Jump to content


Photo

Basic Instinct 2


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 09 April 2006 - 01:30 PM

Hi,

Does anybody knows the lenses that were used? The lenses did not match well and I felt one of the cameras had an issue with its flange focal distance or pressure plate. If I had not seen a Lenses and Cameras by Panavision credit, I would have guessed Cooke S2's and Zeiss Superspeeds the Superspeeds often around T1.8 and The S2's often around T2.3.

There was a DI credit and a negative cutting credit so I don't know if there was a complete DI or not.

Thanks in advance.

Stephen
  • 0

#2 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 09 April 2006 - 03:21 PM

Hello All,

I can't believe that BI2 tanked so fast. Maybe Stone just doesn't have it any more.


Mike
  • 0

#3 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 09 April 2006 - 04:12 PM

It seems to be Panavision Primos. I agree the DI was terrible. But I doubt that the lenses contributed to that. My guess is that they used highspeed stock and that picked up noise in the DI.

They used some promist.
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 10 April 2006 - 01:54 AM

They used some promist.


Hi,

Originally I thought promist's as the close ups with Sharon Stone, her eyes were still quite sharp. However there were so many wider scenes where nothing at all seemed to be sharp.

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 10 April 2006 - 07:39 AM

The print I saw was fairly sharp (indeed, it was sharper and less grainy than "V for Vendetta", which used Cooke S4 lenses and was shot mostly on 5218; I saw it at the same movie theater), but it seems that for "Basic Instinct 2" they used some nets behind the lenses (there were halos around light sources) and some kind of DNR tool during the DI stage to soften Sharon Stone's facial strokes and that caused very bad skin tones. The black levels didn't match too well between scenes, either.

By the way, the additional photography was credited to the late Adrian Biddle.
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 10 April 2006 - 07:59 AM

By the way, the additional photography was credited to the late Adrian Biddle.


Hi,

That was my excuse for going to the film in the first place!

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 10 April 2006 - 12:06 PM

Hello All,

I can't believe that BI2 tanked so fast. Maybe Stone just doesn't have it any more.
Mike


Oh, I can believe it all right.
Here they were, marketing the film primarily to an audience that probably wasn't even out of elementary school when the first film was out.
Most of them had never heard of the first film. And why would they care about Sharon Stone anyway? I don't, and I'm older than she is.
And by the posters, it was obvious they were trying to create the allure that you were going to see another "leg crossing" scene. Big deal.
In an age where 7th graders can see the most unbelievable things imaginable on porn sites, they're supposed to line up & pay $9.00+ to see some chick with no underwear cross her legs?
I can't believe the film even got made, frankly.
Besides everything I just stated, the other reason it was a mistake is, you don't make sequels more than 2-3 years after the original. There are very few exceptions where that works.

This is just another example of the Studies incorrectly thinking that as long as you get an A-lister cast for a project, nothing else at all matters to the audience
This is why we get all sorts of crap like Bewitched and other obvious pieces of excrement foisted upon us.

MP
  • 0

#8 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 April 2006 - 01:30 PM

Hello All,

I can't believe that BI2 tanked so fast. Maybe Stone just doesn't have it any more.
Mike

The movie was severely handicapped by one simple, easily correctable flaw...the TITLE. That caused virtually every critic to hate it before it was even released.
  • 0

#9 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 11:49 AM

The movie was severely handicapped by one simple, easily correctable flaw...the TITLE. That caused virtually every critic to hate it before it was even released.



I don't know if I'd agree with your simplification.
I mean, titles "mean" something, it's not just words, and in this case, the title was meant to convey "more of the same".
Their whole PR campaign seemed to center around "wow, Sharon Stone is nude again in this one!"
Big deal.

I don't think "the critics" were that crazy about the first one, by the way.
And most audiences don't listen that much to the critics anyway. The word of mouth on this one has been terrible.

MP
  • 0

#10 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:11 PM

This afternoon I heard a promotion on the radio: The film we've all been waiting for. Basic Instinct 2...

I don't know anyone who has seen this film already or plans to.
  • 0

#11 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:26 PM

I don't think "the critics" were that crazy about the first one, by the way.

MP

That was precisely my point.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Opal

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Opal

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineTape

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC