Tim Smyth

Are they still going to produce Super 8 stock as well?

I hate to be the nitpicker of the group, but the budget for Star Wars was 10M, with an additional 1M provided by George himself. Don't worry, he got the toy rights for that cool million. He originally did ask for 7M though.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0368226/?ref_=bo_se_r_1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 As best that can be figured out. Why you get into these discussions? I don't know, but you brought it up, not me. I think the argument that as long as we make the worst films possible, but keep the budgets low so we can make a profit, will not have a long term life success for the industry. I would be happy I guess if I made a film that entertained everyone, even if it was for all the wrong reasons, but I would prefer to try and make something that is actually good. So I would suggest that we should all try to make the best film possible, with whatever means we can. In 1932 during the world wide depression all the American studios decided to not exceed $250,000.00 for any film, for the sake of their own future, as anything over that was likely to not make a profit. And they succeeded and lasted to this very day, well some of them. The business is not really run quite the same way today.

And I will disagree with you, as far as I know the film has yet to break even. It may be close, but no cigar yet. I am happy that folks are seeing his film, even if they're going to see how bad it actually is, like Birdemic.

Totally confused by what you are saying here. There is no theatrical profit at all to the Room. All movies are a gamble, some pay off, some don't.

I would have to see the storyboard, but it may be possible to film it, with the cat walking by, and do a split screen, replacing the cat part of the frame with an empty floor. Something like how they did that type of effect of shadows of the farm workers in the film Vampyr.

I have posted on the sites I mentioned, but have been ignored. Just a warning not to believe everything you read on the internet.

The problem is... when some misinformation appears, for whatever reason folks who put it out there don't want to correct it. This has happened on the Pete website listed. Another problem is with the first site David posted, is that it is just too simple, and left out important steps in the evolution of those trick shots. This is not unusual, mistakes have even appeared on the Cinefex website, and when pointed out, were just left on there for all eternity, and the comments for all of these places are useless, since many post, but few read. Though the Cinefex comments were turned off after my comments. Of course this misinformation happens in books as well, best to do as much research as possible, from multiple sources, and see where they align or don't, to discover the most probable truth on how a certain effect was achieved.

Not my first choice, as I would want to shoot the effects in camera, or on film, and anamorphic kind of changes that game, but I'm all for 65mm.

An allusion to an utterance of Jesus' in John 8:7, viz. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

You guys are crazy, digital is much cheaper... oh wait we are on another topic. Well then, I would shoot in IMAX, do the effects, as much as possible in camera. I myself would not be shooting, I would hire David for that, I would write, direct, supervise the effects, and editing. Editing would most likely be done digitally, as most of the presentation would also be digital. I would have film prints made to show in theaters that could accommodate 70mm.

Hi David, I may have been mistaken about the motion control rig, as that is what we used for commercials at that facility. How much work was done at the frame Shop I don't know, just that I was told that is where Ken Burns did the work. They have been long closed now, and the owner is not with us anymore, so I can't confirm anything at this point. If I ever run into the guy who ran the camera. I will be sure to ask him about it.

Today one can do it the digital editing stage. Hi David, Ken Burns used to use a motion control camera, like they used to film the effects scenes for Star Wars. Sounds crazy, but true. This was done around Boston, I think the name of the company was the Frame Shop.

But doesn't VistaVision have twice the frame size as 35MM? So that would make sense that it was sharper?

Hi Mark, I was driving the other day, and something Simon said about old cameras needing servicing struck a chord. After this film incident that day, I did indeed have my camera serviced, and the guy said he cleaned, and lubed the camera, and that it may have never seen service before. Now it is working perfectly, but... on the day of the shoot with the Foma film, it was incredibly hot out, and the camera stopped working, and I now think the camera had simply just had enough. If I had had Kodak stock in the camera that day, I would have thought "Shucks, my camera broke", but since I had film I had never used before, I had assumed (which is almost always a bad thing) that it must be the film making the camera all sluggish. Hence I thought the film was too wide. I was hand-crankng that day, so I could really feel it. After your comment above, on the width of film, and Simon's comment in another thread, it made me think that maybe it was not the film after all, so I put a piece of Foma film in the camera, and it did indeed work smoothly. So apologies if I insulted anyone on this board, and certainly apologies to Foma film. I still have 4 unused rolls from that old project, so I will try to make a new film with it this Summer.