The Movie Reel

[kskate2]

Just watched the first half of the second Hobbit fillum.

Um. I turned it off. Partly cos it's late at night and mostly cos it's gonna help me to sleep. It's boring! The prblem is, they're all gonna live until the end of the third film, so all their escapades are just so much ballet on strings before a blue screen. They're replaying the same scenes over and over from LOTR. Big mistake, making this into a three-parters... :nono

I thought I mentioned how bad the Hobbit was somewhere earlier in this thread. LOTR wannabee and knockoff isn't it? :lolz:

 

[DarthFed]

Toronto Film Festival is going on right now and Tobey Maguire is in town to promote his new movie with Liev Schreiber called Pawn Sacrifice. It is about the famous Bobby Fischer-Bobby Spassky chess match that was in 1972 (or was it 71).

Looks intriguing . I will check it out.

It was in 72. Sounds interesting though I wonder how exciting it can be just covering a chess match :snigger My guess is they will have a lot of added background on the Cold War and all since the match was seen as very symbolic.

 

[DarthFed]

Finally saw Guardians of the Galaxy last night. Good movie but no more IMO. A lot of people REALLY loved it but I didn't think it was that great. I liked Captain America 2 and X Men a lot more. But it was good humor and decent action, good enough to watch the sequel whenever it comes out.

 

[shawnbm]

I watched Hunger Games--Catching Fire this weekend. I must say, the whole premise of this story intrigues me and the movie was quite good. I think I shall read the rest of the series and see the third installment when it arrives.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

tarzan the ape man..(film c1932). johnny weismuller/Maureen o'sullivan.

they don't make em like that anymore.

 

[shawnbm]

The lady and I watched The Counselor last night. I must say that it was underwhelming, particularly with the cast that it had. It was incredibly disjointed and had insertions of scenes that did not add to the story apart from the obvious. I question if Ridley Scott was on a time clock and rushed through this. I would not recommend it.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The lady and I watched The Counselor last night. I must say that it was underwhelming, particularly with the cast that it had. It was incredibly disjointed and had insertions of scenes that did not add to the story apart from the obvious. I question if Ridley Scott was on a time clock and rushed through this. I would not recommend it.

I agree.. it had the right cast but the film was made very similar to what you can find on one of the premium cable movie channels.

 

[Kieran]

Cormac McCarthy wrote it, too. I haven't seen it but with all the talent available, I believe they made a turkey...

 

[TsarMatt]

Anyone here think about the actual decline of photochemical film, both as a negative format and as a distributional method? And the subsequent rise of digital cameras and projection?

It's such a contentious issue, but a really interesting one. It was only 15 years ago where the prospects of a new negative format replacing film, especially customary 35mm, were low, especially when you looked at the monopoly companies such as Arri and Panavision had in film equipment. Sure, directors such as Cameron, Lucas, and Coppola predicted it theoretically, but for it to come into actual effect - and so rapidly - continues to astonish me.

Today, a majority of films, particularly low-to-mid scale projects, are shot entirely with digital cameras. It's cheaper, it's more accessible, it's more user-friendly, and it ultimately aids the actual labour process of making a film drastically. And it's not just digital cameras - every film now enters a digital intermediate process. Editing is digital, colour grading is digital, finalisation is digital, and distribution is digital. Most cinemas now, as we all probably understand, feature digital projection only, whether it be 2K or 4K projection (only high-end theatres tend to feature the latter). And just think how huge this fundamentally is.

15+ years ago we'd go to a cinema and see an illusion. A collection of still images would go through a light bulb at 24 fps and we'd discern movement when, in actuality, there really wasn't any. It was hypnotic, almost, and part of what made the cinematic experience so truly unique. Now we attend a cinema and see a media file projected onto a large screen. It's like having a bigger TV and a better Blu-ray player. It's remarkable how much has changed in such a short period of time.

But it's the fact that, now, the negative format that used to be so closely associated with the art of making motion picture is... dying. Despite efforts from film advocates such as Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg, Scorsese, and various others, it will continue to decline.

I'm not giving my actual opinion yet on this. But I just wanted to put it out there.

 

[Kieran]

Good point, Matt. I read that even hold-outs like Scorsese and Tarantino have buckled and used digital, although in Tarantino's case, I think only for the scene he directed in Sin City. In fairness, there's an inevitability about it.

Funny you bring it up now, though: yesterday I sat through a movie binge - Dracula by Coppola, and Shutter Island by Scorsese. According to IMDb, Coppola refused to use modern Fx for his bloodily lush Dra-cool movie, relying on old school techniques of - for example - combining shots, projecting an actual map onto Keanu Reeves face while filming, and even going so far in the scene where Reeves is shaving and can't see Dra-cool's reflection in the mirror, of using a body double with his back to us, and Keanu Reeves staring back through a hole in the wall, instead of a mirror!

Shutter Island is the last film Scorsese shot entirely on film, although Wolf of Wall Street was mainly shot on film.

I think it's inevitable, much as I lament it. There's a romance about the old way of doing things, including making records and photography, but digital technology is just such a swifter way of doing things. There is, however, what Bob Dylan called "the temptation to see how phony you can be..."

 

[tented]

At some point it will no longer be profitable to manufacture and sell film, so companies will stop making it. That will truly be the end of film.

 

[Moxie]

Anyone here think about the actual decline of photochemical film, both as a negative format and as a distributional method? And the subsequent rise of digital cameras and projection?

It's such a contentious issue, but a really interesting one. It was only 15 years ago where the prospects of a new negative format replacing film, especially customary 35mm, were low, especially when you looked at the monopoly companies such as Arri and Panavision had in film equipment. Sure, directors such as Cameron, Lucas, and Coppola predicted it theoretically, but for it to come into actual effect - and so rapidly - continues to astonish me.

Today, a majority of films, particularly low-to-mid scale projects, are shot entirely with digital cameras. It's cheaper, it's more accessible, it's more user-friendly, and it ultimately aids the actual labour process of making a film drastically. And it's not just digital cameras - every film now enters a digital intermediate process. Editing is digital, colour grading is digital, finalisation is digital, and distribution is digital. Most cinemas now, as we all probably understand, feature digital projection only, whether it be 2K or 4K projection (only high-end theatres tend to feature the latter). And just think how huge this fundamentally is.

15+ years ago we'd go to a cinema and see an illusion. A collection of still images would go through a light bulb at 24 fps and we'd discern movement when, in actuality, there really wasn't any. It was hypnotic, almost, and part of what made the cinematic experience so truly unique. Now we attend a cinema and see a media file projected onto a large screen. It's like having a bigger TV and a better Blu-ray player. It's remarkable how much has changed in such a short period of time.

But it's the fact that, now, the negative format that used to be so closely associated with the art of making motion picture is... dying. Despite efforts from film advocates such as Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg, Scorsese, and various others, it will continue to decline.

I'm not giving my actual opinion yet on this. But I just wanted to put it out there.

I love that you bring this up. I work in the "film" business, and we're thinking about it hugely. Hollywood has struck a deal with Kodak to commit to using a certain amount of film. This is important not only because we want to keep the option of the photochemical process as a tool in the art-form, but because it also is a better way of archiving films, than in the digital format. So many digital films are being lost because they aren't archived properly, especially, I would say, the work of young filmmakers. There is a great movement in foundations to transfer great little indie movies to a film master, because it archives better.

Another point in the digital projection v. film projection issue is that the small art house will get cut out, as they can't afford to convert to digital projection. If they can't get good 35mm prints to screen, they'll go out of business, and that would be a tragic loss.

I don't think you're actually right to say that it saves in labor. That is not my experience. It's cheaper in some ways, but costs in others. It doesn't save in production, though it can save in post, and does save in distribution, if you're projecting digitally.

And here's another thought: when we see a film projected at 24fps, we only see every other frame. This is the persistence of vision, that we see it as a continuous thing. But the mind rests every other frame. When we see a digitally shot film projected digitally, we see every frame. That's a much larger assault on the senses, and a much different relationship, emotionally, to the film.

At some point it will no longer be profitable to manufacture and sell film, so companies will stop making it. That will truly be the end of film.

See my above. But I really think that we can't kill film. At least, not yet. And it seems that filmmakers with sway are trying to prevent it. Much as large-format in stills, or 70mm are only the tools for artists, we still need real film to be an actual tool. It's going to be expensive to keep it going. It's not just Kodak and film, but labs that will process it. Let's see if we can keep them viable.

 

[Kieran]

I'm watching Octopussy on telly and it has among the cast the ex-pro who gave Borg the heebie jeebies at Wimbledon one year in the seventies - Vijay Amritraj. It's very silly but not the worst of the Roger Moore's, but I'm laughing here because Vijay's character - "Vijay" - just battled off some baddies using a tennis racket. :lolz: :laydownlaughing

Did Roger Moore play Bond like a dirty old man?

 

[Kieran]

Okay, I take it back, this film is really bad! How did the franchise ever survive the Roger Moore years?

 

[Front242]

^ Personally I loved Roger Moore. A right womanizer if ever there was one!

 

[tented]

They were fun at the time, but whenever I've watched one recently it has felt quite dated.

Every actor pales in comparison to Sean Connery, IMO. He was born to play Bond: the voice, the demeanor, the ultra-cool attitude, the natural authority, the perfect mix of drama, comedy, and action.

Can't stand Daniel Craig. What a terrible choice. He has zero personality, and the look is all wrong.

 

[Kieran]

Daniel Craig has a pouting monkey face. He brings a bouncers physicality to the role, but nothing of the suaveness that Connery also brought. Connery could be tough and smooth, but Daniel Craig is just another action hero. I loved Skyfall, and I think he's doing okay, but he's not distinctive. Bond is kinda now a response to Bourne, but the three Bourne movies with Matt Damon were excellent.

You're right about how dated the Roger Moore films are. His sleazy old git routine is one Jimmy Saville would copy. The humour, famous as it became, was like something the Muppet Show would pass on...

 

[Kieran]

^ Personally I loved Roger Moore. A right womanizer if ever there was one!

I know, he got all the babes, but there's a scene in this where he's mucking about with a camera, secretly filming a secretary's cleavage and joking with Q about it and it's sleazy and childish. I thought, where's the Rowntree investigators when you need one? :Lolz:

 

[shawnbm]

James Bond begins and ends with the Scotsman, Mr. Connery. Roger Moore was too cute with his own wit and the writing was horrible in some of those films. Dalton? A complete disaster. The Irishman, Peirce Brosnan, is probably my second favorite of the Bonds. Daniel Craig just does not seem to be 007--he's like an angry detective out to hit 'em hard. I liked him in that Layercake movie, or whatever its title was.

 

[the AntiPusher]

James Bond begins and ends with the Scotsman, Mr. Connery. Roger Moore was too cute with his own wit and the writing was horrible in some of those films. Dalton? A complete disaster. The Irishman, Peirce Brosnan, is probably my second favorite of the Bonds. Daniel Craig just does not seem to be 007--he's like an angry detective out to hit 'em hard. I liked him in that Layercake movie, or whatever its title was.

Actually, I felt that Daniel Craig's 2006 Casino Royale was the best adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1953 Casino Royale007 character that we have seen in years. He is was very dark, a blunt instrument but this Bond is a bit brilliant to detail to the moment of current activites of MI6. I like Pierce Bronson and felt he did well with the weak material he was given to work with.