Search results

Mark: After I'd explained the reason for the thread's change of direction in post #61 ("As happens sometimes, this discussion began to travel in a particular direction, sparked by Peter Jackson's decision to announce the DVD release date for KING KONG before the movie is even completed, let...

As well as shoddy sound systems in an age where Sound is as instrumental as Video. Funny you should mention this, Ryan, because at the same time I noticed a slide in compositional values, I also noticed a simultaneous rise in the value theaters (and, apparently, moviemakers) placed on sound...

Guys, aspect ratio is a creative decision. No argument there. This argument is boardering on ridiculous. No, only the belligerence with which some people choose to pursue it. Changing aspect ratios or keeping your format in mind during your work does not make you some kind of cinema...

this conversation should be in the movie section. Steve, I know things have gone off the rails around here, but I don't want you to think I'm 'having a go' at you when I say I disagree with this. :D This conversation is very much about DVD, and the way some of us feel it has impacted on...

You are so ignorant to assume I don't enjoy movies on the big screen with wonderful compositions. I also enjoy movies on the big screen with wonderful compositions. That's the point of this entire discussion. It's only through adherence to forum rules that I'm keeping my language toward...

Mark Walker and Kyle_D: It would appear, from all the comments you've given here, that your appreciation of cinema begins and ends at the TV screen. If you're happy with the ongoing subjugation of film, then nothing I can say will change your minds. You're well-served by today's 'moviemaking'...

Gary, does anyone use 65mm or VistaVision for effects work anymore? I would think these formats would be a wonderful wide canvas on which the fx artist could work, while not having to deal with the anamorphic element. Good question, Steve, and one I'm not equipped to answer at the moment...

Listen to James Cameron's commentary on Aliens. He specifically mentions that one of the reasons he didn't shoot the film in Anamorphic Scope was because of the problems Anamorphic lenses caused during his experience working as an effects technician on Escape From New York. Cameron has never...

Again, you assume lateral composition = artifice (which it doesn't - cf. my comments regarding THE UNTOUCHABLES and the Indiana Jones movies), and you make excuses for a stylistic shift which has clearly - and demonstrably - occurred during the rise of VHS, DVD and home theater. There may have...

Is Allen's work inferior because the dialogue is the thing it is most remembered for? Allen's forte is small, intimate comedy/drama, which - for me - isn't terribly cinematic. But that's his style, and no one's saying there isn't room for that kind of small-scale moviemaking. If SOME...

Tell me this movie looks bad. I dare you. It's rubbish! (ducks to avoid flying brick!) :D :D Seriously, I'll reserve judgement on KING KONG until I've seen the movie on a big screen. I hope Jackson proves me wrong, though I have to admit, I'm not really hopeful. However, I'm definitely...

It's almost as if most of the films playing at the local multiplex are all made for TV movies of the week that escaped, killed the real movies (or should that be reel movies?) and put themselves on that throne we all call the big screen. So that makes two of us who've noticed this shift...

Russell: I'm glad you took my comments in the spirit of debate, as they were intended. And I agree with you - I much prefer scope over 4:3! Sean: Gary, it may be the case that you have seen many different examples of movies that were composed to be more watchable on a smaller screen...

what counts in making a good movie is the story. The technology is there to tell that story in the best way possible. These are good points. But filmmakers from the 1950's to the 1980's seemed to know how to combine the two, and in a manner that was never detrimental to the films themselves...

These things would have nothing to do with the artistic choices made by the director, or the composition of the cinematography. Sean, I have to disagree with you. Take a look at any widescreen movie from the 1950's-1980's and compare it with today's 'TV-friendly' movies, and the compositional...

The problem is that the huge multiplexes have taken so much of the "experience" out of going to the theater that doing so no longer feels like an event. More often than not, it feels like a hassle. I can't blame the filmmakers if they're not terribly excited about the theatrical releases of...

if you are differentiating between stories told mostly in close-ups and medium shot (what was the primary MO of TV in the past) and the contrary (primarily medium shots and long shots) then i think technology is going to blur these differences the further along we go. Honestly, I don't see...

I do disagree with you. Then you should have been clearer. The 'rolling eyes' emoticon was unnecessary - I'm happy to debate opposing points of view. :wink: In 20 years, nobody is going to care when the DVD of King Kong first came out or whether it was originally shot Super35 or not...

films exist in theaters for a nano second compared to the future existence on home video. its theatrical run is a blip. it's now advance advertising and ballyhoo for its 'true' primary point of exploitation- the dvd rack. Yes, that's becoming more and more obvious. And KING KONG is just that...

To make a statement like that about a film none of has even seen yet...a film that isn't even finished, seems a bit off. Not at all. As you say, the movie isn't even finished yet, and Jackson has already announced the date of the DVD release, a release which seems - to me, anyway - to reek of...

Piracy is an important issue, to be sure, and it needs to be tackled at every level. But the end result of Hollywood's concerns over piracy, and the adoption of policies which will clearly harm theatrical exhibition, means there's a Catch-22 situation in effect. Releasing movies on DVD the same...

Yes, because the DVD release date and the film format it was shot in are what determines that In this case, the DVD release date and movie format are entirely symptomatic of Jackson's intentions for the film. He clearly sees the 'theatrical release' as nothing more than a dress rehearsal for...

Let's face it, Hollywood is already halfway to eliminating the 'theatrical exhibition' side of things altogether, with movies which are clearly and specifically designed to look and play better on TV than on theater screens. Shyamalan is absolutely right to sound warning bells about the idea of...

Sheesh. Why doesn't Jackson bypass theaters altogether and just go directly to home video? This isn't a movie, it's a glorified DVD...

Marco, I second your suggestion wholeheartedly. But I would also advise caution about using the IMDb as a reliable guide to movie technical specs, because the site is riddled with errors in this regard. It's fine if you're looking for the filmography of a particular actor or technician, but go...

Well, the likes of James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez would like to replace film with digital imagery (ie. video), thereby transforming 'cinema' into an adjunct of TV. You can still use anamorphic lenses with digital cameras, but the aforementioned filmmakers tend to prefer cropping the native...

it's gotten to the point where I often watch full-screen versions of Super35 films, apparently shot for--or covered for--4 by 3. I've done some captures, some side by side comparison and...while the director probably still insists in most cases that the 2.35:1 version is his perferred...

MAN OF THE HOUSE was photographed anamorphically (Panavision), so I'm afraid the 4:3 version will be hideously cropped. Not to worry, though: The way filmmakers waste the 2.35:1 frame these days (in an effort to placate the requirements of television), you won't be missing anything even remotely...

That's too bad. I myself lately can't stand his politics and certainly some of his opinions but that doesn't prevent me from admitting that he's an excellent director and a good actor. I understand exactly where you're coming from, Pat. Gibson is a good director (I enjoyed THE MAN WITHOUT A...

For various reasons (mostly to do with his politics, but let's not get into that), I can't stand Mel Gibson, and his presence sours what is otherwise a magnificent movie. I can understand why they've plastered him all over the packaging, for commercial reasons if nothing else, though I wish it...