Official Filmmaking Thread

Mecha wrote:

Looks like someone is jelly over the fact that Citizen Kane is considered the greatest film of all time.

Despite Vertigo having taken Citizen Kane's crown for a while now. 

Nice try, though. :)

yonny616 wrote:

@Jack You know the answer, unless your really slow to figure it out. Might as well answer for you since you're more likely too slow. He's one of the best filmmakers.

Trolling. Must be trolling.

yonny616 wrote:

@Jack You know the answer, unless your really slow to figure it out. Might as well answer for you since you're more likely too slow. He's one of the best filmmakers.

 
I think Shrute meant in which category is he one of the best filmmakers. Like, one of the best filmmakers ever? One of the best of OUR TIME? One of the best for the last DECADE? Etc.

All yonny616 basically said was Christopher Nolan is one of the best filmmakers. What's so hard to understand about that?

Confirmed trolling. Rambo, don't even bother.

More like Jack dun goofed.

I'm going to ignore any further attempts to (successfully) fuck with me.

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo interview Keanu Reeves about Side By Side. Keanu is a lot smarter than the surfer dude persona he seems to have acquired.

@Shrute, pretty cool interview, actually. :)

I've always been interested in this whole "Digital vs. Film" debate, however, I've never noticed that big of a difference myself? The only thing I notice is how they each handle color/contrast in different environments?

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

@Shrute, pretty cool interview, actually. :)

I've always been interested in this whole "Digital vs. Film" debate, however, I've never noticed that big of a difference myself? The only thing I notice is how they each handle color/contrast in different environments?

Film looks much sharper and more vibrant than digital. However, digital is preferred for its efficiency and ease of use. Digital cameras are easier to operate, they're cheaper, and you can film in most weather conditions and won't have to lug reels of film around for on-location shots. Plus, as Keanu said, you can keep the camera rolling without worrying about wasting film. Oh, and you can see the footage almost immediately, whereas with film, you have to wait until the footage is developed; the filmmakers would shoot something and then have meetings called "dailies," well, daily, before they shot the next day's footage, so if they made a mistake, they might not know till the next day, which can definitely slow down production on the film.

Danny Boyle mentions in Side By Side how digital camera technology was instrumental in the making of 28 Days Later. Remember the beginning when Cillian Murphy is just wandering through the abandoned streets? They had to clear off the streets to film that but could only clear people for a few minutes at a time; it'd be impossible to shoot those scenes with a film camera given their time constraints since it takes much longer to set up.

Side By Side should also give you a better appreciation for George Lucas, who spearheaded the movement to give artistic legitimacy to digital filmmaking, which, in turn, opened up a door for independen filmmakers not previously accessible, in which they can use a cheaper digital camera and still be taken seriously.

^ Hitchcock was one brilliant motherf***er, to say the least. 

Also, One of my fav. Hitchcock-interviews:

Cinematography is so darn underrated!


 

I agree, cinematography is hugely important. And I personally don't think anyone does it better than Emmanuel Lubezki.

You're only saying that 'cause he was the cinematographer on The Tree of Life

Seriously, though, he doesn't really seem to have been doing work on that many great films, TBH.

He did it do with Burn After Reading, though. So massive respect to that! :king:

His cinematography is beautiful, even if the film isn't that good. And it's not just The Tree of Life. He's done The New World and To the Wonder with Malick as well, both of which are among the most stunning visual experiences in cinema. He also collaborates with Alfonso Cuarón. Not to mention he's been nominated for five Oscars for his cinematography. Are they all great films? No, but his involvement has nothing to do with that, especially since none of the bad films he's done are ugly.

Roger Deakins is another great cinematographer. He's done The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, True Grit, and Skyfall. He lacks Lubezki's grace but is a technical master.

Yeah, his Cinematography is pretty (For as much of his work as I have seen), but, on a very silly track-record, I feel like he deserves to work on greater films. That's not to say the films he's worked on aren't great, but, I mean, just look at Wally Pfister, FFS, the dude has worked on massive blockbuster films, despite not being on Lubezki's level. That's not to say Pfister is bad, but I haven't seen him touch on that high of a level as some other cinematographers. Which just goes to show. 

However, I do enjoy Wally Pfister, nonetheless, but he's still not a particular favorite of mine. :king:

Tarantino is overrated, not that he's bad, just overrated.

I once thought Quentin Tarantino was overrated. But then I realized that it's the Kill Bill films that I find overrated.

I find him to be overrated, I find Kill Bill to be annoying, just like Pulp Fiction. I'm always willing to give him a chance though.

I watched Hellboy tonight and Guillermo Del Toro is truly a magnificent director when it comes to CBM's! I don't like Mama though. I can't wait for Justice League Dark/Heaven Sent/Dark Universe.

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Yeah, his Cinematography is pretty (For as much of his work as I have seen), but, on a very silly track-record, I feel like he deserves to work on greater films. That's not to say the films he's worked on aren't great, but, I mean, just look at Wally Pfister, FFS, the dude has worked on massive blockbuster films, despite not being on Lubezki's level. That's not to say Pfister is bad, but I haven't seen him touch on that high of a level as some other cinematographers. Which just goes to show. 

However, I do enjoy Wally Pfister, nonetheless, but he's still not a particular favorite of mine. :king:

Wally Pfister is a good cinematographer and I'm looking forward to his directorial debut either next year or in 2015. His success can be attributed to his professional relationship with Nolan, which, given Nolan's acclaim and marketability, provides Pfister with a huge advantage over other cinematographers. Nolan always uses him, and as such, he gets to work on some of Hollywood's biggest and best blockbusters. Emmanuel Lubezki, on the other hand, works with two directors who, while respected, are not known for making big, lavish, expensive films and raking in hundreds of millions of dollars like Nolan is. The biggest film that Cuarón ever did was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Lubezki wasn't even cinematographer on that film (it was more of a job for Cuarón and less his own project). The biggest Cuarón film he's done is Children of Men and even that doesn't have any sort of household name recognition to it. And Malick, well, he obviously has no mass appeal so I don't think I even need to go into detail with him. No film he's made would ever be a hit among audiences.

In conclusion, Pfister is more mainstream while Lubezki is the silent knight in the background; he's the hero cinematography needs, but not the one it deserves. Or something like that.

EDIT: Another one I forgot to mention is Shane Carruth. He's not strictly a cinematographer, but he does EVERYTHING on his film and manages to do them all so well. For a man who wears the hat of director, producer, writer, star, score composer, cinematographer, and editor, you'd never guess it was one guy juggling all of those jobs. You need not look further than Upstream Color for an example of his aesthetic brilliance (Primer is great too but it's not really THAT beautiful to look at; the brilliance of that is more in the writing).

I think we can all agree Zack Snyder is the one of the best visual directors of the last decade.

yonny616 wrote:

I think we can all agree Zack Snyder is the one of the best visual directors of the last decade.

He's certainly done some great-looking work. Watchmen in particular I think is a great film with a gorgeous aesthetic, and even though Sucker Punch is terrible, the art direction is amazing. Man of Steel was more toned down compared to Snyder's other work, but still had some subtle beauty in its color saturation and vibrancy. All that said, the slow motion really kills me. Sucker Punch would've been ten minutes long if every scene wasn't slowed to hell. I was so happy Man of Steel's set pieces didn't have any of that bullshit.

@Jack Yes, his work on Watchmen truly is a beauty. Especially because he doesn't go crazy on the slow-mo. 300 was great visually aswell. Sucker Punch while bad, had some really cool action scene's. I think he didn't use slow-mo in Man of Steel because he wanted to emphasis how fast these characters were. *Spoiler* One of my favorite scenes was when Faora does that combo on the multiple U.S. soldiers in smallville. *End of Spoiler*