Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

After seeing the new trailer, I'm starting to rethink my opinion on fantastic beasts. It's looking more and more like it could be a good movie.

 

Anyone who thinks this movie will be anything short of passable is a bit too cynical. WB knows what they're doing. Not saying this will be great, but the formula for stuff like this has been figured out years ago. Look at Marvel, I personally find the newest hero movies boring as hell, but that doesn't make them anything less than 6/10. You can't trick the modern day masses with objectively bad movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Twas excellent, very well shot as well, the 3D works well (ugh at the dimness in my theater though), quite a few pop out moments. It looks handsome, it's not flashy, relatively toned down, I can see why some are going to sigh, but the setting being completely different (New York during the twenties) from every single HP movie means different look as well, although you can tell it's the same world. There are some very cool, dizzying camera moves from time to time as well.

 

Too bad there's no article anywhere talking about the cinematography, I'd like to know why they went digital, I hope somehow they can go back to film for the 4 sequels, it seems each setting from each sequel is going to be very different, probably giving us very different looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Bringing this thread back because I'm still wondering about this, I doubt anyone will see this anyway. 

John Holland said that they were set to shoot on film (for this one) until a few weeks before principal photography began. I asked him a while later if he knew why but he didn't have an answer. Considering there's a lab in London, why would they shoot digitally? Also interesting to see then Rousselot saying in Definition Mag that him, Yates and the producers decided to shoot digitally early on?!

On another note, this and The Crimes Of Grindelwald are really gorgeously shot films, the Alexa 65 looks quite beautiful on TCOG even though I'm so bummed they switched to digital, I somehow foolishly hope they can switch to film on the third one. 

FBAWTFT is a really interesting study case though, I usually don't care for digital but Rousselot and Yates with the aid of course of Stuart Craig's production design, Colleen Atwood's costumes and everyone else managed to do something pretty unique on this film (in the digital realm). I don't know what it is but they've really achieved an actual textured look with this, the G-series definitely play a part in it as the fuzziness on the top and the bottom of the frame, in addition to the lovely barrel distortion, and the glass itself add a lot of that texture but man, it looks far more "filmic" than most digitally shot films out there. 

There was only one, alas, article on the film on Definition Magazine where Rousselot talked about his work and he didn't mention any special treatment in post, I figured maybe they added some grain, because there IS some kind of gauzy, thin grain like veil on the image. He said they pushed it to 1280 ASA in night situations, but it's also there during some of the day stuff. 

It was surprising to read Rousselot swear off anamorphic on TCOG (after shooting anamorphic for a while) and saying they wanted to go spherical and bigger format on TCOG, I think they lost some of that texture in there (though TCOG still has texture of some kind, looks cleaner though).

 

Anyone interested in discussing this? ?

Edited by Manu Delpech
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...