The Man Who KILLED the Movies...
5
And this is the only post on this subject? Am I the last film purist in
America? On the planet? No digitized form of motion picture technology
will ever match the asthetic virtues of film--a world where black is the
absence of light, not the saturation of color--just like light works in the
'real world' as it is reflected off objects and bounced into our eager
awaiting eyes and visual pallettes. Many argue Lucas has done enough to
erode the art of film by creating the 'blockbuster mentality' that
predominates Hollywood product today. Now, it seems he is truly,
desperately trying to become...
...THE MAN WHO KILLED THE MOVIES.
What's up with that?
DailyRich
>erode the art of film by creating the 'blockbuster mentality' that
>predominates Hollywood product today.
Lucas didn't create that. The wannabe's who followed after Star Wars with
their own attempts to cash in did. You can't blame Lucas for making a movie
people wanted to see.
DailyRich
The Pangea Reunification Army. One World. Literally.
mjc...@att.net
1. It does not biodegrade well
2. It is very bad for the environment
3. The ink used for color film is acidic
4. Film is VERY expensive and getting moreso each day. Which leaves beggining
filmmakers always looking second rate compared to those who have money. Thus
we only see rich men's visions make it big. The more digital technology is
used and made available the cost will go down allowing for that dirt poor
dishwasher with the great film in his head to ONE DAY make a film just as
pretty as the big boys.
\Thank you George Lucas, for throwing a wrench in Hollywoods machine.
Marcus
Chris Pierson
Basement Jaxx <stupi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lucasfilm announces principle photography of Episode on... ...video
>tape!
>> And this is the only post on this subject? Am I the last film purist in
>> America? On the planet? No digitized form of motion picture technology
>
>digital film techniques.
It's 5, for crying out loud. He's trolling again, by taking a potentially
interesting subject for debate and starting out by flying completely off
the handle. He knows what he's doing, though he probably won't admit it.
Only one solution: ignore him.
--
Chris Pierson ** 15 Favorites of 1999: Run Lola Run, The Hurricane, American
** Beauty, The Matrix, Fight Club, Toy Story 2, Last Night,
Author ** Genghis Blues, The Insider, Rushmore, The Iron Giant, Boys
Game Designer ** Don't Cry, The Phantom Menace, The Blair Witch Project, Go
Peter Ferguson
5 wrote:
> Lucasfilm announces principle photography of Episode on... ...video tape!
> And this is the only post on this subject? Am I the last film purist in
> America? On the planet? No digitized form of motion picture technology
> will ever match the asthetic virtues of film--a world where black is the
> absence of light, not the saturation of color--just like light works in the
> 'real world' as it is reflected off objects and bounced into our eager
> awaiting eyes and visual pallettes. Many argue Lucas has done enough to
> erode the art of film by creating the 'blockbuster mentality' that
> predominates Hollywood product today. Now, it seems he is truly,
> desperately trying to become...
>
> ...THE MAN WHO KILLED THE MOVIES.
>
> What's up with that?
This all reminds me of the song "Video killed the Radio star"
Technology will advance, if Lucas doesn't do it, then someone else will a few
years down the line... Burning images onto a piece of film is an old
technology. Now old doesn't necessarily mean bad. But technological advances
push things forward to new techniques. Just as the 45 'replaced' the record,
and the 8-track the 45, and the cassette tape the 8-track, and the Cd the
cassette and records.. So will this happen. As Shmi says, 'you can't stop the
change anymore then you can stop the suns from setting.'
--
Peter Ferguson
Sheridan Student
Star Wars Fan - Visit my Starwars RPG site at
http://www.geocities.com/The_G8kpr
And don't forget to vote, head to 'Extras' for the booth.
Basement Jaxx
tape!
> And this is the only post on this subject? Am I the last film purist in
> America? On the planet? No digitized form of motion picture technology
No, but you're the type of guy who doesn't know anything about analog and
digital film techniques.
> will ever match the asthetic virtues of film--a world where black is the
> absence of light, not the saturation of color--just like light works in
the
> 'real world' as it is reflected off objects and bounced into our eager
> awaiting eyes and visual pallettes. Many argue Lucas has done enough to
Where did you stole that lovely description? Or do you have a poetic side?
> erode the art of film by creating the 'blockbuster mentality' that
> predominates Hollywood product today. Now, it seems he is truly,
Actually I'd prefer a blockbuster instead of a cheesy B-movie.
> desperately trying to become...
>
> ...THE MAN WHO KILLED THE MOVIES.
Huh? I would rather say, YOU're the man who kills my nerves.
> What's up with that?
It's a horse!
Greetings Earthlings, BJ!
Jim Fisher
news:38FA8375...@interlog.com...
> Technology will advance, if Lucas doesn't do it, then someone else will a
few
> years down the line... Burning images onto a piece of film is an old
> technology. Now old doesn't necessarily mean bad. But technological
advances
> push things forward to new techniques. Just as the 45 'replaced' the
record,
> and the 8-track the 45, and the cassette tape the 8-track, and the Cd the
> cassette and records.. So will this happen. As Shmi says, 'you can't stop
the
> change anymore then you can stop the suns from setting.'
The difference with all these technologies is that you have a significant
jump in quality as you progress. Going from 35mm to digital video is about
five steps back in quality.
Best,
Jim
Peter Ferguson
Jim Fisher wrote:
>
>
> The difference with all these technologies is that you have a significant
> jump in quality as you progress. Going from 35mm to digital video is about
> five steps back in quality.
So you were there with George and Rick as they tested these new sony cameras.
Wow amazing... Maybe you should have told George this when they were doing
tests.
Anyways, you may feel that it's quality is worse, and you probably will even
say so after convincing yourself that it will be bad while watching EpII. But
the fact is, these are new prototype cameras, and Lucas and McCallum have been
doing tests with them. If they say that they're equal in quality, then I'll
trust them...
But it sounds like this is just another bullet in the gun for anti-starwars
people to curse and put down Ep II when it comes out (and oh they will.. ).
Jämes
> Actually I'd prefer a blockbuster instead of a cheesy B-movie.
I prefere the B-movie (when it comes to C, it's even better): you have fun
with the blockbuster for 2 hours. Afterwards, you feel ashamed to have
appreciated (when not annoyed to have to see it twice with your brother-in
-law) it and see it as a B-movie;
with a B-movie, you laugh at it from the beginning... (just watched some
stupid erotic Z-film last friday, .... RTOFL). Of course the B-movie must
be stupid enough.
Chris Pierson
Peter Ferguson <Pf...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>Anyways, you may feel that it's quality is worse, and you probably will even
>say so after convincing yourself that it will be bad while watching EpII. But
>the fact is, these are new prototype cameras, and Lucas and McCallum have been
>doing tests with them. If they say that they're equal in quality, then I'll
>trust them...
>
>But it sounds like this is just another bullet in the gun for anti-starwars
>people to curse and put down Ep II when it comes out (and oh they will.. ).
We know they will. Two years to go, and the knives are already sharpening.
I think the people making the digital-doesn't-look-as-good-as-film
argument are confusing _recording_ with _projection_. There's a case to be
made that digital projection's still fairly low-quality, but digital film?
Hell, the guys who made The Last Broadcast managed to make a (bad) segment
of their film look fairly close to film, and they didn't have the
equipment, the money, _or_ the talent George has at his disposal. With
what Lucas has to work with, Episode II isn't exactly gonna be
Pixelvision. ILM are a bunch of bright folks -- given what we know they
can do, giving digital footage the look of film is a cakewalk.
On the digitally-shot movie front, is anyone else as eager to see Time
Code as I am? It sounds like a really interesting film, conceptually --
one 93-minute piece, shot from four different perspectives without cuts,
in split screen. Couldn't be done with film, of course: even with Rope,
Hitchcock had to use trickery to make it look like one continuous shot. I
wonder if this means Mike Figgis will actually be the MAN WHO RUINED THE
MOVIES. ;)
Chris Pierson
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E4mes?= <James_le_grompf@.nikocity.de> wrote:
>Basement Jaxx wrote:
>
>> Actually I'd prefer a blockbuster instead of a cheesy B-movie.
>
>I prefere the B-movie (when it comes to C, it's even better): you have fun
>with the blockbuster for 2 hours. Afterwards, you feel ashamed to have
>appreciated (when not annoyed to have to see it twice with your brother-in
>-law) it and see it as a B-movie;
Why do you feel this way? Blockbusters are meant to be entertaining and
escapist. If they succeed at this, why do you feel shame?
Basement Jaxx
in
> >> America? On the planet? No digitized form of motion picture
technology
> >
> >No, but you're the type of guy who doesn't know anything about analog and
> >digital film techniques.
>
> interesting subject for debate and starting out by flying completely off
> the handle. He knows what he's doing, though he probably won't admit it.
> Only one solution: ignore him.
I have a ignore feature here in Outlook Express, but I didn't try it yet.
Does it work?
Greetings Earthlings, BJ!
Basement Jaxx
> jump in quality as you progress. Going from 35mm to digital video is
about
> five steps back in quality.
It depends on the CCD resolution of that digital cam. The cams that will be
used in EP2 sample at 1920x1440. Do you know what resolution is used when
they digitally scan 35mm films? It's 2048x1536.
Filter algorithms are today that good that you'll not notice the resampling
from 1920x1440 to 2048x1536. The latter one is only 6% larger, so why do you
people make such a wind around it? Either the pictures are scanned by the
VFX people to work on, or they're scanned directly at the shoot.
There were rumors that some scenes in EP1 were filmed used dig. cams and
they looked fuzzy. That rumor is true, but the cams used there were some
sort of "beta"-cams, that means they were in development.
In my eyes, the use of digital cams will improve quality largely.
Greetings Earthlings, BJ!
Basement Jaxx
>
> I prefere the B-movie (when it comes to C, it's even better): you have fun
> with the blockbuster for 2 hours. Afterwards, you feel ashamed to have
> appreciated (when not annoyed to have to see it twice with your brother-in
> -law) it and see it as a B-movie;
> stupid erotic Z-film last friday, .... RTOFL). Of course the B-movie must
> be stupid enough.
I don't walk to the video store getting B-movies on tape, and I won't get
into the cinema to see one. But if such stuff runs on TV, I watch it with
some friends and we're doing MST3K-style :)
Greetings Earthlings, BJ!
Michael D. Ward
Chris Pierson wrote:
> In article <8ddgfu$dq5$2...@news1.skynet.be>,
> Basement Jaxx <stupi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Lucasfilm announces principle photography of Episode on... ...video
> >tape!
> >> And this is the only post on this subject? Am I the last film purist in
> >> America? On the planet? No digitized form of motion picture technology
> >
> >No, but you're the type of guy who doesn't know anything about analog and
> >digital film techniques.
>
> It's 5, for crying out loud. He's trolling again, by taking a potentially
> interesting subject for debate and starting out by flying completely off
> the handle. He knows what he's doing, though he probably won't admit it.
> Only one solution: ignore him.
To Chris you listen.
Rich Handley
"5" <r...@5.com> wrote:
>Lucasfilm announces principle photography of Episode on... ...video tape!
>And this is the only post on this subject? Am I the last film purist in
>America? On the planet? No digitized form of motion picture technology
>will ever match the asthetic virtues of film--a world where black is the
>absence of light, not the saturation of color--just like light works in the
>'real world' as it is reflected off objects and bounced into our eager
>awaiting eyes and visual pallettes. Many argue Lucas has done enough to
>erode the art of film by creating the 'blockbuster mentality' that
>predominates Hollywood product today. Now, it seems he is truly,
>desperately trying to become...
>...THE MAN WHO KILLED THE MOVIES.
>What's up with that?
Sincerely,
Rich Handley (Card...@NO-SPAMunix.asb.com)
Edward Curtis
> > It's 5, for crying out loud. He's trolling again, by taking a potentially
> > interesting subject for debate and starting out by flying completely off
> > the handle. He knows what he's doing, though he probably won't admit it.
> > Only one solution: ignore him.
>
> To Chris you listen.
>
:-)
MTFBWY,
--
Edward Curtis -- curtis at labyrinth dot net
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
-- Yoda, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
"God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love
and self-control." -- St. Paul, 2nd Epistle to Timothy, The Holy Bible
Chris Pierson
Edward Curtis <cur...@labyrinth.net> wrote:
>Michael D. Ward stepped up to the podium and proclaimed:
>> > It's 5, for crying out loud. He's trolling again, by taking a potentially
>> > interesting subject for debate and starting out by flying completely off
>> > the handle. He knows what he's doing, though he probably won't admit it.
>> > Only one solution: ignore him.
>>
>> To Chris you listen.
>>
>Yes, wise is Chris. Trolls you must feed not.
Trolling leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate ... leads to killfiles.
Jämes
> Why do you feel this way? Blockbusters are meant to be entertaining and
> escapist. If they succeed at this, why do you feel shame?
Remember some blockbusters from the 80's? Seen them since then?
Very good films are rare, films that you don't LOL after 10 years are
just as rare.
Blockbuster are made to be good for a few months. Afterwards, makers
don't care if you find them shitty or not. Examples don't come in mind, but
if you check out the Premiere database, you sure would find what I mean.
(ID4 could fit, but it's not old enough)
Oliver J. Hanau
Basement Jaxx wrote:
> I have a ignore feature here in Outlook Express, but I didn't
> try it yet. Does it work?
Like a charm. I don't ever see 5's posts, only the replies.
Oliver.
Chris Pierson
I do remember some bad blockbusters from the '80s. I also remember a fair
number of good ones, like Raiders, Empire, Jedi, Last Crusade, Aliens, the
first Terminator, E.T., Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, Back to the
Future, the first two Lethal Weapons, Die Hard, Big, Star Treks II-IV,
and Superman II. I'm not ashamed to admit having enjoyed all of these;
some of them I still watch even today, and while I may cringe at the
occasional moment that's become dated in the intervening decade, I don't
"LOL." None are particularly deep, but they're all fun, and that's what
matters.
What you're doing wrong is equating two different things: blockbusters and
crap. There's plenty of intersection between the two, but they're
far from identical. Believe me, there's just as much crap to be found in
the artsy/indie film circuit. Not as many people may see it as see, say,
Godzilla or Wild Wild West, but it's there -- trust me, I've been to film
festivals. :)
Peter Ferguson
Jämes wrote:
> Chris Pierson wrote:
>
> > Why do you feel this way? Blockbusters are meant to be entertaining and
> > escapist. If they succeed at this, why do you feel shame?
>
> Remember some blockbusters from the 80's? Seen them since then?
> Very good films are rare, films that you don't LOL after 10 years are
> just as rare.
> Blockbuster are made to be good for a few months. Afterwards, makers
> don't care if you find them shitty or not. Examples don't come in mind, but
> if you check out the Premiere database, you sure would find what I mean.
> (ID4 could fit, but it's not old enough)
yea but it's still shitty...
Ever watch 'V' ? They ripped off of 'V' hard... Apparently the makers of ID4
met up with those of 'V' at a convention or screening or something. and the ID4
guys said "Hey wow, we love your stuff, it inspired us for ID4" and the 'V'
guys answered something like "Yea, I can see you ripped off of 'V' quite a
bit."
Others that come to mind are Speed, any Van Damme movie, any Segal movie, and
the occasional Arnold movie..
but arnold makes some cool ones too (ie Predator.. Was on the other night..
cool, a little cheezy, but timeless. especially with lines like "Get to da
chop'pa" or "Come 'ere, Kill me.. Doo eet.. Doo eet now.. Keeal me."
Jämes
> What you're doing wrong is equating two different things: blockbusters and
> crap.
Must admit the temptation is high.
> There's plenty of intersection between the two, but they're
> far from identical.
There's a high probability that a blockbuster will become crap
within a few years. Either crap or a boring film. I prefere crap.
A very good film is an exceptions.
And sorry, but Back to the Future (III is the most stupid), beverly hills
cop, and Ghostbuster... well, sure you do not find them so good now,
do you? (I think they were too close the era -?- they went out to support
the effects of time)
> Believe me, there's just as much crap to be found in
> the artsy/indie film circuit.
Though they was funny to death... Nothing's better than a film that wants to be
serious, but that does only succeed in making laugh. (best memory: Crash,
from Verhoeven. Never heard that silly dialogues since films from Lelouch
-really, this guy's got a touch)
> Not as many people may see it as see, say,
> Godzilla or Wild Wild West, but it's there -- trust me, I've been to film
> festivals. :)
What I meant is if you look at blockbusters from the 50's and don't laugh
at them.... even if they were considered as good 20 years ago.
Anyway, I also enjoyed some of them, but I won't tell my children when
I have some...
I even enjoyed things like Rollerball, but there I had a good excuse: I was 9-10
when I saw it on TV...
Ron McAvoy
Just called in while passing as it's been a while since I visited the NG.
Apologies for butting in but FWIW my 2 cents-worth is along these lines:
Since most of the special effect are now produced digitally it makes sense
to use a digital medium that will render the finished effect seamlessly, and
therefore add greatly to the realism of the finished shot.
Shooting digitally means you can cut and re-edit your original footage
without losing your original footage, and corrections (such as e.g.
differences in lighting) can be more easily brought about.
Special effects usually claim the bulk of a movie's budget so if the movie
can be made cheaper then that leaves money for other things (big-name
actors, more shots 'on location' etc.)
We've already had the option of digital sound for a number of years now, so
why not the image as well?
Best Regards to all,
Ron McAvoy
5 <r...@5.com> wrote in message
news:9wpK4.5312$I75.4...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Edward Curtis
> Since most of the special effect are now produced digitally it makes sense
> to use a digital medium that will render the finished effect seamlessly, and
> therefore add greatly to the realism of the finished shot.
>
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Ron McAvoy
--
Ron McAvoy.
Edward Curtis <cur...@labyrinth.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.136a8e21c...@207.106.93.136...