The Original Spy Kids Was Shot on...???

[Alex]

There's a genre of filmmaking called "cartoon" filmmaking. I think that was the "feel" that Mr. Rodriguez was going for.

I think he succeeded on that level. Some of the Matted shots were hokey, but I thought the film was colorful and designed as a cartoony type of film.

I still found those big light sources that were used for a lot of the movie rather odd, I mean really big light sources. They practically *****d up 1/3 of the actors eyeball with the refection from the light source it was so big. Maybe that's why Rodriguez went digital?

He got fed up with these huge light sources being used, they probably did mess up schedule and ability to be mobile around the set.

Maybe someone was f'ing with him and purposely using the biggest clumsiest lights to make his film take longer and go over budget? I just never notice such huge light reflections in most motion picture movies as I did in that movie.

I'm defending RR! [img]confused.gif[/img]

[Mike Buckles]

Maybe he sabotaged production on the first movie, so he could justify his use of the superior video format on the 2nd? (ha ha). I'll have to take another look at the first movie...maybe I was a bit harsh in my critique...all I know is what I saw in the theater didn't look good, but bad prints are common...I saw "Gone With the Wind" in it's re-release a few years ago, and it looked terrible, but when released on dvd, looked fantastic.

[Alex]

I assume when film prints are made that they are made in real time? Makes me wonder if they could slow down the "exposure time" on each print, I bet the prints would look phenomenal if they did that. Even doubling the "burn in" exposure time on a print would probably make it look fantastic.

Sort of like a very fast optical printer. But who would be willing to slow down exposure time when a couple of thousand of prints have to be made?

(enter a digital projection guru ready to gush over how much "easier" it would be to just transmit the movie digitally).

I think making film prints is a lost art because the printing standard is real time or perhaps faster than real time, and no one wants to entertain the idea of taking any longer to make a print because film prints are mistakenly considered the achilles heel of film releases.

As time goes on, Film prints are being positioned as horse and buggy technology, when in fact they provide jobs for our country.

When Digital Transmission hits the fan, it will primarily benefit the "haves" moreso than the "have not's" because the only "have not's" that will have their movie shown digitally are the ones that are signed with the studios!

Whereas now once you make a print or two, you can take your movie across the country city by city.

[Mike Buckles]

Something else the digital gurus are probably hoping doesn't happen...hackers and thieves will try (and succeed) to decode the digital masters issued to the theaters, thereby giving the thieves the ability to make a perfect studio master of a newly released film....if the studios thought they had headaches with people using camcorders in the theaters, wait until they get a load of bootleg copies that are as good as the theater showing!!

[Alex]

Some day, a bean counter will determine who shows what to whom via a mouse click.

The sad part is even when a crumb is thrown to an independent filmmaker, how they will know if their film was really watched via digital transmission in parts unknown?

Can you imagine if they had a viewer feedback button on each seat in the digital theatre, and if a certain number of people got bored they could change the transmission! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

People would call that viewer independence, I would call that catering to the lowest common denominator among the viewing public.

[Alex]

Any chance you might see Spy Kids I on your Cable channels?