[Konvas] NEXT Tarentino WESTERN

Sat Dec 5 18:21:37 EST 2015

Colcam, you seem to be basing your argument on the idea that every budgeting decision everywhere will be based on the economics of this particular film.  I think everyone knows this is a personal project that happened because "somebody" wanted to shoot ultra-panavision and made it a reality.  Your suggestion to matte the anamorphic frame misses the point entirely. I'd like to see that conversation between you and QT. :)   Why not just take off your line producer cap and enjoy the film?  If the guy has the juice to make it happen, why not be happy for him and support him? It's not the end of the world, trust me.

Andrew

Sent from where I am, to where you are... through a series of tubes

> On Dec 5, 2015, at 1:29 PM, colcam at aim.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Number one, this is a business, not an art show.  We have budgets, and have to meet them, but the real life deal is that craft services cost more than film and processing would cost.  The end product, however, is going mostly 4k digital, and the proper transfer from film final print positive to a redundant 4k exhibition print is not cheap.  Make that NOT CHEAP in all caps, usually six to eight times the cost to transfer to 1920x1080/24p because of the color ranges and corrections that need to be done. 
> 
> When you do "glam counts, nothing else" work like QT rides on and attribute value to junk story work with great equipment and a HUGE increase in film costs for a strange film format and amazing prices to transfer, guess what?  You kill the ability of anyone else to sell film versus digital.  The suits see a mammoth film cost to digital transfer and film distribution on top of that, and unless you are going to be one of the top one hundred movies of all time, nope, not interested.   This is a bastard format that did not make it in the marketplace, but it is being sold here because of the genius of the people in charge. 
> 
> QT was a good writer, but he wants to focus inward and deal with bad boy and violence as comedy, ugly as neat and pretty, and it affects marketable status for all other film work, and that applies even more if you go to the special even methods. 
> 
> My preferred format is 35mm anamorphic, and it is cheaper and easier to shoot, to film project at the venues, to do 4k and 8k transfer work-- and the quality is real, not hype.  You want the Ultra 2.75 wide look?  Hard matte the top and bottom, less than one millimeter of the anamorphic frame to jump from 2.4:1 to 2.75:1
> 
> Set up this as an event and you undercut film for real work unless everyone above the line is bankable.   People who do not know the system ask the wrong questions, and they keep work from being done the best way-- and this is going to make it worse, and force more work to start digital to avoid the unreal costs for this bastard system we would not be using.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick O'Donnell <odonnell.law at gmail.com>
> 
> 
> I don't understand - how does Tarantino, or his producers, using filmundercut other people from using film, or making movies?  How did Kill Billundermine other releases?From my naive perspective, it seems that more Hollywood productions usingfilm means that there will be more film available for non-Hollywoodproductions.On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:47 PM, <colcam at aim.com> wrote:>>>>  I do not have an opposition to film.  Remember, I was the guy with four> 35c bodies, two 35h bodies, eleven Arri 2c bodies-- and eighty one lenses,> including a LOMO anamorphic set of nine and an original Cinemascope set of> five.   I also had a fair assortment of 16mm and super16, too, and I used> the stuff.  I know film, and what it can do.>> The problem is the content and producers of the work and their proven> track records, pushing this out so it makes a quick buck but undercuts> anyone else because it "proves" something that only the guys in the corner> office understand.  Kill Bill made money-- but undermined other releases> for years.  This is set up to drive another nail in the coffin of film.>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: Patrick O'Donnell <odonnell.law at gmail.com>>> Colcam,Maybe you can explain what your opposition to film is?  Because I> get thesense that you feel like it's a gimmick but I don't know> why.Thanks,PatrickOn Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Andrew Overtoom <> overtoom at mac.com> wrote:> Okay, I read them -- now what? Sounds like they> did a good job.  Btw the> Weinstein Co did Carol too, shot on 16mm.  The> other side of the film> platter, so to speak. I saw it last week at the DGA> theater here in Los> Angeles. Its beautiful.>> -Andrew>> Sent from where I> am, to where you are... through a series of tubes>> > On Dec 3, 2015, at> 5:58 PM, colcam at aim.com wrote:> >> >> >> >> > Go to DEADLINE.com and look> for these two stories:> >> >> >> > How Weinstein Co. Distribution Chief> Erik Lomis Rescued 70MM Cinema For> Quentin Tarantino’s ‘The Hateful> Eight’> >> >> >> >> > and> >> >> >> >> >> > Harvey Weinstein To HFPA And> Golden Globes: 'The Hateful Eight' Is A> Comedy!> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> 
> 
> 
> WE COULD REALLY USE YOUR HELP! The sharing of information on both the Konvas.org website and the discussion list takes a lot of time and costs money.
> 
> Your donations help keep Konvas.org running and are very much appreciated:
> http://konvas.org/how-to/help-konvas.org-donate.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cinema mailing list
> Cinema at konvas.org
> http://Konvas.org - All about Konvas, Kinor and other Russian Cinema Cameras
> 
> Visit the discussion archives:
> http://konvas.org/list-archives.html
> 
> Join the Konvas Discussion List:
> http://mail.konvas.org/mailman/listinfo/cinema_konvas.org
> 
> Please be kind when replying and crop the replied message!!!