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 :)

New Pacific Rim Trailer

The movie is what it is, I got bored after the first 20 minutes but was able to finish it, knowing of course what would happen in every subsequent scene, but as pertains the purpose of this thread, the Epic looked REALLY good. Del Toro loves tungsten lighting and plenty of it, and in truth, skin tones looked very, very good despite all that. Can't say the 3D looked any better than some of the recent conversions like Star Trek, which actually had more depth, but good'ole little Epic did a ok...
 
I don't remember a single character's name. There were just enough humans to make you care... barely. This being the case, and the fact that I still consider it to be one of the best movie-going experiences of my life, THIS MOVIE WAS AMAZING.
 
rileytaylor said:
...one of the best movie-going experiences of my life, THIS MOVIE WAS AMAZING.
Click to expand...

Based on your lead-in sentence, I'm assuming you are referring chiefly to the visuals here. That is a HUGE endorsement. And for some reason, the vehemence in your statement has piqued my interest more than any other comment here. Maybe guts speak louder than brains -- I don't know.

Definitely going to check it out. I have NO doubts regarding the EPIC's performance -- it's all about the totality of the crew (physical and post) using it.
 
But, unfortunately most of the big Hollywood flagship movies are close unwatchable..Storywise most of them are close ridiculous..Its a very painfull and flabbergasting experience...You are just left with a big ? Why did they use $150mill on shooting this piece of shit? The incomparable dominance in american TV-series, due to fabulous screenwriting, does NOT translate into good Hollywood movies..Why do the public keep paying for BS instead of BS with just a little taste and a small , a very small story, that might provoke the tiniest of thoughts? I think It is a misunderstanding that big money cannot be made this way...But I am stupid.
 
Though I completely agree with the thought that Hollywood should spend more money in story rather than in fireworks, Hollywood is smart enough to understand that in a business perspective, fireworks sell. Like in literature, there are great works of genius out there, yet things like Twilight, or shallow comic book heroes, or weakly written fantasies will always sell. People sometimes don't want to think, but rather want to avoid thinking. Many people will pay to see a good story or philosophy laid out on the silver screen, specially those who work on the creative side of the industry, but a larger group of people will pay for that superficial escape. Those movies will never obtain the status of "one of the best movies of all time" but they know they can work as a quick fix to escape your mind for a while.

For example, when Avatar came out in the theater a few years ago, as a story teller and as a writer, it made me cringe, yet I knew it was something that visually I hadn't quite experienced before, so I still recommended it to other people. Another example are your typical Adam Sandler type of movies. I personally would never pay to go watch a movie like that, but I understand that most of the people just want to shut their brains off for a couple of hours.

I think every artist feels betrayed at some point when we see Hollywood spending millions upon millions of dollars on something we consider lame, or the work of an amateur, and sometimes your heart breaks when a truly good work of art goes unnoticed, but I think that's because we forget that Hollywood is not an art vehicle, it's a business vehicle. It's our own ego as artists that tells us that our well written art should sell more.

Like I mentioned above Pacific Rim was a fun escape for me. Visually it was stunning, yet another movie that makes me so proud to be a red owner, and the concept, as poor as it may be, it ends up working for me and I think most of the demographic they are trying to reach. I wish I could see a version of it where the script was much deeper than it was, I know Del Toro can deliver that type of in depth storytelling, but I don't think that was his goal with this movie at all, he just wanted to show Giant Robots messing with Giant aliens.

I too wish Hollywood would invest more in thought provoking stories, Stories that inspire and can create interesting discussions over the dinner table, but unless there is a point in our culture where that is what people crave, mindless popcorn flicks are still going to be the projects that get all the money.

It's not personal. It's business.
 
Jens Jakob Thorsen said:
But, unfortunately most of the big Hollywood flagship movies are close unwatchable..Storywise most of them are close ridiculous..Its a very painfull and flabbergasting experience...You are just left with a big ? Why did they use $150mill on shooting this piece of shit? The incomparable dominance in american TV-series, due to fabulous screenwriting, does NOT translate into good Hollywood movies..Why do the public keep paying for BS instead of BS with just a little taste and a small , a very small story, that might provoke the tiniest of thoughts? I think It is a misunderstanding that big money cannot be made this way...But I am stupid.
Click to expand...


You are far from stupid.

Audiences have been completely dumbed down, and the marketing engines of these mega-corporations are surgical in their attempt to create sociological events with ad campaign ubiquity. Studios market to the masses until movie-goers believe the hype.

At that point, the audience is truly there for a ride. Cinema has progressed in many regards to the ultimate form of escapism. I am convinced that the average audience member could care less about character nuance, exploration of psychology, or even a story that is not rife in non sequitur. Again, the "average" movie-goer. Who is that? I don't know, but I can tell you when I see them. :) Now filmmaking revolves principally about big visuals, ensuring there are enough action beats in every sequence, and vapid paper-thin plot devices. People don't want to think about the mortgage they can't pay, or their lack of ability to find one of the ephemeral "jobs" the government is apparently doling out.

In my conception, part of this studio-level production methodology is in response to production becoming ever more accessible. Large studios will likely continue to up the ante, increasingly exploring methods to differentiate themselves from what is capable at the indie level. Which means fewer, bigger films. The studio response will be to throw more money at the screen because that is what 99.99% of the populace cannot do. At the studio-level, quaint dramas will become relegated to "cute" projects for stars looking to diversify and practice their craft. Hopefully, more actors bankroll their own passion projects, at least that will provide tangible stimulation to the economy.

The playing field has never been level; however, with innovations like the EPIC and Movi, the barrier of technical capability has been felled. And thank GOD Jim was not in this for short-term profit. Just think if he sold to one of the bigger manufacturers during the maturation process -- which I am SURE he likely could have done. But he didn't. The EPIC represents pure, unadulterated passion. It's palpable. Every time I even look at my camera, I can sense it -- this camera represents something VERY special in its level of detail and capability.

Now, with all that capability, it is up to the owners and people within communities such as this to create projects that deserve to be seen. If we don't like the lack of stories in the marketplace -- now we can respond. We can make movies the way we think they should be made. We can tell the stories we think should be heard. It's the last step in the revolution. The people have to understand the capability en masse and use it.

Then once all the production work is done, we still have to get those projects seen. Somehow. Someway. Theaters such as The Downtown Independent here in LA are going to be champions of the new age distribution schema. The oligarchy that controls exhibition will slowly be broken as smaller exhibition houses arise and find profit models that work. Ebb and flow.

Secondly, I was recently informed in regard to the hidden mechanism of film funding, and it appears movies are generally made for one reason: their ability to meet an exec's bonus structure. Bigger movies yield bigger returns, and the better they are packaged, the easier it is to sell them. Simple as that. It always seems to dissolve to simple avarice.
 
Ces Peynetti said:
Though I completely agree with the thought that Hollywood should spend more money in story rather than in fireworks, Hollywood is smart enough to understand that in a business perspective, fireworks sell. Like in literature, there are great works of genius out there, yet things like Twilight, or shallow comic book heroes, or weakly written fantasies will always sell. People sometimes don't want to think, but rather want to avoid thinking. Many people will pay to see a good story or philosophy laid out on the silver screen, specially those who work on the creative side of the industry, but a larger group of people will pay for that superficial escape. Those movies will never obtain the status of "one of the best movies of all time" but they know they can work as a quick fix to escape your mind for a while.

For example, when Avatar came out in the theater a few years ago, as a story teller and as a writer, it made me cringe, yet I knew it was something that visually I hadn't quite experienced before, so I still recommended it to other people. Another example are your typical Adam Sandler type of movies. I personally would never pay to go watch a movie like that, but I understand that most of the people just want to shut their brains off for a couple of hours.

I think every artist feels betrayed at some point when we see Hollywood spending millions upon millions of dollars on something we consider lame, or the work of an amateur, and sometimes your heart breaks when a truly good work of art goes unnoticed, but I think that's because we forget that Hollywood is not an art vehicle, it's a business vehicle. It's our own ego as artists that tells us that our well written art should sell more.

Like I mentioned above Pacific Rim was a fun escape for me. Visually it was stunning, yet another movie that makes me so proud to be a red owner, and the concept, as poor as it may be, it ends up working for me and I think most of the demographic they are trying to reach. I wish I could see a version of it where the script was much deeper than it was, I know Del Toro can deliver that type of in depth storytelling, but I don't think that was his goal with this movie at all, he just wanted to show Giant Robots messing with Giant aliens.

I too wish Hollywood would invest more in thought provoking stories, Stories that inspire and can create interesting discussions over the dinner table, but unless there is a point in our culture where that is what people crave, mindless popcorn flicks are still going to be the projects that get all the money.

It's not personal. It's business.
Click to expand...

Read your comment after I posted.

Exactly. Filmmaking, like most everything, is ruled by commerce. That doesn't mean we cannot tell whatever story we want, but it does mean we should do it for a price that the market can predictably supply for. Otherwise, we won't be making too many movies.
 
Have not seen this yet, But as I understood it was shot mono / not stereo and then the post was done in stereo. I think I saw an interview with the director where he stated that he actually did not want the film to be shown in 3D as he did not think it added anything. Or am I mixing it up with some other movie?

Will go see it this weekend.
 
Eryc Tramonn said:
Based on your lead-in sentence, I'm assuming you are referring chiefly to the visuals here. That is a HUGE endorsement.

Definitely going to check it out. I have NO doubts regarding the EPIC's performance -- it's all about the totality of the crew (physical and post) using it.
Click to expand...

It's a huge endorsement of Del Toro for sure. Of the camera or tech? The film has less live action I would wager than Avatar. Renderman/Arnold/Vray/Brazil etc produced more frames than Epic. ;)

It's actually not that great of a film for eye candy. Spectacle yes, but the FX themselves were a little underwhelming. I would say technically on par with Battleship. But OMG the spectacle!
 
Björn Benckert said:
I think I saw an interview with the director where he stated that he actually did not want the film to be shown in 3D as he did not think it added anything. Or am I mixing it up with some other movie?
Click to expand...

Björn, you are correct. He did not want 3D. He said the scale of everything just wouldn't look right.
 
There is only story. Everything else is just BS. If there is no story there is nothing. Jim and RED have been full of hype and as an informed citizen of the world(Europe) it has been a pain to watch and hard to swallow...Childish design choices and a lot of american military crap design...Give the swedish or the germans the same amount to design military equipment or spacemissions and the human race would be far, far ahead in both areas...Thats a fact...We are far more efficient..It also a fact that we dont often take wild chances...If you had to choose between putting your kids on an ARRI airplane or a RED airplane?...Over 25 years in the biz as a DOP will get you a serious BS-allergi. BUT Jim had and still has the BALLS to make the biggest revolution of film equipment that ever was. A democratization of the filmcamera. A true revolution..Thats why I was onboard in 2007 and have been since. Have been shooting film for 20 years, but now with the digital sensor all the focus is on sexy glass....I am having a sexytime with all my quirky lenses.. my russian anas, my elites, my german zeiss , and now my 1940ies Cookes. Its a ball!! I cannot number the amounts of shoots I have done with my RED cameras, that would otherwise be impossible to pull off. Hail Jim(you childish and magnificent man!) for putting a camera out, so that allmost everybody who can tell a story, can do it with a full blown cinemacamera!
So I am a fanboy, but spare me the BS and give me stories. I have so much respect for people who can tell stories...That is what my profession is about..Story is king..everything else is BS.
 
A couple years ago when I heard Guillermo Navarro was coming to Istanbul for a quick shoot I worked some magic and volunteered my way onto the crew as the 2nd AC just so I could watch him work and maybe soak up some knowledge. He was very friendly and efficient. He knew what he wanted and when he got it, he knew it. I wish I had more time with his crew, but it was plenty cool to just carry his cases for a day and watch him do his magic :)
 
Jens Jakob Thorsen said:
Why did they use $150mill on shooting this piece of shit? The incomparable dominance in american TV-series, due to fabulous screenwriting, does NOT translate into good Hollywood movies..Why do the public keep paying for BS instead of BS with just a little taste and a small , a very small story, that might provoke the tiniest of thoughts? I think It is a misunderstanding that big money cannot be made this way...But I am stupid.
Click to expand...
I ear you there, what a waste of money and energy, making nice picture isn't enough to qualify a movie as a good one.
 
Personnaly, I thought it was more thangood for what it is.

All of those here who speaks about not wanting to shut their brains are pretentious.

There are times where I need to watch Michael Bay exploding buildings (the bigger the better), there are times I want to care about the characters (TV series mostly), there are times I want to feel something (Spielberg, early Shyamalan and so on), there are times I want to think. Great movies are those who let you do the whole tour in 2 hours. And man, there are 10 movies like that.

Should we watch only those ? I surely hope not. Do we have to bash one against the other ? Again, no. It's not even a matter of taste, but expectations. If you desperatly need to think hard, you don't wan't to see a movie with giant robots fighting giant lizzards.
 
Sorry Brice, it's not for you, but on several previous pages, there are a lot of posts assuming if you like that kind of movies it's that you like to shut down your brain.
It's offensing, but for the other side.
 
i watched non 3d and then imax 3d - I prefered the non 3D. Especially during the action sequences, the image just got too blurred (maybe we need variable fps (24 for normal scenes and 48fps for action )).

So my recommendation would be to go for the non3d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top