I have three little children so seeing movies in theaters is a big deal, but Im going back for a second time with this one. I just loved it. It made me feel like a little kid when I enjoyed cinema for the cinema again. Pure movie going experience.

So what does the director or DP or whoever ask for when they want this style? Gimme the "flat"...? Gimme the "looks like you didn't touch it"...?

I was just having this conversation... It's interesting, I was watching "Minority Report" the other day and it almost feels dated because of the high contrast compared to today's modern stuff. I didn't feel it with this "Blade Runner" (I loved the look of this movie), but it's obvious in something like this which is at the top of our modern pop culture... It just looks like RAW uncorrected footage to me, but it's definitely a new style. I see loads of high end commercials that are color corrected like this. Any DP's here that shoot big commercials and music videos encounter this approach? And any idea how it became a thing? Did people see RAW or LOG footage and think, "I like this just the way it is." then it caught on? EDIT: and to be clear, I don't dislike the look, I'm just wondering why and when it became such a trend. EDIT 2: a colorist I know just told me I'm ten years behind recognizing this trend, so...

Hilarious. I literally had to double check the date of the OP. Man, I've been on this website a long time.

Very nice!

I mean, they're not working on Mickey Mouse Club House here. This is a hundred and fifty million dollar sequel to Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" shot by one of the top cinematographers in the world. But who cares what I think. One of the coolest things about Roger Deakins is he's provided a direct line to himself through his website, so go ask him if he doesn't know that the VFX houses generally render out everything in 2k then report back. Edit: David answered the question.

Sure, but 2 plus 2 equals 5 doesn't qualify as an opinion, right?

No, not at all. I've watched it many times over the past couple days. I love the long takes following the moments of the music and I love the soul of the performers. I feel like the camera work and editing perfectly match the spirit of the music and I really love the music, which is the first I've heard of them. It just feels like real artists performing and letting a real artist capture their souls on camera. I also have a similar aesthetic taste to PT Anderson's color choices, so I admit I'm biased there. But I just really love it. What don't you like about it?

Watch it on the biggest screen you have and TURN IT UP!!!

It sounds like dime store symbolism, but I wouldn't know because with a baby in my house I could never watch a movie where they tear apart a newborn and eat it........... but that's just me... and Richard :)

Maybe when the next big Nike spot hires a 22-year-old gaffer fresh out of film school the whole system will collapse and everything will go back to normal. :)

No, it just sucks.:) Gaffers need to up their rates.

Ok, maybe, but this isn't a guy getting a P.A. job in the art department, because his uncle is the production designer. And it's not some rich guy giving his son the company while everyone else runs it. "DP" is a key role in the artistic and technical craft of film production. It's a really hard job. It's a position where experience is critical or you could wind up with a huge mess. It's a big risk to use someone unproven (other than some small art film or whatever) on a 6 or 7 digit commercial. It used to be inexperienced directors are forced to use experienced DP's almost like insurance. Even with the switch to digital, I don't fully understand how that's changed, but it seems to have changed.

Maybe. But I've heard of colorists complaining that footage from big commercials with young DP's are coming in extremely inconsistent, so they spend a lot of their time just matching shots. You would think, after watching shots cut together, whoever hired the DP would think they might need to hire someone with more experience on the next job.

I totally believe it with directing because we rely on everyone to pick up our slack (only half joking), but I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around a 24 year old DP getting these huge jobs. As a director, I would be horrified if someone tried to force a 24 year old on me that has a cool looking short film to his name. Another 50 something-year-old gaffer I know recently shot a huge TV pilot for Fox and the DP was in his late 20's. What??? I DP'd a low budget feature shot on 16mm when I was 25 and it looked like s--t. Who is hiring a DP that young and inexperienced on these huge shows? Other young directors? Agencies? I've just been hearing about this a lot lately and it seems really strange.

My goodness, I've been trying to find a way to bring this up here to get some of your perspectives. I had a drink with a gaffer the other night and a commercial he recently gaffed turned up on the bar TV. It was a massive spot with huge lighting set ups. It came on several times while we were there, so he was able to break down the lighting for me while we watched it. It was very complicated involving balancing cityscapes with dusk with practical lighting and lighting huge amounts of trees. Now this guy has been gaffing for about 30 years, so when he told me what made the whole thing so difficult was that the DP was... hold for dramatic pause... TWENTY FOUR! I was a little shocked. I guess the DP didn't understand simple ratio changes between the lighting and the stop... simple technical things anyone could learn with a few years of experience. I don't know what the budget was, but if I had to guess I would say it was seven figures. The gaffer told me he's dealing with this all the time and he's so relieved when he gets to work with an older, more experienced DP. I've heard the old adage, "the only entry level job on a film set is P.A. and director", but that never applied to DP's because there was a certain level of technical knowledge you had to have to get these big jobs, but couldn't know without plenty of experience. Do you think it also has to do with the switch from film to digital?

Excellent example. Looks great. Such a good scene.

Of course. I was half joking with all my references. My point is that many, many, movies released today are widescreen 2:35... including comedies which didn't used to be. I watched the 1983 "Vacation" a couple nights ago which was 1:85, but the 2015 remake was 2:35.

I've directed a handful of commercials where someone from the agency said something to an actor that I would describe as something not to do without saying how to. I remember one guy telling an actor to make sure not to sweat because the shirt we picked will show every drop. That was not helpful. Those books mentioned above are great. Read them and absorb what you feel applies to your sensibilities and discard what doesn't. But, like some others have said, trying to copy another director's approach likely won't work for most people. Figuring out how to get what you like up on the screen will develop with experience. That said, it's a scary thing when something is clearly not working and all eyes are on you to fix it, but you don't know how. Unfortunatly, that will happen at some point no matter how many books you've read, or advice you've gotten.

Can't argue with that, but he must have changed his mind because "A Million Ways to Die in the West" and "Ted 2" were both 2:35. edit: The first "Ted" was 1:85 and mostly considered the funniest of these three, so maybe he's trying to prove his own point. :)

"Baywatch" in my living room last weekend.