Bourne was grainy

[Keith Alan Morris]

Anyone else agree? I was just sitting there thinking the whole time, "I wonder how that would look on the Red?"

Of course that's what they were going for, the grainy aesthetic, and I liked the movies look, except for the constant whip pan closeups with no jump backs for masters to get your bearings...but still... it was grainy as hell!

Man, I gotta get a life.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Hehe... I plan on analyzing it myself on sunday afternoon.

[Jason Murphy]

Sure it was grainy, though actually not as much as I expected it to be. I did wonder how clean it would look if originated in 4K on a RED.

Good action movie, though, whip pans and all.

[Adam C Lubkin]

I was very disappointed in the look of it. Way too many fast shaky blurry shots that don't really show anything specific, but depend for their effect on what you infer from the way they're all put together - and lean way too heavily on the soundtrack. It looked like bad televison to me.

[Cory Schulthies]

yes it was grainy but Most of the time I didn't mind, I actually thought it gave it a bit more of a "gritty" feel which fits with the story. But with red they could just add in grain later if needs be. It could have used a bit higher of resolution :). the projector seemed slightly out of focus to me, kind of irritating.

I look forward to 4k digital cinemas, good bye cigarette burns, Hello Incredibly high resolutions!

[C.H.Haskell]

Sold out...so we opted for grain free simpsons. I just wonder if 4k projectors will just show more flaws in material that does originate in 4k...

[Scott M]

I have not seen it yet, however, my mother saw it and sent me a text this evening that said "worst camera work ever". Surprising, as she has never commented on the camera work of any film.

[Costelloe Michael]

Maybe that should temper your opinion of her text. :wink:

Mike C

[Costelloe Michael]

"Grains are the random heartbeat of the movie industry"

Ok answers on a postcard....

mike C

[Keith Nealy]

I think it was great - and it is another example of how the feeling that is created is essential to the three dimentional aspect of the story - extending the action and stress to the aduience

The camera shake and editing techniques actually create stress in the viewer viscerely so that we can more closely experience what Bourne is feeling.

"Saving Private Ryan" broke new ground with these techniques in the first twenty minute battle scene.

The editor must be recouperating on valium - all I could think of was the stress on the editor watching those sequences over and over again as he refined the edit.

Where is it going to go next? - Actual schrapnel being thrown at the audience?

I can't wait for the amusement ride!

Aloha,

Keith

[Tom Lowe]

The handheld shaky-ness was taken too far, IMO. When it gets to the point of being distracting and taking you out of the story because you are noticing the technique, you've gone too far, IMO. I loved the movie overall, though. Great nonstop action picture.

[Thom Steinhoff]

The handheld shaky-ness was taken too far, IMO. When it gets to the point of being distracting and taking you out of the story because you are noticing the technique, you've gone too far, IMO. I loved the movie overall, though. Great nonstop action picture.

Haven't seen it yet, but on my list. The first one, I thought was great: the second one nausiating. Is the camera move as nausiating as the second one? Since none of the reviews mentioned it, I was hoping he toned it down from the previous one.

[Keith Alan Morris]

Haven't seen it yet, but on my list. The first one, I thought was great: the second one nausiating. Is the camera move as nausiating as the second one? Since none of the reviews mentioned it, I was hoping he toned it down from the previous one.

i read some reviews talking negatively about the motion/closeup jitteryness of it all. great movie, but more jiggly-wiggly than #2.

its as if he was pushing it to see how far he could go. would look good on the small screen, methinks...

[Scott M]

I saw it and I thought it was indeed over the top shakey-cam this time. It just looked lazy to me actually. As though Greengrass thought that he could film Bourne "United 93" style to add realism. It, as mentioned before, actually took me "out" of the film. I don't mind it during intense sequences or for a natural effect, but the WHOLE film is a little much in my opinion.

[Tom Lowe]

Yep. There is an over-the-shoulder shot of Bourne sitting in a restaurant and the camera is shaking so much that it literally seemed like the op was doing it on purpose, in a really cartoonish manner. It pulled me right out of the picture.

[Brook Willard]

I loved the hell out of it, but I agree... the handheld was about 120% of what it needed to be at times. I'm a born-and-raised handheld shooter... and it definitely made me refocus my eyes and think "what the heck?" a few times. That said, I know what the director/DP were going for and I think they did a fantastic job of achieving it. I wouldn't have made all of the same decisions, but whew... it was great no matter what kind of armchair camera operating I do here.

[Kevin Halverson]

Handheld can be fine and used correctly it can serve the story, but when it draws attention to itself and takes the viewer out of the story, its gone way too far.

The "shakey-cam" look is a little like any other "effect" once you start doing it too often, it takes more and more of the same to stand out. Pretty soon what was once a tool used to drive the story becomes a style and ends up geting used in places where it has no business.

[Casey Green]

I loved the hell out of it, but I agree... the handheld was about 120% of what it needed to be at times. I'm a born-and-raised handheld shooter... and it definitely made me refocus my eyes and think "what the heck?" a few times. That said, I know what the director/DP were going for and I think they did a fantastic job of achieving it. I wouldn't have made all of the same decisions, but whew... it was great no matter what kind of armchair camera operating I do here.

I'd be curious as to what cinematic decisions you would make... (you know why) :)

[Brook Willard]

Heheh... that always depends on the story and what the director might have in mind.

[Alex Wengert]

If camera shake was intended it wouldn't change if it was digital or film. 35mm or 4K, same result. Find something else to latch on too.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It looked significantly less grainy than a bunch of shots in Pirates 3. I actually was suprised by how clean the image was after seeing some 2k scans posted here. The scans looked far softer than the print I saw. Then again... this was one of the best prints I've seen in a theater in a long time. And the projector was in focus! Amazing!

The real problem with the shakiness was it didn't ramp up. The first scene did not need to be shaky and I don't know how you can get that much shakiness with a 25+ pound rig.

I loved most of the compositions and use of occluded frames. I also loved the transitions from shaky -> rails in africa during the case. Excellent transition from suspense to action, but personally I prefer dropped frames to putting bees in the camera op's pants. I like natural amounts of shakiness... but I don't feel like my head vibrates that badly while sitting in a chair reading my email.

[Albert Cheng]

I was turned off by the shakey cam in Bourne Supremacy. It took me right out of the story, and drew way too much attention to itself. I remember my temper flaring for a moment during one of the fight scenes and thought to myself "what are these filmmakers thinking". Haven't seen it yet, but if Bourne ultimatum is more of that, I have a feeling I'm gonna need to be restrained.

[Sam Druckerman]

Any camera move or shake that calls attention to itself is counter productive to the main objective, Story Telling, and a real pet peeve of mine.

Excessive Grain is another one of those "I'm going to give it a look" choices that can be a spoiler.

Some will disagree with this, but let me just say... I have never dreamed in grain, have you? And what are films if not stories presented in dream form.

Isn't it true that most classic films that have grain, do so because of the film stock that was available, or they didn't have the budget for 35mm, so they shot 16mm. I have to wonder how many of those film makers wouldn't have jumped on 70mm if given the opportunity.

Now, grain has become a part of our film culture and film makers like to use grain as an ascetic choice.

They use it to date the story or period of the film. That's cool... But "Amadeus" is a flawless film, it's as close to perfect as any I've ever seen. It didn't need excessive grain to convey the period. "Lawrence of Arabia", same thing.

Grain used to affect a feeling (rough, tough, gritty, etc), can work great. But they way it was used in Bourne, to the point of distraction... it becomes self defeating. "Full Metal Jacket" is a pretty gritty story, but it didn't need excessive grain to be effective.

My point is, the audience doesn't need anything to help them remember there watching a film. Each and every one of them paid money to be entertained. What they want is an experience that takes them away and helps them forget themselves in the story. It's like a good dream you want to see to the end, and enjoy in the moment. When you wake up, you'll know it was only a movie.

When the audience starts thinking about how it was made, or it looks, they've awoken and you've lost them.

[Evin Grant]

If you want my opnion (Don't answer that!) the gold standard for handheld work is Cuaron/Lubezki, watch "Y Tu Mamma Tambien" and "Children of Men" that's frenetic, gritty handheld that doen't make you vomit into your popcorn bag. I haven't seen Ultimatum yet but Supremacy was nausiating, great story but I was totally thown by the camera work.

[Keith Nealy]

It was double the shake and crash edits of #2.

Even though it was an assault - I think it worked on some level.

I've notice that my kids live at a faster pace than I do. Every form of media they watch is faster. It's the game reaction times that are pushing things, I think.

So If you like Ludlum and the Bourne series it's a trip but... be forewarned.

It's a non-stop adrenaline rush with some amazing gags.

Keith

[Adam C Lubkin]

If you want my opnion (Don't answer that!) the gold standard for handheld work is Cuaron/Lubezki, watch "Y Tu Mamma Tambien" and "Children of Men" that's frenetic, gritty handheld that doen't make you vomit into your popcorn bag. I haven't seen Ultimatum yet but Supremacy was nausiating, great story but I was totally thown by the camera work.

I saw "Ultimatum" just a couple days after having watched "Children of Men", so imagine how much it suffered in comparison. But then Lubezki is a genius, IMHO. However, consider that Lubezki and his brilliant operator try to keep the camera as steady as possible, versus the way-overdone conceit that handheld camera work is all over the place and full of spastic snap zooms. And for those that argue that in "Ultimatum" it represents Bourne's state of mind or point of view - don't you think he'd be dead a few seconds into the film if he couldn't keep it together better than that? Isn't the attraction of his character the way he always sees more of a situation than everyone else, and thus is able to elude and manipulate the CIA and the other bad guys? If he saw the way the camera does, he'd be in a corner vomitting right up until they blew his brains out.

[Jason Murphy]

Some will disagree with this, but let me just say... I have never dreamed in grain, have you? And what are films if not stories presented in dream form?

I actually have dreamed in film grain, at least twice as far as I can remember. Highlights were slightly blown out too. And they weren't dreams about watching movies, either.

I also like (under the right circumstances, of course) film grain; it can be quite beautiful. Perhaps there's a connection... :)

[Jason Murphy]

Isn't it true that most classic films that have grain, do so because of the film stock that was available, or they didn't have the budget for 35mm, so they shot 16mm. I have to wonder how many of those film makers wouldn't have jumped on 70mm if given the opportunity.

Actually, I think much of the grain that we see in classic movies becomes accentuated both because of aging and the fact that many of the classic movies we see today are copies of copies of copies; each generation loses some resolution and adds some contrast and grain. All in all, original prints of classic movies probably looked significantly better and richer than most anything we see today, thanks to the (by today's standards) ridiculous amount of silver used in the stocks. But nobody in their right mind runs original nitrate prints anymore, so hey...

16mm was used a lot for home movies and newsreels, and post WWII a number of avant-garde filmmakers took it up as well, because the surplus of cameras and stock manufactured for wartime reporting meant it was cheap and accessible to pretty much anyone. I don't think it was really used at all for narrative features until much later (like the late 60's and the 70's).

I'm sure that if they could be given the resolution of 70mm at the cost and portability of 16mm, many filmmakers would have jumped at the chance. But I think most of them valued cost and portability (ie. the fact that they could use it themselves in almost any situation) over resolving power.

[krd]

Some will disagree with this, but let me just say... I have never dreamed in grain, have you? And what are films if not stories presented in dream form.

The most insidiously involving images I've ever seen were Hi8 origination shot off a monitor with a 35mm camera, and then projected on 35mm. It was as if the movie was taking place inside your head, with the approximate resolution of dreams.

Can't recommend this approach for long form work -- it gets tiring after a while, as your eyes try to resolve detail which isn't there -- but there's a lot to be said for murk in imaginative story telling. Love of grain may be generational or experiential (what you grew up on?), but it's very hard to wish that film classics had the hyperreal grainless structure of video (and possibly 4K; but impossible to know, at this point). Seeing the film through a veil has a certain suggestivity.... Kind of like dreams, no?

[Tom Lowe]

If you want my opnion (Don't answer that!) the gold standard for handheld work is Cuaron/Lubezki, watch "Y Tu Mamma Tambien" and "Children of Men" that's frenetic, gritty handheld that doen't make you vomit into your popcorn bag. I haven't seen Ultimatum yet but Supremacy was nausiating, great story but I was totally thown by the camera work.

Agreed.

[Keith Nealy]

I agree with you about his state of mind and what it should look like - in reality - but this isn't reality, this is movies and audiences, especially young people have become sfx junkies and are hooked on frenitic motion.

MTV discovered that decades ago and it has ramped up ever since. This is about selling tickets. not reality. It's becomming a "can you top this" environment. I actually thought that Die Hard 3 was a better action flick because you had more empathy for the character and a more sensible pacing. But that's just me.

RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

Michael Caine was great, as usual.

[Tom Lowe]

RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

Uh, what about the car ambush scene?

[Adam C Lubkin]

I agree with you about his state of mind and what it should look like - in reality - but this isn't reality, this is movies and audiences, especially young people have become sfx junkies and are hooked on frenitic motion.

I can't argue with the economics of "Ultimatum", but I do believe that sfx-infused frenetic motion can be done way better.


RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

Michael Caine was great, as usual.

Michael Caine wasn't in that sequence ;)

I would argue that the central storyline wasn't the primary story - that the primary story is everything you saw out of your peripheral vision. And that story was briliantly told. If you check out interviews with Cuaron you'll see this was by design. It's an oblique kind of storytelling compared to most mainstream movies.

[Sam Druckerman]

I actually have dreamed in film grain, at least twice as far as I can remember. Highlights were slightly blown out too.

Hi Jason,

LOL Veeeeeery interesting.

But seriously, good to know. If you do, there must be others?

Let's hear from everyone who's dreamed in Grain?

I confess after reading several books on creative dreaming, I now direct / edit my dreams......

"Ah, no no no no. Do this!" ... "That's more like it".

Maybe I've shared to much...

[Scott M]

RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

I agree wholeheartedly.

BTW, I just watched a screening of Danny Boyle's "Sunshine", there are some BEAUTIFUL images in that film. Some amazingly clear closeup profiles of an eye for instance. I was, like in "Children of Men" amazed by some of the cinematography, but again found the story to be off as some odd liberties are taken, but I enjoyed watching it though ;).

[wshultz]

Amazing... Everyone's got an opinion. I actually liked Children of Men throughout and I thought the parallels with Nazi Germany were startling. The long battle scene was very gripping.

Bourne Ultimatum does take the hand held up yet another notch. The only time it bothered me and pulled me out of the story were on long static dialog scenes.

I was in car accident once where we rolled twice and skidded upside down for awhile. It looks just like those hand held chase scenes!

[Keith Alan Morris]

Hi Jason,

LOL Veeeeeery interesting.

But seriously, good to know. If you do, there must be others?

Let's hear from everyone who's dreamed in Grain?

I confess after reading several books on creative dreaming, I now direct / edit my dreams......

"Ah, no no no no. Do this!" ... "That's more like it".

Maybe I've shared to much...


what books?

[Adam C Lubkin]

Amazing... Everyone's got an opinion. I actually liked Children of Men throughout and I thought the parallels with Nazi Germany were startling. The long battle scene was very gripping.

Bourne Ultimatum does take the hand held up yet another notch. The only time it bothered me and pulled me out of the story were on long static dialog scenes.

I was in car accident once where we rolled twice and skidded upside down for awhile. It looks just like those hand held chase scenes!

I was once in CIA headquarters having a conversation in a nice office and it felt just like a car accident where we rolled twice and skidded upside down for awhile. Oh, wait... hehe

[Sam Druckerman]

what books?

Check your PM's.

I didn't want to hijack the thread.

[Chris Gearhart]

The only time it bothered me and pulled me out of the story were on long static dialog scenes.

I agree totally. I think if they hadn't done it so painstakingly early on--in scenes that screamed, "See! Aren't you feeling tense along with Jason?" no one would have noticed it.

My wife and I went to see it and we had the obligatory argument about whether to sit close (me) or farther back (her). I am so glad I lost that one. I would have vomited after 10 minutes. But once things picked up I stopped noticing it at all.

The grain never really bothered me. I actually went after seeing this thread and still never thought about it.

It was all worth it to see that camera jumping from building-top to window behind Bourne. Stink I wish I had thought of that.

[wshultz]

I was once in CIA headquarters having a conversation in a nice office and it felt just like a car accident where we rolled twice and skidded upside down for awhile. Oh, wait... hehe

I was once in bed...

[Keith Alan Morris]

It was all worth it to see that camera jumping from building-top to window behind Bourne. Stink I wish I had thought of that.

Yep, me too. I'm gonna steal that shot anyway. It was just too cool.

[Jason Murphy]

It was all worth it to see that camera jumping from building-top to window behind Bourne. Stink I wish I had thought of that.

Which makes me wonder... can anyone recall having seen other movies that make good use of work by a stunt cameraman? According to an article I read, they actually made that shot by having the cameraman jump off the roof after Matt Damon/his stuntman.

[Brook Willard]

I saw a clip of how they did that shot. The Steadicam op was wearing a harness linked to a cable system above. Damon made the jump and the operator followed as though he were going to crash through the window as well. Once he reached a certain point in the air, the cable system suspended him and left him hanging awkwardly between the buildings. It was pretty funny to watch.

[PaulClements]

I've contemplated the idea of becoming a stunt cameraman, I've always thought it'd be bloody good fun. Not sure how you go about doing it but it was always a childhood dream to be a stuntman and I recall my brothers and I throwing ourselves off everything imaginable in anticipation of our illustrious career choice.

I remember my eldest brother driving MY pedal bike through a fence and off of a 15 foot wall into the main road where he rolled out of the way of an oncoming bus, the bike came off far worse. I'm not being funny but to this day I don't think I've seen a more dangerous stunt performed lol. I feel so sorry for my mom :)

[Brook Willard]

I've contemplated the idea of becoming a stunt cameraman, I've always thought it'd be bloody good fun. Not sure how you go about doing it but it was always a childhood dream to be a stuntman and I recall my brothers and I throwing ourselves off everything imaginable in anticipation of our illustrious career choice.

I remember my eldest brother driving MY pedal bike through a fence and off of a 15 foot wall into the main road where he rolled out of the way of an oncoming bus, the bike came off far worse. I'm not being funny but to this day I don't think I've seen a more dangerous stunt performed lol. I feel so sorry for my mom :)
Didn't happen if there wasn't video. :wink:

[PaulClements]

There was plenty of witnesses, including a very irate bus driver. :)

I was actually really upset when I saw my bike.

[Joe Carney]

Talk about over done camera shake...I tried watching Fiday Night Lights on TV after all the critics said good things about it. Changed the channel after about 10 minutes, so overdone it ruined the story for me. Now that's an example of the hand held technique going way to far.

[Eugene]

I have never dreamed in grain, have you? And what are films if not stories presented in dream form.

http://www.ennislaw.com/images/lariam2.png

Take some Larium, and I guarantee that you will be dreaming in crisp vivid color, not grainy black and white. Of course you might pick up a gun and blow your brains out when you wake up. It's a nasty little side effect of the drug.

[Yash Keough]

I was actually very impressed by Bourne Ultimatum the whole trilogy now ranks up there for me with Lord of the Rings in my favorites. That said, there was only really one or two cases where I found the shakey cam distracting, and that was one of the fight scenes for a brief period. Personally I've never really found it particularly bad and to me it just pulls me in more (with the 1 or two exceptions as mentioned where you can't tell what's going on). I think the camera work is one of those "love it or hate it" type of things.

[jaadgy akanni]

I've contemplated the idea of becoming a stunt cameraman, I've always thought it'd be bloody good fun. Not sure how you go about doing it but it was always a childhood dream to be a stuntman and I recall my brothers and I throwing ourselves off everything imaginable in anticipation of our illustrious career choice.


Paul that doesn't surprise in the least, 'cause judging from your pic there, I've always pegged you as one of those danger-loving lunatics...hahaha

[Joe Carney]

I really enjoyed the Bourne Ultimatum. I decided to not analyze the movie, just enjoy it. I'll wait for the DVD for the analysis part. It is without a doubt the best of the three and for once one of those movies that lived up to the hype. Very well done escapist adventure.

One of the things I like about the Bourne franchise is the bad guys are smart, capable and genuinely tragic, the fact that Bourne is really no different than them makes it even more poignant.

[Brook Willard]

Ah, guess it was handheld. Googled for it and found it online. There's some NSFW crap here, but the video's linked here (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/717052/behind_the_scenes_the_bourne_ultimatum/).

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1186899989.jpg

What a great shot.

[Tom Lowe]

Awesome.

[PaulClements]

I thought of a stunt shot a while ago that i'd absolutely love to do.

Basically it'd be a chase across a bridge. I'd be running behind the actor. We'd get half way across and stop when we see people chasing from the other side of the bridge. I'd pan the camera from left to right showing the chasers from both sides of the bridge, this couple of seconds would be used to disguise the switch of actor to stuntman (Who'd run behind me) and the linking of a bungy rope to a harness I'd be wearing. The stuntman would then climb onto the side of the bridge followed by me. He'd then jump over the edge and I'd go over directly behind him, the bungy stopping me from landing on him as well as keeping the equipment from being left at the bottom of the river.

It'd be done in a single take. Would be an awesome shot I reckon. Just got to come up with a reason for shooting it lol. Something like Tower Bridge would make for an interesting location for it.

[Tom Lowe]

haha, but what happens to the stuntman??

[PaulClements]

He jumps into the river and I film him landing in it. Obviously it'd be a bridge that you could survive jumping off of. He'd have a wetsuit or something on beneath his clothing and a nearby boat would pull him out of the water almost immediately. Not sure how high tower bridge is, but I'd be willing to bet a stuntman would jump off with the right gear.

[Keith Nealy]

How are you going to secure your camera to you so when you stop it doesn't follow the actor into the river:)

Keith

[PaulClements]

Have the camera linked to the harness lol... seriously jumping off a huge bridge whilst trying to frame a subject, that'd be the least of my worries. Besides if i kill the camera it'll be insured, we'll just get another! :)

I reckon I succesfully took this thread off topic... sorry!

[Brook Willard]

Paul, I think you and I share some weird camera operator connection.

[Tom Lowe]

Lol, seriously, that shot sounds amazing, Paul. The only thing is, while you are falling through the air, it might be tough to keep the camera fixed on the stunt guy, in focus, etc. I guess you could just be wide and stopped down so you have lots of DOF.

[PaulClements]

If the whole thing was very measured it ought to be possible to map out the focus anyway. Then just have the focus puller working remotely.

So Brook do you think up mad ways to try to kill yourself in the name of "getting the shot" then! :)

[Tom Lowe]

haha, i'd love to be a fly on the wall when you explain this shot to the producers, focus puller and stunt guy... :)

[PaulClements]

haha, i'd love to be a fly on the wall when you explain this shot to the producers, focus puller and stunt guy... :)

I'd say, (In a BA Baracus kinda voice) "we can make the film look like every other or we can make it look real special". Then I'd say "I don't give a flying f**k if I break my legs and arms because I think it'd look damn cool". The stunt guy would look at me through slitted eyes and nod silently, then welcome me into the stunt guy ranks with the special handshake, the quivering focus puller would take one look at us and say "I'll do whatever you guy's want, you're the coolest", we'd both reply simultaneously "damn straight". The producers would say, "hmm I dunno guys, it's awfully risky." "I'm not sure we could cover you on that." "It'll take a month or two of paperwork." then we'd jump them, tie them up, run out and tell everyone we gonna go for it. Jump of the bridge, take the women and guzzle champagne till the sun rises. Aaaah yeah...

[PaulClements]

Seriously OT now lol :)

[Tom Lowe]

Haha, you're right about having to hog-tie the production office... LMAO.

[Keith Nealy]

You're nuts Paul, but very funny.

I like your style. Now about that rig...

[Brook Willard]

I'd say, (In a BA Baracus kinda voice) "we can make the film look like every other or we can make it look real special". Then I'd say "I don't give a flying f**k if I break my legs and arms because I think it'd look damn cool". The stunt guy would look at me through slitted eyes and nod silently, then welcome me into the stunt guy ranks with the special handshake, the quivering focus puller would take one look at us and say "I'll do whatever you guy's want, you're the coolest", we'd both reply simultaneously "damn straight". The producers would say, "hmm I dunno guys, it's awfully risky." "I'm not sure we could cover you on that." "It'll take a month or two of paperwork." then we'd jump them, tie them up, run out and tell everyone we gonna go for it. Jump of the bridge, take the women and guzzle champagne till the sun rises. Aaaah yeah...

Would this all go down at sunset with a gigantic sweeping technocrane shot? Because I really don't think there's any other way for something like that to be seen. :) :wink: