Film is dead - Long live film (or "How I stopped worrying and learned to love facts")

Gabriel M.A.

Gabriel M.A.

My Red Dot Glows For You
Local time
4:48 AM
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
9,977
Film is dead - Long live film (or "How I stopped worrying and learned to love facts")

Hunger Games series makers elect to use --(gasp)-- film

While Hollywood is shifting more and more towards digital filmmaking, "Catching Fire" director Francis Lawrence (who replaced Gary Ross) went old school, electing to shoot "Catching Fire" on film with Panavision cameras with lenses from the 1960s. The result was a more intimate, flawed experience.
Click to expand...


Could it be that the so-called "Film Hipster" "Movement" is readjusting film into more mainstream acceptance (again)?

Discuss :)
 
The majority of Blockbuster movies are gasp shot on film, the middle to low budget crowd is the driving force behind Digital. Allthough a few indie productions choose anamorphic and film for their productions as the look is different and the costs for HQ digital are not as small as many are lead to believe.
 
It is easier and less expensive to make some crap like Avatar with computers.
It is easier and less expensive to make some special effects in remake of "Casino Royal" digitally, but it look like fake crap after all.
As long as crowd eats it well...
But, if here is no modern special effects required in the movie, why not to make it on film.

P.S. I'm not against of digital on the Big Screen. I was close to the industry in nineties and where are some good examples, how to make it with computers. Like in the latest "A Christmas Carol" movie. Great use of digital technologies.
 
Film or digital, IMHO, the way computer generated effects are done are unreal and childish. Now, if it's science fiction, I guess anything goes, but for normal films, the effects are terrable. It all looks like Pixal effects to me. Pearl Habor and Red Tails are good examples, The airplanes fly like something out of Star Wars, not the way airplanes fly.
(steps off soap box)
 
Digital effects are not always cheaper than classic model building etc.. and often look much much worse a mix of both is the best solution. Digital as a substitute for Matte painting looks good. Digital as a substitute for miniature models not so good
 
Ko.Fe. said:
It is easier and less expensive to make some crap like Avatar with computers...
Click to expand...

From wiki: "Avatar was officially budgeted at $237 million. Other estimates put the cost between $280 million and $310 million for production and at $150 million for promotion. The film made extensive use of cutting edge motion capture filming techniques, and was released for traditional viewing, 3D viewing (using the RealD 3D, Dolby 3D, XpanD 3D, and IMAX 3D formats), and for "4D" experiences in select South Korean theaters. The stereoscopic filmmaking was touted as a breakthrough in cinematic technology."

Doesn't seem easy or cheap...
 
jsrockit said:
From wiki: "Avatar was officially budgeted at $237 million...
Click to expand...


Terminator 2, one of the episodes was rendered on regular Macs with off-the-shelf software. :p It was cheap on the budget.
But results were looking great.


Do you judge movie by the budget it was made with?
I just do it by the motion picture.
 
Ko.Fe interestingly enough allthough a lot of digital efx were used in that movie the liquid mercury effect was not a digital one but created by Stan Winston https://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/t2-judgement-day-t1000-fx
The machine used for digi effects were not mac but SGI. A digital effects film I love for it's look is the original Tron the second part looks good too.
Avatar is a complete fail in the looks departments but is otherwise quiet enjoyable.
 
DominikDUK said:
Ko.Fe interestingly enough allthough a lot of digital efx were used in that movie the liquid mercury effect was not a digital one but created by Stan Winston https://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/t2-judgement-day-t1000-fx
The machine used for digi effects were not mac but SGI. A digital effects film I love for it's look is the original Tron the second part looks good too.
Avatar is a complete fail in the looks departments but is otherwise quiet enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was great combination of CGI, old school special effects and Macs.
http://www.thecityreview.com/termin2.html

Personally, just personally, I didn't find Avatar to be enjoyable, first, as you mentioned, it is fail in the looks, second, as some of my friends mentioned, the film is nothing new, but social western starring Dean Reed movie. :cool:
 
Hey don't badmouth the social western genre imo avatar was a children movie not an intelligent children movie but a movie whose target audience just started puberty. I am a western fan McCabe and Mrs Miller is amongst my fav s and I would call that a western with a social undertone.
 
2 types of films today:
1. Where people act and develop a story with the use of human thought.
2. Computer animated games put on a big screen.
I have noticed some of both are good and some of both suck. Oh were we talking about film? Sorry
 
Digital allows for small filmmakers to fill in the gaps left by the fall of mid budget movies in the wake of a collapsed DVD market.

Refn directed his last two movies on Arri Alexas. Shooting one of those is WAY cheaper than using film. Both Drive and Only God Forgives were EXCELLENT films. Two of my favorites.

There is a difference between a movie shot on digital and a film with digital effects. You all know Downtown Abbey is shot on digital, right? That show has no digital special effects but it's still digital to the core.

Would I shoot my movie on film? Hell yes, I would.
 
I wouldn't say making Avatar was cheap or easy. I think as much skill goes into that as with film but just a different approach. It's apples and oranges. I am not a fan of Avatar I don't like movies like that. But I am sure the technology behind it was top notch and expensive. If it were done on film it would have been more like the Wizard of Oz.
 
I must be missing something. I don't think it matters a lot that some film maker chooses to film his movie the old way when it will be distributed digitally.

I mean, don't misunderstand me. I am glad someone recognizes value in using film, but the huge use of film was the myriad of film copies made for distribution...right??
 
The big advantage of HQ Digital is the near instant feedback and the longer runningtime and not the costs of acquisition. If the production can afford the Alexa they can afford film. Eyes wide shut one of the best looking films of the past 20 years was shot with mostly existing lightsources and some fill lights and reflectors, the film was pushed to ASA 1600 and it looked gorgeous. Terrence Malick films have minimal artificial lighting and they are some of the best looking cinematic pieces. Das Leben der anderen had a minimal by cinema standards Budget and they shot it in 35mm Anamorphic only god forgives had nearly 3x the budget. I can understand the choice to go digital but with a Budget of more than a Million don't cite costs as a reason it's not.
 
Pioneer said:
I must be missing something. I don't think it matters a lot that some film maker chooses to film his movie the old way when it will be distributed digitally.

I mean, don't misunderstand me. I am glad someone recognizes value in using film, but the huge use of film was the myriad of film copies made for distribution...right??
Click to expand...
True that. The diustributors are forcing the theaters to make the switch to digital projection tech at very high costs to the theaters.
edit: ...at about $60k per screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom