28 Days Later

Started by bonanzataz, February 25, 2003, 07:59:34 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User actions

Mesh

#195
July 21, 2003, 11:31:53 AM
Quote from: mutinycoThe degraded image was the point. It wasn't supposed to be polished.......It's just another aesthetic choice.

Whether it looked great or not is beside the point, IMO.

The DV gave this film a documentary, "reality TV" look that totally serviced its premise and plot.  This movie was Survivor on the grand scale.  One could even make the argument that the video violence the monkeys are subjected to in the prologue is echoed by the DV violence we're subjected to throughout the rest of the film; by viewing 28 Days Later, we're put in the same position those viral monkeys were.  In this way, the DV involves, and even implicates, its audience.

BTW:  GT, you still haven't told us about a film within the Horror genre that you think effectively presents its ideas while satisfying its audience in a more visceral (potentially violent) way.....

Choose one of these, choose your own, or be considered hopelessly biased:

1.  The Exorcist
2.  Bram Stoker's Dracula
3.  Night of the Living Dead
4.  Suspiria
5.  Last House on the Left

SoNowThen

#196
July 21, 2003, 11:37:29 AM
The Shining
The Vanishing
Don't Look Now

(though those are kinda suspense/thrillers, aren't they?)
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

jokerspath

#197
July 21, 2003, 12:21:00 PM
You should make him choose from my list of horror films:
Dr. Giggles
Candyman
Dollman Vs. The Demonic Toys
Shark Attack 3: Megalodon
Nothing But Trouble

aw
THIS IS NOT AN EXIT

markums2k

#198
July 21, 2003, 12:28:56 PM
So, what's your favorite scary movie?

"Showgirls. Absolutely frightening."  :roll:

Please tell me you saw that coming.

polkablues

#199
July 21, 2003, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: MeshThe DV gave this film a documentary, "reality TV" look that totally serviced its premise and plot.  

I saw it as more trying (and succeeding pretty well) to emulate the sort of "blown-up 16mm" look of 60's and 70's exploitation horror movies.
My house, my rules, my coffee

mutinyco

...
#200
July 21, 2003, 02:30:22 PM
Same thing. In the 60s and 70s news footage was shot on 16mm. Today it's shot on DV.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

ono

#201
July 24, 2003, 02:32:06 PM
I haven't been able to see this yet, but I had a question about it: I noticed that it's been shot on DV, and I'm thinking about whether or not I should use DV for a feature I've been planning to do.  I should probably ask this in the Tech Talk forum, and I may do that later, but I just wanted to get an idea: if "look" (color especially) is important to you in a film, how effective is DV?  I've done one short film using it, but it was rather short for me to judge things.  So for the people who've seen this film, I was just curious as to how effective DV is.  I probably should just see the film for myself.  I may this weekend if I can find a theatre that shows it.  Is it worth an hour-long drive?

SoNowThen

#202
July 24, 2003, 02:36:05 PM
I found that when they were in almost total darkness, but had one shaft of light coming in, and had exposed pretty much for this light, so that everything else dropped off by degrees, things looked great. But when they had a variance of light levels going on, and the exposure was centered, all the bright areas ended up washed out and slightly fuzzy on lines, while the dark areas weren't as strong as they could be.

Also, lots of color subtlety seems to get lost. Striking colors come across fine, but less explosive colors don't look as good, imo.

But others here seemed to think it looked great...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

...
#203
July 24, 2003, 03:03:30 PM
Well, are you planning to have your mini-DV movie blown-up to 35mm? Yeah, you're gonna lose picture quality -- unless you like the degraded look. I thought it looked great in 28 Days Later.

Another thing to consider if you plan to blow-up -- you need to shoot in PAL. PAL runs at 25 fps, which is a lot closer to film's 24 fps, than NTSC at 29.97 fps.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

markums2k

#204
July 25, 2003, 03:00:56 PM
Quote from: mutinycoWell, are you planning to have your mini-DV movie blown-up to 35mm? Yeah, you're gonna lose picture quality -- unless you like the degraded look. I thought it looked great in 28 Days Later.

Another thing to consider if you plan to blow-up -- you need to shoot in PAL. PAL runs at 25 fps, which is a lot closer to film's 24 fps, than NTSC at 29.97 fps.

Seriously?  You might know more than me, but I think that's a bad idea.  PAL also features different video resolutions (standard for PAL DVDs is 720 x 576 pixels, while NTSC is 720 x 480 pixels).

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the process.  However, trivial things like frames per second can be altered to your heart's content once you have the stuff on a computer.  Obviously, if you live in the UK, use PAL.  If you live in the US, use NTSC.  To suggest that every DV film-maker should use PAL, that doesn't sound right to me.

I thought this movie looked great, by the way.

mutinyco

#205
July 25, 2003, 07:44:40 PM
Every major DV film I've seen that's been blown up to 35 has been PAL. It's not even up for discussion. There's a 6 frame difference between NTSC and actual film. You'll loose picture quality and sound synch.

By the way. I just saw the new ending. Opinions anybody?
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

modage

#206
July 25, 2003, 07:55:32 PM
yeah my opinon is, i want to know what happens.  can you tell me?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Sigur Rós

#207
July 26, 2003, 04:39:34 AM
Quote from: mutinycoEvery major DV film I've seen that's been blown up to 35 has been PAL. It's not even up for discussion. There's a 6 frame difference between NTSC and actual film. You'll loose picture quality and sound synch.

By the way. I just saw the new ending. Opinions anybody?

Can this be found on the net? I have the DVD, and it contains a alternative storyboard ending. Is this it?

mutinyco

#208
July 26, 2003, 09:22:52 AM
Basically, after the credits you see a scene where they rush Jim to a hospital. They try to save him, but he dies. Then Selena and Hanna walk off, still unsure how they're going to survive. Real bleak.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

phil marlowe

#209
July 26, 2003, 09:51:12 AM
Quote from: mutinycoBasically, after the credits you see a scene where they rush Jim to a hospital. They try to save him, but he dies. Then Selena and Hanna walk off, still unsure how they're going to survive. Real bleak.
didn't they get saved like in the original ending with those giant sown letters but without jim? this would've been really cool cos that way he would've died the way he was 'born' in the beginning of the film.

they should've done the alternative storyboard ending instead. when they hit that army base, the movie fell apart from me.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User actions