Thread: Let Them All Talk

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,716
    Quote Originally Posted by sam karr View Post
    There are thousands of videos on YouTube and Vimeo, shot with dslr, rangefinders, or any other camera type, shot with no lighting kit at all, by one guy, which look better than that trailer. Maybe he should not handle the cinematography at all. Some guys are talented to shoot with nothing. He has other talents.
    Maybe you should check out The Knick, which he directed and did the cinematography for as well. It was more controlled but in a similar manner.

    But all those YouTube and Vimeo videos are sometimes shot by talented people, but for the most part they go by the book of finding some good looking location, natural light and easy to achieve good looking shots with some slomo; anyone with the slightest cinematic eye could do that and I would argue that none of them have the ability to be able to shoot a good movie in under two weeks as Soderbergh did here. Sorry for the rant, but the majority of all those YouTube and Vimeo filmmakers have the instagram ideology of "content" in mind, it's about hipster filters and copying teal/orange looks and there's little to no real substance in there outside of that. Story is the only thing that matters if we're talking narrative and I would like to see anyone of these thousands of YouTube/Vimeo clips try to achieve a feature film of anything close to this quality in under two weeks.

    So many creators today focusing on the wrong things and there are far too many "wifes, dogs and charts" filmmakers who put down serious cash in order to do... rather nothing with their gear after they shot just that. Anyone can make beautiful slomo shots of their model wifes in front of a sunset during magic hour and attach some pretentious voice over about the meaning of life. Few of them can get a compelling story with good actors into a coherent narrative shot over two weeks on a boat with terrible practical lights and still make it work.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    Story is the only thing that matters if we're talking narrative and I would like to see anyone of these thousands of YouTube/Vimeo clips try to achieve a feature film of anything close to this quality in under two weeks.
    Let's stop the truck right here. Don't preach the "story is king" argument like we're first year film school students. EVERYONE knows you have to have a good story. This talking point has been beat to death 10 million times and 10 million times over that again on every message board even remotely attached to "film making". Soderbergh is arguably an A-list(B-list?) director with access to resources that most can only dream of. And the movie stars Meryl F'n Streep, so to try to justify it looking like crap, is well... crap. This wasn't the original Blair Witch Project. With today's lighting technology, they could have easily elevated the visual quality of those questionable scenes with minimal extra effort, time and increase to their footprint. I'm sure he knows a talented gaffer or two. Remember, after all, this is a VISUAL medium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Bell View Post
    Let's stop the truck right here. Don't preach the "story is king" argument like we're first year film school students. EVERYONE knows you have to have a good story. This talking point has been beat to death 10 million times and 10 million times over that again on every message board even remotely attached to "film making". Soderbergh is arguably an A-list(B-list?) director with access to resources that most can only dream of. And the movie stars Meryl F'n Streep, so to try to justify it looking like crap, is well... crap. This wasn't the original Blair Witch Project. With today's lighting technology, they could have easily elevated the visual quality of those questionable scenes with minimal extra effort, time and increase to their footprint. I'm sure he knows a talented gaffer or two. Remember, after all, this is a VISUAL medium.
    Agreed. It seems weird to me to be on a camera forum talking about how it doesn't matter that the film looks really bad.

    Its definitely not a good Komodo promotion.

    It also doesn't help that the story itself is even more lackluster than the images lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Bell View Post
    Let's stop the truck right here. Don't preach the "story is king" argument like we're first year film school students. EVERYONE knows you have to have a good story. This talking point has been beat to death 10 million times and 10 million times over that again on every message board even remotely attached to "film making". Soderbergh is arguably an A-list(B-list?) director with access to resources that most can only dream of. And the movie stars Meryl F'n Streep, so to try to justify it looking like crap, is well... crap. This wasn't the original Blair Witch Project. With today's lighting technology, they could have easily elevated the visual quality of those questionable scenes with minimal extra effort, time and increase to their footprint. I'm sure he knows a talented gaffer or two. Remember, after all, this is a VISUAL medium.
    He already did with The Knick. Let Them All Talk was made in line with his previous Unsane and High Flying Bird. He's doing it as a statement, as a reminder or whatever, that making movies can be done in a very stripped down way. I have flashbacks to the Dogma 95, which we can criticize all we want for its quality in photography, but it changed cinema. If you want the non-film-school-student argument, then not being able to see what he's aiming for here and what he is doing with his shoots is just missing the point. It might just have been not possible to film this in two weeks if he put even a few minutes on each setup for lighting, who knows. But saying it's a visual medium based on lighting alone just dismiss what the "visual medium" was playing around with during Dogma 95 and other experimental ways of shooting movies throughout film history, that is the film school student argument, the one who just sees one perspective in this artform.

    The ONLY thing that Soderbergh had here that others might not, is A-list actors, the rest is a clear statement about an industry so focused on perfection that it starts losing its soul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Howard-Crow View Post
    Agreed. It seems weird to me to be on a camera forum talking about how it doesn't matter that the film looks really bad.
    What is bad? Are we talking art here or some commercial definition of good vs bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Howard-Crow View Post
    Its definitely not a good Komodo promotion.
    Since when was his movie a promotion for Komodo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Howard-Crow View Post
    It also doesn't help that the story itself is even more lackluster than the images lol.
    How do you know that? As far as I know, no one has seen it yet?
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    He already did with The Knick. Let Them All Talk was made in line with his previous Unsane and High Flying Bird. He's doing it as a statement, as a reminder or whatever, that making movies can be done in a very stripped down way. I have flashbacks to the Dogma 95, which we can criticize all we want for its quality in photography, but it changed cinema. If you want the non-film-school-student argument, then not being able to see what he's aiming for here and what he is doing with his shoots is just missing the point. It might just have been not possible to film this in two weeks if he put even a few minutes on each setup for lighting, who knows. But saying it's a visual medium based on lighting alone just dismiss what the "visual medium" was playing around with during Dogma 95 and other experimental ways of shooting movies throughout film history, that is the film school student argument, the one who just sees one perspective in this artform.

    The ONLY thing that Soderbergh had here that others might not, is A-list actors, the rest is a clear statement about an industry so focused on perfection that it starts losing its soul.



    What is bad? Are we talking art here or some commercial definition of good vs bad?



    Since when was his movie a promotion for Komodo?



    How do you know that? As far as I know, no one has seen it yet?
    Just because a production is "stripped down" doesn't mean it has to look THAT bad. Quality visuals are shot every day under adverse conditions with far less resources(MONEY) than he had available. You don't necessarily have to have every scene looking "perfectly polished" like it's from a $200 million dollar blockbuster, but at least look like you give a damn. To me, a lot of those questionable scenes are unacceptable on both an aesthetic and technical level(unless they are supposed to be "found footage" from a not-quite-modern camera). Especially considering the tools that we have available today. I'm not missing the point. I disagree with the point he's trying to make at this level. Just because you make something look like crap on purpose(or consciously don't try to make it look good/acceptable), doesn't mean it no longer looks like crap or that I'm supposed to accept it or that it's now OK.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post



    What is bad? Are we talking art here or some commercial definition of good vs bad?



    Since when was his movie a promotion for Komodo?



    How do you know that? As far as I know, no one has seen it yet?
    Of course good vs bad is all subjective. Personally, I think it looks bad. I'm all for a grainy look and all. But this doesn't look like it was shot this way on purpose. It just looks poorly shot and edited, even for available light.

    As far as the promotion thing, obviously not literally. I'm just saying its not a great example for people to see what the camera can do.

    I'm sure there is a market for this type of film. I'm just saying it looks beyond boring. Which is neither here nor there as far as the camera is concerned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    347
    Hard for me to tell on this one-- the trailers for movies like this often can't really convey what's special about them. While I also don't love the look for its own sake, if it ultimately feels like the approach results in a special dramatic experience (like the best Dogme films), I'll be into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,959
    Guys, Soderbergh knows what he's doing.

    He obviously knows how to make things that look great - form Ocean's 11 to the The Knick.

    If he wants to make an indie movie in sequence in two weeks with no lights that's his prerogative.

    Also why do things have to look good?

    A lot of great paintings make people look terrible, and we accept them in that medium.

    For some reason in movies we can't imagine a shot being made to look bad or realistic on purpose.

    For some reason even "normal" life has to look good - as if Terrence Malik shot it.

    Honestly I kind of love Soderbergh's zero fucks-ness, and his willingness to explore creatively.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member Bastien Tribalat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cannes area, France
    Posts
    804
    Since it was shot more than a year ago (and we discussed this already back then) : didn't he shot the film in ProRes on an Atomos Recorder because it was so an early prototype that onboard recording was not available yet in his Komodo ?
    I'm pretty sure I have read something along those lines.

    Doesn't change that it looks great and that I, too, love Soderbergh.
    VIDEO EDITING - COLOR GRADING - VFX
    APPLE FINAL CUT PRO, AVID MEDIA COMPOSER
    ADOBE CREATIVE CLOUD, DAVINCI RESOLVE, REDCINE X PRO...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Bell View Post
    Just because a production is "stripped down" doesn't mean it has to look THAT bad. Quality visuals are shot every day under adverse conditions with far less resources(MONEY) than he had available. You don't necessarily have to have every scene looking "perfectly polished" like it's from a $200 million dollar blockbuster, but at least look like you give a damn. To me, a lot of those questionable scenes are unacceptable on both an aesthetic and technical level(unless they are supposed to be "found footage" from a not-quite-modern camera). Especially considering the tools that we have available today. I'm not missing the point. I disagree with the point he's trying to make at this level. Just because you make something look like crap on purpose(or consciously don't try to make it look good/acceptable), doesn't mean it no longer looks like crap or that I'm supposed to accept it or that it's now OK.
    Once again I will point out that if you can make a feature film focused on a lot of improvisation, in under two weeks on a cruise ship, with how bad lighting is on such locations and make it in time to be able to finish a feature-length film... then go ahead. But through my own experience shooting in locations with the worst kinds of practical lighting and the extreme complexity of what it takes to shoot a feature film, I don't see how it would look any better, except for the diffuse filter.

    You can disagree all you want, but it's still a fact that if you shoot something at magic hour in an outdoor location with little to no artificial lights contaminating the scene, then it's gonna look beautiful with little to no effort. But you would never be able to get something beautiful out of a damn cruise ship, whatever modern technology you think about. Not if you shoot improvised scenes and need to make it in time over two weeks.

    This is the whole point of the Dogma 95 approach he's taken. Get rid of the things that are in the way of telling the story. Free up the set. It's the same idea that created Dogma 95, but he's doing a new wave of it using modern cameras and experimenting with iPhones, which have much better quality than the video cameras back in the '90s.

    This is what I mean with people today being spoiled by perfection. It's not only about how things "are supposed to look good", but it's also the obsession with perfection that makes the idea that YouTubers who shoot slomo magic hour videos with zero substance is evidence that creating an actors-driven, improvisation, feature-length film in a location that is terrible for lighting... should look just as good.

    If the story was placed in Yosemite park, he would have gotten so much for free. But it's a damn cruise ship. Try and make that look good while keeping the tempo of this shoot and get everything in the bag.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts