elvworks

Everyone has different tastes and interprets things differently. What one will call a great movie, to another person who is just as artistic or feels they are, well it could be a real bore. Sometimes I even find, I may not like the whole movie, but I like several scenes and that would give it some value. When you look at your spectrum of people, there are going to be people that go to the movies no matter what. Whether it's on a date, hanging out with friends, getting out of the house, they like the cast, so moviemakers, I believe, feel they'll get their money back one way or another as long as they put out something halfway decent. I would say the general public wants to see a movie that entertains them, not so much as a movie that speaks to them, although I'm sure they would welcome that if they stumble upon one. If a good portion of the audience is artistic, instead of working 9-5 jobs, moviemakers would start making movies differently because their market is different. It took the Matrix to zap people out of their old way of seeing action or photography, even storylines. So it is up to us, as filmmakers to bring the audience higher. That's my vision anyway. 'Nothing changes if nothing changes' Rick

Thanks for the insight David. Nice touch on giving the girl in "Akeelah and the Bee" an epic feel instead of the usual stereotype gritty look. All the best, Rick

Scope Rules!!! Mr. Mullen, in your last six features, what were the contributing factors resulting in the movie being shot widescreen at 2.35? Was it a full cast and it's easier to frame everyone? Was it scenery? Was it the movie feel you wanted to send to the viewer? I'm sure it was a case by case basis. Should any of those have been shot in 1:85 and it would have been better for the movie? Was 2.35 the Directer's call? You're call or a collaboration? Thanks, :) Rick

4:3 is good for the Brady Bunch 16:9 is good for Smallville 1:85 is good for the Lion King 2.35 is good for LOTR Does anyone know why the first Spiderman was in 1:85 and the sequel was in 2:35. That was a surprise for me that the first would be 1:85, such a big movie. But it did make the second feel like Spiderman was now "Larger than Life." I think every story/movie has it's best aspect ratio. Rick

I agree, I would even venture to say there might even be more scope films out there right now than flat. Maybe it's because it was the holidays and all the blockbusters came out and maybe off peak times might just be flat, but there is alot of scope. When a scope movie is projected at the theatres (older houses), all that happens is another lens drops down to unsqueeze it, it's the same machine. I do have a problem when the masking comes down from the top though, instead of it widening. It's such a ripoff. Usually I know the theatres that do this and stay away from them. But I would say I lot of new multi-plexes today run the screen right to the edge of the wall, and the masking opens on the left and right. But scope is real and it's out there in abundance!!! :D

In adding to the original question, Flat vs. Scope, I really believe composition, whether 2.35 or 1.85, is an artform. (4:3 is not even considered and 16x9 I consider TV widescreen, not real widescreen). I really liked "Tombstone", I thought they made excellent use of the widescreen platform, the way their actors stood, the gun fight scenes, and especially the abundant scenery available. Even if you watch the DVD, you still feel "You're at the movies," because its composition is as such. Also, movies in the 1.85 ratio that are beautifully shot could really make you a believer of that ratio. I think a good example of that is, Meet Joe Black, as far as picture goes, it was photographically rich. Also, since most of the shooting was in the mansion, in the office and a few scenes outside, it really fit it perfectly. It's really rough when you're sitting in the theatre and the 2.35 ratio is being used but their story doesn't warrant it. You don't feel you're at the movies, you could watch whatever it is at home. Sometimes it is so frustrating, I think people should have a license to be able to shoot in 2.35, yes, I know that's off the deep end but it really bugs me and I feel some movies don't deserve it. 2.35 is special. As far as tv versions of the movie, pans and scan, or even using the whole negative, all I can say is thank God DVD offers original format versions because that is the only thing that will look right. All the best, Rick

It's kind of cool that Michael Mann (who conceptualized the idea for the original Miami Vice) is the one making the movie now. I'm sure with all the time in between, he had plenty of time to think of a new vision, or rather an updated vision for the movie. It's interesting that it was filmed digitally. With all the rich color miami has to offer, I'm really curious to see how it comes out, being digital and all. As far as the trailer, I couldn't tell much from it. For the most part, I'm not getting my hopes up. Rick

Now that's funny!!! Okay, I think we drove the point home of things not looking real, but there still is the question of the story line on King Kong. Let's say all that stuff did look real, what about the story? See, on Titanic, you know the ship sinks, but I think they tapped into an emotional cord. At the time, I was working in the movie theatre and I would watch ALOT of female audience come out of there crying and balling. I was amazed. People already knew the ship sunk. Now here we are with King Kong, you know the ape goes to the top of the empire state building. I know it is a different kind of movie, but did the movie do what it could have. My basic point is What is the point of this movie? and Why did the "The Man" Peter Jackson direct this and it turned out crap? And his wife and that other lady helped with the story. What happened? Other influences got involved? Why cry over spilled milk I guess. I certainly don't want to turn into a critic, but this was certainly theraputic to get all this out. Oh well, you observe and learn. At least I have Superman Returns to look forward to. :D

Good point Scott, I'm sure there was some stuff, maybe alot, that was CG that we didn't even notice. I do have to say, that stampede scene, yuck. Ultimately I knew the story was about the ape, and unless some serious changes were done to the story, I was pretty much watching it because Peter Jackson did it. I never was a King Kong fan. I doubt I will be in the future. I do have to give King Kong credit on two fronts. One is, the boy is not afraid of heights. And two, he has pretty good taste in women. Rick

Thank you Craig and Phil, it was a while since anyone posted to this string and I kept checking back. When there weren't any posts, I thought, "uh-oh, am I alone here?" So thank you for posting. Seriously, Kong Kong was a let down, not that I was ever a fan of the ape. I just thought him holding her in his hand as he shakes her violently is a little unbelieveable. Gosh, did you see when he first grabbed her, he was shaking her like a rag doll. Oh, then he fights three (forget their names) dinasaurs all the while still holding her without crushing her. Let's not forget him dancing and spinning on the ice in New York, wasn't that something? Actually, that part I would like to see again because it was so ridiculous. I couldn't believe they put that in. Whatever. The New York scenes looked totally digital. They tried their best to blend in the actors with the background, but to me it looked like they were super imposed on there. I guess it all comes down to the $$$ for alot of pictures. If they film in the studio in a controlled setting, they can get the movie done in 40 days or whatever and most of the general public will not care if it was done on blue screen with digital people walking around. And the actors can go to their next movie. This is just me, but I love Pirates of the Carribean, the movie and it's cinematograpy. I thought the story was excellent and it was filmed very nicely. If there was blue screen stuff, I didn't see it much or didn't care cause they did it well. And all the skeleton pirates looked really good. It was filmed on location and was very visually appealing. The music, I loved and the cast was great. Just for the record, I am not a hater of blue screen or digital effects. I think it's an incredible technology, but maybe now, it just doesn't look real anymore, and if the story is terrible, then what do you have left? Not much. Now, another popular thing is instead of having two armies on opposite sides of the field racing towards each other for battle, we now have two digital armies racing towards each other. I think this scene has been done alot (digitally and non-digitally). Let's see, we got Braveheart (that was really good), they did it in Gladiator, The Patriot), LOTR, Last Samurii, Narnia (which looked like crap), bunch of others. One dead giveaway of fake digital characters is their shadow. If their shadow is too detailed, it just adds to their fakeness. What's funny is the shadow is what's supposed to make it look real and add depth. Maybe I am just hatin' I have been so tired of special effects on screen and things that don't look real, I actually went to go see Pride and Prejudice and found that the movie was filmed very nicely, and had a decent story (or the way the story was told for the movie version). They did pretty good with the whole "show me, don't tell me" thing as well as sceneries and writing was top notch. This chick flick I didn't mind seeing, especially with Kiera Knightly in it. I'm looking forward to seeing Superman Returns. I've watched all of the director's videos he has on his sight and it's intriguing. They're filming it digitally with a new camera so let's see. The trailers look pretty good, you can tell they are digital, but they do look very clean. If anything, it was good to get this all out of my system. Thank you for listening. I also invite you to unload your share of issues as well. It is most theraputic. And thank you for your thoughts as well. Keep it real in 2006' elvworks

Just to add to that, I do want to say I love Peter Jackson's work with miniatures in LOTR. It really gave a feeling of depth and you are brought into the story, the place, and what is going on. So is filming a miniature, and placing that on the bluescreen gives it a real look, or is there still yet another process? Thanks

I recently saw Narnia, and the blue screen scenes seemed really fake. It looked like the actors were just super imposed on the background, it didnt' blend in at all. I also saw King Kong, the blue screen scenes were so obvious it was hard to enjoy the picture cause it looked so fake. Now, I'm just talking about the super imposed look, I'm not even talking about the dead giveaways like the lighting from the top, the blurs, and all those kind of tricks. Is it just me or is anyone else getting bored with this? I understand these are sets, there's budgets, this is the way they film nowadays and these lands are not real or back in a different time BUT IT LOOKS SO FAKE. I don't mind the blue screen scenes in LOTR, they don't bug me, but these other movies, oh my gosh. Shed some light on this will you please. If anything, just say, "I feel your pain" Thanks!

Thanks everyone!!!!!!!!! And thanks for the article. Rick

Hi Sooper8fan, With a background of writing stories, I can tell you, it takes time. Something you will hear literary agents agree on is it's easier to sell a concept than a story. As a writer, sometimes it's tough to put a two hour movie, or even a 30 minute movie into one or two sentences. Just because you have had no experience coming up with stories or ideas doesn't mean you can't do it. It's new to you, that's all. Sometimes the story could be from someone else, but I think if you could shoot something you came up with, that would be most satisfying. First, start real small. The seed. Find the concept of the movie. Something that will really catch and when you tell your friends, they become interested in it and maybe want to be a part of it. i.e. "The story is a comedy about a group insomniacs that can't sleep, so they start to fight crime at night so they don't go crazy." So that's the concept, then you start to make an outline: Woman visits insomniacs help group that meet at 3 am. All are frustrated because their system is out of wack. As they leave, they witness a crime and stop it from happening. Next meeting they talk about it. etc. then you start to break down that outline.. Woman visits insomniacs help group that meet at 3 am. Woman is messing up at work cause she can't operate correctly. Realizes she has to do something or she will go back to partying. All are frustrated because their system is out of wack. They all agree they want to do something. They realize, this could be a blessing in disguise. But they don't know how to use the time and still function in their day time work. As they leave, they witness a crime and stop it from happening. Punk gang surround a guy going to work. Group leaving begin to make so much noise. They all turn on their car alarms. Punks get scared and run away. Next meeting they talk about it. They all realize that they were all able to function the next day like normal after the event happened. They all felt really good about themselves and had an extra energy. They begin to see, maybe this is a way for them to live a normal life even though it's not normal. Now the insomniacs have found something, and now they have purpose. This is pretty rudimentary, but it's pretty funny. But you gotta get that concept down, something that you can't be easily shaken off of. Something you're excited about. Then start breaking it down, then breaking it down even more, then start to make it into scenes. And you just keep going. I hope this helped, All the best, Rick

(thanks) Is either the xl2 or dvx100 able to do those smooth slow motion scenes. The ones where they speed up the frame rate, then when they play it back at normal speed, the slow motion looks smooth instead of choppy? Is there a way to get away with that with dv cams? Thanks, Rick

Just wanted to inform anyone living near the North Bergen area that there is a $2.00 multi-plex in the area. It's right next to route 495 and Kennedy Blvd and it's a nice clean theatre, stadium seating and everything. Not even sure how they stay in business. They play movies that been out a little while and all shows, all times are 2 bucks. And if you go in the daytime, you have the whole theatre to yourself. This is a good place to catch those movies on the big screen that you didn't feel like paying 9 bucks for before. Here is the yahoo link: http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/theater?id=2753 I hope this helps somebody. Rick

Thanks Starway2001, I look forward to seeing the clips, (have to get to brother's computer, this one is archaic) Thanks also for your input, insightful. Rick

Thanks Thomas, You answered my question exactly. I just didn't want to lose any more resolution than I had to. Cropping 2.35 on a 4.3, there isn't anything left. At least with the native 16:9, you're only cutting off a little bit of the original picture. All the best, Rick

Thanks Charlie and Blastdoors, It's settled, the toss up was between those two cameras. I had a good feeling about canon's native 16:9. Thank you for your generousity with your knowledge. That suggestion of the 35mm rocks! All the best guys, Rick

Hi Charlie, I understand that MHB was a documentary of sorts, but I think if just a little bit was added to the preparation of the shot, I think it could have been alot better. So does being a documentary mean shooting it as is and whatever footage comes out good, you package? I will certainly look for November and check it out. The kids were funny, but I guess I just went in there with the mindset of seeing the picture quality. After I left, I then came back, but then left again. I tried to stay but couldn't. The theatre being without heat didn't help either :) Have a good day, Rick

Hi Charlie, I just saw Mad Hot Ballroom, specifically to see how it looks on the big screen. Ihere were only a few shots that looked okay. Those where the outdoor shots. Most of the indoor shots where against a white or very ugly green wall, and the whites really did bleed through alot. I mean alot. So much so it was hard on the eyes. I understand this is a documentary, so I will have to check out November to get a better example of pro-sumer digital on the big screen. Anyway, I didn't finish the movie, I was just bored and started to fall asleep, so I theatre hopped and ended up watching in an indian bollywood movie which was pretty cool. Rick p.s. - if anyone saw 28 days later on the big screen, please share, it would be useful information for me.

Thanks Jay, that pretty much answers it. Rick

What has a better picture? The XL2 in 16:9 or the DVX100a with an anamorphic lens to 16:9. I plan on cropping to 2.35:1 but I just want the best possible picture in that 2.35:1 My understanding is the XL2 in 16:9 is not stretched, but rather compressed into that area and the dvx is stretched, but if the dvx has the anamorphic lens, I think it would be quite close. This is a question for a very soon camera purchase(s). Thank you elvworks

(Thank you to all the pros out there who generously share their knowledge.) The movie I intend to make is going to be at the 2.35:1 aspect ratio which will be achieved by cropping. My question is between the xl2 and the dvx (I know, what else is new): (I understand the dvx100a might have a slight edge in the film look, possibly very slight) Here is the question: For SD and also output to film, what has a better picture cropped to 2.35:1.....the xl2 in 16:9 mode OR the dvx100a in 4:3 mode? I really appreciate your answer on this. I will also be checking this forum hourly for your answers. Thanks a bunch, All the best, elvworks.

Thank you Michael Collier and David Mullen for your insight into the the matter. I'll do my best to get the anamorphic lenses (to match the camera I will use), if not, I'll have to do the crop. 2.35:1 is vital for this movie. I just hate losing 40% of the frame resolution. Film rules. Thank you, elvworks