criterionforum.org

Paul Cameron left Collateral a few weeks in, and Mann replaced him with Dion Beebe but both are credited as well.

colinr0380 wrote:This discussion reminds me of Bad Boy Bubby, which employed 32 different directors of photography (one for every 'outside' scene, and each working on their scene in isolation from everyone else, in order to convey the main character's disorientation) but is credited just to one.

That being Ian Jones, who shot all the "inside" scenes. He acted as camera operator on all the scenes shot by the other DPs, so there was some continuity. On some credits listings for the film he's billed as the "supervising director of photography" but - without checking - I don't think he's billed that way on screen.

With two or three exceptions, it's noticeable how much the scenes *don't* stand out from each other, given that each DP was given a more or less free hand to do what they liked.

There are many examples of this happening. Badlands and The Picasso Summer have three credited cinematographers. Although he didn't receive credit, Haskell Wexler was let go of on Hollywood Ending after a couple weeks. Christopher Doyle left part way through the filming of 2046. And on, and on.

GaryC wrote:

colinr0380 wrote:This discussion reminds me of Bad Boy Bubby, which employed 32 different directors of photography (one for every 'outside' scene, and each working on their scene in isolation from everyone else, in order to convey the main character's disorientation) but is credited just to one.

That being Ian Jones, who shot all the "inside" scenes. He acted as camera operator on all the scenes shot by the other DPs, so there was some continuity. On some credits listings for the film he's billed as the "supervising director of photography" but - without checking - I don't think he's billed that way on screen.

With two or three exceptions, it's noticeable how much the scenes *don't* stand out from each other, given that each DP was given a more or less free hand to do what they liked.

That's true - I seem to remember the big pull back shot in the factory and those early street scenes stood out the most to me as being most different from the rest of the film, while the rest were mostly just slight variations. Although it has been a long time since I last saw it, so I might be missing some huge difference (maybe in the performance scenes?)

Finally landed a release date: October 4, 2013.

Sooo we're looking at a 2014 release of Y tu mama tambien, then? Or is that still too optimistic?

Official teaser.

I'm not sure whether or not Cuaron's leaving sound in for space sequences or if that's the trailer's doing. CGI looks very good; I wonder if there are any more big set-pieces in it, since the rest of the movie's likely to take it easy.

Given what we've heard about the film thus far I imagine each shot is a 'set piece'.

Looks like another one I'm going to have to see in 3-D.

Looks like this might be my first flick I catch in the new imax theater where I live.

Great! ...

I loved the teaser. Here's hoping the film itself delivers.

I wanna like this ... it seems authenticity is a key component. However, all of the NASA footage I've seen has a reflective goldish metallic glare over the visors. In this preview the faces are brightly lit. I would rather not have to look at George Clooney or Sandra Bollock. Somehow all of the cgi looks wonky and slightly off. Perhaps the reported long takes and some visor glare can save this film. I am not expecting much ... yet!

I don't think any studio or other financier would be willing to dump all that money into making this movie with the prospect of hiding the actors' faces the entire time. You gotta toss some marketability in there.

Never mind the fact that having their faces lit like that would render them effectively blind in space. That's just something we have to live with in space movies.

New trailer

Spoiler

Is that Ed Harris I'm hearing?

CSM126 wrote:I don't think any studio or other financier would be willing to dump all that money into making this movie with the prospect of hiding the actors' faces the entire time. You gotta toss some marketability in there.

Never mind the fact that having their faces lit like that would render them effectively blind in space. That's just something we have to live with in space movies.

Sure but it's not just marketability- it would be very difficult to make a compelling movie where you're stuck with two actors whose faces you cannot see the whole time. Authenticity is great but one is always striking a balance between authenticity and artistic license.

This opened Venice, and the reviews couldn't be any better. Here are Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.

Ugh, sounds like I'll have to see this one in 3D. The praise for the 3D conversion is hopefully genuine - I try to avoid seeing films that way at all costs.

Certainly long uninterrupted shots would lend themselves well to 3D, but if Cuarón stages scenes like he did in CHILDREN OF MEN, then the 2D version will already feel like it has an extra dimension.

My general rule is that I try to never see films in 3D, especially not if the 3D is simply a post-conversion. I'm sure Gravity in 2D will already be more than satisfactory.

The one thing I will say though is that it's a shame so many IMAX releases are now in 3D, since this is a film that I easily would've have seen in that format.

It's a 3D post-conversion, but it was conceived that way from the beginning. The script even said "A 3D Space Adventure" or something like that. I believe that they didn't shoot it with 3D cameras for practical reasons, but it is Cuaron's preferred format, and he's insisting on it for these festival screenings. I'm definitely planning on doing the "IMAX 3D Experience" for this one, even though I generally eschew 3D.

Stephanie Zacharek says in her over-the-moon piece, "Forget stretched-out blue people, Peter Max–colored flora and fauna, and explosions comin' at you: This is what 3D was made for."

Gravity seems to have a huge potential, judging from the trailers, Cuarón's past record and the reviews, so this will probably by my first 3D film of the year. I'm not actually as hostile towards the format as many other people are, and try to see films which were shot using 3D cameras in 3D; however, conversions normally stink of aggressive studio attempts for higher box office. Yet, due to what I've read, this is one post-conversion that seems it might be a good idea. If anyone can do it, surely it is Cuarón.

The "Gravity" trailer played before "Pacific Rim" when I saw it in IMAX 3D and the enveloping black of space felt unnerving in the span of that short preview.

Here's a great Variety piece on the complicated business of doing long takes that appear to be in zero gravity. James Cameron says it's the best "space movie" ever.