It is currently Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:45 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
He shot a secret movie called Unsane on an iPhone, with Claire Foy


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Steven Soderbergh
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Unsane comes out March 23, in wide release.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Steven Soderbergh
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:54 pm
First images from Unsane. Really looking forward to this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Trailer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
I'm glad iPhones are now another useful tool in filmmaking, but I still hate that crummy texture the sensor gives everything. It's often obvious that a photo's taken from an iPhone unless it's been shrunken down quite a bit to hide that texture.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
The Narrator Returns wrote:

Well this looks absolutely great


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta
Yeah, I can see the potential aesthetic benefits of the iPhone 'look' for a project like this that has a strong claustrophobic/edge of sanity style vibe, but... it very much still looks like an iPhone to my eyes. Which is to say, not something I'd want every Soderbergh film from this point shot on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am
I hate the genre (protagonist suffers from paranoid delusions or do they!?!?) but I do love when Soderbergh gets experimental.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:15 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Looks incredible, and it's trending too-- maybe this ultra low budget secret project will grace Soderbergh with higher box office returns


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Yeah, I was thinking this was a smart move after Logan Lucky's failure, because buzzy, low-budget horror is as good a recipe as any for instant profits, even if it's bad or, like some of Soderbergh's other genre exercises, something weirder and more challenging than the trailer makes it seem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Low budget horror is absolutely a money maker. Blumhouse has made just over a two hundred and fifty percent profit before so it's not an unrealistic goal. But this is Soderbergh so I'm not convinced he's doing this to make big bucks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Since the iPhone captures video in a 16:9 ratio, I'm surprised that the aspect ratio of Unsane is closer to 1.37:1 (actually, 1.56:1 according to IMDb). I suppose this might be Soderbergh trying to avoid a more traditional cinematic look that Apple has been attempting to emulate with each version of its product.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
I can’t say I follow your logic there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Roger Ryan wrote:
Since the iPhone captures video in a 16:9 ratio, I'm surprised that the aspect ratio of Unsane is closer to 1.37:1 (actually, 1.56:1 according to IMDb). I suppose this might be Soderbergh trying to avoid a more traditional cinematic look that Apple has been attempting to emulate with each version of its product.

I saw it updated to 1.60:1. When I saw the trailer, I assumed it was 1.66:1.

This might also be a way of conveying paranoia since it is narrower image length.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:14 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am
hearthesilence wrote:
I'm glad iPhones are now another useful tool in filmmaking, but I still hate that crummy texture the sensor gives everything. It's often obvious that a photo's taken from an iPhone unless it's been shrunken down quite a bit to hide that texture.

Is there any info on this "texture"? I cant see it on my....iphone. I don't know why iPhone would be any worse than similar consumer digital sensor cameras. On a similar note, while I love a wide angle lens....this might be pushing it for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
It's easier to see on your phone if you're looking at a photo and zooming in to 100% resolution, but otherwise just put it up on a desktop or laptop computer with a good-sized screen. In full resolution, it looks powdery, especially if you're trying to look at the details of someone's face. If you throw in a TON of light and shoot really, really close, it gets much better, but once you know what to look for, it's hard not to see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
mfunk9786 wrote:
I can’t say I follow your logic there.

Apple has incorporated new features (filters, frame-rate manipulation), in addition to the now-standard 16:9 aspect ratio screen, into each iteration of the iPhone in an apparent attempt to give its users the ability to shoot more cinematic-style videos. By choosing a 1.56:1 or 1.60:1 aspect ratio, I'm suggesting that Soderbergh is pushing against trying to mimic a traditional cinematic-look in favor of one that emphasizes the movie was shot on a device other than a film or HD camera.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Fair enough. I think the fact that it was shot on a phone is likely the last thing on Soderbergh's mind with regard to the way the film is actually delivered to audiences. It's not a selling point in the trailer, and I doubt that most people who go and see it (if it finds mainstream success, that is) will even know what it was shot on. So it just seems strange that any special considerations will be made to differentiate it from something shot on any other digital camera in order to either advertise or not advertise that it was shot on a phone. The aspect ratio could be for a number of different reasons, including compensating for the fact that the edges didn't turn out as well as the rest of the frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
No, I imagine "it was shot on an iPhone!" is actually a big part of this film's commercial hook, despite it not being so up front about it. It was trending worldwide on Twitter yesterday, and I'm sure it wasn't just enthusiasm from rabid Aimee Mullins fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Not a single person outside of the Film Twitter bubble that would've seen this anyway is going to buy a ticket to see a movie because it was shot on an iPhone.

Tim Cook, maybe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
I... don't agree? People *love* a gimmick, and this is a very simple, easily expressed one that should still impress and pique the curiosity of even the most casual moviegoer. Soderbergh hopes for it to become commonplace so it won't be one, but it's a gimmick all the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Gimmicks only go so far. Mosaic was free, and I still haven't used it after downloading it the first week it was available.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Also, if it isn't advertised, someone would have to see a headline about it, etc to even know what it was shot on. And not to beat a dead horse on something that's ultimately just my opinion, but it's doubtful that seeing a "this movie was shot on an iPhone!" is going to move the needle on ticket sales. There have been a lot of technologically gimmicky films released over the last few years, and *maybe* Paranormal Activity is the only example of that being a successful approach when it comes down to box office receipts? And I'd argue that had more to do with the mysterious ads than the unique approach to filmmaking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
I'm expecting when Pharoah and Foy hit the talk show circuit every single host will say "so this was made with an iPhone, what was that like?" and it'll sustain a minute or two of discussion. It's hard not to mention in that type of environment, and so in turn will become part of the film's "story" that is talked about. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this has a good chance of playing its cards right enough considering the relatively weak competition of Pacific Rim 2 to surpass Logan Lucky's gross and become Bleecker Street's highest grossing film, and theoretically prove Soderbergh's "big idea" about Fingerprint Releasing putting him entirely in charge of marketing right (Logan Lucky *already* proved him right; had WB or whoever released it might have made $10 million more but the advertising cost would almost definitely have been 4x what they spent on it and all the money it did make was pure profit due to the way it was financed, the film probably nearly $20 million in the green even before home video ancillaries are accounted for).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Someone correct me if it was and I just am too far outside of that world to notice, but Logan Lucky always struck me as something that would have done so much better if it were marketed straight-faced to the south and midwest instead of winkingly at the white urban/cinephile demographic. The latter were going to see it anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection