Film Discussion

[Angry Vince]

Sooo.....you stock-pile Monkey Faeces? Welcome to the board

No, if Rob Schneider was on screen then the Moneky Turds would already be there.

[PreacherCain]

Sorry  if this has been covered but will there be a 2D version of the film released as well?

I wonder if they're starting to regret spending all that money on doing JD in 3D; all signs seem to be pointing to fatigue for this gimmick.

[JOE SOAP]

More than likely there'll be 2D versions, depending on the cinema.

Not sure how much the 3D aspect added to the production cost as there were savings made elsewhere but the '3D thing' is what happens when certain artistic decisions are influenced by the market and possibly may have been a production requisite to securing funding from certain backers.

[PreacherCain]

A pity, it could conceivably do more damage than good at this point by the time it comes out.

I am looking forward to it though, especially the non-3D version 

[JOE SOAP]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, it'll still be a film in either version and it's only a matter of whether you like to wear sun-glasses in the cinema or not.

[vzzbux]

The sad thing is I will watch it in both 2D and 3D. As will many others on this board.






V

[PreacherCain]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, it'll still be a film in either version and it's only a matter of whether you like to wear sun-glasses in the cinema or not.

The 3D aspect of modern blockbusters has effected the way people make films though, directorial decisions etc. Action scenes are a bloody mess (not that they haven't been a mess for about 10 years now) because they're limited in terms of editing, focus and composition when done in 3D.

I have to wear glasses when I go to the cinema anyway, so putting on a second pair isn't the most enjoyable or comfortable experience!

[JOE SOAP]

The 3D aspect of modern blockbusters has effected the way people make films though, directorial decisions etc. Action scenes are a bloody mess (not that they haven't been a mess for about 10 years now) because they're limited in terms of editing, focus and composition when done in 3D.

Those issues have been addressed by the cinematographer all ready:

I built some new cameras rigs that can take you very close to the action. It won't look so much like the action films we're accustomed to, and the audience won't have things thrust in their faces every five minutes. I hope it will be more painterly.

He's also using certain surveillance cameras that can focus down to the the hairs on poeple's noses.

In any case shooting in 2D never saved Chris Nolan from bad direction of action scenes. It's all down to whomever's shooting and ability to block scenes and their visual grasp.

[PreacherCain]

Fair point. That cinematographer quote is interesting. And I'm liking that this film is under Boyle's production company and a Garland script (let's hope he's finally sorted that third-act problem he's always had!) Didn't realize Duncan Jones had been offered the film too, that would have been interesting.

[JOE SOAP]

And I'm liking that this film is under Boyle's production company and a Garland script (let's hope he's finally sorted that third-act problem he's always had!) Didn't realize Duncan Jones had been offered the film too, that would have been interesting.

Danny Boyle has nothing to do with DNA films -founded by Duncan Kenworthy and Andrew Macdonald- other than he directed films for them all right, but he has no involvement otherwise with the company than as a past freelance director- his last two films were made for other companies- just as other work-for-hire directors. In fact he was rather disparaging of Dredd when the question was posed to him about whether he'd been asked to direct:

"Where has this come from? Someone asked me about Judge Dredd the other day!" When Empire reminded Boyle that DNA was producing, it got even worse: "Well... ha! I hated the last version of it; I can't imagine the next one will be any better."

I wasn't too enamoured of Duncan Jones' idea for the film -involving Death and the League of fatties apparently- it also would never have happened because the proposed budget wouldn't have covered that kind of Dredd story and done it any justice. Garland's condensed setting and screenplay is the best option. It's up to everyone else involved now to improve on it.

[blackmocco]

Oh man. I'd never seen that quote from Boyle before. Dang.

[JOE SOAP]

Oh man. I'd never seen that quote from Boyle before. Dang.

What a way to insult his mate. Success had gone to his depleted bouffant. His films can be fairly superficial anyway despite the sheen of 'seriousness'.

[PreacherCain]

It is a bit strange he'd be so disaparaging toward his own friend/collaborator.  I actually though the DnA company referred to Danny and Alex. D'oh

I like Duncan Jones as a director quite a bit. However, I wouldn't be too enamoured with the idea of Judge Death in a film, not too sure it would work all that well. Garlands 'A Day in the Life' idea does indeed sound like a great first film and will hopefully make for a tough, lean and gritty film that should be able to effectively capture the character and world.

I haven't been following the details on this film all that much so apologies for my naive assumptions in some cases. I'm planning on going to see this film as 'green' as possible; I only know the basic outline so far and I'm going to try and keep it that way! (I'm probably in the wrong thread for that, I know!)

[Peter Wolf]

Danny Boyle isnt a fan who came out with a flippant comment about it in passing so its hardly worth being offended over it.

Boring.

I have to say though that i have never been impressed by a Danny Boyle film of those that i have seen and a lot of them have been scripted by Alex Garland so i think that they are both overrated and Alex Garland was only hired to write the script because he is an inhouse scriptwriter for DNA.

As for the 3D aspect i am not interested as i find that 2D is good enough for films and watching a film wearing glasses doesnt appeal and nor do frivolous gimmicks.Also i am not involved in film production but i cannot see any sense in filming a low budget film in 3D.It will only be in the cinemas for a week or so and i cannot imagine that everyone who will watch this film has their own 3D TV or their own 3D glasses at home and hardly any cinemas have 3D screens.It might be that the director has done something interesting that couldnt be done without it so it remains to be seen....

3D is just a rehashed gimmick from the 1950s.

Its not like 3D films are a major trend as the majority of films are not filmed in 3D so its not like the film would be a bigger risk financially if it wasnt filmed in 3D and how many floating filmgoers will watch this film on the basis that it is filmed in 3D ?

Those issues have been addressed by the cinematographer all ready:

I built some new cameras rigs that can take you very close to the action. It won't look so much like the action films we're accustomed to, and the audience won't have things thrust in their faces every five minutes. I hope it will be more painterly.

He's also using certain surveillance cameras that can focus down to the the hairs on poeple's noses.

i dont see how that comment addresses the issues around filming in 3D .

Also i have gone past the point of being annoyed by the constant use of the word "gritty" but i am very tired of hearing it and its on a par with "hardcore" which doesnt seem to be used nearly as much so thank fuck for that.

[Peter Wolf]

Danny Boyle isnt a fan who came out with a flippant comment about it in passing so its hardly worth being offended over it.

Boring.

I have to say though that i have never been impressed by a Danny Boyle film of those that i have seen and a lot of them have been scripted by Alex Garland so i think that they are both overrated and Alex Garland was only hired to write the script because he is an inhouse scriptwriter for DNA.

As for the 3D aspect i am not interested as i find that 2D is good enough for films and watching a film wearing glasses doesnt appeal and nor do frivolous gimmicks.Also i am not involved in film production but i cannot see any sense in filming a low budget film in 3D.It will only be in the cinemas for a week or so and i cannot imagine that everyone who will watch this film has their own 3D TV or their own 3D glasses at home and hardly any cinemas have 3D screens.It might be that the director has done something interesting that couldnt be done without it so it remains to be seen....

3D is just a rehashed gimmick from the 1950s.

Its not like 3D films are a major trend as the majority of films are not filmed in 3D so its not like the film would be a bigger risk financially if it wasnt filmed in 3D and how many floating filmgoers will watch this film on the basis that it is filmed in 3D ?

Those issues have been addressed by the cinematographer all ready:

I built some new cameras rigs that can take you very close to the action. It won't look so much like the action films we're accustomed to, and the audience won't have things thrust in their faces every five minutes. I hope it will be more painterly.

He's also using certain surveillance cameras that can focus down to the the hairs on poeple's noses.

i dont see how that comment addresses the issues around filming in 3D .

Also i have gone past the point of being annoyed by the constant parroting of the word "gritty" but i am very tired of hearing it and its on a par with "hardcore" which doesnt seem to be used nearly as much so thank fuck for that.