Red Major Motion Pictures

[M Most]

Never heard anyone say that about Superman Returns, it was a beautiful look, most people criticized the film for whatever shortcomings they thought it had, but as far as it looking any different than 35mm film, it didn't. It's a great example of how you can make digital look cinematic.

Then you likely didn't read very many reviews or ask many opinions. If anything, the look of that picture was heavily criticized, and even more so on the video release, which was very artifact laden and had many odd color effects as well. Personally, I didn't mind it, and Tom Sigel happens to be an old friend, but my opinion seemed to be in the minority.

 

[Steven M. Bailey]

Never heard anyone say that about Superman Returns, it was a beautiful look, most people criticized the film for whatever shortcomings they thought it had, but as far as it looking any different than 35mm film, it didn't. It's a great example of how you can make digital look cinematic.

At the beginning I thought the look was good, but by the time I got into it, I was so disgusted by the crap they called a story that I forgot about how it looked and started looking at my watch. I remember thinking that the effects work looked too plastic for my taste. Some thing that I never felt about Spiderman, X-men, Pirates....Etc. I gave it two thumbs down and broke wind in its general direction.:whistling:

 

[Adrian Correia]

One film will not damage Red's image.

There are really bad looking films on every format - I have seen some 35mm that looks worse than well shot Varicam.
There will be stuff that looks AMAZING and stuff that looks HORRIBLE. Just like every format.

Agreed, but Policar is right too. Soderbergh is really not somebody that flatters whatever format he's using, to the point where in Full Frontal, I walked out of the theater, the quality being so bad that it just took me right out of the story. Which was not that strong either. And if you consider that Spike Lee managed much more acceptable resolution out of little Sony VX-1000's, and that 28 days looked immesurably better on the XL-1, I would agree that Soderbergh will be just a famous name to add to RED's list, and that's important, but if he comes up with something as mediocre as Full Frontal, then yes, I think it could have some sort of impact on RED's perception. But this is inevitable.

I think that Crossing the Line is actually being misused, as Jackson is the maverick of all maverick directors and somebody who is known for being as acutely concerned about story telling as technical expertise to express it. And you already have a full 14 min film in the can, which I would make available for download, sell it on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray and basically get it out there in as many ways as possible. Which of course, presents many concerns in terms of whether he would be happy or willing to let his film be used as a "free" marketing tool for RED, but as a tool to promote this wondrous new tool for film makers from all levels, his film is revolutionary. If only he agreed to let RED really get it out there for all of us to see and analyze, it would do wonders for many of us.

That's dreaming out loud...

Rudi Herbert

I have to agree with Rudi....with Soderbergh and Jackson you have the opposite ends of the hollywood spectrum and each could be pointed to in reference to the appeal of Red. These two together really give wide range of perspective to what Red has to offer cinema....I know when I get asked about Red one of the first things people ask me about is Peter Jackson's short. If anything....the other productions that are using Red will only add to its validity in the eyes of the industry.

 

[donatello b]

little info on the 2 movies ...

CAST:Benicio Del Toro, Javier Bardem, Julia Ormond, Ryan Gosling, Franka Potente

http://www.ioncinema.com/movie.php?id=1672

there is a book at amazon called The Argentine that the movie is based on ...

http://www.amazon.com/El-Argentino-Pelicula-Soderbergh-Publishing/dp/1921235489

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Then you likely didn't read very many reviews or ask many opinions. If anything, the look of that picture was heavily criticized, and even more so on the video release, which was very artifact laden and had many odd color effects as well. Personally, I didn't mind it, and Tom Sigel happens to be an old friend, but my opinion seemed to be in the minority.

That's actually not true at all. You have no idea what you're talking about -- very few critics mentioned its look as being distracting at all, in fact very few critics focused on that and focused more on the quality of the actual picture. Also, despite a minority opinion I've noticed from film snobs who didn't like the story (I thought it was great), the film was very well received. From Wikipedia: "The movie has been well reviewed by most critics. It has been a "Certified Fresh" film on Rotten Tomatoes, with 77% overall approval from critics, and a 73% from the "Cream of the Crop".[25] The film also received a 72% on Metacritic."

Just because a few snobby cinematographers think they're geniuses whose criticism is the be-all, end-all of criticism, your statement is completely wrong. The film's look was hardly ever questioned, it actually looks beautiful, and I've heard MANY in the film industry say the same thing. There were no problems with its picture whatsoever. The only problems were on set using that camera, but when they were worked out, the final product was just as crisp as any 35mm film, if not more so.

This also from Wikipedia: "Reaction to the image quality on Superman Returns was much more positive. Jeff Otto praised the film's clean sharp look and bright color, and found it fitting for the subject[4]. In an important milestone, most reviewers found the film's look sufficiently film-like that the movie's digital origins did not rate comment [5]. Reviews concentrated instead on typical elements such as cast and plot."

Do your homework next time.

 

[Vincent Rice]

If you seriously want to work in this business Jonny me boy and not live off your "investments" you are going to have to learn how take criticism and learn to respect the opinions of those who are better informed and more experienced. At this point in time that seems to be pretty well everybody.

 

[Shane Betts]

On the subject of black versus white cameras for heat, I do know that (in stills land) Nikon and Canon tend to make their long telephotos in white or grey (or offer the option) to minimize focus shifts with so much metal between front and rear elements to expand and contract.

On the other side of the ledger, I used to sell stills cameras to the Australian Antartic Division for use at the pole. They all had to have black cameras because the silver ones would stick to their faces. The only way to get them off was with warm liquid. Now, where do you suppose you would get warm liquid when you're miles from anywhere in a frozen land? Ew...

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

If you seriously want to work in this business Jonny me boy and not live off your "investments" you are going to have to learn how take criticism and learn to respect the opinions of those who are better informed and more experienced. At this point in time that seems to be pretty well everybody.

With all due respect to your derogatory tone, I very much doubt your understanding of film history or criticism is anything approaching my level. I have studied film for quite some time now, I've written two books on film history, I've contributed an essay to a third published book, and I've written numerous essays on various film-related topics for a variety of sources.

I lack the least important element of filmmaking, which is the technical know-how. Trust me, I can and will learn that. If I couldn't, I could still hire people to do that for me provided I have the vision of what I want to see on screen. What I have is a very strong fundamental understanding of what makes for good storytelling and the aesthetics of filmmaking, so don't sit here and try to tell me that everyone here is better informed. They may have more experience making movies, but that doesn't make them any better qualified to judge them than I am. I come from a large background in film history and criticism having studied the subject at university and on my own for many years now. I've done years of research both with books and movies to be where I am today, so just the same as I would not disrespect your experience in the industry, don't disrespect my experience as a critic and film analyst.

Also you are a very poor debator. Don't debate with a philosophy major, you can't hold your ground if you're going to use ad hominum attacks rather than actually addressing the points made. My experience or inexperience is completely irrelevant to this argument, which was focused on whether critics thought Superman Returns looked good, and looked film-like, and I provided hard facts and research to back up what I said. You, however, resulted to personal attacks, showing not only your poor skills as a communicator but your insecurities because of your losing position in this argument.

You may either refute what I said with facts, and give me some reviews that prove your point, or you can admit you are mistaken, but I know that'd be a large step to take when it would be much easier to just make more personal attacks.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Back to Soderbergh's defense for a moment. He may have had the odd self-reflexive misfire here and there (though Schizopolis is hilarious, even more so with Criterion DVD commentary), and when shooting on the cheap or on the fly, his images may not be particularly beautiful (and are occasionally downright ugly), but by and large that's the exception to the rule. Overall, he's an incredibly talented and intelligent director (Out of Sight, The Limey, Traffic, and Solaris, anyone?) and a damn fine DP. For all the crap that Full Frontal gets (probably deservedly, since it's essentially one long Soderbergh in-joke), just remember that he also DP'd Traffic, Solaris and Oceans 11-13, each of which have very beautiful and effective looks, and all of which show a very different visual style. Hell, even The Good German looked pretty fantastic, even if it wasn't a particularly good remake of The Third Man in Casablanca.

Solaris in particular has gorgeous lighting and camerawork, and is a really great film, even though maybe a whole 10 people saw it when it came out in theatres.

The films he's made that tend to not flatter their respective media (16mm for Schizopolis, DV for Full Frontal and HD for Bubble) are the little no-budget experimental films he's made between larger projects. The Argentine and Guerilla are pretty major pictures, being released by Focus/Universal (and originally to be made by none other than Terrence Malick) so these definitely don't fall under the no-budget indie category, and I have no doubt that Soderbergh will end up making a pretty gorgeous movie with the RED.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I would agree with you, Jason, I think despite my dislike for Full Frontal that Soderbergh is quite a good director, and I saw Solaris in theaters and really enjoyed it. That's my kind of movie.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

You may either refute what I said with facts, and give me some reviews that prove your point, or you can admit you are mistaken, but I know that'd be a large step to take when it would be much easier to just make more personal attacks.

Follow your own advice. When you say "filmaker snobs", where are the factual names and the quoted criticisms to support your unbiased opinion?

Many here have discussed the plastic look of Superman even Bgundu on DVXUSER who did some of the FX for Superman complained about the plasticity chosen by the producers as a final look.

Jonathan, said it before and will say it again. You come across as an A$$. Learn from those around here and benefit from their knowledge. Its not a forum bent on elitism.

If you want that , go to Cinematography.com!

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Whatever, I don't care to argue with you. It's not worth my time. If that's how you feel about the film, you're certainly entitled to it, but most people I've heard either liked the movie and its look or didn't like the movie but never mentioned or knew that it wasn't shot on film.

I don't see how I come across as being an ass for pointing out the facts. It was never under debate whether there are people who don't like the look of Superman Returns, I'm sure that is true, and that's all fine, but I was just objecting to the idea that most people seem to have a problem with it, which is patently untrue. If you don't like the facts, I'm sorry, I didn't create them. I just was relaying information. That's it.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

If you don't like the facts, I'm sorry, I didn't create them. I just was relaying information. That's it.

I don't dislike facts Jonathan, I do dislike how you "relay" them. It seems that you like to push your "knowledge of cinema" on people who never questioned you about it. The people here are mostly professionals who sharpen each other and gather information from each other with mutual respect.

Those on this forum who are the most gifted and esteemed in the industry carry themselves with humility, not an air of superiority like you present to those around you.

You have stated that you dropped out of film school because they were closed-minded about Red and the future. You claim that all filmmakers who shoot on film and enjoy it are relics and snobs.

I personally have never shot film and have always acquired digitally. I don't think I would ever want to because that is my preference, but I still respect those who do and try to learn from them as much as possible. Just like I am NOT an ENG guy like GIBBY or a photographer like EVIN, I learn alot from each of them, (i.e. Gibby's integrity and helpfulness, Evin's throuroughness and Lens advice.)

They are not relics or worthless, just different. As are you. Temper yourself and you will go further than your talent alone could ever take you.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Well, pretopost, I am deeply sorry you feel that I am not humble about wanting to learn as much as possible, because I do feel there is much to learn from everyone here.

I definitely have respect for anyone here, but I don't think calling into question my knowledge or what I've read is mutual respect, personally. I feel that's actually kind of rude.

I've never claimed people who shoot on film are relics or snobs, but I have claimed that people who insist film will always be better than digital are closed-minded and ignorant. They are ignoring the facts based on an emotional decision, which is illogical. But there's nothing wrong with people who enjoy shooting on film, movies have been shot on film since the dawn of the medium, so it's not a big deal. As long as I can shoot on digital, it doesn't hurt me if they want to shoot on film.

I do think that most people will eventually adapt to digital, because of an easier workflow, quicker results, and better quality images in the future, but that doesn't mean film is obsolete as much as film is just going to be another choice among many. It depends what you are shooting, what look you may want, but more and more I think it'll be possible to get whatever look you want with a camera like the RED, altering the footage in post if necessary.

Again I'm sorry if what I have said has offended you, pretopost, because that was not my intent. I am here to learn.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

Good to know.

 

[Brook Willard]

Everybody needs to take it down a few notches. If you guys have outstanding personal disagreements, feel free to take it up with each other via PM.

This thread was dead pages ago.