has anyone here seen Captain American The First Avenger?
is it just me or does it look like half the film was done on a hi-def camcorder? wtf is with that - $150 million budget and you can't afford a proper movie camera?
The film was shot digitally so it will look sharper than film as its difficult to create the 'film look'. $150 mil isn't massive nowadays as CGI costs and marketing contribute mostly to that. Of actual production, I doubt they spent more than $30-50 mil. Some of the shots was also done with the 5D (which I own), I presume those were 2nd unit shots but that will contribute significantly to what you feel as a hi-def cam look. Its cheaper done this way and without film means capturing and processing is all the much easier. There is also less time and cost wasted in developing the film. I'd say they saved themselves $20 mil at least by going digital as a typical Kodak 35mm film stock, say, 100T would set you back approx $250-350 for a 4mins long footage. When loaded to say a Moviecam SL (which I've used), you'd be only left with approx 3:10 mins left of available footage. Plus with digital you can easily correct for colour and aperture whereas with film you're pretty much stuck with the stock film you have to adjust based on lighting. Therefore its heavily important for grips to adjust light accordingly. Personally I quite like using the Red One. Wasn't so keen on 35mm just due to the fiddliness of loading plus I like to over extend shots so given digital I can improvise upon my shotlist.
LOTR The Return of The King and Avatar were also shot digitally, neither of these movies have that 'cheap' aesthetic
an episode of fricken Seinfeld looks more filmic than most of the scenes in CA! Joe Johnston was fcking wacked when he made this movie...
Nah, LoTR was shot entirely on S35's...so it was film, they actually fucked up a few 6 digit $ cameras in 1 scene, can't remember which cos one of the script supervisors told me when I met him in London.
Yeah Avatar is digital but it was digital 3D and it was a camera that is non consumer/prosumer whereas Captain America the cameras they used was bordering on prosumer (5d is prosumer). Plus Avatar's entire camera kit was personally developed by James Cameron and he isn't one to let go of cinematic quality for digital efficiency...Seinfeld was filmed on film as well...not digital, most tv series/sitcoms are filmed on film or at least with a camera that has 35mm sensors on there.
Prosumer. Lololol. That term was coined as a combination of producer and consumer. As in a consumer that has a hand in the design and production of a product.
Prosumer. Lololol. That term was coined as a combination of producer and consumer. As in a consumer that has a hand in the design and production of a product.
Nah Sci, the definition i use for it is Professional and Consumer. That its not fully professional and its above Consumer quality. Basically, a device/object that achieves similar goals as the professional equivalent but at Consumer prices could be another definition.
Meh, you chose Seinfeld, thats late 90s early 00s series, back then digital wasn't a big thing as they couldnt find a cheaper way to store the data. Compare a show nowadays, more chance of it being digital. Tbh i dont believe its any flaw that the look of it isnt cinematic enough, people emphasise too much on the look of a film nowadays...distracts from the content.
Prosumer. Lololol. That term was coined as a combination of producer and consumer. As in a consumer that has a hand in the design and production of a product.
Nah Sci, the definition i use for it is Professional and Consumer. That its not fully professional and its above Consumer quality. Basically, a device/object that achieves similar goals as the professional equivalent but at Consumer prices could be another definition.
I realized how you were using it. I was informing you that you were using it wrong.
Meh, you chose Seinfeld, thats late 90s early 00s series, back then digital wasn't a big thing as they couldnt find a cheaper way to store the data. Compare a show nowadays, more chance of it being digital. Tbh i dont believe its any flaw that the look of it isnt cinematic enough, people emphasise too much on the look of a film nowadays...distracts from the content.
When you're selling a purely visual product, I'd hope that people would recognize the importance of the aesthetics. Not that I'm downplaying the importance of content, but content doesn't matter if no one wants to watch it long enough to find out what the content is. Basics of consumerism, you have to sell what people want to buy, and attractive packaging has always been an important factor.
In general I'm not a massive fan of the superhero movie craze going on, the reason I state that the look and feel of it isn't as important nowadays isn't downplaying the importance of it, its just for every film noir with simple but effective cinematography, there is a Transformers 3...where the only thing that matters is to satisfy the audience's crave of epic scenery.
In general I'm not a massive fan of the superhero movie craze going on, the reason I state that the look and feel of it isn't as important nowadays isn't downplaying the importance of it, its just for every film noir with simple but effective cinematography, there is a Transformers 3...where the only thing that matters is to satisfy the audience's crave of epic scenery.
I also have to agree there
there is a plus side though, as bad as those films are, they do rake in a lot of money for the studios, which allows them to sustain development for better quality films
True, though I'm still waiting for a paycheck from them to green light my films Just looking at the top grossing films, only LoTR stands out as being a quality film, and perhaps Titanic as well depending on taste. The rest is just Pirates of the Caribbean, the poorly performed by lead actors Harry Potter (great support always though), Dances with wolves with blue paint...in 3D...,Transformers...
I loved the first Pirates of the Caribbean. (Although the others not so much)
Not really a huge fan of the 3D phase going on right now though, and esp in animated film, I really miss some of the great art you saw in a lot of the older Disney movies.
Oh Ixta, the first one is great, but what they did with the franchise is just utter disgrace to film. The 3D phase is just for profit, its a phase films go through always, just another era, we went through the spoof movies of the early 00's then the late 00's we had superhero movies and remakes, now its 3D...in a few years after the 3D craze dies down theres going to be something else.
Old Disney movies were great, though with Disney they got greedy too by rereleasing Lion King in 3D...
What I don't get with pirates is that in the first film, the effects were pretty great, but then they were horrible in 2 and 3. I haven't even bothered to watch the latest one. =/
Lion King 3D is a sheer travesty. Lion King used to be a fav of mine, along with Mulan, but I saw the 3D one and it just made me shudder in horror.
I do like superhero movies though, not all of them, but I've been a fan of Batman and X-men. X-men I think I would like no matter what they do to it. Halle Berry as Storm is pretty successful in my mind, and I really love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Patrick Stewart is just great in general as well, so he makes an excellent Professor Charles Xavier. (I pretty much only ever liked Star Trek because he was Picard.) ...I kinda want to watch an X-men movie now.
Problem is: 3d right now is just a gimmick. I remember it being around when I was a kid and it hasn't really changed at all since then. It's just an old phase being resurrected that will die out as quickly as it appeared... again.
It is all a gimmick as the studios were down in a rut late 90s and early 00s, they needed a new impetus for moviegoers to be interested. It was the same when the first time 3D films were introduced in the 70s, it was entirely a gimmick, its improved obviously but at the end of the day, you cannot call it 3D, cos in general what you see on screen is already 3D, we aren't watching linear scenes. At best its 3.5D
The next thing is probably scent, as a gimmick. Seeing as how Heston Blumenthal has already try implementing that at Cineworld by introducing scent based films, where if you see filth, you smell filth etc. Tbh, I don't see how i can be more engaged by films like Lion King, i've already seen it in standard and its brilliant synopsis of the films that built my childhood, therefore watching it over again in 3D just feels like a betrayal of that nostalgia.
What I don't get with pirates is that in the first film, the effects were pretty great, but then they were horrible in 2 and 3. I haven't even bothered to watch the latest one. =/
Lion King 3D is a sheer travesty. Lion King used to be a fav of mine, along with Mulan, but I saw the 3D one and it just made me shudder in horror.
I do like superhero movies though, not all of them, but I've been a fan of Batman and X-men. X-men I think I would like no matter what they do to it. Halle Berry as Storm is pretty successful in my mind, and I really love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Patrick Stewart is just great in general as well, so he makes an excellent Professor Charles Xavier. (I pretty much only ever liked Star Trek because he was Picard.) ...I kinda want to watch an X-men movie now.
Ixta, they became effects driven, and wanted rather the visuals and the supporting cast to be the primary reason for you to go and watch the film, exactly the same as Twilight. They could care less if you understood the story or whether it was coherent enough to challenge our neurological stimulus. It is a dreary rip roaringly long episode of testosterone overload, as with the majority of blockbusters. Simply put, Hollywood follows a formula, the first pirates film was an examination of our social acceptance, if it became economically viable, then fuck standards and quality, just ship them out by the bucket load. Its more emphasised in superhero films nowadays, one after another to the extent Marvel has its own studios rather than working in partnership. 3D only because Avatar showed how many people can be fooled by its visuals and therefore it became the catalyst for all the 3D we get in cinemas.
@Tangsta, I think it's funny that you make the point that the highest grossing films are the 3D ones, and use that as an example of potential, when you then follow it by showing how 3D is forced down people's throats at higher ticket prices, while the 2D are shoved to the side. I don't know if revenue can be directly linked to potential and quality when there are these other variables at play. It might be more a case of suppliers driving the "demand" the direction they want it to go, rather than them responding to demand.
I'm not sure if I equate 3D with color, although granted, it might be valid enough in the long run. Right now though, going to 3D movies in the theaters gives me a headache. *shrug* Specifically, I really appreciated the aesthetic of the 2D art in animation, and the 3D version just doesn't match up to it for me. I thought Lion King had beautiful art, and the change detracts for me. But I'd also prefer the art found in Bambi, which is quite old, to what they did with toy story as well. That's not the norm these days, but it's what appeals to me more.
Although, I'm not really that snobby with movies in general. I hate things that are all drama and depression, even if they are the best acting and filming ever. A little action and testosterone tends to be more entertaining, even if it is formulaic. :P Which is why I'm on the opposite side from Lews on this Superhero movie issue. (Although granted some are awful. I hated the Hulk.)
It's just an old phase being resurrected that will die out as quickly as it appeared... again.
This prediction is based on...?
You do realize the highest grossing films these days have either been filmed or converted to 3D during post-production. Sure they're not all quality, but only a very close-minded person would fail to see ANY potential at all in the technology.
Even Spielberg is on board with his upcoming Tin Tin movie, and this is a guy who has the power to make his own decisions in Hollywood, nobody forced him into it.
What I don't like, however, is how the Cinemas are 'forcing' the technology upon us. When a movie is released, all their biggest and best screens will be booked with 3D version of the movie until the next 3D movie is released and the cycle continues, relegating the 2D versions to the smaller screens. This serves only one real purpose: to generate more revenue (allows them to jack up ticket prices for the 3d version). The audience should be able to 'freely' choose between the 2D and 3D versions of any film. However, this is simply an example of human greed taking over as opposed to the technology itself.
As I said, my prediction is based on the history of 3d. I'm not saying 3d will never take off. Someday, 3d might be as extensive as HD is today. As it is now, however, just like it was in the past, 3d is just a gimmick. That's all I'm saying.
officially accepted my new job guess i should email them tonight or early tomorrow asking about starting date and NDAs and whatev, maybe salary too (i didn't ask exact number because they said they pay in the 90th percentile and monthly rent is like half a week's pay out here [well before taxes so i guess more like 4 days' pay])
PS from what i've heard part of my job (not sure how much) will be watching movies and stuff, idk, you guys are talking about movies so that's sorta related. also they showed hockey night in canada in 3D at some point so it's totally a big deal, yo
when i watched avatar in 3d in the theatres, during the whole environmental and detail and music got me immersed and i lost myself in it, was amazing, until i came out after :-p
when i watched avatar in 3d in the theatres, during the whole environmental and detail and music got me immersed and i lost myself in it, was amazing, until i came out after :-p
when i watched avatar in 3d in the theatres, during the whole environmental and detail and music got me immersed and i lost myself in it, was amazing, until i came out after :-p
oh man. they pay like 25% more than i expected idk what i'm actually going to do with that amount of money, pretty sure even after 20%+ tax/deductions and rent and groceries and w/e i'm still going to have more money at the end of the month than when i lived at home and had no expenses... also it actually makes me legitimately wonder what my classmates who are working in the valley are making now even though level of awesomeness is defo better than pure salary any day
and Cheli how much $ do you make. if you are anything like my 30year old asian manager, you will have the same lifestyle of unhealthy junk food everyday, save every coupon,shop at the clearance section, save all your money and then cry about how you don't make a 6 figure income. Not to mention get verbally stomped by your underling everyday
I'm still in my second/third year of uni, I alternate 4 months full-time school, 4 months full-time work. so, not much overall since i don't work during school. I think my new job (I'm not starting till after new year's) would be like 50k gross + 4% vacation if i worked a full year? but I'm only working there 4 months. my parents only make a little more than that combined iirc.
I eat a fair amount of chocolate but not really chips/cookies/delivery/takeout? I cook everyday unless there's leftovers from yesterday, and i usually cook a little more to go with yesterday's leftovers anyway. I try to make enough so i have some left over for lunch the next day, otherwise i'll just make a sammich or something because i hate buying food. I drink a lot and don't exercise at all I don't do coupons but my roommate does a bit, I've never had the time/interest. we bought our coffee maker at walmart. i dropped like 50bux at shoppers today, 50bux on groceries last week, 20bux on groceries today? i'm a co-op university student so I have no underlings, at school or at work. i make more money than i need to cover my expenses, and spend more money than i should. I don't know that I'll ever make 6 figures, or that I'll ever really need to. whatevs
Comments
If anyone has a copy of Pan U's original story about the aliens, I'd really like to see it again and save it to this computer.
Posty? Or send me a message?
Yeah Avatar is digital but it was digital 3D and it was a camera that is non consumer/prosumer whereas Captain America the cameras they used was bordering on prosumer (5d is prosumer). Plus Avatar's entire camera kit was personally developed by James Cameron and he isn't one to let go of cinematic quality for digital efficiency...Seinfeld was filmed on film as well...not digital, most tv series/sitcoms are filmed on film or at least with a camera that has 35mm sensors on there.
Just looking at the top grossing films, only LoTR stands out as being a quality film, and perhaps Titanic as well depending on taste. The rest is just Pirates of the Caribbean, the poorly performed by lead actors Harry Potter (great support always though), Dances with wolves with blue paint...in 3D...,Transformers...
(Although the others not so much)
Not really a huge fan of the 3D phase going on right now though, and esp in animated film, I really miss some of the great art you saw in a lot of the older Disney movies.
Old Disney movies were great, though with Disney they got greedy too by rereleasing Lion King in 3D...
Lion King 3D is a sheer travesty. Lion King used to be a fav of mine, along with Mulan, but I saw the 3D one and it just made me shudder in horror.
I do like superhero movies though, not all of them, but I've been a fan of Batman and X-men. X-men I think I would like no matter what they do to it. Halle Berry as Storm is pretty successful in my mind, and I really love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Patrick Stewart is just great in general as well, so he makes an excellent Professor Charles Xavier. (I pretty much only ever liked Star Trek because he was Picard.)
...I kinda want to watch an X-men movie now.
It is all a gimmick as the studios were down in a rut late 90s and early 00s, they needed a new impetus for moviegoers to be interested. It was the same when the first time 3D films were introduced in the 70s, it was entirely a gimmick, its improved obviously but at the end of the day, you cannot call it 3D, cos in general what you see on screen is already 3D, we aren't watching linear scenes. At best its 3.5D
The next thing is probably scent, as a gimmick. Seeing as how Heston Blumenthal has already try implementing that at Cineworld by introducing scent based films, where if you see filth, you smell filth etc. Tbh, I don't see how i can be more engaged by films like Lion King, i've already seen it in standard and its brilliant synopsis of the films that built my childhood, therefore watching it over again in 3D just feels like a betrayal of that nostalgia.
I'm not sure if I equate 3D with color, although granted, it might be valid enough in the long run. Right now though, going to 3D movies in the theaters gives me a headache. *shrug* Specifically, I really appreciated the aesthetic of the 2D art in animation, and the 3D version just doesn't match up to it for me. I thought Lion King had beautiful art, and the change detracts for me. But I'd also prefer the art found in Bambi, which is quite old, to what they did with toy story as well. That's not the norm these days, but it's what appeals to me more.
Although, I'm not really that snobby with movies in general. I hate things that are all drama and depression, even if they are the best acting and filming ever. A little action and testosterone tends to be more entertaining, even if it is formulaic. :P Which is why I'm on the opposite side from Lews on this Superhero movie issue. (Although granted some are awful. I hated the Hulk.)
PS from what i've heard part of my job (not sure how much) will be watching movies and stuff, idk, you guys are talking about movies so that's sorta related. also they showed hockey night in canada in 3D at some point so it's totally a big deal, yo
Faggot.
they pay like 25% more than i expected
idk what i'm actually going to do with that amount of money, pretty sure even after 20%+ tax/deductions and rent and groceries and w/e i'm still going to have more money at the end of the month than when i lived at home and had no expenses...
also it actually makes me legitimately wonder what my classmates who are working in the valley are making now
even though level of awesomeness is defo better than pure salary any day
also, schoolsux etc
I eat a fair amount of chocolate but not really chips/cookies/delivery/takeout? I cook everyday unless there's leftovers from yesterday, and i usually cook a little more to go with yesterday's leftovers anyway. I try to make enough so i have some left over for lunch the next day, otherwise i'll just make a sammich or something because i hate buying food. I drink a lot and don't exercise at all
is this real life?