Which non-indian film u saw recently has made u post here???

She's not one of the A-game actors, that's for sure.

Revisited Snatch

Cousin Avi is the real hero of the movie. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Godard very provocative about this! And I love it. Hits right at the elitism (Than totalitarian). I feel 'decaying' is sort of overstating it. It's a matter of preference. Still there are number of filmmakers who stick to 35mm/70mm. Btw, Keanu 'thespian' Reeves makes a fascinating point from acting/character point of view.

Anyways, this is what I think of digital vs film: (in comments, I yAm theDualist)
http://theseventhart.info/2010/08/28.../#comment-4264

I'd also add Spielberg would be better served by digital if he sheds his romanticism, quite rudimentary (grain, stutter, etc) that they are*. I could imagine "Murder by the book" in digital, heck, HDTV I say! With those digital lens, he could recreate the same magic. In fact, I see him exploring possibilities of the lateral/frontal closeups, long pan off the window, etc. I'd also argue Television is his medium. Much like JJ Abrams (I finished first 6 episodes of LOST & I already have better impression of the guy).

* - You could love a single negative blown up to the screen. I should be the last to question this indulgence. But film will always be a function of space * time. I'm beginning to get tired of ritualization of what is essentially a mechanical process. An isolated negative in most cases, esp. Spielberg films, often tend to be empty flourishes in itself, unless they start rolling & follow a certain grammar in succession of one another.

---

That most of the old-timers speak with a desolate tone about digitalization of this process, however hackneyed it may sound, is sort of understandable; kinda the old-dog-new-tricks thingy. We hear similar rants in other fields as well, that have seen similar changes with passing of time – still photography, music, painting, to name a few. Film photography, that too in the digital age, is more of an obsessive indulgence, a narcissist, pleasure seeking ritual. It’s difficult to not be smitten in the process of seeing an image taking form on the paper, the mechanicalness of the process notwithstanding, segment after segment, layer after layer, sitting enveloped in darkness, but for a little red bulb in one corner – a selfish pleasure; you’d want to tap yourself on the back for the pride of having achieved something seemingly miraculous, an energy-to-matter conversion of sorts! A wholly romantic, self-pleasuring exercise. :razz:
‘What’s with all the fuss? It’s about the final image at the end of it’ Mr. Practical would say, rather irate. ‘What’s life without love?’ Mr. film photographer would answer! (Krish Ashok calls it ‘Technostalgia’). Trying buying a pack of B/W 35mm film in Bangalore and you’d know why I said decaying, it’s bloody extinct I say!

That applies to photography only.

For a filmmaker, it's out of his hands as it's entirely mechanized without his involvement.

Stevie (filmmakers in general) doesn't sit around the dark room for all this. All the indulgence with 8mm negative is done in his pubescent age, nowadays he'd have digital intermediate sitting on editor's room without him noticing.

It might be decaying in retail market & photography, but lot of filmmakers, still vast majority, stick to film. And for them to cut the film, it's already in digital form. So the romanticization seems a bit preposterous.

Of course, I was referring to still photography, cos that's the one I relate to (as a novice hobbyist).
Digital is here to stay, there's no two ways about it. Heck, just the convenience aspect of it outweighs whatever benefit film has to offer. And with continuous advancement it's only going to get better. The days isn't too far when even the filmmakers, who adamantly stand by film now, will decide to use their beloved erstwhile equipments as antique showpieces to decorate their offices and homes.

^isn't Midnight in Paris the first ever Woody Allen's movie to go for a digital intermediate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlemaster1982

Did you really like Cars 2 :|

---

It isn't in the league of Up or Ratatouille. Easily.
Its for kids, their massive merchandise for kids, etc. And, Lasseter's personal ego. Agreed.
Absolutely have no idea why many many people on the web claim it a flop or a bad movie! And, this is what folks at Disney are capable of. I don't think they're gonna ever pass their benchmark Pixar created with the first 9.

They did a very good job with the animation.. I mean showing various parts of the world and everything. McMissile being a Bond Car (Aston Martin reference), too much of yapping from Mater, and Lasseter's self-procalamtion with Lass Tyres, etc. in the scenes and stuff were annoying. But, it was entertaining alright!

Watched several short movies (Bluray/DVD extras)
Toon Mater's Tales. (If you hate Cars 2, try re-watching Cars 2 after watching this 35 minute video). Disgrace to Pixar Studios.
Kung Fu Panda: Secrets of the Furios Five. Dreamworks could have done much better, still worth a watch.
MegaMind: Button of Doom. Quite Silly. Passable.

P.S: Can't we open a seperate thread for TV Shows? Please. A Kind request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VENKIRAJA

They did a very good job with the animation.. I mean showing various parts of the world and everything. McMissile being a Bond Car (Aston Martin reference), too much of yapping from Mater, and Lasseter's self-procalamtion with Lass Tyres, etc. in the scenes and stuff were annoying. But, it was entertaining alright!

---

They never failed in animation department. But the film is so bland and making Mater as a lead just killed the film. I didn't find the film entertaining at all. Coming from Pixar's stable, that's a massive disappointment.

^LM, have you seen Pixar Short Films collection? it chronicles all their work from their inception..ethodo sapan version dvd thaen kidaika matankudhu

I don't have the entire collection, but it's on the download queue. What do you mean by Japan version :?