Mark Allen

That two minute section was a combination of many many many things though it seemed seemless. The car was shot on greenscreen, the street was shot live. There are quite a few hidden cuts in there that you don't see - they could have shot it on a camera car with and then cut to a helicopter or high crane shot for the end. (I forget the last shot of the sequence.) more information here: http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/630/630567p1.html and here: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/warofthewor...ws.php?id=10193 (links courtesy of www.vfxblog.com)

So - How much power would the genesis take to run? If you're out the in the desert shooting - are you going to need a generator just because of the camera or can you get away with batteries for a whole day of shooting? Anyone happen to know this?

SPOILERS The more I think about it - the more I think I would have appreciated some greater metaphorical connection. Some people have said the movie was a comment on invasions. I think that some of what made the opening of Saving Private Ryan so powerful was the insight into the horror of that moment. Without making a political comment on a cerebral level, he captured something which was so insane and so horrific - and, in some ways, very similar in the sense of being totally overwhelmed. But wihtout knowin ANY of the characters, the details of the moment really told the story. The car jacking scene was one of my favorite because I felt like it really lent itself to this feeling. That would have been something if the whole movie had continued that way... Filip is saying "The only criteria that you can judge a movie by is what was the intention of the author. If he wanted to scare you, and you got scared, then it was a good movie." But I didn't feel scared... I felt like an observer. I definitely felt something at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. Another thing is that at the end... that was an awsome idea - that we had earned the right to live here and become immune to the tiniest elements.... these aliens were exhibiting huge forces of power, but they were not able to battle the tiniest molecules. That was really cool. I would have liked to see the movie introduce that in the 2nd act so that by the end it made perfect sense. Even if it was dealing with the idea of maybe the mother was sick and was worried about her T-cell count and maybe that is why she was going away for the weekend. Some how making that concept a motif of the movie would have made the ending much more satisfying. I felt very disconnected to the entire Tim Robbins Basement section all the way up to and including the heroic conclusion of it. That part was all Jurssaic Park for me - just stuff happening. Never felt anything - not fear, not curiousity - though the aliens themselves were from an FX point of view very strong. I thought the movie at the opening had a ton of potential - I love the "what if something profoundly unusual happened?" People don't realize how bad things will get... to that end, here is a video tape shot during the phucket tsunami http://www.archive.org/details/tsunami_phuket . People are expecting how bad things are going to get. Why should they? It's beyond their understanding of reality. This movie did capture some of that - but it needed to be sustained and instead dwindled away. Lastly - I spoke to someone who worked on the FX and they commented that most of the FX while planned in advance were done totally in CG. This is a new trend and it makes shooting much easier. I think it is starting to show better results as well, but it is incredibly labor intensive. Just imagine the intersection scene and know that none of that stuff was being done practically. Imagine the labor that went into even splitting the pavement and imagine how much time and effort that saved on the set without having to rig that with gimbles and practicals - yet how believable it looked. Kudos to the FX team.

That's an interesting thing to say, could you expand on that a little? I'm just curious since it sounds like you've worked with them how this fastness evidences itself. thanks.

My thoughts... SPOILERS The cinematography and style was top notch. It felt real and appropriate. The visual effects were great. The blocking of the action was notably good. The sequencing of shots and the coverage of the storytelling was great. Dakota Fanning nearly steals the movie from Tom Cruise - she's incredible. And I could go on saying lots of nice things about it. But I still wanted more. I still never totally locked into the movie at almost any level - and that's a shame. I think it actually had more to do with the plot structuring. I felt like a bunch of stuff happened and while I know I was supposed to care... I didn't. I didn't really see any invasion statement being made - though that would have been a good angle. I totally got the family bonding thing of course - but I'm not sure I totally felt that either. So - it was so well put together but I still wanted more. I wanted to care more. Am I greedy? I'm sure lots of very smart people worked on the script and I'm not going to solve the problem of the story in the time I write this posting - but I think a major clue is when the boy's desire to run off. It seems like he was pissed at his Dad for not being an attentive father and he needed to take care of his sister. But then he wanted to run off on his own. Now, it's true, his desire to run off on his own was consistent - but I never understood how it made sense other than to let us share some Tom/Dakota time. When he left the final time I thought there was no way he'd leave his sister. And I think it's that sort of disbelief which took me out of the movie. If you look at Close Encounters and ET - he really captured "something incredible" happening and you really felt it. I think because you really connected with the people in the story. So I felt about this like I did Jurassic Park... Lots of stuff happened. I preferred War of the World to Jurrassic because I liked the presentation of the stuff more - but I missed the emotional connection found in ET and Close Encounters.

There are two many various threads to quote all of them, but after browsing this thread I thought I'd add my own two cents. Hitler - for the curious - MAX (starring John Cusack) is a very interesting and original perspactive on Hitler. Spielberg and Private Ryan - I'm with you on the opening scene - daunting. As for the movie being told as a memory of Ryan's - It's not. The movie is a story about Hanks all the way through. Spielberg as a director... When I first started watching movies as a kid, I liked a lot of Spielberg's movies - E.T., Raiders, etc. (didn't like Raiders 2 and 3 though). When I was studying theater, my teachers had me convinced that Spielberg was the death of all art and culture. After becoming a director myself I had a very strong respect for his story telling ability. However, I think it is incredibly inconsistent. I think at least half his movies fall apart for me. I think he is not afraid to go for the jugular when it comes to sentiment and when it works, it works well and when it doesn't work, you feel all sticky. I actually recently just finished watching a ton of his movies in order to reacquaint myself with his stylings (Second time I've done this). Even in his first feature - Sugarland Express - you can definitely see how he is actually thinking about his shots - how best will this shot tell my story and get the feeling of the moment? He's fantastic at giving you a sense of where you are and also focusing your attention on the small details. He's also got a great ability at picking up on small nuances in people's actions. Now... Why or how The guy who directed Raiders can follow it up with a similar cast and crew and make Raiders 2 or 3 - I do not know - it's like he isn't taking it seriously. Same with Hook and 1942. I think when he doesn't take his material seriously enough - it fails. When he addresses his movies with respect - they come through. I would say there are about five of his movies I think are incredibly well done and the rest I am mixed or don't like. But that doesn't take away from my recognition that he does so well what so many directors don't do - he looks for opportunities to tell his story at every chance and lets the emotion play through. Frankly, I don't think it will matter if he shoots on digital or film even remotely as much as it will matter if he takes the movie subject seriously or not. If the script is strong that will help a lot of course.

Don't take this a legal advice, just hearsay - If you are on a non-union shoot - you have no obligation to SAG at all. (And by - "you" I mean the production company / poducer). Now, if some stunt driver does some work on your project and he is SAG and he knows that it is a non-SAG show - that's his fault and he could feel the repricussions (if they find out since he used a different name or didn't use any name in the credits at all.) He could be fined or given restricted rights... I'm not sure what else. Now, if a producer is knowingly trying to use SAG people and get all shady, then SAG might put them on some secret "baddy" list - I don't know about that. But without a contract with them, it's not really your problem. Many many years ago, skirting SAG used to be a big issue - but when SAG finally created a whole bunch of different and more reasonable contract options (so the 200k feature is not paying the same as the 100 million feature with the same restrictions), those practices have decreased a lot and I think a lot more producers are just "going SAG." One thing though that still pushes people away is just a lot of the requirements like daily reports and cash deposit and things. Espeically if people are shooting outside of CA where they may end up using a lot of locals anyway - if there is no "star talent" - they'll most likely go non-SAG still.

Ha. You just described my daily phone calls when I was doing visual effects. Actually, we have literally done every single one of those - including the blackeye.

There would be a ton of musicians willing to write some music for you for the experience - even if they are just using garage band. At least it could hit the beats of your film possibly better than canned music. A little post almost anywhere (Backstage West, tribe.net) would result in a lot of responses - especially since they don't necessarily have to live close by.

You have to have SOMETHING stationary to create a track. Tracking technology has become incredibly advanced and will continue to advance in the future - but you need something to track on or you will end up hand tracking and that is very hard and time consuming - though if it is a quick shot and you don't see people's feet, it's a lot easier.

I'm not Jim, but I am curious as we are considering using the Genesis on an up coming project. The link I posted above indicated that there was some issue with ease of moving the camera around - was that just them? How would you compare the ease of use (moving it from here to there, packing it up, etc) - all of the things you wouldn't notice just by checking out the footage at Panavision? Has there been any surprising disappointment or surprising joy with it? Do you find that you have to spend a good deal of time knocking down highlights or does the expanded range take care of that such that you can shoot at the same speed as 35mm? Thanks.

Your entire argument here assumes that the screenplay is the only place a story is told. A story is told through the cinematography - the costumes - the beats in between lines when actors are simply sharing the space together - the art direction. Everything that is placed in front of the camera and everything that is added later is part of the story telling. If it is not, it is not being done well. For example - costumes - perhaps the easiest example. If in Lord of the Rings all these characters walked on the set with nice, freshly built costumes, it would look ridiculous. No matter how good the writing is, you'd keep being distracted by the silly costumes - you would not be "taken there" - so the costumers distress the costumes - but they don't just whack it around, they figure out who these characters are: Would the knees wear out first? Was this clothing used in battle? They are telling the story with their tools. You can absolutely tell when a department is letting the story down. There is no life being added, it feels incongruent. Now, I don't particularily like Kevin Smith's movies (except Chasing Amy). Nothing against him personally, but I feel like I've met a lot of the people he has in his movies and they bored me to death with their endless banter trying to prove how intellectual they are. But to each his own on that one. I do, however, agree that if there is no story, no amount of brilliant cinematography or design is going to save it - because there is nothing for the departments to work from or with. Stories are simple - everything that comes after them determines the degree of greatness of the movie. Blad Runner would not been nearly as groundbreaking and fantastic had it not been for the storytelling that went into all the design work.

If any planning went into the FX at all on both of those films (batman and fight club) I would have to imagine the foreground object is a green screen - even if it is just a greenscreen dropped behind the actor. If you did not have the greenscreen, you would have to create an FG plate by rotoing the front character out and stablizing him (that's in AE, play with it, it's fun) and then also (even hard) painting in the missing parts of the BG (which isn't that hard since it's a straight subtle pan, so the missing footage does exist) but still it's labor. easier to drop a screen behind the actor, shoot them panning on a small degree (if at all) then fly them out, and shoot the BG and pan larger.

There are a couple moments in the movie TAPE (which takes place entirely in a hotel room with mostly two actors) where you can tell the director must have started feeling like the needed to do some trickier cinematography and they start doing these swish pans between actors on dialogue and it is the only moment of cinematography I remember in the movie and I remember it because it was really fake and awful. (Quick movie review.... A third into the movie I thought it was going to be awful, but it ended up having some respectible and interestnig drama in it and I was glad I hadn't turned it off assuming it was gong to be "another" "two guys in the desert talking tough" movie.)

You know the 2nd tab from the right at the top is the Prod. Sound section, you should ask this there if you don't get any answer here.

Did anyone discussing the Genesis on the forums here ever link this? I never saw it: http://www.creativecow.net/forum/view_thre...466&forumid=126 comes courtesy of www.hdforindies.com

E&O insurance... eventually your show will have to have it if it goes into wide release (i.e Blockbuster/Kmart/whatever) - you do not have to pay for it prior to being picked up by a distributor, but once picked up it will be paid for out of first profits anyway. logos and trademarks... and earlier post echoed the legal advice I've been given so I won't repeat those - but I will add that there definitely are times where even if something is legal, whoever ends up distributing your movie doesn't like something (like a samsung logo if Sony wants to distribute the movie) and will request that it is removed. It may come out of first profits. I will also add that audio - even the start up sound of a computer or a interface noise is not okay to use without permission ever.

Finally saw this movie. About the camera work. I think this film is a perfect example of how not to use your camera to your advantage. First of all, we already have a barrier between audience and actor because their usually singing. Swirling cameras with little motivation with an abundance of gause over the lense is not going to draw you into the characters any more - it will push you away. Other than Emmy Rossum, I don't really feel like I ever made any connection with any character. I don't even know if I liked the actor who played Raoul or not as I am not sure I ever really had a chance to meet him despite his being on screen for so long. I would have approached the entire film differently though as I think the director completely missed the metaphor and what makes this film interesting. The fact that the phtantom looks like he barely missed being cast on Melrose Place was the beginning of the wrongness. I thought lots of the production design was nice with colors, I thought the sets were way too stagey and, frankly, stupid - chandeleers raising out of the water with candles that pop to life... that stuff just pushes you away from the reality. I think the fact that Raoul suffers a gash to the arm and yet in the very next scene makes no indication of any pain is a perfect example of how the movie really didn't look at consequences - and as such, completely betrayed its dramatic potential. I would have tried as much as possible to really focus on the tragedy that this amazing genius can do anything - except convince the girl he loves to be with him - and for that, he is miserable. It's a great metaphor - it's emotional - and it was completely lost.

The director of the movie Primer shot a near 2:1 ration by shooting only 1 take and never covering anything from multiple angles - in fact, in many of the shots you can see him mouth "cut" (pointed out humorously on the commentary). And note that he also comments - if there was one thing he wished he'd have done differently - he'd have shot more film. Wasn't worth the headache in the end.

You probably should ask yourself how you want your life to be and what your motivations to be involved in filmmaking is. Sounds to me like you'd just like to be working in the world of film. You might also want to think of what kind of job would best suit your personality and who you've been up until now. Do you like the equipment or do you like talking about movies or do you like the glamour of it all? Do you like regular hours? Are you a good salesperson? Are you in a position to work as an intern to get experience? etc.

Was all of dancer in the dark shot on DV or was it just the musical sequences (which were quite obviously DV)? That film was incredible. Not necessarily "the look" - but the movie was intense.

My company does a ton of chroma screen composites (like average 10 per week) and if there was extraneous factor to choose either blue or green I'd choose green because I find it contaminates the shadows less - or at least the keyer is more forgiving for it. This is all HD though. Just my humble two cents. But also DV for keying.... ugh.

Here is a good guideline. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Anything published before 1923 is public domain. If you made Journey to the Center of the Earth - you would probably want to avoid any trademark images from previous adaptations. There are many characters that Disney does not own, but they sure own their version of the characters. And David is dead on - Disney has been single handedly changing copyright law.

I think hugely stylized movies like Moulin Rouge, Sin City, Sky Captain, etc. are partly a by-product of this - moving into the realm of "yes - it's fake, love it." Harryhausen commented often he didn't think "real looking" was best - he thought the stylization tapped into fantasy.

:) ironically - you're very wrong on this. You have New Line confused with New World which had been Roger Corman's home until he founded Concorde which later became New Concorde. While at Concorde, he had an output deal with a studio to produce 19 movies a year - that was back in the days when there wasn't enough product to fill video shelves. New Line on the other hand was a tiny production company until one day they had this crazy movie "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" which became a huge success and changed the course of their history. If you talk to distributors one of the problems they are having is that there is so much product being sent to them now (and most of it bad DV movies) that it is hard to find the gems - and they are starting to rely on specific productin companies that have a proven track record to be their go-to guys. You're idea of basically forming a brand is a good one, but only if it is genre specific AND it absolutely rises above the pack in terms of quality.