I stumbled upon THIS article recently, and it led me to do some pondering of my own.
Having been an avid fan of films for my entire life, I have come to be more rigid and inevitably more biased when it comes to my choices and opinions of cinema.
Ideally, it shouldn't be this way, and I understand this.
I should want to see every movie that Hollywood produces and tries to sell me on.
But unfortunately, there's a problem with that.
A big problem.
Some movies are just plain awful. Unfortunately, there really isn't an unbiased way to approach that subject, so I figured I would just be honest and clear.
Some movies are terrible. Well let's use the word terrible to be nice. We wouldn't want to use any other words to describe them, as this is a PG-13 rated blog.
It's the truth.
But moviegoers understand that not every movie that they pay to see will be gold.
Sometimes, movies are a gamble, one that does not pay off...for anyone.
But the scary thing that I've come to find is, in spite of what I have learned and what Hollywood might want me to believe, there are a LOT of crappy movies out there.
And their presence and numbers far outweigh the great, good, or even decent movie choices.
But why is this?
How could this have happened?
Who would want this sad but true fact to be the norm in our society?
The answer is: We caused this.
But how is this possible, you might ask?
Allow me to explain.
Pretend that Hollywood is a small child, and doesn't know any better than to cry and scream when it wants attention.
Now pretend that the movie-going community (us) is this child's mother.
Now let's also pretend that the crappy movies that no one really likes, yet continues to see on a weekly basis, is the child's constant cries.
The child keeps crying for attention, and the mother keeps giving that attention to him.
Again.
And again.
And again.
The child doesn't know any better, all it knows is that by crying, it can get all the attention (money) that it needs and by understanding this primitive and rudimentary formula, it will continue to do so until a change in behavior by the mother can be seen.
Ah metaphors, you gotta love em.
Hopefully this makes sense.
We are causing this problem. Everyone keeps complaining about how many bad movies are out there, yet almost every single weekend, those same crappy movies that are the source of negative attention keep appearing on the Top Box Office Reports.
-The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1
-Underworld: Awakening
-The Devil Inside
-Contraband
-The Vow
-New Year's Eve
-Little Fockers
...Should I go on?
-The Roommate
-Hall Pass
-Clash of the Titans
-Valentine's Day
-G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
-Meet the Spartans
-Baby Mama
-Semi-Pro
-Max Payne
You know what all of these movies have in common?
They were all number one at the box office the week that they came out.
We are causing these movies to be made, and get sequels.
Because we're feeding Hollywood all the wrong signals.
"Oh you guys like this crap? Let's make more! Let's make a lot more! It's what the people want!"
Money talks.
And there really isn't a more prevalent example than the screaming that money does in Hollywood.
I believe that the system can be changed if we speak up about this! Just like we vote for our President and Governor, we have the ability to show the big studios that we don't really want all this crap that they think that we want.
It's a vicious circle,
one that will literally continue as long as movies do, unless we put a stop to it.
But what can you do to stop it?
Well there's a couple of ways to solve this problem.
One: Check out the reviews.
Reviews have the ability to tell you if you might like this movie. Now as I mentioned in an earlier blog, reviews aren't always accurate, but for the most part, you're going to be able to tell if it's an award-winner, or a piece of crap.
For instance, if you went on Rotten Tomatoes and saw that the movie you were thinking about seeing is getting a 2% (which happens a lot more than you may think), do you think you'll enjoy that movie?
NOPE. Probably not.
Jack and Jill, the abomination starring Adam Sandler, garnished a mere 3% on Rotten Tomatoes.
It ended up winning every single Razzie Award it was nominated for (more awards than are categories).
And still this movie got $25,000,000 on its opening weekend, on its way to $150,000,000 worldwide by the end of its run.
This is the message that we're sending Hollywood, people.
That THIS is the kind of crap that we want to see all the time.
If they could do it, I'm sure 99% of the people who saw that movie would want their money back.
Two: Think before we leap.
Let's use our brains, and not be motivated by factors that we have complete control over.
Watch the previews.
Read summaries.
Look at the poster.
Be informed about the movie.
Let's not go in blind here.
Maybe wait a week and then ask your friends what they thought of it?
There's a lot of possible solutions to the problem.
The Studio's Side:
Now the studios are gathering the information and studying what makes money and throwing their money into a lot of crap these days.
I've come up with a theory about how the studios could solve the problem as well.
You know how it seems that like twenty five movies come out every week?
Well the majority of those twenty five movies are going to be crap, because they are hastily written and thrown together as fast as possible to make a quick buck.
I feel like if all that apathy was eliminated and boiled down into one or two GOOD movies a week, we might be off to a good start here. If we took the resources, willpower, writers and money and the studios allowed a little more time to actually hire good directors who care about the project, this might be a step in a very good direction.
I think that audiences will appreciate the time that is spent on this films and the studios might realize that making GOOD movies, movies that everyone can appreciate, can be rewarding and will still make a profit for them.
We see this happening a few times a year, but I believe that ALL or at least MOST of films made today have the ability to be good, if the appropriate amount of time and energy is put forth into those projects.
There's a lot more that can be said, but alas, it all boils down to the same point.
No more enabling.
Let's nip this problem in the bud and show the studios that we're smarter than they think we are.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Immersion: 3D
"What the hell is 2D?"
If you find yourself asking this question when you go to the movies and looking at the options flashing on that sign, don't worry, you're not alone.
I should however, take this time to welcome you to the year 2012.
There are an array of different ways to experience a film now.
As opposed to the way it used to be.
Which was just:
You go to the movies.
The end.
Well now when you go to the movies, after hearing all those people who used to do the mentioned description above complain for ten minutes about the prices of everything,
You can see (certain) movies in:
-3D
-IMAX
-IMAX 3D
-D-BOX (Motion Seats)
and of course, good old 2D (which is just a regular film, i.e. two dimensions (sight and sound)).
So what are these formats exactly?
They're not entirely just a brilliantly concocted scheme by the Hollywood studios and directors to get more money out of you, although I know we'd all like to think that.
And because sometimes it's true.
But note the sometimes.
Not all the time.
So where to begin?
Well instead of talking about every possible avenue of immersion in modern cinema,
I'll break the experiences down into the two most popular categories.
3D and IMAX.
3D
The origin of 3D goes all the way back to 1915.
Back then, its existence was limited to little more than a rarity however, due to the fact that the technology and the hardware was very expensive at that time.
The interesting technology would be temporarily abandoned until the middle of the 20th century.
It wouldn't be until the 1950's that the popularity of 3D movies really began to surge.
Back then, the technology was still primitive, and it was largely used as a gimmick in horror movies and whatnot. I'm sure you've seen this "older" technology a few times or at least seen those cheesy blue and red glasses.
If you don't know what 3D is exactly, basically it's a system that uses technology to trick the eye to make an image on a flat surface appear as though it has depth.
Although it's been around for ages, in 2006 the world was formally introduced to a more advanced form of 3D known as the Polarization System. This is now the standard for all 3D films.
Since I don't want to bore you with every possible detail, check out a brief history of 3D HERE.
In 2009, everything we knew about what 3D could be changed.
With the creation of "Avatar", director James Cameron wanted the audience to feel immersed in the world that he meticulously crafted. With this aspiration came the Fusion Camera System that Cameron himself along with Vince Pace created specifically for Avatar.
The technology allowed the viewer to feel as though they were actually visiting the world of Pandora, just as the characters in the film were. Instead of throwing things at the audience and using the 3D technology as a pure gimmick, viewers felt immersed in the film, helping to allow the film to feel like a spectacular event when seen in 3D. It was an experience literally unlike any other that had come before it.
Now since Avatar was filmed in 2007, (it took two years for all of the special effects and post-production to be completed) James Cameron lent the technology that he created to other studios that had seen what the system could do. So before Avatar was released in December of 2009, films like The Final Destination (2009) and Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) were filmed using Cameron's Fusion System.
Both of these films were praised for the 3D effects, however like so many 3D films that come before them, these directors and filmmakers were using the 3D as more of a gimmick than anything else.
Since Avatar, 3D has exploded in popularity, and for a while it seemed that 3D had the ability to change movies forever, or at least that's what the ambition and technical accomplishment of Avatar would tell us.
But then, a mere three months later, the world would be introduced to the fiend that would part the film-going community right in half.
With Avatar, audiences saw an amazing experience unlike any they had seen before.
But for a lot of the studios, all they saw was that people were going to pay more for 3D,
so that's what they were going to give the masses...by any means necessary.
Big Mistake.
Enter: Clash of the Titans (2010).
With the release of Clash, audiences were introduced to the process (*cough* abomination *cough*) known now as the post-conversion. Essentially what this means is that the film is not filmed with 3D cameras, and most be converted to 3D afterwards using computers and many meticulous hours of labor.
Alright, so not all post-conversions are terrible.
But this one was.
It sucked.
Like, imagine writing a twenty-five page paper on the subject of carrots
and their effects on modern day society, whilst in hell.
SUCKED.
Warner Brothers just didn't know what they were doing.
It was as simple as that.
All they knew was that Avatar made 2.7 billion dollars and they wanted a piece of that.
So what they did was have the film hastily post-converted as fast as humanly possible in order to make its planned release date and be able to boast that it was in 3D.
The process of post-conversion can take anywhere from six months to almost a full year to be done right (i.e. Titanic 3D, The Green Hornet).
Clash of the Titans was done in a little less than one month.
The result was a film that had virtually no extra depth and was not immersible at all.
It wasn't even gimmicky.
It was just bad...and blurry.
The reactions were incredibly negative.
So negative in fact, that a lot of people were convinced that this is what 3D was, completely putting Avatar out of their minds, and the experience that it brought to the table.
But it made money. 500 million dollars.
So the studios didn't stop there.
And neither did the audience backlash against 3D.
Two years later, and here we are.
A mixed bag of movies that are properly filmed in 3D like:
Tron:Legacy
Hugo
Coraline
How To Train Your Dragon
Pirates of the Caribbean:On Stranger Tides
Transformers:Dark of the Moon
Prometheus
hidden in a sea of films that are post-converted to save money like:
Thor
Captain America
Green Lantern
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
The Last Airbender
Men in Black 3
John Carter
The Chronicles of Narnia 3
Wrath of the Titans
Priest
Alice in Wonderland
.
...And a whole bunch of people who have yet to experience what 3D has the ability to truly do
because they have been so put off by the post-conversions that do little more than give them a headache.
To be fair, the studios know a little more what they're doing now.
They take their time post-converting, learning from the massive mistake that was Clash of the Titans.
But I agree with James Cameron.
3D is not just a gimmick, it has the ability to make us feel more connected and immersed in the experience.
Is it worth the extra $2 to $4?
Absolutely.
Just as long as you pick the film that you're planning on seeing in 3D well.
Do a little research before you decide to see it.
The following list HERE will show you all the 3D films to date and the future releases.
As well as whether it was filmed in 2D, or 3D.
Now that you know the history of this fascinating technology,
Please understand that the future of 3D is still uncertain.
And its reputation and capabilities have been shaken.
But you can make a difference in its fate.
Choose well.
Stay Tuned for Part 2!
Immersion: IMAX
Welcome back for Part 2.
IMAX
I'm sure everyone has heard this term thrown around.
But what exactly is this IMAX you speak of?
Sounds like an expensive Japanese speaker brand.
Well IMAX is a little hard to describe in words, as it turns out.
What I can tell you is that to see a movie partially filmed with IMAX cameras is an experience that you will not soon forget.
Like 3D, IMAX theaters have been around for a while, the 1970's actually.
Back then, it was undoubtedly a revolutionary format and an incredible way to experience cinema,
but it was used only for documentaries that never exceeded 40 minutes in length.
It wasn't until the year 2000 that the studios started converting their movies to play in IMAX theaters.
Okay, IMAX is a different way to see movies, but what makes it different than seeing a movie at my local movie theater?
-The standard full IMAX screen is about two and a half times the size of an average movie theater screen.
-The screen goes all the way to the floor, and all the way to the ceiling, completely immersing you.
-The projector used to screen the film is about the size of a Volkswagen Bug.
-The IMAX cameras are able to capture a much higher resolution than normal, so the super-massive image
appears much sharper.
-The film size used is 70mm, compared to the standard 35mm size used to project film, (click HERE).
-The increase in resolution allows the audience to be much closer to the screen.
-The rows of seats are at a very steep angle (up to 30 degrees), allowing every person to be facing the screen directly.
-IMAX theaters place speakers both directly behind the screen and around the theater to create a three-dimensional effect, so the "laser-aligned" sound experience is unparalleled in quality.
That's right, you just got nerded on.
So this amazing, one-of-a-kind experience can be seen simply by walking down to my local IMAX theater any time that I want to?
Not Exactly.
Let's start at the beginning.
The first IMAX movie that I chose to see was 'Spider-Man 3' back in May 2007.
It was undoubtedly a cool experience but this was before I knew the true power of the IMAX experience.
I walked out of the theater thinking that what I saw was pretty cool, but I wouldn't see every movie this way,
especially because to see a movie with "The IMAX Experience" costs $8 to $10 more than a normal movie.
Also, what I saw didn't fill the whole screen, so I felt like I was a little cheated.
That all changed in July 2008.
Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception) is my favorite director.
And if you read my top ten list, you'll know that Batman Begins is one of my favorite movies.
So naturally, I was very excited for the release of The Dark Knight that summer.
But when I heard that Christopher Nolan was using IMAX cameras to film part of The Dark Knight,
I was very, very intrigued.
Alright, stay with me here.
Now, IMAX documentaries (which are actually filmed with IMAX cameras) are only about 45 minutes long because the length of film needs to be about three times longer than a normal film because...well it's a little too complicated to briefly explain.
But 45 minutes is about as much real IMAX footage as one can currently include in an IMAX release.
So when people are paying to see an IMAX documentary (which up until 2008 was all you can see in true IMAX) they are paying $18 for a 45-minute movie.
So, The Dark Knight was estimated that 25 minutes of its running time was in true IMAX.
This had never been done before.
So as I mentioned above, I was very very intrigued.
So as I made my way to my seat, (first in line naturally, cause that's how I roll) in the Regal IMAX in Dublin,
a lot of thoughts were going through my head.
I wasn't expecting to be amazed, I just faith in Christopher Nolan that he knew what he was doing.
The lights went down, the Warner Brothers logo flashed, at this point the black bars appeared on the top and bottom of the screen (like they do on a Widescreen DVD), and the image filled about half of the screen.
And then...
BOOM.
I'm flying over Gotham City, completely immersed in the film, like I had never been before.
The screen was way past my feet, past my sides and above my head,
completely filling my peripheral vision.
Giving me the sense that I was IN the movie.
I'm telling you, in those first moments of The Dark Knight,
I literally felt like I was going to fall out of my chair.
What a rush.
The first nine seven minutes were IMAX, followed by many other memorable scenes throughout the film.
Also whenever the camera pans over Gotham, IMAX cameras are utilized.
Now I know that simply telling you about the experience is nothing like actually experiencing it for yourself, but that's what I want you to do!
You can hear what Christopher Nolan has to say about the IMAX format by clicking on THIS article.
Everyone in the world needs to experience true IMAX for themselves, at least once in their lives.
Now IMAX cameras are very loud, so they're hard to use in scenes that take place indoors.
IMAX cameras are incredibly expensive (500,000 dollars per camera).
The cameras are very large and awkward, and they require constant changing of film and attention.
Suffice it to say, IMAX cameras are somewhat of a pain to use.
But when they are used, the experience is completely amazing.
But there's a catch.
See, it is a rarity that a film is actually FILMED with IMAX cameras.
So that means that the vast majority of movies that you see advertised in IMAX, are not actually true IMAX, and will not fill the whole screen all the way.
It will also not be as high of resolution as a film that utilizes IMAX cameras.
But that's not to say that it's still not a cool experience.
Because it definitely is,
I just believe that there really is nothing like experiencing a TRUE IMAX film.
Now so far there have technically only been three films that have utilized IMAX cameras:
-The Dark Knight (25 minutes)
-Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (10 minutes)
-Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (25 minutes)
I've seen all three of these films on an IMAX screen and they were all great.
Although it wasn't the complete IMAX ratio, TRON: Legacy featured scenes that were "vertically enhanced" using HD IMAX to enhance 40 minutes of the film to fill the screen almost entirely.
This was a great experience in IMAX 3D.
The next film to be released in "True IMAX" is Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises which he claims will feature twice as much time in IMAX, amounting to an estimated 60 minutes in IMAX!
Hopefully I'll be first in line for that midnight show.
Now, some IMAX theaters have converted to digital projectors now.
Which is actually a problem if you want to experience "true IMAX".
The digital projectors don't have the capability to fill the screen entirely,
even with a movie that is FILMED in IMAX.
So, I've provided you with a list of IMAX theaters that still have film projectors,
so when you see The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX (because you should!!),
you'll be getting your money's worth, and the best experience possible.
Check out the list HERE.
The next film after The Dark Knight Rises to feature "true IMAX" will be J.J. Abrams' sequel
Star Trek 2 (which hits theaters May 17th, 2013).
And there you have it.
The two most popular ways to be immersed in cinema as of 2012.
Whatever format you prefer, I highly recommend that you try both in their full glory!
Both 3D and IMAX have the ability to make your movie-going experience much more than just a simple ordinary experience.
But enough talking, get out there and Experience it!
Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises (true IMAX) hits theaters on July 20th.
Ridley Scott's Prometheus (true 3D) hits theaters on June 8th.
Monday, April 9, 2012
The Last Blog On The Left
Horror movies have always been a source of fascination for me.
I honestly feel that there isn't a genre that splits audiences more.
Either you love them or you hate them.
Or the way I would put it: either you understand them, or you don't.
Now not understanding a genre of movies is not a bad thing, so if you don't like horror movies,
I'm not mad at you or anything.
For instance, I've never been a fan of the sub-genre that is "Gangster Movies".
Why you may ask?
Well it's not just simply the fact that it's about gangsters, that would be far too simplistic of a reason, no the truth is that there's nothing there for me to relate to or better yet, appreciate. Now you may be thinking that there's nothing to appreciate or relate to in horror movies, and I would have to respectfully disagree. If the characters are enticing and based in reality, I can most certainly relate to their problems, drama or personalities. But I find that with the majority of the "gangster movie", all the characters care about themselves and only themselves and are redeemed only by finding out what an asshole they are at the end of the movie, and even then they hardly ever change. And I for one cannot relate to this lifestyle or the majority of the choices that these characters make.
But, it's not a crime not to like certain genres of movies.
It's simply a matter of stating a preference.
But I've always been a fan of scary movies. There's just something about being scared in a safe and controlled way that can be very exciting, and fun.
I've seen many theories about why people love horror movies, for instance I read this article, which you can check out HERE. The article basically suggests that we actually enjoy the concept of being scared, as well as the relief from the threat at the end. The article brings up a good point. One that I've been fascinated by for a very long time.
I believe that this love of being scared in a controlled way stems back to the early days of our species as Neanderthals. Back then, our systems/bodies were equipped with a defense mechanism now commonly known as the "fight-or-flight" response. Basically, if there was a very large animal staring you down, your blood starts pumping faster, you're more alert and you're ready to respond. At this point you would have two choices, you can either stay and fight, or take the more logical choice and get the hell out of there.
Suffice it to say, this defense mechanism was very useful for our cavemen buddies.
But the problem is that we still have this defense mechanism to this very day.
But we don't really have an outlet for this anymore, it's been mostly ruled out (probably due to the fact that we don't have lions in our backyards waiting to kill us every day).
I believe this is a core reason that we enjoy doing things that are potentially dangerous, but are also controlled and safe, allowing for a sane outlet for this seemingly bizarre behavior. ( i.e. roller coasters, skydiving, bungee jumping, and of course scary movies ).
Now this theory isn't true for every human being on the planet of course. Like I mentioned earlier, and I'm sure you're very much aware of, some people straight up hate scary movies. They'd rather die than be exposed to a dark auditorium full of ghosts, monsters or whatever may go bump in the...um...theater.
Neither group is wrong or right, necessarily.
And neither group is crazy, no matter how many times you might hear that from your friend who absolutely refuses to see Paranormal Activity with you.
Now besides the reason that dates back to our ancestors, horror movies have the ability to transcend their given genre and become much more than just "scary" movies. The great horror movies, or the horror movies that top my list are the ones that make you think, and really have an emotional core driving the experience.
As opposed to just some crazy guy killing drunken, sex-crazed teenagers for no reason. I'm not a huge fan of these movies, but there's a couple that I have caught myself being entertained by. Like something like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Hey they're called guilty pleasures, people.
Don't judge.
But for the most part, I enjoy the psychological element of horror movies more than anything else.
Which is why I think that "scary" movies for the most part, get a bad rap.
They're not all "slasher" movies.
Remember the difference between "movies" and "films"?
Well the same rules apply here.
Not all "scary" movies are "slashers", that has its own separate sub-genre.
Take for instance movies like "The Sixth Sense" or "The Ring".
These are actually two of my favorite movies.
These movies are brilliant for their way of creating a thick, brooding atmosphere and experience unlike any other. They make you think and emote, as well as having the ability to provide damn good scares.
There's also:
The Shining
1408
The Others
Shutter Island
The Blair Witch Project
The Silence of the Lambs (Best Picture Winner - 1991)
Oh.
And say what you want about "Paranormal Activity", but those movies do what they were intended to do, scare the s*** out of me, and they do it very well.
The same could be said for something like "The Grudge".
Now this movie got a bad rap, but I understand that it's not for everyone.
I mean I wouldn't take your great-grandma to see it for her 109th birthday,
but if seen with the right understanding of what the movie is supposed to achieve,
and allowing it to take you in and be along for the ride,
I believe that it could surprise you with its level of atmosphere and decent scares.
Now I could go on forever in defense of the psychological horror genre to people that don't like horror
movies, but to do that would be the equivalent of trying to talk a vegetarian into a hearty bowl of beef stew.
I understand that they're not for everyone, but all I'm asking is to give them a chance.
They're not all "slasher" movies.
And you may actually enjoy them!
I realize that that concept might seem very foreign to someone who is scared to death of watching horror movies, but if you don't have a reason (like my strong dislike of gangster movies, due to the inability to relate to those characters) than you should give them a try!
I know you may have heard this a million times, but you really never know what you like until you try.
I honestly feel that there isn't a genre that splits audiences more.
Either you love them or you hate them.
Or the way I would put it: either you understand them, or you don't.
Now not understanding a genre of movies is not a bad thing, so if you don't like horror movies,
I'm not mad at you or anything.
For instance, I've never been a fan of the sub-genre that is "Gangster Movies".
Why you may ask?
Well it's not just simply the fact that it's about gangsters, that would be far too simplistic of a reason, no the truth is that there's nothing there for me to relate to or better yet, appreciate. Now you may be thinking that there's nothing to appreciate or relate to in horror movies, and I would have to respectfully disagree. If the characters are enticing and based in reality, I can most certainly relate to their problems, drama or personalities. But I find that with the majority of the "gangster movie", all the characters care about themselves and only themselves and are redeemed only by finding out what an asshole they are at the end of the movie, and even then they hardly ever change. And I for one cannot relate to this lifestyle or the majority of the choices that these characters make.
But, it's not a crime not to like certain genres of movies.
It's simply a matter of stating a preference.
'THE "HORROR"'
But I've always been a fan of scary movies. There's just something about being scared in a safe and controlled way that can be very exciting, and fun.
I've seen many theories about why people love horror movies, for instance I read this article, which you can check out HERE. The article basically suggests that we actually enjoy the concept of being scared, as well as the relief from the threat at the end. The article brings up a good point. One that I've been fascinated by for a very long time.
I believe that this love of being scared in a controlled way stems back to the early days of our species as Neanderthals. Back then, our systems/bodies were equipped with a defense mechanism now commonly known as the "fight-or-flight" response. Basically, if there was a very large animal staring you down, your blood starts pumping faster, you're more alert and you're ready to respond. At this point you would have two choices, you can either stay and fight, or take the more logical choice and get the hell out of there.
Suffice it to say, this defense mechanism was very useful for our cavemen buddies.
But the problem is that we still have this defense mechanism to this very day.
But we don't really have an outlet for this anymore, it's been mostly ruled out (probably due to the fact that we don't have lions in our backyards waiting to kill us every day).
I believe this is a core reason that we enjoy doing things that are potentially dangerous, but are also controlled and safe, allowing for a sane outlet for this seemingly bizarre behavior. ( i.e. roller coasters, skydiving, bungee jumping, and of course scary movies ).
Now this theory isn't true for every human being on the planet of course. Like I mentioned earlier, and I'm sure you're very much aware of, some people straight up hate scary movies. They'd rather die than be exposed to a dark auditorium full of ghosts, monsters or whatever may go bump in the...um...theater.
Neither group is wrong or right, necessarily.
And neither group is crazy, no matter how many times you might hear that from your friend who absolutely refuses to see Paranormal Activity with you.
Now besides the reason that dates back to our ancestors, horror movies have the ability to transcend their given genre and become much more than just "scary" movies. The great horror movies, or the horror movies that top my list are the ones that make you think, and really have an emotional core driving the experience.
As opposed to just some crazy guy killing drunken, sex-crazed teenagers for no reason. I'm not a huge fan of these movies, but there's a couple that I have caught myself being entertained by. Like something like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Hey they're called guilty pleasures, people.
Don't judge.
But for the most part, I enjoy the psychological element of horror movies more than anything else.
Which is why I think that "scary" movies for the most part, get a bad rap.
They're not all "slasher" movies.
Remember the difference between "movies" and "films"?
Well the same rules apply here.
Not all "scary" movies are "slashers", that has its own separate sub-genre.
'THE "SLASHER"'
Take for instance movies like "The Sixth Sense" or "The Ring".
These are actually two of my favorite movies.
These movies are brilliant for their way of creating a thick, brooding atmosphere and experience unlike any other. They make you think and emote, as well as having the ability to provide damn good scares.
There's also:
The Shining
1408
The Others
Shutter Island
The Blair Witch Project
The Silence of the Lambs (Best Picture Winner - 1991)
Oh.
And say what you want about "Paranormal Activity", but those movies do what they were intended to do, scare the s*** out of me, and they do it very well.
The same could be said for something like "The Grudge".
Now this movie got a bad rap, but I understand that it's not for everyone.
I mean I wouldn't take your great-grandma to see it for her 109th birthday,
but if seen with the right understanding of what the movie is supposed to achieve,
and allowing it to take you in and be along for the ride,
I believe that it could surprise you with its level of atmosphere and decent scares.
'THE "PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER"'
Now I could go on forever in defense of the psychological horror genre to people that don't like horror
movies, but to do that would be the equivalent of trying to talk a vegetarian into a hearty bowl of beef stew.
I understand that they're not for everyone, but all I'm asking is to give them a chance.
They're not all "slasher" movies.
And you may actually enjoy them!
I realize that that concept might seem very foreign to someone who is scared to death of watching horror movies, but if you don't have a reason (like my strong dislike of gangster movies, due to the inability to relate to those characters) than you should give them a try!
I know you may have heard this a million times, but you really never know what you like until you try.
The Art of the Preview
One of the most under-rated and seemingly insignificant aspects of promoting a film?
The Preview or "Trailer".
I've been a fan of previews for a long time now,
and I can tell you with complete honesty that they used to suck.
I mean like really suck.
There was no rhythm. No reason.
It was just random scenes with some lazy narration.
I don't consider the trailers of the 1970-1990's a success. A lot of the times, especially when it came to trailers of the 1970's, they were really cheesy, I mean like really cheesy. Most times, there was always a terrible song playing in the background and there would be a narrator who was basically telling the audience what was going on in the preview, instead of actually showing it. In addition to this awfulness, the title of the movie would appear constantly throughout these previews (instead of once at the end). Suffice it to say they really hadn't nailed the artistic side of the promotion quite yet.
Alright, I'm getting off on a tangent here.
The point is: A trailer that's done well and efficiently can really have an impact on the way that the audience perceives the upcoming film.
Even movies that end up being horrible can have good trailers.
Which frustrates me because sometimes they can actually be really deceiving.
Let me break it down for you.
The way I look at it is a lot of the scenes that the director/studio are proud of will make an appearance in the preview. So if it's an action movie and there's no good action scenes in the preview, than chances are, it's not going to be a very good action movie right?
This is very true with comedies. Especially PG-13-rated comedies. And I'll explain why in a second. If the trailer doesn't make you laugh at least a couple times, than you know that the movie isn't going to be very funny, if they're putting some of the best moments in the trailer.
Now R-rated comedies are a different story, as I've lived and learned,
it has come to my attention that trailers for R-rated comedies can be very deceiving.
Why, you may ask?
It's because due to the nature of the rating, a lot of the jokes are going to be more crude or offensive (or have bad language in them), so they won't make an appearance in the trailer. So many times, I've thought that an R-rated comedy is going to be incredibly bad based on the trailer, but them the actual movie surprises me because they couldn't show the real funny stuff in the trailer.
So I've learned not to judge R-rated comedies based on their trailer anymore.
I hope I'm making sense so far.
Hopefully you don't need like a "nerd decoder" or anything.
'Cause the last time I checked they were all sold out at Sharper Image.
Now, trailers for as far back as I can remember have split audiences. Some people love to go to the movies and see the previews before the movies, for some people it's literally their favorite part. It's a teaser for upcoming attractions and that makes them happy and excited to return to the movies.
For others, people find trailers annoying and distracting, getting to the theater late just so they don't have to suffer through ten minutes of previews of coming attractions.
As you can probably tell, I've found myself in the former category.
(REALLY?!)
(Yes.)
I know what you may be thinking:
"Did he just answer his own hypothetical question?"
Yup.
That's how I roll.
Anyway...
I've always looked at good trailers as pieces of art, and I treat them as such.
They have the ability to be their own separate entity or piece of entertainment.
And the better the trailer is, or the more excited the trailer makes me, the more likely I am to see that particular movie. So I believe that they work on a couple of different levels.
As entertainment AND promotion.
The average trailer now tells a min-story or summation of the movie its promoting.
Alright, stay with me here...
Now there's two (or actually three different, but we'll focus on just the main two) different trailers for movies.
There's the Teaser Trailer and the Final Trailer.
I personally enjoy the Teaser Trailers a little more, but that's not always the case.
The Teaser usually comes out anywhere from four months to up to fourteen months ahead of the film's release date.
Why do this?
This is done to promote awareness for the film in question.
Usually, not a lot of information about the plot of the film is given away in the "Teaser". It's mostly just an array of small scenes set to a song or piece of music, with a running length of about a minute and a half.
The teaser trailer can be very exciting for audience members who get the subtle hints that the trailer throws their way before actually revealing what the movie is. For instance, if the movie starts out looking like an average movie about a guy at an office, and you don't see the guy's face, and then someone says: "Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Clark Kent..."
The fan who knows about Superman will immediately gather that this is the new Superman movie.
So the teaser does two separate jobs, it promotes awareness for the movie so people that are not initiated will understand that it's coming out soon AND it makes the people that know about the series or character excited for the movie on their own terms.
But whatever side you happen to be on,
a good Teaser Trailer should make you look forward to that release date.
GREAT TEASERS:
TRON: Legacy
Total Recall (2012)
King Kong (2005) (part of the trailer was literally filmed ONLY for the trailer)
Watchmen
Up In The Air
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
The Phantom of the Opera
A few months later, studios will release what's called a "Final" Trailer.
Now that the Teaser has been released and the public is aware and (hopefully) excited for the movie, this trailer will have a lot more information about the plot and what the actual movie is about.
Usually, it'll reveal what's at stake or what the situation is, once again set to a song or a piece of music, depending on the genre (orchestral for action/sci-fi movies, songs for comedies) with an average length of about two and a half minutes.
At this point, if the Teaser trailer didn't make you excited and the Final trailer didn't do anything for you either, it's safe to assume that either this is not your genre of movie, or you're really not going to like this movie (R-rated comedies excluded, see above).
GREAT TRAILERS:
Inception
Star Trek (2009)
The Fountain
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
The Dark Knight
And there you have it:
The Art of the Preview.
I know, I know, this is pretty exciting stuff.
But hopefully the next time you go to the movies,
you'll have a little more insight and appreciation for the trailers before the movie.
And maybe you can appreciate previews for the little pieces of artistic promotion that they are.
Well I suppose if you can actually tell the difference between the teaser and the final,
I've done my job.
And I'll work on getting some of that "nerd decoder".
The Preview or "Trailer".
I've been a fan of previews for a long time now,
and I can tell you with complete honesty that they used to suck.
I mean like really suck.
There was no rhythm. No reason.
It was just random scenes with some lazy narration.
I don't consider the trailers of the 1970-1990's a success. A lot of the times, especially when it came to trailers of the 1970's, they were really cheesy, I mean like really cheesy. Most times, there was always a terrible song playing in the background and there would be a narrator who was basically telling the audience what was going on in the preview, instead of actually showing it. In addition to this awfulness, the title of the movie would appear constantly throughout these previews (instead of once at the end). Suffice it to say they really hadn't nailed the artistic side of the promotion quite yet.
Alright, I'm getting off on a tangent here.
The point is: A trailer that's done well and efficiently can really have an impact on the way that the audience perceives the upcoming film.
Even movies that end up being horrible can have good trailers.
Which frustrates me because sometimes they can actually be really deceiving.
Let me break it down for you.
The way I look at it is a lot of the scenes that the director/studio are proud of will make an appearance in the preview. So if it's an action movie and there's no good action scenes in the preview, than chances are, it's not going to be a very good action movie right?
This is very true with comedies. Especially PG-13-rated comedies. And I'll explain why in a second. If the trailer doesn't make you laugh at least a couple times, than you know that the movie isn't going to be very funny, if they're putting some of the best moments in the trailer.
Now R-rated comedies are a different story, as I've lived and learned,
it has come to my attention that trailers for R-rated comedies can be very deceiving.
Why, you may ask?
It's because due to the nature of the rating, a lot of the jokes are going to be more crude or offensive (or have bad language in them), so they won't make an appearance in the trailer. So many times, I've thought that an R-rated comedy is going to be incredibly bad based on the trailer, but them the actual movie surprises me because they couldn't show the real funny stuff in the trailer.
So I've learned not to judge R-rated comedies based on their trailer anymore.
I hope I'm making sense so far.
Hopefully you don't need like a "nerd decoder" or anything.
'Cause the last time I checked they were all sold out at Sharper Image.
Now, trailers for as far back as I can remember have split audiences. Some people love to go to the movies and see the previews before the movies, for some people it's literally their favorite part. It's a teaser for upcoming attractions and that makes them happy and excited to return to the movies.
For others, people find trailers annoying and distracting, getting to the theater late just so they don't have to suffer through ten minutes of previews of coming attractions.
As you can probably tell, I've found myself in the former category.
(REALLY?!)
(Yes.)
I know what you may be thinking:
"Did he just answer his own hypothetical question?"
Yup.
That's how I roll.
Anyway...
I've always looked at good trailers as pieces of art, and I treat them as such.
They have the ability to be their own separate entity or piece of entertainment.
And the better the trailer is, or the more excited the trailer makes me, the more likely I am to see that particular movie. So I believe that they work on a couple of different levels.
As entertainment AND promotion.
The average trailer now tells a min-story or summation of the movie its promoting.
Alright, stay with me here...
Now there's two (or actually three different, but we'll focus on just the main two) different trailers for movies.
There's the Teaser Trailer and the Final Trailer.
I personally enjoy the Teaser Trailers a little more, but that's not always the case.
The Teaser usually comes out anywhere from four months to up to fourteen months ahead of the film's release date.
Why do this?
This is done to promote awareness for the film in question.
Usually, not a lot of information about the plot of the film is given away in the "Teaser". It's mostly just an array of small scenes set to a song or piece of music, with a running length of about a minute and a half.
The teaser trailer can be very exciting for audience members who get the subtle hints that the trailer throws their way before actually revealing what the movie is. For instance, if the movie starts out looking like an average movie about a guy at an office, and you don't see the guy's face, and then someone says: "Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Clark Kent..."
The fan who knows about Superman will immediately gather that this is the new Superman movie.
So the teaser does two separate jobs, it promotes awareness for the movie so people that are not initiated will understand that it's coming out soon AND it makes the people that know about the series or character excited for the movie on their own terms.
But whatever side you happen to be on,
a good Teaser Trailer should make you look forward to that release date.
GREAT TEASERS:
TRON: Legacy
Total Recall (2012)
King Kong (2005) (part of the trailer was literally filmed ONLY for the trailer)
Watchmen
Up In The Air
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
The Phantom of the Opera
A few months later, studios will release what's called a "Final" Trailer.
Now that the Teaser has been released and the public is aware and (hopefully) excited for the movie, this trailer will have a lot more information about the plot and what the actual movie is about.
Usually, it'll reveal what's at stake or what the situation is, once again set to a song or a piece of music, depending on the genre (orchestral for action/sci-fi movies, songs for comedies) with an average length of about two and a half minutes.
At this point, if the Teaser trailer didn't make you excited and the Final trailer didn't do anything for you either, it's safe to assume that either this is not your genre of movie, or you're really not going to like this movie (R-rated comedies excluded, see above).
GREAT TRAILERS:
Inception
Star Trek (2009)
The Fountain
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
The Dark Knight
And there you have it:
The Art of the Preview.
I know, I know, this is pretty exciting stuff.
But hopefully the next time you go to the movies,
you'll have a little more insight and appreciation for the trailers before the movie.
And maybe you can appreciate previews for the little pieces of artistic promotion that they are.
Well I suppose if you can actually tell the difference between the teaser and the final,
I've done my job.
And I'll work on getting some of that "nerd decoder".
Saturday, April 7, 2012
The Stages
It seems that most people that I interact with are unaware of the differences between pre-production, production, and post-production of a film, so I'm here to set things straight.
So basically, if you hear someone say:
"Hey I heard so and so is making a sequel to INSERT YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE HERE"
Don't freak out.
I mean, you can freak out.
You always have that option.
I just don't recommend standing in line for the freak out train quite yet.
Because chances are, you're gonna have to wait a while to actually see it.
It can take up to ten years for a movie to get from the imagination to the big screen (and sometimes much longer than that)... But generally once a movie is "GREENLIT", (i.e. your friend is telling you that it's being made) it'll generally probably be somewhere between 18 months to three years before it rolls into theatres, depending on the genre of movie, and of course, budget.
So let's discuss the pivotal first stage of production:
PRE-PRODUCTION: (four-twelve months)
This is basically your prep stage. But if the movie you want to see is in the early days of this stage, you shouldn't get your hopes up too much. It's possible that the movie could simply never happen.
But assuming that this isn't the case:
This stage includes everything that comes before a single camera ever rolls on the production. For instance, this is where the studios hire screenwriters to pen the script, which of course as we all know: without a script, you don't really have a movie (i.e. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).
This is also when the locations are chosen for the production. Now depending on the budget and genre of film, movies are gonna be filmed in primarily two places...
On Location (actually go to a real place, and shoot there, ah simplicity)
On a Sound Stage (indoors, controlled environment, sets are created specifically for the movie, green screen, etc.)
As is the case with most productions, you're going to see a combination of these two shooting styles/options.
Pre-production is also where the director makes a lot of decisions regarding the look and feel of the movie, talking with the storyboard artists, and the set designers, and pretty much everyone involved in the production, so that everyone is on the same page creatively.
Pre-production is a stage that is not easily skipped, it's very essential to not rush through this.
Basically what I'm saying is if the crew rushes through pre-production, the audience is going to be able to tell in an instant.
But the same can be said with every stage of production, I suppose.
On to the second phase:
PRODUCTION:(three-twelve months)
Alright, so now you're good.
The actors are signed.
The script is solid.
The sets are prepped and ready to go.
Oh wait, something's gone wrong.
Oh, everything's gone wrong?
It's okay, welcome to Hollywood.
Well don't worry,
if you hear about the movie you want to see make it this far,
you're pretty much in the clear.
If you hear that the production has started filming, there's an excellent shot that the movie will actually make it to theaters (there have been many times where a movie is caught in a place that has been coined "Development Hell", and never actually comes out).
Alright, so now Production can take place.
This is the stage where the director, actors and crew are actively filming the majority of the movie. Obviously, this stage is crucial to the integrity of the film, as without this stage, you have no film.
The duration of the "shoot" can last anywhere from less than a month (Paranormal Activity) to fourteen months (The Lord of the Rings), but these are extreme examples. Generally speaking, it's gonna take about five-six months to film a movie. I know it might seem like a lot, maybe you're thinking "hey it's only two hours, I might be able to film it faster than that".
But what actually ends up on screen is about 1/100th of the film that's actually shot.
With multiple takes, and multiple angles.
From explosions to elaborate action cues,
It can take an incredibly long time to get it right.
POST-PRODUCTION:(four-ten months)
So it's the last day of shooting!
That's pretty exciting, right?
Well there's still a long way to go, unfortunately.
Post-Production is essentially everything that comes after the filming of the movie.
Which might not seem like a lot,
But I guess that's also what the postal employees think about the amount of mail there is on their first day at the Post Office.
As a reference point, most of the time that you see a Teaser Trailer appear for a movie that you're excited for, chances are that the movie is close to being done shooting, and is moving into Post-Production.
Post-Production includes what I've discovered to be one of the most,
if not the most important element in film-making: Editing.
Editing the right way can either make or break a scene, or even an entire movie.
It controls the pacing and the way that the audience views the movie.
Very important stuff when you're talking about the tone of your film.
Along with editing, there's the sound effects and ADR that needs to be done for virtually every scene that was shot. When you watch a movie next time, realize that virtually every single sound that you hear in that movie, was added in after the fact. From gunshots to footsteps, there's a guy (or several guys) who are watching a scene in a studio and walking on dirt to create those footsteps, or screaming multiple times in a random creepy tunnel to get that perfect hollow reverb.
Now, ADR or Automated Dialogue Recording is the recording of a performers's dialogue after the scene was shot. So generally speaking, the dialogue that was recorded when the scene was shot, is not going to be used in the final cut (noise in the background, dialogue wasn't clear, not strong enough, loud enough, etc.).
This ESPECIALLY happens a lot with action/sci-fi movies. That means that the director will have the actors come in months, sometimes even years after a scene was shot, and watch their own performance on a screen and try to recreate their own dialogue into a microphone.
Obviously Visual Effects come into play at this point, and depending on the severity of visual effects in the production, there might have been teams of people working on the visual effects back when the movie was being filmed as well.
Also, this is when the director has the actors come in for Re-shoots. This is where there are small scenes or moments that weren't captured, and need to be filmed.
Another important focus point is the Score, generally the composer likes to score to the scenes. So it's generally the case that the movie will be done before the score is composed. That's not always the case however, sometimes composers like to get a head start, in which case they talk with the director beforehand to get on the same page artistically, and understand the tone and emotion in which the director is seeking to evoke.
And there you have it.
The three stages of film production.
I know, I know.
You must be very excited at this point.
Because this means that you're theoretical movie is about to be released.
Now you can freak out.
Well I hope you've enjoyed this tour of a studio's journey towards the release of a movie.
I also hope you enjoy the movie.
Along with your theoretical popcorn and soda.
THE END
So basically, if you hear someone say:
"Hey I heard so and so is making a sequel to INSERT YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE HERE"
Don't freak out.
I mean, you can freak out.
You always have that option.
I just don't recommend standing in line for the freak out train quite yet.
Because chances are, you're gonna have to wait a while to actually see it.
It can take up to ten years for a movie to get from the imagination to the big screen (and sometimes much longer than that)... But generally once a movie is "GREENLIT", (i.e. your friend is telling you that it's being made) it'll generally probably be somewhere between 18 months to three years before it rolls into theatres, depending on the genre of movie, and of course, budget.
So let's discuss the pivotal first stage of production:
PRE-PRODUCTION: (four-twelve months)
This is basically your prep stage. But if the movie you want to see is in the early days of this stage, you shouldn't get your hopes up too much. It's possible that the movie could simply never happen.
But assuming that this isn't the case:
This stage includes everything that comes before a single camera ever rolls on the production. For instance, this is where the studios hire screenwriters to pen the script, which of course as we all know: without a script, you don't really have a movie (i.e. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).
This is also when the locations are chosen for the production. Now depending on the budget and genre of film, movies are gonna be filmed in primarily two places...
On Location (actually go to a real place, and shoot there, ah simplicity)
On a Sound Stage (indoors, controlled environment, sets are created specifically for the movie, green screen, etc.)
As is the case with most productions, you're going to see a combination of these two shooting styles/options.
Pre-production is also where the director makes a lot of decisions regarding the look and feel of the movie, talking with the storyboard artists, and the set designers, and pretty much everyone involved in the production, so that everyone is on the same page creatively.
Pre-production is a stage that is not easily skipped, it's very essential to not rush through this.
Basically what I'm saying is if the crew rushes through pre-production, the audience is going to be able to tell in an instant.
But the same can be said with every stage of production, I suppose.
On to the second phase:
PRODUCTION:(three-twelve months)
Alright, so now you're good.
The actors are signed.
The script is solid.
The sets are prepped and ready to go.
Oh wait, something's gone wrong.
Oh, everything's gone wrong?
It's okay, welcome to Hollywood.
Well don't worry,
if you hear about the movie you want to see make it this far,
you're pretty much in the clear.
If you hear that the production has started filming, there's an excellent shot that the movie will actually make it to theaters (there have been many times where a movie is caught in a place that has been coined "Development Hell", and never actually comes out).
Alright, so now Production can take place.
This is the stage where the director, actors and crew are actively filming the majority of the movie. Obviously, this stage is crucial to the integrity of the film, as without this stage, you have no film.
The duration of the "shoot" can last anywhere from less than a month (Paranormal Activity) to fourteen months (The Lord of the Rings), but these are extreme examples. Generally speaking, it's gonna take about five-six months to film a movie. I know it might seem like a lot, maybe you're thinking "hey it's only two hours, I might be able to film it faster than that".
But what actually ends up on screen is about 1/100th of the film that's actually shot.
With multiple takes, and multiple angles.
From explosions to elaborate action cues,
It can take an incredibly long time to get it right.
POST-PRODUCTION:(four-ten months)
So it's the last day of shooting!
That's pretty exciting, right?
Well there's still a long way to go, unfortunately.
Post-Production is essentially everything that comes after the filming of the movie.
Which might not seem like a lot,
But I guess that's also what the postal employees think about the amount of mail there is on their first day at the Post Office.
As a reference point, most of the time that you see a Teaser Trailer appear for a movie that you're excited for, chances are that the movie is close to being done shooting, and is moving into Post-Production.
Post-Production includes what I've discovered to be one of the most,
if not the most important element in film-making: Editing.
Editing the right way can either make or break a scene, or even an entire movie.
It controls the pacing and the way that the audience views the movie.
Very important stuff when you're talking about the tone of your film.
Along with editing, there's the sound effects and ADR that needs to be done for virtually every scene that was shot. When you watch a movie next time, realize that virtually every single sound that you hear in that movie, was added in after the fact. From gunshots to footsteps, there's a guy (or several guys) who are watching a scene in a studio and walking on dirt to create those footsteps, or screaming multiple times in a random creepy tunnel to get that perfect hollow reverb.
Now, ADR or Automated Dialogue Recording is the recording of a performers's dialogue after the scene was shot. So generally speaking, the dialogue that was recorded when the scene was shot, is not going to be used in the final cut (noise in the background, dialogue wasn't clear, not strong enough, loud enough, etc.).
This ESPECIALLY happens a lot with action/sci-fi movies. That means that the director will have the actors come in months, sometimes even years after a scene was shot, and watch their own performance on a screen and try to recreate their own dialogue into a microphone.
Obviously Visual Effects come into play at this point, and depending on the severity of visual effects in the production, there might have been teams of people working on the visual effects back when the movie was being filmed as well.
Also, this is when the director has the actors come in for Re-shoots. This is where there are small scenes or moments that weren't captured, and need to be filmed.
Another important focus point is the Score, generally the composer likes to score to the scenes. So it's generally the case that the movie will be done before the score is composed. That's not always the case however, sometimes composers like to get a head start, in which case they talk with the director beforehand to get on the same page artistically, and understand the tone and emotion in which the director is seeking to evoke.
And there you have it.
The three stages of film production.
I know, I know.
You must be very excited at this point.
Because this means that you're theoretical movie is about to be released.
Now you can freak out.
Well I hope you've enjoyed this tour of a studio's journey towards the release of a movie.
I also hope you enjoy the movie.
Along with your theoretical popcorn and soda.
THE END
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)