Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[Jannard]

Of course it matters what a DP chooses for the biggest budget projects (all projects actually). The look of a feature matters. Silly.

All three previous Pirates were shot on film. Film was not an option here. So Wolski tested and selected the best film alternative. Apparently he liked it so much he is shooting Ridley's next movie on RED.

Jim

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Don't mean to be a wet blanket but the camera it was shot on has nothing to do with the worldwide grosses. Nor is it an indicator of how good a camera is, nor is it a feather in anyone's cap. The success of Pirates 4, I would say, rests largely with the previous 3 films building the franchise. Not a thing to do with the technology involved in it's creation.

Do you think the average punter knows the difference? And if you think they do, how do you explain, say, Blair Witch?

I love Red, but it makes no difference to a film's success or failure.

Hmm. Perhaps what you say, yourself, in your post shows why it's a big deal.

The success of Pirates 4, I would say, rests largely with the previous 3 films building the franchise

With the proven success of past movies within the franchise which were shot on film...something they knew about and were already comfortable with. They saw how RED was able to be a reliable and a worthy tool to replace film.

Whether the "average punter" notices the tools being used on a film, nobody can deny the fact that the average person in our field knows that the "Pirates" crew replaced film with digital...with the RED One being that digital choice.

That makes the difference...

 

[M Most]

If the technical equipment used to produce a film made "no difference" in whether that film was a success of failure, there sure would be a lot fewer fans of particular cameras - RED, Arri, Sony, or otherwise. Likewise with lenses. Home depot would probably sell a great deal more work lights, and the local radio shack would always be out of the $35 microphone/recorder combo-pack.

Hyperbole, sure. But I suppose the fact that it makes "no difference" is somewhat affirmative to the concept that a RED M-X, properly used, is "no different" - if not in some ways better - than using film acquisition.

Actually, I agree that it makes no difference in the film's box office success or failure. Choices are made by production based on technical needs, but also on storytelling needs, and what would be most appropriate for telling that story. At some point, it was determined that stereo 3D was appropriate for telling the "Pirates 4" story, so the choices were then narrowed down to what could be used to shoot 3D and what would do that the best, according to the vision of both the DP and the director. Those decisions weren't made based on potential box office, they were made based on the needs of the show, both practically and creatively.

Now, I also agree with Deanan that the fact that box office is likely unaffected by that is no reason to not take pride in a creative accomplishment.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Of course it matters what a DP chooses for the biggest budget projects (all projects actually). The look of a feature matters. Silly.

All three previous Pirates were shot on film. Film was not an option here. So Wolski tested and selected the best film alternative. Apparently he liked it so much he is shooting Ridley's next movie on RED.

Jim

It's quite comical to me to see how, on more than one or two occasions, we are posting very much of the same content...sometimes at the same precise time as in this case.

 

[Leo Sardello]

Don't mean to be a wet blanket but the camera it was shot on has nothing to do with the worldwide grosses. Nor is it an indicator of how good a camera is, nor is it a feather in anyone's cap. The success of Pirates 4, I would say, rests largely with the previous 3 films building the franchise. Not a thing to do with the technology involved in it's creation.

Do you think the average punter knows the difference? And if you think they do, how do you explain, say, Blair Witch?

I love Red, but it makes no difference to a film's success or failure.

Blair Witch is a specialty case in which the format fit the story in a way that worked for audiences allowing the filmmakers to present an image that wouldn't be considered cinematic in quality to anyone. Remember that its entire add campaign started as a "hoax" about finding "real" lost footage from some students. It was never billed as a high quality summer block-buster. Really, Blair Witch is a prime creative example of a cinema verite style film and that style pre-dates digital video by a great many years. Like everything, when applied to a story properly, the style benefits the whole of the film. Some films can use it well, others not so much. In this case the mocumentary presentation of the subject matter, format of choice, and use of this style lent to the feeling that what was being witnessed was "real" footage; something that had the film been shot on high quality equipment with massive production values would not have been imparted.

On the other hand, had Pirates of the Caribbean 4 been shot cinema verite style in DV and screened in the same cinemas it played in for this release, the general public would have stormed out of the theater complaining that there was something wrong with the projection and demand their money back. Its true that your average audience member likely doesn't care what camera per-se a movie was shot on. But to suggest that they have no perception in audio/visual quality what-so-ever and use Blair Witch as an example of this is really just insulting to, well, everyone. IMHO underestimating the audience is the single biggest mistake our industry makes.

The proliferation of HD has now set the quality bar rather high for the cinematic experience and its relatively speedy adoption shows just how savvy the average joe is when it comes to visual quality. Pirates did a great job of keeping that cinematic experience something worth going to the theater for and there can be no denying that RED played a major and important role in that. To that end the grosses (while not a direct measure by any means) are a statement on the tech behind the film. Sure there are many factors that led to the B.O. returns Pirates 4 is seeing, but had the film presented a cinematic experience that was less than stellar, the B.O. would represent that in less than stellar numbers as well. RED is a part of the whole that made that cinematic expereince work for this film reflected in B.O. returns to a degree.

 

[Kris Anderson]

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying, or I didn't make my point clearly.

It felt to me that Tim was attributing the large grosses of Pirates 4 to the RED One, when that is really impossible to establish. My point being, how many of those ticket sales were because a viewer saw the film advertised, knew it was shot on RED and decided to go and see it because of that? Saying that in no way diminishes the tremendous efforts of the camera dept and the rest of the crew. It's just that Johnny Q. Public does not go and see a movie because of the camera it was shot on. THe people here are very unique in that image capture and distribution is a burning passion. You all notice things that God himself would have trouble seeing... that's why you're at the top of the game. Most people just don't see things that way though.

My reference to Blair Witch shows a camera at the opposite end of the quality spectrum and yet it was still a success at the box office. The public don't care. They just want to be entertained.

Of course the choice of camera affects the way a film is made and looks, that was not the issue. But to say Pirates grossed the way it did because it was shot on RED is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If that were truly the case then Pirates 1, 2, and 3 should be failures in comparison, which they are not.


I don't mind being wrong, but I just don't see the link.

btw... yes, I have seen the film, in 3D, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[Michael Olsen]

They just want to be entertained.

I think my conception of your post changed as I wrote my last reply, and I agree here. It also works with what Mr. Most wrote above. The crew is there doing their best to create an immersive, entertaining film. If they need to use 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm, or any flavor of digital, they will. Whatever will work best.

I think the idea of a causal relationship, as you suggest, is a bit too strong. Pirates 1, 2, and 3 did just fine on film (a bit of an understatement for a near 3 trillion dollar franchise). And Pirates 4 appears to be on track to do just as well if not better, shot on RED. And that I think is where the praise can be - someone swapped in a new camera, a new format, and 3D and resulted in a popular, successful film that shot and delivered on or above expectations while working on a relatively tight schedule. This, more than anything, says RED has achieved a great deal in the last few years to me. From nothing to $1,000,000,000 films. Not bad! :beer:

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Actually, I agree that it makes no difference in the film's box office success or failure. Choices are made by production based on technical needs, but also on storytelling needs, and what would be most appropriate for telling that story. At some point, it was determined that stereo 3D was appropriate for telling the "Pirates 4" story, so the choices were then narrowed down to what could be used to shoot 3D and what would do that the best, according to the vision of both the DP and the director. Those decisions weren't made based on potential box office, they were made based on the needs of the show, both practically and creatively.

Now, I also agree with Deanan that the fact that box office is likely unaffected by that is no reason to not take pride in a creative accomplishment.

Mike, come on. that's a pretty weak argument from you. Shooting 3D is 100% a financial decision on studio movies, are you serious? and COME ON if this was shot on Alexa
in 3D, you would be all over it I suspect. You are smarter than this, you know darn well the decision to shoot 3D and subsequently RED, was a financial one (and I would argue smart at that)

I REPEAT. THIS BOX OFFICE ACCOMPLISHMENT IS A TESTAMENT to the RED ONE M-X program and probably her crowning achievement, if you and a scant few others cant see that... well. OK.
but please spare us the fool's logic.

WHY? because NOBODY except nit picky haters on here knew the difference. THAT's why its a crowning achievement for R1 M-X

thanks

 

[Kris Anderson]

but please spare us the fool's logic.

WHY? because NOBODY except nit picky haters on here knew the difference. THAT's why its a crowning achievement for R1 M-X

thanks

No need for that, Tim.

The fact that no one knew the difference is indeed an amazing achievement. Red has come along and, within 5 years, seamlessly replaced the standard of the last 70 years. That was never in question. That's why we're all here. These are very exciting times.

But how you see the box office take as a direct correlation to the RED One's involvement in the film is, well, I'm having trouble connecting the dots. How will Epic's involvement in new films affect their grosses (other than the 3D issue)? Surely a film's success or failure is not dependent on the camera?

That's my only contention. There's no need to get your back up.

I'm (genuinely) happy to hear you explain it.

 

[Deanan]

But how you see the box office take as a direct correlation to the RED One's involvement in the film is, well, I'm having trouble connecting the dots. How will Epic's involvement in new films affect their grosses (other than the 3D issue)? Surely a film's success or failure is not dependent on the camera?

A films success is the sum of it's parts. Camera is one of those parts although hard to measure how much.
If pirates was shot on betamax, could you possibly blame a lower gross on poor image quality? If you can
then the opposite is also true.
Same could be said for 1st AC, make up, wardrobe, editor, colorist, etc.
(maybe not crafty although the sushi on P4 was pretty good

 

[Jarred Land]

This discussion is starting to go in circles.... Closing it down.