BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion - - Part 109

[Juke Box Hero]

There's a documentary on Netflix called Side by Side, it's very interesting and it's great how it gives an in depth look on the filming processes with both film and digital. Hearing Nolan defend film and Fincher defend digital methods was one of my favorite parts!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/?ref_=nv_sr_1

As for Dawn of Justice (and comic book movies in general), I usually don't care how they're shot because celluloid is more of a complementary good at this point. Just because it's shot on film doesn't mean the film itself will look good, so I typically only care when a director with a keen eye is tackling a comic book movie, like Nolan or Snyder. With Snyder directing, I'm glad he's using film because we know to a certain degree that the film will look good, and celluloid will only add to that. Anybody understand what I mean?

 

[Kane52630]

Yeah it's a pretty good documentary...I also really liked what Cameron, Scorsese, and some others had to say... but man it really made me hate Wally Pfister.

 

[Zordan]

didnt watch that, nice!

 

[The Shape]

Yeah it's a pretty good documentary...I also really liked what Cameron, Scorsese, and some others had to say... but man it really made me hate Wally Pfister.

Why did it make you hate Wally? I haven't watched it but I'm curious.

 

[Kane52630]

He pretty much said that shooting digital for a movie isn't real filmmaking. He sounded pretty sleazy and out of touch.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

In a very technical sense he is accurate. Digital records data on memory storages, not reels of film. Hence it ain't real. But something tells me he didn't mean it like that.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

He pretty much said that shooting digital for a movie isn't real filmmaking.

Neither was Transcendence.

 

[roach]

I've shot on both digital and film. There's something about that tickety tackety noise the film camera gives off that makes it feel legit. I also found that I was taking more time to be precise with a shot on film...because there was a finite amount of film allotted.

 

[Kane52630]

Neither was Transcendence.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Digital has come a long way since it was used so perceptively in 2004 by Michael Mann for Collateral, but there are some intangibles that still gives film its unique feeling yet unattainable by digital. Take a look at the trailer for Inherent Vice for example. No other film coming out this year looks like that.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

In a theater it's very clear, film judder and grain. It looks clearly better in a high quality theater, imo. More organic. Granted video, looks a lot better than it used to be like with Star Wars 12 years ago. Gone Girl, looks good but is noticeably shot on video.

Indeed. Digital can look amazing (anything shot by David Fincher or Roger Deakins for example), but I personally prefer film. I kinda hope that WB could distant themselves from Marvel (and really, most big budget blockbusters) by having directors opt to shoot on film. But if not, oh well.

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Indeed. Digital can look amazing (anything shot by David Fincher or Roger Deakins for example), but I personally prefer film. I kinda hope that WB could distant themselves from Marvel (and really, most big budget blockbusters) by having directors opt to shoot on film. But if not, oh well.

Deakins is the man.

 

[Black Narcissus]

There's a documentary on Netflix called Side by Side, it's very interesting and it's great how it gives an in depth look on the filming processes with both film and digital. Hearing Nolan defend film and Fincher defend digital methods was one of my favorite parts!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/?ref_=nv_sr_1

As for Dawn of Justice (and comic book movies in general), I usually don't care how they're shot because celluloid is more of a complementary good at this point. Just because it's shot on film doesn't mean the film itself will look good, so I typically only care when a director with a keen eye is tackling a comic book movie, like Nolan or Snyder. With Snyder directing, I'm glad he's using film because we know to a certain degree that the film will look good, and celluloid will only add to that. Anybody understand what I mean?

You know what this doc didn't do? Show digital and film side by side. Oh lawd. This is still a great doc. I personally don't care, but the director should be allowed to use what evah the hell he wants.

 

[KalMart]

For the most part, how good and 'film-like' digital looks is up to the artists and individuals shooting it, really. I've been pretty intimately involved with the 'transition' from film to digital and I will say that those with a background in celluloid are generally better at making digital look more film-like…but regardless of that, you still need to have a good eye and know how to light. And…a vital ingredient has remained the same, which is glass. I must admit though that it is rather refreshing (and sell pretty instantly recognizable) when I get a project that's still shot on film, and I maintain that even after everything you put into finishing and polishing and coloring/looks, etc….whatever is shot digitally still doesn't look its best until it's physically (and now almost universally digitally) projected onto a large screen from a dist.-quality DCP. that's where I really see the biggest advantage of a digital sourcing.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I want to go forward in time and watch BvS... come back and spoil it for y'all.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I want to go forward in time and watch BvS... come back and spoil it for y'all.

No one will care about that. Just tell us the important stuff: what its RT score is.

 

[HighFivingMF]

No one will care about that. Just tell us the important stuff: what its RT score is.

I actually did go forward. As of April 24th, 2016 (empty theater and no extra waiting!) Rotten Tomatoes was taken offline for, as the judge put it, "being stupid."

 

[KillerMcQueen]

No one will care about that. Just tell us the important stuff: what its RT score is.

Oh dear lord... Not looking forward to the inevitable RT thread, why RT scores deserve their own threads is beyond me.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Meh most people like Rotten Tomatoes when it agrees with them and hate it when it doesn't. I think talking about Rotten Tomatoes is more productive than going on about Henry Cavill's hairline.

That being said, no I am not looking forward to that thread.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Meh most people like Rotten Tomatoes when it agrees with them and hate it when it doesn't.

*raises hand*

 

[KillerMcQueen]

I just sort of hate RT now, we don't have metacritic score threads or IMDB score threads, so why should RT and their odd scoring system get special attention?

 

[fake]

My stance on reviews and RT is simple. I don't read reviews or look at RT until after I have watched any movie I am looking forward to. This is to avoid spoilers and internet arguments. I avoid the threads relating to that movie on any forum I am a member of.

Once I am done watching, I read the reviews or look at RT to gauge the general critical "consensus".

 

[Iceman]

RT threads on the Hype usually go downhill fast. But the site itself I think is awesome. The tomatometer is kind of pointless though when you have an average rating that gives much more info.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Wait...RT threads are made?...

 

[TheNextNolan22]

I just sort of hate RT now, we don't have metacritic score threads or IMDB score threads, so why should RT and their odd scoring system get special attention?

Becuz dey da big dawgs.