Cool News
ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO moving ahead and begins shooting in late May!
Hey folks, Harry here.... Hollywood Reporter is reporting that ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO is moving ahead being jointly produced by Columbia Pictures and Dimension Films... The most interesting and new detail to the equation that they mention is that Mickey Rourke has joined the cast.... I haven't talked to Robert about who he is playing and the article didn't mention that... but from what I know, I'm willing to bet he's playing the CIA fella.... if you take "THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY" as a structure... Mickey Rourke's character would be "THE BAD". They also mention that Quentin would appear in the movie... This is not for a flashback.
In Robert's mind the EL MARIACHI films are like the Leone EASTWOOD films in that they are not sequels really, just films in a series of westerns that Leone and Eastwood collaborated on.
The Mariachi character is like The Man With No Name... or the One Armed Swordsman.... Or Lone Wolf.... He's an iconic mythic hero with which to play with in different stories and adventures and different tellings. But as a result, even though an actor dies in one, he can play a different character in the next one because this is a different story in a different world about 15 degrees off from the last one.
This is the third Mariachi Tale, but like Ford's Cavalry Trilogy... the some of the actors may be the same, but the parts are different.
Just think of Quentin as Robert's Guinn Big Boy WIlliams!
Also, the article mentions his use of the 24 fp Sony HD camera... From talking to Robert, I would doubt if you will ever see Robert shoot on film again. To Robert, Film is now an outdated hokey religion proven to be bankrupt and faithless... Digital is his new format!
Also Robert mentioned to me that this may be ready as soon as the Holiday season. Ahem.... DAMN.
-
+ Expand All
-
love Tarantino but he is one of the worst actors in the world. He makes Freddie Prinze Jr. look like Pacino. Stick to directing the Uma flick.....please!
-
Film is an'outdated hokey religion'!!!!!! What the fuck. It's talk like that thats gonna kill film making. Yeah yeah we know how cost effective and simple to use digital film is but pushing out the old celluloid...c'mon now. It's been proven time an time again that digital formats are a loooooong way off from producing half the across-the-board light sensitivity that film possesses - hell KODAK are doing constant presentaion on the subject to worried DP's who are getting the shits about their positions in the film industry. That's HALF. Im not so hot on the technicalities of it - Im sure many who are would chip in on the subject. ICG magazine has devoted many an editorial to scorning those who pronounce the death knell of film. It's sad - really sad. And for what? As far as I can see it's just a time and money saing initiative on behalf of people who jam their films full of effects and pump them through digital machines anyway to complete their looks. Harry, man, dont follow the celeb bandwagon and spout what their spouting. Rodrigeuz, as far as i can tell, is an intelligent sorta fellow, and I would hope his comments were flipant and not to be taken at face value.For someone who started out on his dads VCR he's hardly Martin Scorsese when it comes to the desperately important preservation of an artform now is he!!!! GODDAMM IT IM REALLY MAD ABOUT THIS GRRRRRRR....ANYONE ELSE AS PISSED OFF AT THIS AFFRONT TO THE VERY ART FORM WE LOVE?!?!?! How would people react if we said that paper was a thing of the past and we would only read books downloaded from the net. PISS. UTTER SHITE OF THE FIRST ORDER. This probably grammatically error ridden rant is now at a close...but I'm still thinking about it you sacrilegious philistines!!!!!
-
I still feel she should be in this. Digital or otherwise.
-
very bad choice to choose M Rourke! how about some guy who can truly act like tommy lee jones? if they want a black guy for a "bad" CIA agent, how about samuel L jackson? f*ck there is a million other guys better than M Rourke!
-
May 09, 2001 4:52:01 AM CDT
How can you blame digital filmmaking, if a single digital film d
by lord_soth
Only the final result matters. If it's better, I don't care if the good old film disappears completely.
-
Look, no matter how you break it down, film is 19th Century technology - chemicals and gears dragging past a light. We've hit the ceiling with it. Digital video is at it's absolute infancy - this is as bad as it's gonna look - and it's still good enough to use on Episode 2 - which is guaranteed to be one of the most viewed flicks by the public (even if fanboys bitch about it). DV is only going to get better. Digital video really only matters to the filmmakers anyway, since the majority of the public won't give a shit one way or another what it was shot on... DV is here to stay. And all of these arguments are the same I heard six years ago when Avids replaced Flatbed editors... but now practically every film is cut on computers. Such is life. Such is art.
-
...nothiung to do with th dedication and skill of technicians and artists who have spent more years than most of us have been alive honing their art form - does tradition mean nothing to you?! Oh, it's okay that those old movies are rotting and decaying they're only old hokey film. If the PROJECTION is anything to go by - Mission To Mars (shut up De Palma dissenters this isn't the place!) looked ghastkly on the big screen as projected digitally. It looked flat and stolid - in a word it was simulacrum (technically - I know the film existed before but - Im making a point here). It was artificial. It felt artificial. You cannot replicate the sometimes tender, sometimes dramatically volatile chemical proceses of light splaying over emulsion to such a degree that it negates 100 years of progress and perfection of an art. I refuse to believe it. Many in the industry would refuse to believe it. Show some who do. Give us their arguments. I want to be enlightened. Until then. Im right 'kay!
-
Once upon a time, I had the same thoughts on DV filmmaking as straxboy up there (and I'm NOT picking a fight here). I was a young, idealistic FILM student; how could video be the next step? Needless to say, once I saw that I could own my own digital studio and have enough resources to make a feature film for less than $4000, I quickly changed my tune. Granted, DV just doesn't have the same visual punch as a rich-looking, beautifully shot film, but how many of those are we really seeing these days? Not too many. Honestly, are you going to tell me that you couldn't have shot (random example) High Fidelity on DV? The texture of the film stock was not of prime importance to the STORY... which brings me to my point. Why are we going to complain about film vs. DV when it's the stories that need to be upped in quality? When I used to thinnk of "the death of film" I thought of great cinematographic classics like "The Third Man" or even more recently, "Barton Fink," but for every one of those, you've got 100 "Big Momma's House"s or "Sweet November"s. If the writers of the world can write a kick-ass story, then it could be carved on a cave wall and be exciting. Period.
So Rodriguez pulling a Sergio Leone sounds great and if that Sony 24fps is as hot as they say it is, then there's no reason for it not to ROCK, like the other two did. -
... with this crazy introduction of SOUND, movies have been robbed of their purity of image! Stories should be SEEN, not HEARD! And listen to how POOR the sound is!
... with this crazy introduction of COLOR, movies have been robbed of their ability to expose the contrasts of the world around us! All those blues and reds simply RIP the viewer out of the story! And look how UGLY all those colors are!
All of the arguments involving "tradition" are sounding very familiar. -
Looks exactly like 35MM. I watched a test screening here in Toronto where they took a shot on 35MM and on HD and did a split screen. You could not tell which side was which. This ain't no handycam. This is new amazing technology.
-
Looks exactly like 35MM. I watched a test screening here in Toronto where they took a shot on 35MM and on HD and did a split screen. You could not tell which side was which. This ain't no handycam. This is new amazing technology.
-
I literally thought of that about 5 minutes ago but you beat me to the punch. Kudos.
-
While giving the film a title like Once Upon A Time in Mexico may be a tribute to Leone at the same time its going to mean comparisons to those films as well so if I was Rodriguez I would be changing the name of my film pretty darn quickly. Now I RR's films but he is in no fricking way anything close to being or reaching the pure genius of Leone. The man is one of the gods of cinema! Now while this isn't as bad as say a frame for frame remake of psycho, I think you have got to pay some respect to the Gods. Maybe I'm just a bit touchy!!!
-
I agree with moondog. I would also like to include this point. We, love to call film an art, but in all honesty it is also a buisness. One that requires a large amount of money to produce. Thus, as an art form it is rather elitist. (Compare it to painting - where almost anyone can easily afford the materials).
With the introduction of digital technology as mainstream - first, in post and now production - the playing fields are starting to level. We are getting close to the time where a kid with a home computer and dv camera can produce the same 'big budget' movie as the studios (minus the stars with their inflated egos and salaries.) This same kid then would not have to pay the large amount of cash required to transfer his video to film. It will already be in the right form for exhibition. Doors will open for indepent movie makers. Hopefully, this will bring a fresh new batch of talent to this usually closed-doored art.
And finally, has anyone been watching the 'crap' that has been coming out lately. Maybe these studios need their foundations shook a little bit anyway. -
Might as well cast Pee Wee Herman in the Richard Kiel role too while you're at it.
-
I have humility. I will concede that you guys make good arguements. Everything you counter IS true. BUT...I still maintain that to put film in the light Rodriguez does with such a flippant remark IS bizarrely disrespectful considering he is such a movie geek. I still stand by my sensibilities and am still riled - you think there's crap out there now (there soooo is, you're right) Well wait till every Tom Dick and Retard on the block is churning out his own Res Dogs rip off and Scary Movie wannabes (to tip the hat to both ends of the quality scale) At least 'elitism' (as it has been termed here - although I figure it's a little bit off the mark - it is THEIR money they're spending - it's not like you buy into the club) is sort of a filter by which the right money goes to SOME of the right people and not to any fuckwit - although this does obviously happen. No system is perfect of course and I AM intrigued to see how many more indie gems we get just because people can afford to do it. Im willing to bet the hit-to-shit ratio will still be relatively consistent with what it is now. P.S. on a side issue isn't it nice taht these pleasant debates CAN occur in the hallowed AICN TB's ?
-
The new camera does look exactly like 35mm...the difference...film has grain. So basically you have to "screw up" the beautiful digital image to make it look like film. In my mind embracing Digital over film is like embracing DVD over VHS. You didn't notice how much better a film can look until DVD came along. I don't know about you, but I find it very difficult to put a VHS tape in after getting used to the quality of DVD. The same will be said about film.
The whole rant about Kodak cracks me up becuase Kodak is scrambling at this moment doing everything they can to "get in" on this digital thing...they just don't want "filmmakers" to know this...keep buying that expensive filmstock guys...They'll be the last to convert over...but you best believe they KNOW this is gonna happen.
So for those of you who don't believe it...don't tell you I didn't tell ya so in about five years...because digital is only the beginning to where "moving pictures" are gonna go.
-
Just thought of this - all the advances moondog talks of ARE advances - additions to the medium. Aside from adding to the flexibility, simplicity or the longevity of an image, how exactly does DV ADVANCE as opposed to ENHANCE film making ? They don't seem to me to be as earth shattering as, say, seenig someone talk on film for the first time. (Real question - I'd like to know - it aint a gauntlet thrown down 'kay?)
-
This whole topic about every Tom, Dick, and Retard cracks me up. It's all you ever here about. BUT the reality of it is this. Digital will just allow more people to work the CRAFT...which will give us even greater filmmakers then we've EVER seen. Sure a lot of other people will get to make movies...but what the hell are you worried about if THEY SUCK? This whole worry about ANYONE being able to make a film isn't about quality, but about jealousy. Film has (up until now) been an exclusive club for those who have or can get MONEY. I think the biggest complaint about the film industry is that it is a BUISNESS and that the money usually gets in the way of the art...so shit man, we should be rejoicing that this hurdle is being overcome!
-
You're probably right about the hit-to-shit ratio but (and I know I'm being REALLY idealistic here) there seems to be a large enough portion of the country that's had it up to the proverbial "here" with the shit. Assuming that some of these people might be motivated to make a better movie just for the sake of making a better movie, we stand at a crossroads, where we might very well end up going the other way, the way that leads to a renaissance in cinema. A renaissance where a tight story (sorry to keep harping on it) is of greater importance than visual effects and star power. Where cliches are seen as
-
Wasn't Spy Kids filmed (captured?) using digital cameras? If so then that pretty much puts an end to the debate.
-
If Harry or anyone can confirm that, about it being digital, please post something... I've heard conflicting reports.
-
yes I love the Mariachi series. That's great that they're bringing back Quentin back. Tremendous.
-
...all points taken on board. Help the little guy. Get films made. GREAT. I cant wait to be entertained and instructed and overwhelmed and in awe - I hope to even more make stuff myself without having to worry so much about the moneymen. BUT...RODRIGUEZ DOESNT NEED THE MONEY!!! HES MADE IT BIG WITH SPY KIDS. True, he's sticking good to his tightly wound pursestring guns but surely this argument cant extend to people who CAN get their films made on the best quality technology available. And yes Im aware that this will lead the way to other people using the format if they see leading film makers taking up the baton but...Well, we're full circle here arent we. I guess it's just something others are willing to put more faith in at this early stage than others. Yes DVD is now the standard but before that was the Laserdisc - similar but flawed. Until the Laserdisc of digital film making disappears and we can be convinced I will remain rooted to my probably too stubbornly held opinions. Yeah, the Avid has replaced the flatbed but how many film makers don't revel in the feel of the celluliod right there in their hands *sniff* and not just reproduced faithfully in 2D ? Aesthetics seems to be the overiding concern at this stage - and they are a tough bunch of feelings to get rid of...We wait with the proverbial baited I guess
-
When I shoot my first movie, it's gonna be HD. I'll never, ever have to go through the hell that is dealing with 35mm film - the labs, the film stock, the lighting, the old-school physical editing. Fuck that! Plus HD tapes, at 20 bucks a pop, let a rookie director shoot as many takes as he likes, unlike film, where the minute you shout "Action" - there goes $120 bucks. ------Anyone just starting in "filmmaking" is starting at the BEST time.
-
The Center of the World was filmed on DV. I haven't seen it or nothing but I remembered Ebert mentioning that and I just checked on IMDb to make sure of it. The movie didn't really look to go cinematography wise but it was a very low budget flick. As for my care on the matter - if it makes filmmaking easier and better by all means lets go for it. But if it means that film can turn into a gigantic buisiness in which everyone can be involved in, meaning less pay, than damnit I'm a film major and if I were to ever make a movie (big 'if' there) I better get paid like a filmmaker!
-
Okay, straxboy, me again. Rodriguez has the money to shoot film - but says he's gonna shoot DV from now on (SPY KIDS was shot on 35MM, but that's the last one for him). Robert Zemekis has stated that CASTAWAY will be the LAST movie he shoots on film. Coppola and Cameron have said similar (latest issue of Entertainment Weekly). And what it boils down to with the big budget filmmakers is that everything is Digital now anyway - except for the actual shooting, and the projecting. Sound, editing, FX, all of post production - all digital. It simply makes more economic sense to aquire the image digitally as well. Artistically, the director will have more control with faster set ups, no more dailies, etc. - and with video, what you see is what you get. That's why cinematographers hate the idea of DV. There is no longer that "mystery-time" between F-Stop and film print where the Cinematographer is the only one who knows what a film will look like. Now, everyone on set can view it as it happens. Everyone can look through the viewfinder, so to speak. However, you will still need skillful, talented DP's because lighting for video, if anything, is more difficult than lighting for film given the current limitations of contrast ratios, color temps, etc. on video. But regardless, this is a very, very exciting time to be a filmmaker. The possibilities for digital cinema seem to expand everyday. And there's no real need to be afraid of it. And as I said before, 90% of the audience won't notice anyway - whether it's video or film. They just want to see good movies. Hell, we all do...
-
The Center of the World was filmed on DV. I haven't seen it or nothing but I remembered Ebert mentioning that and I just checked on IMDb to make sure of it. The movie didn't really look to go cinematography wise but it was a very low budget flick. As for my care on the matter - if it makes filmmaking easier and better by all means lets go for it. But if it means that film can turn into a gigantic buisiness in which everyone can be involved in, meaning less pay, than damnit I'm a film major and if I were to ever make a film (big 'if' there) I better get paid like a filmmaker!
-
Okay, straxboy, me again. Rodriguez has the money to shoot film - but says he's gonna shoot DV from now on (SPY KIDS was shot on 35MM, but that's the last one for him). Robert Zemekis has stated that CASTAWAY will be the LAST movie he shoots on film. Coppola and Cameron have said similar (latest issue of Entertainment Weekly). And what it boils down to with the big budget filmmakers is that everything is Digital now anyway - except for the actual shooting, and the projecting. Sound, editing, FX, all of post production - all digital. It simply makes more economic sense to aquire the image digitally as well. Artistically, the director will have more control with faster set ups, no more dailies, etc. - and with video, what you see is what you get. That's why cinematographers hate the idea of DV. There is no longer that "mystery-time" between F-Stop and film print where the Cinematographer is the only one who knows what a film will look like. Now, everyone on set can view it as it happens. Everyone can look through the viewfinder, so to speak. However, you will still need skillful, talented DP's because lighting for video, if anything, is more difficult than lighting for film given the current limitations of contrast ratios, color temps, etc. on video. But regardless, this is a very, very exciting time to be a filmmaker. The possibilities for digital cinema seem to expand everyday. And there's no real need to be afraid of it. And as I said before, 90% of the audience won't notice anyway - whether it's video or film. They just want to see good movies. Hell, we all do...
-
My long rant posted twice, for some reason. Sorry guys.
-
but it's because I can't pay film. So, I prefer film, but at least I recognize Video (DV) is a good alternative for low budget features.
-
REAL filmmaking doesn't depends in what you think. If you have a good idea, know who to shoot it, have a good screenplay but no money... Well, that's my problem. I use video, but I consider cinema what I do. It is a question of budget. It's a sort of B&W or colour discussion. Some movies NEED to be shot with Video (best example: The Blair Witch Project, even if you don't like this one, the film needed video shots). Some of the Dogme films didn't (I still think Dogme is bullshit). Robert Rodriguez wants to use video? I'll talk when I see the result.
-
May 09, 2001 1:50:27 PM CDT
Here's the REAL issue where indie filmmakers and DV vs. film is
by exit272
The fact is, most indie filmmakers who are creaming themselves over the percieved chaepness of DV don't seem to realize is that they aren't going to have access to these Star Wars cameras. Last I heard the Sony/Panavision HD 24FPS dream camera rents at $1200 A DAY. So where does that leave indie filmmakers? Well, you'll just have to rent the kind of DV cameras available at your local cable access channel or community college, and those look JUST LIKE HOME VIDEO, and NOTHING like film. These new dream DV cameras are no more accessible right now to the newbie filmmaker than 35MM, and in fact even less so. I can rent an Arri for about $1000 a week, and buy 35MM stock at 12
-
Personally, I think having consumer DV around is a good thing. This way all us "wannabe" filmmakers can get our crappy movies done on cheap DV so when we actually come up with a great idea, we'll be skilled enough to execute it, probably on 16MM. It's unlikely that too many no-budget filmmakers are going to have access to 24p cameras anytime soon, so film is still going to be what separates the wannabe from the serious in most cases. While renting a 24p camera package can compare favorably to 35MM, it's still far cheaper to shoot in 16MM most of the time. People are still going to have to be pretty committed to shoot in this film-like digital.
-
With a name like Captain Stoner, you must really know what you're talking about. With such a well thought out argument against digital, so eloquently expressed, I'm sure you must be a filmmaker of incredible insight and emotional power. Thank you for taking an interesting debate and boiling it down to the sentiment of FUCK DIGITAL.
-
Yes digital has advantages but so does film. Digital is just another tool to tell a story in the same way as 8mm, IMAX, steadicam, Hi8, motion control or any of the other inumerable resources all filmmakers have at their disposal. All of these things have pros and cons and as long as the filmmaker is aware of these then I say bring it on - do what you need to do, just tell me a good story. I have worked in the camera dept. for 6yrs and have worked with pretty much everything there is. HD has a lot of cool things about it but it also has a long way to go - I just focus pulled on an indie shooting with the Sony HD 24p. The 2 biggest problems were 1) the "umbilical" a huge cable carrying the video signal and sound, Timecode etc. to the computer (which we dubbed Hal!). In a studio based environment this is fine but in a tough location (or anywhere involving heavy weather elements!) I can see this being a huge problem. Hal is massive, a huge, very expensive box needing 3 people to move it. The second big disadvantage was the viewing system. A low res, black and white video viewing system that not only strains the eye of the operator but also has no decent framelines making framing a real challenge. I make my own films - 2yrs ago I did a 16mm short that cost $24,000. I'm currently Posting a feature that I shot last year on digital - we shot with 2 cameras, 27 actors, 15 locations and shot the whole thing in 3 days without a script. And he cost? I'll just say LESS THAN $10,000 - YOU DO THE MATH! And that's what I love about digital technology - it has opened up a whole new avenue of possibilities for storytelling. Let's face it, film costs a lot of money. If new technology means the guy down the street or a girl who grew up in Timbuctoo can tell their stories then I'm all for it!
-
What can DV do to make movies better??? Aside from being able to shoot with more cameras, and giving actors more freedom DV lifts a load of constraints off of directors. If two actors gave great performances but the lighting didn't match it's much easier to fix it in digital, or if a director liked take 3 of one actor and take 5 of another, just cut and paste it. Or if there was a great scene, but a boom mike got in the shot.. just take it out. Moviemaking is going to be more of a painter's art than a photographer's art, and that is what annoys some, but ultimately it will make for better movies for the audience which is the first priority, not some pretentious, nostalgic filmmaker who misses the feel of celluloid. 100 years ago there might have been a part of some people that missed the smell of shit from the horses that drew their buggies, but they eventually got cars. The "history" that is talked about is that of MOVIES, pictures on a wall that move. The themes and stories that reflect the times through the medium don't change because we found a new way to put the picture on the wall.
And of course the new DV cameras that resemble 35mm are way to expensive for the new guy now. I think what most people are talking about is what will happen years from now when the technology is available to more people. And you're worried about everybody and their brother making a movie... Look around! How many movies that played at Sundance this year are most of us not going to see? How many more movies that were submitted to Sundance will we not see? There are already a lot of sub-par movies out there, but the good ones surface. And if more movies makes for more good movies then what's the problem? There are already more bad movies than we can possibly have time to sit through and it's been that way for a while. We will still have word-of-mouth, enhanced by sites like this one, to steer us towards the better movies. And there will still be the hurdle of finding distribution. Studios aren't going to be able to distribute anything worse than what the start of this year has been. -
Exit is correct, DV has no effect on most film makers today. However, where Cameron etc. go, so the industry must follow. 24fpsHD equipment WILL become accessable, or else something else better will replace it. Digital technology will make it cheaper and easier to make and distribute. Imagine the theatres downloading via satellite or secure FTP instead of the expense of printing and shipping reels of film that get dirty, scratched, rot, etc. I'm not even sure why we are sticking to 24 frames per second since it makes action pretty jumpy. The more accessable that you make film making, the better films you are going to get. Sure, there will be plenty of crap made, but let the audiences raise the good to the top instead of the money men. This eliteist whining about punks with cameras or film being "cool" or tradition are full of crap. That punk could be the next Kurosawa. Tradition? Adapt or die. No part of the entertainment industry deserves my money because they once made great contributions. What have you done for me lately.
-
The cameraman used to turn to his director Michael Powell and ask "what rate would you like this shot?" Yep, each shot in films such as "The Red Shoes" and "Black Narcissus" was at a different speed. Not 200fps heros walking in slo-mo on long lenses in Armageddon, but variances as subtle as 19fps here and 29fps there. When these new digital cameras do this seamlessly - on site, DV will have truly won the battle.
-
I watched this just last week and thought this would be perfect for our little discussion here. Don't know if anyone caught Harry's posting of a link to the "Making of Star Wars EP2, part II" at the starwars.com site. Well, if you watched Part I of that series (http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/video/making/making1.html), then you know what I'm talking about. You get to see the cameras in question, how the process differs from the traditional methods, and some cons from old people who only like film, well cause their old.
-
Forgot about this spot on the starwars website. They talk on location to one of the camera operators about what he feels are the Advantages/Disadvantages, what is different, and was the hardest to get adapted to, about using the digital cameras.
-
Digital replacing film? Frankly I have not had the opportunity to compare so I don't now enough to comment. The thing is I doubt most of you do either, so lets wait until the next Star Wars movie to find out. It promises to be a big enough pile of shit for it not to matter.
-
I wonder if Rodriguez has the idea that once he goes over to digital, he'll be able to light his films, as well as write direct and edit them - then the cinematography will be as shitty as the editing and the dialogue!
-
Now let us ponder. These two gentlemen obviously have FAR too much time on their hands. The argument runs on and on. Hardly anyone talked of the casting, and Rourke is not that bad (see Angel Heart). As for Rodriguez ripping off Leone...so bloody what? Immitation is nothing on originality, given. However, it is also the highest form of flattery. Let's think of this as a tribute to a movie "God" rather than bitch like old women. While you're at it, why not chill. Hey, here's a radical idea for ya too...GO OUT OF THE HOUSE! *Gasp* yes, I know, it's so radical that perhaps you I'm a modern day Leveller. Think about it guys, it'll take your mind off petty squabbles about the technicalities of film. Another idea, isn't the finished product what counts? Also, can't the directors who wish to keep to the film of old do so? Who says they all have to switch? You muppets, sort yourselves out and take your panties out of a bunch.
-
Actually, I'd have to venture that the vast majority of AICN posters DO have enough time on their hands to talk all this movie bullshit. I mean, honestly, that's what the talkbacks are for - spirited debate about cinema. We all love this shit. If you're just going to just agree or disagree with the article, well, great. But without supporting your opinion about anything, or worse yet, not have an opinion - why are you posting at all? Just curious.
-
Is anyone else tired of the variations of this insult that routinely show up on talkback? "You need to crawl out of your mothers basement." "You only think that because you've never slept with a woman." I'd like talkback to have a filter for this empty blather. The other one I don't get is people who complain that "that isn't news, report on something important." If you were not interested in the headline, why did you read the article, then go on to read talkback, then take even more time to post a comment? Who is more patheic, the person with something to say, or the person with nothing to say? Cameras are important to filmmaking. Most people here care about film. On a completely separate note, why would you shoot a feature, even for "only" $10k with NO SCRIPT? Who has an extra $10k lying around to spend like that. Can you really just make it up as you go along and end up with something good?
-
Firstly, I didn't say the budget for my film was $10K I said "les than" which could be anywhere BETWEEN $10K and $1. Secondly, yes you can improvise a feature in 3 days without a script and as for the results? Much to the surprise of most people (including me!) it's a darn good film and very entertaining. It should be playing the festival circuit in 2002 and its called HIGH INCENTIVE.
-
For all of you guys who say that digital will kill the industry, take a look at the publishing industry. Everyone has the equiptment to write their own book (word processing, spellcheck) and that hasn't killed the publishing industry. Why not? because after you write it you still have to get a publisher to buy it. Same thing with digital film-making. Anyone may make a film for $10 grand but they still have to find a way to get theaters to show it, or video stores to stock it. That is where quality comes in. If the film is no good the distributors won't touch it and neither will the theaters.
BTW I have seen Center of the World. It's quality was about the same as 16mm (Chasing Amy, Leaving Las Vegas). It was not shot with those StarWars Ep II cameras. So if that's what they can do with bargen basement technology I'd say that RR and Lucas could do quite well with the most advanced digital cameras in existence, to say nothing of where we will be in 5 years. If MaxiVision 35mm catches on film will be the better medium for some years to come but digital will not go away. Digital will be like the new Spherical process while MaxiVision will be the new Anamorphic widescreen.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts