|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: The worse ever put ( luckily on digital ) on film. nt posted by patrickU on July 09, 2003 at 05:53:58:
I feel like we are piling up on a poor guy, but I recall the early screening of the last (I hope!) ditigal version, don't recall the title of it, just that Natalie was there... I had to go see it because it was during the High-End show days and it was group event... clark was also rounded and sat in the same row, I believe, also moving his legs restlessly, or just pretending, I don't know... anyway, boring would not describe that waste of time, but I had to wait for my "group" to be done, as we traveled in pack for courtesy sake, amazinly after the "film" was over I heard everyone talk about image quality - that was the BIG first digital, as I said, and I don't recall anyone making any comments on the film content, acting, directing, whatever we tend to associate with movie making.Was it the worst ever put on film? I doubt it, there are some VERY strong contenders for that title!
Follow Ups:
Lots of attention paid to "sets" - "venues".Writing sucked - horrible dialog - especially the "love interest".
Directing was mediocre.
Brought the kids - couldn't wait for it to end.
And, is it me, or does that digital film look grainy to you, too?
Analog noise and film grain...are we missing something ?
Today it is more convenience that real quality.
Films ala Star wars are not picture in our given sense.
We are getting old, I do suppose.
Or the stone age.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: