Interstellar - Part 5

[Octoberist]

The most disappointing use of digital this year HAS to be X-Men: Days. I liked the film but wow, there were some frame rate issues in certain scenes (The Mansion and in Vietnam) where it looks videoy, and cheap. I'm not sure if it's because the movie was shot in 48 frames first, or if they had issues adjusting the sensors.

It's a strangely ugly film.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

It's confirmed. Cannot wait to see how it will look. Supposedly they are going back to film after Deakins used the Arri Alexa.

I thought he was fully committed to Digital?

 

[Octoberist]

I thought he was fully committed to Digital?

Deakins is fully committed to digital, but Hoyte likes to use both formats, and it looks like they're going back to film for Bond 24.

I'll admit though, that I was kinda underwhelmed by Deakins work (so far) in Angelina Jolie's Unbroken. It looks too..flat looking.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The most disappointing use of digital this year HAS to be X-Men: Days. I liked the film but wow, there were some frame rate issues in certain scenes (The Mansion and in Vietnam) where it looks videoy, and cheap. I'm not sure if it's because the movie was shot in 48 frames first, or if they had issues adjusting the sensors.

It's a strangely ugly film.

Really? I would disagree. I thought Days was a sharp looking film, maybe apart from the supersaturated and high contrast temple scenes. I liked its look better than most MCU films.

I thought he was fully committed to Digital?

I am fine with it either way. Hoyte is one versatile DOP.

 

[Octoberist]

It's funny how his first and last name has 'Hoyte'. He's the new Doug E. Doug and Billy Dee Williams.

 

[Marvolo]

The most disappointing use of digital this year HAS to be X-Men: Days. I liked the film but wow, there were some frame rate issues in certain scenes (The Mansion and in Vietnam) where it looks videoy, and cheap. I'm not sure if it's because the movie was shot in 48 frames first, or if they had issues adjusting the sensors.

It's a strangely ugly film.

I noticed it as well. In the mansion when Wolverine first arrives and Charles is on the stairs there was a ridiculous amount of video noise/grain. It has a very 70s look to it which may have been an idea the DP was toying around with. Or something happened when they was doing the DI. It almost looks like that scene was upconverted or blown up from a low resolution.

 

[batman1]

This film will be legendary

 

[Persona]

The most disappointing use of digital this year HAS to be X-Men: Days. I liked the film but wow, there were some frame rate issues in certain scenes (The Mansion and in Vietnam) where it looks videoy, and cheap. I'm not sure if it's because the movie was shot in 48 frames first, or if they had issues adjusting the sensors.

It's a strangely ugly film.

100% agreed.

i generally prefer the look of film but with the advances made in digital over the past decade or so, it's not something that bothers me much. but while half of DOFP looked fine, the other half looked like that decade of advancement had been thrown out the window. in certain parts, especially everything on the plane, i was reminded of how Michael Mann shoots on digital (the flattened, digital-looking aesthetic works for Collateral, not so much Miami Vice and especially not Public Enemies).

it's stuff like that that's the polar opposite of Nolan's ish in IMAX, where you feel like the image is engulfing you with its depth, texture, and contrast.

 

[Persona]

it's funny cuz i truly loved Sigel's digital work on Drive. i guess a different aesthetic, director, and scale (for all i know the parts of DOFP i didn't like were shot by a 2nd unit) can make a world of difference.

and, yes, Her is a fantastic sci-fi film that is fantastically shot by Hoytema. i've been beyond stoked for the cinematography in this film ever since i found out he was DPing it. Let the Right One In is a personal fav when it comes to cinematography.

 

[Dragon_316ca]

https://***********/RegalMovies/status/514911764400861184

Tickets to Christopher Nolan's @Interstellar will go on-sale next Wednesday, October 1st!

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Man, cant w8 to c @Interstellar @movietheaters when it @comessoon.

 

[MMB]

http://blog.thefilmstage.com/post/98346534581/christopher-nolans-interstellar-is-169-minutes

The runtime will be 169 minutes!

2h 49mins of epic adventure/exploration in/of space (allbeit not the whole movie takes place in space). I think this is going to be one of the most epic movies ever.
__________________
Twitter: @MadMovieBro

 

[Tacit Ronin]

If the credits is seven minutes, that gives us about 162 minutes of actual goodness.

 

[Donut]

At least this wont be a movie that has a credits scene

 

[Deserana]

Sounds reasonable for a film of it's scope and story. If it pumps along at the Memento/Insomnia Nolan beat as in no action but constantly intriguing then audiences wont moan.

For the people who read the script how mind bending is the film?

 

[titansupes]

Yeah, somebody on NolanFans who workd at a theatre or something said 169 with credits, 163 without, which is about what was expected.

I'm pre-ordering my tickets day one.

 

[Travesty]

I'm pretty sure the script is epic.

 

[titansupes]

According to an EW article, they had projections of constellations and such around the shuttle during filming. Wouldn't be surprised if the final scenes were CGI-enhanced.

Indeed, I was aware of them using the Oblivion technique, but I expected that to look like big television screens rather than this, so that threw me. You're probably right.

Could just be an “old school” technique for a particular scene. In 2001, Kubrick shot much of his spaceship stuff against black velvet curtains. In this case, maybe the shuttle is enveloped by bright light or “energy” - which can easily be done with practical, in-camera effects.

Would not surprise me at all if that were the case, knowing Nolan's penchant for old school/practical in general and using some Kubrick inspired techniques on Inception (aka the rotating hallway).

 

[TheNextNolan22]

http://blog.thefilmstage.com/post/98346534581/christopher-nolans-interstellar-is-169-minutes

The runtime will be 169 minutes!

2h 49mins of epic adventure/exploration in/of space (allbeit not the whole movie takes place in space). I think this is going to be one of the most epic movies ever.

About what I expected. t:

 

[Marvolo]

I was expecting and hoping for something shorter than TDKR, but Im still gonna go see it. Just gonna need to take a muscle relaxer before going to curb a stiff neck and sore back. Sadly Ive yet to find anything to stop my ass from going numb.

 

[AnneFan]

2 hours 49 minutes.

 

[Travesty]

I was actually hoping for something around 2 hours. I'm getting kinda tired of every movie trying to be 3 hours long.

 

[BatLobster]

Huh...I guess they figured out a way around the IMAX reel limitation after all.

I'm happy about the meaty runtime though, I have a feeling it'll be warranted by the scope of the film. I also love knowing that we've barely seen anything in the trailers.

 

[Marvolo]

Huh...I guess they figured out a way around the IMAX reel limitation after all.

Either that or the Imax film version is shorter than the digital versions. This film is only 4 minutes longer than the 165 minute IMAX reel limitation. Cutting four minutes wouldnt even be noticeable if done right.

 

[Travesty]

Or they cut out a good portion of the credits on the IMAX version.