C. Nolan's Interstellar - Part 1

[craigdbfan]

On a serious note I do hope we hear more of who's being considered/offered roles in the upcoming weeks. Out of all the Nolan usual's who do you guys think has the biggest chances of coming back (aside from Michael Caine)?

 

[Snow Queen]

I'd say JGL has the best chance of coming back at the moment.

 

[craigdbfan]

Yeah I'd say JGL is definitely up there. I hope Bale can somehow make an appearance but I think his schedule is kind of occupied at the moment unless he wraps up that David O. Russell film soon.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I don't know Mcaughnahay was a wild card pick. Who's to say Nolans not looking at putting together a cast of actors he hasn't worked with before?

Maybe to not play into expectations?

 

[georgec]

C. Nolan.
C. Nolan run.

 

[craigdbfan]

I don't know Mcaughnahay was a wild card pick. Who's to say Nolans not looking at putting together a cast of actors he hasn't worked with before?

Maybe to not play into expectations?

Definitely a possibility.

 

[CashforStash]

Out of curiosity sake, can a mod ban a user from a thread.

I have to stay out of this thread...lol

I'll go as far as mailing out a signed drawing aha xD

 

[jmc]

Should we take bets as to who from the Nolan roster will be returning?

 

[Tequilla]

I have to disagree. Digital doesn't look flat when used properly (see: Skyfall, Person of Interest, Sherlock, Zero Dark Thirty, Avengers, Drive, Hugo).

Ugh. Please read my post properly. I didnt mention the tonality of that particular photography. Skin tones. They are entirely different things. And yes the difference is still enormous (and i mentioned that's the one thing i dislike. I know friends who enjoyed that sort of desaturated visual). Anyone involved with photography will give you the same observation. The colors and texture of our skin is very particular.

Really? The Master was probably the best looking American film of last year shot on pristine 65mm.

The post you answered to , is the sort of pettiness i see all the time in this sort of discussion . "The best looking films are all..."...its just crazy. I have no idea why some people do this. Just this year i saw great looking films in 16mm , 35 mm , 65mm , digital sony , digital red , etc. All played the advantages the different formats have. They should coexist.

this is what i like. young people doing something new to help directors. giving them new options. the more freedom the better.

I loved the taxi shot. So simple , no crazy setups in the car , no devices attached to it , no rails...just rollerblades t:

 

[Tim_Riggins]

Pettiness, jesus, okay pal, first of all, I love film, just as much as I love digital. I'd say that to me, today, a lot of the best cinematography is done on digital (at least to me, the most memorable ones), but there's also plenty on film.

But just from my POV, I'm gonna list the best movies cinematography wise in 2012:

The Grey (35 mm)
Moonrise Kingdom (16 mm)
Prometheus (Red Epic)
Beasts Of The Southern Wild (16 mm)
Savages (35 mm)
The Dark Knight Rises (35, 70 mm)
The Master (65 mm)
Looper (35 mm)
Argo (35 mm)
Anna Karenina (35 mm)
Skyfall (Arri Alexa)
Lincoln (35 mm)
Life Of Pi (Arri Alexa)
Killing Them Softly (35 mm)
On The Road (35 mm)
The Hobbit: AUJ (Red Epic)
Django Unchained (35 mm)

Anddddddddddddd I just realized that I thought there were more digitally shot movies this year

I'm probably thinking of 2011 too: The Girl With The Dragon Tatto, Hugo, Drive, all on digital.

2013 should be a good year for digital too: Iron Man 3, World War Z, Thor The Dark World, Pacific Rim, The Wolverine, Oblivion, The Hobbit DOS, The Great Gatsby, Evil Dead, After Earth, Elysium, Only God Forgives.....

 

[redhawk23]

Pettiness, jesus, okay pal, first of all, I love film, just as much as I love digital. I'd say that to me, today, a lot of the best cinematography is done on digital (at least to me, the most memorable ones), but there's also plenty on film.

But just from my POV, I'm gonna list the best movies cinematography wise in 2012:

The Grey (35 mm)
Moonrise Kingdom (16 mm)
Prometheus (Red Epic)
Beasts Of The Southern Wild (16 mm)
Savages (35 mm)
The Dark Knight Rises (35, 70 mm)
The Master (65 mm)
Looper (35 mm)
Argo (35 mm)
Anna Karenina (35 mm)
Skyfall (Arri Alexa)
Lincoln (35 mm)
Life Of Pi (Arri Alexa)
Killing Them Softly (35 mm)
On The Road (35 mm)
The Hobbit: AUJ (Red Epic)
Django Unchained (35 mm)

Anddddddddddddd I just realized that I thought there were more digitally shot movies this year

I'm probably thinking of 2011 too: The Girl With The Dragon Tatto, Hugo, Drive, all on digital.

2013 should be a good year for digital too: Iron Man 3, World War Z, Thor The Dark World, Pacific Rim, The Wolverine, Oblivion, The Hobbit DOS, The Great Gatsby, Evil Dead, After Earth, Elysium, Only God Forgives.....

Don't tell DarkB.

 

[rashad]

I'd love to see Carrie Ann Moss work with Nolan again.

 

[Tequilla]

eheh Tim_Riggins , then i have nothing to say after your post. Even you , wrote your generalization was unfair (which was my point).

But i can actually give you 3 amazing digital photographed movies released last year (well one of them is from 2011 , but it was i think released last year in Us). Rust and Bones , Holy Motors and Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. 3 mesmerizing pictures from a visual standpoint (2 Red , 1 Sony).

 

[dark_b]

Don't tell DarkB.

i think directors should use the camera that they like if money is not a problem.

 

[vanson]

on the looper commentary JGL said that shooting Don Jons Addiction with 35mm was cheaper than doing it digital.. so i guess its more of a misconception that digital will cost less.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

I find that surprising, the cost of film should be more expensive than digital, even with the SDDs or memory cards.

 

[georgec]

Perhaps there are other "licensing" fees associated with using the Red or other digital cameras?

 

[Rocketman]

35mm might also be cheaper because nobody wants it anymore. It might be on a "clearance rack" of sorts. Not a fact, of course.

On this topic: Digital looks good if it's being used by a competent photographer who knows what he/she is doing (Roger Deakins is obviously a master), but 35mm is still the superior quality. It just is. The case for digital ends up not being a strong one because there are so many examples of films shot so poorly in digital. I think a digital film can look gorgeous, but there're a lot of people who just don't know what they're doing, who shouldn't be allowed near a camera.

Hollywood just wants to churn these movies out as quickly as possible, guys. There's no concern about composition or framing, or stylistic integrity. It's just, "Okay, Iron Man 3 in May, then let's do G.I. Joe, then Pirates 5&6, then blah blah blah, Battleship, Thor, Captain America, Avengers 2."

Movies are basically treated like television shows now. Get them in the theater quickly, get the sequel (next season) out within a year, make 'em cheaper, make 'em bigger, put 'em on Blu-Ray in three months.

Meanwhile, television shows are becoming more cinematic in quality, and I'd say a lot them are giving Hollywood movies a run for their money (Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, American Horror Story). Everything seems to be flipping. I stay at home if I want a good story with good acting; I go to the theater if I want mindless explosions and BS. The exception to this is every two years or so, when Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, or Paul Thomas Anderson have a new film coming out. They (and now I proudly add Rian Johnson and Duncan Jones to the list) are my saving graces for getting me to leave my house on a Friday night.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I like how you added GI Joe, battleship, and Pirates, so it seems more a veiled attack at Marvel than an outright one.

 

[Rocketman]

I like how you added GI Joe, battleship, and Pirates, so it seems more a veiled attack at Marvel than an outright one.

Yeah, four Marvel movies out of eight movies listed is clearly an attack on Marvel. Next time I'll be sure to throw in John Carter and Transformers so it doesn't get your panties in a bunch.

Spoiler

Crap Hollywood movies are crap Hollywood movies. Sorry.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Crap Hollywood movies are crap Hollywood movies. Sorry.

At least there are no veils this time, though there is a spoiler bar. Good job.

 

[Rocketman]

At least there are no veils this time, though there is a spoiler bar. Good job.

You win.

 

[redhawk23]

35mm might also be cheaper because nobody wants it anymore. It might be on a "clearance rack" of sorts. Not a fact, of course.

On this topic: Digital looks good if it's being used by a competent photographer who knows what he/she is doing (Roger Deakins is obviously a master), but 35mm is still the superior quality. It just is. The case for digital ends up not being a strong one because there are so many examples of films shot so poorly in digital. I think a digital film can look gorgeous, but there're a lot of people who just don't know what they're doing, who shouldn't be allowed near a camera.

Hollywood just wants to churn these movies out as quickly as possible, guys. There's no concern about composition or framing, or stylistic integrity. It's just, "Okay, Iron Man 3 in May, then let's do G.I. Joe, then Pirates 5&6, then blah blah blah, Battleship, Thor, Captain America, Avengers 2."

Movies are basically treated like television shows now. Get them in the theater quickly, get the sequel (next season) out within a year, make 'em cheaper, make 'em bigger, put 'em on Blu-Ray in three months.

Meanwhile, television shows are becoming more cinematic in quality, and I'd say a lot them are giving Hollywood movies a run for their money (Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, American Horror Story). Everything seems to be flipping. I stay at home if I want a good story with good acting; I go to the theater if I want mindless explosions and BS. The exception to this is every two years or so, when Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, or Paul Thomas Anderson have a new film coming out. They (and now I proudly add Rian Johnson and Duncan Jones to the list) are my saving graces for getting me to leave my house on a Friday night.

There has been a century of crappy movies shot terribly on film. There's a lot of people who have no idea how to work 35mm who shouldn't be let anywhere near a camera. The skill set may be more widespread, but it is still a skill set. The technology doesn't do anyone any favors.

And studios cranking out subpar products in order to make a quick buck is basically the definition of the studio system. Universal cranking out 4 Dracula films and 5 Frankenstein films in a decade 80 years ago is not particularly different than them putting out another Fast and Furious movie every few years now.

Its hardly fair to use the absolute dregs available in theaters as a point of comparison with the best available on TV which also beams Honey Boo Boo into America's homes.

Also you're ripping the Marvel films despite the fact that there are actually some actual creative risks being taken with those franchises and, ironically, are being directed by the very same TV creators responsible for the uptick of quality in that medium in the past 15 years (Joss Whedon, Alan Taylor director of Game of Thrones/Thor 2)

Then there's Nolan's own involvement in serialized franchise films.

Plus, there are things other than just superhero blockbusters out in theaters year round. You need to expand your horizons a bit before essentially writing off the entire medium.

 

[redhawk23]

http://www.slashfilm.com/christopher-nolan-briefly-discusses-interstellar-influences/

A short bit from Nolan about the influences on this film.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Hopefully this means more deliberate editing and image making from Nolan. I am a fan of the guy but he needs to let his films breathe like Kubrick.