Lucas, Revolution And Counter-revolution...
Lucas, Revolution And Counter-revolution...
InfiniteWarrior |
Mar 13 2006, 10:13 PM
Post
#1
|
Emperor Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 21-June 03 Member No.: 20 |
Can This Man Save The Movies? (Again?)
Hmm.... Shyamalan has a good point there. Artistically-speaking, grainy ain't so bad. Then again, crystal clear ain't half-bad, either. 'Course, Shyamalan has made only one good movie. |
Ruggiero |
Mar 14 2006, 08:18 AM
Post
#2
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
analog all the way!
-------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
InfiniteWarrior |
Mar 14 2006, 08:11 PM
Post
#3
|
Emperor Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 21-June 03 Member No.: 20 |
Whatta ya know? Another heavyweight chimes in:
Spielberg at the Revolution "I'm too nostalgic to make my movies digitally. I'm the last person in Hollywood who cuts his film on film. I still love cutting on film. The greatest films ever made in our history were cut on film and I'm tenaciously hanging on to the process." - Spielberg Extra, extra... A Conversation with George Lucas Must be a turning point in history or something. Time is all over it! |
JayBaen |
Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM
Post
#4
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,073 Joined: 13-June 03 From: Atlanta, GA Member No.: 3 |
QUOTE(Ruggiero @ Mar 14 2006, 09:18 AM) I somewhat disagree ... Not because I don't appreciate analogue techniques, but that would be as similar to stating that pianists should all still be playing harpsichord, or organ ... or that 8 track is superior to ... well, anything. Speaking musically ... I *do* believe that there is a warmth to analogue that is hard to replicate digitally, but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. Speaking cinematically ... I don't have much/any experience in the movie realm, but (even simply) in watching the 'extras' on the latest StarWars installment (to make the argument consistent), it's pretty clear to the advantages for his particular medium in being digital for all parties involved (makeup, costumes, stunts, etc.) during the creation process, as well as the final product (and, I do remember one Rodain stating how 'believeable' the whole scenario actually was on film ... erm, datastream ... or whatever .. ) Again, I certainly appreciate the crackle of a good ol' LP -- but the entire process was different at the time, as I'm sure it was for movie making. Mr. Sixth Sense can't begin to pretend that just because he's "doing things analogue" that nothing else about his finished product isn't benefiting from the advances of a modern age of cinematography. (FWIW, I like his movies a lot). JB -------------------- Yellow Is Golden
DelphiGT "There's nothing in this universe that can't be explained. Eventually." -- House, M.D. |
Ruggiero |
Mar 15 2006, 12:38 PM
Post
#5
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
"Jay, you ignorant slut."
I don't pretend to know nuffin... but.... Seeing the loss of tonalities in the very dark and very light shades into posterized weirdness in DVDs and seeing the same blurriness (to my eye, they definitely do NOT look crisp) in digitally produced stuff on the screen is a sacrifice I really don't want to make. The analogy is not one of loss from LP-to CD, but rather one of loss from LP - to MP3 , considering the amount of data involved. And no one wants that. I don't like crackles, I don't like all sorts of imperfections in that respect, but, say, when you have a dark scene in a movie (or, say, the second movement of Beethoven's seventh), that is when you NEED the media to perform. For average stuff, sure I listen to mp3s, watch dvds, .movs, etc. BUT, when the rubber hits the road; when I really want to understand something by observing it in all its nuance; I search for media that can actually capture it. Ruggiero the ignorant. --Ruggiero -------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
JayBaen |
Mar 15 2006, 05:00 PM
Post
#6
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,073 Joined: 13-June 03 From: Atlanta, GA Member No.: 3 |
You know I just love it when you whisper sweet nothings to me ...
I *completely* agree with you. 100%. I did a poor job of stating my argument -- it's apparent that written English is my lossy-format of communication. <generalization> Many people these days sacrifice progress for purism. </generalization> For example: the Opera director who hates American Musical Theater, the Symphony director who hates Electronic music, the "little-old-church-lady" who loves her organ music and can't stand the 'contemporary' service (<-- by the way, an entirely different discussion, and for which I use the word contemporary loosely). It feels like that's what George Lucas is typically up against when he speaks of the digital medium for cinematography. Not so much that anyone disagrees that there are beautiful subtleties to the celluloid, but rather that the "digital-age" is somehow ruining movie making. It's clear that he sees the digital process as opening the door to many new possibilites - a point he makes often, but is often swept aside by the 'purists' of the art (almost as if the art-form has been taken out of digital movie making - which clearly it hasn't). JB (n.b. mp3s ... a great way to transport music, a horrible way to experience it). -------------------- Yellow Is Golden
DelphiGT "There's nothing in this universe that can't be explained. Eventually." -- House, M.D. |
InfiniteWarrior |
Mar 15 2006, 07:14 PM
Post
#7
|
Emperor Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 21-June 03 Member No.: 20 |
Why am I now seeing Dan Aykroyd's anchorman facing off against Dana Carvey's Church Lady?
Edit: As there appears to be some question about that. QUOTE Ackroyd: "Jay, you ignorant slut." QUOTE Carvey: ...the "little-old-church-lady" who loves her organ music and can't stand the 'contemporary' service... hehehe... |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 06:23 PM |