Phantom Thread

Started by wilder, June 02, 2016, 08:21:51 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Drenk

Ascension.

wilberfan

Speaking of the soundtrack...

How the 'Dunkirk' and 'Phantom Thread' Original Scores Dodged Disqualification

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/oscars-2018-best-original-score-dunkirk-phantom-thread-hans-zimmer-1201909102/

axxonn

Probably shouldn't listen to any of the soundtrack prior to seeing it but I couldn't resist - WOW that's an incredible piece. Greenwood's talent knows no end.

Alethia

This is by far my favorite of the scores he's done for PTA.

wilberfan

Is there a Parody, uh Thread yet...?




Alethia

A present I bought myself for the Christmas


Riley Jonathawinn Drake

Cool new photo posted by Phantom Thread Instagram account.

https://www.instagram.com/phantomthread/

wilberfan

Why the 'Phantom Thread' 70mm Screenings Are a Unique Experiment That Could Look Significantly Different
How will the film's grainy 35mm images look blown up to a much larger format? Paul Thomas Anderson's experiment with film projection continues apace.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/phantom-thread-70mm-screening-grainy-35mm-blow-up-1201910595/

QuoteWhat's notable here is the reason Anderson needed to push the stock, similar to what Lachman does when he shoots 35mm, and why today so many filmmakers are now reaching for 16mm: It's because of how grainless Kodak 35mm stocks have become. In a digital age, the Kodak stock has gotten "too good" – too clean, too grainless – for filmmakers who specifically are reaching for the organic texture of film versus the video sharpness. For these filmmakers, 16mm is an great option to use on an intimate film like "Mother" or "Carol," but it's too small a format – lacking detail in wide shots – for a film with scope and landscape like "Mudbound," which tested 16mm, but went in a different direction. While Anderson's films have gotten increasingly intimate and smaller in scope, he is also filmmaker who craves detail and depth in his images, so 16mm would likely never be a viable option for him.

WorldForgot

Wow that print is going to be delectable.


wilberfan


jenkins



deliberate or accidental how would i know. this is how it's listed in imdb showtimes

giodashorts


I saw the film yesterday in 70mm. It looked fantastic. Unfortunately, as is often the case nowadays, the projectionist didn't exactly have it "perfectly" in focus. The top and bottom were a little blurred, which affected some of the wider shots. Kodak 2383 colors look fantastic. I am in complete understanding of the way this film was photographed. I agree with it completely. This is very rare.  It's fantastic. And, if you've seen other films from Paul Thomas Anderson, it's very predictable in the sense that it works very, very well.

boogienights

Quote from: giodashorts on December 27, 2017, 12:21:12 PM

I saw the film yesterday in 70mm. It looked fantastic. Unfortunately, as is often the case nowadays, the projectionist didn't exactly have it "perfectly" in focus. The top and bottom were a little blurred, which affected some of the wider shots. Kodak 2383 colors look fantastic. I am in complete understanding of the way this film was photographed. I agree with it completely. This is very rare.  It's fantastic. And, if you've seen other films from Paul Thomas Anderson, it's very predictable in the sense that it works very, very well.

What theater was it? I'd prefer to avoid a focus problem if possible.