Ed_David

Beautiful. Thank you for this.

We can agree on that. Or should we disagree? I will make the argument that reviewers I trust have become soft. The NYTimes, the New Yorker - I used to trust the critics here's opinions on films - now I see that they are getting a "wee bit foggy" in the eyes. Did Reid create me to keep clickbait going? No. He doesn't approve of me. He swore at me on twitter. What I am simply doing is destroying this forum, piece by piece. Or am I just trying to bring out some debate just for the sake of debate and procrastination? Or am I doing research for my film about online trolling? Or am I doing this to help inspire people to get off their doles and start making things instead of feeling inadequete because camera Z just was announced and can shoot 6k vs your old camera that is still good, just as good as it was before camera z was announced, and that you could use this time to not drool over camera Z but figure out how to make your camera better. Part of becoming better is finding out what you stand for and believe in, and being able to defend yourself and your opinions whether in the real world or the online world. Or maybe there's another reason. Because Jimmy from the UK, I am your ulcer.

Mozart was actually pretty punk rock. And Kung Fury is pretty punk rock. It's not Breathless by Godard but it competes with Hollywood at their level of craft - it is technically really advanced. Tiny Furniture didn't compete - that felt amateur all the way thru. Kung Fury is as good as anything and if it was still a 5k movie not up to 600k because of kickstarter it would have still competed. And if anything I hadn't been so excited by VFX since the Matrix - there was something unique and loving about it that you don't get in movies that cost 100x that to make. I rather watch Kung Fury 20 times than the Avengers 1 or 2 20 times - because there is love in it - in making it. Everyone is having fun - it doesn't feel like a job. You can feel that energy on it. And it's really funny. The movie went to Cannes - director's forthnight so I'm not the only one who thinks the thing is good. But hey, what is good? What makes something good and something bad? But yes it's not Breathless or 400 Blows or 8 1/2 or Leviathan - it's a crowd-pleaser film that can compete with eye balls made at a fraction of the cost that is more visually stimulating than pretty much everything coming out of boring Hollywood - and by a guy from Sweden. What is not to admire about that?

I find Pixar puts out the most films in its heyday that got both good reviews and were popular and I liked. Up, Wall-E, etc. I think television shows like Breaking Bad, Veep, Game of Thrones, the Knick, House of Cards, Transparent both get good reviews and high turn out of viewers. I think this is the golden age of television and documentary and a lull for feature films. I see it as a problem of how they market hollywood films and Soderbergh spoke about this in his speech here - https://vimeo.com/65060864 - that the executive system that greenlights movies is doing it all wrong and that they no longer trust the director. Do films that get good reviews and get high ratings take risks - of course they do. Breaking bad was a giant risk - for it to become a huge hit is remarkable - that's the result of people believing in the project. That's not going with the crowd. Do you think investors put money into Adaptation were not taking a risk? I mean that putting money into a film about adapting a book about flower theft is much riskier than investing in Avengers 2. And hollywood no longer invests in small auteurs who make beautiful odd films. The Todd Solenz and Soderberghs of the world and David Lynch don't make films - they make TV or left the business. You have to take a risk. If the future of cinema is Superhero sequels and reboots of Jurassic Park, then I'll be sad. Because this is my generation doing this. I am one of those who didn't stand out and say something as I watch the feature film business turn to dreck. Where a mediocre film like Ex Machina is given some accolades. Where Mad Max Fury Road is considered a triumph. It's all ludicrous.

A failsafe is a failsafe - drinking problem or not - has there ever been in Elon Musk or Larry Page's book or IBM Watson or any of them instances of a complete system failure or security breach where a simple plot point of "hey the genius is a drunk he's flawed" has lead to a major plot point where a young 24-year-old coder can bring down the most advanced robotics center in the world by jumping on his imac and changing a few lines of code? You don't think the great genious would not have password protected his computer with 2-step authetication - and a facial scan even though he was facial-scanning the coder guest the whole time? I could have done a quick rewrite on the film so easily. Basically the plot point could have been that the coder thinks he secures the system if he's so sure of himself which is a trick by the genius who then messes more and more with him, more symbolically and then ties him up and reveals that the coder is just an earlier version of his AI and god knows what else would happen - but the movie could have pushed it a lot further. I like performances of good actors . Walter Isaac is a great actor - he was really good in Inside Lwelyn Davis - and I saw a terrible performance. Judging an actor's performance is subjective - it's in the eyes of the beholder. But still, seems that we all have standards of good performances vs bad. This is why there is film criticism even though it's not quantifiable. And over the course of history, opinions about films change a lot. It usually takes about 10 years. But they are just opinions. If there is a more critical audience that won't accept poor writing or performances, that's a good thing. Now am I right in saying that Walter is better in Inside Lwelyn Davis vs Ex Machima - yes. Just as you are right in saying Ex Machina is as good as 2001: Space Odyssey. And that's fine because there is no final say. Just as good taste is a matter of good taste.

yes I used it on this piece I shot - all flares are fake.

Yes actually believing in ones opinion even though many others may find something different is not having a god complex - it's having conviction and passion - two traits that are important to a) getting a movie done and also helping my friends get something done. Without conviction, one settles. Those who have extreme drive and the ability to stand apart from those around them - even at the risk of alienation or ridicule are those who can create things that are different, that will help move things forward, that will help those around them see things differently. Those who go with the crowd, they don't take risks. Part of taking risks is being able to be a fool, and that's what I do every day. My major problem with the film is the acting performances were subpar and so was the dialogue - I wasn't fully convinced I was in the presence of a genius and not convinced that the test subject was also a great coder. So many cliches - a Jackson Pollock painting showing chaos - the mountain shots - the only original thing in the whole film was the final shot which was a reflection of the ground and feet walking past it. Ripping off molding of skin that easily from a AI bot that was made for sexual activitiy? A failsafe system a young coder can easily override with a key? A robot that has the ability to cause power outages that the coder can't figure out? So many weak moments. The irony is how much time I spend on here to maybe help someone get an understanding about what we need to make interesting art - and the joy I get in the reddit like feedback from everyone on here. Oh man, the Internet - such an interesting environment for the great filmmakers of tomorrow.

It reminded me more of the opening entrance to Jurassic Park. Which I still think is a really interesting film - same themes - humanity messing with nature. And then nature kills humanity.

A film in the US costs on average $13 to see - critics definitely matter. Financially they save me a ton of money. That's how I found out about Leviathan, too. A good critic like David Denby is quite amazing.

Watch Leviathan and then see how landscape shots tell the story vs in Ex Machina where it just shows off the nature metaphor. The bones of the whale is a very important biblical metaphor unleashed in the shots that have meaning and the story revolves around that beach property. Onto male/female critique of Ex Machina. Every women in the story is seen topless. There is no male nudity. I don't really see it as a critque of male/female power structure moreso as maybe a simplified critique as follows that men are stupid enough to follow their sexual desire to let AI kill them - but really - is this anything new? Wasn't all these issues addressed in Blade Runner - a far superior film? Where the great payoff is that Deckard discovers he, himself is a robot. That film got more heavily into the notion of consciousness and an understanding of what it means to be us, to be humans and the struggle of it. Ex Machina was a cursory look at philosophy with a poorly-written script and pseudo science and even simply - how does his compound continue without the resources it would need to move forward - without any additional crew? Even Elon Musk has thousands of workers at Space-X. Watson at IBM has a team of hundreds. There is no reason to expect an advanced AI that far forward-thinking could have been programmed by one person - no matter how intelligent. The amount of human hours it takes to just get the coding done of a "simplier" device like Siri - look that up - it's a team of hundreds of engineers. I mean, Albert Einstein had a large team of physicists behind him. Was there a reason to have this film only have three people? To save costs - to make it easier for the robot to kill them? There have been so many fascinating sci-fi films in the past - again Blade Runner is perhaps the most powerful one I have seen on these issues. Of course, 2001 Space Odyssey as well. Just so many. And to have critics think Ex Machina is a great film? Wow have the critics gone soft.

everything is subjective - it's all based on tastes. Some people like grain, some people don't. Some people like sharp looking footage, some people like soft. I use neatvideo as well for certain projects.

This is a inexpensive LED flare light option - super super powerful and $140 quid on amazon US - creates very nice flares and good color - I use this a lot now on a bunch of jobs. Streamlight 75458 Stinger DS LED HL Rechargeable High Lumen Flashlight with 120-volt AC/12-volt DC PiggyBack Charger http://www.amazon.com/Streamlight-75458-Rechargeable-Flashlight-PiggyBack/dp/B00BD9OKC6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433674358&sr=8-1&keywords=Streamlight+75458+Stinger+DS+LED+HL+Rechargeable+High+Lumen+Flashlight+with+120-volt+AC%2F12-volt+DC+PiggyBack+Charger

This explains how this relates to bloomgate...http://www.thefrisky.com/2015-06-05/emma-sulkowiczs-ceci-nest-pas-un-viol-an-explainer Basicallt the viewer becomes an active participant in deciding whether an financee and ex girlfriends charge of domestic violence holds salt against the statement of a person none of us know personally but respect. I didnt bring down eoshd. We all did.

You need to not feed the virus guys. Without a moderator you are on your own. Every reply brings this post back to the top. You are better than that. Realize the affects of your action. Do not respond. Let this post die down before its too late and eoshd is destroyed.

The more you comment, the more you contribute to the problem of me - the virus - that has ruined this forum. That destroyed all that you guys held pure. I ruined everything - something so beautiful and innocent. This forum - the EOSHD forum - a forum that has it's name based on the EOS camera system - the 5d - I think. Escaping the harshness and reality of life by fetishizing the latest and greatest toy to make your skills better and cheaper, but not by developing the skills but by buying solutions to your issues. The virus was coming for a while. And why did I do this - because I wanted to. Because it's time for all of you guys to move on and create. Not just hate. And who am I to be this person who does this? Someone has to.

Here's the link - warning - NSFW: http://www.cecinestpasunviol.com/ http://jezebel.com/emma-sulkowiczs-newest-art-project-is-a-disturbing-sex-1709234401 Perhaps this is the greatest online art experiment I have seen - a faux sex tape based on the artist's rape - puts into question passivity of the internet while a crime is committed, complacency, and of course, online trolling with it's open discussion section - made for reddit trolls!!http://jezebel.com/emma-sulkowiczs-newest-art-project-is-a-… I'M GOING TO CALL IT - Emma Sulkowicz is the voice of our generation. It questions being passive when one sees a crime committed, as we witnessed recently in our online camera forum with a certain "celebrity" of camera tests. DO we act when we think we see bad? Do we watch the video of the artist getting rapped? Do we discuss it? What is our role as filmmakers, as citizens, as humanbeings when something ethically wrong happens? Especially now that the Internet makes everyone's "private" business our business. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts

I actually have spent a lot of time with ultra "Elon Musk" types - and I'm reading the biography on him right now. My uncle help create arpanet which latter became email and was a professor at MIT and worked in the AI department. And my dad is a computer scientist. And I worked on a doc on Watson - the most advanced AI computer in the world, IBM's AI project. So I got to know Watson's team very well. So I've been around these types a lot in real life. And their brains move at a different speed and tempo than most people, certainly differently than the two male characters in the film. "Do you think I'm crazy" is the first sentence in the book about Elon Musk - said by him. I wish the screenwriter and director researched the AI scene a little more. It's pretty amazing/scary what is actually happening at google these days so much that Elon Musk is concerned about AI recently. Oh well - hopefully the next film will get it a little more accurately.

I think the performances and dialogue was written as if it was by a 23 year old boy, not by the "creator" of google - or Elon Musk level of intelligence. It didn't feel fully realized to me at all. All was flat and boring, just like the vintage lens choice mixed with the sharpness digital camera on the planet -the sony f65

just bought some $10 ones off amazon - just type in "prism" and it pops up. just hold it randomly and try moving it to grab the most interesting refractions.

it has xlrs on it - just feed it line level and you are good to go audio wise

The stills on their gallery page look pretty digital - nice concept - I still think shooting with a digital back on a medium format camera is the best way at this point but maybe I shall be surprised soon.

thanks we used kino flo speciality colored bulbs - pink, yellow, in the studio and just a 1x1 litepanel with minus green gel on it. Grade was a modified slog with a kodak 200T conversion to cineon color space then applied a Kodak film print emulation to finalize it. DIdn't do too much secondary color correction. We flared the lens a lot and used prisms to cause refractions and other interesting in camera effects.

I just bought a third f35 from ebay for $6k. then odyssey 7q for about $3k including media and then lenses and matte box and nd - but you can use lenses and media and matte box and nd on any other camera so it's future proofed. PL glass is here to stay. So around $15k - but like I said, you can use the camera on commercial gigs or the gear on commercial gigs as well. Or you can rent it for pretty cheap too. I have three of them. So basically it's the same cost more or less as shooting with the Ursa Mini 4.6k but with better motion for now and excellent highlight rolloff - and it exists and has been improved for years - it's a mature product - and has excellent color reproduction. It's about buying a camera that went thru the ringer already vs gambling on a camera that may need some firmware updates to get decent.

Here's Leviathan- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oo7H25kirk - budget at $4 million US dollars and Here's Ex Machina - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYGzRB4Pnq8 - budget at $15 million US dollars Both films visually deal with landscapes and nature. Both films are about exploring human conflict and what is innate in humanity in terms of ego and morality . And here's visually where Leviathan succeeds - all shots are pertinent and with merit - in Ex Machina - all shots of landscapes feel like b-roll - they do not advance the story. They are just shots. The shots of the countryside in Leviathan move the story - start and end it. In Ex Machina - they just exist. Camera movement is always pertinent and deliberate in Ex Machina - there is no excess fat - all shots are justified. VIsual FXs are seamless - it all feels organic - and the performances are powerful and deliberate. In Ex Machina - the look of the film overcompensates the story - the attention to older vintage anamorphic lenses takes one out of the story - one notices it. Leviathan was shot on Kodak 35mm film stock but is never visually flashy to draw any attention to this. Coverage in Leviathan is exactly what the scene needs with long takes played out to tell the power struggles. Ex Machina is standard over the shoulder coverage, wide, mediums, tights - and performances in Leviathan are much better, more controlled than Ex Machina which feels like a student film. And going into script for a second and performances - Leviathan has very strong female characters who live and breathe and command the story. In Ex Machina - they are objectified and finally murderers. Why do so many male directors place their bizarre worldview into their filmmaking that women are just secondary sexualized characters manipulating men? Is this really the subtext a male director wants to pursue in a film seen by many? You can compare apples to oranges. Both films are "low" budget. One soars. The other is a jumbled mess. Visuals matter. They can make or break your film. It is a visual medium.

Also Austin Powers I is an important comedy in how revitalized the film series it was spoofing - satire is really not easy. Nor is making a 600k film look better than Ex Machina - a 15 million dollar student film. It's not the lenses, camera, bla bla bla - it's vision and talent. Just like you can become a great athelete wearing old used clothing when you work out. It's passion and desire, not crazy tech. Hearing more about how he shot it on the fs700 and the color and grading looks so good, so amazing so different like film - is even futher proof than like the film "Aloha" shot on kodak film that looked pretty bad. Again y'all can hate and hate, while some of us create. It's a lot easier to hate than create.