Eldon Stevens

Saw this commercial the other day, and it had me and my friends jumping for the 'Rewind' button on the DVR. We watched it about six times before giving up trying to figure out how they stitched this thing together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_duuop1nuaY Reminded me of the stuff Zemekis and crew did in Contact (way back in 1997!!) putting practical photography and CG through some new paces. If anyone has further info on this commercial, please pass it on. And apologies if this is the wrong forum. Might be more appropriate in VFX. Cheers.

Well, I went to go see it opening night, and was disappointed. But not in the production design, cinematography, or even the acting. The issues all centered on the story. And I don't know if the original script* was the culprit, or if the original script was great and was subsequently altered into mediocrity (as so often happens) on its way to the screen. I have to agree with Ebert on this one. In his review, he says: "All this is presented in an expensive, good-looking film that is well-made by Scott Derrickson, but to no avail." The first 15 minutes of this film raised my expectations. Mostly it was footage that we've all seen in the previews and trailers. There was a nifty prologue that added a new element to the story. That's always a good sign; it leads one to (perhaps incorrectly) believe that the filmmaker's are being thoughtful about what they reveal before opening day. So what about the rest of it? Eh. It just wasn't that engaging. The melodrama didn't connect. The amount of dialogue was sparse, even for a science fiction movie. There just wasn't that much to the story that we hadn't predicted. There was only one or two 'money-shot' special effects that we hadn't seen in the trailers. I just didn't buy that an advanced alien civilization would make a planetary judgement call based on the behavior of one kid. Maybe it's just because the story tried to make the argument that large groups of people can willingly change their behavior, to benefit the greater good while enduring personal disadvantage, and I'm right there with the aliens, thinking, "No we won't. Not unless we're forced to at the business end of a gun." Individuals will make sacrifices, and we call them heroes, but asking most people to make sacrifices is futile. (Or I'd be driving an electric hover car right now, no?) Anyway, there was just too much about the story that I couldn't engage with. Also, the pace was glacial. The visual effects for the sphere were very nice, but did we really need a 25 second pan across the thing, with surging music? Five different times during the film? Really? Five times!? Also, on a mildly funny note, there were so many product placements in this film that they became a distraction. One scene: the LG phone plops out of her purse onto the bed with the logo positioned just so, immediately followed by a close-up of Citizen watch to get the time. Bang!Bang! Oi. At one point in the film, after I had given up on it, Helen Bensen holds her son, they're both crying, and he says "I'm sorry..." and she says "I'm sorry....." I just couldn't help myself. I broke my normally iron-clad theater etiquette and said, "We're all sorry." I got a few laughs. <sigh> Yesterday I went out and bought the original version on DVD and watched it, along with the surprisingly good special feature on Robert Wise, which sort of made up for the experience. From now on I'll just keep my expectations to myself. *Not the original original script, the original script for the remake. Hmm. Maybe there should be a name for that, something that doesn't use the word "original". The 'remake greenlit script'? But I digress.

The first one was an iconic, classic 50's science fiction film that was about the Cold War. A cautionary tale about the management of nuclear arms. It didn't really thump you in the face with its theme until the speech at the end. This time around, looks like it's a cautionary tale about mismanagement of the planet. I hope they don't thump me in the face with the theme throughout the whole movie. I mean, I anticipate the required footage of polluted trash dumps, leaking radioactive barrels, and some nice coal stacks billowing toxicity into the atmosphere. As long as stuff blows up and the dialogue isn't terrible, that's cool. And oddly enough, I think Keanu Reeves is the right actor for the part. He's sort of . . . out of tune . . . or something. I buy him as an alien in a human body. If you don't think so, I'm curious: Who'd be better for the part? -Eldon Stevens

Hey folks. Just wanted to mention that there were two extras on the Wall*E three-disc set which, in my humble opinion, were worth the purchase price. One was 'The PIXAR Story', an hour-and-a-half documentary by Leslie Iwerks. It's a pretty even-handed version of the Lasseter/Lucas/Jobs/Disney tale, and there's some great archival footage in there. It has a site of its own here. Also, there's a feature called 'The Imperfect Lens' wherein the PIXAR folks discuss their attempts to bring more realistic cinematography to computer animated features. The DVD has some footage of Deakins holding his "master class" on lighting at PIXAR. Much of this material has been covered in AC and in various other places online, and Wall*E was previously discussed in this forum on this thread. Still. It's a nifty DVD.

I have mixed feelings about it. While I recognize that many previous Star Trek movies were weak (except for The Wrath of Khan; we all know that was pretty awesome), there's just something decidedly non-Trek about this movie's vibe. It looks and feels like a Michael Bay movie set in the Star Trek universe. And what's with the dialogue? "Sumpin' big." Really? James T. Kirk says: Sumpin? I wonder if they're going to lose the whole 'sense of wonder and exploration' thing, and exchange it for a grungy series of explosions mixed with Dawson's-Creek-in-space. My expectations are that this will be an unengaging emotionless husk of a film. But unless the reviews are overwhelmingly negative, I'll probably go see it, if only for the VFX.

I see that I'm late to the DP Kobayashi Maru. Despite my high level of respect for the cinematographer's craft, this choice is a foregone conclusion. I'd have to go with A.

Tim, this is something I've been doing for the past three years or so, and my hearing is just fine. If there's a film or show that I really like, I usually watch it three times in succession. Once with subtitles, to get the dialogue, once without, because then you know the dialogue and can concentrate on the story and characters, then again without subtitles while attempting to analyze the filmmaker's tactics as regards to special effects, sound effects, and (of course) cinematography. And I have noticed that all of that isn't really necessary with older movies like Shop Around The Corner, The Philadelphia Story, even His Girl Friday, where the actors must've taken speedtalking lessons before the shoot. At first I thought it was due to the sound systems in theaters being so different than home theater systems. They really seem to boom the dialogue at you in the theater. But after paying closer attention, I've seen a few films in theaters where that wasn't the case. I dunno. So many variables. I shrug and quote Lucas: Sound is 50% of the experience. Whatayagonnado. And so I'm going through the Firefly series (it was a TV show) and there are 14 episodes, which represent about a 30+ hour commitment. Will take me three weeks at least....

I thought it looked good. I watched it on a 32" LCD HDTV, on TNT's HD Channel. If I had to characterize the "look," I would say that's it was gloomy, dark, shadowed. There didn't seem to be much detail in the blacks, although that might have been intentional, and the color palette was all greys and earth tones, with few bright colors at all. Very washed out, but not like the bleach bypass of Minority Report; more like someone just turned down the Hue and Saturation during color grading. Overall I think this suited the theme very well. One thing that struck me as a bit odd was how the lighting and depth of field appeared on some shots. When Jack and Leo are rowing on the lake, the medium shots of the characters against the greenery behind them just seem strange. It almost looked like the characters were shot in front of greenscreen, with studio lighting, and then that footage was composited onto a blurry background of trees. It looked rotoscoped, or faked, somehow. (Of course, I wasn't there, and maybe that's just the shot you get in natural light with the D-20 on a lake, and if so, my apologies. It just didn't look for real.) As far as content goes, tonight's episode as much more violent and bloody than the previous one, and it recounted --- in its Forrest Gumpian historical way --- the uprising in Hungary and also the Bay of Pigs incident. Again, production values were amazing for television. I'm enjoying the show. Hope you get to see it in HD somehow. It's worth a look.

I didn't think this would be very good, at first glance, reading the description on my crappy Time Warner/Brighthouse Networks UI. But it was about the CIA, and even better, it was set back in the 1950s. So I DVR'ed it. I must say I was pleasantly surprised. Several odd elements added up to what I thought was really good (bordering on great) television. Let me say first that if you're looking for historical accuracy, or a precise retelling of actual events, this isn't it. It's based on Robert Littell's book of the same name, which is a highly fictionalized historical-ish saga. There are spies, moles, patriots and traitors, KGB Generals, and all that stuff, only dramatized. Sort of like an abstract summary of the types of things that happened in the Cold War. </disclaimer> That being said, the DP was Ben Nott, and the director is DP-turned-director Mikael Salomon. (You know: The dude from Denmark who shot The Abyss.) I thought that the use of shadows, contrast, and diffused light was just spot on for the material. East Berlin looked exactly like I think East Berlin probably looked in the 1950s. (And since I wasn't even born until 1970, am a Westerner, and also have never been to East Berlin before or after the wall fell, I have absolutely no freakin' idea how it actually looked during the Soviet era. But it felt like it looked right. And that's an accomplishment.) Also, the performances were just spectacular. Michael Keaton is in rare form. Alfred Molina as 'The Sorcerer' just owned that character. Rory Cochrane as Yevgeny Tsipin showed remarkable depth. And remember, this is TV! Oh, that reminds me. Chris O'Donnell was pretty wooden. He did get outclassed by everybody around him. But he wasn't terrible. Just not in the same league as the rest of the cast. Interesting side note: If all other elements are positive, then does it make the cinematography look better than it really is, just because you have a warm-fuzzy for the production? Whenever I see something that is shot well, but the acting and story are terrible, don't you feel like it's a shame? I do. Does the reverse hold? When you see something that is well acted, and a story well told, but the cinematography was not to your taste (or just plain bad), is that a shame? The reason I go down this long-winded road is: Am I attributing excellence undeservedly, just because I really liked the subject matter? Eh, I love science fiction, too, but I'll pull my eyes out of my head and boil them in whale barf before I watch another Sci Fi Channel movie. . . . and I've digressed. And I've seen movies with less attention to art direction and details. The cars/clothes/equipment/boats/sets were all well done. Television drama is, at best, good escapist fare. This is that, and in spades. So did anyone else see it? What say you? http://www.tnt.tv/series/thecompany/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488352/maindetails

The Reuters write-up gives the nod to the cinematography. That doesn't happen every day. "Cinematographer M. David Mullen does wonders with New Mexico's light and dazzling sunsets, evoking the romance and bleakness of the Southwest." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070222/film_n...TUNrpCyPidxFb8C Looking forward to seeing it.

"Come; help me cut the choice meats." Gentlemen*, for my money "Yor: The Hunter From the Future" is hands-down the worst movie ever made. A spectacular piece of excrement (I actually think the word 'craptastic' originated shortly after the theatrical release) that was, shockingly, made by the Italians. The film chronicles the adventures of a warrior in a post-apocalyptic world populated with (a) dinosaurs and (b) mutants, where everyone spoke textbook-precise perfectly-enunciated English. Plus there was a Darth Vader ripoff bad guy, who gets killed with, of all things, a giant candy cane. When you look up B-movie in the dictionary, there's Yor, smiling back at you. The thing is, I don't think they were trying to make a campy B-movie. I don't actually know anyone involved in the making of this film, but I tend to think they were serious. That makes it even funnier. It's even worse than "Flash Gordon." Not to be missed. ------- Oh, also, the 1991 Stallone film, "Oscar." I was astounded to hear that some folks enjoyed it. I think it's a textbook example of bad comedic timing and lame humor in general. It just wasn't entertaining. But you know what they say about tastes. No accounting. ------- *And ladies too, of course. I'd like English to have a nice, non-gender-specific pronoun that conveys the same connotation that 'gentlemen' does, but alas, the language fails us.

Tim, my journey to cinematography.com is, in fact, a long, convoluted, often-contradictory story. (With many commas, hyphens, and parenthetical statements.) It would be quite boring to everyone, I'm sure. You can indirectly thank -- or blame -- Mr. Mullen's patronage of this site for my continued attention. I find his stories and information to be compelling. And typically I don't post, because I'm here to learn and absorb, not having much to offer in the way of experience. However, I will address your Renoir comment. It's interesting: I find that a movie can have an emotional impact on me whether I see it in a brand new theater, or on a 20-inch TV, letterboxed. The story is the thing. I saw "In America" on my home theater system, and it was a devastatingly emotional film. Would I have been more moved had I seen it in a shabby theater, with sticky floors and unkempt upholstery, with the theater owner running the projector bulb at 80% because he mistakenly thinks that'll make the bulb last longer? I don't know. Would I have been more moved had it been projected correctly in a brand spanking new multiplex? I don't know. I believe it's highly subjective. But what's not subjective is that this trend is growing. Theaters are in trouble financially, and quite frankly going to the theater is not the same experience that it once was. And, studios want to sell DVDs at the same time a film is showing. More and more people are seeing films on DVD, not after they've already seen them at a theater, but for the first time. And of course, home theater systems are improving. How long until most of the middle class (ah, in the U.S. at least) has a 100-inch flat screen TV? Five years? Eight? I realize that I'm probably in the minority here, as most readers of these forums are in the business and it is their life. But for me, storytelling is the real attraction, and I appreciate the artistry of the DP in that storytelling process. I do. I find the filmmaking process fascinating. But the venue is less important than it used to be. J.

Sure, people would like his reviews, but would the manufacturer? Not one chance in a million years. In fact, I think manufacturers would pay Phil to not review their equipment. Phil has a habit of pointing out nasty flaws. Plus, he's usually right. Remember the thrashing Phil gave the file-naming convention used by the Panasonic HVX-200? And, incidentally, I think he was right on. (Actually, it's probably not so much Phil's habit of fault-finding, as it is the manufacturer's habit of cranking out the faults. Phil wouldn't have to poop on the universe so often if it would just cut out the nonsense, eh?) However, I agree with the other posters. Phil should write professionally. His acerbic, bile-filled posts always bring a smile to my face. He's got Marvin the Paranoid Android beat by a mile. As for the general topic, of crap playing at the theaters, I really can't complain, since like many of my friends, I've almost completely stopped going to an actual theater. I'm getting older (hey, I'm in my late 30's now!), I have a child, and I have a fairly nice home theater system. We watch movies all the time at home. We go to the theater about twice per year, usually to see "epic" films that we'd prefer to see on the big screen. But it's just not that important to us anymore. Julius

The best overview of this topic I have ever personally read is here: http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/welcome.html Academy Award-nominated screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio are among the best in the business. Plus, not only do they excel at their craft, they have that rare gift (as does Mr. Mullen, who frequently posts on these forums) of being able to articulate the process. If you're truly interested in developing your own scripts, then this is the place to start. Start with Column #1, and be sure to read Column #2, 'Strange Attractor.' Then read every other column. I hope this helps. All the best.