2014 Oscar Shortlists

It wasn't my laugh when I suddenly — unrelated to what anybody was saying — remembered that shot?

It kind of sounds like I'm laughing at what Trey is saying, but in this case I'm not. I was just struck by the mental image of that gif for the first time since seeing the film.

(In case the timecode jump doesn't work, 18:58.)

The thing is, though, Interstellar is basically the polar opposite to Gravity in terms of VFX—where the latter is entirely CG, the former is pretty much all practical effects work, which we haven't seen in a space movie in a long damn time. Plus, as the guys discussed on the episode, it just has that art-house classy kind of look to it.

Totally right to call me out on that, that was far too broadly worded a statement. What I should have said was all the ship shots (though is that part of the myth as well? I haven't looked at much behind the scenes stuff, but what I did read seemed to indicate that all the ship shots were practical--my bad if they werent). Black hole and tesseract and planet shots and whatnot obviously weren't practical, and I should have said as much.

TL;DR version, sorry for the uninformed overly broad comment and thanks for the correction.

Last edited by Abbie (2014-12-19 22:17:52)

I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but holy shit this. Always this. ALWAYS FUCKING THIS.

I saw Interstellar in 70mm and Imax. One screening was ruined by an atrocious dialogue track. But both were not as sharp as a digitally shot movie projected digitally. I think Nolan's flogging a dead horse with film. Digital in 2014 has tipped the balance, and is now unequivocally sharper than (even IMAX) film and will only improve as sensors go to 8K and beyond. Film loses something in the mastering, copying, and scanning process.
As for Interstellar's VFX work: it was alright, but nothing NEW in the sense that Gravity was pushing the envelope. Most of the Ranger shots weren't that interesting i.e. camera mounted to a fuselage giving the same view over and over again, whether it's the launch, or flying or landing. I suppose Nolan was going for a 'grounded' look. Fair enough, but my jaw didn't drop.

Also, for all of Nolan's experience with IMAX, he doesn't seem to edit with IMAX in mind. Such a large frame needs fewer shaky close-ups and longer times between cuts. Alfonso Cuaron got it perfect for Gravity - with the long takes.

Sure, Interstellar may get the Oscar for its prestige value as the guys said. But it didn't break any new ground, like, say Matrix's bullet time, or LOTR's Gollum, or Life of Pi's creature work, or Gravity's lighting box.

I have to disagree. Most movies shot on digital are still incredibly ugly. Just compare Dumb and Dumber, which was obviously shot on film, to the recent sequel. There's a clear visual difference. I'm not saying Dumb and Dumber requires the majestical warm glow that film provides, but I'll take it over the bright and shiny and boring images of most digital film. If you're David Fincher or someone like him, you're capable of using digital cinematography's glossy, plasticky sheen to great effect. Look at Gone Girl. That's a film for which digital cinematography is thematically appropriate. But you need to actually use it with a knowledge and purpose. It's not ever going to automatically look better than film. "Sharpness" is all well and good, but that's not the end-all-be-all, you know? And besides, film stock captures images at a much, much higher resolution than digital is capable of. 70mm IMAX is something crazy like 18K.

I know I sound like a pretentious douchebag, but this is not just some ineffable visual feeling that digital projection can't replicate. I mean, that's part of it, sure. But what it comes down to is that, objectively speaking, film is a better medium. Even when it comes to film preservation. 100 years from now, we'll probably have lost more than a few 2014 films because they never got transferred to whatever the newest digital medium is. But there'll still be prints of Interstellar around, ready to be scanned and transferred.

I chortled.

Look, if you'd just read my 200-page dissertation and listen to my 10-hour lecture series, I really think you'd see things my way.

5/4 is basically 2/4 being hugged by 3/4, so I'll allow it.

Disclaimer: if you dislike the tone of a post I make, re-read it in a North/East London accent until it sounds sufficiently playful