To rishi, you being a self confessed cinephile, I'd highly recommend that you actually watch this movie, because respectfully, you seem to know next to nothing about the digital vs. film debate. The reality of the issue isn't really what you seem to think it is. There are disadvantages to digital film making, none of which you mentioned, and there are real advantages to filming digitally, none of which you seem to be aware of either. The science fiction issue is a big one, but is nearly irrelevant to the overall debate about digital cameras replacing film. This was maybe true 10 years ago when the only Hollywood movie filmed digitally was Attack of the Clones, but these days the issue goes far deeper than digital's advantages for sci fi flicks. It's not only about special effects and CG and spaceships anymore, digital cameras have "arrived" and sci fi is not the main issue at this point.
I love film. I love the gritty, grainy look that films had in the 60s, 70s, 80s all the way to the mid 90s. I actuallly think that the films of the early 90s had the best texture. They had a sunny feel and look to them...yellowish tinge. So for me at least, DV will never compare.
Did Alien 3 have a yellowish tinge? Did Goodfellas have a yellowish tinge? Did Malcolm X have a yellowish tinge? Did Jurassic Park have a yellowish tinge? Did JFK have a yellowish tinge? I'm not sure what in the hell you're talking about. For the record, all of these movies could have been filmed in digital (if they had the same digital cameras available today that is), and could have achieved the same look. And I can almost guarantee that even Scorsese and David Fincher would agree with this statement, both of whom mastered film and now shoot digitally. Yes, even Scorsese.
I cannot take most trailers seriously anymore.
What are you talking about?
Avatar was spectacular
If you've only seen about 20 films made after 2000, that's unfortunate that Avatar was one of them, as that movie was overrated crap. For a movie with a similar topic, I recommend District 9 if you haven't seen it already, which was 10 times better, also filmed digitally, and also looked spectacular.
It doesn't befit gritty realism drama set on the streets of NYC(Taxi Driver) or an intense documentary on the inner workings of journalism(All the Presidents Men).
Slumdog Millionaire and The Social Network were both filmed digitally, both were some of the best films I've seen in recent years, and both had spectacular cinematography. I recommend both if they're not among the post-2000 films you've watched. I mentioned those 2, because they both achieve similar things as the movies you mentioned. Slumdog had the gritty urban realism that you cited, and The Social Network was an intense drama about the inner workings and origins of a multi-billion dollar tech company. Both films spectacularly achieved their goals with digital cameras. Just saying.
Video is overgloried, expensive camcorder action.
Not really. This may have been the case in the early days of digital film making, but this hardly is accurate any more. Was Hugo a glorified camcorder movie? Yes, that was shot digitally as well.
reply
share