Miami Vice - The Movie (Shot on High Def)

John Vincent · August 1st, 2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Weber

The night time stuff where Sonny and the girl are walking bugged me. Some of the night time scenes looked so "video".

I thought something similar just from some of the footage from the commercial, that immediate "Wow, that's clearly video" impression.

Now, I don't hate on stuff that looks video and obviously Mann wanted that look (and from the reports of numerous HD camera /malfunctions problems stemming from the heat it was the harder road to hoe).

The new ROCKY trailer also has some clearly video shots in it - but again, I think it was for effect. Perhaps trying to garner more of the <25 year old crowd?

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Dean Bull · August 2nd, 2006, 02:15 AM

I won't hop into the fray here to defend Mann's choices because it's clearly mute... the guy has a list of film behind him that basically make him a 500 pound gorilla.

However, I will paraphrase some comments made by David Mullen on other boards related to Cinematography... David basically said that Mann is using the aberations of the digital format to create an asethetic -- which begs the question, is clipping, digital noise, smearing, viable tools in cinematography.

I also recall hearing that Mann's "spontaneous" style in his recent movies are actually very very calculated. What appears to be a found moment is actually pre-determined. Take it or leave it.

And finally, can we all agree that Micheal Mann is, hands down, the master of how to end a movie? theif, Heat, the insider... Like king of the final shot.

Best,

Dean

John Yamamoto · August 2nd, 2006, 03:11 AM

If u r Michael Mann or with some hollywood standing, that;s OK to try the video look, for indy film maker, this is rather a curse than do any good but for ur credit card limit. people who has power or $$ to distribute movie seems not consider video look is a selling point, they think this is a no-no. as very hard to differeciate the good movie with video look to many thousand bad digital "films".
the best-- IMHO, is just do what u think the best, even HD will not be the same as shooting on 35mm. it's hard to tell which one is better.

if anyone ask u what u shot on, just say DIGITAL, period.
if they ask more-- just simply say do u know George Lucas, we shot in more or less the same format.

if u have $$ to do blow up to 35mm, simply say we do DI and "best fit" res.

JY

Jaron Berman · August 2nd, 2006, 10:07 AM

Personally, I enjoyed the aesthetic choices. I think that we are at a crossroads now in cinematography, where the "look" of a movie is beyond budgetary constraints. A lot of people here have complained that the movie felt amateurish, video-like, or just crappy. Those feelings are based on some reference of "normal."

A great number of people on this board also strive for the elusive film-look, using adapters, post tools, etc. That's to say that shallow DOF, 24 frames/second, widescreen and film gamma are all how a movie should look. But production is maturing along with the technology. In the Tate Modern museum in London there is a sculpture hanging from the celing that reads "art has been dead since the romans." If you look at art as the ability to mimic reality, then the sculpture is true. We've done that, so I guess there is nothing left to do. In film terms, you could argue that we have perfected capture on film in a style that reads to viewers as "film." So we have achieved perfection, let's not move forward. Instead of worrying about how close we can make our new technology mimic OLD technology, I think we should be looking at the advantages and freedoms we gain because of the unique aesthetics of the medium.

The "video-look" has long been panned as amateur or trashy, not because of some inherent lack of quality, so much as an association with poor programming. A crappy film is crappy whether it was shot on hi8 or 65mm. And conversely, a good film is good no matter what the format. But I think Mann is on to something with his use of digital capture. The way that digital deals with sodium light, and underexposure is truly incredible. The ability to mix cadences is not new, it's just not a classical technique. Film can be shot 48 for 48 also, and film can be shot at wide shutter angles, but it usually is not. Its a look, a conscious, and instead of fighting it tooth and nail because it doesn't look like film, I think we should consider it as another tool. Whether everyone in this particular forum chooses to embrace it or not is a personal choice, but as digital capture proliferates, I believe that we will see more and more people using the technology creatively as Mann has.

Matthew Ware · August 2nd, 2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Gorski

...
only a portion of the movie was shot on vipercam. alot of it was shot on high-definition video; hence the video look. ...

The Viper FilmStream Camera is a high-definition video camera. No if's, no and's, no but's.

Krystian Ramlogan · August 2nd, 2006, 01:49 PM

The master of the ending? Clearly Miami Vice ends abruptly with no transition or conclusion to the "story" - whatever bits and pieces there were of a story. Unless it made sense for both leads to be apart at the end? Or was there a sub-text of Colin Farell entering rehab: art imitating life?

I have no problem with HD, Video, Film, CGI, whatever, being used to tell a story. I will use whatever I can to tell my stories. However, Miami Vice does not capture my interest or imagination in any way simply because the story is bad, the acting is poor, and the cinematography really looks amateurish. Realilty? No one speaks like the dialogue in this film. My opinion.

Anyone can argue that every cut, smear, lens flare, soft focus, whatever, that they see on their material was deliberate - no one can ever say otherwise, unless you are the Cinematographer, or the Director.

I also heard of problems on the set (from my cousin and her friend). In light of that I'm willing to say that perhaps there were problems that resulted in less than perfect material and M Mann tried to use the material creatively. I'll give kudos for that, but the overall film sux. It's weak and does not really represent a movement forward regardless of whether it was shot on HD or Film.

As to using the inherent qualities of a medium, both he good and the bad, to paint a picture...I'm all for it! Smear, Lens Flares, Blown Highlights, Crushed blacks, pushed shadows, whatever. It's all visual elements that can enhance your "story" that is, if there is a story.

My 2c.

Jos Svendsen · August 4th, 2006, 06:14 AM

Can anybody confirm that the original theme by Jan Hammer is not used in this movie? I have only seen the trailers, and miss the driving music by Jan Hammer.

Krystian Ramlogan · August 4th, 2006, 09:38 AM

It's true, the Jan Hammer Theme was not used.

Daniel Weber · August 4th, 2006, 08:23 PM

iTunes Music Store has the soundtrack if you want to listen to it.

The remake of the "In The Air Tonight" song is not bad. Otherwise the rest is o.k. Just my opinion though.

Dan Weber

Alan James · August 4th, 2006, 09:32 PM

I HATED the look of Miami Vice. Why bother going to the movies to see something that looks worse then what I can shoot myself? I go to movies to see good-looking quality work that took talented people to bring it to life. People spend many years learning how to artistically make film look nice. The lighting shown in this movie tells me that I don’t have to know anything at all to make a movie. All I have to do is point and shoot, probably with auto settings and everything. This is not saying that I don’t like HD. Superman returns looked great (yet was also a bad movie) and was shot completely on digital. Further more, I hated the story mostly because they treated it like a two-hour episode of the show, rather then introducing the characters like any other movie would. If this was a directorial decision by Mann then I no longer have any faith in his abilities. I wish I could find one good thing about the movie but unfortunately I can’t. Maybe the credits, I liked seeing them because I knew the movie was finally over, and they were a cool blue color, which was easy on the eyes.

Dean Bull · August 4th, 2006, 09:37 PM

After sitting on it for a week, I find myself liking the film more and more.

Chris M. Watson · August 4th, 2006, 10:39 PM

I'm in the same boat. I saw it last week and still can't stop thinking about it. It is growing on me quite a bit. I find it interesting how much hate this movie is getting. I didn't mind that it didn't follow the cliche's of other cop movies but instead trusted the viewer enough to make the connections and keep up with the story. It was like we were dropped into these people's lives for a few days and were observers. I found the cinematography was incredible for the day time material and okay for the night time stuff. What I really dug were the lightening storms you saw and heard in the background. It really added to the atmosphere of the movie. I think I'm going to give it another look this weekend.

Chris Watson

Matthew Ware · August 4th, 2006, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan James

I HATED the look of Miami Vice. ...

It is not nice to double-post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris M Watson

... I didn't mind that it didn't follow the cliche's of other cop movies but instead trusted the viewer enough to make the connections and keep up with the story. ...

Agreed. This movie was very much a contemporary take on the characters and situations that we knew and loved in the 1980's TV show. Michael Mann made a conscious decision not to do an origins movie. This was not the easiest decision--certainly not for the audience. Characters Larry Zito and Stanley Switek are never mentioned by name. Gina Calabrese's name is barely mentioned if at all even though she is an important player. The audience has to have done its homework to be fully engaged. Miami Vice requires its audience to think. This is the first movie that I have seen in more than a decade that I want to return to the theater to see. Its storyline, its characters, and its cinematography come together to make a movie that stays with you.

Eric Gorski · August 5th, 2006, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Ware

Miami Vice requires its audience to think.

?? perhaps about where the $150 million went.. ?? :(

Krystian Ramlogan · August 5th, 2006, 08:23 PM

In the movie's defense, a lot of the budget went into dealing with the problems in Florida as a result of the Hurricane Season.

But, I cannot agree this movie is an intelligent movie. The story was not complex, offered nothing new, did not carry me anywhere any number of other cop movies have. Really, who cannot say, "Been there, Done that?" Being non-traditional does not mean avoid good story-telling, or deliberately avoid developing the characters properly.

I've said my piece already. For anyone who liked the movie that's great. I didn't for reasons I've already elaborated on - though I didn't go into great detail.

One thing I can add, so as to avoid redundency - I've seen graduate student film productions which looked very similar in terms of the style/texture/set design (all lacking, sparse), so I guess a "positive" is more people will now think they can make a great movie using Miami Vice as a "standard".

My opinion.

K.

August 2nd, 2006, 03:11 AM	#18
John Yamamoto Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 94	digital is the answer If u r Michael Mann or with some hollywood standing, that;s OK to try the video look, for indy film maker, this is rather a curse than do any good but for ur credit card limit. people who has power or $$ to distribute movie seems not consider video look is a selling point, they think this is a no-no. as very hard to differeciate the good movie with video look to many thousand bad digital "films". the best-- IMHO, is just do what u think the best, even HD will not be the same as shooting on 35mm. it's hard to tell which one is better. if anyone ask u what u shot on, just say DIGITAL, period. if they ask more-- just simply say do u know George Lucas, we shot in more or less the same format. if u have $$ to do blow up to 35mm, simply say we do DI and "best fit" res. JY

August 4th, 2006, 06:14 AM	#22
Jos Svendsen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 221	Music? Can anybody confirm that the original theme by Jan Hammer is not used in this movie? I have only seen the trailers, and miss the driving music by Jan Hammer. __________________ ---------------------------- 12c41 JOS. Svendsen

August 2nd, 2006, 02:15 AM	#17
Dean Bull Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 106	I won't hop into the fray here to defend Mann's choices because it's clearly mute... the guy has a list of film behind him that basically make him a 500 pound gorilla. However, I will paraphrase some comments made by David Mullen on other boards related to Cinematography... David basically said that Mann is using the aberations of the digital format to create an asethetic -- which begs the question, is clipping, digital noise, smearing, viable tools in cinematography. I also recall hearing that Mann's "spontaneous" style in his recent movies are actually very very calculated. What appears to be a found moment is actually pre-determined. Take it or leave it. And finally, can we all agree that Micheal Mann is, hands down, the master of how to end a movie? theif, Heat, the insider... Like king of the final shot. Best, Dean

August 2nd, 2006, 10:07 AM	#19
Jaron Berman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 439	Personally, I enjoyed the aesthetic choices. I think that we are at a crossroads now in cinematography, where the "look" of a movie is beyond budgetary constraints. A lot of people here have complained that the movie felt amateurish, video-like, or just crappy. Those feelings are based on some reference of "normal." A great number of people on this board also strive for the elusive film-look, using adapters, post tools, etc. That's to say that shallow DOF, 24 frames/second, widescreen and film gamma are all how a movie should look. But production is maturing along with the technology. In the Tate Modern museum in London there is a sculpture hanging from the celing that reads "art has been dead since the romans." If you look at art as the ability to mimic reality, then the sculpture is true. We've done that, so I guess there is nothing left to do. In film terms, you could argue that we have perfected capture on film in a style that reads to viewers as "film." So we have achieved perfection, let's not move forward. Instead of worrying about how close we can make our new technology mimic OLD technology, I think we should be looking at the advantages and freedoms we gain because of the unique aesthetics of the medium. The "video-look" has long been panned as amateur or trashy, not because of some inherent lack of quality, so much as an association with poor programming. A crappy film is crappy whether it was shot on hi8 or 65mm. And conversely, a good film is good no matter what the format. But I think Mann is on to something with his use of digital capture. The way that digital deals with sodium light, and underexposure is truly incredible. The ability to mix cadences is not new, it's just not a classical technique. Film can be shot 48 for 48 also, and film can be shot at wide shutter angles, but it usually is not. Its a look, a conscious, and instead of fighting it tooth and nail because it doesn't look like film, I think we should consider it as another tool. Whether everyone in this particular forum chooses to embrace it or not is a personal choice, but as digital capture proliferates, I believe that we will see more and more people using the technology creatively as Mann has.

August 2nd, 2006, 01:49 PM	#21
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	The master of the ending? Clearly Miami Vice ends abruptly with no transition or conclusion to the "story" - whatever bits and pieces there were of a story. Unless it made sense for both leads to be apart at the end? Or was there a sub-text of Colin Farell entering rehab: art imitating life? I have no problem with HD, Video, Film, CGI, whatever, being used to tell a story. I will use whatever I can to tell my stories. However, Miami Vice does not capture my interest or imagination in any way simply because the story is bad, the acting is poor, and the cinematography really looks amateurish. Realilty? No one speaks like the dialogue in this film. My opinion. Anyone can argue that every cut, smear, lens flare, soft focus, whatever, that they see on their material was deliberate - no one can ever say otherwise, unless you are the Cinematographer, or the Director. I also heard of problems on the set (from my cousin and her friend). In light of that I'm willing to say that perhaps there were problems that resulted in less than perfect material and M Mann tried to use the material creatively. I'll give kudos for that, but the overall film sux. It's weak and does not really represent a movement forward regardless of whether it was shot on HD or Film. As to using the inherent qualities of a medium, both he good and the bad, to paint a picture...I'm all for it! Smear, Lens Flares, Blown Highlights, Crushed blacks, pushed shadows, whatever. It's all visual elements that can enhance your "story" that is, if there is a story. My 2c.

August 4th, 2006, 09:38 AM	#23
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	It's true, the Jan Hammer Theme was not used.

August 4th, 2006, 08:23 PM	#24
Daniel Weber Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 696	iTunes Music Store has the soundtrack if you want to listen to it. The remake of the "In The Air Tonight" song is not bad. Otherwise the rest is o.k. Just my opinion though. Dan Weber

August 4th, 2006, 09:32 PM	#25
Alan James Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 261	I HATED the look of Miami Vice. Why bother going to the movies to see something that looks worse then what I can shoot myself? I go to movies to see good-looking quality work that took talented people to bring it to life. People spend many years learning how to artistically make film look nice. The lighting shown in this movie tells me that I don’t have to know anything at all to make a movie. All I have to do is point and shoot, probably with auto settings and everything. This is not saying that I don’t like HD. Superman returns looked great (yet was also a bad movie) and was shot completely on digital. Further more, I hated the story mostly because they treated it like a two-hour episode of the show, rather then introducing the characters like any other movie would. If this was a directorial decision by Mann then I no longer have any faith in his abilities. I wish I could find one good thing about the movie but unfortunately I can’t. Maybe the credits, I liked seeing them because I knew the movie was finally over, and they were a cool blue color, which was easy on the eyes.

August 4th, 2006, 09:37 PM	#26
Dean Bull Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 106	After sitting on it for a week, I find myself liking the film more and more.

August 4th, 2006, 10:39 PM	#27
Chris M. Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 104	I'm in the same boat. I saw it last week and still can't stop thinking about it. It is growing on me quite a bit. I find it interesting how much hate this movie is getting. I didn't mind that it didn't follow the cliche's of other cop movies but instead trusted the viewer enough to make the connections and keep up with the story. It was like we were dropped into these people's lives for a few days and were observers. I found the cinematography was incredible for the day time material and okay for the night time stuff. What I really dug were the lightening storms you saw and heard in the background. It really added to the atmosphere of the movie. I think I'm going to give it another look this weekend. Chris Watson

August 5th, 2006, 08:23 PM	#30
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	In the movie's defense, a lot of the budget went into dealing with the problems in Florida as a result of the Hurricane Season. But, I cannot agree this movie is an intelligent movie. The story was not complex, offered nothing new, did not carry me anywhere any number of other cop movies have. Really, who cannot say, "Been there, Done that?" Being non-traditional does not mean avoid good story-telling, or deliberately avoid developing the characters properly. I've said my piece already. For anyone who liked the movie that's great. I didn't for reasons I've already elaborated on - though I didn't go into great detail. One thing I can add, so as to avoid redundency - I've seen graduate student film productions which looked very similar in terms of the style/texture/set design (all lacking, sparse), so I guess a "positive" is more people will now think they can make a great movie using Miami Vice as a "standard". My opinion. K.