Cine-Mechanic

@AVARY tell QT he should adapt American Psycho as his final film. 1. fits his sensibility 2. you will have both done Ellis adaptations 3. he is underrated with adaptations (Jackie Brown is fantastic) 4. its a left field choice and a challenge

@AVARY That Aliens/Hicks theory is super interesting and something I never considered! Great chat as always.

I went on my pal Michael Biehn’s show to talk about movies, but most importantly Aliens. youtu.be/5nII_dWOdGM

John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’ as a retro kid’s cartoon is magnificent!

@CT_Phipps @GFRobot Avary didn’t write Dogs. He also wrote the movies Beowulf and Silent Hill. He was a pretty versatile storyteller and they could’ve used him. Couldn’t have been worse than what we ended up with.

@GFRobot Not to pop this balloon but were Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs' guy to approach me about Star Trek, I'd say, "I don't doubt your talent but I don't think this is your bag. Even if you want to work on it for free."

Roger Avery just confirmed every Star Trek fan's worst fears on The Joe Rogan Experience. Avary offered to work on Star Trek for free and was told no. Avary says, “[Alex Kurzman] didn’t want anybody who had any kind of fondness for the original show. He wanted to do something new and create something new.”

@3dcadMelan @ludoviciochem @Schwarzenegger If you’ve watched the film surely you realized everything after his visit to Rekall is a dream. The film heavily reinforces this, this sequence being one of the many examples of “dream logic” at work.

@ludoviciochem @Schwarzenegger I recently watched this and just before the head opened Arnie pulled out a huge power bar from the side of the head. exaclty where was his head and how did this not kill him?

A long time ago (1990), there was a movie called Total Recall, directed by Paul Verhoeven, in which, an actor called @Schwarzenegger had to do an amazing trick involving a mask. But we didn't have CGI at the time to help much which this, so.... a special make-up effects genius called Rob Bottin simply created a (heavy) prosthetic and mechanical mask. Yep, just as simple as that. 🤯

So many R-rated franchises had kid-toy tie ins during 80s/90s. Wild time we’ll never see again. I’d argue it indirectly encouraged kids to grow up faster.

@DominicHailsto1 @MuseZack YouTube compression automatically destroys any visual fidelity to begin with, so foolish to judge at this stage. Fincher generally shoots dark to begin with so that’s not even a surprise. Most of his films are lit and graded dark.

@MuseZack It means dark. I can barely see the two guys faces here. Is that a good final shot for a trailer? Most regular people don't care about mood, they just want to know where to direct their eyes. This shot, on TV, in a sunny room wouldn't even register.

@aifilmmaker @frazzlemother @fizzbhau @ThatMoviePage How can I be wrong when it’s not even my opinion? I was clarifying what the OP was saying. But if you wanna go there cinematography has not ALWAYS been based on reality, some films are lit “unrealistically” for a certain effect.

@FarrellRose1980 @frazzlemother @fizzbhau @ThatMoviePage yeah and you're wrong, cinematography has always been based on reality

These have the same director and cinematographer so the new one looking like...that isn't a skill issue it's a choice. So why DO new movies insist on looking like that. Absolutely lifeless.

@frazzlemother @aifilmmaker @fizzbhau @ThatMoviePage My bad

@FarrellRose1980 @aifilmmaker @fizzbhau @ThatMoviePage she's talking about lmao

@aifilmmaker @frazzlemother @fizzbhau @ThatMoviePage He’s talking about the “logical” source of light in-scene vs on-set light sources. The former being what kills cinematography bc it reinforces a lack of imaginative lighting.

@frazzlemother @fizzbhau @ThatMoviePage thats literally the basis of cinematography lmao

@ThatMoviePage Film was chosen by old Hollywood for good reason, it WANTS to look good. It lends itself to a rich, vibrant, alive image. Digital is neutral/dead, it doesn’t want to be anything, so is likely harder to get right. Most digital looks awful to me, regardless of how well it’s lit

Lot of replies on this and just to clarify I'm not anti-digital. There are incredible looking movies shot digitally, but man do so many modern films look so flat. I want to get lost in the image I don't want to feel like I'm watching an ad.

As you may have heard, “The Thing” has been added to the Library of Congress. We made the movie to push against the edges of what we could pull off, and it carries that strain in its bones. Seeing it now treated with the same care and reverence we had making it means a great deal to me and everyone who brought it to life. I especially want to remember TK Carter, who brought heart and humor into that desolate, frozen place and should be standing here with us today sharing in this recognition.  Thank you to everyone who continues to keep it alive.

@benny_nero @AVARY @TheAcademy You need to understand the nature of the event to realize that nothing really “deserves” to be nominated, it’s a) all subjective and b) has motives that go beyond pure aesthetics. Award shows are more about optics than merit, but that doesn’t mean merit doesn’t play a factor.

@AVARY @TheAcademy 16 nominations for some horror movie just seems so condescending. Do those "demographics" really appreciate this way of getting catered to?

@TheAcademy has worked in earnest over the last decade to significantly change their demographic, and I believe today it’s safe to say they’ve been successful in that endeavor.

@GuilleDeCarli @TheCinesthetic 2. And you think Kubrick would allow Spielberg to direct his passion project (A.I.) if he thought he “didn’t move the camera well”?? Your take is just absurd man, but you do you, I just can’t entertain this any longer. Happy new year.

@FarrellRose1980 @TheCinesthetic I just can't see him as an artist. He just wants to thrill people. With a huge industry behind him, he raises the bar. He's more of a circus performer. Cinema starts with action, but it can be so much more than just action and suspense.

When they say nobody moves a camera like Spielberg, they’re absolutely right.

@GuilleDeCarli @TheCinesthetic 1. Thankfully you don’t get to decide whether he’s artist. His filmmaking peers disagree with you (Nolan, Scorsese etc., even Kubrick who you mentioned recognized Spielberg as an artist and they collaborated on A.I.). I think they know a thing or two about art.

@GuilleDeCarli @TheCinesthetic 2. hell I’d even argue Spielberg’s visual technique is deeply complex if you were to closely examine it. I did an analysis on this very subject: youtu.be/8UqVYP-GCi8?si…

@FarrellRose1980 @TheCinesthetic You can do whatever you want, but calling it art requires more than just being "simple and popular."

@GuilleDeCarli @TheCinesthetic You’re confusing complex with artistic. Art is creativity that inspires depth, meaning, introspection, etc. A camera move doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it is there to relay information, done simply, it allows easier insight into a deep, moving story. Something Spielberg does well.

@GuilleDeCarli @TheCinesthetic You can do what Polanski does when not spending $90M of a studios money. Clarity of communication reaches larger audiences by necessity. It’s not less art just bc it seeks to simplify. That’s a wildly absurd take. Also Scorsese disagrees with you btw.

@FarrellRose1980 @TheCinesthetic A populist who moves the cam. without the intention of experimenting is a professional seeking clarity rather than art. Elegance, at best. That's basic. Polanski, Kawalerowicz, Martel, Bertolucci, and the others I mentioned express themselves, cross boundaries. That's uniqueness.

He’s absolutely correct, except it wasn’t the most complete year, just perhaps the last year to be so complete. For example, 1987 was an incredibly complete year, and one could argue the films were way better. So what happened? Digital began to take over film in the early 2000s, and along with it long established production methodologies. DCI was formed in 2002. Netflix launched in 2007 and by 2017 streaming began to take over as the primary delivery mechanism. Perhaps not coincidentally the #MeToo movement in 2017 exposed industry abuses, leading to reforms and more diverse storytelling. Increased focus on representation followed. No look at where we are, and what movies have become. Can the genie be put back in the bottle? Can we go back as easily as he suggests, or are we too far gone culturally?

@GuilleDeCarli @TheCinesthetic There’s nothing wrong with “basic”. That’s often the best way to communicate story and visual information. Spielberg is a populist. Those other directors are more experimental. Both techniques are valid.

@TheCinesthetic True. But that doesn't necessarily mean he moves the camera well. His shots are striking, but basic. Take a look at Tarkovsky, German, Antonioni, Fassbinder, Kubrick or Ophuls for inspiration...