Jump to content


Photo

" The Golden Compass "


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 07 December 2007 - 01:18 PM

I went to a screening of "The Golden Compass" its better than i was expecting [ Nicol Kidman is really good ] anyway it looks wonderful Henry Braham BSC lights the film beautifully .It was shot on Fuji Eterna stocks , so any comments i may have said about Fuji being worried about Kodaks latest 5219 may be premature .But i havent seen Kodaks presentations yet ]
  • 0

#2 Edgar Dubrovskiy

Edgar Dubrovskiy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 07 December 2007 - 01:54 PM

Didn't like the film.
Sometimes lighting was very weak. What is the source of light, when kids escape, running on a dark street? Mobile phone? Effects also look rather cheap. Obvious green screen. Even skies. $150m budget? A lot spent on marketing, a lot.
Daniel Craig was quite good, the rest of the main cast was... overacting. Maybe that's the style of kids fairy-tale, don't know, but I didn't like it.
  • 0

#3 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 08 December 2007 - 02:15 AM

A bitter waste of time. Halfway through my wife and I wanted to walk out, but stayed in hopes that the story would pick up. It needed more Daniel Craig and less Kidman.

The cinematography at times was quite beautiful, especially during the school interior scenes. But the night scenes could have been better. There is the aforementioned dark city street scene where she is oddly lit frontally while running. And another scene with the main girl character on a ship at night, and the light seems to be coming from below and appears very sourcy.

But the very few lighting issues I saw are dwarfed in comparison to just how horrible the film was.
  • 0

#4 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 08 December 2007 - 03:06 PM

Sometimes lighting was very weak. What is the source of light, when kids escape, running on a dark street?


Must all light have a source?

It is a theatrical film, Not a 'Dogme'.
  • 0

#5 Edgar Dubrovskiy

Edgar Dubrovskiy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 08 December 2007 - 03:29 PM

Must all light have a source?

It is a theatrical film, Not a 'Dogme'.


A bit of realism would help.
  • 0

#6 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 08 December 2007 - 04:51 PM

Going back to my previous statement "And another scene with the main girl character on a ship at night, and the light seems to be coming from below and appears very sourcy." This shot actually appeared more as if it was heavily doctored in post. That old example of things that were done in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, using power windows to illuminate eyes and faces more. It just seemed as if they place a power window over the girl's entire body and pumped it up way too high.
  • 0

#7 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:14 PM

All i can say is we dont have seen been the same film as i said better than i was expecting . But just dont get all these nit picking where the is the light source coming from !! . Doesnt matter its a fantasy film .
  • 0

#8 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 10 December 2007 - 05:04 PM

I just like to make mental notes on certain visuals that I like or dislike during a film, then I go back through the picture in my head and try to think through technically how certain shots were achieved. Not necessarily "nitpicking", just an observance of the DP's craft.
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 December 2007 - 07:08 PM

I thought it was quite lovely-looking. Saw it today.

When I noticed that night running shot, you'll note that in the reverse angle as she runs away from the camera, there is a big moon in the sky above her, so in theory she is running towards the moonlight, which may explain why her face is front-lit. Anyway, that didn't bother me too much, it's in an urban setting anyway where the source could be anything artificial. Could have been timed darker though.

The Fuji stocks looked very pretty, and there seems to be some mild digital diffusion on many scenes, but not all. A few underexposed shots that get grainy.

The movie itself is somewhat long-winded and drags.
  • 0

#10 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 11 December 2007 - 03:02 AM

The movie itself is somewhat long-winded and drags.


Yeah, it's quite hard endure a film where most of the motivation is enigmatic and also dependent on the sequels.
  • 0

#11 Edgar Dubrovskiy

Edgar Dubrovskiy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:09 AM

Yeah, it's quite hard endure a film where most of the motivation is enigmatic and also dependent on the sequels.


Especially when everyone's measuring any trilogy to 'Lord of the Rings'.
  • 0

#12 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 11 December 2007 - 11:58 AM

I didnt judge it as a first part of a trilogy as i said the movie was ok cant see there being a part two i just liked the way it looked ! . This film was due to be shot on digital using Genesis ,but the completion bond company said no , so thank goodness its was shot on Fuji Film.
  • 0

#13 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1735 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 09 January 2008 - 08:19 PM

The film itself was OK... But I don't see whey they spent $180 Million Dollars (according to IMDB). There was nothing really "Spectacular" about the scenes in the movie that would have suggested spending a huge amount of money on them. Kidman (Who I think is way overrated anyway) got $15 million of it, but still. There is nothing in that film that I Robert Rodriguez could not have made for $40 million or less.

Hollywood needs to learn that if they actually was to turn a profit on the crap they put out, they need to quit spending that much money on film's.

Hell, of Cameron can make Titanic for $200 mill, or PJ could make 3 LOTR films for $200 mill, there is not reason why this one film cost $180 Million.. Other than studio execs with lathe wallets throwing money out for no reason.

Edited by Landon D. Parks, 09 January 2008 - 08:19 PM.

  • 0

#14 Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 January 2008 - 10:44 PM

The film itself was OK... But I don't see whey they spent $180 Million Dollars (according to IMDB). There was nothing really "Spectacular" about the scenes in the movie that would have suggested spending a huge amount of money on them. Kidman (Who I think is way overrated anyway) got $15 million of it, but still. There is nothing in that film that I Robert Rodriguez could not have made for $40 million or less.

Hollywood needs to learn that if they actually was to turn a profit on the crap they put out, they need to quit spending that much money on film's.

Hell, of Cameron can make Titanic for $200 mill, or PJ could make 3 LOTR films for $200 mill, there is not reason why this one film cost $180 Million.. Other than studio execs with lathe wallets throwing money out for no reason.


Except that Jackson didn't make 3 LOTR films for $200 million dollars. Where you getting that figure from? (as I understand it, it was closer to $300 million...)

Also it makes a big difference if the director happens to own the VFX company doing most of the effects work on the film. He can drive them into the ground in ways that others could never do.

That's pretty much what happened with Cameron/Titanic. Everyone else made a profit on the movie, except Digital Domain, who nearly went bust.

R.
  • 0

#15 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1735 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 10 January 2008 - 12:58 AM

Actually, I just looked it up on the internet. It appears that each LOTR films where made for around $80 million each (according to boxofficemojo.com). Still $80 million is a lot less money than $180 million, and LOTR had many more visual effects, sets, wardrobes, costumes, cast etc, at least from what I seen on screen. There was nothing great or epic about The Golden compass, other than some pretty neat looking city background which where clearly computer generated, as it seems most of the film was anyway.

I just don't see how people can spend that much money on a 2 hour film... It's a waste.

Edited by Landon D. Parks, 10 January 2008 - 01:02 AM.

  • 0

#16 Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 January 2008 - 08:19 AM

Actually, I just looked it up on the internet. It appears that each LOTR films where made for around $80 million each (according to boxofficemojo.com). Still $80 million is a lot less money than $180 million, and LOTR had many more visual effects, sets, wardrobes, costumes, cast etc, at least from what I seen on screen. There was nothing great or epic about The Golden compass, other than some pretty neat looking city background which where clearly computer generated, as it seems most of the film was anyway.

I just don't see how people can spend that much money on a 2 hour film... It's a waste.



according to boxofficemojo.com the production budge for the fellowship of the ring was 93 million, and the other two were 94 million each (it helped they were shot back to back)

so... that's $281 million according to your own source.

You didn't really look it up, did you?
  • 0

#17 Zamir Merali

Zamir Merali
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Director

Posted 10 January 2008 - 10:59 AM

I thought it was quite lovely-looking. Saw it today.

When I noticed that night running shot, you'll note that in the reverse angle as she runs away from the camera, there is a big moon in the sky above her, so in theory she is running towards the moonlight, which may explain why her face is front-lit. Anyway, that didn't bother me too much, it's in an urban setting anyway where the source could be anything artificial. Could have been timed darker though.

The Fuji stocks looked very pretty, and there seems to be some mild digital diffusion on many scenes, but not all. A few underexposed shots that get grainy.

The movie itself is somewhat long-winded and drags.


When I saw the film and the "moonlit" shot came up, people beside me actually laughed. In the shot before the girl seems to be sprinting and then it cuts to the oddly illuminated shot of her lightly jogging. It seemed to take me out of the action, as did the overhead shots where the gril ran under the camera and the shot turned upside down.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineLab

CineTape

Opal

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks