About to Buy

I don't mind arguing. As long as it's not violent or mean. And thank you Policar for clearing this up. Andrew Kramer started Final Image Inc. and VideoCopilot.net, he's a great VFX artist. He's a pretty big name to me.
 
Policar said:
Cool as he is, Sarris never shot a film. You're spouting big names but not saying much of value. I don't know who Andrew Kramer is but I'll actually take his word on this one. (The term is bokeh, btw, and it's probably relating to lenses not cameras but I suppose the dvx and xl2 have built in lenses. And it's also subjective. Different people like different looks--zeiss versus cooke, etc.)
Click to expand...

Spouting big names? Most people have never heard of Andrew Sarris, muchless think that he is cool. The point of the statement was to remind the OP that the camera he uses and it's technological nuances are not as important to making a good film as the classic core elements...you know, story, character developement, pacing, etc. It's easy to get bogged down in the gadget stuff, but unless you need a very specific look or shot, it doesn't matter all that much.

McG has made more films than Sarris...McG will show us the way.

I don't even agree with some of what Sarris says (i.e. the best films of for such and such a year.) The post was meant to imply that you should balance the information you seek about function with the information you see about form.

Should I have dumbed it down?
 
DeSica said:
Spouting big names? Most people have never heard of Andrew Sarris, muchless think that he is cool. The point of the statement was to remind the OP that the camera he uses and it's technological nuances are not as important to making a good film as the classic core elements...you know, story, character developement, pacing, etc. It's easy to get bogged down in the gadget stuff, but unless you need a very specific look or shot, it doesn't matter all that much.

McG has made more films than Sarris...McG will show us the way.

I don't even agree with some of what Sarris says (i.e. the best films of for such and such a year.) The post was meant to imply that you should balance the information you seek about function with the information you see about form.

Should I have dumbed it down?
Click to expand...

Maybe not, since after you explained yourself you revealed just how trite your point is. A lot of people post on and on about "story over style" and yeah it's true, but that doesn't mean people can't hope to make their movies look good. A lot of people here feel that they have a great story to tell and want production values to match--but are constantly faced by people derailing threads with either incoherent or repetitive diatribes about the story they already feel they have.

Plus, what classic movies have bad production values? Most of my favorite dudes (Malick, Spielberg, Tolland (with either Welles or Wyler), Wong Kar Wai, Tarantino to some extent...) did as much with style as they did with story. That Citizen Kane beats out Casablanca every time on top ten lists shows the extent to which even scholars favor formal innovation over traditional storytelling.

And think about really "important" films: Rules of the Game, Citizen Kane, Bicycle Thieves, early stuff from the New Wave and Hollywood Renaissance, then Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Pulp Fiction, and the Matrix. Each of these movies did something new with either aesthetics or with narrative (and frequently both) that cemented its canonical status.

Plus, McG probably would make a better movie than most critics would. Although I'm sure if you asked him to do criticism or theory it wouldn't be the best. I'm all for story, but I'm just sick of people derailing threads because they think they're better than them.
 
who said anything about bad production values? just because you dont use a cheap 35mm adapter doesnt mean you're film won't look good. If anything, it'll make it look better because you can use that money for lights, dollies, track, tripods, steadicams, things that will actually make the production better.
 
No, you're totally right. I didn't mean to say 35mm was necessary to get a good look, just that it's no sin to care about aesthetics.

Also, even though I hated hated hated the Blair Witch Project, I think a lot of the Dogme 95 type stuff shot on digital video is awesome, although far from pretty and even 28 Days Later is a pretty great movie in a lot of ways.
 
new to filmmaking and buying a dvx? if your brand new to filmmaking maybe you should pick up a cheaper $300 camera and make a few shorts, edit them and write them, and then work your way into the dvx.

the dvx is a fantastic camera i just think you should be sure that filmmaking is for you before you pick one up.

ESPECIALLY with the 35mm adapter.
 
Policar said:
Maybe not, since after you explained yourself you revealed just how trite your point is. A lot of people post on and on about "story over style" and yeah it's true, but that doesn't mean people can't hope to make their movies look good. A lot of people here feel that they have a great story to tell and want production values to match--but are constantly faced by people derailing threads with either incoherent or repetitive diatribes about the story they already feel they have.

Plus, what classic movies have bad production values? Most of my favorite dudes (Malick, Spielberg, Tolland (with either Welles or Wyler), Wong Kar Wai, Tarantino to some extent...) did as much with style as they did with story. That Citizen Kane beats out Casablanca every time on top ten lists shows the extent to which even scholars favor formal innovation over traditional storytelling.

And think about really "important" films: Rules of the Game, Citizen Kane, Bicycle Thieves, early stuff from the New Wave and Hollywood Renaissance, then Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Pulp Fiction, and the Matrix. Each of these movies did something new with either aesthetics or with narrative (and frequently both) that cemented its canonical status.

Plus, McG probably would make a better movie than most critics would. Although I'm sure if you asked him to do criticism or theory it wouldn't be the best. I'm all for story, but I'm just sick of people derailing threads because they think they're better than them.
Click to expand...


Your post is kind of all over the place and doesn't really address my point at all (other than calling it trite), and I'm still trying to figure out which poster wrote that user films should not look good.

People want shallow depth of field in video because it mimicks most films of the last 40 years, and so will seem less like video. Kane, (or Last Year At Marienbad, whatever film like that you choose), had huge DOF...did it look less like film? Was it bad looking? It's not just innovation, it's about the artist having his own vision and then making it work.

Welles wanted to make something very passionately, and it happened to be something that was not seen or done before. Tarantino makes stuff based on what others have seen and done before. His stories, however, are often quirky and interesting, and his style suits them. The style serves the story, not the other way around.

I've said it in other posts, and I'll say it here. I like shallow depth of field. Style for it's own sake is another matter.

The reason Kane beats Casablanca is one of legacy. Kane (for many technical and innovative reasons) has had a greater impact and influence on filmmakers, many of whom list it as their choice for best film of all time.

The whole story-told-out -of-order (narative) thing that many people attribute to Tarantino's Pulp Fiction was already done by Welles (just like Reservoir Dogs was already done by Rino Lam when it was called City On Fire.) Tarantino's legacy is not his style, but that by ripping off so many other styles, he has influenced so many young filmmakers to get out there and make smaller, more "unconventional films" (many of them crap, due to style over substance.)

I don't know who's canon The Matrix is in, and quite frankly, I don't want to know. Jurassic Park was a pretty good movie. It was based on a competent book. The series it spawned sucked. Godzilla (the one with Broderick) sucked. Most films that rely more on CG than story suck...but they sure are shiny.

Some of my favorite films were made by critcs... Les Quatres Cent Coups (Truffaut), A Bout De Souffle (Godard - influenced by Welles' A Touch Of Evil), La Strada (Fellini)....you get the point. McG does not make this list. Most of these types of films were on small budgets, so locations were used instead of sets, and pro rig lighting was not available...so you had to make due, and shallow DOF was the by-product.

Budget often dictates style, as necessity is the mother of invention. As I have asked before, how many lights could Cassavetes drag around?

Oh, and to the OP...I'm not sure I know where I went off on a diatribe in my one line post, and I am sorry if I came off sounding like I was better than you (even though you never intimated that this was the case, but I apparently offended someone on your behalf, or something).

All I meant was that you shouldn't worry too much about the tech side, and just have fun learning about films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top