Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico
 

Just got back from a sneak preview of Robert Rodriquez latest film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" and it looked stunning. It had a bit of a red push to it but it did look very good. Much better then "28 Days Later". And his steadicam work was much better then that in "Desperado".

I may go see it at Cinerama since they have a digital projector to see how it looks on a really huge screen. But so far I've been really impressed.

Cheers,
Huey

He seems to like really warm colours, Spy Kids II was a bit that way to.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this last installment in the series.

Seen clips of it projected. It did look good. Cleverly, Rodriguez has figured out that warm skin tones look good on digital--but what if you aren't going for a warm look overall? And what if you need to shoot an explosion at 150 fps...film ain't dead yet.

Re: Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Brian Huey : Just got back from a sneak preview of Robert Rodriquez latest film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" and it looked stunning. It had a bit of a red push to it but it did look very good. Much better then "28 Days Later".
-->>>

Uh, yeah, I don't think Rodriguez used a $3500 prosumer camera like Danny Boyle did in 28 Days Later. That miiiiiiiight account for the higher picture quality. ;)


Anyway, can't wait to see it myself.

Re: Re: Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Uh, yeah, I don't think Rodriguez used a $3500 prosumer camera like Danny Boyle did in 28 Days Later. That miiiiiiiight account for the higher picture quality. ;) Anyway, can't wait to see it myself. -->>>

He OWNS two Sony Cinealtas, just a little better than our trusty ole cams.

Yeah, yeah, the HD cameras RR has are a bit better then the XL1 and it showed on the big screen (I can't wait to see 28 days later on DVD though).

Ok Charles, maybe film isn't dead yet... but it seems to be headed that way and it seemed like a catchy title =)

My ex-college picked up some 8k fps digital camera (at least that's what a student that went to the screening with me claimed) that I'll have to go check out. If that's the case maybe we won't need film cameras that can shoot at 150fps...

Cheers,
Huey

I haven't seen an 8000 fps video setup, but here's a 1000 fps version.

The problem is, will it match your primary camera used to shoot the rest of the movie? With film, footage shot on a 40 year old Arriflex 2c will exactly match that of an Arri 435 running at 24 or up to 150 fps, for instance, as long as you use the same lens. With digital, every camera has its own "look", and it would be jarring to jump from one to another (unless that is intentional).

There are other troublesome issues in shooting HD vs film right now in practical, location-based terms rather than just the look of the final film, but I don't doubt that within the next decade they will be ironed out. In fact, the data storage issue is where the bottleneck really lies at the moment--the imaging capability exceeds the practical technology to record and store it.

Charles, and use the same film stock? I heard a lot of stories
that even though it is the same stock it also depends on the
exact type and combination chemicals used when making the
print.

In RR's book he has a couple of entries that describe his
frustration that each time the print came back form the lab
it looked worse and worse.

I really can't wait to see OUATIM. I've waited so looonggg for
that movie, man. I had hoped they would have screend it at
this years IBC coming up tomorrow. But no announcements of
that yet. That'll mean I'll see it on film instead of digitaly
projected, which is a bummer.

Oh well, still need to see it ASAP! <g>

Yes, same film stock, same lens and a quality lab should equal the same results.

Rodriguez is, as should be obvious from the number of hats he chooses to wear, a control freak. Sending the film to the lab, having someone there do an unsupervised timing of the print obviously doesn't dovetail with his hands-on approach. The printing process for film is absolutely limited and archaic compared to current digital color correction, so I do share his frustration with that process. But every modern film to date has had to be timed, and obviously it works for most cinematographers, so his results are not typical.

Thanks for the explanation, Charles!

I'm still very curious to see if that Dalsa camera ever becomes a reality. Supposedly it will eventually do 60fps at its high resolution (4046 x 2048 optically active pixels). The idea of building a digital camera that was made from the ground up for filmmaking as opposed to video-making as is the case with current digital cams is very exciting. It's going to be ridiculously expensive though.

Here's the URL in case anybody doesn't remember the Dalsa.
http://www.dalsa.com/dc/dc.asp

Here's the blurb they have on their site regarding frame rate and the Dalsa:

"Although the sensor has been designed to operate at up to 60fps, DSP chips do not exist to process that bandwidth in real time. Origin outputs up to 36fps (progressive) with current DSP chips. Faster DSPs, available in later 2003, will allow frame rates of 48 or more in 2004. 60fps operation is a development stage beginning in 2004."

expensive, sure, but not likely to be a higher rental than a comparable 35mm body or it won't make sense. Those cameras are generally valued at $250,000.

It's more expensive but, with a flip of a switch, Hollywood can go to 70mm and digital would have another 10 years or more of catching up to do.

I doubt it will take them 10 years to catch up to that... But that's
for another thread <g>

Anyways, I just found out the OUATIM hit the theatres in the US
today (friday september 12th) and that I have to wait till
December 25th.... That just got me really really sad. Germany
(country next to us) gets it september 18th, but they only have
dubbed versions.... Argh... the pain

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : It's more expensive but, with a flip of a switch, Hollywood can go to 70mm and digital would have another 10 years or more of catching up to do. -->>>

Not going to happen, given the economics of the industry. The studios have no interest in protecting film over HD, they will be more than happy to switch as long as it is acceptable to the filmmakers. 35mm is the gold standard; 70mm as a production format is an exotic and extremely rare choice. I think the last Hollywood picture shot on 70mm (technically, the camera negative is 65mm and the release print is 70mm) was "Far and Away", over 10 years ago.

Just saw OATIM...wow. Looks like film..heck, it is film!

Anyways the movie....eeehhhhhh......story is still king.

So Nick is that a thumbs up or thumbs down? Worth seeing the movie in a theatre or wait for DVD?

Unfortunately, I thought this movie was terrible. But, many critics loved it, including Ebert. So, judge it for youself. I say, see it in the theater just so you can see how the video looks compared to film. Of course, they still transfered the video to film....

I agree that the story definitely lacks in places but with was an entertaining and fun movie, pretty much what I was expecting. I recommend going to see it.

Course it probably has nothing on Bubba Ho-Tep which is showing here in Seattle next week.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/bubba_ho-tep/

Cheers,
Huey

<<<-- just so you can see how the video looks compared to film. Of course, they still transfered the video to film.... -->>>

Yes I am curious to see what Robert Rodriquez did this time around. During the DVD commentary for Spy Kids 2, he lamented that he was dissapointed with the "film" version and wanted people to see the DVD version because it showed what he "really" shot.

I didn't see it but my son told me that during the action scenes there was something going on that made him think 'bad video'. I read on another forum that the second half had a definite video look to it.

Only slightly off-topic, but as long as the topic is "FIlm is dead". -

Go see "Open Range" to see how beautiful film can truly be. It's an old style western, in pacing, theme and cinematography. Long lingering shots on scenic splendour... and color so rich and deep you could feel the breeze coming off the screen.

hi all -

just saw this film tonight. i was a huge fan of desperado even before i knew rodriquez's story at all. so now that i have the movie making bug, i look at films differently of course... i still love desperado very much and i'm sorry to report that i didn't care much for "once upon a time..."
regarding the digital vs. film thing - most of this movie looked fabulous. he does love the warm color palette for sure. and so do i, so i love that aspect.
but there were plenty of shots that did not look so great. if i hadn't known it was shot on digital, i wouldn't have even thought about it, which does say something. but knowing it was digital, i could definately see when it didn't work. some of the shots where there was extreme motion in the frame (not camera motion, but the subject itself) looked real weird and blurry in a freaky way. but overall, it looked beautiful.

my main complaint with this movie is not the way it looked, however. i thought it was actually a pretty lame film. desperado is way way better, it does a better job of conveying a certain mood and the simplicity of the movie adds to it's impact. the new one is way too convoluted with the story. and the action is numbing by the end. just one cool looking shot of gunfighting after another... i got bored. and sadly, this movie really isn't about the mariachi at all. his story just happens to fit into a larger plot.

but it did look really cool. and maybe that's the point of this series of movies...

Hmmm...what do Lucas and Rodriguez appear to have in common? Seemingly, their energies seem to be more focused on the technology they are using to make their movies than on the stories they are telling.

Not only that, Charles, but their maniac foveation on technology is geared toward economy--rather than masterfulness--of image production. With either of them, the goal seems to be the ability to tell every story by shooting actors in front of blue screens and then comping in busy backgrounds. The method's intent is quite different from the genuine novelty of some of the master techno-visual innovators (e.g., Griffith, Hitchcock, Kubrick) and the results have been, not silk, but chintz.

The technology is not the problem for OATIM, it's the fact that Rodriguez got so many cool actors that he didn't know what to do with them. He also had a larger budget than usual--which is still MUCH smaller than the average film (30million).

He just tried to do too much.

I actually liked the movie. I'll admit the story wasn't the greatest, but it was a fun movie regardless of its lacking in story (as if there hasn't been enough of those lately). I think it was definately worth the ticket price, although it does leave you thinking about what could have been had there been more time and concentration spent on fine-tuning the story.

Just saw the movie, I really liked it and the story, but there is definitely something off about the movie. Two things that kept bugging me and kicking me out of the story back into my head:

1. I thought the editing was off. The flow of the story was very "jarring". It felt like several important scenes hadn't quite ended yet or resolved themselves before we cut to the next scene/shot. Emotionally it's like they were "just" about to make the point of the scene/shot and then the story changes the subject. It ended up being distracting. I admit I might be a little sensitive to this because, this is a common complaint of mine with a lot of current movies, especially those with a lot of action.

2. I also felt the composition and camera work was amateurish in some areas. I remember thinking at those points "video!" :-) Some of it was stabilization and some of it was framing. The shots felt "technically" correct but were missing that little adjustment that pushes a shot from just simply "correct" to well done. Also with so many mythic characters I thought a little creative composition (related to story and character) would have gone a long way.

I did find it an enjoyable movie, story is a bit thin, like everyone is saying, but fun to watch.

Damn... Now I really want to see this. When I was at IBC this
year here in Amsterdam they installed a D-CINEMA system there
(to my knowledge there isn't anyone yet here in Holland) which
I saw a lot of footage on. Looked quite amazing. Then sunday
they showed Pirates of the Carrabean digital which was very
amazing and without any flaws as well (I just seen the film
version a couple of weeks before).

The thing that bugged me though is that UOATIM came out in
the US 1 day before IBC started. Then they are showing us a
movie digitally projected which originated on film (would have
been better to show us Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo or better
yet: UOATIM!). And now I have to wait till december the 25th
to see UOATIM which was shot digital projected on film.... Argh,
the frustration with some things!

Well, if anybody in Holland is reading this who is going to show
this movie early and/or in digital (as it should be projected),
please don't forget to invite me. Thank you.

rant mode off.

I think UOATIM is a good film and I guess I'm a little biased loving Mexico and having a Mexican accent and all, but I think the film fullfils its aims: to Entertain. I think R.R's passion to entertain with El Mariachi Treo, Spy Kids Trio (I liked SP 3D), which I think a lot of film critics seem to miss in today's world. A lot of movie critics seem to look for things that are not there, trying to find the "inner" of the films without even looking at the outer. Like Pirates of the Carribean was tipped by critics to be a summer flop, even before it went out to the masses. And the verdict, well every one that watched it in the Cinema walked out with a huge smile and very well entertained faces. Same as with UOATIM.

I never heard anyone complain that UOATIM was digital and not film, I bet they didnt even know, yet a few days before I watched Italian Job and people said it was a bunch of Hollywood crap and had nothing of the magic of the original (Original Italian Job is a national institution here in England). So I think people are starting to realise that digital film doesn't effect the story or entertainment value one bit, or they just dont care as long as they get value and entertainment for their money.

I think that Rodriguez is going down the right path showing that why should time be wasted with film, when you can use digital and get almost instantaneous feedback on the shots and move on. So films can be done cheaper and cheaper films means more can be made. The our Next Generation is going to wonder why or how we ever used archaic methods of Film and its imprefections, as they watching HD movies on their little Palm pilots.

Things can only get better with technology, so the more pioneers like Rodriquez we have the better.

People do notice the difference and do care if they have something to compare it to. The story is the most important part of any movie. The audience is paying attention to the story.

What if you have two books of the same story, one in hardback with a beautiful cover and great paper with a wonderful font, while the other is paperback with cheap paper and a poor font. If they were the same price, which would you buy? Which has better value? Which is appreciated more? You could print a lot more books, but would those books be any good?

An art director may tear his hair out trying to get the right colors on a set, but would it be a waste of his time to produce it on video and not be able to reproduce the set as he wished?

If you had the budget, would any of us choose dv over film?

Cheaper and faster does not overcome dv's shortcomings of producing the best possible picture. (There are even white papers out there questioning the 'cheaper and faster' statement.)
A producer/director/cinematographer of any worth wants to give the audience the best possible image.

With Hollywood being starved for good scripts, I doubt you would have more of them. At least the quality would not improve.

As far as watching movies on palm pilots, anything looks good on a 2 inch screen.

Most people don't notice the differences between film and dv. Why? It might be becasue they're watching the movie and trying to get into the story, not analyzing the colors. Ask a thousand people who loved the film and a thousand who hated it. My guess is noone but people like us even noticed the colors or that it was digital.

Certainly nothing wrong with arguing dv vs film here. But let's not drag the rest of humanity into it. They care about the story and don't notice the "colors" unless they're off.

The wife and I loved OUATIM, just as we both loved El Mariachi and Desperado. We've also seen all three Spy Kids with our daughter. My daughter loves Mary Poppins too. Try explaining that Mary Poppins is better becasue it's on film and you'll have her attention about 4 seconds.

I think a lot of people are missing the point I'm trying to make.

If you're served frozen mashed potatoes all the time, you wouldn't know you could have better mashed potatoes from whole potatoes. Then you'd be upset saying "You mean I could have had it better all this time?"

You do notice the difference.

I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree. Most people who go to the movies don't notice the differences that you would.

Film isn't dead. Making movies only on film is. And that's a VERY good thing.

I skipped the film when it was playing in movie theaters, so my assessment of Once Upon a Time in Mexico is based on viewing the dvd. It looks remarkably good. Much better than most Columbia Tristar dvd releases which are film based. The skin tones are a bit too saturated, and have that unnatural look, but at least the color timing is consistent throughout the movie. And the faces blend in with the scenery in a harmonious way.

The supplements on the dvd are worth watching on their own. Rodriguez is the biggest jack of all trades since Orson Welles. RR can do it all: story writing, cinematography, editing, and scoring. He shows you his home studio, including his mixing console, pro tools setup and avid station. In 10 minutes, he also tells you how to make a movie cheaply, and even how to cook pork. Most interesting is RR's lecture and q&a session, titled "Film is Dead." In a nutshell, why does he like HD? Because it is a wysiwyg filming process. With 35 mm, you can never be certain you lit a scene correctly. The anxiety makes directors, actors, and producers nervous. And thus less productive. Also HD allows the thought & conception process to take place in real time.

RR is a bundle of energy, and whether you like his films or not, you cannot deny the fact that he is brilliant and still growing.

Now, I won't say that Mexico is a great movie. It's entertaining like a comic book. The best movie from 2003 to be released so far on dvd is Northfork. Both from an artistic point of view, and technically. Try not to watch both movies in the same evening. They are vastly different, and of course, Northfork is much deeper. It is one of those profound films that you will think of favorably years from now.

Good assessment. Have you seen OPEN RANGE yet? Fantastic flick. The behind-the-scenes stuff is great is good, too.

Thanks for the info Marc, I'll have to rent it some time and check that out. I had thought about changing the title of the thread since I don't think film is dead quite yet, just on the way out, but now that he has something title "Film is Dead" on his DVD I'm glad I didn't change it!

Open Range is great, man I love westerns and Robert Duvall is always brilliant. May have to buy that DVD if I find it for a good price.

Cheers,
Brian

When all this is over
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Hmmm...what do Lucas and Rodriguez appear to have in common? Seemingly, their energies seem to be more focused on the technology they are using to make their movies than on the stories they are telling. -->>>

touche.

Question: When all this is over, Will our lives be empty?

I really enjoy discussing trying to make video look like film, or the new HD/V cameras coming out.

However, we spend so much time thinking,talking and breathing about how to make video look like film, (which i greatly enjoy) what do you suppose will we talk about when it does?

Now, this is not just when i have my hands on that JVC HDV, but maybe a scene or two ahead when I have my 6 megapixel HD cam, with the "film filter" switch enabled, which will make it look just as good as any of todays best 35mm, the camera that will cost me $1599 on sale from Camera House, which, i might add, in the scheme of things will be sooner than later.....

My advice for myself is to start writing a damn good script now, because I wont have a good enough excuse as to why I havn't produced a piece that looks and feels, simply like: a good movie.

Now. Where did i put that film look tutorial.........

No, film is not dead. But it sure isn't where you want to invest any money. Kodak announced they will not be selling anymore still film cameras in the North American market. I believe the only place they will be continuing to sell their still camera line is in emerging nations, such as China, where having a still camera is a novelty to someone who twenty years ago didn't have electricity.

Every new sitcom being produced is shot on 24P HiDef cameras. There have even been episodic dramatic shows shot with these cameras, and there will certainly be more in the future.

We are very close to seeing 35mm size chips in these cameras, and that will be a major step in the acceptance of this format for big screen productions.

And in other news...

I watched "Open Range" last night and when this blood bath of a movie was over, I couldn't help thinking: how ironic that a movie that climaxes in all this "gun-play" is shot in Canada, where this sort of thing never went on. Fortunately, I guess having the longest gun battle in the history of the Western genre doesn't garauntee box office success. Nice work by DP, Jimmy Muro, who is one of the finest Steadicam operators to ever wear the vest. And interestingly, I don't remember a single Steadicam shot in the film.

(A side note: Speaking of guns, know how many Indians were killed in Canada during our "Indian wars?" None. Zero. Zilch. Somehow Canadians were able to co-exist peacefully with the indigenous people, which we were never able to learn. Maybe there's something in the water.)

"Nortfork" was like spending two hours in a dentist's chair while staring at his gorgeous dental assistant. Nice work by DP, David Mullen.

Just some musings on a Saturday morning. Not looking to start anything. BTW, if you want to see the movie that Kevin Costner thought he was making, check out "My Darling Clementine."

And in other news...

I watched "Open Range" last night and when this blood bath of a movie was over, I couldn't help thinking: how ironic that a movie that climaxes in all this "gun-play" is shot in Canada, where this sort of thing never went on. Fortunately, I guess having the longest gun battle in the history of the Western genre doesn't garauntee box office success. Nice work by DP, Jimmy Muro, who is one of the finest Steadicam operators to ever wear the vest. And interestingly, I don't remember a single Steadicam shot in the film.

(A side note: Speaking of guns, know how many Indians were killed in Canada during our "Indian wars?" None. Zero. Zilch. Somehow Canadians were able to co-exist peacefully with the indigenous people, which we were never able to learn. Maybe there's something in the water.)

-->>>

Do you know why they shot in Canada? Kevin Costner really wanted to shoot in Montana, but he only had a 10million dollar budget. 10 MILLION DOLLARS. He didn't even have a studio or his financing in place. That's why he shot in Canada, because it's cheaper. He wanted to shoot in Montana, but it would've cost an additional 5-10 million...and that's money that they could've used for advertising.

About half-way into the production, a studio stepped in and gave him about 15million more to work with.

I can't remember if there are references or not, but I don't recall anyone mentioning "Canadians" in the film. It's just one of those "small town in the middle of nowhere" movies that never tell you their exact locations. Although, if you look closely, there's a map of Texas on Baxter's wall.