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 :)

Just saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Brian - You're young and at a perfect age to really grow into your passion/career. You have access to tools that was unheard of when I was your age. I had to shoot everything on Super 8, pay for the film developing, edit on film reels, etc. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it allowed me to move up to 16mm and 35mm and understand exposure, trust your eye and light meter (no wysiwyg with film), etc. However, I wish back then I had DSLR's and Scarlets. I wish I could have edited AND finished on a desktop computer. So embrace it. Love it. Enjoy it.

I did attend film school but back then it was really the only way to have access to proper film tools. Today I'm not sure it's so important. The best thing about school now is that you get a chance to work with a full crew and essentially recreate a full scale film production. IMO the best way to learn is by doing. Not reading books, or beaten over the head with film theory. You can learn theory by watching films in your living room and analyzing them. Don't pay a school for that.

I think a 2-Day film school is a great idea as well as several of the smaller workshops (Mini film schools). I think you'll learn a lot there. I can tell you that working with Shane Hurlbut and seeing the reaction of the film makers that attended our last Bootcamp confirms this. You can't get that type of inside experience in a normal film school.

Also about production value. Ultimately - a big budget will make it easier for you to achieve production value but if you can shoot in a breath taking location, that is production value you might get for free. You just have to make your dollars count and put them in the right place.
 
I saw The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo last night and thought it was beautifully shot and wonderfully acted. I have heard some of the stories inherent flaws are from the story itself not any one director.

I have now seen both the original swedish version in 09 and Fincher's version in 11. Can't find the budget for the 09 version but I think it's a safe assumption that it was less than Fincher's 100,000,000.

Jeff Cronenweth did such a magnificent job drawing us right into this dark and twisted story. The intimacy of his shots made it an invasion of privacy of sorts. It was classic Cronenweth and I loved every minute of it.

I had the pleasure of watching it in 4K and it looked stunning. It's the first time in a while I have been something crisp and just so perfect.

I hope you all get a chance to enjoy the film as well. But I would def. recommend watching the original as well. It's a must.
 
Steve Das said:
Brilliant and Dov Simens are 2 words that are quite a stretch. He doesn't even market himself that way.
Entertaining...hmm..maybe..if your idea of entertaining is a manic guy yelling out old time Hollywood cliche's...

watch the trailer and you'll see Dov shouts out these 2 pearls of wisdom:
"It's called Show Business...It's not called Show Art"
http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi4083548697/

...And..that's pretty much his schtick..if you watched that you just
saved yourself $400 in Dov DVD's and 16 hours of...Dov Talk = Yelling and Shouting.
Click to expand...


I honestly think the last comment is beyond ridiculous, but to each their own. Many would highly disagree with you. If you actually watched more than the trailer then I'm blown away by that last comment if that's all you got from the set.

It's pretty easy to take ANYONE out of context when you just watch a trailer. In the set when he said that (which you shouldn't take to heart) he later calmly talked about how film is art, but he's basically hammering home how much of a business Hollywood is first and foremost and he's right.

Have you actually seen the whole set? If that's all you got from the 16 hours of viewing I'd have to wonder if you fell asleep at the beginning. I'm scratching my head that all you got was yelling and shouting. Sure, he does that at points to drive home, but it's hard to forget an important point when it's been shouted at you. lol. I found his knowledge to be invaluably informative. As did a novelist I'm working with....and apparently Quentin Tarantino as well (and many others).

I'd have to say if someone says they did not learn much from his set they: A) Only watched the trailer & passed premature judgement. B) Already in the business and know it all from experience. C) Already did ALL of their homework and spent WAY WAY more than 16 hours doing so.
 
Steve Das said:
Too Late..Somebody already did it..it's called The Hunt for Gollum and it was filmed on lowly HDV for £3,000 or $4,700

http://thehuntforgollum.com/faq.html
http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/updates.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1323925/

Sorry guys..but think you are all just so far offline with these remarks...just watch The Gollum movie..
There is no magic money machine that studios own that turns out movies. They are all the byproduct of people.
Any film is done by someone just saying you stand there..camera goes there..this is too dark..this is too light..etc..etc..etc..
Exact same process..no matter if the budget is $1,000 or $100,000,000

Stephen Soderburgh is really the only single director that has taken the possibilities for cheaper digital production really run with it.
He must have made like 6 films which is remarkable in itself. But in interviews he has expressed frustration that the films have struggled
to get releases and distribution and audiences.

It's hard to get people to sit still for a 2 hour movie in the age of Twitter..Facebook..Google. Let alone the 2 Che films.
Even films that are made for under 100,000 and are sold to cable tv have a very hard time breaking even..
so I would never fault people who don't try to do
do feature production with a Scarlet..but come on let's not discourage people from even trying. It can be done.
Click to expand...

Just to clear the air I was trying to be humorous and it came out more snarky. For every 100 crazy projects there are a few winners and I do believe that determination and perseverence mixed with talent and vision can produce something equally as enthralling as big budget hollywood produces. Now everyone get to work!
 
I'm still a little undecided on this film. I love the cinematography. Usually when I feel like this I want to watch it a second time. I liked it, just can't figure out what I really think about it besides great filming and mostly entertaining...

They slid from the book in a few areas...but it's a hollywood film...what would you expect.
 
I just saw the film tonight, I really enjoyed the storytelling and performances. I watched it at a XD theater in san francisco at 4k. I do have to say that I was expecting sharper images. Perhaps it was the underexposed style, but seeing the ghost rider trailer (redone mx) before the movie, it was crystal sharp. Did anybody else notice this? Please don't be mistaken, I thought the picture looked fantastic.
 
Ryan Emanuel said:
I just saw the film tonight, I really enjoyed the storytelling and performances. I watched it at a XD theater in san francisco at 4k. I do have to say that I was expecting sharper images. Perhaps it was the underexposed style, but seeing the ghost rider trailer (redone mx) before the movie, it was crystal sharp. Did anybody else notice this? Please don't be mistaken, I thought the picture looked fantastic.
Click to expand...

I thought it looked better than any image in GWDT. Not saying the image didn't look good in GWDT...
 
Hi Jeffrey,

Was it true 4K in SF or was it 2K up-scaled to 4K? Curious.

Looking forward to seeing it today.
 
Arnold F. said:
If you have a way to create this type of cinematography without the considerable support system present on a major production then I'm envious. Would the shots have been exactly the same without he money to obtain locations, gaffer, PA's, time, etc?
Click to expand...
Good point. It's not the camera... it's the lighting, the lens, and the color-correction that makes the image what it is. Get ten different cinematographers and hand each of them a Scarlet (or a Red), put them in the same room, and chances are they'll shoot it ten different ways. My experience is, the camera may be the least important thing about the image. The skill of the cinematographer and the crew is what makes it.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Good point. It's not the camera... it's the lighting, the lens, and the color-correction that makes the image what it is. Get ten different cinematographers and hand each of them a Scarlet (or a Red), put them in the same room, and chances are they'll shoot it ten different ways. My experience is, the camera may be the least important thing about the image. The skill of the cinematographer and the crew is what makes it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget production design! I'd put that ahead of lighting, lens, grading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top