Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

F23, blah!

It is interesting that two different filmmakers can make a Viper/F23 look so very different. Benjamin Button probably represents the pinnacle of "film style" shooting. Whereas Miami Vice represents the essence of "modern art" style shooting.

You'd probably never know both those film's were shot with the same cameras.
 
I agree Robert. Super 8 or high 8- The Heart of the World or The Celebration or more recently After the Wedding. It's all good, made great. I often find it more interesting to understand what motivates people to choose certain methods than the methods themselves.
I find Robert Motherwell's essays in defense of abstract expressionism way more interesting than his paintings. Not always the case though, thank dogma.
 
"...when someone with the backing and infrastructure and potential talent chooses to make this commerce driven adolescent drivel"

It's a true story. One of the top actors in the world is going to play one of the most famous gangsters in US history. I'd at least get past the trailer and see the film before deriding it as "commerce driven adolescent drivel." You are in no position to make that determination, having not seen the film.
 
I know it's based on a true story, mail.., my mother, bless her cotton socks, was a true crime thriller nut- she could have told you which side Dillinger dressed. It's not the history I have a problem with, it's this hollowood interpretation. Besides, what difference does it make if a movie is based upon historical events? Does that give it a leg up on pure fiction? And Depp's formidable talent ain't gonna pull this out of the crapper. The trailer dialogue was painful enough, why would anyone subject themselves to two hours more? It is pure amateur theatre. The costumes look like they walked out of a wallyworld theme park- the only thing they lacked was tap dancing shoes-was Michael Jackson involved in this production? Janet? ((((:
 
heh, what was up with that CG Depp face when he jumped over that ledge? He couldn't do that himself?
 
Clap Trap

Clap Trap

Sometime for professional people ingrained personal opinions cloud un-biased judgement.
The Sony F23 is never going to look like images from Red, F35, Genesis, D21 etc because of its 2/3rd set up. That said many a fine pieces of TV have been shot on the F23, F900R, HDW-750P / 790P and broadcasters globally have been more than happy with 2/3rds. The F23 is irrelivent as a motion picture camera in most instances because were always going to want to use the largest image we can get and want to put lenses straight onto the camera for selective DOF rather than through an adaptor so Michael Mann deliberately chose to use this camera knowing its plusses and minusses. Were operating five Reds currently and like any camera they have there issues and are far from perfect thats not to say clients are unhappy with the images they are but I have been in this business long enough to know EVERY camera has its baggage and there has NEVER been a perfect camera.
I dont buy that Sony cameras have any more of an electronic look than any other electronic camera and most mistakes happen because people play with menus and the guys in post then cannot undo some of these changes if they fail to work. The advice for ANY electronic camera is in 90% of all cases leave it on its standard settings and make changes in post its much safer. Only play with menus or shutters if you truely know what your doing and what negative as well as possitive effects it will have.
 
It's turning, the blurry-look. Haha, and even handheld... the Europeans are coming, muhahaha!
 
Robert Sanders said:
It is interesting that two different filmmakers can make a Viper/F23 look so very different. Benjamin Button probably represents the pinnacle of "film style" shooting. Whereas Miami Vice represents the essence of "modern art" style shooting.

You'd probably never know both those film's were shot with the same cameras.
Click to expand...

They're NOT shot with the same cameras and the filmaker's visual style is part of they're artistic expression and craft, regardless of stock, camera, lenses and resolution.
 
Bill Anderson said:
I know it's based on a true story, mail.., my mother, bless her cotton socks, was a true crime thriller nut- she could have told you which side Dillinger dressed. It's not the history I have a problem with, it's this hollowood interpretation. Besides, what difference does it make if a movie is based upon historical events? Does that give it a leg up on pure fiction? And Depp's formidable talent ain't gonna pull this out of the crapper. The trailer dialogue was painful enough, why would anyone subject themselves to two hours more? It is pure amateur theatre. The costumes look like they walked out of a wallyworld theme park- the only thing they lacked was tap dancing shoes-was Michael Jackson involved in this production? Janet? ((((:
Click to expand...
As I've been reading through these post I find yours to be the most... well ignorant to tell the truth. First, and this isn't aimed only at Bill Anderson, to suggest that these results come out of mistakes is inconceivable. We are talking about Michael Mann a man known for his attention to the smallest of details and make sure every sing aspect of his film is exactly the way he wants it. To suggest that he didn't know exactly how what he was capturing would look is ridiculous straight out. Secondly, who gives you the right to suggest down on another filmmaker for making the film he wanted... or the types he wanted. It reminds me of the annoying kid I had to sit through screenings with in film school who only wants to downplay everyone else's work to some how make himself feel better about his own. Have you ever handled a $100 million budget, do you ever care to handle a $100 million budget? Would anyone ever give you an $100 million budget? If these types of film aren't your cup of tea then fine.. don't see it i think universal will make it alright without your $10, but please don't try to bash someone else work after seeing a 2 minute trailer. Michael Mann has earned his spot as one of the great directors with beautifully shot films (Heat, Last of the Mohicans, The Insider, Collateral, and miami Vice in my opinion,) griping stories, and incredibly tense scenes. To suggest that you know better than him is well a bit pompous.
And one last thing... Action films are a vital part of Hollywood... people like fun and enjoyment. Without a transformers or miami vice there is no slumdog or ben. buttons. Michael Mann is one of those rare talents who can combine a gripping action film with a deep emotional narrative and deliver to an audience in a nicely wrapped package.
The style is forward thinking and fresh.. it's not for everyone, but he's experimenting with the new equipment that you guys all love... there isn't anything wrong with that.
 
Hmm....interesting creative choice for a look...

Compression of 1080p trailer...ouch...
 
Hooray Tanner!!!

Hooray Tanner!!!

You must be new here :-)

This kinda stuff goes on all the time here. But I for one couldnt agree with EVERYTHING you said any more. My thoughts exactly.

Thanks Tanner
 
Michael Bravin said:
They're NOT shot with the same cameras and the filmaker's visual style is part of they're artistic expression and craft, regardless of stock, camera, lenses and resolution.
Click to expand...

I never said they were the same cameras. And I'm smart enough to know that the director's visual style is the determining factor here. But major sections of Buttons was shot on the F23 (the hospital scenes) and most/all of Public Enemies was too. I'm simply underscoring how one camera can yield different results.

Also, the Viper was used on both Miami Vice and Zodiac. Same filmmakers. Both looks are polar opposites.

As for the F23 on Button, I thought it looked utterly amazing. In the hands of Fincher these cameras look amazing. In the hands of Michael Mann they look like modern art.

I'm not sure what I said above that made you snipe at me though.
 
I'm not sure what I said above that made you snipe at me though.

Robert

Never meant to sound snarky. You and I agree 100% so my bad. Its always so weird how something can be taken two ways when its in print on a board sorry :-)
 
Tanner, I'm happy for you, you like this movie/trailer, and obviously others do too. Not that surprising. But that doesn't alter how I feel about the trailer- in my eyes it's pure bunk. You think Mann has a penchant for 'details' and 'experimentation'- I say he's cliché prone.

I would likely quake if someone handed me a 100 million dollar budget- why? because I would feel compelled to create something more than a hackneyed gangster film- I would feel morally obligated to, among other things, at least attempt to augment the language of the Art of Filmmaking.
Not that this is really relevant to anything mind you- but you asked. And it's something you'll have to learn when multi million dollar entities are criticized: you should have asked who could make better use of a 100 mill budget; the list is vast.
As far as the annoying kid is concerned: he sounds damned annoying.

I'm happy to see that we agree on one thing: Transformers and Miami Vice in the same category- and I wouldn't put Batman in there.

Why do they make two minute trailers if not to promote and make obvious the virtues of a movie? Why bother with book reviews and Art columns for that matter, and why read about Aids in Africa or watch the five o'clock news images of incendiary devices doing their worst, If only for two minutes? What could we possibly manage to gain from two minutes of exhortations for peace?

Two minutes is enough: Public Enemas it remains.
 
Haha thanks Michael, I am fairly new to this site, been lurking on the tech ends of this site for a few months, but stayed out of the more opinion type threads... but I guess I crossed that barrier today. Anyway thanks for the support!

Bill- I think I'm beginning to see where you are coming from a little bit more. It's a position not uncommonly held in the world of indie filmmakers. The people who are for whatever reason unable to grasp that filmmaking is a rare art in that it has a heavy business influence, I'd imagine you'd say for the worst and I would say it's for the better in many ways.
You don't like films that are primarily used as entertainment. However, I do, for me film is an escape; the ability to live vicariously through certain characters and their escapades. If I can be educated or influenced during those two hours then I'm even more pleased at the end. When I make a film I want to help the people in the audience enjoy themselves and give them the same feelings that I experience themselves.
If you wouldn't mind would you put together that list of people you believe could put the money to better use? I just want to get a better idea where you are coming from.
I do believe that Transformers and Miami Vice belong in the same category, but if they are both in that category then The Dark Knight would also have to be included because that category would be entertainment films. What makes The Dark Knight stand out to you? There's explosions, gun fights, witty dialogue.. all things you seemed to bash mann's two minute trailer for, and I think you'd have a tough time saying that anything in TDK done then the Downtown shootout in Heat. Or that the talent is any better then the last of the mohicans.
What it seems you really don't get is that your "morally" profound films could never been seen if it wasn't for the films listed above. Hollywood revolves around money and your types of films do not on average make the studios money.
As far as your two minutes thing goes... it is fairly absurd. For starters a book review is done after the book is finished and is reviewed on the whole. A reviewer doesn't read the inside jacket and write a review that way (if so then my book reports for school would have been SO much easier.) and essentially that is all a trailer is. Something to give you a taste of what's out there. Much like the news..from your example.. the news doesn't expect to inform you over all the details of the aids crisis in africa. It tries to tell you what's out there and if you are so inclined you can go seek out further information now that you are aware there is an issue.
I'm a bit confused as to how Mann's way of story telling is "cliche prone," simply because he has gunfights? Or likes to have action in his films? People love action films and want to see them. So, if he enjoys that type of story telling and can push the barriers of how those stories are told then what is wrong with that? Same goes for Michael Bay. They both are straight forward and open about the types of cinema they enjoy and want to make and they keep pushing those genres forward. They do not pretend to be more than they are, and people enjoy what they see. They might not be curing aids.. but that's not the job they set out to do.
I was also curious if you would post some of your work? Perhaps if mann comes across this thread he could learn something from it?
 
Tanner, this has nothing to do with a preference for High Art- it has to do with an aversion to mediocrity-or in this case vacuity. No one expects Batman to be anything more than what it is, entertainment- no one expects King Kong to have the the same moral implications as, say, Schindler's List or The Deerhunter, but when one takes a topic like Dillinger and aspires to Deerhunter heavy and manages to, through sheer lack of skill or anything else to say, turn it into Indiana Jones the Musical, then that's another matter. Holding that thought- look at what Burton did with Sweeney Todd- a most bloody episode in History: he makes a musical out of it; not an easy task, and it was done with consummate skill. Whether one likes the film or not, no one can deny there is genius at work. No one can deny that Burton has added a little to the canon of the musical. It's theatricality added a brilliant counterpoint to the gore. I have seen films that I didn't particularly enjoy but could not deny they were masterfully written or executed.

You should know who could put the money to better use, but my point was/is, Mann doesn't put it to good use- outside of rank commerce.

All of Mann's films, no matter who plays in them, have that quality of amateur gloss- they feel like they were made by someone who would rather play at making movies than anything else. And Mann's so called eye for detail does nothing to give any of his films verisimilitude; and yet time after time he chooses topics and genres that demand exactly that. In spite of being only able to doggy paddle, Mann keeps throwing himself into the deep end of the pool. It's one way to learn, perhaps, but learning it has to be called.

You wonder about my Cliché comments being linked to tangibles like 'guns': calling a gun a cliché is a bit like calling a tube of paint a cliché.
If you cannot detect Cliche in this work, you're in trouble: cliche is not inherent in guns or gunfights or babes or spats or gangster repartee- it has to do with how these things are managed afresh, time and time again. It has to do with, after the thousandth gangster flick, how we are made into believers once more. Like Umberto Eco implied: as writers, how can we proclaim our love afresh when Barbara Cartland has for the millionth time abused 'I love you'? Mann is to film what Cartland is to literature. An abuser of what has gone before. And Public Enemies has nothing to do with homage.


Trailers: are we to forgive them when they look awful and praise them when they look grand? Are we to deny our instincts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top