What was the movie KIDS shot on?

Started by Thecowgoooesmooo, June 04, 2003, 07:54:02 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

Thecowgoooesmooo

June 04, 2003, 07:54:02 PM
I want the same look KIDS has... on my next short film...
I need to find out what kind of camera,lenses,ect were used.


Im 99% sure the movie was shot on DV.


chris

Cecil

#1
June 04, 2003, 07:56:54 PM
nope, 35mm film

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#2
June 04, 2003, 07:57:48 PM
did you know that disny made it, what does shiny excaliber mean ?

Cough cough Fantasia cough !!!!!!

godardian

#3
June 04, 2003, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: cecil b. dementednope, 35mm film

That's what IMDB says. I suppose the "grainy," handheld look it has could possibly trick some eyes into thinking it was DV, but DV is actually more blurry than grainy, from what I've seen.

Julien Donkey-Boy was shot on DV... maybe that's what's confusing you, Cow-Moo?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Thecowgoooesmooo

#4
June 04, 2003, 08:33:20 PM
I need more proof then what IMDB says. I need some more info on this, I've been searching but no look. Im still not convinced its 35 mill.



thanks

chris

Cecil

#5
June 04, 2003, 08:37:12 PM
well imdb could be wrong but i doubt it. it might be 16mm but im positive it isnt dv.

is this short of yours for school?

Thecowgoooesmooo

#6
June 04, 2003, 08:39:54 PM
Quotewell imdb could be wrong but i doubt it. it might be 16mm but im positive it isnt dv.

is this short of yours for school?

No this short is not for school.


chris

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#7
June 04, 2003, 11:13:51 PM
Quote from: mogwai
QuoteWhat was the movie KIDS shot on?
Er... lot of dope?

HAAA hee hee heee

Sal

#8
June 05, 2003, 12:40:04 AM
It was definitely shot on film.

Pubrick

#9
June 05, 2003, 03:32:12 AM
Quote from: SalIt was definitely shot on film.
that's true.

could be 16mm, but it was probably a particular type of 35mm.

no one shot on DV back then.
under the paving stones.

oakmanc234

#10
June 05, 2003, 05:38:43 AM
'Kids'. That movie felt so real. Like cameras were hidden everywhere, following these little demons, catching all their bullshit talk, their acts of violence, rape etc. I dont think I'm alone in saying that I wanted to put one between the eyes of the main kid, Telley (who I caught recently as Selma Blair's handicapped boyfriend in 'Storytelling').

Though I wouldn't exactly say that I enjoyed 'Kids', I want to see Clarke's latest 'Bully'.
'Welcome the Thunderdome, bitch'

godardian

#11
June 05, 2003, 12:46:08 PM
Quote from: oakmanc234'Kids'. That movie felt so real. Like cameras were hidden everywhere, following these little demons, catching all their bullshit talk, their acts of violence, rape etc. I dont think I'm alone in saying that I wanted to put one between the eyes of the main kid, Telley (who I caught recently as Selma Blair's handicapped boyfriend in 'Storytelling').

Though I wouldn't exactly say that I enjoyed 'Kids', I want to see Clarke's latest 'Bully'.

I think Bully is a terrible film and by far the worst of Clark's work. I'd recommend Another Day in Paradise before I'd recommend Bully.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Alethia

#12
June 05, 2003, 04:35:01 PM
35 mm.  i thought bully was a terrific film.

pookiethecat

re
#13
June 05, 2003, 04:42:35 PM
Bully mystifies me. I was shocked by how much it bored me.  That laden with sex, violence, and sleaze, yet still un-entertaining.
i wanna lick 'em.

SoNowThen

#14
June 05, 2003, 04:44:17 PM
That's pretty much Clark in a nutshell.
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.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions