Jump to content

A future of Box Office Bombs?


Freya Black

Recommended Posts

 

Not a single one of those films is aimed at an adult audience. And I still think that an audience that is fed junk food cinema will eventually get on a health kick and want films that aren't small independents, but are a little more intelligent in terms of adult sensibilities.
I guess my contention here is that it isn't the small independent production that's artsy that's getting screwed over, but the reverse emphasis of catering to the adult teenager instead of the teenager who has become an adult.
Just looking at this list I see one semi-intelligent film; "The King's Speech" that doesn't reference a comicbook, fairy tale, TV show from the 60s or 70s, or a cartoon. I'll bet, if you had a time machine, and put those same films in front of an audience in 1974 or even 79 (post Star Wars), the supermajority of them would bomb.

 

 

I think the Kings Speech was supposed to be aimed at an adult audience, tho I can understand your misgivings on the matter.

 

While it doesn't reference a comicbook, fairy tale, TV show or a cartoon (Okay we might be stretching it on the last one but lets go with it), it does however have a strong celebrity theme and an implied underlying theme on the importance of celebrities. I would suggest that the new planet of the apes movie in that list covers more serious matters and intelligent themes of a more adult nature than the Kings Speech.

 

OTOH the Help, was a movie aimed at an adult audience I think? Doesn't feature any explosions AFAIK?

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's very true.

 

The modern options - Alexa, F65, even the Canon C series - are perfectly capable of producing pictures that are extremely satisfactory for narrative features. So is film, fine, but I don't consider that there's any automatic assumption that it's better anymore.

 

I would agree with that statement mostly, except I would change the word "extremely" which seems to be really over egging the pudding. I think I would replace it with the word "barely". I think it can be seen that digital cameras are just starting to enter that area of being "good enough". They generally produce an output that is a bit poor but they fit in the category of "acceptable", and that is basically all you need for narrative features. Digital cameras are also beginning to be their own thing and provide features that are not practical on film at all really.

 

I think you are right that people don't automatically assume that it's better anymore, but the fact is that movies shot on high end digital cameras do tend to look like cheap "made for TV" movies and that could still be an issue in some contexts for the time being.

 

Obviously in the UK it's not like there is much of a choice anymore so it is what it is.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree at all; did Skyfall look like a made-for-TV movie?

 

Not seen it but I would imagine so.

 

Life of Pi which won a cinematography award, Tigers and sky replacement etc aside, actually looked worse than a "made for TV" movie as one obvious example.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexa:

 

skyfall-blue.jpg

 

7671_2.jpg

 

7671_3.jpg

 

XejrW.png

 

 

the-white-queen-710x400.jpg

 

Life-of-Pi-3D-BD_07.jpg

 

 

SkyfallBondJeremyKirkReviewImg02.jpg

 

 

I'd say these all exhibit the Alexa look. I did my best to find Skyfall shots. These were the nicest I could find. I'll try and get a chance to find some nice film to compare them with in a bit.

 

I'm curious about what you have seen from the F65 that impressed you. I hear people wax lyrical about it all the time. I havn't seen anything that impressed me shot with it. I keep having the experience where people go "look at this! WOW!" and I'm like "er where is the wow exactly?"

 

As far as I'm concerned the Alexa still holds the gold standard for movie footage from digital cinema cameras although that 4K canon thing looks very interesting. I've seen so little from the F65 tho that I can't really compare.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that Skyfall was a bit of a shock.

The little I have seen of it before was a motorbike racing across some market town overseas somewhere.

The stills I found, all seem to be of cheap London locations. It looks like there aren't any fancy new sets or anything.

 

I guess I havn't kept up with the new gritty James Bond look. I guess it looks a lot like the real London, so that's something.

Anyway this is all a matter of production design more than the camera look but it was a bit of a shock.

 

I bet the movie itself has a lot more exotic locations!

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I quite liked Primrose street (out the back of Liverpool Street railway station) as the approach to a Chinese tower block. Rather disappointing, considering they did actually go to China, that they didn't make far more out of it (I tripped over them shooting that scene and posted about it here, if I recall).

 

The motorbike race location (Turkey? Istanbul?) had been used before in a Clive Owen movie called The International, so it came off as a bit derivative to people who'd seen both.

 

There was another major scene in a Chinese restaurant/bar/gambling den sort of place, but that was (very obviously) a set.

 

They went to that abandoned Japanese island, or something that looks very much like it. The problem with that is that it's a very brief scene, doesn't connect for any reason other than pretty visuals with the location, and it's played as being just off the coast of China. Whereas actually it's quite famously Japanese. So that didn't work either.

 

I found Skyfall a complete letdown and don't understand its popularity, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the pictures.

 

Oh, and edit: look at Oblivion for F65. Again, wall to wall script failure, but quite pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Skyfall a complete letdown and don't understand its popularity, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the pictures.

 

 

Theres nothing wrong with the pictures as such, they seem quite acceptable to me, I just think they clearly have the Alexa look like all the other images above.

I think it's surprising how much all those Alexa images have in common despite being wildly different movies. I think the blacks are great in the womans hair in the life of Pi shot above.

I think the whites in all the shots OTOH look slightly nasty. I can't explain why. The Skyfall stuff at least seems to look a bit less flat and muted than the others.

I guess the muted look is a trend of some kind perhaps?

 

The skin looks a bit off. The Skyfall shots again look best in this regard but even those don't look fantastic. The outlines of people and objects look a bit strange.

 

I think all of those images look kinda okay.

None of it looks all that special to me though.

At its best you can say it looks quite nice.

This is from the Alexa too, which to my mind produces much nicer results than much of the digital cameras out there.

 

I'm really liking what I'm seeing from the Ikonoskop so far, but it doesn't look like that camera has a bright future.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I quite liked Primrose street (out the back of Liverpool Street railway station) as the approach to a Chinese tower block. Rather disappointing, considering they did actually go to China, that they didn't make far more out of it (I tripped over them shooting that scene and posted about it here, if I recall).

 

 

 

Heh heh! I was about to say that the still at the top, looks like they just plonked some desks down into some trendy workspace in Shoreditch!

Maybe it was a bit closer to Liverpool Street somewhere! ;)

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and edit: look at Oblivion for F65. Again, wall to wall script failure, but quite pretty.

 

Ah yes, that's the only thing I know of shot on the F65.

It's heavy on the CGI tho and backgrounds were shot on the Red Epic, so it's a bit of a collage movie in that sense.

 

It looks interesting but there were bits of the trailer that looked like an Anime Cartoon on my laptop here despite the fact it was live action.

Really strange look.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I saw it in a very, very nice movie theatre in Burbank (the biggest screen of the Burbank AMC 16, if anyone knows it, with the stacked projectors). Can't say it looked anything other than lovely, and I was slightly surprised as I'd seen a load of F65 stuff at NAB the previous week and, other than the Oblivion stuff, like you I can't say it grabbed me. Looked like exceptionally good video, as opposed to a movie (many people have said this). I think Oblivion shows that it can be made to look good, although I'm not sure how much of that is down to the sort of control over light, locations and production design that only huge movies can achieve.

 

Some of the backdrops used outside the apartment were shot on Epic, yes. You've probably encountered this already but they were, interestingly enough, back projected, live on set. The set design would have made greenscreen a nightmare. Given that they were mainly viewed through glass and diffusing fabric and often out of focus, which is of course why it worked at all, I really don't think the look of the Epic really affected things much.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny to be talking about the F65 but I suddenly realised that some of the nicest stuff I ever saw shot on video came from the Sony F35.

 

Some of the stuff I saw shot on that looked better than the Alexa stuff around these days.

 

I thought that was actually the pinnacle of the Sony stuff.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

Spot on in your analysis of the market being aimed at adults who don't want to see their childhood go...

 

Although the numbers you quoted refer to 3D films only, and 3D is aimed at a younger audience only, because Hollywood wants to capture their imagination before their parents' 60" flat screen does.

 

What I meant to say is that "The King's Speech" looked like the only film that didn't reference the nostalgia factor Nicolas was talking about.

 

I think at some point people grow up. Even if they have kids and are vicariously living through them, they'll want something more. A movie about important times in their lives or in recent history instead of Avengers 23 or whatever's next down the pipeline.

 

It's kind of like looking at Andy Warhol's soup can. It's neat for about 30 seconds, but eventually you nod off and go to look at something more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think that's very true.

 

The modern options - Alexa, F65, even the Canon C series - are perfectly capable of producing pictures that are extremely satisfactory for narrative features. So is film, fine, but I don't consider that there's any automatic assumption that it's better anymore.

 

I would suspect if anything this is a political or promotional move. The Star Wars films that were not shot on film are famously unpopular. Because they were shot on early electronic cinematography equipment, they also look like they were shot on video. But it doesn't necessarily follow that any forthcoming Star Wars films will be bad, or that they'll look like that, regardless of what they're shot on.

 

It's a promotional move. They're trying to distance themselves from the video-originated instalments. It's nothing to do with the pictures and it's not logically valid, of course, but hey, welcome to advertising.

 

P

 

I disagree somewhat, Phil. When the Phantom Menace came out I heard from the fanboys how great it looked with digital projection. The story, on the other hand, dissapointed, offsetting the visuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's quite straightforward. They want to get back as close to the original films as they can and shooting it on film and using miniatures and real sets is just an easy way of achieving that. Same with getting the original acting talent on board. It makes sense to me. Sometimes you have to go back in order to go forward, so getting as far back to the point that it took a wrong turning makes sense.

 

I'm sure there will be lots of modern techniques used too. They will almost certainly use a lot of modern digital effects work too.

 

I'm a little concerned there might be too much in the way of lens flares however.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think it's quite straightforward. They want to get back as close to the original films as they can and shooting it on film and using miniatures and real sets is just an easy way of achieving that. Same with getting the original acting talent on board. It makes sense to me. Sometimes you have to go back in order to go forward, so getting as far back to the point that it took a wrong turning makes sense.

 

I'm sure there will be lots of modern techniques used too. They will almost certainly use a lot of modern digital effects work too.

 

I'm a little concerned there might be too much in the way of lens flares however.

 

Freya

 

Which films are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reference is to Abrams' penchant for -- I'm being as polite as possible -- messing over the image. It's like he thinks he is Al Bean on Apollo 12, pointing the camera at the sun and frying it, only in this instance, it is my eyes that fry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

I think Hollywood is not run by fools, and they know exactly what they're doing.

 

 

Now see here: I'm not saying that outrageous, ludicrous and totally egregious statements like the above don't have their place, but that place is not here!

Why don't you go over to Reduser... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

I had a look at the numbers on the mpaa link you posted.

 

Here's a little something that I found interesting;

 

 

 

Rank Title Distributor
Box Office
(USD MM) Rating 3D
1 Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 Warner Bros. $381.0 PG-13 Y
2 Transformers: Dark of The Moon Paramount 352.4 PG-13 Y
3 Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1** Summit 274.8 PG-13
4 The Hangover 2 Warner Bros. 254.5 R
5 Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides Disney 241.1 PG-13 Y
6 Fast Five Universal 209.8 PG-13
7 Cars 2 Disney 191.5 G Y
8 Thor Paramount 181.0 PG-13 Y
9 Rise of the Planet of The Apes 20th Century Fox 176.8 PG-13
10 Captain America: The First Avenger Paramount 176.7 PG-13 Y
11 The Help Disney 169.5 PG-13
12 Bridesmaids Universal 169.1 R
13 Kung Fu Panda 2 Paramount 165.2 PG Y
14 X-Men: First Class 20th Century Fox 146.4 PG-13
15 Puss In Boots Paramount 145.3 PG Y
16 Rio 20th Century Fox 143.6 G Y
17 Smurfs, The Sony 142.6 PG Y
18 Super 8 Paramount 127.0 PG-13
19 Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows** Warner Bros. 124.1 PG-13
20 Rango Paramount 123.5 PG
21 Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol** Paramount 121.7 PG-13
22 The King's Speech* TWC 121.1 PG-13
23 Horrible Bosses Warner Bros. 117.5 R
24 Green Lantern Warner Bros. 116.6 PG-13 Y
25 HOP Universal 108.1 PG
Not a single one of those films is aimed at an adult audience.

Define "Adult"

 

Old enough to breed?

Old enough to vote?

Old enough to run a multi-billion dollar corporation?

In my opinion, apart from censorship considerations, what mostly makes a film "adult" is that it doesn't insult the intelligence of people over say 25, whose main interest in cinema is no longer simply a foot in the door to getting laid...

Generally, while people all have their genre preferences, most people will watch and be entertained by anything that is well written, acted and produced. An awful lot isn't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Can't say it looked anything other than lovely, and I was slightly surprised as I'd seen a load of F65 stuff at NAB the previous week and, other than the Oblivion stuff, like you I can't say it grabbed me. Looked like exceptionally good video, as opposed to a movie (many people have said this). I think Oblivion shows that it can be made to look good, although I'm not sure how much of that is down to the sort of control over light, locations and production design that only huge movies can achieve.

 

Some of the backdrops used outside the apartment were shot on Epic, yes. You've probably encountered this already but they were, interestingly enough, back projected, live on set. The set design would have made greenscreen a nightmare. Given that they were mainly viewed through glass and diffusing fabric and often out of focus, which is of course why it worked at all, I really don't think the look of the Epic really affected things much.

 

P

I had much the same experience. I read on Reduser that the whole film was shot with the Epic, and although I'd vowed never to waste/spend any more time, money and popcorn on checking out yet another ho-hum Red product/upgrade, my wife wanted to see it, and there was bugger-all else on.

 

And I thought: Jeezuz H Christ; don't tell me they've finally cracked it!

 

But no-o-o-o....on further investigation, it turned out to be the first major cinematic outing for the F65 with the Epic relegated to a minor role.

 

The rear-projected backgrounds worked wonderfully well, and even the actors were moved to remark that it felt like they were really there, rather than just "pretending" in front of a large green wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Define "Adult"

 

Old enough to breed?

Old enough to vote?

Old enough to run a multi-billion dollar corporation?

In my opinion, apart from censorship considerations, what mostly makes a film "adult" is that it doesn't insult the intelligence of people over say 25, whose main interest in cinema is no longer simply a foot in the door to getting laid...

Generally, while people all have their genre preferences, most people will watch and be entertained by anything that is well written, acted and produced. An awful lot isn't...

 

Well, someone who doesn't feel the need to resort to middle school put downs involving sex, body functions and someone's mother. But hey, if you've ever seen me on a game server, then I'm guilty as hell of that.

 

But when I go see a film I'd like it to be about something that's relevant to me now, and not something that was relevant when I was seven years old starring at the TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's quite straightforward. They want to get back as close to the original films as they can and shooting it on film and using miniatures and real sets is just an easy way of achieving that. Same with getting the original acting talent on board. It makes sense to me. Sometimes you have to go back in order to go forward, so getting as far back to the point that it took a wrong turning makes sense.

 

I'm sure there will be lots of modern techniques used too. They will almost certainly use a lot of modern digital effects work too.

 

I'm a little concerned there might be too much in the way of lens flares however.

 

Freya

 

Ooops! Yes sorry, the star wars thing. The new one being shot on film instead of video etc.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Now see here: I'm not saying that outrageous, ludicrous and totally egregious statements like the above don't have their place, but that place is not here!

Why don't you go over to Reduser... :rolleyes:

 

heh, Keith, I'm wondering if you got a burning script you wrote that you've been wanting to shoot.

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
×
×
  • Create New...