One camera is regarded the norm for depicting accurately the vision of a director. With these massive, over the top hi-tech productions and the use of digital cameras, everything has gotten way out of hand. I'm not surprised. Perhaps Deakins should choose to work more often with more modest budgets and more independent productions, rather than involving himself with big useless franchises.

Behind every successful man there is the right woman.

Wow, very original. The once upon a time filmmaker of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, uses for the umpteenth time novels with killers, gangsters and the FBI, collaborates with the same old Hollywood actors again and again and again and needs more than 200 million dollars for his next liitle epic. He can't get more boring and uninspired as a director than this. Well done Scorsese.

So, since Dean's family are ok with this whole fiasco and they already conisider this as his "fourth film", then every other sound argument here seems pointless. I guess a "no4 sequel" with a spooky digital version of one of cinema's greatest actors "playing his new role" is quite "awesome" and has a place in 21st century's already fucked-up universe. I guess everything is "cool" with cgi and in case someone has a differnet opinion, he/she is by default old-fashioned and retro-addict. Of course the production will not let down the fans.

Well put, you got this topic fully covered. If money-wise is worth it, then it makes sense.

Spielberg's point is quite simple and valid : don't let the Moviegoing Experience be destroyed. But I guess now 10 Spielbergs won't be enough to stop the new avalanche. So long classic theatrical exhibition, so long film projectors. Digital has benefitted many of us independent filmmakers in many ways, but on the other hand it has damaged the way we used to experience films. The End.