Jump to content


Photo

Annoying fake home movies


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:10 PM

I was watching Philadelphia, and though it's a great movie, the ending stirred in me feelings of great annoyance. If you don't recall, the film concludes with several home movies featuring a deceased character as a child. The movies are meant to evoke that old, scratchy, shaky Double 8mm/Super 8mm aesthetic, yet they are clearly much higher quality with a fog filter to soften the apparent detail and a few scratches thrown in. They didn't even alter the frame rate and this is apparent in how smooth and crystal controlled the rate is. Thinking about it more, I can recall other movies that do the same thing, or even worse, use film to simulate video and just slap some frame lines and a blinking "recording" signal over the picture.

Why do they do this? It seems a bit absurd. I'd assume it's because the studio demands the original material be higher quality, but then again, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of achieving that homevideo feel? It's supposed to be shaky and blurry, and lack clarity, or (in the case of home video, contrast and color depth). And what's stranger is, it costs more. Why shoot on more expensive film when you could shoot on actual super 8, blow up to 16 and 35, and have a more authentic look?

Anyone else have thoughts? Why so much expense to create a look that could be done better, and cheaper?

Best,
BR
  • 0

#2 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 21 October 2008 - 10:28 AM

I was watching Philadelphia, and though it's a great movie, the ending stirred in me feelings of great annoyance. If you don't recall, the film concludes with several home movies featuring a deceased character as a child. The movies are meant to evoke that old, scratchy, shaky Double 8mm/Super 8mm aesthetic, yet they are clearly much higher quality with a fog filter to soften the apparent detail and a few scratches thrown in. They didn't even alter the frame rate and this is apparent in how smooth and crystal controlled the rate is. Thinking about it more, I can recall other movies that do the same thing, or even worse, use film to simulate video and just slap some frame lines and a blinking "recording" signal over the picture.

Why do they do this? It seems a bit absurd. I'd assume it's because the studio demands the original material be higher quality, but then again, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of achieving that homevideo feel? It's supposed to be shaky and blurry, and lack clarity, or (in the case of home video, contrast and color depth). And what's stranger is, it costs more. Why shoot on more expensive film when you could shoot on actual super 8, blow up to 16 and 35, and have a more authentic look?

Anyone else have thoughts? Why so much expense to create a look that could be done better, and cheaper?

Best,
BR


I feel it's done because, to 98% of the movie watching population don't know/care enough for it to make a difference!
  • 0


Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

The Slider

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal