View Full Version : Top Ten Cinematography Travesties
PaulClements
02-22-2007, 01:20 PM
Ok so we've had some opinions on the Top Ten Cinematography Masterpieces, what about the Top Ten Cinematography Travesties???
Ruairi Robinson
02-22-2007, 01:37 PM
Ok so we've had some opinions on the Top Ten Cinematography Masterpieces, what about the Top Ten Cinematography Travesties???
Pick any ten Irish movies.
Tom Lowe
02-22-2007, 01:44 PM
Half the pretentious handheld shit on the Sundance Channel for starters. ;)
Pick any ten Irish movies.
There are irish movies? I kid I kid.
PaulClements
02-22-2007, 01:58 PM
I seem to find it alot harder to think of the 10 worst than the ten best... I guess that's because there is far more scope for failure than there is for success! Plus if it's crap then it barely gets seen.
I seem to find it alot harder to think of the 10 worst than the ten best... I guess that's because there is far more scope for failure than there is for success! Plus if it's crap then it barely gets seen.
I thinkso too. I think any piece of film making that gets made is an accomplishment in itself and deserves due credit regardless. Hence I dont think anything would really count as a travesty.
My Kudos goes out to anyone who attempts to share his/her mind with an audience.
Rogelio Salinas
02-22-2007, 02:02 PM
I know that they are not the DPs, but some of Michael Bay's (Peephole shot of Martin Lawrence in Bad Boys) and Baz Luhrman's (Most of Moulin Rouge and some of Romeo and Juliet) movies use some of the most obnoxious shots I have seen on film, but I am looking forward to Transformers though.
I know that they are not the DPs, but some of Michael Bay's (Peephole shot of Martin Lawrence in Bad Boys) and Baz Luhrman's (Most of Moulin Rouge and some of Romeo and Juliet) movies use some of the most obnoxious shots I have seen on film, but I am looking forward to Transformers though.
Micheal Bay comes from the advertising world, hence the stylized commercial looking shots.
I wonder what particular obnoxious shots you are referring to?
P Andersson
02-22-2007, 02:15 PM
My Kudos goes out to anyone who attempts to share his/her mind with an audience.
i agree totally
i think the biggest travesty of cinematography is that it has been too expensive to make a movie with good image quality, everything needed to be funded, that has just changed with cheap HD cameras from canon HV20 at 1100 dollars to RED at around 20.000 for a functioning package, now anybody can make a film
i agree totally
i think the biggest travesty of cinematography is that it has been too expensive to make a movie with good image quality, everything needed to be funded, that has just changed with cheap HD cameras from canon HV20 at 1100 dollars to RED at around 20.000 for a functioning package, now anybody can make a film
See, I think that the "crap" cinematography of the HD's and DV's have an inherit aesthetic within themselves which is great as long as it doesn't try to be something it isn't. But the problem I see with these type of films is not so much the delivery but talent in front of the lens.. A crappy actor with pimples and bad makeup, unstyled hair, will affect the 'perceived' cinematography more than anything I can imagine.
Rogelio Salinas
02-22-2007, 02:57 PM
Micheal Bay comes from the advertising world, hence the stylized commercial looking shots.
I wonder what particular obnoxious shots you are referring to?
This is of course my personal opinion, but the shot that just sticks out in my mind is the same one I previously mentioned above from Bad Boys. The scene where Martin Lawrence displays his badge as Tea Leoni looks through her front door peephole, but I do agree with what you said about people sharing their mind with the audience. They are working in the industry for a reason, but as with any industry there are those who would shine if given the opportunity, while others who are given the opportunity do not shine.
P Andersson
02-22-2007, 03:08 PM
yes, good cinematography can come out of any camera, but the travesty that i was referring to was that you didn't have a choice of image quality unless you had the big money behind you, all that was left was to make a stylistic choice and go with standard def, even shooting 16mm is too expensive unless you are signed up for a project that is aimed at making money
technology has now liberated cinematographers to where photographers have been for a hundred years, you could get a good camera for a months salary and go out and make a picture, with good sharp image quality, and have it published in any magazine or appear in any gallery or whatever, if you where to do that with a movie the cost of film wouldn't fit within a months salary, but now you can, with a cheap HD camera and a couple of DV tapes or whatever, there will soon be some amazing looking films on the big screen that are of acceptable image quality, not the stylistic choice of DV
Agwah,
So your saying that with RED we will finally see the quality match the talent?
To be honest, I think after RED, we will start seeing more crap in 4k than ever before. I think a few video filmmakers are in for a major shock when they start using the RED and then realize their imagery isn't looking better than it did on the previous format. Yes It would look astonishingly crisp and high-res and full of depth of field and wondrous Bokeh. But not necessarily better. You cant polish a turd as they say.
Of course the flip side to that coin (which is what your talking about) is that more real talent will be unearthed than ever before because of the accessibility and freedom of technique exploration. The ability to explore without financial burden is a profound thing.
But right now, does the inherit cost of shooting film act as a pseudo talent/quality filter? We shall find out soon enough.
Ken Corben
02-22-2007, 03:45 PM
Painful to watch as a DP - The Spike Lee dolly shot where talent is riding on the dolly with the camera as they "stroll" down the street. Love the man and his films - hate that shot.
Painful to watch as a DP - The Spike Lee dolly shot where talent is riding on the dolly with the camera as they "stroll" down the street. Love the man and his films - hate that shot.
That made me cringe too! Those dolly shots and the Hitchcock effect always make me think 'gosh'..
Although it can work when used in a nuanced manner. Gladiator had a couple that worked.
Rob Lohman
02-22-2007, 05:37 PM
That captain Nemo movie with Patrick Stewart in it. I watched the whole thing on 8x fast forward or something
Joe Carney
02-22-2007, 07:34 PM
Wing Commander was one of the worst I've ever seen. Every time Saffron Burroughs was on screen, I kept expecting the Calvin Klein logo to suddenly appear.
P Andersson
02-22-2007, 10:43 PM
The ability to explore without financial burden is a profound thing.
that's it right there
Jeff Kilgroe
02-22-2007, 11:13 PM
I'll take 2 cans of that shtuff!
Anyway, here's a suggestion for cinematographic travesty:
"Night of the Lupis" -- Late '70s or early '80s B-Horror flick. The one with the giant rabbits destroying towns. There's one shot of a rabbit bounding across the desert and the film crew didn't even make sure their own tire tracks were out of the shot. I've shot some real crap, but if I had anything to do with this film or anything on its level of quality, I would pay real big money to NOT have my name associated with it in any way.
Jeff Kilgroe
02-22-2007, 11:18 PM
@ Rob...
Captain Nemo flick with Patrick Stewart??? Didn't know it existed, I'm curious... I'll have to check it out.
Rob Lohman
02-23-2007, 04:26 AM
I checked it out because I heard it was bad, but it really really is. Wouldn't waste time by watching it. Very bad CGI as well:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448965/
Jeff Kilgroe
02-23-2007, 08:35 AM
Oh, it's a TV version of Mysterious Island.... After reading about it, I think I'll pass.
I need to update my nomination as well. It's actually "Night of the Lepus" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069005/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069005)
Cail Young
02-23-2007, 09:37 AM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374102/
The only time I've ever been nauseous due to the use of DV.
Jeff Kilgroe
02-23-2007, 09:46 AM
Open Water 2 is on DVD now too I think... Ugh. I think we can lump thes into the same category as that Blair Witch crap and other overly-bad DV stuff that somehow generates a following. But yeah, definitely a contender within the top 10. :)
Agwah,
So your saying that with RED we will finally see the quality match the talent?
To be honest, I think after RED, we will start seeing more crap in 4k than ever before. I think a few video filmmakers are in for a major shock when they start using the RED and then realize their imagery isn't looking better than it did on the previous format. Yes It would look astonishingly crisp and high-res and full of depth of field and wondrous Bokeh. But not necessarily better. You cant polish a turd as they say.
Of course the flip side to that coin (which is what your talking about) is that more real talent will be unearthed than ever before because of the accessibility and freedom of technique exploration. The ability to explore without financial burden is a profound thing.
But right now, does the inherit cost of shooting film act as a pseudo talent/quality filter? We shall find out soon enough.
I couldn't think of a film that stood out to me as BAD cinematography. Seemed as though I could only remember the ones that stood out for being really good. And then I remembered this little turd, "Alone In the Dark," from Uwe Boll. Now that's a film where I'm watching it and thinking the cinematography is HORRIBLE. I'm curious what camera they used to shoot the film. Because if it was shot on anything approximating the Red in quality, then it certainly proves Acehole's point: a good camera doesn't make a movie look good! I would love to know WHY "Alone in the Dark" looks so terrible (besides the fact it's a terrible script...poor Christian Slater has hit rock bottom). I'd slit my wrists if my film looked like that.
I couldn't think of a film that stood out to me as BAD cinematography. Seemed as though I could only remember the ones that stood out for being really good. And then I remembered this little turd, "Alone In the Dark," from Uwe Boll. Now that's a film where I'm watching it and thinking the cinematography is HORRIBLE. I'm curious what camera they used to shoot the film. Because if it was shot on anything approximating the Red in quality, then it certainly proves Acehole's point: a good camera doesn't make a movie look good! I would love to know WHY "Alone in the Dark" looks so terrible (besides the fact it's a terrible script...poor Christian Slater has hit rock bottom). I'd slit my wrists if my film looked like that.
99% of the time its lighting and bad haircuts that just ruin the whole image.
P Andersson
02-23-2007, 03:30 PM
i thought eraserhead was a good movie, i guess that proves that both the haircut AND the lighting has to be bad for it to qualify here
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1350512/
This has to take the cake for the worst cinematography ever in the history of mankind.
Justin Kirchhoff
10-19-2009, 08:22 AM
Any of the more recent National Lampoon movies are gawd awful. They shoot them in 2-3 weeks and the quality is just terrible.
Nick Gardner
10-19-2009, 08:39 AM
Go watch Reservoir Dogs with a critical eye. I thought the lighting on that movie was totally amateur night.
Joe G.
10-19-2009, 02:59 PM
Rachel at the Wedding looked horrible. Turned it off after 5 minutes due to ugliness of image, and pretty false acting as well. Crap fest.
Tim Hole
10-19-2009, 03:56 PM
Are we talking about bad cinematography here or bad movies...
Rarely does a budgeted film have bad cinematography all the way through...bad films...the list is endless...how about all the of the Wayans brothers films or 99% of the trash that Hollywood vomits out on a daily basis.
The Spirit...what the hell was that.
Star Trek...after all the hype I saw it the other week. So utterly utterly disappointing.
Bad cinematography...umm...not so easy. Compositing maybe...some of the keying in the new Indiana Jones was terrible so without knowing why it could be part of the shoot. The same with Imaginarium that I rewatched tonight (recant my earlier statement I absolutely loved it this time.) some bad keying.
Kyle Presley
10-19-2009, 05:24 PM
Plan 9, anyone?
Zakaree Sandberg
10-20-2009, 12:22 AM
Agwah,
So your saying that with RED we will finally see the quality match the talent?
To be honest, I think after RED, we will start seeing more crap in 4k than ever before.
I agree.. I think its funny..
people think get a red and your an instant DP..
low cost camera = more shitty videos
jimhare
10-20-2009, 12:31 AM
Plan 9, anyone?
Leave Plan 9 alone! Classic masterpiece! :willy_nilly:
I used to speak about it a lot to my 12 year old son, so we recently watched it and he said it's not nearly as bad as I built it up to be.