THANK YOU WALLY!!!!

Wally Pfister and Hoyte van Hoytema
Posts: 20369
Joined: June 2010
Wally is a hack... Deakins is much better.

Posts: 18329
Joined: February 2011
MW715 wrote:
Vader182 wrote:
You think The Social Network looks like incredibly expensive home videos or BBC documentaries?

Right.

-Vader
...I hated that movie... so don't get me started...
That makes two of us. However, you must praise it for it's film making on a whole. It's digital image is pristine.

MW715 wrote: ...I hated that movie... so don't get me started...
Shitting on the social network is a very poor use of your 500th post.

Posts: 18676
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
MW715 wrote:
Vader182 wrote:
You think The Social Network looks like incredibly expensive home videos or BBC documentaries?

Right.

-Vader
...I hated that movie... so don't get me started...
Hated it or not, the cinematography is gorgeous, are you disagreeing?

-Vader

Posts: 499
Joined: December 2010
Location: Limbo
Vader182 wrote:
MW715 wrote: ...I hated that movie... so don't get me started...
Hated it or not, the cinematography is gorgeous, are you disagreeing?

-Vader
Cinematography isn't necessarily what I had a problem with. It was shot on digital cameras and I didn't like about it, but that doesn't affect whether or not they set up the shots well (which they did) But it still didn't make up for its other shortcomings.

Posts: 18676
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
MW715 wrote:
Vader182 wrote:
Hated it or not, the cinematography is gorgeous, are you disagreeing?

-Vader
Cinematography isn't necessarily what I had a problem with. It was shot on digital cameras and I didn't like about it, but that doesn't affect whether or not they set up the shots well (which they did) But it still didn't make up for its other shortcomings.
you aren't listening. The image itself is gorgeous in my opinion. Do you disagree?

-Vader

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
MW715 is going full retard in this thread.

Posts: 499
Joined: December 2010
Location: Limbo
Vader182 wrote:
MW715 wrote: Cinematography isn't necessarily what I had a problem with. It was shot on digital cameras and I didn't like about it, but that doesn't affect whether or not they set up the shots well (which they did) But it still didn't make up for its other shortcomings.
you aren't listening. The image itself is gorgeous in my opinion. Do you disagree?

-Vader
I thought that it was the best I'd seen out of digital, yes I'd agree with that.

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
MW715 wrote:
Vader182 wrote:
you aren't listening. The image itself is gorgeous in my opinion. Do you disagree?

-Vader
I thought that it was the best I'd seen out of digital, yes I'd agree with that.
Then you haven't seen digital. Red One MX ain't the best man...

Posts: 499
Joined: December 2010
Location: Limbo
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.

Post Reply