THANK YOU WALLY!!!!

Wally Pfister and Hoyte van Hoytema
Posts: 18856
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
MW715 wrote:It still doesn't compare to real film. Look at films that have been shot digitally just from this year like: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Captain America, Pirates 4. The difference may be subtle, but there is definately a difference. Using film is much more work, but it simply produces a better result. The digital revolution has opened new doors and made filmaking easier; but in doing so has given filmakers reason not to try anymore. The entire quality of movies is substandard to what it was a decade ago, not just in cinematography, but in writing, use of visual effects, acting, directly. It's rare that you find people as old fashoned as Wally and Chris who put forth the effort to do things for real, like they used to be done.
Really? I think there's been way more quality filmmaking from 2000 to now than there ever was in the 90's, and by a wide margin at that.

-Vader

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
MW715 wrote:It still doesn't compare to real film. Look at films that have been shot digitally just from this year like: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Captain America, Pirates 4. The difference may be subtle, but there is definately a difference. Using film is much more work, but it simply produces a better result. The digital revolution has opened new doors and made filmaking easier; but in doing so has given filmakers reason not to try anymore. The entire quality of movies is substandard to what it was a decade ago, not just in cinematography, but in writing, use of visual effects, acting, directly. It's rare that you find people as old fashoned as Wally and Chris who put forth the effort to do things for real, like they used to be done.
You're really talking out of your ass about digital technology. :lol:

Firstly, it most certainly isn't much easier to shoot on an F35 or EPIC then with a 35mm camera... not at all. Digital has it's whole set of set backs, the only thing that's easier is immediate video play back of the image you actually captured, and you don't have to load the camera with film (although you still have to replace tape and hard drives after you should 5-10 minutes of footage). I mean it's not like they're shooting with a fixed lens DV camera from Wal-Mart... you need to be trained to shoot with either format.

Secondly, stop saying "film" likes it's one format. Super 35mm film, which is what the vast majority of films are shot on, actually captures less information then a Red EPIC or the new Sony F65. Not that is matters, since whether it's shot on digital or film it has a 90% chance of getting a 2K DI, which makes the resolution argument irrelevant. Nothing captures the resolution of Anamorphic 35mm, but it's sure being cut close now days. 16mm... not even in the same league.

It all comes down to lighting. Film or digital cinema camera's, it all boils down to the lenses used and the lighting. Plenty of 35mm movies look like dog shit...
Last edited by Crazy Eight on July 27th, 2011, 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 18329
Joined: February 2011
I love it when Crazy Eight goes of technical on us.

Posts: 18856
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
It's turns me on watching him do his thaaaang

-Vader

Posts: 499
Joined: December 2010
Location: Limbo
Vader182 wrote: Really? I think there's been way more quality filmmaking from 2000 to now than there ever was in the 90's, and by a wide margin at that.

-Vader
Here's my point: Visual effects
Here is CGI today, it's generally good mixed in with scenes like this that are just bad

(I know it's a hotwheels comercial, but that is real footage from green lantern there)

Here CG ten years ago (2002):
[youtube]Lord of the rings gollum rabbit scene[/youtube]
-Now, take into consideration, all of these older movies had to invent the methods of special effects they were using (such as gollum, Weta created new software and new methods just to create that stuff) Yet, somehow most of it looks better than what we have today.

In Screenplays, the entire atmosphere has changed. In the late 90's, even blockbuster hits had a sense of suspence and dramatic competency. Nowadays, the entire outlook is far too lighthearted for my taste. Look at the Transformers sequels; the first one was somewhat entertaining - because it didn't get lost in racist and sexist humor. Best example of last decade's writing is Jack Sparrow's character. In Pirates 1 he had a sense of danger, you felt as if he could manage himself at sea, but most of all, he was unpredictable and a step ahead of everyone. It made him interesting, it made him dangerous, and it made a good character. In the last pirates movie (made almost a decade after the original) He serves no purpose what so ever. He doesn't move the story along, he a complete idiot, and his presence serves no purpose other than cracking a tiring joke to pull the audience out of the action of the film. You didn't get character failure like that in the late 90s/erly 2000s. This is personal preference, some people like these comedy/adventure flicks. I hate them, I can't get involved in the a film that is trying to build up tension while deliberately breaking it down with bad jokes.

The quality of movies has only started dropping since about 2007, it's a pretty recent thing but it has plumetted like nothing else. I feel that the problem is that it's all become so easy that there's no reason to come up with new way s of doing things, it makes more money to pump out a cookie-cutter script, with cookie cutter acting and cookie cutter special effects.

Posts: 18856
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I wasn't talking strictly about action movies. Look at all the best picture nominees foreign or otherwise since 2000 vs. that since 1990-1999. There's no question we've had drastically better films in that more recent decade.

Additionally, yes, but you gave a few examples of the obvious ones. Look at how many amazing big budget films there've been in the last however long that don't strictly rely on effects. Even if the previous action flicks had substance and whatever, I mean, they were mindless action. Look at Die Hard, total nonsense but it's a blast so you don't care. I really don't think there's that big of a difference.

Way to completely ignore Crazy's post proving you wrong by the way.

-Vader

Sometimes i'll actually read Crazy's rambling posts to educate myself.

Posts: 18856
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
solo2001 wrote:Sometimes i'll actually read Crazy's rambling posts to educate myself.
You should.

-Vader

Posts: 2001
Joined: November 2009
Location: Wisconsin, USA
When I was younger, I actually thought that the Best Picture category for awards went to the movie with the best picture (visual) quality, literally. :lol:

Posts: 662
Joined: November 2010
Mason01 wrote:I love it when Crazy Eight goes of technical on us.
solo2001 wrote:Sometimes i'll actually read Crazy's rambling posts to educate myself.
:twothumbsup: When he does these things, it will be some of the most informative posts on NolanFans.

Post Reply