Jump to content

Come on, Star Wars


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

i would rather shoot a terrible script on film because twenty years from now people will still remember PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE but in two years no one will remember TANGERINE.

No, you just said the quality of the content is not as important as the quality of the format it was shot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen many films shot on Arri Alexa's that are more beautifully shot than many other 35mm projects.

 

BTW) I have taken it upon myself to rewatch all the original and prequel Star Wars movies... Episode 1 is on right now.

I see you like pain.

 

 

You know, I know Jack Glen very well, and the most dominant theme in his work is the twisting woman motif, in which he never fails to nauseate me thoroughly. And you must understand, I can tell you he chooses a girl he knows will be hostile ,uncooperative and disrespectful throughout the entire production! And the colors! He really knows how to abuse his pinks, it was nauseating!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is nothing in my post that could lead you to that conclusion.

Really? If you'd rather shoot a terrible script on film than a great script on another format, then truly all you care about is the medium. Film Fetishist, Film snob, pick your term. A 'real' filmmaker cares about story, not artificial considerations of what the film was shot on.

 

Film fetishists are really not that different from the digital zealots, with their pixel boners. Both groups attach an inordinate amount of importance to the camera and format they are using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? If you'd rather shoot a terrible script on film than a great script on another format, then truly all you care about is the medium. Film Fetishist, Film snob, pick your term. A 'real' filmmaker cares about story, not artificial considerations of what the film was shot on.

 

Film fetishists are really not that different from the digital zealots, with their pixel boners. Both groups attach an inordinate amount of importance to the camera and format they are using.

 

If you can get off the "No true Scotsman" spiel and re-read my post you might see I pointed out that film has proven to be more enduring in the public mind than video, and for that reason I would rather shoot something that would be remembered.

 

Camera and format are very important to the look of a film. Film is forever. If you're careless about your choice then if anyone ever remembers your movie, they will remember it looked green for some reason.

 

Probably because you used a Sony. Just like the doctor who used a hamster wheel to extirpate the patient's appendix, because, who cares what instrument he uses?

 

For crying out loud, I'm elated that you do not direct the local philharmonic, I pity the day the tuba players would have to march onto that stage and see you've provided them with toilets full of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's because I'm a film fetishist. For me, I'd more put it that I'm an anti-digitalist. Or if you like, I'm anti-video. But not because of some noble principle, or because the process uses electricity or pixels or bits of silicon or little wires or anything (I have nothing against those things). It's because I don't like the look and feel and experience of digitally projected digitally shot movies in the cinema or on the telly or wherever else they might be shown. Specifically because of the look, which I've attempted to explain through the medium of words, on other other threads here. But all for nought. You digital lovers can't be swayed. You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. Words can't seem to express why I don't find the look of digital movies worth seeing. Or words can express the point, but you don't accept the premise that some people don't like the look at all. Real film inspires good stories and good movies. Also, in some genres of the moving image, such as TV, I don't mind video at all. I remember the first season of Blake's 7, filmed entirely on video. It was great. But for a motion picture at the cinema? And the same thing shown on TV, as a feature movie that was first released as a film at the cinema? For me, it's got to be real film. The only exception I can think of that I enjoyed for the movie alone that wasn't shot on film was Rogue One. I'd have loved it more if it was shot and shown on real film though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should they care when the industry places no value on going to the cinema?

 

Why should they care when all they do is watch stuff on their internet feed which looks NOTHING like the DCP or film print in this arguments case. Using an uncalibrated display at 120 or 240hz "high motion" bullshit mode, on a computer monitor/portable device or an airplane.

 

Why should they care when most people are watching content at 480p because their web service isn't fast enough to stream 720 or 1080.

 

Why should they care when most people watch for a few minutes and shut it off when they don't care for it because again, the industry doesn't place value on the cinema experience.

 

Ohh an people do give a **(obscenity removed)** Robin, people do come out of the woodwork to see a movie projected on film. It's probably the only thing they DO come out for now a days. If you lived in an analog rich city like Boston, New York or Los Angeles, you would see this.

 

I really hate to disappoint sir.. but apart from the beret wearing.. baguette eating .. rolling their own ... types who have practiced the perfect pronunciation of unknown French and Russian films.. NO ONE cares about the format .. they are more worried about the pop corn .. or getting the knickers off their date.. they just want to escape their own lives for 90 mins or so.. and it has always been thus.. look at the films you got in the Great Depression .. you think Shirley Temple would have won an Oscar in the roaring 20,s.. look at the films now.. another depression.. and bingo.. escapist films.. these are the people that earn films or videos $1b box office.. why do you ever think the public cares about 35m film or Alexa .. good story ..decent acting.. sound and good enough focus..thats the product..who would not rather see a "good" movie shot digitally than some nonsense shot on 35mm film... I mean really just on a simple judgement of logic..TV settings can make a film look like shite.. but thats isn't the reason a movie would be shite.. you cant really argue that the format is the fundamental reason a film is good .. there are 10,000 plus totally and empirically crap movies shot on film.. its a bit odd that a film maker..a teller of stories.. finds the format more important that the actual story.. thats more ,like an engineer..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I really hate to disappoint sir.. but apart from the beret wearing.. baguette eating .. rolling their own ... types who have practiced the perfect pronunciation of unknown French and Russian films.. NO ONE cares about the format ..

You mean your average 10 soda pop's a day drinking, extra large popcorn with tons of butter eating, can't fit into the movie theater seat, must watch every marvel movie on the opening night "movie goer"?

 

Do you think Stanley Kubrick made movies for that guy? No. Do you think Paul Thomas Anderson makes movies for that guy? No. Do you think a movie like "The Florida Project" was made for him? NO!

 

You either make stuff for the person who wants to forget about their shitty life for 2 hours OR you make movies that are for intelligent people who GIVE TWO SHITS about your movie. Filmmakers who give two shits about their movie and realize their "discerning audience" DOES know the difference, they understand the relevance and their audiences do too.

 

these are the people that earn films or videos $1b box office..

and? You really think real filmmakers give two shits about box office? You think Martin Scorsese thought about making a dime on "silence". Do you think Paul Thomas Anderson thought about making a penny off "The Master". No, they are filmmakers and they are going to tell their stories no matter what. Neither movie has made it's money back and they may never, but that's not the point. The point is, they exist, people who give two shits about art saw them and enjoyed what those filmmakers had to say for better or worse.

 

why do you ever think the public cares about 35m film or Alexa?

Why do you think the "film" screenings ALWAYS do better than the digital ones? Public doesn't care? Bullshit.

 

.. good story ..decent acting.. sound and good enough focus..thats the product..who would not rather see a "good" movie shot digitally than some nonsense shot on 35mm film...

Robin, what stops you from watching that movie at home? If there is nothing special at the cinema, then why not wait the 3 months and just see it on video? My point isn't necessarily acquisition and it never has been. My point is giving the audience an experience they can't have at home. Whether that is a large screen like IMAX or FILM PROJECTION, it's an "attraction".

 

Do you think audience members know what "laser" projection is? Yet they FLOCK to go see it at IMAX theaters. You put Kodak logos on certain screenings of a movie and say "on film", people will flock because "it's different".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mentioned two terrible films, one of which I'd never heard of, and one which is only remembered, if at all, because of Tim Burton's 'Ed Wood'. They are remembered for being awful, not for being shot on film.

 

The rest of your post was just nonsensical.

 

1 - PLAN 9 was a genre legend for decades before Burton's inaccurate biopic. You don't understand the appeal of such films. You are also out of touch with the Underground Cinema element since you don't understand MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE or why people love it in spite of its shortcomings, and I'm betting you're not cool enough to have ever watched TROLL 2.

 

2- My post ended there. There was no nonsensical rest since there was no rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are also out of touch with the Underground Cinema element since you don't understand MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE or why people love it in spite of its shortcomings, and I'm betting you're not cool enough to have ever watched TROLL 2.

 

I am obviously very uncool and out of touch. I don't know how I've managed with such gaping holes in my cinematic education. Troll 2, eh? Is it as good as it sounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am obviously very uncool and out of touch. I don't know how I've managed with such gaping holes in my cinematic education.

 

It's not you.This Manos movie mentioned, while having never seen it, the consensus is that it sucks - with a 1.9/10 IMDb rating. Usually, IMDb is pretty accurate on the quality of a movie in general.

 

 

Troll 2, eh? Is it as good as it sounds?

 

Troll 2 holds a 2.8/10 rating on IMDb, and with good reason. It's about as good as Plan 9 is. I tried to watch it once, and only made it about 1/4 the way through and gave up - and I usually like bad movies. It's very campish, and I can see it being a favorite of those who also like very bad, campy movies such as Plan 9. Never was my cup of tea, but to each their own I guess.

 

I call anyone into question though that uses Troll 2 and Plan 9 as examples of 'classic' filmmaking. The movies suck something terrible. They sucked when they where made, and they suck now. There is always people who will like anything, but using such films as examples of 'films done right' is a little off-putting to me.

 

You mean your average 10 soda pop's a day drinking, extra large popcorn with tons of butter eating, can't fit into the movie theater seat, must watch every marvel movie on the opening night "movie goer"?

 

Do you think Stanley Kubrick made movies for that guy? No. Do you think Paul Thomas Anderson makes movies for that guy? No. Do you think a movie like "The Florida Project" was made for him? NO!

 

Why do you think the "film" screenings ALWAYS do better than the digital ones? Public doesn't care? Bullshit.

 

Do you think audience members know what "laser" projection is? Yet they FLOCK to go see it at IMAX theaters. You put Kodak logos on certain screenings of a movie and say "on film", people will flock because "it's different".

 

Tyler, the reality is, this 'guy' you mention makes up 99.95% of the cinema-going audience. Hell, he makes up 99.95% of the world. Yes, there is always the occasional person here and there that will enjoy some campy art stuff, but the average Joe wants a good movie that will transport you to a different world, without the need to invest hours of time trying to decode what the filmmaker is trying to tell you. You can make movies for these few people, but just like you admit, they will never be successful. So, I guess it depends on what target you're aiming for in life.

 

As for Kubrick, I don't ever recall an interview where he mentions who he makes movies for. I certainly don't remember him making the statement that 'he doesn't make movies for X type of person'. Pretty much every Kubrick film is mainstream, and as such is targeted at the same audience 99% of other movies are targeted at - the Popcorn eating average guy.

 

As for your claim that film screenings do better than digital: do you have any evidence of this? I have never heard not seen that trend. Yes, there is a small subset of the population who are film purists who will flock to a special screening of a film on actual film, but the important thing to keep in mind here is that it doesn't mean that screening is more successful. When such screenings appear, they are small and concentrated, and as such - while they might appear popular, that is only because its such a rare occasion. 99.5% of the public does not car about film vs digital.

 

People don't flock to IMAX because of lazer projection - they flock there because the damn thing has a huge screen and booming surround sound - and experience you can't get anywhere else. It's also worth nothing, however, that some of the biggest 'up-sell' type cinema experiences like IMAX and DOLBY CINEMA are all digital technologies now, not film.

 

 

Personally, I'm neither pro-digital nor pro-film - I'm pro-story. I don't care what you shoot it on, as long as its good. I'd say I make up 99.5% of the population. If you really feel the need to appeal to the 0.5% of the population who is a snob when it comes to such things, feel free - but you'll just waste your time.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Being a big fan of "Mystery Science Theater 3000", I've seen "Manos, Hands of Fate" more than once... I don't know how I'd slog through it without the quips from Joel and the robots. Best comment: "Every frame of this movie looks like someone's last known photograph."

 

f94b4c138e61e66f0af4ae5a42e545aa--the-ha

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I call anyone into question though that uses Troll 2 and Plan 9 as examples of 'classic' filmmaking. The movies suck something terrible. They sucked when they where made, and they suck now. There is always people who will like anything, but using such films as examples of 'films done right' is a little off-putting to me.

 

DustinMattson10-305x457.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a big fan of "Mystery Science Theater 3000", I've seen "Manos, Hands of Fate" more than once... I don't know how I'd slog through it without the quips from Joel and the robots. Best comment: "Every frame of this movie looks like someone's last known photograph."

 

f94b4c138e61e66f0af4ae5a42e545aa--the-ha

 

You know something is odd with the world when The Master's painting is more in focus than Luke Skywalker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Much as I'd like to spend 95 minutes watching Troll 2, I think I'm going to go and have a root canal instead, and after that, I have some paint that I'm going to watch dry.

 

That was a video showing the insane popularity of TROLL 2 and it featured, ironically, the dentist who starred in it. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tyler, the reality is, this 'guy' you mention makes up 99.95% of the cinema-going audience.

Well, I don't see Marvel movies, so I wouldn't know. The audience that watches the movies I watch, is NOT that audience. You can always tell because they sit through the credits, quietly reading and complementing those who made the movie.

 

So, I guess it depends on what target you're aiming for in life.

Making something that will be remembered in 50+ years, rather than something which will be forgotten the moment you leave the theater.

 

As for Kubrick, I don't ever recall an interview where he mentions who he makes movies for.

Well, he did make one general audience movie; "Spartacus". I don't think it's worth going into a lengthy conversation about Kubrick. Suffice to say, he didn't give two shits what the audience felt. He knew there was an audience for his movies and it was for sure, not the Marvel going audience of today.

 

As for your claim that film screenings do better than digital: do you have any evidence of this?

Yes, I'm friends with many projectionists across the nation and they have taken excerpts from NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) publications and put them on film-tech's website. In cineplexes where film prints were screened, with digital screenings next door, the film prints always did better sales. In fact, some theater's didn't even bother showing a digital version because they found that house was more usefull doing other things. I have also seen this first hand here in Hollywood, which is a myopic world I understand.

 

This is the reason why Warner, Fox and now Disney (The Nutcracker) are striking film prints and pushing them into theaters. They've learned they can make MORE money that way, it's just another gimmick like 3D. The great part is, keeping staff trained on using projectors and Fotokem making prints, allows other would be filmmakers to use the same workflow. Thus, smaller films like "Too Late" and "Love Which" both released on 35mm, have the opportunity to do so without an issue. Neither movie was available to see on digital at the time of original release.

 

It's only a matter of time before the other studio's weigh in and start doing the same thing. We had 5 70mm releases in 2017 and so far there are already 2 slated for 2018 that I know of right now. I have a feeling we'll see even more as the year goes on.

 

People don't flock to IMAX because of lazer projection

Actually they do. IMAX has issued a report stating that theater attendance was dropping off substantially and that theaters who installed "laser" projection and advertised it, were all of a sudden increasing viewership. This seems to be the case as theaters like the Mann's Chinese which did a multi-million dollar upgrade, is now packed with people, where before it was virturally empty.

 

they flock there because the damn thing has a huge screen and booming surround sound - and experience you can't get anywhere else.

Says you! lol. I have a really nice home theater system and so do many of my friends. The days of the "big screen" meaning anything are long behind us. In 20 minutes, I can turn my theater into a 13ft wide screen with one heck of a loud sound system that shakes the house so much, I have to take all the pix off the wall or they'll fall off.

 

It's also worth nothing, however, that some of the biggest 'up-sell' type cinema experiences like IMAX and DOLBY CINEMA are all digital technologies now, not film.

That's correct. That's because AMC has huge multi-billion dollar contracts with Dolby and IMAX to put theaters into their cineplexes.

 

This is exactly why Kodak needs to start "kodak" labeled theaters, in order to compete with IMAX and Dolby.

 

I'm neither pro-digital nor pro-film - I'm pro-story. I don't care what you shoot it on, as long as its good. I'd say I make up 99.5% of the population. If you really feel the need to appeal to the 0.5% of the population who is a snob when it comes to such things, feel free - but you'll just waste your time.

I could care less if your shitty action film that nobody is going to care about 2 seconds after they leave the theater, is made with a handicam.

 

What I care about are the movies that mean something long-term. Ones that will be with us for 50 - 100 years. If you make content that's going to be distributed online, who gives two shits what it's shot on. If you're going to make movies that are being shown to a discerning audience in a "theater", then you should think about what you choose to show them. Is it just another digital poop show or are you going to give them an 'experience' that can't be replicated at home.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he did make one general audience movie; "Spartacus". I don't think it's worth going into a lengthy conversation about Kubrick. Suffice to say, he didn't give two shits what the audience felt. He knew there was an audience for his movies and it was for sure, not the Marvel going audience of today.

 

 

Says you! lol. I have a really nice home theater system and so do many of my friends. The days of the "big screen" meaning anything are long behind us. In 20 minutes, I can turn my theater into a 13ft wide screen with one heck of a loud sound system that shakes the house so much, I have to take all the pix off the wall or they'll fall off.

 

 

This is exactly why Kodak needs to start "kodak" labeled theaters, in order to compete with IMAX and Dolby.

 

 

 

I could care less if your shitty action film that nobody is going to care about 2 seconds after they leave the theater, is made with a handicam.

 

What I care about are the movies that mean something long-term. Ones that will be with us for 50 - 100 years. If you make content that's going to be distributed online, who gives two shits what it's shot on. If you're going to make movies that are being shown to a discerning audience in a "theater", then you should think about what you choose to show them. Is it just another digital poop show or are you going to give them an 'experience' that can't be replicated at home.

 

I'll respond in order:

 

#1: So wait a second, 'Sparticus' is what you're going with as mainstream? I'll raise you "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Shining" as two of his most popular works, and both are fully mainstream. "Full Metal Jacket", "A Clockwork Orange", and "Eye's wide shut" are very good contenders, and also extremely mainstream films. Hell, even "Lolita" is fairly mainstream. Let's face is, Kubrick is a bad example of the so-called 'filmmaker', as you'd define the term. While his movies are all pretty good, they are all also mainstream flicks with the purpose of filling his pockets and making a good movie, not just the ladder.

 

#2: I also have a really nice home theater. 140" projection screen and Klipsch powered 7.1 surround, pushing over 1,000 watts. While it's nice, it's still nothing like a cinema experience, even standard 2D screens at a cinema are usually 5-10x bigger than mine, and are pushing out a lot more sound. Home theaters, while nice, do not yet fully replace the experience of a cinema. It might to some people who are less picky.

 

#3: Isn't Kodak still trying to cling onto Super 8 as their last line of defense? What Kodak should have done is followed suit with the other manufacturers and jumped on the digital bandwaggon. If they had done that, they might well have had the funds to support both a digital and a celluloid division. Kodak, while I have respect for them, was badly managed. I don't foresee them having enough funds to 'Kodakize' a large majority of cinema screens. Besides that, the theaters have now all already invested in digital projection. There MIGHT be some market for large format stuff on 'film', but hell even IMAX has turned away from film - toward 4k projection.

 

Hell, even Arri - the classic film camera company, saw it coming...

 

#4: I'm arguing from a pure reality point of view. Cinema now is not what it was 60, 40, 20, or even 10 years ago. It will probably never be that way again. Yes, there are always the purist who demand old-school stuff. Look at the vinyl popularity in the music industry surging now... However, it would be a joke to assume that all of a sudden, all music is now going to be available in vinyl, and everyone is going to start buying it in droves. It's a niche market, just like film has become. It will also enjoy a special place in the hearts of many people, and some people will pay extra to experience it that way.

 

Look, if you want to make an art-house movie on celluloid that will be cherished among film scholars for 100 years, by all means do it. Don't expect that it'll pay your bills, though.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, all I'm saying here is that real filmmakers don't put all their focus on the technology, they put the focus on making good films. No one is going to convince me that "2001" would have been any inferior of a film if it had been shot on an Arri Alexa and projected in 4k, or any other film for that matter. We can be all hipster about if we want, but reality is reality.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean your average 10 soda pop's a day drinking, extra large popcorn with tons of butter eating, can't fit into the movie theater seat, must watch every marvel movie on the opening night "movie goer"?

 

Do you think Stanley Kubrick made movies for that guy? No. Do you think Paul Thomas Anderson makes movies for that guy? No. Do you think a movie like "The Florida Project" was made for him? NO!

 

You either make stuff for the person who wants to forget about their shitty life for 2 hours OR you make movies that are for intelligent people who GIVE TWO SHITS about your movie. Filmmakers who give two shits about their movie and realize their "discerning audience" DOES know the difference, they understand the relevance and their audiences do too.

 

 

and? You really think real filmmakers give two shits about box office? You think Martin Scorsese thought about making a dime on "silence". Do you think Paul Thomas Anderson thought about making a penny off "The Master". No, they are filmmakers and they are going to tell their stories no matter what. Neither movie has made it's money back and they may never, but that's not the point. The point is, they exist, people who give two shits about art saw them and enjoyed what those filmmakers had to say for better or worse.

 

 

Why do you think the "film" screenings ALWAYS do better than the digital ones? Public doesn't care? Bullshit.

 

 

Robin, what stops you from watching that movie at home? If there is nothing special at the cinema, then why not wait the 3 months and just see it on video? My point isn't necessarily acquisition and it never has been. My point is giving the audience an experience they can't have at home. Whether that is a large screen like IMAX or FILM PROJECTION, it's an "attraction".

 

Do you think audience members know what "laser" projection is? Yet they FLOCK to go see it at IMAX theaters. You put Kodak logos on certain screenings of a movie and say "on film", people will flock because "it's different".

 

 

I wouldn't say that directors who are shooting their film digital don't give a "poop"about their film.. ? whats the logic there... what gives you that idea..

 

Ok put really simply .. if you could take a poll at every cinema in the world on a Saturday night.. I would bet the farm ..my Rolls Corniche and a family pack size Cadbury dairy milk.. that at least 98% of those people would put story or fav film star above format and would not care if the film, they had just paid to see ,was shot on film or digital .. even if you took a poll only at indie "art" house cinemas I really doubt there would be 10% who only go to see films shoot on film.. in fact I would think they of all groups would put story above format.. its like saying a motor bike with a kick start is always better than one with an electric start.. even on a cold winter morning..

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...