The Official Thread for the Church of Oscar-winning Director and (soon to be) Sir Christopher Nolan

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's a Kodak moment.

[Chen G. 3,949]

11 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I despised Hacksaw Ridge.  The man just can't make a movie, even a non-Jesus movie, without lathering on the eye-rolling Christ imagery thicker than vaseline.

 

Who cares? Those are just moments of iconography. They don't define the film as a whole: the story being told does.

 

But that's besides the point: the main thing is to show that even super traditional filmmakers can see the merit of digital. Quite a few movies that I absolutely love on the cinematographical level were shot on digital: namely, Skyfall and Gibson's own Apocalypto.

 

That is all.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Westerners often have a chip on their shoulder about Christianity because they've made huge efforts to distance themselves from God-fearing households and local pastors preaching about eternal fire and brimstone as punishment for seemingly trivial "sins" like rubbing one out or being a spinster into your early 20s. This tends to influence how they react to Christian iconography in films.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

It didn't help either that the first half of the movie is supposed to take place in Virginia, very near my neck of the woods, and it was super obvious that it wasn't actually Virginia, just from the flora and landscape.  That's an illusion-breaker only for people who live here obviously.  Also, every single actor's accent was awful.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Again, all issues of production value. The question is whether the story and - to this thread - the cinematography - were good. And they were.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

That's always funny to me when they shoot a movie in Sydney that's meant to double for some American city, but the flora, street aesthetics, architecture, and even the sorts of people who populate the locale, have been poorly disguised. It doesn't really take me out of it, so much as it gives me a quick laugh.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,541]

13 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

It didn't help either that the first half of the movie is supposed to take place in Virginia, very near my neck of the woods, and it was super obvious that it wasn't actually Virginia, just from the flora and landscape.  That's an illusion-breaker only for people who live here obviously.  Also, every single actor's accent was awful.

 

Agreed. Garfield's accent was as bad in HB, as it was in DALEKS TAKE MANHATTAN.

Hugo Weaving, on the other hand, did a nice turn, as a drunkard, even down to the quivering lower lip.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The question is whether the story and - to this thread - the cinematography - were good. And they were.

 

No, just a damn minute!

Since when did this become THE CINEMATOGRAPHY GOSPEL ACCORDING TO CHEN G. thread?

[Bilbo 3,709]

8 minutes ago, Margo Channing said:

That's always funny to me when they shoot a movie in Sydney that's meant to double for some American city, but the flora, street aesthetics, architecture, and even the sorts of people who populate the locale, have been poorly disguised. It doesn't really take me out of it, so much as it gives me a quick laugh.

 

Braveheart and Excalibur are funny for me to watch. I know all the locations fairly well. 

 

Would never guess Saving Private Ryan was in County Wexford without being told first though. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,541]

Isn't EXCALIBUR shot in Ireland, but meant to be set in Cornwall?

Did you guess that the Vietnam scenes in FULL METAL JACKET, were shot in London?

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 hours ago, Richard said:

Since when did this become THE CINEMATOGRAPHY GOSPEL ACCORDING TO CHEN G. thread?

 

Because the launching off point to this digression was Nolan's zealous belief in film over digital. I wanted to illustrate (in a few words) that another filmmaker who is otherwise just as (if not far, far more) traditional in his choices as a director (camera placement and movement, performance) and producer (practical effects, etc...), does acknowledge that digital will replace film.

 

Apocalypto probably looks better than all of Nolan's filmography combined. Its friggin' gorgeous.

[John 2,032]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Apocalypto probably looks better than all of Nolan's filmography combined. Its friggin' gorgeous.

 

Nah, Interstellar is a much better looking and more visually refined film. In my opinion, of course.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

5 minutes ago, John said:

 

Nah, Interstellar is a much better looking and more visually refined film. In my opinion, of course.

 

As opposed to someone else's opinion?

[Chen G. 3,949]

23 minutes ago, John said:

Nah, Interstellar is a much better looking and more visually refined film.

 

Yeah, but so much of the impressive visuals in Interstellar are space vistas that are, ultimately, computer generated.

 

CG and animated cinematography isn't cinematography. You don't need no takes; the camera will never not be in focus, the composition will never be wonky, the pan will never miss its mark, etc...

[crocodile 8,017]

Actually you'd be amazed how little animation and virtual imagery there is in this film. Lots of model work and not a single green screen. Most of it still captured on film. There is some pure CGI in there, of course, bit not as much as you'd think.

 

Karol

[A24 4,338]

4 hours ago, Richard said:

 

Did you guess that the Vietnam scenes in FULL METAL JACKET, were shot in London?

 

And it looked amazing! I love the sniper act. Very different in tone than the second act.

 

[Bilbo 3,709]

Was it Full Metal Jacket that had the sets left up and were used by Oasis for a video? 

 

I havent seen the film:

 

https://youtu.be/jyJU2136ym4

[A24 4,338]

Oasis? That sounds like a question for Richard!

[Bilbo 3,709]

@Richard what do you think?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,541]

I'd say that's why the Haçienda shut down! 

In all honesty, it was probably "inspired" by FULL METAL JACKET, but then, nothing ever "inspired" Oasis, it was more like "copied verbatim".

[Bilbo 3,709]

Liking one Wikipedia it appears it was the same location. 

 

And shut your mouth @Richard! 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,541]

...and why should I do that, @Bilbo?

 

How can it be the same location?

By 1900, the Docklands had been built upon. Even Canary Warf Torchwood Tower had been up for a year or so.

[Bilbo 3,709]

Beckton Gas Works was used as a location for both apparently!

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, crocodile said:

Actually you'd be amazed how little animation and virtual imagery there is in this film. Lots of model work and not a single green screen. Most of it still captured on film. There is some pure CGI in there, of course, bit not as much as you'd think.

 

Oh, I know, the spaceship is a miniature. But the actual space vistas that we behold in the film are not. They're CG. Even Nolan can't escape that.

 

But we're getting sidetracked: the point I'm getting at is that Nolan's zealous sticking to actual film may be, well, just that...zealos.

[crocodile 8,017]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Oh, I know, the spaceship is a miniature. But the actual space vistas that we behold in the film are not. They're CG. Even Nolan can't escape that.

I know that. What I'm saying is that they were not added in post but photographed in camera. That makes it very much about cinematography.

 

Karol

[Chen G. 3,949]

Still, it means that during the space sequences, the camera is standing still (at least in terms of distance to the subject) filming a model and the background and movement are done in post. There's no challenge there, from a cinematographical standpoint. Besides, being that the comparison being drawn was to Apocalypto, that film is hardly short on practical effects...

 

But the subject at hand was Nolan playing the traditionalist card with his sticking to film, whereas another filmmaker - and one far more traditionalist in style, at that - has made the transition to digital, and done so very well, producing stunning results. That's the point.

 

Maybe a better comparison would be to Skyfall - another stunning film shot digitaly - but one which compositionally is far closer to a Nolan film, compared to the far more kinetic camerawork on Apocalypto.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

12 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Still, it means that during the space sequences, the camera is still filming a model and the background and movement are done in post. There's no challenge there, from a cinematographical standpoint.

 

Well, less of a challenge than matching the lighting of a model with that of a background plate, as in traditional optical printing. But it's still no walk in the park.

[crocodile 8,017]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Still, it means that during the space sequences, the camera is still filming a model and the background and movement are done in post. There's no challenge there, from a cinematographical standpoint.

Incorrect again. Background is already there.  But I get your point.

 

Karol

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Yeah...saying that creating effects work like that in Interstellar isn't a "challenge" is both odd and incorrect. And sort of an insult to the people who spent thousands of hours creating those effects.

 

If it wasn't a challenge, all CGI shots would look that good. Obviously they don't. (see Hobbit, The). 

 

And Mel Gibson is an incredibly talented filmmaker, and Apocalypto is a work of near genius. But I wouldn't compare it in any way to Interstellar...which IMO is a better looking film.

 

And wil regards to Nolan's zealotry when it comes to shooting on film...what's wrong with zealotry?

[Chen G. 3,949]

Its not a challenge on a cinematographical basis. Its a challenge on a special effects basis. There's a difference. But that's not the point, this is:

 

2 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

And wil regards to Nolan's zealotry when it comes to shooting on film...what's wrong with zealotry?

 

I don't mind it, per se. If the film industry were to switch to digital overnight it would cause a lot of problems: the shift needs to be gradual. So it is beneficial, for the moment, to have filmmakers who keep on shooting on film.

 

But the way filmmakers like Nolan make a point out of shooting on film, and the overblown respect they recieve for sticking to film, be it from fans or even film critics, is, to my mind, based on little more than nostalgia. Digital will replace film. Its already overtaking the resolution possible on 35mm film, and the clarity...

 

This isn't equal to, say, the way in which Nolan and other filmmakers stick to practical effects - while CG still does often prove inferior to such effects - digital is better than 35mm, and it won't be long before it surpasses 70mm, as well. And it has a lot of practical benefits as well.

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Nolan often makes these constant switches between anamorphic and IMAX, which is a spherical format. This is distracting to me because I've trained my eye to notice the quirks and characteristics of anamorphic lenses, I just know when it's changed, with or without the bloody aspect ratio changes.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The IMAX stuff from The Dark Knight looks better than the rest of the movie. After the IMAX scenes, the depth and clarity of the image annoyingly degrades.

[A24 4,338]

Especially on your TV!

 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Its not a challenge on a cinematographical basis. Its a challenge on a special effects basis. There's a difference. But that's not the point, this is:

 

 

I don't mind it, per se. If the film industry were to switch to digital overnight it would cause a lot of problems: the shift needs to be gradual. So it is beneficial, for the moment, to have filmmakers who keep on shooting on film.

 

But the way filmmakers like Nolan make a point out of shooting on film, and the overblown respect they recieve for sticking to film, be it from fans or even film critics, is, to my mind, based on little more than nostalgia. Digital will replace film. Its already overtaking the resolution possible on 35mm film, and the clarity...

 

This isn't equal to, say, the way in which Nolan and other filmmakers stick to practical effects - while CG still does often prove inferior to such effects - digital is better than 35mm, and it won't be long before it surpasses 70mm, as well. And it has a lot of practical benefits as well.

 

No one is claiming film is better than digital. You just love sucking up Gibson for some reason and putting down other (superb) filmmakers that choose film.

 

No challenge to shoot a Nolan film? What a load of shit. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Sure the resolution of digital may be overtaking 35mm film, but who wants movies to look that pin sharp? It'll look like a telemovie or a YouTube video.

[A24 4,338]

1 hour ago, Margo Channing said:

Sure the resolution of digital may be overtaking 35mm film, but who wants movies to look that pin sharp?

 

The new generation, of course. BTW, over-the-top sharpness only bothered me once but I can't remember the name of the movie. Most of the time, I don't even notice it whether a movie is shot on digital media or film. I simply don't have a preference. And from what I hear, most cinematographers don't have a preference either. They like them both.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

If the new generation isn't satisfied unless they're able to distinguish one microscopic detail from another, they're watching movies wrong.

[A24 4,338]

 

 

If you hate the way this looks, then you are watching movies wrong, Drax.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Huh? What's wrong with it?

[A24 4,338]

It's digital film (of which you complain that it's too sharp).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Deliberately misinterpreting my posts again. You're like a politician.

[A24 4,338]

3 hours ago, Margo Channing said:

Sure the resolution of digital may be overtaking 35mm film, but who wants movies to look that pin sharp? It'll look like a telemovie or a YouTube video.

 

Then how should I have interpreted this?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It means people shouldn't be viewing and judging movies by how crystal clear and micro detailed they are (usually tech heads who populate UHD social media groups). If they are, they're watching movies wrong.

[Chen G. 3,949]

8 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

No one is claiming film is better than digital. You just love sucking up Gibson for some reason and putting down other (superb) filmmakers that choose film.

 

Comparing directors was not the point at all.

 

The point is that Nolan, as a producer, gets a lot of mileage in the fandom from being very old school: insistence on practical effects, shooting on film, etcetra...

 

So I just used an example of another very, very old-school producer-director, who don't let himself be limited by these tendencies the way Nolan does. If you're more comfortable, you could use Sam Mendes as an example, instead.

 

6 hours ago, Margo Channing said:

Sure the resolution of digital may be overtaking 35mm film, but who wants movies to look that pin sharp? It'll look like a telemovie or a YouTube video.

 

Actually, issues of resolution are Nolan's case for film: it doesn't have resolution per se, but you can create a digital intermediate of about 6K out of 35mm film, and about 12K from 70mm. That's more resolution than digital cameras have been getting up to this point, although its getting there: the latest Avengers was shot on 6.5K digital.

 

But even a 4K digital camera is probably superior to 70mm film in the overall picture quality due to the clarity and vibrancy. And its got various production benefits, too: getting back to Gibson, one of the things that aided him in his recent project, Hacksaw Ridge - a criminally low-budget film - was that he didn't have to spend money on film. This is especially beneficial to directors who do a lot of takes.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Comparing directors was not the point at all.

 

The point is that Nolan, as a producer, gets a lot of mileage in the fandom from being very old school: insistence on practical effects, shooting on film, etcetra...

 

So I just used an example of another very, very old-school producer-director, who don't let himself be limited by these tendencies the way Nolan does. If you're more comfortable, you could use Sam Mendes as an example, instead.

 

 

Actually, issues of resolution are Nolan's case for film: it doesn't have resolution per se, but you can create a digital intermediate of about 6K out of 35mm film, and about 12K from 70mm. That's more resolution than digital cameras have been getting up to this point, although its getting there: the latest Avengers was shot on 6.5K digital.

 

But even a 4K digital camera is probably superior to 70mm film in the overall picture quality due to the clarity and vibrancy. And its got various production benefits, too: getting back to Gibson, one of the things that aided him in his recent project, Hacksaw Ridge - a criminally low-budget film - was that he didn't have to spend money on film. This is especially beneficial to directors who do a lot of takes.

Nolan, Mendes, and Gibson all use fantastic cinematographers. What’s your point? That filmmakers that use film are limited in their ability to make films? How? 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Koray Savas said:

That filmmakers that use film are limited in their ability to make films? How? 

 

When you, as a producer, make any choice based on anything that isn't logic, you are limiting yourself. Be that in limiting yourself to film based on principles or whatever...

 

I guess I just don't see what's endearing about Nolan's sticking with film.

[crocodile 8,017]

When is the last time you saw a film projected on film, Chen? Have you ever watched any of the Nolan films in IMAX?

 

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

When you, as a producer, make any choice based on anything that isn't logic, you are limiting yourself. Be that in limiting yourself to film based on principles or whatever...

 

I guess I just don't see what's endearing about Nolan's sticking with film.

So you’re saying Nolan’s films don’t look good because they are on film?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I find Nolan boring visually and in other ways as well.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I've managed to avoid it for the past 8 pages, but now it would seem that my luck has run out. I can't think of anything more tedious - hollow cyphers spouting dull exposition, uninteresting cinematography, boring scripts...

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

The most interesting thing about Nolan and his movies is their continued success and popularity.