Don't you think is time directors stop the filter madness? (1 Viewer)

[Ross Williams]

I was just trying to make a point with my sarcasm. You saying that directors can't use filters, from my point of view was almost as RIDICULOUS as my statements. In my mind every one of those things is tool of filmmaking. Some play a bigger part than others, but none of them should be taken from the craftsmen who use them.
Again, this whole thing started because you (at least the way it came across) were trying to take a filmmakers tool away from him. If you had just said that you dislike that tool, this whole thing never would have been started.
But maybe it's a good thing you said it that way. I think arguments are great as long as they stay civil. (And I think we've achieved that here.) Conversations are awfully boring when everybody agrees.
I think we just need to agree to disagree.
p.s. Have you seen Pitch Black? I can't think of a better example for the use of "filters". The whole amazing achievement of making it look like an alien planet was through the use of this tool. Otherwise it would have just looked like they were in the Arizona desert.
p.p.s. I wasn't attacking Mexico. I've been there many times, it's a beautiful country. I love it down there. But this was Soderbergh's vision of that aspect of Mexico. The world of drugs and currupt officials is not a pretty place.
------------------
"You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they
don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you." - Silent Bob
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
Optimus Prime Films

 

[Scott H]

There was absolutely no stereotyping of Mexico via the use of color in the film Traffic. If that's a criteria for stereotyping, positive or negative, countless films are 'guilty' of the exact same thing. And books. And paintings. And other forms of expression. I don't get this at all. Man, they made those Mexican desert locations look distinguishingly hot and dry, and even dangerious... Um, yep. And that's exactly what they were in that story.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[Wes Ray]

"Please, at least understand the subject before trashing into it. I mean, what you said is literally wrong regarding s,l,videotape, not just my opinion. That film's reputation has always been "brilliant", long before SS's recent string of hits."
Um, riiiiight. It's so "brilliant" that nobody mentions it at all for over a decade and only after he has another hit is it suddenly re-discovered. Yeah, that's one really memorable film, alright.
And just because sex, lies... won a bunch of awards and such, doesn't mean anything. Don't even get me started on what these awards shows and festivals really stand for. The true best movies never end up winning. Gladiator was a good movie, but not even close to being the best movie of the year last year. If Traffic had a better ending...or actually, ANY ending period!...it probably would've been my favorite movie last year, despite how overrated I feel Soderberg is. Very few times is the Academy ever truly right. It's mostly for glitz and glamor and to get TV viewers. That's about it. I can understand how Fight Club was overlooked for a Best Picture nomination, because it's merits can be debated back and forth, but what about The Game in 1997? You can't tell me there was a better film released that year. Awards mean diddly-squat.
sex, lies, and videotape is not a good movie. I'm not going to say it's brilliant or it rules just because it's by director-flavor-of-the-moment, Soderberg (as so many people do). I'm giving my honest, open-minded opinion, about a film by an overrated director, about a forgotten-till-now, overrated film.
Sorry I got way off subject, guys. I just had to address Seth for a bit.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Ummm... I'm a little nervous at sticking my toe in the waters here....
How about a film where we can agree about excessive use of color filters? Take the 1958 film "South Pacific". Here's a well-loved film, but even the reviewers that I recall had comments about the heavy-handed use of filters. In some scenes the actor's image goes "soft" behind a strong colored filter. I've had a hard time deciding whether Fox should spend any time coming up with a cleaned-up anamorphic version of this one.
------------------
Feline audience members Katie, Susie, and the one and only Fluffy Pumpkin

 

[Luis Gabriel Gerena]

"Have you seen Pitch Black? I can't think of a better example for the use of "filters". The whole amazing achievement of making it look like an alien planet was through the use of this tool. Otherwise it would have just looked like they were in the Arizona desert."
I have seen it and really like it. I totally agree with you that "filters" made the movie looked great and out of this world...unfortunately Traffic wasn't film im Mars or Mercury..it was Earth and it should look like Earth. But to elavorate, thats why I clarify that I don't want to stop them from using "filters" (I can't anyway) but to control and blend then with the film to enhance it like it did for Pitch Black were otherwise it would have looked like Earth. So I agree that "filters" are valuable tools but the key word is control...when it gets out of control you get a "Traffic" like look which some like others don't, still its unnatural.
Regards
PS (I keep trying not to post again but can't help it)