Crank 2 may hurt our cause...

Melvin Harris

Melvin Harris

Black Flag Member
There has been a lot of talk about the potential that Crank 2 showed in making a movie... the only problem is that it is tanking. Question- do you think that the critical panning of the film will be a detriment to moviemakers who are going the same route visually. Not necessarily with the flash and the pans and the strobie strobing, but with the use of consumer and prosumer grade equipment and the exploiting of the limitations and advantages of HDV and HD to codify a unique "look"...
In other words, Is the public smart enough to separate technology from script, or will they just lump it all together and call the whole thing crap?
 
pharpsied said:
In other words, Is the public smart enough to separate technology from script, or will they just lump it all together and call the whole thing crap?
Click to expand...

If by public you mean, the general movie-going public. Then I don't think there is too much to worry about there, I doubt whether most people would even be able to tell you that Crank 2 was shot on small digital cameras. I think a nice looking movie with a solid story will speak for itself, regardless of the medium that it was shot with. If the general public think Crank 2 is crap, I don't think it will be specifically because of the format they chose.

(I'm thinking, something about a guy falling from 1000's of feet in the air onto his face, only to get up and start kicking ass in a sequel with nothing needed but an artificial heart, haha.) Although, I still plan on seeing this movie
 
^ agreed

The average viewer doesn't care what it was shot on, nor do they know. You could tell most people that it was shot on film and they wouldn't think twice about it.
 
DM_rider said:
^ agreed

The average viewer doesn't care what it was shot on, nor do they know. You could tell most people that it was shot on film and they wouldn't think twice about it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I tried to watch the first crank twice......impossible! The content was of such low level that my brain refused to shut down both halves and watch it with my Thalamus and Hippocampus. I had to zap :evil:
 
Zero to worry about. The Crank look is the Crank look, and from here on out you'll hear people referring to it as that just like they did with Bourne and handheld.

You have nothing to fear, each project should have a look that serves the story, or it will collapse unto itself. Handheld does NOT work for every scenario, but some people force it and it turns out negative or "off".

The same for the Crank Look, it will work if the content is served by it.
 
crank 2 is so ridiculous!! i love it. exactly my type of editing, really quick cuts and interesting angles. i guess its only for a certain movie goer type. it didnt do too well at the box office
 
It's such a shame that we, as cinematographer's look into every detail to ensure we gain the desired look and feel albeit the average-moviegoer would seldom compliment the cinematography, maybe it subconsciously has an effect on their overall judgment?
 
badhairdude said:
crank 2 is so ridiculous!! i love it. exactly my type of editing, really quick cuts and interesting angles. i guess its only for a certain movie goer type. it didnt do too well at the box office
Click to expand...

the reason it didn't do well is because its more of the same. crank did moderately well at the box office because it was marketed as nothing but action. it even poked fun at itself for being light on plot. the point is that people knew going into the theater that it was going to be action packed the whole time, and that's exactly what they got. marketing the sequel the same way doesn't give the viewer anything more. why spend $10 to see something you just saw?

as far as the format hurting indie filmmaker's cause - I think it's pretty fabricated. by hollywood standards, the film looks like ****. the director is well known for shooting films in the same way he shot crank 2...that is by choosing to use 25-30 smaller, low costing HDV cams instead of 3-5 incredibly expensive cameras. I know a couple people who worked on the set as PAs and said that he would just throw cameras all over the place (literally, throw them), destroy the cam, and salvage the tape and use that footage.
 
I don't know. It stars Lloyd Kaufman in a three line action packed monologue that might just make him known as the next Orson Wells to the general public (we already know, of course).
 
Finnegan said:
as far as the format hurting indie filmmaker's cause - I think it's pretty fabricated. by hollywood standards, the film looks like shi*.
Click to expand...

Exactly! "By Hollywood standards..." so why have we been lauding the creativity of the cinematic choices if the whole thing looks like chit from the Hollywood perspective? I think it's because it looks a lot better than any of us thought it would, had a wide theatrical release, and gives us (the DVXuser members who don't have 20 gazillion dollars, 20 cameras that record in a million K, and hundreds of people lining up for our professional opinion and anecdotes about the 500 films we worked on) hope even though it seems to be "bombing."
There are alot more people with the cameras they used on Crank than the Red whatever, or the Viper this or that because it's what they can afford and I think we are giving the public too little credit. They can associate a look with a movie and decide that the look is what they dislike regardless of the story. I mean, how many of us decimated the shaky cam look, not as cinematographers, or directors, or technitions, but as average movie goers who didn't like watching a movie on a tilt 'o whirl. It's the same reason why I don't like Cloverfield. I can't even take it apart as an anal retentive "professional" because I keep popping Dramamine to get through it.
A conversation-
"Hey have you seen 'Jimmy's Head'?"
"H*ll no!"
"Why not?
"It looks like Crank- I hate Crank. The shaking and stuff and the way the stuff looked... and that sh*t would never happen."
"Yeah, but it's not the same movie."
"It looks like Crank- I hate Crank."

... an excerpt from conversations I have had with stupid people who watch movies and know nothing about the process.
 
Mj882 said:
It's such a shame that we, as cinematographer's look into every detail to ensure we gain the desired look and feel albeit the average-moviegoer would seldom compliment the cinematography, maybe it subconsciously has an effect on their overall judgment?
Click to expand...

then stop making movies for average movie goers.
 
I think as far as films go, Crank 2 officially has the most threads floating around all over DVXuser.
 
I don't think there's anything to worry about. It's grossed 8.2 mil in 4 days. Not a great opening weekend, but with a budget under 20 mil they're going to make plenty of money. The first one only did 10 mil opening weekend. I don't think anyone expected it to be a blockbuster, nor did anyone expect a big critical success either. It's a big, cheap, loud, dumb movie.
 
nickmicros said:
They shot HDV?

Fisheye?

Adaptor?

I am watching the trailer and I cannot tell what equipment they are using....
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the film and I probably won't, so I can't tell you which lenses they used, or if they used an adapter. they definitely shot it in HDV. after spending so much time looking at footage from different cams its pretty easy to spot characteristics of the xh-a1. to me, it looks a lot like what I shoot every day (I have an xh-a1).
 
djkarn105 said:
I think that's exactly the point of the art form.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right. I guess it comes with the full package really, movie-goers rarely stop and compliment cinematography but they never really single out other aspects too. It'll normally be praise or criticism of the film overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top