Oscar nominations 2016

[Freya Black]

Transposed to a big budget framework it just looks tired and derivative. Tarrantino did a much better job of quoting exploitation cinema with Death Wish. Don't worry about a cast of thousands factor. Or catwalk models in the desert. Don't worry about arty compositions. Just put a tough girl on the bonnet of a speeding car, and make sure the camera sees there's no way she's not in complete and utter danger, and you'll have nailed it.

 

C

 

 

Quentin Tarrantino's Death Wish! Now there is a marketing angle for a remake!

Who to play Paul though?

 

"Chickens good, I like chicken..."

[Freya Black]

Having spoken to a few quite prominent DPs in the last year, I've heard, entirely off the record, some staggeringly anti-digital bias, some real foul-mouthed rants, and no, they weren't kidding around. So, I wouldn't write it off as joking, no matter who it's coming from. The level of bad-tempered curmudgeonliness was huge, and that's me saying that.

 

P

 

 

Well there has been enough stuff said in public about film of the same nature by digital hardchargers overexcited by raw workflows.

 

Freya

[David Mullen ASC]

Those DP's who tend to operate on big movies often are the type to prefer a single-camera style, up close with wider-angles (making a B-angle less useful or pushed off to more of a side angle), and do less of multiple-camera shooting. Of course, I am generalizing.

[Gregory Irwin]

Those DP's who tend to operate on big movies often are the type to prefer a single-camera style, up close with wider-angles (making a B-angle less useful or pushed off to more of a side angle), and do less of multiple-camera shooting. Of course, I am generalizing.

That observation is very true David.

 

G

[Bill DiPietra]

Macbeth wasn't eligible?

 

That's the film I was hoping to see nominated, as well. Astonishing cinematography.

[Tyler Purcell]

Did they miss the cutoff or something? Why wasn't it eligible?

[Gregory Irwin]

We agree? Holy *bleep*.

R,

See Richard? It must be a new year. Next, we'll be working together! Whoa! Let's not get carried away! :)

 

G

[Carl Looper]

 

I dont think this was the point at all.. Tyler never said that Seale wasn't a great DOP.. his point was that Seale had been "demoted " to C cam op..and that the A cam DIT took over all responsibility for A cam.. with Seale having no input whats so ever.. and so should not be nominated for an Oscar for his work on that film.. which is of course totally wrong and based on body language and too much coffee I guess.. :)

 

I read the "C cam" reference as metaphorical rather than literal, expressing Tyler's conception on what cinematography should be, and according to which Seale (or anyone else in such a position) would be metaphorically on the C cam.

 

I imagine a DP working on a Hitchcock film, given the same philosophy, might be understood as in the same position.

 

Not that I agree with this but that's how I read what Tyler is saying - that in films of this type, the art of cinematography is somewhat compromised. One can disagree with this along many lines but arguing against it from the perspective of whether such ideas are true or not seems somewhat misguided.

 

C

Edited January 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Guest]

See Richard? It must be a new year. Next, we'll be working together! Whoa! Let's not get carried away! :)

 

G

 

Oh ok, I'll just allocate 2 million for first AC in the next budget then. :)

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

I read the "C cam" reference as metaphorical rather than literal, expressing Tyler's conception on what cinematography should be, and according to which Seale (or anyone else in such a position) would be metaphorically on the C cam.

 

I imagine a DP working on a Hitchcock film, given the same philosophy, might be understood as in the same position.

 

Not that I agree with this but that's how I read what Tyler is saying - that in films of this type, the art of cinematography is somewhat compromised.

100%

 

It's not a "cinematographers" movie and likewise, it shouldn't be voted on as such. It's like giving best cinematography to an animation film or 'Life of Pi' which was the biggest travesties in recent Academy voting. "It's pretty, that means the DP is awesome" give me a break!

 

I agree with Richardson when he said, there should be a new award for digital nonsense. That way you can separate real filmmaking on set from eye popping visual crap.

[Carl Looper]

Quentin Tarrantino's Death Wish! Now there is a marketing angle for a remake!

Who to play Paul though?

 

"Chickens good, I like chicken..."

 

I didn't quite understand this comment at first. Took me a while but yes, ha ha. I meant, of course, "Death Proof". Ha ha.

 

C

[Guest]

"It's pretty, that means the DP is awesome" give me a break!

 

Well 50% of cinematography is production design and locations. Give the DOP Harry Potter style sets and you'll get some very nice imagery no matter who you hire. Give the DOP sweeping snow covered vistas, The Revenant, same effect.

 

R,

[Carl Looper]

 

Well 50% of cinematography is production design and locations.

 

 

Or one could equally say 50% of production design and locations is cinematography.

 

C

[Manu Delpech]

I can't with this conversation. Jesus, becoming more and more ridiculous by the minute.

[Gregory Irwin]

I have a split opinion on FURY. On one hand, I really didn't like the picture. I found it (story) basic and very boring. They travel from point A to point B, just to go back again. On the other hand, I have a complete appreciation and admiration for what they cinematically achieved. It was bold, brash and very aggressive. The technology they employed was fantastic. The work by all departments was top notch. So, I understand why they are being honored but the movie is hardly representative of the Academy.

 

G

[Tyler Purcell]

Well 50% of cinematography is production design and locations.

Absolutely and anything with VFX is more like 80% production design because you can make ANYTHING in a computer.

 

The "cinematographers" role is unfortunately fading away. Yes, it's still important to understand lighting, composition and how shots work together in post, but CG guys are learning those tricks fast. It's only a matter of time before the cinematographers role is relegated to "art" films and the vast majority of standard theater fodder is done in post with a really good story board artist and a visionary director. It's a lot easier to hit the "undo" button on a keyboard when you don't like something, then it is to "undo" a practical set.

 

This what I mean by "lazy" filmmakers.

[Guest]

You're preaching to the choir Tyler, I just finished a movie where people suggested I fake the location and use CG animals. I decided to really shoot in Africa and use 100% real animals. What I got was a million times better than anything a computer could of made.

 

Eat your hearts out Cameron, Spielberg, and Lucas....none of you could of pulled off what I did! :D

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Yet out of the five Best Cinematography and ASC nominees, only "Mad Max" is a heavy vfx film.

 

The truth is that there is still a lot of cinematography going on every day with a minimal amount of vfx work applied to it.

[Tyler Purcell]

Yet out of the five Best Cinematography and ASC nominees, only "Mad Max" is a heavy vfx film.

 

The truth is that there is still a lot of cinematography going on every day with a minimal amount of vfx work applied to it.

Absolutely! Funny enough, even the Revenant is VERY HEAVY on VFX. It's so realistic, you don't catch them as much. I noticed the shot stitching right away and they did a lot of background replacements throughout. The film would have been quite different shot on film with a photochemical finish and distribution on 70mm. Not only would it have probably looked better, but a lot of those heavy VFX shots would have been eliminated and more clever solutions made to achieve them. I wonder if they ever tested a physical bear or puppet before going CG.

 

Anyway, the problem is most people don't get to see those movies which are made in camera without the use of cleanup work. They generally don't get the love required to blossom into successful products. This is what needs to change and right now, it's getting harder and harder for those smaller well-made films to be successful enough to garnish the accolades so many of them deserve.

[Guest]

I wonder if they ever tested a physical bear or puppet before going CG.

 

Wussies, I used a real 1800 pound grizzly in my last film, and with two kids.

 

R,

[Robin R Probyn]

But why all the anti CG.. if it enhances the story.. why not.. Richard you used a real bear.. sorry haven't seen your film.. but I would guess the kids you mention were not attacked by the bear.. if that had.. using a real bear most likely wouldn't have been a good as scene as a CG bear( if done well of course).. due to the obvious safety reasons..

 

Outside of planet Tyler.. there are a wide variety of films made.. some as just a good romp action .. escape from the rainy day type.. and why not.. just entertainment .. not made by idiotic,lazy,stupid moronic people .. for the same dumb arse audience .. quite dangerous thought process going on their really ..

 

And others are more serious subjects.. with alot of dialogue .. maybe only one set .. and dont need CG.. and dont have CG.. whats the gripe .. horses for courses ..

[Guest]

I think Tyler has a valid point, in shots that are 100% CG, can the DOP take any credit for that? Is he standing at the post house telling the animators and TDs how to light and frame the shot? I've never heard of that before.

 

In the battle between Jar Jar Binks and CO vs the battle droids, in Phantom Menace, it's 100% CG. What did the DOP do on those shots?

 

All Tyler is saying is that the films nominated for best cinematography should be "real" cinematography, and I agree.

 

And yes the bear does attack the kids, watch it on NetFlix, Against The Wild. ;)

 

R,

[Gregory Irwin]

Absolutely! Funny enough, even the Revenant is VERY HEAVY on VFX.

That makes me wonder if Chivo was made irrelevant on The Revenant.

 

G

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not all or nothing. There can be shots in a movie that are 100% CGI and plenty of shots where there is no CGI or minimal CGI.

 

And in movies like "Life of Pi", the DP did have a lot of input into the lighting of the CGI shots. There are even animated features that hire people like Roger Deakins to direct the digital lighting and photographic effects.

 

As for whether there should be a separate category for CGI-heavy movies, that's problematic for a number of reasons, like determining the percentage of original cinematography and VFX and deciding the cut-off point. Plus there are a number of cinematographers who work on these big VFX films that don't want to be pushed over into a separate awards category that implies that they contributed less to a movie than they would for a non-VFX movie. All of these issues have been discussed ever since the days of "Avatar".

[Robin R Probyn]

Richard.. ok thanks.. but like really attacked..!! I think the scene in Revenant of the bear attack is very convincing .. and that would just be impossible with a real bear.. and a real actor.. let alone an A list one.. how did you shoot it with the real bear ..?