Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico

Rob Belics · October 5th, 2003, 05:20 PM

People do notice the difference and do care if they have something to compare it to. The story is the most important part of any movie. The audience is paying attention to the story.

What if you have two books of the same story, one in hardback with a beautiful cover and great paper with a wonderful font, while the other is paperback with cheap paper and a poor font. If they were the same price, which would you buy? Which has better value? Which is appreciated more? You could print a lot more books, but would those books be any good?

An art director may tear his hair out trying to get the right colors on a set, but would it be a waste of his time to produce it on video and not be able to reproduce the set as he wished?

If you had the budget, would any of us choose dv over film?

Cheaper and faster does not overcome dv's shortcomings of producing the best possible picture. (There are even white papers out there questioning the 'cheaper and faster' statement.)
A producer/director/cinematographer of any worth wants to give the audience the best possible image.

With Hollywood being starved for good scripts, I doubt you would have more of them. At least the quality would not improve.

As far as watching movies on palm pilots, anything looks good on a 2 inch screen.

Chris Kirby · October 7th, 2003, 10:26 PM

Most people don't notice the differences between film and dv. Why? It might be becasue they're watching the movie and trying to get into the story, not analyzing the colors. Ask a thousand people who loved the film and a thousand who hated it. My guess is noone but people like us even noticed the colors or that it was digital.

Certainly nothing wrong with arguing dv vs film here. But let's not drag the rest of humanity into it. They care about the story and don't notice the "colors" unless they're off.

The wife and I loved OUATIM, just as we both loved El Mariachi and Desperado. We've also seen all three Spy Kids with our daughter. My daughter loves Mary Poppins too. Try explaining that Mary Poppins is better becasue it's on film and you'll have her attention about 4 seconds.

Rob Belics · October 8th, 2003, 08:41 AM

I think a lot of people are missing the point I'm trying to make.

If you're served frozen mashed potatoes all the time, you wouldn't know you could have better mashed potatoes from whole potatoes. Then you'd be upset saying "You mean I could have had it better all this time?"

You do notice the difference.

Chris Kirby · October 10th, 2003, 04:07 PM

I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree. Most people who go to the movies don't notice the differences that you would.

Film isn't dead. Making movies only on film is. And that's a VERY good thing.

Marc Young · January 24th, 2004, 01:27 AM

I skipped the film when it was playing in movie theaters, so my assessment of Once Upon a Time in Mexico is based on viewing the dvd. It looks remarkably good. Much better than most Columbia Tristar dvd releases which are film based. The skin tones are a bit too saturated, and have that unnatural look, but at least the color timing is consistent throughout the movie. And the faces blend in with the scenery in a harmonious way.

The supplements on the dvd are worth watching on their own. Rodriguez is the biggest jack of all trades since Orson Welles. RR can do it all: story writing, cinematography, editing, and scoring. He shows you his home studio, including his mixing console, pro tools setup and avid station. In 10 minutes, he also tells you how to make a movie cheaply, and even how to cook pork. Most interesting is RR's lecture and q&a session, titled "Film is Dead." In a nutshell, why does he like HD? Because it is a wysiwyg filming process. With 35 mm, you can never be certain you lit a scene correctly. The anxiety makes directors, actors, and producers nervous. And thus less productive. Also HD allows the thought & conception process to take place in real time.

RR is a bundle of energy, and whether you like his films or not, you cannot deny the fact that he is brilliant and still growing.

Now, I won't say that Mexico is a great movie. It's entertaining like a comic book. The best movie from 2003 to be released so far on dvd is Northfork. Both from an artistic point of view, and technically. Try not to watch both movies in the same evening. They are vastly different, and of course, Northfork is much deeper. It is one of those profound films that you will think of favorably years from now.

Nick Medrano · January 24th, 2004, 01:54 AM

Good assessment. Have you seen OPEN RANGE yet? Fantastic flick. The behind-the-scenes stuff is great is good, too.

Brian Huey · January 24th, 2004, 03:00 AM

Thanks for the info Marc, I'll have to rent it some time and check that out. I had thought about changing the title of the thread since I don't think film is dead quite yet, just on the way out, but now that he has something title "Film is Dead" on his DVD I'm glad I didn't change it!

Open Range is great, man I love westerns and Robert Duvall is always brilliant. May have to buy that DVD if I find it for a good price.

Cheers,
Brian

Ben Gurvich · January 24th, 2004, 05:35 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Hmmm...what do Lucas and Rodriguez appear to have in common? Seemingly, their energies seem to be more focused on the technology they are using to make their movies than on the stories they are telling. -->>>

touche.

Question: When all this is over, Will our lives be empty?

I really enjoy discussing trying to make video look like film, or the new HD/V cameras coming out.

However, we spend so much time thinking,talking and breathing about how to make video look like film, (which i greatly enjoy) what do you suppose will we talk about when it does?

Now, this is not just when i have my hands on that JVC HDV, but maybe a scene or two ahead when I have my 6 megapixel HD cam, with the "film filter" switch enabled, which will make it look just as good as any of todays best 35mm, the camera that will cost me $1599 on sale from Camera House, which, i might add, in the scheme of things will be sooner than later.....

My advice for myself is to start writing a damn good script now, because I wont have a good enough excuse as to why I havn't produced a piece that looks and feels, simply like: a good movie.

Now. Where did i put that film look tutorial.........

Wayne Orr · January 24th, 2004, 12:23 PM

No, film is not dead. But it sure isn't where you want to invest any money. Kodak announced they will not be selling anymore still film cameras in the North American market. I believe the only place they will be continuing to sell their still camera line is in emerging nations, such as China, where having a still camera is a novelty to someone who twenty years ago didn't have electricity.

Every new sitcom being produced is shot on 24P HiDef cameras. There have even been episodic dramatic shows shot with these cameras, and there will certainly be more in the future.

We are very close to seeing 35mm size chips in these cameras, and that will be a major step in the acceptance of this format for big screen productions.

And in other news...

I watched "Open Range" last night and when this blood bath of a movie was over, I couldn't help thinking: how ironic that a movie that climaxes in all this "gun-play" is shot in Canada, where this sort of thing never went on. Fortunately, I guess having the longest gun battle in the history of the Western genre doesn't garauntee box office success. Nice work by DP, Jimmy Muro, who is one of the finest Steadicam operators to ever wear the vest. And interestingly, I don't remember a single Steadicam shot in the film.

(A side note: Speaking of guns, know how many Indians were killed in Canada during our "Indian wars?" None. Zero. Zilch. Somehow Canadians were able to co-exist peacefully with the indigenous people, which we were never able to learn. Maybe there's something in the water.)

"Nortfork" was like spending two hours in a dentist's chair while staring at his gorgeous dental assistant. Nice work by DP, David Mullen.

Just some musings on a Saturday morning. Not looking to start anything. BTW, if you want to see the movie that Kevin Costner thought he was making, check out "My Darling Clementine."

Nick Medrano · January 24th, 2004, 12:37 PM

And in other news...

I watched "Open Range" last night and when this blood bath of a movie was over, I couldn't help thinking: how ironic that a movie that climaxes in all this "gun-play" is shot in Canada, where this sort of thing never went on. Fortunately, I guess having the longest gun battle in the history of the Western genre doesn't garauntee box office success. Nice work by DP, Jimmy Muro, who is one of the finest Steadicam operators to ever wear the vest. And interestingly, I don't remember a single Steadicam shot in the film.

(A side note: Speaking of guns, know how many Indians were killed in Canada during our "Indian wars?" None. Zero. Zilch. Somehow Canadians were able to co-exist peacefully with the indigenous people, which we were never able to learn. Maybe there's something in the water.)

-->>>

Do you know why they shot in Canada? Kevin Costner really wanted to shoot in Montana, but he only had a 10million dollar budget. 10 MILLION DOLLARS. He didn't even have a studio or his financing in place. That's why he shot in Canada, because it's cheaper. He wanted to shoot in Montana, but it would've cost an additional 5-10 million...and that's money that they could've used for advertising.

About half-way into the production, a studio stepped in and gave him about 15million more to work with.

I can't remember if there are references or not, but I don't recall anyone mentioning "Canadians" in the film. It's just one of those "small town in the middle of nowhere" movies that never tell you their exact locations. Although, if you look closely, there's a map of Texas on Baxter's wall.

Rob Belics · January 24th, 2004, 09:20 PM

Wayne, you know my bud David? More of an acquantance of mine. We converse a lot.

It wouldn't be too far a stretch if Northfork got an Oscar nom so don't knock it.

I would hardly call Open Range a blood bath. It was a good showing of what the old west was really like. And I hate cowboy movies. But what was really fun is my 15 and 16 year old liked it, my wife liked it and her mother liked it and we all think it was one of the best cowboy movies we ever saw!

I hope your a better shooter than critic ;)

Wayne Orr · January 24th, 2004, 10:06 PM

Rob, I think you may have misread my comment. I thought David did a great job with Northfork, and I look forward to seeing anything he is associated with in the future. We have not met, but exchange correspondence on occasion.

Regarding my "blood bath" comment; I am an confessed anti-gun person and I find movies that resolve their conflict with outrageous gun battles not only silly, but contribute to the "myth of the gun" which has contributed mightily to our present dilemma with gun ownership in this country. I would bet that your teenagers would not have liked that movie nearly so much had it not ended with that extended gun fight, which struck me as just silly after the first couple of minutes. It was certainly much longer than the actual "gunfight at the OK Corral," and I'm not talking the movie.

BTW, I confess I didn't turn off the shootout. But I was hoping for a bit more realistic conclusion. And it appears a lot of critics didn't disagree with me, because despite some serious lobbying, the movie is not garnering much interest for the awards season. I have this dream where Kevin Costner and Howard Dean are sitting in a bar over beers discussing, "Where did I go wrong?"

John Hudson · January 25th, 2004, 01:50 PM

Blood Bath? It was indeed a grahic portrayal of an old west shootout but I didn't see it portayed in a sensational KILL BILL kind of way and not really ironic in any way.

Ironic that they shoot films in a studio in Burabank instead of actually going to Nepal. :p

What is boxoffice sucess? I'm sure when its all said and done (WORLDWIDE + RENTALS) it'll make a 'buck or two'. These types of films don't usually garner HUGE BOX OFFICE numbers. (Was Dances With Wolves a "Cowboy" movie?) $60 Million is a tight number for this type of film (Dramatic Western)

None?! Zilch?! What about the Metis? or does that count?

Anti-gun people typically have jaded opinions (People that are anti-gun usually don't get it anyway) and it really was in no way anything like My Darling Clementine.

I doubt they are sitting around wondering what the heck happended. Tons of films each year are ignored by the Academy. Open Range had mass critical acclaim.

Now, Im not trying to start something, just some musings on a Sunday morning.

Nick Medrano · January 25th, 2004, 01:56 PM

Dissapointed that OPEN RANGE did not get any noms:(

John Hudson · January 25th, 2004, 02:37 PM

I am surprised considering the critical acclaim. The list comes out the 27th but will surely mimic the Golden Globes nominees.

Release Dates

Cold Mountain - 12/25
LOTR - 12/17
Master and Comm - 11/14
Mystic River - 10/15
Seabiscuit - 7/25

OPEN RANGE - 8/15

With the exception of Seabiscuit the other films appear very fresh in the Academy's minds. I think we all know the Academy is agenda driven and political.

I enjoyed Open Range but would have liked to have seen the love story developed more (The connection between characters) and would have like to have seen the Antagonist(s) more as well. They spent too much time in Duvall and Costners relationship. Good film though.

January 24th, 2004, 05:35 AM	#38
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	When all this is over <<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Hmmm...what do Lucas and Rodriguez appear to have in common? Seemingly, their energies seem to be more focused on the technology they are using to make their movies than on the stories they are telling. -->>> touche. Question: When all this is over, Will our lives be empty? I really enjoy discussing trying to make video look like film, or the new HD/V cameras coming out. However, we spend so much time thinking,talking and breathing about how to make video look like film, (which i greatly enjoy) what do you suppose will we talk about when it does? Now, this is not just when i have my hands on that JVC HDV, but maybe a scene or two ahead when I have my 6 megapixel HD cam, with the "film filter" switch enabled, which will make it look just as good as any of todays best 35mm, the camera that will cost me $1599 on sale from Camera House, which, i might add, in the scheme of things will be sooner than later..... My advice for myself is to start writing a damn good script now, because I wont have a good enough excuse as to why I havn't produced a piece that looks and feels, simply like: a good movie. Now. Where did i put that film look tutorial.........

January 24th, 2004, 12:23 PM	#39
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	No, film is not dead. But it sure isn't where you want to invest any money. Kodak announced they will not be selling anymore still film cameras in the North American market. I believe the only place they will be continuing to sell their still camera line is in emerging nations, such as China, where having a still camera is a novelty to someone who twenty years ago didn't have electricity. Every new sitcom being produced is shot on 24P HiDef cameras. There have even been episodic dramatic shows shot with these cameras, and there will certainly be more in the future. We are very close to seeing 35mm size chips in these cameras, and that will be a major step in the acceptance of this format for big screen productions. And in other news... I watched "Open Range" last night and when this blood bath of a movie was over, I couldn't help thinking: how ironic that a movie that climaxes in all this "gun-play" is shot in Canada, where this sort of thing never went on. Fortunately, I guess having the longest gun battle in the history of the Western genre doesn't garauntee box office success. Nice work by DP, Jimmy Muro, who is one of the finest Steadicam operators to ever wear the vest. And interestingly, I don't remember a single Steadicam shot in the film. (A side note: Speaking of guns, know how many Indians were killed in Canada during our "Indian wars?" None. Zero. Zilch. Somehow Canadians were able to co-exist peacefully with the indigenous people, which we were never able to learn. Maybe there's something in the water.) "Nortfork" was like spending two hours in a dentist's chair while staring at his gorgeous dental assistant. Nice work by DP, David Mullen. Just some musings on a Saturday morning. Not looking to start anything. BTW, if you want to see the movie that Kevin Costner thought he was making, check out "My Darling Clementine." __________________ Wayne If it was easy, they'd get a relative to do it.

January 24th, 2004, 10:06 PM	#42
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	Rob, I think you may have misread my comment. I thought David did a great job with Northfork, and I look forward to seeing anything he is associated with in the future. We have not met, but exchange correspondence on occasion. Regarding my "blood bath" comment; I am an confessed anti-gun person and I find movies that resolve their conflict with outrageous gun battles not only silly, but contribute to the "myth of the gun" which has contributed mightily to our present dilemma with gun ownership in this country. I would bet that your teenagers would not have liked that movie nearly so much had it not ended with that extended gun fight, which struck me as just silly after the first couple of minutes. It was certainly much longer than the actual "gunfight at the OK Corral," and I'm not talking the movie. BTW, I confess I didn't turn off the shootout. But I was hoping for a bit more realistic conclusion. And it appears a lot of critics didn't disagree with me, because despite some serious lobbying, the movie is not garnering much interest for the awards season. I have this dream where Kevin Costner and Howard Dean are sitting in a bar over beers discussing, "Where did I go wrong?" __________________ Wayne If it was easy, they'd get a relative to do it.

October 5th, 2003, 05:20 PM	#31
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	People do notice the difference and do care if they have something to compare it to. The story is the most important part of any movie. The audience is paying attention to the story. What if you have two books of the same story, one in hardback with a beautiful cover and great paper with a wonderful font, while the other is paperback with cheap paper and a poor font. If they were the same price, which would you buy? Which has better value? Which is appreciated more? You could print a lot more books, but would those books be any good? An art director may tear his hair out trying to get the right colors on a set, but would it be a waste of his time to produce it on video and not be able to reproduce the set as he wished? If you had the budget, would any of us choose dv over film? Cheaper and faster does not overcome dv's shortcomings of producing the best possible picture. (There are even white papers out there questioning the 'cheaper and faster' statement.) A producer/director/cinematographer of any worth wants to give the audience the best possible image. With Hollywood being starved for good scripts, I doubt you would have more of them. At least the quality would not improve. As far as watching movies on palm pilots, anything looks good on a 2 inch screen.

October 7th, 2003, 10:26 PM	#32
Chris Kirby New Boot Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 24	Most people don't notice the differences between film and dv. Why? It might be becasue they're watching the movie and trying to get into the story, not analyzing the colors. Ask a thousand people who loved the film and a thousand who hated it. My guess is noone but people like us even noticed the colors or that it was digital. Certainly nothing wrong with arguing dv vs film here. But let's not drag the rest of humanity into it. They care about the story and don't notice the "colors" unless they're off. The wife and I loved OUATIM, just as we both loved El Mariachi and Desperado. We've also seen all three Spy Kids with our daughter. My daughter loves Mary Poppins too. Try explaining that Mary Poppins is better becasue it's on film and you'll have her attention about 4 seconds.

October 8th, 2003, 08:41 AM	#33
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	I think a lot of people are missing the point I'm trying to make. If you're served frozen mashed potatoes all the time, you wouldn't know you could have better mashed potatoes from whole potatoes. Then you'd be upset saying "You mean I could have had it better all this time?" You do notice the difference.

October 10th, 2003, 04:07 PM	#34
Chris Kirby New Boot Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 24	I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree. Most people who go to the movies don't notice the differences that you would. Film isn't dead. Making movies only on film is. And that's a VERY good thing.

January 24th, 2004, 01:27 AM	#35
Marc Young Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 112	I skipped the film when it was playing in movie theaters, so my assessment of Once Upon a Time in Mexico is based on viewing the dvd. It looks remarkably good. Much better than most Columbia Tristar dvd releases which are film based. The skin tones are a bit too saturated, and have that unnatural look, but at least the color timing is consistent throughout the movie. And the faces blend in with the scenery in a harmonious way. The supplements on the dvd are worth watching on their own. Rodriguez is the biggest jack of all trades since Orson Welles. RR can do it all: story writing, cinematography, editing, and scoring. He shows you his home studio, including his mixing console, pro tools setup and avid station. In 10 minutes, he also tells you how to make a movie cheaply, and even how to cook pork. Most interesting is RR's lecture and q&a session, titled "Film is Dead." In a nutshell, why does he like HD? Because it is a wysiwyg filming process. With 35 mm, you can never be certain you lit a scene correctly. The anxiety makes directors, actors, and producers nervous. And thus less productive. Also HD allows the thought & conception process to take place in real time. RR is a bundle of energy, and whether you like his films or not, you cannot deny the fact that he is brilliant and still growing. Now, I won't say that Mexico is a great movie. It's entertaining like a comic book. The best movie from 2003 to be released so far on dvd is Northfork. Both from an artistic point of view, and technically. Try not to watch both movies in the same evening. They are vastly different, and of course, Northfork is much deeper. It is one of those profound films that you will think of favorably years from now.

January 24th, 2004, 01:54 AM	#36
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	Good assessment. Have you seen OPEN RANGE yet? Fantastic flick. The behind-the-scenes stuff is great is good, too.

January 24th, 2004, 03:00 AM	#37
Brian Huey Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Seattle , WA Posts: 184	Thanks for the info Marc, I'll have to rent it some time and check that out. I had thought about changing the title of the thread since I don't think film is dead quite yet, just on the way out, but now that he has something title "Film is Dead" on his DVD I'm glad I didn't change it! Open Range is great, man I love westerns and Robert Duvall is always brilliant. May have to buy that DVD if I find it for a good price. Cheers, Brian

January 24th, 2004, 12:37 PM	#40
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	And in other news... I watched "Open Range" last night and when this blood bath of a movie was over, I couldn't help thinking: how ironic that a movie that climaxes in all this "gun-play" is shot in Canada, where this sort of thing never went on. Fortunately, I guess having the longest gun battle in the history of the Western genre doesn't garauntee box office success. Nice work by DP, Jimmy Muro, who is one of the finest Steadicam operators to ever wear the vest. And interestingly, I don't remember a single Steadicam shot in the film. (A side note: Speaking of guns, know how many Indians were killed in Canada during our "Indian wars?" None. Zero. Zilch. Somehow Canadians were able to co-exist peacefully with the indigenous people, which we were never able to learn. Maybe there's something in the water.) -->>> Do you know why they shot in Canada? Kevin Costner really wanted to shoot in Montana, but he only had a 10million dollar budget. 10 MILLION DOLLARS. He didn't even have a studio or his financing in place. That's why he shot in Canada, because it's cheaper. He wanted to shoot in Montana, but it would've cost an additional 5-10 million...and that's money that they could've used for advertising. About half-way into the production, a studio stepped in and gave him about 15million more to work with. I can't remember if there are references or not, but I don't recall anyone mentioning "Canadians" in the film. It's just one of those "small town in the middle of nowhere" movies that never tell you their exact locations. Although, if you look closely, there's a map of Texas on Baxter's wall.

January 24th, 2004, 09:20 PM	#41
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Wayne, you know my bud David? More of an acquantance of mine. We converse a lot. It wouldn't be too far a stretch if Northfork got an Oscar nom so don't knock it. I would hardly call Open Range a blood bath. It was a good showing of what the old west was really like. And I hate cowboy movies. But what was really fun is my 15 and 16 year old liked it, my wife liked it and her mother liked it and we all think it was one of the best cowboy movies we ever saw! I hope your a better shooter than critic ;)

January 25th, 2004, 01:50 PM	#43
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Blood Bath? It was indeed a grahic portrayal of an old west shootout but I didn't see it portayed in a sensational KILL BILL kind of way and not really ironic in any way. Ironic that they shoot films in a studio in Burabank instead of actually going to Nepal. :p What is boxoffice sucess? I'm sure when its all said and done (WORLDWIDE + RENTALS) it'll make a 'buck or two'. These types of films don't usually garner HUGE BOX OFFICE numbers. (Was Dances With Wolves a "Cowboy" movie?) $60 Million is a tight number for this type of film (Dramatic Western) None?! Zilch?! What about the Metis? or does that count? Anti-gun people typically have jaded opinions (People that are anti-gun usually don't get it anyway) and it really was in no way anything like My Darling Clementine. I doubt they are sitting around wondering what the heck happended. Tons of films each year are ignored by the Academy. Open Range had mass critical acclaim. Now, Im not trying to start something, just some musings on a Sunday morning.

January 25th, 2004, 01:56 PM	#44
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	Dissapointed that OPEN RANGE did not get any noms:(

January 25th, 2004, 02:37 PM	#45
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	I am surprised considering the critical acclaim. The list comes out the 27th but will surely mimic the Golden Globes nominees. Release Dates Cold Mountain - 12/25 LOTR - 12/17 Master and Comm - 11/14 Mystic River - 10/15 Seabiscuit - 7/25 OPEN RANGE - 8/15 With the exception of Seabiscuit the other films appear very fresh in the Academy's minds. I think we all know the Academy is agenda driven and political. I enjoyed Open Range but would have liked to have seen the love story developed more (The connection between characters) and would have like to have seen the Antagonist(s) more as well. They spent too much time in Duvall and Costners relationship. Good film though.