Intriguing concept, but in practice... all I know is that the much-hyped Lytro Illium still camera takes really lousy pictures, or is so complicated to use that it's not worth it. But with an 800x400 pixel screen (you heard me right), what do you expect? They're on sale right now, by the way, for about as much as a carton of cigarettes. Deduce what you will from that.
5D didn't shoot video. 5D mk2 shot video. I remember Vincent Laforet's first amazing 5Dmk2 film "Reverie" in late 2008. So no "10 years of Film-making." I used Canon back then (7D) because it was the only game in town, before the Panny GH2 in 2011, After which I immediately sold my whole Canon rig. So yeah, for Canon DSLRs, whittle it down to "3 years."
The later C-range video cameras were/are nice, but as soon as Canon segregated the market and "professionalized" the video form factor (thus tripling/quadrupling/octupling the price), the revolution stopped there. I think they saw the DSLR as a pro video killer, so they took the corporate steps to preserve, as much as possible, a dwindling share of the market.
But Kudos and Thanks to Canon for starting it all, and paving the way forward for independent film.
This thread is exactly why NoFilmSchool is a gift to aspiring filmmakers. Brilliant insights and comments. Can't wait to put these techniques into practice. THANK YOU ALL!
For my GH camera's (gh2/gh4), I use a set of older Yashica ML and Zeiss Planar T* glass in Contax/Yashica mount, paired with a C/Y mount Metabones Speedbooster. Very plentiful and affordable on eBay, and VERY Filmic. Sharp, yet great falloff.
SLR Magic (Chinese) also makes several MFT lenses ("inspired" by Voigtlander, you might say) which offer comparable speed and image quality to Voigtlanders at a lower cost (Chinese). 25mm F/0.95, 50mm 0,95 and 10mm F/2.0 are outstanding. Excellent lenses all around. I have the 25 and the 50, and they are simply epic, and absolute light canons. Good luck!
The Lord of the Rings is the arguably the greatest work of Fantasy literature ever written; codifying and then spawning an entire genre and creative industry, both in print and on film.
It's 1200 pages and took Tolkien 12 years to write, basically from a Bible he created over 20 years previous to that, called the Silmarillion.
That's why LOTR, 2nd to only the King James Bible, is the best-selling book of all time (feel free to dispute, I won't quibble over a few 10's of millions here or there).
It is a mythology fleshed out over decades, from 1917 on, when JR Tolkien was being gassed in the trenches of France in WWI, through the horrors of WWII. Those were the catalysts that formed his sensibility and vision: the coming of Darkness. And thus it stands today.
The Hobbit is a children's book he wrote in 1938 to get a foot in the door with a publisher. His agent said, "Look, dude, no offense, you're a creative guy, but nobody wants to read your Silmarillion. It reads like a Bible. And we already got a bible. It's called THE BIBLE. So just pick a character, based in this other world you've spent 20 years creating, and just write a story! Any story! And when you're done, I'll find you a publisher." And that's why the Hobbit start's out like this: "In a hole in the ground, lived a Hobbit." It's a small story, scarcely 200 pages (and really just a 100 pages when you take out the songs and "and then they went round the bend and there was a tree..." - basically, the Hobbit is a two-toilet read. Two sittings and bam, you're done.
so... LOTR. A story of an entire OTHER WORLD that is beyond, yet parallel to our own. A story of redemption, of unconditional love, of comradery, of unwavering faith in the power of Good over all-consuming Evil, of the coming of the End of the World, of our manifest destiny to triumph over darkness, and of the existential relevance of every breathing soul.
The HOBBIT. a bedtime story. Cute, but to be honest, I only remember Riddles in the Dark and the final battle (which you could read in 20 minutes, versus sitting through 3 hours in a theater- we call that "padding").
Apologies for Comment-sprawl. But the LOTR films were both a labor of love from Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, who crafted the script over a DECADE, combined with a the once-in-a generation labor of art, and heart, and mind, and science, and inspiration- brilliantly executed by 5000 of the greatest creative craftspeople of our time. And make no mistake: As the film industry dictates, it will be remade one day, to be sure, but it will never be replicated.
The Hobbit is a blatant money grab, pure and simple, and it taints the brand, and sadly, as a result, Peter Jackson is the new George Lucas, stirring a pot of spoiled leftovers while mumbling songs to himself in Elvish.
And being a way-to-early fanboy of RED (which made everything look pink) - (and don't get me started on the 48fps thing) against football stadium green-screens makes it even worse. No amount of colorizing or plug-ins is going to polish a 10-hour turd, or give you back the LOTR look, which is an aesthetic for the ages.
Thanks for your time, and patience. My shoe is off, my foot is cold, and now my story is all told.
Bay is the best at what he does, and he’s made some good popcorn movies. So I don't have a problem with his directing style if it fits the script, and the script is good. And I don't think a "good" action-movie script would suffer at his hands. For example, if you want to make a "legit" movie about giant talking robot toys, he's the guy you call. But it goes both ways- a shitty script is exacerbated by his style because then it's just a frenetic, mindless mess- all style and no substance.