apocalypto

N

nycfilmmaker

Well-known member
saw it last night. I got to say I give it 4 stars for originality. Whne was thelast time you saw a great stroy on the deise of the biggest empire that ever lived -- Mayan empire?

Taking that all the actors were non-professional it is a move well worth paying 10bucks for. The seriousness its narrative is invoking very engaging to the fact that we get a glimpse into the sensitive andmany time brutal world of this large community
Yeah it had its share of blood but just a tad more than what Tarantino or Scorsese would put out.
Fro all the external problems Mel has hadHe is still a serious filmmaker.
 
I was disappointed with this right off the bat. From the first shot it looks alright..but then as soon as the camera really starts moving and people come into frame...I was shocked. Did they film this thing interlaced? What in THE hell. I know it was the panavision genesis...and I know that camera can look pretty good (i thought superman returns LOOKED alright)...but this was just shiit. It took me right out of the story from the start.

It was like a history channel re-enactment. It just looks like its not a movie...not cinematic...a camera setting ruined this movie for me. Eventually when they move on to the mayan city...it doesnt matter. The crowd is so large and the sets are so big you can't really tell. Though I think they may have switched from filming it progressive in some scenes to interlaced in others.

I mean.... I think its interlaced...I dont know what else makes footage look like that. I still just can't believe it...i'm flabbergasted and shocked and confused. After the movie was over I looked at my friends...expecting them to be shaking thier heads disapprovingly....and of course they didnt even notice...couldnt see the difference at all. That made the experience even more frustrating. One of my good friends thought it looked the same as last of the mohicans....which is rediculous. No offense brocollibrush66.

But anyway...other than the whole interlaced thing it had its moments. Its decently exciting and the scenes in the mayan city are pretty awesome. Mel does a good job with building a feeling of dread as they approach the sacrifice area. The sound and music was good and the acting was great. I wasnt impressed with mel's directing in scenes other than the mayan city....but I dont think anyones work looks good with interlaced motion. I just want to kill myself thinking about it.
 
In Collateral they used a 270 degree shutter which gave a 60i look. Maybe that was happening here?
 
i think this movie should win the Oscar. I really do. It's the most original interesting film of the year. it's way better than The Departed and even though I haven't seen Dreamgirls, I'm 99% sure that they have some marketing strategy they're using wherein they tell everybody to say it's the greatest movie ever. I'm always skeptical of a movie that people say is the greatest thing since sliced bread *before it's even finished filming*. Anyway, back to Apocolypto, which was just so cool. The head-chopping scene was easily one of the most fascinating things ever put on film.

Speaking of film, like Weston said, I too noticed the blurring during the running scenes. For awhile I thought it was a stylistic choice (you never know with Gibson) but then I started thinking something was up. Sure enough, when I did the research, I found it was shot on video/HD, and everything made sense. This wasn't a retroactive thought, I promise, but I really did feel like something was off with the cinematography. I kept thinking "this looks all right, but Mel Gibson made Braveheart. And that movie looked freaking amazing. This is not up to par." Still, I thought video/HD couldn't shoot in sunlight without blowing out and it looked okay to me in the sunlight scenes.

Go see this movie. It's worth it.
 
Weston said:
I was disappointed with this right off the bat. From the first shot it looks alright..but then as soon as the camera really starts moving and people come into frame...I was shocked. Did they film this thing interlaced? What in THE hell. I know it was the panavision genesis...and I know that camera can look pretty good (i thought superman returns LOOKED alright)...but this was just shiit. It took me right out of the story from the start.

It was like a history channel re-enactment. It just looks like its not a movie...not cinematic...a camera setting ruined this movie for me. Eventually when they move on to the mayan city...it doesnt matter. The crowd is so large and the sets are so big you can't really tell. Though I think they may have switched from filming it progressive in some scenes to interlaced in others.

I mean.... I think its interlaced...I dont know what else makes footage look like that. I still just can't believe it...i'm flabbergasted and shocked and confused. After the movie was over I looked at my friends...expecting them to be shaking thier heads disapprovingly....and of course they didnt even notice...couldnt see the difference at all. That made the experience even more frustrating. One of my good friends thought it looked the same as last of the mohicans....which is rediculous. No offense brocollibrush66.

But anyway...other than the whole interlaced thing it had its moments. Its decently exciting and the scenes in the mayan city are pretty awesome. Mel does a good job with building a feeling of dread as they approach the sacrifice area. The sound and music was good and the acting was great. I wasnt impressed with mel's directing in scenes other than the mayan city....but I dont think anyones work looks good with interlaced motion. I just want to kill myself thinking about it.
Click to expand...

interesting angle on interlacing, but if you ask a random 100 people off the street that saw this film, i bet maybe 1 will ever say something about interlacing.

I just love that he made the film in Mayan dialect. THis is what makes the film come to life. Lets look at the Mayan empire at least one side of it -- art, body paint -- the community -- the raw living -- the savagery of sacrifice, the beauty of nature.

I think this great film is more than spotting technical glitches if one could call it that. The Mayan were the biggest empire to develop ever in this world, overthrowned by internal conflict and mostly by Euro disease and butchery. I think everyone should have some curiousity about this great culture, and see this film.
 
i'm not sure it's out here yet but i want to see it. saw the trailer in theatres and thought it looked really beautiful and creepy at the same time :D
 
nycfilmmaker said:
interesting angle on interlacing, but if you ask a random 100 people off the street that saw this film, i bet maybe 1 will ever say something about interlacing.

I just love that he made the film in Mayan dialect. THis is what makes the film come to life. Lets look at the Mayan empire at least one side of it -- art, body paint -- the community -- the raw living -- the savagery of sacrifice, the beauty of nature.

I think this great film is more than spotting technical glitches if one could call it that. The Mayan were the biggest empire to develop ever in this world, overthrowned by internal conflict and mostly by Euro disease and butchery. I think everyone should have some curiousity about this great culture, and see this film.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that no one would notice it. Thats part of what bothers me so much...because its just like people watching 4:3 television stretched out on thier 16:9 displays, which alot of people do.

And your right..this film is still very good. I really like that its in mayan..and the story it told....and i want to be able to completely love it...but I just can't get into it when it feels like video. There is no magic.

I really really wanted to love this movie....but I just can't because of how it looks.
 
I thought it was really good. I'm actually planning on seeing it again. But while I was watching it, it looked like it was shot on something else that other movies we see aren't shot on. Does anyone know what this movie was shot on???
 
nycfilmmaker said:
biggest empire goes back and forth...up for further debate. discovery channel has them as the biggest
Click to expand...
The Roman Empire was much bigger.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Mayamap.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/LocationRomanEmpire.png

The Russian Empire was vast . . . still is . . .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Russmap_in_1913.png

And the British Empire . . . well . . .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/British_Empire_1897.jpg
 
"Apocalypto" and HD...

"Apocalypto" and HD...

2qbdn3n.jpg


So I saw Apocalypto yesterday. It was shot on the Genesis, and I was very curious to see how it would look in a movie theatre. This movie is a great testing ground, because unlike Star Wars or Superman Returns, this is not a special effects movie. In fact, set in the lush jungles of Mexico and Central America, this is exactly the type of movie one would typically choose to shoot on 35mm.

The results were impressive, though not 100% perfect. I saw the movie on a medium-sized, average multi-plex screen. For the most part, it was impossible to tell Apocalypto was not shot on 35mm. In fact, some scenes looked remarkably better than 35 somehow... just very clean and beautiful. Having said that, there were a tiny handful of "video-ish" moments in the film. These seemed to take place in broad daylight in the jungle. Not sure what exactly caused this "video" effect to reveal itself. I was trying to pay attention but the scenes flashed by so quickly I can't be sure. I don't think it was DOF. I think it had more to do with over-exposed daylight scenes perhaps showing some "pixels".... I'm uncertain.

Another thing is, I feel confident in saying that during several "running" scenes, particularly POV-style running shots, it looks to me like they used a prosumer 3-CCD HD camera, perhaps something like the HVX. Though IMDB lists only "Genesis" as the camera used, I am convinced otherwise. The reasons I believe they used a prosumer HD camera are: 1) The quality drops dramatically for the split-second those running shots appear. I know what prosumer HD looks like, and this is it. 2) I don't think they could have possibly moved the big, bulky Genesis in that manner... handheld, and running.

I don't think all of the "video" moments came from the prosumer shots, though. It looked to me like a few Genesis shots also looked "video-y." I could be wrong. Perhaps they were splicing in prosumer shots in non-running scenes?

The reason I mention these things is that I would like to hear from others if they noticed this, and what can be done to eleminate this final obstacle before film finally gets replaced by HD. For example, would filters have helped eliminate some of the "video moments" in the jungle?

Is it fair to say that the RED sensor is superior to the Genesis sensor? Equal? The Genesis records at around 2K, I believe, which must be some kind of onboard downsampling considering its sensor is full-sized 35... something like 12 megapixels.

What effect do you think Apocalypto will have on HD in the industry?
 
My wife and I watched Apocalypto yesterday afternoon. We have a new 16 plex
near us that's totally digital and viewed Mel's film on a 60' screen. I was amazed
by the image quality of the genesis camera and its ability to handle extreme con-
trast and highlights. However, I do agree there are numerous scenes, especially
during chase sequences through the jungle where the image screamed VIDEO.

To my eye it looked like a conscious decision on Mel's part to enhance the velocity
of the chase by going to a frame rate and shutter speed that rendered motion more
fluidly. It happens early in the film and from that point on my mind was very aware
of each occurrence. It some way, it looked like the digital projector had switched
from 24p to 60p.

Actually, I wasn't impressed by the film. I never got into the characters or the story
and felt it was at least 45 minutes too long.

Conversely, we saw HAPPY FEET in digital last week and was in awe from the very
first frame. I have never seen image quality like that in my entire career, regardless
of format. Really begs the question if 4k is even necessary for distribution.
 
One thing I've noticed in a lot of Hollywood productions using HD cameras is that they all tend to overuse a slower shutter speed when light becomes bare. I noticed in this film that, for example, in some of the action scenes you mentioned that it seemed like they were shooting somewhere between 1/24th or 1/30th of a second (or in angle like between 220 deg and 190 deg). I've seen that happen in films like "Once Upon A Time In Mexico", "Wolf Creek", "Collateral", and "Scary Movie 4". In fact, and not to get off subject too much, but when I was watching "Scary Movie 4", I had no idea it was shot on HD until the night scenes outside the farmhouse. You could tell then that they slowed the shutter down to accomodate the lack of light. IMHO, the slow shutter is what gives HD away, because it brings out the "video-like" motion blur.

It's funny to me that so many Hollywood DP's reach for that slower shutter rather than just using brighter lighting packages. It's not like they can't afford more lights!
 
I totally agree. I thought it looked great but then there would be a split second shot that looked video-ish. I wonder if they maybe used a varicam or something as a more mobile 'C'-cam or something.

I'm going to see it again today with a few fellow filmmakers. Problem is the movie is so good it's hard to concentrate on technical stuff.
 
At the very end when they reach the beach, there's a focus pull that goes slightly off. Anyone else notice it? Not complaining at all though, I imagine it was a VERY HARD focus pull to do.
 
I havent seen it yet but I noticed when I watch the trailer on the big screen (preview before Babel) that some shots def had a 60i look.... but hell, weve been sooooo programmed to think that anything even remotely non-filmlike is not good, I say bollocks to that

one thing I have read a lot though is that Apocalypto is a bit over the top with the violence, almost to the point of being sadist

I'll judge for myself this week
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top