markm

Indy 4 was ruined by trying to make ford into a 69 year old super hero. His character could have been a good fighter and tensions built believably but they allowed some bad acting to creep in and harrisons lines to be a bit weak, silly scenes like the mole story and the tarzan scene. The aliens were a build up to an Sfx extravanganza and should have been a conflict with indie who beats them with his brain instead of the shock and awe ending.

Abrams wont change into spielberg or a mainstream director. He may forgo the torches but he will be back with something worse like acrobatic stunt doubles for han or even jabba the hut. there will be a reinventing of the star wars universe much loved ships like the millenium falcon will be re imagined redifined and streamlined. X Wings will have wondrous new designs and the force will be Sfx heaven.   There will be a whole new creature shop to replace Jim Henson and robotic monsters. There will be flashing lights and big explosions. We will be shocked We will be awed. Everything but entertained by our enigmatic loved characters of old.   Shame really I was so pleased they did the right thing and bought back the old cast and then spoiled it by coupling it with the star of the moment director who will undoubtably add his artistic creativity full on and centre stage.   They all seem to lose the plot. They ARE so insulated from reality there own egos ruin everything. When Lucas started out he was just like all of us in his thinking and made amazing films. Now he lives in a different world where those with the money have spoiled rich lives and have no idea what ordinary people want. Except to think his reality is the norm and therefore must be what we want to see. Hence brat films like star trek because even though he is retired he will still have a hand and so too will Abrams.

Axel   When I say the first 3 films were soap opera I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean it in the way it focused and created problems for interesting characters Something the later films tried to do but failed because the relied to heavily on SFX to tell the story which took away from the acting along with a lack of any soap. Special annoyance reserved for the tall muppet.   And no I haven't seen into darkness and it would be nice to be surprised.

Well in my opinion they continue to mess up star trek although I agree you can watch it for about 5 minutes before the effects start getting annoying. They lost the acting The gene rodenberry effect and any sense of storyline as the wonderment of comparing the new cast with the old finally wears off. You can put in clever twists turns and superhuman derring do but if you lose its heart you end up with a slick soulless movie length trailer. it would be brilliant to use todays SFX iin a way that helps the characters and story instead of the other way round. Just from that B roll you can see colour co ordinated jerkins camera's that can do somersaults Sets that dominate everything. Oh look there's captain kirk being very heroic as he chats up a girl who is not easily impressed but soon becomes a kirkie later on . Perhaps he beds her and she is lost in orgasmic wonder Imagine his masculine young shoulder hunched as he slowly pumps and the music beeerah Beeray.. I can tell you the story without needing to watch it.  With algorythms designed to write/improve screenplays it will be a blockbuster (Really though only because the trailers look so SFX'ly amazing and how dumb we must be at watching the same old manufactured drivel same old cliched rubbish that we are caught into. This is what destroys film making as they build up a sense of occassion and everyone lured out thinks well if this is the best on a £100,000,000 budget then a low budget film will be crap but worse than that low budgets try to emulate big ticketed crap.

And written by Michael Arndt. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22491025   Not a good sign I don't think. The last three films suffered because of the massive emphasis on effects and not the emotional soap opera the first three were and what made them so loves.   Abrams created great effects shots for star trek while losing its core ingredient The idea we can be trained from being morally okay and  better than ourselves and not Brats who do as they want and through the honing of inner brat skills become better than themselves in what ends up annoying unlikely and up itself. Throw in warp drive lens flares and a special effect wonderland to easily outshines the story. Oh and a story that writes itself IE Get yourself thrown off a starship crash on a planet fight and ice monster roll down a hill straight into who will become your chief engineer and then onto just well take the ship because your so well Bratish. And a legend brat is born that can own a starship chair.   Imagine that applied to Luke Han and Leia as a much older cast and throw in a tinged with sadness Darth Vader and names like lord dooku and a story that writes itself your going to have a fast paced whirlwind fight coupled with a slow out of date cast who try to keep up with at least one or two being killed off and replaced by brats who will own the force even worse than the last trilogy.   I'm just so sure they will mess this up even worse than the last three.   What they should do.   Han and Leia happily married and a wedge driven between them that makes them split and worse they fight each other guided by a new evil force Only one person can save them and that is Luke who is away in another universe helping those people overcome their version of the darkside When he eventually comes back He saves Han first but they can't save leia until in the end she finally kills Han only love overcomes all. As the droids c3po and r2d2 return and we have a new evil empire growing for the next two or several films to come.   However writers love to kill off main characters or force actors to do what is not likely for their age or some other mental tangent that takes it all down but seems artistic overdrive instead of unrealistic drivel.   Here we go again How many ways can you fcuk up a work of art?

There has always been a group in between pro and amatuer and they were called semi pro or enthusiasts. This is not a new phenomenen video cameras have been affordable for a long time. Back in the 70's I had a cine camera bought for £5 that shot super 16mm on kodachrome 40 film and shown on a projector Even then I spliced my own films together I wasn't rich but I was an enthusiastic kid.

Does the G6 have clean uncompressed hdmi out? Thats what I would want to know.

Really we need the original footage.   I downloaded the compressed footage and it looks like BMC to me. The only problem is can't see the dynamic range but the footage has been corrected and playing with colour correction is great. People are saying because there is no room to debayer the footage looks soft. Doesn't to me though.   EDIT Having said that This is I think sourced from prores so it wont need debayering and should look as good as the standard BMC which I assume does pro res in 1080 by cropping the 2.5k frame I think.

  Well I think of you agree the sensor fiasco was not down to them and a proven track record of being a solid company they will have learned a huge lesson its almost certain this delivery date is conservative in my view.

BMC QUIET Wow. No wonder they were quiet on the forums about the BMC - They were so busy developing these.   PROBLEMS RESOLVED? Undoubtably now they will ship on time as the will have been very careful with new sensor manufacturers. Maybe buying them in before this announcement.   THE RANGE They have now, a de facto range from the pocket camera for super 16mm that shoots 1920x1080 with no davinci software up to the BMC that has a better 2.5k delivery and a slightly bigger sensor WITH davinci. And finally the 4k global shutter camera.   Every camera sits in pole position in this properly priced lineup.   THE PROMISE This was what Red promised at its foundation and never delivered. This is what I have repeatedly called for on forums and been kicked off one well known forum in favour of the argument for overpriced year on year model by model incremental wallet busters IE canon promise of a new age of printing money.   THE RESULT Finally - what could be done (without ripping off customers) has been done. Black Magic have left nothing. No stone unturned. The day of overpriced cameras. DONE    Black Magic have NO competition in their price value and their range comprehensively covers professionally what the majority want.   WHAT NEXT? Will we begin to see other manufacturers compete, leave or try to remove Black Magic, with perhaps an offer for buyout, legal action or an attempt to bury them. Maybe BMD will just continue to take over the market unabated. This whole thing has a narrative, innovation and a new beginning. The future is Black Magic. Long live the future.    

I'm not a hollywood film maker and with little money But If I get my film off the ground This is how I will work. I will need a Visual effects supervisor who could also create the SFX preferably.   Although it would be collaberation so looking for someone in a similar position to mine We would then  go through the script together and plan exactly how we will shoot for the effects. Then on the shoot to overlook the relevent shots for plates, greenscreen along with the rest of my team.   Once the film is done I would use  a post house to create the right look for colour correction. Although I would want to oversee the whole process they are artists with years of experience who will create my vision. If they have ideas they may very well change my mind on anything and everything.

That's disgusting.   I don't think VFX firms can realistically stop undercutting But what they can do as a collective is boycott producers who say stuff like that and make future deals for proper recognition on work done, so the oscar fiasco can never happen again.  They could also make deals to win contracts and share work.

mtheory Yes I agree But I also think there has been a shortage of up and coming high quality actors because who needs name actors in VFX films. I also think people will get fed up and want a more tradditional type of film If a young harrison ford made a film along the indiana jones line I thinlk it would be a box office success. yes I know a lot of SFX but not the wall to wall covering we are getting now.   Bring back actors!

I agree JG I think VFX films from beginning to end are a novelty that will wear off. I love special effects that propel the story but not the other way round. i really looked forward to watching clash of the titans and if you watch 5 mins of it it is spectacular but watching the whole film I was looking for the exit. There is nothing better than seeing real stunts to grip you to the edge of your seat. Or amazing music Camera work Lighting or even sound.   I'd love to see X files find its stride which I don't think the previous films ever did.

  Why address this to me?   An ASC though does command a certain professionalism because of the work they have done that has proven themselves Experience and knowledge often equate to talent if an ASC or  BSC offered to be my DP I would be very happy indeed. They are extremely knowledgeable talented people who know far more than I will probably ever know about being a DP.   Look I may not have liked Roger Deakins ASC BSC Cinematography in skfall with the Alexa and I'm entitled to an opinion. We criticise the pro's precisely because they are the best of the best. I might say I hated the last indiana jones film but there is more talent in that film than I may ever have in one of my miserable little efforts but I judge them by the very best of the best standards. I may be harsh but it doesn't mean I dont respect them for what they do because I damn well know how near impossible it is what they do do.   If Leang wants to tell me I know jack then fine He's right Until I earn my stripes that is. I have been learning all I can and making films but spent very little time actually directing But I feel I am ready that is why I want to make a breakout film.   I respect my peers. I may not always like them but in a professional capacity I would always be a professional because I do respect the work they do.

Sean I am happy to re evaluate my position. I didn't know you have made films only that you played a major role in big feature films special effects and a master in that area as far as I am concerned.

  Some may know about certain things but there are certainly no ASC's that I know of here. Leang is probably the only person to have directed and made a feature film although I don't know how succesful and I guess that is the only measure you could use if you want to say I'm a professional so I'm right..    However it doesn't make you right on everything by default no matter how good you might be.   But then the forum isn't really about teaching Its more about a social site and news about the latest gear and some political comment on the world of film.   Andrew seems to be the only expert in bringing us news of new equipment and knowledge of consumer cameras. Often providing us with stuff to talk about. No one else is giving tutorials or advice in a professional capacity other than experience with consumer equipment.   If you are an expert Bruno then in what field and what are you offering as credentials?

  Although the oscar should have clearly gone to those who created the cinematography. Miranda is also in a difficult position. If he tells it how it is he makes the oscar judges look pretty stupid. Also the film itself has this oscar attached to it and could affect its sales and prestige.  The blame should be placed on the judges by the media Surely Miranda is feeling awful about this although I could be wrong but could be doing what most film makers do and protecting the industry. Would you turn on the Oscars if you were him? He must be thinking of the potential damage to not only his career but to the oscars hollywood and the film.   This is what I hate about film competions and opinions that are subjective from people who use this to destroy fairness.   I'd like to see a media campaign to get it changed to an oscar for the cinematography only and Miranda an opportunity to redefine it as such.

You know what Leang That's exactly what I intend to do! If Miranda can get an oscar for lighting greenscreens then I too am in with a chance as I too can light them.

  Oh I see So the award went to the DP for best cinematography  did it. Well if thats the case it is a joke.

I understand his frustration but the art is in the eye not the camera lens so if the composites framing colour correction create great cinematography that is no more an illusion than going out with a hollywood lighting kit.   A lot of cinematography is a mixture of sets in sound stages and the real world manipulated.   Maybe though the Cinemtography award should be split in two now.  One defined for real world and one defined for SFX shots. The two have merged a lot closer in recent times so much so its hard to go out and find an award winning photo that hasn't been touched up in photo shop for example.

Axel suggested snuff movies Not me. I just used his example. You might notice censorship defination says Morally questionable   There was a movie released called snuff That was at one time thought to have a real death in it.   Anyway part of the defination of censorship from wikeapedia.   Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise considered morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world.[3][4] Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Political censorship occurs when governments hold back information from their citizens. This is often done to exert control over the populace and prevent free expression that might foment rebellion. Religious censorship is the means by which any material considered objectionable by a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light,[5][6] or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure.[7]

Axel Censorship is of course a neccesary tool. Your cry for freedom from censorship and artistic licence to create what you want is what you use to bash me with so you dont have to confront the moral issues.   Leang's film was very well done and still used extreme violence and included depraved characters and their conversation was quite chilling. We didn't know much about the two characters and not asked to follow either as a main character. The pedophile gets shot and although not something we do as a society we can empathise with morally wrong charactr getting his come uppance the guy that shot him may very well be a bad guy who obviously has a sense of right and wrong He may even turn out to be a tortured anti hero.   However he didn't as a hero scalp all the victims nor torture and maim while playing the good and just main hero character.   Recent times a few British and American soldiers tortured innocent civilans to death. They are dealt with by the courts. This is not something to consider as right and those guys were fighting for our freedoms But there is a moral code that is there they must abide by. Unless there is some moral reasons we can understand IE Like the soldier reacted after the insurgent come out of a crowd and blew his mate up and he reacted in the moment But we do not make heroes out of soldiers who torture maim and kill in a fun way. That is a reflection of our society as it stands today.   I'm sure many war crimes are commited and go unpunished but when they are found out they are prosecuted. A film maker may show war crimes being commited but the main hero character must be a moral person and not in a religious sense but a way we know is right. You just cant have a hero that an audience roots for and by nature of the hero main character sees the film through their eyes and empathises with as a character that commits war crimes and a sadist torturer.   There is a clear line here that film makers naturally adhere to. Tarantino though blurs those lines.   Of course when you watch you see the main character doing bad Getting away with it then getting the rewards You think OH WOW this is different This is new. This is exciting. The man is a genius. He is not He is blurring the lines. We as a society take for granted our laws and rules, Not all do. We break our moral values at the risk of our own freedom. Let alone the encouragemnt of this being copied in real life just as many violent acts from films are copied. And although violent acts will happen without film and at a worse level. IE Gaddafi's golden gun. Film still has a responsibilty not to teach new tricks that break moral codes.   It's really not worth it.   Why have I bothered to write all this. WELL. My hope is others may realise that writers do have a responsibility and  films will be made with a moral framework and recognised as video nasties when they're not. At the very least know what you are doing and why.

If a murderer made a snuff film and got put in prison would you allow that film to be shown or would you censor it. Its a simple question.

Right so you do believe in censorship? Yes or no.