*** Official "SPY KIDS 2: ISLAND OF LOST DREAMS" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kline]

According to the following Hollywood Reporter review, the film was made with custom Hi-Def digital cameras:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hol...ent_id=1574237

 

[Nick Sievers]

Rodriguez filmed Once Upon A Time In Mexico digitally as well. He has also said that the technology has come a long way since AotC was filmed.

 

[Peter Kline]

.. and it has someways to go until it has the resolution and color pallette of film. Onward and upward..

 

[Esten]

What is the resolution of the digital filming technology?
Also,do they have anamorphic lenses for it? They didn't when Lucas shot EP2.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Also,do they have anamorphic lenses for it? They didn't when Lucas shot EP2.

Don't quote me on this, but I think they're still shooting high def spherical with a soft matte to 2.40:1 from the 1.78:1 source.

What I find ironic abou that is that the original Spy Kids was 1.85:1. Yet they're throwing away resolution to hard matte down to scope. I mean I can see Star Wars for consistency and just the overall vision of the film. But Spy Kids 2 could have (in my uninformed and utterly humble opinion) easily been a 1.85:1 film.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy

 

[Dan Brecher]

So, any comments on how the refined HD camera and lenses hold up with Spy Kids 2 from those who have seen the movie? I noticed Ebert didn't even bring it up.

Dan

 

[Joel Mack]

I saw the movie, and wasn't even aware it was shot digitally. Looked the same as any other analog film, to me, anyhow...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

So, any comments on how the refined HD camera and lenses hold up with Spy Kids 2 from those who have seen the movie? I noticed Ebert didn't even bring it up.

I think Spy Kids 2 has gone down in history as the first movie filmed high def that Ebert has given a thumbs up for He even mentioned that Rodriguez created a interesting look with the cameras in his harsh review of Full Frontal.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

First, the movie was 1.85 (actually, I'd bet it should be 1.78) not 2.40 'scope, so I don't know where that article got its facts from.

Second, I'm very glad that Rodriguez gave himself a "Director of DIGITAL Photography" credit, because I wouldn't want anyone who sees the movie to think that the ugly, waxy, limited, and dreary color palette could possibly have come from high-quality 35mm cameras and film. This film was UGLY. I'm sure the intent - at least I hope so - is to make it look low-budget. I will wager that it will look better on video if they transfer it from his tapes rather than a film print.

The movie itself was sort-of fun, though it only came to life when the monsters and Steve Buscemi showed up. The first hour or so is pretty tedious. But the kids liked it, and that's the audience they wanted.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Caught this one today while waiting for an appointment. Had a good time with it, though I think the original is a half-star better.
Haley Joel Osment's little sister was rather amusing, and it was nice to see Taylor Momsen (little girl from Carrey's Grinch flick) getting some more work. Though they're basically relegated to 'background gags', I had a good time with the Banderas-Gugino-Montalban-Taylor quartet, the numerous cameos and 'small bits' by actors I like (Trejo, Shalhoub, Cumming, Marin, Buscemi, McDonald, Paxton, etc.) kept me entertained, and the creatures/gadgets/amusement park rides were totally cool! Back to that cast: it's huge!
Call me a child, but this movie was a hell of a lot more fun than XXX was!

 

[Patrick Sun]

I thought it was okay, but I did fall asleep during the middle stretch of the film (until some kids in the theater woke me up...dagnabit!).

 

[Michael Reuben]

This film was UGLY.

Peter, did you see it on film or digital projection? I ask, because I just returned from a DLP presentation, and I thought the movie looked GREAT. It was the same DLP setup where I saw Star Wars: AOTC, and SK2 was a huge improvement -- clearer detail, a better sense of depth and texture, and a generally more pleasing appearance overall. I'm sure that part of the difference has to do with the overall design and the cartoonish look that Rodriguez was obviously going for. But I was greatly encouraged at what looks like a significant advance in the technology for digital acquisition.

And the movie itself was a riot. It's a shame it's not doing better, because it deserves to.

M.

 

[Terrell]

What was the resolution of the cameras Rodriguez used to shoot with? Anyone know? AOTC's digital camera was 2.2 million pixels.

I haven't seen this film, but I'd like to. I enjoyed the first one fairly well. So I'll check it out before it leaves the theater.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Terrell: It was was the same exact model as the Episode II cameras. Rodriguez bought two after Lucas showed him footage from Episode II in 2000. The difference in detail and depth is probably due to the fact that Rodriguez used newer, better lenses than Lucas did. Also, Lucas was notorious for recomposing shots in the editting room, at times zooming long shots into close-ups. Rodriguez didn't do that at all.

I differently wouldn't call the film ugly, as it was one of the more vibrant films color-wise I've seen in years. Probably since Batman and Robin was shot in Technicolor (as horrible as the film was, the cinematography while unsuited to the film itself was absolutely spectacular in and of itself.)

Hopefully, Lucas will use those 10k Viper camera for Episode III. I'd love to see what a digital film that totally blows 35mm away in resolution looks like.

 

[Terrell]

Here's some links on the Viper camera. Not sure if it blows away film Adam, but then I'm not up on the tech. It's 27.6 million pixels. It has 3 CCDs each comprising 9.2 megapixels.
Link Removed

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Terrell: Film is estimated to be between 4 and 5k in resolution. The Viper is 10k, which is roughly double that resolution. So that should blow 35mm away. Printing to anything less that 70mm should be a severe quality loss with the Viper camera.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Peter, did you see it on film or digital projection?

Film presentation in an auditorium that I know reasonably well. At first I thought the first reel must be defective, since the color was so poor (not to mention a subtle but persistent "jitter" to the image which was NOT present during the trailers), but each subsequent reel had the same look. The final reels - outdoors on the island - looked better to me, at least they didn't appear as murky (though the jitter was still present). I'd imagine the DLP version would be better since they skipped the tape-to-film stage - glad to hear it looked good.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Also, Lucas was notorious for recomposing shots in the editting room, at times zooming long shots into close-ups. Rodriguez didn't do that at all.

Rodriguez also composed for 1.85 or 1.78:1, which I believe is these cameras' native format. Lucas lost resolution zooming in to 2.35:1, which was just exacerbated when I saw it on a common-height screen.

I thought Spy Kids 2 looked pretty good on film, though, and I sat fairly close (almost always do).

 

[Dan Brecher]

Anyone know the specific new lenses used on Spy Kids 2 and Once upon a time in Mexico? I'm trying to arrange a day for me to play with the F900 in its latest form without having to pay the typical £850 a day rate.
Dan