Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

20 million feet...

Is there room for different opinions, here?

Personally, I have never found directors who shoot such exaggerated amount of footage impressive. Oh, for sure it is a logistics achievement, but artistically and business wise it only demonstrates weakness. They essentially 'shoot' twice: first on set and then a second time during editing.

The ratio of total footage to the final film cut is always intriguing, and says a lot about the director. For certain content a total of 3 hours of footage may be condensed to a 1 hour program. A ratio of 3:1. But when you are shooting 5 or more minutes for every 1 that makes in the final cut.....meh.

There are different schools of thought here. To me, a director and crew who can shoot as close to 1:1 ratio and produce a decent product are far more impressive. Of course, 1:1 is never achieved on any project -and it is always a good idea to shoot more as it gives options while editing- but where do you draw the line?

There is not one perfect formula or right way. But I know PJ and his ways are the other extreme.
 
And to just put another thing in perspective, with standard costs per 1000' loads of S35 film stock that would come out to.....

$8 Million Dollars

But they'd probably get a sweet deal with that bulk buy.
 
Martin Weiss said:
Except that he is shooting 3D and at 48fps, so at a ratio of 100:1, the film would be 9 1/4hrs. (Calculation on request) ;)

But what I find more interesting is that if they had developed all that film, it would have cost to the tune of 4.6 million; which incidentally would pay for 50 nicely equipped Epics.
Click to expand...

Digital storage would be an issue in either case, but due to the VFX heavy carracter of the production, and guessing they are going the EXR route for VFX plates, the total usage will probably not be less for an EPIC vs scanned film production.

One does have the advantage of going directly to a linear light workflow for the entire VFX pass, though... :)
 
Liana said:
Is there room for different opinions, here?

Personally, I have never found directors who shoot such exaggerated amount of footage impressive. Oh, for sure it is a logistics achievement, but artistically and business wise it only demonstrates weakness. They essentially 'shoot' twice: first on set and then a second time during editing.

The ratio of total footage to the final film cut is always intriguing, and says a lot about the director. For certain content a total of 3 hours of footage may be condensed to a 1 hour program. A ratio of 3:1. But when you are shooting 5 or more minutes for every 1 that makes in the final cut.....meh.

There are different schools of thought here. To me, a director and crew who can shoot as close to 1:1 ratio and produce a decent product are far more impressive. Of course, 1:1 is never achieved on any project -and it is always a good idea to shoot more as it gives options while editing- but where do you draw the line?

There is not one perfect formula or right way. But I know PJ and his ways are the other extreme.
Click to expand...

different opinions are good, but not armchair quarterbacking. Since non of us (currently commenting) know the inner workings of Peter's set, I feel confident saying we are not in a position to judge. However, obvious elements can shed some light:

He is shooting two movies, not one
He is shooting 3D so double that again

So your opinion is fine.. But I wouldn't refer Tito the hobbit set since you or I really have no idea on his ratio.

Jay
 
Detlev Eller said:
PJ´s merits are beyond all doubt ... there are few minds on the planet, that can even grasp the complexity and scope of achievement.

so, please lets not go there ... ;-)
Click to expand...

Experimental hypothetical mathematics is allways fun...

Relevant or not :)
 
Jannard said:
Peter Jackson (and his team) has now shot the equivalent of 20 million feet of film on The Hobbit. For reference, he shot 7 million feet of film on The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this need to be adjust for "inflation" lol?

Need to account for double the framerate and double the cameras for 3D. :biggrin:
 
I remember Chris Doyle talking once about doing a radio interview, during which he was talking about the difference between shooting in Asia and Hollywood, and he stated that in comparison to working in HK, Hollywood directors favor a lot of coverage, and then, he made the offhand remark that in his opinion, directors who shoot tons of coverage just don't know what they're doing. A few days later, he started shooting "Liberty Heights" with Barry Levinson, who shot tons of coverage. Levinson had also heard his radio interview, and (I think mostly jokingly) gave Doyle a hard time for it. Doyle's a great raconteur, and it was hilarious hearing him talk about having to constantly backtrack on all his off-the-cuff remarks.

There is, of course, something impressive about a director who has the whole movie in their head, and shoots only what he or she needs. But it's equally impressive (if not moreso) to see a director handle the logistics of a project on the scale of "The Hobbit." It can also be incredibly impressive to see how someone like Terrence Malick shoots tons of footage, frequently changing things up on set, being very open to the moment, and then restructuring the film in the editing room. The upshot? Different directors work differently, and it's almost always impressive to see a great director at work.
 
Jason Murphy said:
I remember Chris Doyle talking once about doing a radio interview, during which he was talking about the difference between shooting in Asia and Hollywood, and he stated that in comparison to working in HK, Hollywood directors favor a lot of coverage, and then, he made the offhand remark that in his opinion, directors who shoot tons of coverage just don't know what they're doing. A few days later, he started shooting "Liberty Heights" with Barry Levinson, who shot tons of coverage. Levinson had also heard his radio interview, and (I think mostly jokingly) gave Doyle a hard time for it. Doyle's a great raconteur, and it was hilarious hearing him talk about having to constantly backtrack on all his off-the-cuff remarks.

There is, of course, something impressive about a director who has the whole movie in their head, and shoots only what he or she needs. But it's equally impressive (if not moreso) to see a director handle the logistics of a project on the scale of "The Hobbit." It can also be incredibly impressive to see how someone like Terrence Malick shoots tons of footage, frequently changing things up on set, being very open to the moment, and then restructuring the film in the editing room. The upshot? Different directors work differently, and it's almost always impressive to see a great director at work.
Click to expand...


Basically:
It is not about the methodology but the end result.
THAT is what impresses me or not.
 
I'm pretty sure Jim would have taken frame rate into account when he calculated equivalent film footage so there should no need to double it. Non the less it's a lot of footage to rummage through and reminds me of watching the Apocalypse Now doc when they talked about the ridiculous amounts of film that they shot and then had to pack it out of the jungle. Does anyone remember how much film was shot on Apocalypse?
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Basically:
It is not about the methodology but the end result.
THAT is what impresses me or not.
Click to expand...

Yep, basically that.

I do love to see other people's work processes and methodologies, though. It's fascinating and frequently instructive. Also, it's always impressive to see someone at the top of their craft at work.
 
I remember reading how Howard Hughes shot one scene of Jane Russell over and over when shooting his movie "The Outlaw." Apparently he was searching for that magic moment and must have found it because the movie remains famous even though, by many accounts, the storyline was thin.

And then you have an Eastwood who it is said trusts his actors and shoots very few takes.

It may boil down to some directors being artists in search of perfection, thus they shoot lots of footage; and some directors being storytellers who aren't so involved with perfection as they are in successfully telling the story.

Oscar nominations and wins says that both ways work.
 
Last edited:
Oh my, I hope for super-extended Behind-the-Scenes, Making Of's and deleted scenes section on DVD/BD or online somewhere after the home video release.
 
Wow congrats to the RED team! To be honest not a fan of the Lord of Rings movies and probably won't see the Hobbit, but I do respect what Mr. Jackson's work and what he is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top