Jump to content


James Cameron- is this true?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:05 AM

...
  • 0

#2 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:11 AM

Sounds pretty ridiculous. If it's true, he's quite the douchebag.
  • 0

#3 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:28 PM

He is a person i wouldnt want to spend to much time with ! I think what happened on " Aliens" was they used a new "ish" stock Kodak 5293 i think ? it turned out very grainy [ as it was ] the begining of the end of Kodak , it didnt help that Cameron will not shoot anamorphic so ended up with 1.85 which was then blown up to 70mm . I saw it like that and did look pretty awful .
  • 0

#4 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:33 PM

The story betrays a fundamental ignorance of photography. There would be no reason for a DP to underexpose just because he was using a different stock. As to the stock swap, it's barely credible that a camera crew would keep such knowledge from the DP. Besides, it would be a test for the loader, not the DP.
There wasn't a lot of choice of ISO rating in 1985 in any case. They could only have had '91 and '94, I think.
  • 0

#5 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:53 PM

Anybody famous enough gets a few stories floating around. The one I heard is that he wore dark blue sunglasses during color timing.

But if the people who make up these stories were actually *good* at making up stories, wouldn't they become big time writer/producers? ;-)





-- J.S.
  • 0

#6 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 23 March 2010 - 02:29 PM

Cameron has proved himself over and over again. He might not be the nicest guy in the world but he is a passionate filmmaker who has left his mark. True or not, something seems to be working.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 March 2010 - 03:21 PM

I think at the time of "Aliens" your choice was Kodak 5247 (rated at 125 ASA by this point) and 5294 (400 ASA).

So perhaps Cameron wanted to use 5247 and the DP wanted to use 5294? That's the only explanation for switching stocks causing underexposure, if you thought you were using 400T instead of 125T.
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 23 March 2010 - 03:30 PM

Is a seasoned DOP REALLY going to make that mistake? That is a rank amateur move.


Even the stock numbers are totally dissimilar. I highly doubt this was the case, unless it was a loader error.

I've done something like this. . . once. . . as a student. Never again.
  • 0

#9 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 23 March 2010 - 04:07 PM

Until my second year, there was no choice at all. '47 or nothing.
Fuji A250 was a very exciting prospect.
  • 0

#10 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:54 PM

Cameron has proved himself over and over again. He might not be the nicest guy in the world but he is a passionate filmmaker who has left his mark. True or not, something seems to be working.


Yep.
  • 0

#11 James Brown

James Brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 24 March 2010 - 03:59 AM

Cameron has proved himself over and over again. He might not be the nicest guy in the world but he is a passionate filmmaker who has left his mark. True or not, something seems to be working.

Have a watch of his TED talk. For someone i didn't expect to be, he seems pretty down to earth

James cameron on TED

Regards, James
  • 0

#12 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 24 March 2010 - 09:10 AM

Have a watch of his TED talk. For someone i didn't expect to be, he seems pretty down to earth

James cameron on TED

Regards, James



James,

With all fairness he is speaking to a crowd and with the knowledge that he's going to be viewed widely throughout the world many times.

He has got a reputation for being someone that is extremely tricky to work with. But all those stories could be hyperbole.
We have to judge him on his work and he certainly is good at what he does.
He maybe goes about it in a way that leaves many a crew with a bitter taste in their mouths.

Interesting to hear him talk though.
  • 0

#13 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 24 March 2010 - 10:35 AM

Have a watch of his TED talk. For someone i didn't expect to be, he seems pretty down to earth

James cameron on TED

Regards, James


James,
When I saw this video was 17 minutes long, I thought, "Oh god I have to listen to Jim Cameron for 17 minutes." Truthfully, it was mesmerizing and very informative. I was riveted and the last few minutes are the best. Thanks for posting that.
  • 0

#14 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 24 March 2010 - 01:59 PM

Seems unbelievable to me. I just don't see how the whole camera crew could be knowingly involved in something like that - when I work for a DP, I'm loyal to them first even if I happen not to like them personally. If I was asked to do this, I would have taken the DP aside and quietly told him what was going on behind his back ASAP.
  • 0

#15 Chris Fernando

Chris Fernando
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:46 PM

I saw this posted on the Titanic trivia section of imdb:

"His practice of testing his DPs by darkening the film originated on Aliens (1986). Cameron wanted to use a particular type of film stock, but cinematographer Dick Bush ignored him and used a different type. The end result being that the footage shot ended up being unusably dark.


If Dick Bush used the stock of his choosing how did it end up being "unusably dark"? Secondly, how in the world do you "notice(d) what (was) is going on after the first take" when shooting on film? Did 5247 sound different than 5294?

This sounds alot like one of those conversations with someone who thinks anyone who has anything to do with the camera department is a "camera operator".
  • 0


Tai Audio

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

The Slider

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam