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


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Glidecam

CineLab

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc