Getting the "Firefly" look?

As I understand it, one of the primary motivations in shooting Firefly handheld was to get away from that smooth, sterile Star Trek and Star Wars look.
Click to expand...

Ick...I don't want either. I don't want something that looks like it was shot by a robot nor do I want something looks like it was shot by a Japanese tourist. I never saw Firefly. I thought Serenity wasn't bad but I hated the look with a passion.
 
I love everything about "Firefly," including David Boyd's cinematography, which I think is some of the best, beautifully lit, artfully-composed handheld shooting I've ever seen. The verite look has of late become overdone --- it seems to have come back into vogue big time around the time 24 hit the air -- but when it's done well, as in Firefly, 24, Husbands and Wives, and so on, it's a thing of beauty. The visual effects brilliantly carried over the live-action verite aesthetic.

If you haven't already, check out American Cinematographer's online exclusive article on the Firefly cinematography:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb03/firefly/index.html
 
Hmm,
I think serenity was bigger on the steadicam then the show,
I was introduced to the show by a friend and went out and bought the box set, Whedon talks about liking the 17mm for the show and a 21? on for the film. Little if any use of cranes,
I think the saturation levels were played with in the show
and of course the movie had Jack Green who was a legend as a D.P. So the lighting was of a higher quality.

I think color themes were pretty important.
Check the making of serenity book, but I agree the movie wasn't as good as the show
(had too much to tell, not enough time to do so)

Haven't listened to the commentary yet,
checking out the link thanks Stas_Tagios
But I liked the lighting a great deal on the interiors for the show outdoors not so much...

Why does the one thing I like by Whedon get cancelled?
Oh wait fox...
 
Watched some more of the commentary,
apparently the DP sent back his lens and filter kit in preference for older skunkier ones.
Thus the burned out look,
Whedon also in one of the tracks (Very few episodes have commentary...)
mentioned the camera work being too smooth even without the steadicam.. But the whip pans do get a bit much at times.

Any chance they messed with emulsions on the filters or the lenses to get burned portions in some parts of the image and not others.

Also lighting gurus they mention something about a corrugated tin reflector the dp used? Any idea what that is, its in a few of the shots looks like a piece of roofing upside down with a practical underneath..

I still hold that the movie didn't work for those who hadn't seen the show
( I saw the movie first and then the show), they had too much story to tell not enough time I suppose..
 
I'm going from memory, but I think the specific complaint about the newer lenses was that they were too good at preventing lens flares. There are lots of flares all over the show, they used lots of practicals for lighting, and the acting, writing, and directing were top-notch. I laughed out loud at least once an episode, I think, which is unusual for me. Highly recommended. I thought the movie was good, but I agree it had to do a lot very quickly, and so loses some of the feel of the show.
 
Last edited:
I actually liked the look of the series better than the feature! "Out of Gas" was just amazingly shot.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this comment. The film seemed to be trying too hard to push the aesthetic that the show had nicely established. Or maybe they just didn't tone it down enough for 2.35, although I remember reading specific articles where they comment on that in either ASC or Post or something.

In any case, I too recommend you check out the commentary tracks from any of the Whedon-directed episodes. He's a sharp director and makes some excellent observations. There's a piece of commentary on the pilot episode about a series of shots where you first see all of the crew gathered on the hangar deck. They shot the entire scene in singles, because they thought they might have to change cast. In fact they did then recast Inara. Plenty of good stuff like that in those commentaries. Haven't seen if there's a Serenity commentary; didn't like the movie that much.
 
Just saw "gridiron gang", it had a lot of the same pseudo-doccumentary handheld style. About 10 minutes in my dad leaned over and asked "Why is the camera shaking so much?" I think a technique is a tool, and like any tool in film making it can be over used. Once you get to the point that you notice a technique, you are no longer engaged in the story. It's one thing for a DP to notice the technique, but I knew it was too much when my dad had to stop and ask...

...good movie none the less though...
 
If it was so good, I wonder why it was cancelled?

(Yeah yeah, I didnt watch the show. Not a big "Fox" fan so didnt event hear about it, until now that is...)
 
Because it cost quite a bit of money and there just isn't that big of an audience for Space Westerns.

If you base the quality of shows on whether or not they got cancelled, though, you'd be watching just a lot of terrible television. Most shows that are interesting, unique, and good don't last very long.
 
They showed the episiodes out of order, they moved the timeslot around, and...it's Fox. :-)

I think Peter Griffin summed it up best when he listed all the shows that would have to get cancelled to bring Family Guy back:

"Well unfortuantely Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We just gotta accept the fact that FOX has to make room for terrific shows like Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonder Falls, Fast Lane, Andy Richter Controls The Universe, Skin, Girl's Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, Freaky Links, Wanda At Large, Costello, The Lone Gunman, A Minute with Stan Hooper, Normal Ohio, Pasadena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddy, The Street, American Embassy, Cedric The Entertainer, The Tick, Louie, And Greg The Bunny...."
 
dougspice said:
Because it cost quite a bit of money and there just isn't that big of an audience for Space Westerns.

If you base the quality of shows on whether or not they got cancelled, though, you'd be watching just a lot of terrible television. Most shows that are interesting, unique, and good don't last very long.
Click to expand...

I wasnt trying to be sarcastic btw, I genuinely wanted to know why it was cancelled. Lets see if I can get hold of the DVD...
 
Sorry for the misunderstanding... those are the real answers, though. And, yes, as apollyon said, because Fox's scheduling department is run by hyenas on crack.
 
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone said that on the west coast, something like half the episodes that aired (only 10 total, I think) were preempted by baseball games. Didn't see any trouble on the east coast. It always seemed odd to me that, given the success of Buffy, they pulled the plug so quickly on firefly.

I do think that, in general (film and tv), those who are responsible for deciding what will get marketed get very nervous when they can't easily categorize a potential show/film/etc. That seems to be factored in much more heavily than the general quality of the work. Firefly was a sci fi show without any aliens - how's that supposed to sell? It was a western (out of fashion for a long time now) but spent a lot of time futzing around on space ships - who'll watch that?

Last I checked, the DVDs of the complete series are still in the top 50 (DVD) sellers at amazon. Not bad for DVDs released 2 1/2 years ago of an obscure show cancelled before a complete season aired.
 
Yeah the DVD sales have been pretty steady, amazing what word of mouth can do..

I have the feeling Whedon pitched it Fox not WB because of some problems with the last seasons of Angel (which I didn't care for anyway)
I do know that fox has been strange about the rights,
a friend of mine picked up the RP book, and they couldn't secure the rights to any of the episodes so they had to be hinted at.
They are probably making a killing of the DVD sales though,

It would be interesting if more information about cancellations came out, backbiting and rumour mongering aside,
the pre-empting for games may have been an affiliate choice, I don't know how rough Fox is with those policies. Though ratings are ratings and on a monday more people will watch games so from a business pov it kind of makes sense..

How would one selectivly remove emulsion from a lens without scratching the actual glass?
Use of a liquid while masking other areas off?
Thats one thing I dislike about the digital camera world, with the exceptions of diy adapters very little compatablity between lenses..
It would be nice if Panasonic or another big company would make it a little more easy to throw on 35mm lenses or at least medium formats..
Buying lenses to experiment with at thrift shops and so forth is a lot less scary then ruining the leica on our babies...
 
Something that hasn't been mentioned in trying to mimic the 'Firefly' look is taking into consideration the weight difference between the DVX100 and whatever 35mm handheld package they were shooting on.

Shooting handheld on a DVX will produce a different aesthetic, because it's lightweight design makes it more prone to jerking and shaking, which when blown up to a larger screen, usually looks like crap.

Handheld on 35 is awesome, because the cameras are so heavy, that you get a considerably smoother picture. When I did some handheld work for my last short, which was on 35, I had to really work the camera a bit; adding some shaking and arbitrary motion - just because it was just way too smooth otherwise!

There are ways to make DVX handheld a little smoother, but that usually involves some bizzare cradling with your hands that'll transfer as little motion to the camera as possible.
 
poor man's steadicam

poor man's steadicam

To get the firefly look for cheap, you need 3 things:

1. Shotlist that covers a lot of angles for each scene
2. A poor man's steadicam http://cgi.ebay.com/Poor-Mans-Stead...ryZ23780QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
3. Lots and lots of coverage (hence the need for a planned shotlist)


What you gotta do is plan your shotlist meticulously- for each scene make sure you have 2-3 different angles- make each angle combo a combination of very still handheld shots and moving slightly shake shots. Depending on the context, add a zoom or two- you can also plan transitions this way. A shotlist is invaluable for *any* look, let alone documentary-style.
 
The camera operation was just one part of the look. This show had tremendous production value, great acting, great writing, and a lot of heart. The set design and mise-en-scene was top notch.

The show had perfect contrast. There were deep blacks and at the same time exposed colorful light fixtures in frame, and lots of lens flare. At times there were even flickering light fixtures just out of frame, that seemed to be timed to flicker at half the frame rate. The effect was beautiful. I'd like to know exactly how they did that.

To emulate the effect, you'd need a really awesome location to work with.
 
I've been shooting BTS promos (in 24p) and filling the background with NTSC monitors, letting lots of flickering sources flicker away in the background, softly out of focus... it's a great look
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top