Jump to content

Miami Vice Reactions?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wonder if it's the only film(s) that were made from a FAILED TV show?

 

Well, there's Firefly/Serenity; though I think they're too close together to really compare to Police Squad/Naked Gun (though both apparently failed due to piss-poor network decisions and not on their own [lack of] merit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You'd be better off pushing a low-con film. Flashing would help only a little, it would have to be minimal, like 5 to 7% max, to improve shadow detail. So yes, you'd probably mitigate the increase in contrast of pushing by using low-con film and/or flashing it, but remember that pushing also increases the base fog level (i.e. blacks are less black) and flashing will only make that worse.

So it would be quite muddy I guess? Sounds like it would be good for a very specific look, but not really a good way to increase speed and shadow detail.

I'd be interested in seeing those tests Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David wrote:

 

>>I think the inconsistency only really bothered me when I couldn't find a motivation, like a wide shot of a Jamie Foxx and his wife in bed being less noisy than the immediate pop-in to a tighter (noisier) angle in the same lighting.

 

Yes,and toward the end I noticed a lot of interlaced stuff-and of course very noticeably noisy night footage, unfortunately-

Perhaps undetected during shooting/monitoring?

 

John Babl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Perhaps undetected during shooting/monitoring?

That's the dirty little secret of HD shot for the big screen: despite everyone claiming that you can light by the monitor, once you get into those very low exposures the monitor isn't that reliable anymore and you could be in for a nasty surprise during your filmout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rickeisenstein
I just got back from seeing Miami Vice. I have to say that I'm both very pleased and a bit disappointed with it. The lighting was beautiful. It's nice to see someone who can and will work with hard light and who will let the screen be dark. I also loved the handheld work. Very exciting style but it also calmed down when it needed to.

 

Now for the con. I really hated the noise they allowed in some of the images. Some of it is so noisy I'd compare it to a Super 8 blowup to 35! I would have greatly preferred a more moderate levelof grain than Beebe went to for some of the movie. The other thing that bothered me is that, within a scene, some shots are much noisier than others. Even some shot-reverses had very different levels of apparent noise between them. Personally, I think a somewhat cleaner look would have been the way to go. If not cleaner, more continuity in the dirt was needed in my opinion.

 

What did everyone else who saw it think?

 

I have to agree about the amount of image noise being a bit excessive. I though at first the noise was just a result of compensating for the lack of light, but then I realized that in other shots it was equally as dark but seemed clearer with little or no noise, so I assumed that the noise was an artistic choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in reality Miami Vice is a Junkfood movie, I really like it but it makes me fat. Some of the scenes in the film were amazing, that one near the start when the good guys get back in the car then the baddies blow it to pieces is totally sick. As far a story and all that goes I could have been watching leathal weapon or any number of other cop movies, but who cares when the shooting scenes are so entertaining and the boats are so fast and loud - I think this movie has every toy I've ever wanted. As far as the HD debate, I think it only makes a difference to you professionals, for me as a lowly film student the movie looked great - it will never be a classic, but for 2 hours of mindless entertainment it fit the bill perfectly.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt mind the plot. I didnt mind the actors. I didnt mind the script.

 

I did mind the awful grainy mess that presented itself on screen.

 

If the producers wanted it to look like COPS, with blurry video work and immediate presence of the audience in the story, they missed the target entirely.

 

They should have filmed the whole film with handheld cameras and they could have done it with film and it still would have looked more "immediate".

 

What really upset me (as an audience member, not as any sort of filmmaker) was only one thing: the o b v i o u s difference in quality between some shots (eg the learjet over the Carribean) and others (the awful grainy firefight, night scenes near the trailer and others).

 

It's the producers film, not mine. I paid 10 dollars and went and saw it.

 

Will I purchase the DVD? No.

 

The producers wanted a gritty reproduction of Miami in all of its colourful glory and the fact is that, (plot and script aside) "The Transporter 2" did a better job of capturing the visuals of Miami at the cinema than this film did. That of itself is a dissapointing fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Even though you're all complaining about 'Miami Vice', at least you get to see it. At my local cinema they're only showing 'The Making of Miami Vice'!

 

Although this making of covers the whole story, it's really annoying that it's shot on these cheap video cameras, the look is simply appalling. Skintones are easily the worst I have ever seen, but then again I'm sure in the 'real' film they'll look much nicer. Won't they?

 

Another thing that no one mentioned here is the fact that 3 chip CCD cameras have a disgusting bookeh. All the out-of-focus highlights are half magenta and half green. In fact every high contrast edge that is soft exhibits these annoying characteristics. Boy am I glad that this was only a making of, case otherwise I would have been really pissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks that I'm the only one who had problems with those "day"-scenes. In order to expose for the clouds in the sky (which were sometimes still washed out), I was always wondering if the scene was supposed day or day-for-night :blink:

I read in the american cinematographer they did choose for the look of people against the sky, and that 'with HD it popped of the screen'. It does indeed: clouds were clipped, and the rest of the scene seriously underexposed.. But hey, no worry, with HD you can see deep into shadow areas.. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me think....

Has anyone seen or shot film that was flashed and then pushed? It seems counter-intuitive, but I'm thinking maybe this would help lower contrast while also increasing speed. Thoughts?

 

I shot some 7250 that was pushed 2 stops out of nesessity and preflashed as it was intercut with other reversal stocks.It wasn't pretty but it worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me think....

Has anyone seen or shot film that was flashed and then pushed? It seems counter-intuitive, but I'm thinking maybe this would help lower contrast while also increasing speed. Thoughts?

 

This was what TVC Lab's ChemTone process was like, sort of...

 

It wasn't really a push but could get you into lower light situations without the blueish veiling look one would get from pushing the 52/7247 negative.

 

See Taxi Driver; The Missouri Breaks, Altman's Nashville

 

NB last time I saw Taxi Driver on cable the transfer made it look more saturated / conventional than it did in the original prints

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie looked like hell and I don't know if they knew this and decided it was still the look they were going for. HD doesn't have the same experimental latitude of film.

 

I will say I can't stay in the movie when i'm watchin Mann's LOOK? recently. That is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came out of the cinema with mixed feelings... my dop eyes shure noticed everything from the heavy and inconsistent grain to strange muddy looking underexposed interiors and extremly sharp and unforgiving shots of actors skins where you could see every little blemish... but still the movie grabbed me... especially the shootouts and violence seemed to have more impact than any full on splatter flick... I´m still not shure if it was only because of the way it was shot and acted or if it also has something to do with the video look that may have made them appear more real and gruesome on a subconcious level or something like that... I don´t know...

 

Watching the film from a professional point of view I sometimes felt embarrassed imagining I would have shot it... if it wouldn´t say "Miami Vice big budget feature" I think producers and directors watching it on your showreel might just switch it off and think you´re no good... somebody mentioned it before, it looks like any amateurish student film on atomfilms... I´ve seen a lot of features shot on DV and blown up to 35 that looked much better and more consistent... They would have been really brave if they´d just taken a mini DV, HDV or DVCPRO HD cam and just shot it with minimal lighting in a real documentary cinema verité style... like HBO documentaries... that would have been a real bold approach for a couple of hollywood filmmakers... but they just have to much money and maybe bad advisors... what a pain in the a.. having to haul around all those recording decks and cables if you could shoot it with a little HD cam...

 

But that´s only from my professional point of view... after the show I talked to a couple of people I know that have nothing to do with filmmaking... and surprisingly they noticed some difference in the look but had no problem with it whatsoever... I guess if the audience can identify with the characters and story they don´t care about what you shot on... the dogma films have proved this sufficently I think... in the end I at least want to make movies for an audience and not to satisfy my collegues...

 

On another level I felt quite good after seeing MV, because if Michael Mann and Dion Beebe get through with this bad/new/different look and audiences get accustomed to it, then the door is open for all indy filmmakers who have a great story to tell... and that´s what it´s all about... if you´re not only interested in technology... I wanted to grab my HVX200 and just go out and shoot my first feature film right away...

 

1 more thing about the grain... judging from experience with image sensors I arrived at this theory that you can reduce the amount of grain and get real deep blacks if you always have an area in the frame that is close to or 100% signal level... might be a streetlight in the background or something like that... when I saw the inconsistency of the grain in Miami Vice I looked especially after that... and as far as I could tell that was the case with the inconsistent grain levels in a lot of reverse shots... I don´t know to much about electronics... can anybody with more insight into how image sensors work tell me if that might be true and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I must have seen a really bad print because this was the worst looking movie I have ever scene. The whole film was a milky grey with nothing darker then 10 IRE. The highlights were blown out with very little in between. The flesh tones looked like putty. I have never seen anything this bad in a theater. The trailer of Superman before Vice looked great so I don?t think it was the projection system. The lighting looked like they used a couple of Tota lights. Most of the time the actors just stood in each others shadows. This was a horrible looking film. It looked worse then if it was shot on mini DV in 18 days with a $100,000 budget. I like films with gritty realism like ?21 Grams? so I am not opposed to rough verity photography. This looks like it was shot by a second unit crew with no DP, Electric crew, or grip crew. Just a PA with a Mini DV. I am not exaggerating in the slightest.

 

Unrelated to the photography the rest of the film rarely soared above an F. Terrible script, marginal acting, and no drama. Just painfully dull stuff.

 

It was as if the Miami Vice was a test to see how stupid the film going public is. Seeing as this film tanked I guess the film going public aint? that dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dear god

 

WHY DONT YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?????? do you really think that mann and beebe made a mistake? do you really think they shot what they shot expecting an amazing look? THIS FILM WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THIS. yea yea yea it looks like hell, videoish, unprofessional...THANK GOD! thank god these people have the guts to make something that looks different from the average GORGEOUS 35 MIL STUFF. i thought it was great, the roughness and the grittyness made me think "its harsh, but i have never seen that before".

the fact that the story wasnt that good, well thats another thing, i agree with that. it sucked

but i am sick of people expecting everything on that screen to be shot on film, to have all those eternal and predictable qualities that have been around forever. i am so glad miami vice came out. it pushes people to experiment with the new technologies and to make something completely different. dont get me wrong, i love the look of film, but i really cant stand the choice of using film just because its film. i bet a million pounds that if someone shot a movie tomorrow on a Z1E with the micro 35, proper lighting and proper film lenses the average joe wouldnt spot a difference or mention anything unusual. things are changing and i love it.

and another thing: if miami vice was shot on 35 mil i guarantee you it would be just another action flick, but because it looks like hell and videoish people are attracted to it and it wont be forgotten easily.

 

there you go, mate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change is great and I love films/videos that break the rules. Check out ?Crank? if you want to see some pushing of the video envelope. People who experiment take chances and sometimes it just doesn?t work out. When I go to a big budget film, staring major stars, directed by a major director, of a high profile successful television I expect a certain level of quality. That?s why I go to those kinds of films. And that?s why they are successful. If I go to Ruth?s Chris steak house and order a filet mignon I expect a certain experience. If the waiter sets a big steaming pile of poop in front of me I?m going to be dissatisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change is great and I love films/videos that break the rules. Check out ?Crank? if you want to see some pushing of the video envelope. People who experiment take chances and sometimes it just doesn?t work out. When I go to a big budget film, staring major stars, directed by a major director, of a high profile successful television I expect a certain level of quality. That?s why I go to those kinds of films. And that?s why they are successful. If I go to Ruth?s Chris steak house and order a filet mignon I expect a certain experience. If the waiter sets a big steaming pile of poop in front of me I?m going to be dissatisfied.

 

 

 

you have a good point, bob, but dont you think that for that kind of film it was the best choice lookwise? and i wouldnt qualify the picture as steaming pile of poop, it was just different. the camera work and movement was ace. plus the aerial shots were amazing. i dont think a PA could do that, mate. plus im sure you have seen beebe's previous work and you know the guy is good. the point is that you went to see this movie expecting something...thats in my stupid student opinion a wrong attitude, i love when i get something new, fresh and daring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
i love when i get something new, fresh and daring

Mee too, but only if it is GOOD too. There are so many people who automatically think that different is always good, even when it is clearly not the case. 'Miami Vice' is BAD different in my opinion. No doubt that they achieved the look that they wanted (with as much testing as they did it would have taken enourmous levels of incompetence not to), but that doesn't make it good either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mee too, but only if it is GOOD too. There are so many people who automatically think that different is always good, even when it is clearly not the case. 'Miami Vice' is BAD different in my opinion. No doubt that they achieved the look that they wanted (with as much testing as they did it would have taken enourmous levels of incompetence not to), but that doesn't make it good either.

 

different is not always good, but in this case it definitely worked. i mean if they tried to shoot a period movie the same way i would agree with you, but we are talking about miami vice so its a complete different story. this film needed this look. this film didnt need a clean pretty picture and you cant stand it because you didnt get your amazing 5218 look. a bit closed minded, folks. im curious to hear from you all experienced directors and dops what would you have done instead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only one close minded here is you I'd say, for making unfounded presumptions about other people.

 

unfounded presumptions...do you think i would bother replying, mate? i was just trying to make you reflect on how appropriate was the choice of raw video for this film, and how well it worked, but it seems like you dont get it so help me god, who gives a damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...