Roman, Dean Cundey shot Jurassic Park, not Janusz Kaminski...

Crazy Eight wrote:Roman, Dean Cundey shot Jurassic Park, not Janusz Kaminski...

DUHH! WINNING!

Crazy Eight wrote:whether it involves dinosaurs or robots.

It's not whether. If you don't see that then that it's not my problem. I think there's a big difference in shooting a film about dinosaurs on some island and shooting a film about robots blowing cop cars in the air on the streets of California... In the first case is more easy to obtain a great quality in terms of photography while in the second case it's whole lot harder to find the perfect angles and to execute the photography in such way for the film to not feel like the usual action blockbuster. There are thousands of movies with nice photography but not all of them deliver. Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 are part of that small group that deliver. Just because you didn't quite liked the lights or whatever doesn't mean the movie isn't shot beautifully especially considering the aspects mentioned above and in earlier posts. Matter of fact, I can honestly find few movies made in the last 5 years that could touch T2 in terms of cinematography...

Just because you didn't quite liked the lights or whatever

Um, that's kind of what cinematography is...

Matter of fact, I can honestly find few movies made in the last 5 years that could touch T2 in terms of cinematography...

The Assassination of Jesse James, True Grit, Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, The Social Network, TRON: Legacy, Shutter Island, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, No Country for Old Men, Casino Royale, There Will Be Blood, Blood Diamond, Sunshine, Batman Begins, Inglorious Basterds, Children of Men, etc...

All of these films deliver sharp images with fitting tones to the story and none of them look like, at any time, they are being lit by a cinematographer, which is the point of cinematography. And that's just off the top of my head...

Crazy Eight wrote:Roman, Dean Cundey shot Jurassic Park, not Janusz Kaminski...

That's right he started on Schindler's. What a great way to start a relationship.

RIFA you're point seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because T2's backdrop is not as "fantastic" as Jurassic Park it has to try a lot harder to impress and therefor deserves more recognition for its accomplishments. I kind of agree with that sentiment, but I think the film could have been lit a bit better. Its more of a beef with the lighting design than anything.

EDIT: I can get behind Crazy's list.

Crazy Eight wrote:The Assassination of Jesse James, True Grit, Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, The Social Network, TRON: Legacy, Shutter Island, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, No Country for Old Men, Casino Royale, There Will Be Blood, Blood Diamond, Sunshine, Batman Begins, Inglorious Basterds, Children of Men, etc...

Should I mention any time in my posts that I'm talking about T2's genre... (you seem to forget that a lot)

Besides Inception and Children of Men (which I think it's sensational) I can't find any other action/sci-fi in your list. There is TRON but HELL NO it looks better than T2... you must be crazy... that film was that clean and that beautiful because 90% was damn CGI, cartooned and so on... not to mention if there wasn't that beautiful color contrast you wouldn't find it that great... it's the oldest trick in the book combining white and dark and mash em up to create something visually exciting. TRON is more like a Daft Punk expensive video or like a movie from a game. If that's the case then... Avatar simply shits on T2... right?

Take a look at World of Warcraft movies from the game (which are splendid). You would put those over T2 also? :neutral:

I'm still looking back in the thread to see why we're even discussing this... Oh yeah. There was a problem with my 8th pick as being T2. It seems that you consider a fact Sunshine or Blood Diamond look better than T2. I'm sorry but none of them actually impressed me. T2 definitely had.

RomanM wrote:RIFA you're point seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because T2's backdrop is not as "fantastic" as Jurassic Park it has to try a lot harder to impress and therefor deserves more recognition for its accomplishments.

Pretty much. Every movie that has that fantastic thing attached to it needs to look beautiful. Otherwise it will fail. So therefore, in this case, great cinematography it's a necessity.

Should I mention any time in my posts that I'm talking about T2's genre... (you seem to forget that a lot)

You should mention that before you say something like "I can honestly find few movies made in the last 5 years". You said movies, not Sci-Fi movies.

Besides Inception and Children of Men (which I think it's sensational) I can't find any other action/sci-fi in your list.

Wonder why...

There is TRON but HELL NO it looks better than T2... you must be crazy... that film was that clean and that beautiful because 90% was damn CGI, cartooned and so on... not to mention if there wasn't that beautiful color contrast you wouldn't find it that great... it's the oldest trick in the book combining white and dark and mash em up to create something visually exciting.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Despite all of the lighting being synthetic, it still looked beautiful. And I'm not referring to the CGI scenes, I'm talking about Flynn's house, the night exteriors during the first 20 minutes, and the beautifully shot Encom tower interiors.

If that's the case then... Avatar simply shits on T2... right?

Read above...

Take a look at World of Warcraft movies from the game (which are splendid). You would put those over T2 also? :neutral:

Didn't even know their were WoW movies...

I'm still looking back in the thread to see why we're even discussing this... Oh yeah. There was a problem with my 8th pick as being T2.

It was a question, not a problem.

It seems that you consider a fact Sunshine or Blood Diamond look better than T2. I'm sorry but none of them actually impressed me. T2 definitely had.

Never said that... In fact I said this when you called my claims to disliking T2 cinematography "ridiculous":

I'm not saying you can't like it

Surprised few of you mentioned Hitchcock's or Kubrick's films. Vertigo & Psycho are the best photographed Hitchcock films. While The Shining and 2001 are the best from Kubrick.

Malick's films all have gorgeous cinematography as well. (I especially like the look of Days of Heaven - wonderfully captured the Midwest & its people.)

As for the past ten years or so, Eternal Sunshine and the Spotless Mind, Children of Men , The Assassination of Jesse James, Amelie, The Dark Knight, True Grit, O Brother, Where Art Thou, Road to Perdition , In the Mood for Love and The Hurt Locker, are among the best, IMHO.

I personally think There Will Be Blood was the most stunningly shot film I have ever seen. Robert Elswitt was just on another level with that film. He is a great cinematographer. Work from Conrad L Hall, Janusz Kaminski, John Alcott, Asakazu Nakai, Roger Deakins (of course) are phenomenal, Terrance Malick's films are always god like. And of course Stanley Kubrick's films.

I love films with great cinematography, the look of a film always sells it for me.

PS. Forgot to throw in Wally Pfister, one of the best cinematographers working today.

For some reason Tetro never got a wide release, but if you can find it, see it. It has my favorite cinematography of all time.
I'm suprised too, considering it's from 2009 and stuff like this usually takes time to be ranked, but it was truely a fantastic job! (Plus it's a Coppola movie so the opportunity for dissapointment should be low.)