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 :)

Steven Speilberg

E.T. is a Spielberg movie for which he could be named an auteur.

It's my favorite in all of his work.

AFAIK he came up with the main ideas for the story but was aided by Harrison Ford's wife, who write the actual scipt.

On the other hand, E.T. can be also regarded as a brilliant film adaptation of the book The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry.


E.T. phone home...
 
Dale Launer said:
Totally

A real artist would conceive, etc. his world. Mr. Spielberg doesn't do that. That's why I would call him a secondary artist. He comes in and creates in the margins, not the body of work.
Click to expand...

Dale I like your thoughts but I question what work is primary & secondary because I don't believe it's so neatly spun. It can be very messy and there are many court cases to verify the confusion of who's the proud parent.

Speilberg and many other producer/directors hire writers, conceive ideas based upon both their own inspiration and that of other authors. He often lets the writers hash out the writing details while he attends to multitude of other duties.

The essence of screenwriting is creating the plotting outline (the hero has a goal and attempts to achieve it, i.e., what events take place/when) and creating character development/arc, (how the hero changes as a result of his adventure) Speilberg is in on this.

In the new Indiana Jones project, Speilberg & Lucas create the basic story outline, hire David Koepp to write it and then fire him and hire another writer and then bring Koepp back, etc., what does that make him? answer: the creative driving force, along with G. Lucas, part writer, part director, part producer, part develoment exec.

On other projects such as H.G. Wells, War of the Worlds, Speilberg brought in Koepp to write it but Speilberg had many meetings day after day, and together they worked out the story and he guided the writer in the general direction. So what is he there, he's not the orginal writer, H.G. Wells is, he's not the screenwriter, Koepp is, but he still is the main driving force that shapes the overall project and point of view. The same can be said about Ridley Scott, and many many others.

If the projects are a success, then it has many fathers, if it's a bomb then obviously you'll hear "I only played a limited role while I attending to other more serious projects, it's a pity I couldn't have helped them more!" ;)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
There will be plenty of imperfections, old and new, in digital movies, have no fear. Anything made by human beings will have flaws in it. We'll just trade in half the old technical flaws with a host of new technical flaws, you'll see.
Click to expand...

Indeed
 
>Dale I like your thoughts but I question what work is primary & secondary because I don't believe it's so neatly spun.

Most movies - the overwhelming majority, start with a writer. That would primary. What most directors do usually comes on the heels of the screenplay (or the adaptation). That is, after the fact. There are exceptions, but those are, well, exceptional.

The essence of screenwriting is creating the plotting outline...

Sorry, but you're trying to reduce it to a formula which is a little insulting. Every screenplay is unique. A writer can writer a great script and the next one can be not so great. But if he does the same script twice, he would be a hack. The director, however, can apply his style to every movie he does and no one questions the originality. Hence the primary/secondary nature.

>Speilberg is in on this.

He may be in on some projects but not all of them. I know the script I sold him started out in a hotel room in New York and trust me - he wasn't there. He bought after he read it. As far as his input later, he didn't seem to know what the changes were supposed to be just that it would be a very minor re-write. He did request that the monster be bigger than originally intended (a little bigger than, say, King Kong) and by the end of year (so much for minor re-write), he completely reversed his decision and wanted the monster to be much smaller than originally intended (no bigger than a bread van). Other than the first meeting, he communicated via his development underlings who pretended to know what he wanted. Maybe it was different on all his other projects, I don't know, but you seem to have first hand knowledge about how he works (or you read it someplace). My experience suggests something different.

>In the new Indiana Jones project...

That was the common role of a producer in the past. And it is still common. He shouldn't get writing credit. And today it's pretty rare that anything good starts out in the mind of someone other than the writer.

>The same can be said about Ridley Scott, and many many others.

>If the projects are a success...

The director usually gets credit, and if it's a bomb, it is blamed on the writing. The truth is...a great screenplay usually can't be destroyed by a mediocre director, but a bad screenplay, despite all the efforts of a talented director (and others) will merely come off as overproduced and underwritten.

Lastley, if Koepp is fired from a project and brought back, why do you give the writing credit to the guy who fired him? Did you read the drafts? Do you actually know what happened? Or are you making some assumptions based on what you want to believe. My experiences may be unique but according to the writers I know - they are not especially unique. Get two screenwriters in a room and they seem to have common complaints. I suspect if Koepp was fired it was because there was some extremely vague idea (which is more often the problem in development than not) on the side of the director/producer - which Koepp couldn't interpret. The next writer probably couldn't figure it out either, and so (as is very, very common) the original writer was brought back in. And the script doesn't change.
 
Dale you seem to have little to no understanding let alone any respect for the role of the director. You seem to think that the only creative mind in the entire filmmaking process is the writer.
Yes, the writer is important but this whole notion that there are secondary artists and primary artists is a load of bull. It's like saying that Russell Coutts isn't important because he didn't build the boat he won the race in.
 
Dale you seem to have little to no understanding...

Really? Where do you get your understanding?

...let alone any respect for the role of the director.

Not true at all. I respect it for what it is; a difficult, taxing and sometimes monumental task.

You seem to think that the only creative mind in the entire filmmaking process is the writer.

Yes, I think the writer is the primary creative force of a movie. And the director comes in later. The director can be creative as can many people he (along with the producer and the studio) hire.

Yes, the writer is important but this whole notion that there are secondary artists and primary artists is a load of bull.

Clearly you don't understand the importance of writing. And I realize that's your opinion. But how was that formed? Didn't you listen to Spielberg's speech at the Oscars some years ago about the importance of writing?

It's like saying that Russell Coutts isn't important because he didn't build the boat he won the race in.

I don't know who Mr. Coutts is, but I'm sure he deserves credit for building a fast boat. But the analogy doesn't work for me. (building a house with an architect is better, but not perfect).

And you're leaving out the actors. I'd say the casting is more important than the director. But this is a bit of a mixed bag since a name director can often pull in desirable actors and in fact, often chose to direct a movie because of their ability to pull in name talent. Some are okay filmmakers, whose real talent it in schmoozing stars.
 
Dale Launer said:
Dale you seem to have little to no understanding...

Really? Where do you get your understanding?

...let alone any respect for the role of the director.

Not true at all. I respect it for what it is; a difficult, taxing and sometimes monumental task.

You seem to think that the only creative mind in the entire filmmaking process is the writer.

Yes, I think the writer is the primary creative force of a movie. And the director comes in later. The director can be creative as can many people he (along with the producer and the studio) hire.

Yes, the writer is important but this whole notion that there are secondary artists and primary artists is a load of bull.

Clearly you don't understand the importance of writing. And I realize that's your opinion. But how was that formed? Didn't you listen to Spielberg's speech at the Oscars some years ago about the importance of writing?

It's like saying that Russell Coutts isn't important because he didn't build the boat he won the race in.

I don't know who Mr. Coutts is, but I'm sure he deserves credit for building a fast boat. But the analogy doesn't work for me. (building a house with an architect is better, but not perfect).

And you're leaving out the actors. I'd say the casting is more important than the director. But this is a bit of a mixed bag since a name director can often pull in desirable actors and in fact, often chose to direct a movie because of their ability to pull in name talent. Some are okay filmmakers, whose real talent it in schmoozing stars.
Click to expand...

Your comparison to the Architect I think suits this discussion..Every (great building) must be conceived holistically in the mind of the Architect. His free flowing sketches, ideas and programming of the narrative comes from a place which is always based on tons of research and constant iteration and refinement of the spacial narrative, based on the many "characters" in which the space interacts with (and environment, social context blah blah).. But Architects are trained to be the writers, anthropologists, researchers, visualizers, model makers, creators all at once. Which is important, because for a building to be truly successful, it needs to be conceived in the mind of someone who is a scholar of the humanities. (And not say an engineer)

But when we talk about writers, the issue here is that writers who don't dabble in directorial roles are not trained in full capacity to function as "an architect", in which being able to conceive, write, and execute from start to finish..Hence the need for the director, who becomes everything the writer should be doing with the visual language. Those which do write and direct, my hat goes off to them because for one to possess such talent is a total fucking mind fuck.
 
The thrill for me. back in the days of "Video Tools," was that the production of television was suddenly reduced in cost by 99%

Sure The Sony CV-1000 Porta Pack didn't make a picture as good as 35MM film (or even 16.) It certainly was no match for a PHILLIPS or RCA broadcast camera and a $200,000 quad recorder.

But it cost $995. Suddenly radicals, students, anybody with a story, had access to the means of production.

RED is the culmination of that late 60's revolution. Every year since has seen increases in quality at every level of production. 16MM news gathering fell by the wayside. Unknowns like Mike Shamberg were inventing the reality show.

The hollywood establishment has been finishing in 4K for a couple years now.
The improvement in throughput sharpness required sudden changes in the makeup and art direction.

Prior to digital intermediates, a 35 MM release print measured 800 Lines (for a 3:4 aspect) These measurements were undertaken by the SMTPE when the HD scanning specifications were written. The 1920 Digital image was a tiny bit better than pure optical film.

After switching to 4K intermediates, release prints from laser scanned negatives approached 3K in presentation resolution.

And now we have 4 K a both ends.

It not about saving $200 a minute in film on a $300 million dollar production, it's about making $600,000 theatrical features possible.

The video artists have been here since the equipment first emerged, now they are able to create works with the technical quality of the big guys.

As for Speilberg he is entitled to do anything he wants... I learned a lot watching his work, and hearing his insights in the DVD extras.

Lucas, on the other hand, pushed for the digital cinema from the very beginning. Both have my respect and admiration.
 
You can have it both ways...

You can have it both ways...

I love the image of projected 4K Red images, it isn't video and it isn't film. It is something new. It takes the instant gratification of video and utilizes the work ethic of film production (read that - you need focus pullers etc.).

The thing I always liked about 35mm film is if you had a print you could take a loupe and actually look at a frame and see it. With ordinary light.

Same way with Kodachrome and Ektachrome in stills, it was a tangible durable medium you could hold in your hand. I still like that memory.

I think we look at the masters of the renaissance the work stands as evidence the past. Film is not holding up to the rigors of time as many films are being restored at great costs. But the future of the digital is not assured either. Whatever brush the artist is holding we need to look to the future and make sure the art endures. This is the challenge for both mediums. How can future generations enjoy the art of an era regardless of the medium.
 
briferg;208055 I think we look at the masters of the renaissance the work stands as evidence the past. Film is not holding up to the rigors of time as many films are being restored at great costs. But the future of the digital is not assured either. Whatever brush the artist is holding we need to look to the future and make sure the art endures. This is the challenge for both mediums. How can future generations enjoy the art of an era regardless of the medium.[/QUOTE said:
Good points everyone. When I was reading about the film medium being restored at great cost and the renaissance masters it made me think of the Sistine Chapel mural restoration undertaken a few years back. For decades scholars have had great careers sermoning, lecturing & extolling us about the tones & muted colors of these great masters, and how this was their deep inner vision of the human soul, blah, blah, blah... only to find when the frescos weres cleaned they were bright bold colors; the muted color was soot from hundreds of years of candle buildup!!! :wacko: We humans can get really hung up on what's suppose to be right, correct by experts instead of making up our own minds.

What's this have to do with the thread?.... I don't know, but maybe if I can make a decent looking picture and take some folks on a gripping dramatic journey, I'll be happy. I would think Speilberg would agree that's really what this is really about... and popcorn sales!
Click to expand...
 
I'm told that Fuji will make film forever, even if it costs them to
do it. They are looking forward to being the last man standing in
this particular game. It's a status thing with this company.
Seeing Kodak out and all that.
So Mr Speilberg , you may just have to change filmstocks not formats
if you need to shoot film on and into the future.
Mezmo.
 
kodak made over a billion in revenue from selling film stock, and print film.

it will be a while, 2o years is accurate
 
i will keep shooting film whatever, i love my 16mm cameras, they are tactile, mechanical, solid , the have personality, i love the sound of film flying through the gate, that lovely purrr, the excitement of sending off a roll of film to be processed, the optical viewfinder, the smell of my cameras, i love them. I'm sure when my RED arrives i will develop a unique relationship with her, not one to replace my relationship with film, just a new one. Why should i want my RED cam to replace my film cam? i don't, it's just another tool, another brush and colors to add to the artistes pallet.
 
Bob.H said:
i will keep shooting film whatever, i love my 16mm cameras, they are tactile, mechanical, solid , the have personality, i love the sound of film flying through the gate, that lovely purrr, the excitement of sending off a roll of film to be processed, the optical viewfinder, the smell of my cameras, i love them. I'm sure when my RED arrives i will develop a unique relationship with her, not one to replace my relationship with film, just a new one. Why should i want my RED cam to replace my film cam? i don't, it's just another tool, another brush and colors to add to the artistes pallet.
Click to expand...

ahhh I love it.... very well said!

I am sad too to see film slowly disappear over the next couple of decades, but I guess I am on my way out too (eventually) :help:
 
god there is a lot of ragging on spielberg going on. I don't think he looks for visual perfect as much as emotional perfection/truth. I think thats what all great directors are looking for. some stumble into it. anyone that thinks spielberg doesn't have anything to do with the script or every aspect of making a film is nuts.

his films have a look and feel thats all him no matter who the writer was. he is an auteur. as for the entertainer/artist I think he is both. the percentage shifts depending on the subject matter.

I wouldn't rag on film either. its is beautiful and presently has the most dynamic range of any medium. thats what were striving for. thats what we are trying to achieve. we haven't gotten there yet. REDONE gets us about 95% of the way, Epic may get us to 98 or 99%. maybe in 10 years we'll surpass it. but film is still the platinum standard. as for flaws they are still there no matter what the medium. flaws in the actors faces , in the set design , in the lighting , all lenses have flaws no matter how high quality that transfer to the final image.

I think we should all be a little more humble. film will never stop being beautiful no matter how much a pain in the rear in can be to work with. most of the complaints are really about cost rather than quality anyway. the first time I shot film and I got to see the dailies it made me giddy.
 
If I had the money and a Red, I would do a digital master, but I would also do a 35mm master of it and store it at the national film institutes special filmarchive.
Both because I think it's more safe to store a physical frame then a digital, but also because I like what happens to the image when the grain is added.
And to have a scratch in a frame is just good.

I watched a screening of Gladiator recently and it had an imperfection in a few frames that just made me feel cozy :)
 
Glazarus said:
I think it's more safe to store a physical frame then a digital, but also because I like what happens to the image when the grain is added.
Click to expand...

I am a huge fan of film, so much so that I fought to not adopt digital still photography. But when I saw the quality difference between a transparency scan and a digital shot, I was sold. I love vinyl. I love film. But when we shot a short film on HD (Sony F900) and a critic said, "You shot Super 3d, yes?" I realized that the art isn't the medium; it's the artist. Which pissed me off to no end, but relived me a bit as well. (kudos to Kurt Rauf, the DP, btw). As much as I'd hate to admit it, I'm willing to shoot HD (Red), but I'd be doing a hell of a lot of tests beforehand.

Just as it bugs me to see 2.35:1 "scope" film (which are just matted) and relish in seeing true anamorphic films, I love seeing digital films that trick me into thinking they're film. But I still hate the snobs that call us "videographers" - but that's another topic.
 
I made a music video with a dvx100e without a mini35 adapter and just it's built in lens. Some people thought I shot that with 35mm or 16mm.

I think that it's stupid to mock either format, it's all in the artists eyes and vision. If you know how to tweak and grade material you can do wonders.
I just love film as a storing media due to it's physical form compared to ones and zeros.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top