Masters of Horror Ep. Shot on HVX Airing This Friday!
- Thread starter G-Man
- Start date
G-Man
Well-known member
I'm not saying films shouldn't express beliefs. I said I think filmmakers should keep their politics to themselves. Perhaps the statement was too broad, which may lead some to read certain things into my comment. Frankly, I don't have the time or desire to argue semantics, so I won't.
DC's interpretation of my comment is pretty much right on. A film's purpose, particularly a horror film, is to entertain. In my opinion, Homecoming was not a good film. The reason I dislike the film is because it has a political agenda it was trying to shove down people's throats. It didn't bother to develop it's characters, it just painted them in broad strokes as evil and callous. Well-written characters have layers, even the villainous characters. Any other film that had such terrible character development would be more widely bashed, but label the film a "political satire" and it suddenly becomes "thought provoking" and "brilliant."
--"Nevermind the lack of character development folks, it's a satire."
--"Don't bother coming up with an interesting story, it's a satire."
--"Understanding a character's point of view, so that you can see why they do what they do, even if you disagree with them? Unnecessary, it's a satire."
Films like "Network," "All The President's Men," "Platoon," and many many others are classics because they have a message AND they entertain. As a matter of fact, it's sacrilege to even mention these films in the same post as "Homecoming." Heck, John Carpenter made "Pro-Life", a film deals with the topic of abortion, another controversial topic, and he managed to make it entertaining.
DC's interpretation of my comment is pretty much right on. A film's purpose, particularly a horror film, is to entertain. In my opinion, Homecoming was not a good film. The reason I dislike the film is because it has a political agenda it was trying to shove down people's throats. It didn't bother to develop it's characters, it just painted them in broad strokes as evil and callous. Well-written characters have layers, even the villainous characters. Any other film that had such terrible character development would be more widely bashed, but label the film a "political satire" and it suddenly becomes "thought provoking" and "brilliant."
--"Nevermind the lack of character development folks, it's a satire."
--"Don't bother coming up with an interesting story, it's a satire."
--"Understanding a character's point of view, so that you can see why they do what they do, even if you disagree with them? Unnecessary, it's a satire."
Films like "Network," "All The President's Men," "Platoon," and many many others are classics because they have a message AND they entertain. As a matter of fact, it's sacrilege to even mention these films in the same post as "Homecoming." Heck, John Carpenter made "Pro-Life", a film deals with the topic of abortion, another controversial topic, and he managed to make it entertaining.
dougspice
Veteran
I agree with most of what you're saying. But I don't understand how you can reconcile saying this:
and this:
I don't get it. Like I said, I didn't see Homecoming, but it sounds like I wouldn't like it very much. I don't like oversimplification. But that's not to say anything about politics or content. I think Syriana, for instance, is a really powerful and interesting film.
and this:
I don't get it. Like I said, I didn't see Homecoming, but it sounds like I wouldn't like it very much. I don't like oversimplification. But that's not to say anything about politics or content. I think Syriana, for instance, is a really powerful and interesting film.
Zack Birlew
Veteran
So... getting back on topic...
Are there any articles about the making of this episode? I don't know if they do that for this series but it would be cool to see how they made it after we see it tommorow.
Are there any articles about the making of this episode? I don't know if they do that for this series but it would be cool to see how they made it after we see it tommorow.
G-Man
Well-known member
I can reconcile my two comments because I never said filmmakers shouldn't make films with political themes. When I said "filmmakers should keep their politics to themselves" I meant I don't want to see a filmmaker's film if it is a slanted, one-sided bashing of a political party they dislike. If Joe Dante hates the current administration, fine. If he wants to make a film which deals with the current state of affairs and in that film he stresses his points, fine. I simply don't want to watch a Joe Dante film where he bashes another political party for the film's entire run time, simply because that is how he feels.
Dougspice, you mention Syriana. I agree that it is a fantastic film. One of the characters the film depicts, is a young Muslim who we see become more and more involved with a terrorist group. We actually see how he becomes involved with them and eventually joins. His character is layered and has his motivations for doing what he does. I'm sure Stephen Gaghan doesn't endorse terrorism (I'm sure terrorism is against his politics), but he was able to make a film which explored a terrorist's point of view. Munich is another film which does this very well. There was a scene in a stairwell where Eric Bana's character and a terrorist talk about their politics. Both arguments had their valid points, and that film was made by a Jewish filmmaker who probably doesn't believe in terrorism. I'm sure Speilberg's politics (or political view) differs from that of a terrorist, yet he was also able to make a film which explores their motivations.
Anyways, hopefully I've explained my comments so that most understand what I was trying to say.
I will now anxiously wait for the next episode of Masters of Horror and hope to see the HVX kick buttocks!! GO HVX!!!
Jack--there was an article on the internet, and I think there was a thread somewhere on here too referring to the article. I think the entire thing was shot on the HVX. They have some scenes from the film at MoH's webpage
Dougspice, you mention Syriana. I agree that it is a fantastic film. One of the characters the film depicts, is a young Muslim who we see become more and more involved with a terrorist group. We actually see how he becomes involved with them and eventually joins. His character is layered and has his motivations for doing what he does. I'm sure Stephen Gaghan doesn't endorse terrorism (I'm sure terrorism is against his politics), but he was able to make a film which explored a terrorist's point of view. Munich is another film which does this very well. There was a scene in a stairwell where Eric Bana's character and a terrorist talk about their politics. Both arguments had their valid points, and that film was made by a Jewish filmmaker who probably doesn't believe in terrorism. I'm sure Speilberg's politics (or political view) differs from that of a terrorist, yet he was also able to make a film which explores their motivations.
Anyways, hopefully I've explained my comments so that most understand what I was trying to say.
I will now anxiously wait for the next episode of Masters of Horror and hope to see the HVX kick buttocks!! GO HVX!!!
Jack--there was an article on the internet, and I think there was a thread somewhere on here too referring to the article. I think the entire thing was shot on the HVX. They have some scenes from the film at MoH's webpage
It was too campy for me. I still have it saved on my DVR in HD.
As far as the image, you sure as hell could tell it was HVX. Check out the cabinets in the kitchen scenes. That was scary all in itself. Sheesh. The outdoors scenes and well lit ones were pretty nice.
But, after a bit, I stopped paying attention to the quality and got into the campy story. It wasn't too bad.
As far as the image, you sure as hell could tell it was HVX. Check out the cabinets in the kitchen scenes. That was scary all in itself. Sheesh. The outdoors scenes and well lit ones were pretty nice.
But, after a bit, I stopped paying attention to the quality and got into the campy story. It wasn't too bad.
Didn't see it (will on DVD)... but to make a comment real quick on the whole "politics/entertainment" debate, I just have this to say: Entertainment should always come first in a movie (unless it is a documentary, of course). The top concern of the filmmaker should be to tell a good story... when he puts his message over the "entertainment" he is just trying to trick us into his worldview. I am a Christian, but I've got to knock the majority of Christian filmmakers... they tend to start with the motivation of "getting the message out". Problem is, nobody wants the message if "entertainment value" was not the priority of the filmmaker.
Every "secular" filmmaker knows this. It is way so many Christian films have been laughed at by Hollywood pros; however, there is often a double-standard in the way that when a liberal (etc.) does it, the same kind of proselytizing becomes "art".
That said, this isn't necessarily a commentary on HOMECOMING, as I haven't seen it. But I do suspect that this analysis would hold true with it, as well.
Every "secular" filmmaker knows this. It is way so many Christian films have been laughed at by Hollywood pros; however, there is often a double-standard in the way that when a liberal (etc.) does it, the same kind of proselytizing becomes "art".
That said, this isn't necessarily a commentary on HOMECOMING, as I haven't seen it. But I do suspect that this analysis would hold true with it, as well.
I just saw this episode, Was it just me or was this shot with the stock lens? I don't recall seeing very many shallow DOF shots at all. Also looked like it was shot almost entirely handheld. I'd love to know the budget differences between this ep and some of the other shot with bigger cams.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
It looked like the stock lens to me too, which was a good thing in its own way, at least for those of us viewing the episode as "research"...it showed the results straight from the cam like any HVX owner can get.
My overall impression off the show goes like this:
-I thought that first and foremost, the most important part of all, the script, was very lame. The misogynistic (woman-hating) aspects of it, while being "the point" in a way, still sat very uneasily in my mind/heart as I watched it. There was an undertone of mean-spiritedness that permeated it. It also seemed to spill over into the acting, which was pretty lame as well. Even Elliott Gould, a fine actor who I happen to know personally, wasn't able to bring much "shine" to the flawed vehicle.
-HVX-wise, as some others have commented, I've seen better looking footage posted by members of this group. Quite a bit of it. My impression was either that the HVX was used with little understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, or that nobody cared all that much about the final look of the product, or both.
Interior shots were often underlit, and as anyone who's spent more than a few minutes reading this or other HVX related discussion groups knows, you neeed plenty of light to get good results indoors and at night (same goes for the JVC, Canon and Sony cams). So interior/night shots were usually grainy, washed out and generally awful looking. Again - someone clearly didn't know how to use the camera well, or didn't care (they HAD to be noticing the issues as it was being shot, right?).
Outdoor daytime scenes were much better, and in some cases looked really excellent - I got pretty stoked by how film-like, sharp and professional some of that looked. From a $6000 camcorder! But even some of those shots looked bad, and here's where I suspect substandard work by the crew again. On a number of shots (working from memory here, but I recall a conversation scene outside a police car), one actor, facing the sun, was lit up like crazy, with high contrast and loads of detail, and the other, backllit by the sun, was seriously murky and washed out looking, with very little contrast or detail in the face. In my humble opinion, that's just sloppy work. On the shoot, a well placed reflector or two would have solved the murky actor problem and the sunlit-like-he's-on-fire actor could have been easily stopped down, or just as easily evened out in post. But the scene as it was finished went like this:
Actor A: "blah blah blah..." (in near blinding high-contrast/brightness)
Actor B: "blah blah blah..." (in murky, washed out low-contrast/brightness)
Actor A: "blah blah blah..." (in near blinding high-contrast/brightness)
Actor B: "blah blah blah..." (in murky, washed out low-contrast/brightness)
Etc...
Sloppy, careless...call it what you will. Much better can be (and has been) done with this camera. I'm sure of it.
My $.02
My overall impression off the show goes like this:
-I thought that first and foremost, the most important part of all, the script, was very lame. The misogynistic (woman-hating) aspects of it, while being "the point" in a way, still sat very uneasily in my mind/heart as I watched it. There was an undertone of mean-spiritedness that permeated it. It also seemed to spill over into the acting, which was pretty lame as well. Even Elliott Gould, a fine actor who I happen to know personally, wasn't able to bring much "shine" to the flawed vehicle.
-HVX-wise, as some others have commented, I've seen better looking footage posted by members of this group. Quite a bit of it. My impression was either that the HVX was used with little understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, or that nobody cared all that much about the final look of the product, or both.
Interior shots were often underlit, and as anyone who's spent more than a few minutes reading this or other HVX related discussion groups knows, you neeed plenty of light to get good results indoors and at night (same goes for the JVC, Canon and Sony cams). So interior/night shots were usually grainy, washed out and generally awful looking. Again - someone clearly didn't know how to use the camera well, or didn't care (they HAD to be noticing the issues as it was being shot, right?).
Outdoor daytime scenes were much better, and in some cases looked really excellent - I got pretty stoked by how film-like, sharp and professional some of that looked. From a $6000 camcorder! But even some of those shots looked bad, and here's where I suspect substandard work by the crew again. On a number of shots (working from memory here, but I recall a conversation scene outside a police car), one actor, facing the sun, was lit up like crazy, with high contrast and loads of detail, and the other, backllit by the sun, was seriously murky and washed out looking, with very little contrast or detail in the face. In my humble opinion, that's just sloppy work. On the shoot, a well placed reflector or two would have solved the murky actor problem and the sunlit-like-he's-on-fire actor could have been easily stopped down, or just as easily evened out in post. But the scene as it was finished went like this:
Actor A: "blah blah blah..." (in near blinding high-contrast/brightness)
Actor B: "blah blah blah..." (in murky, washed out low-contrast/brightness)
Actor A: "blah blah blah..." (in near blinding high-contrast/brightness)
Actor B: "blah blah blah..." (in murky, washed out low-contrast/brightness)
Etc...
Sloppy, careless...call it what you will. Much better can be (and has been) done with this camera. I'm sure of it.
My $.02
joshtownsend
Well-known member
They have ten days and two million to shoot these episodes. In an articlke I read it said they used the HVX so they could get more shots done quickly with the little camera. They talked about being able to get shots in the airplane really quick with a fig rig. You can tell they used the fig rig a lot actuallty.
Compared to other episodes there are way more set ups and locations in Dantes episode. A hell of a lot of locations for a 10 day shoot. That's why the light isn't that great. For a horror show they did have an awful lot of soft light and didn't use the HVX's deep blacks as well as they could have.
Compared to other episodes there are way more set ups and locations in Dantes episode. A hell of a lot of locations for a 10 day shoot. That's why the light isn't that great. For a horror show they did have an awful lot of soft light and didn't use the HVX's deep blacks as well as they could have.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Homecoming; ironically I was given this by an aquaintance for Christmas. It was alright. Kind of silly and hokey with the soldiers coming back to vote; come on.
They actually show the soldiers going to the voting booths. How can you film that with a straight face ?
Ill be looking for the HVX episode in stores I guess.
They actually show the soldiers going to the voting booths. How can you film that with a straight face ?
Ill be looking for the HVX episode in stores I guess.
dougspice said:
It definitely wasn't as terrifying as it could have been, especially with the more mature subject matter playing out toward the end in the cabin. That scene could've been a lot more psychologically frightening than it was.
And for 2million dollars, this production was a sham and a shame. It's rather funny how the HVXusers on these boards probably could've ramped the aesthetic value of that show with that budget.
That's just theorizing, I guess.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Kholi
$2,000,000 ?
I guarantee victory.
$2,000,000 ?
I guarantee victory.