Spielberg's latest...

[David Mullen ASC]

Change allowed as long as it follows the rules? To me that is change by the rule of status quo.

Exactly what "rule" do you think I seem to be suggesting be followed? I'm not clear that I've laid down any rules. I'm just suggesting that the true value of a technology or a technique is not its newness but its usefulness to the artist. If an artist finds an old technique or technology useful to them in the creation of art, well, what's wrong with that?

Not all art has to be cutting-edge or avant guarde, or even innovative. There is room for all types of arts and artists.

Spielberg's got his 35mm camera and you've got your RED, so you both should be happy... I have no idea why it's so important to some people that Spielberg dump 35mm and use digital. It's like some people aren't happy with the notion that other people out there make different lifestyle choices. You like RED because it gives you the financial freedom to pursue your personal moviemaking interests, but for some reason, Spielberg is to be ridiculed for pursuing his own idiosyncratic tastes by choosing to cut a movie on a flatbed or shoot on film.

Besides, in this particular case, "Indiana Jones" is a bit of nostalgia for 1930's/40's adventure serials, and this particular sequel is a bit of nostalgia for the 1980's Indiana Jones movies on top of that... two layers of nostalgia for the past going on, so it makes a lot of sense to shoot this sequel using "old school" techniques.

I've never suggested that everyone should make Hollywood-style movies or use the same Hollywood-style techniques. But by that same token, I'm not going to say that using digital technology to make movies is right for everyone. To my mind, what I'm suggesting is that people try to maintain some emotional neutrality when it comes to technology and not get wrapped up in one brand or technique, nor equate "new" with "good" and "old" with "bad" (or vice-versa) -- so I don't see why suggesting that people have an open mind is somehow an example of me protecting the status quo. If only open-mindedness was the status quo!

 

[number6]

David, I've posted on top so that yours will be the last word, as you have earned that right by your body of work. My eyelids are getting heavy.

Exactly what "rule" do you think I seem to be suggesting be followed? I'm not clear that I've laid down any rules. I'm just suggesting that the true value of a technology or a technique is not its newness but its usefulness to the artist. If an artist finds an old technique or technology useful to them in the creation of art, well, what's wrong with that?

Not all art has to be cutting-edge or avant guarde, or even innovative. There is room for all types of arts and artists.

Spielberg's got his 35mm camera and you've got your RED, so you both should be happy... I have no idea why it's so important to some people that Spielberg dump 35mm and use digital. It's like some people aren't happy with the notion that other people out there make different lifestyle choices. You like RED because it gives you the financial freedom to pursue your personal moviemaking interests, but for some reason, Spielberg is to be ridiculed for pursuing his own idiosyncratic tastes by choosing to cut a movie on a flatbed or shoot on film.

Besides, in this particular case, "Indiana Jones" is a bit of nostalgia for 1930's/40's adventure serials, and this particular sequel is a bit of nostalgia for the 1980's Indiana Jones movies on top of that... two layers of nostalgia for the past going on, so it makes a lot of sense to shoot this sequel using "old school" techniques.

I've never suggested that everyone should make Hollywood-style movies or use the same Hollywood-style techniques. But by that same token, I'm not going to say that using digital technology to make movies is right for everyone. To my mind, what I'm suggesting is that people try to maintain some emotional neutrality when it comes to technology and not get wrapped up in one brand or technique, nor equate "new" with "good" and "old" with "bad" (or vice-versa) -- so I don't see why suggesting that people have an open mind is somehow an example of me protecting the status quo. If only open-mindedness was the status quo!

 

[Jason Francois]

To my mind, what I'm suggesting is that people try to maintain some emotional neutrality when it comes to technology and not get wrapped up in one brand or technique, nor equate "new" with "good" and "old" with "bad" (or vice-versa) -- so I don't see why suggesting that people have an open mind is somehow an example of me protecting the status quo. If only open-mindedness was the status quo!

And all the people say...Amen.

Thanks David.

 

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

It's not just about the tools. It's about access. Film and the Hollywood "old boy" network is exclusive. RED is inclusive.

...

And so will the work of the small-time innovative movie maker who has a chance to ply his or her craft economically due to the availability of RED.

Question: would not said small-time innovative movie maker already have had the chance to ply his/her craft economically due to the availability of such high-end prosumer cameras as the Panasonic HVX-200? Which is

a) already out in mass production, and
b) cheaper than the RED by a good 60-80% (depending on accessories)?

If the upswelling of talent based on availability didn't come two years ago when the HVX hit the streets, what's going to be so different about RED? The "availability" model has already come and gone, and a better sensor doesn't make a better filmmaker.

Now, as much as I don't wholly agree with number6's conclusions, I do agree somewhat with his premise. I've seen a LOT of good stuff come out of the HVX that I probably never would have seen if the same filmmakers had only had 35mm film available to them. And those saying that the "cost of film is a small fraction of a film budget", remember that when you're talking to a certain group of indies, the film cost is the ONLY cost on the film. Everything else is begged, borrowed, or stolen. $100,000 in film stock isn't much on a $20 million film set, but on a smaller set it's basically the entire budget.

I don't think that RED will make anyone a better storyteller. But those who are really serious about what they do will find it easier and cheaper to do what they would have eventually done anyway. I don't think we're going to magically start seeing all these brilliant filmmakers come out of the woodwork that wouldn't have been able to make themselves heard without RED. If not for RED, they would have figured it out some other way, just like the others before them.

RED supplies the tools. You have to supply the talent. And if your film isn't great, you can't blame the camera.

 

[James T Mather]

I Agree - plus there has always been super 8 & super 16 as a cheap option - the Beaulieu R16 camera, the Arri BL (El Mariachi), Bolex (Peter Jackson), Beaulieu 4008/7008 - some current European Drama is shot on Digibeta and field blended (Hardly ideal I grant you) but the myth that the availablity of a camera that is XXXX% sharper will suddenly emancipate downtrodden talent who were cruelly excluded from hanging out at Spagos is just nonsense.


The proliferation of "Spielberg had better watch out" threads since we've got what he's got is similarly idiotic. The filmstock costs are generally a tiny portion of a films budget - Location costs/sound editing/music/actor's fees/Catering/Crew fees/transport/lighting equipment/special effects etc. personally I don't want to see movies in the cinema made for thirty bucks starring people I've never heard of - with effects done by uncle Al and soundtracks by cousin Abe playing the spoons.

well, maybe just one...for the giggle.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

I read this somewhere - A ten year boy did a documentary with his VHS camera about his father's car showroom.

The father had a sales promotion at his car lot where one of the latest pick-up (or van) was parked. The idea was that the last person standing with his hand on the pick up got the pick-up for free.

The competition started with about a hundred people with their hands on one part or the other of the pick-up. The boy kept shooting with his VHS camera the best he could. Ofcourse he had no idea about camera stability or angles but he kept on filming.

From a hundred competitors emerged the winner and the boy took all the rushes of the event and edited it on two VHS decks. He gave that 'edited' version to a local TV station who put it on air. The whole production cost about fifty bucks.

That was one of the most viewed program in the station's history.

Let's learn whatever we can from this story.

 

[James T Mather]

did the soundtrack feature someone playing the spoons?

kidding - it's a nice story and illustrates the point well. Would it have been a better film at 4k? I'm not sure. The moral seems to me that you should make a movie about a subject rather than with a system - it's great to have 4k - but audiences interested in a subject will seek out material regardless of the uptake medium.

I suspect that some of the movies produced with Red will be underwritten, underproduced or overacted because the films had to go through no development process or quality control - as is often the case with short films. Precious few are any good - despite being shot on 35mm with all the technocranes and steadicams. Most short films I get sent to shoot are cliche ridden and simplistic despite enormous enthusiasm from the director/writers - no one ever thinks they've written a bad script. We are all Tarantinos, waiting to be discovered.

Plus a lot of the calls I seem to be taking regarding the RED are from people who want the cheap option - the "we're getting it made on 100,000" conversations. Shooting these gigs, this way, will do no-one (least of all me) any good. Budget buys you time. Time to light, time to wait for the sun (or shade), time to get 2 more shots in this scene, time to go for another take because "a white truck parked in the background of that last one". - Without budget, the producer shuts it down and the cameraman ends up looking like a moron when they hard-cut sun and shade together in the final piece.

But despite the rant - it's still great to have 4k.

 

[Keith Alan Morris]

Erm, the director was 26 when he made "Hands on a Hard Body." http://imdb.com/title/tt0116481/

It was released in 98, hes around 36 now.

I read this somewhere - A ten year boy did a documentary with his VHS camera about his father's car showroom.

The father had a sales promotion at his car lot where one of the latest pick-up (or van) was parked. The idea was that the last person standing with his hand on the pick up got the pick-up for free.

The competition started with about a hundred people with their hands on one part or the other of the pick-up. The boy kept shooting with his VHS camera the best he could. Ofcourse he had no idea about camera stability or angles but he kept on filming.

From a hundred competitors emerged the winner and the boy took all the rushes of the event and edited it on two VHS decks. He gave that 'edited' version to a local TV station who put it on air. The whole production cost about fifty bucks.

That was one of the most viewed program in the station's history.

Let's learn whatever we can from this story.

 

[James T Mather]

Like Orson Welles - peaked early.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Erm, the director was 26 when he made "Hands on a Hard Body." http://imdb.com/title/tt0116481/

It was released in 98, hes around 36 now.

Sorry. The person who told the story (or wrote it) mentioned it was a ten year old boy. I cannot verify anything. But I am sure you appreciate the point being made.

 

[James T Mather]

I do. And not to worry man - as I always say - If it isn't true, then it should be true.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

I do. And not to worry man - as I always say - If it isn't true, then it should be true.

LOL! True. True.

 

[tj williams]

Seems to me the difference between RED n other cheap digital ways to get a story told is that RED will also be used by some folk to shoot high end full budget shows.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Ok two things. First, Macs are far superior to PCs, anyone knows this. I have used both, mainly PCs for 15 years, and Mac for three, and it's still obvious. But please keep using your PCs, I don't like viruses, and I love people using inferior equipment so I can feel free to use something better. Honda Civics are very popular cars, too, but there's a reason a Ferrari costs a lot more -- it's a much better machine, sleek, fast, and perfect. Like a Mac. The only reason I'm a Mac "fanboy" is because of the facts. I used PCs from the time I was about 6 to when I was 21, and they are crappy computers beyond belief. I used to make fun of Macs until I realized how much better they were, then it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out when I was using a Mac it was just a much better experience. Besides, what am I going to edit with using a PC? Avid? That piece of **** program? You gotta be kidding me.

Second, Spielberg is a moron when it comes to technology and he's a terrible businessman. He's a great filmmaker, one of the best ever, but he's also not highly creative or great at thinking outside of the box. He is JUST a great director. You compare him to Lucas and it's not the same at all, Lucas is a director and a storyteller and a businessman (a very, very, very good one), and he's been a huge force for digital filmmaking and pushing technology forward. Spielberg, on the other hand, never does anything to help filmmaking as a whole, because he has no concept of what it means to evolve technologically, and he doesn't write his own stories, he never comes up with an idea himself, it's just other people's ideas and he brings them to the screen. He may be history's greatest mercenary but he isn't the greatest filmmaker. Great filmmakers know how to do it all, like Tarantino or Rodriguez, not just take great scripts that come your way because you're Steven Spielberg and then put them on the screen. I love a lot of his movies, but that's mainly because they had great stories, ones he didn't write.

Spielberg is ultimately not a visionary, whereas Lucas is, and Jim Jannard is. I think everyone who loves film can appreciate what a great director Spielberg is, but to expect that he is a great visionary or going to help push the medium forward is asking too much. He is not THAT filmmaker.

And film is dead, get over it. It's a terrible medium with massive flaws that are being corrected by superior technology. I don't want a lousy chemically ruined bunch of garbage with grain all over it that takes days to process. I want a PERFECT, pristine image that looks gorgeous right from the camera, and then if I want to make it grungy in post or grainy in post I'll do that. But I want options.

Spielberg is so inside the box he couldn't escape if he wanted to. He will never be remembered as someone who pushes cinema forward as did great pioneers like Orson Welles or George Lucas, instead he'll be remembered for directing a lot of great popular movies that were very entertaining and a lot of fun. And the few really thought-provoking movies he has done darn weren't his ideas (Minority Report, for instance, NOT even close to his idea).

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

:| ... ?

I guess since this is so obvious to you perhaps you would like to back it all up with... tangible examples.

1) Macs are FAR superior.
2) Avid is a POS software.
3) Spielberg's lack of original vision.
4) The Massive flaws of film.
5) Spielberg's inability to utilize technology to its maximum.

Just to help you along in things you should enumerate upon. Since it's all so obvious...

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think all you Steven Spielberg bashers are just pissed that he isn't shooting Indiana Jones on Red One.
If he was you'd be singing his praises till the cows came home.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Jonathan, can you ever come into a thread without bitching about things in a unrespectful short sighted manner?

Spielberg wrote the story (not the script) of E.T., he wrote the script of Close Encounters, he wrote the script of A.I. (although it was based on notes by Kubrick and a story of... Philip K Dick? Don't know for sure that last one).

Jurassic Park was the first movie (or at least the first big movie, but I think the first) to use DTS surround sound.

And you don't know how much Spielberg has altered ideas from stories and so on... I mean, yes, most of his movies aren't written by himself, but I'm pretty sure he oversees the scriptwriting fase and makes alterations...
Stop being so childish, coming on these boards and just throw flames to respected filmmakers, a popular medium, popular software,...
You always do it in this unrespectful manner, and people on this board have already MANY times talked to you about that.
Sorry to get personal, but it's really annoying.

 

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Jonathan's post is so bass-ackwards I'm almost tempted to think it's some kind of satirical performance art.

The main thing I want to take issue with is this:

he doesn't write his own stories, he never comes up with an idea himself, it's just other people's ideas and he brings them to the screen.

...

Great filmmakers know how to do it all, like Tarantino or Rodriguez

As much as I love Tarantino, the man's never had a fully "original" idea in his entire career. His ENTIRE THING is taking ideas that have been done before and putting his spin on them. Like, to the extent that he says things like "This is the scene from such-and-such movie, but with CHICKS." Or whatever. His entire body of work is one long, vulgar, cathartic series of homages and cinematic in-jokes.

Like I said, love Tarantino. He certainly has an original vision. But he's a synthesizer, not a creator.

Seriously...Spielberg a "moron" and a "terrible businessman"? I'm pretty sure he's got more money than you do, buddy.

Personally, I don't think Spielberg is inside the box. I think the more accurate statement is, Spielberg has the dubious honor of being the man who DEFINES the box.

He's doing his own thing and always has been. The fact that all of Hollywood is following in his wake isn't his fault.

And Spielberg not being remembered in the annals of cinema? What planet are you from?

 

[James T Mather]

Hear, Hear! (applause).....Jonathan, a touch of humility is a commendable quality in people - You might try it. People not possessed of it often come off sounding like a loudmouth punk kid.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Seriously...Spielberg a "moron" and a "terrible businessman"? I'm pretty sure he's got more money than you do, buddy.

Yes, I even forgot to respond to this...
Jonathan if you would have read some biographies about spielberg you would know he's a GREAT businessman.
How do you think he became the nr. 1 richest man in Hollywood????
Please get your facts straight before you go and throw bombs.