AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Excerpted from the New York Times:


Ready for a Reality Movie?

By RICK LYMAN


LOS ANGELES, April 19 — Reality, the trend that ate television, now hopes to make a meal out of the multiplex.


On Friday New Line Cinema will release in more than 2,000 theaters a movie called "The Real Cancún," the first attempt by a Hollywood studio to transfer the reality television phenomenon to the movie screen. Sixteen hand-picked young men and women were transplanted to an upscale Yucatán hotel for an all-expenses-paid spring break week and were then filmed by eight cameras, 24 hours a day, while they ate, drank, swam, danced, paired off and stripped.


"It just seemed to us that there was an opportunity to take a form of entertainment that is really working on cable and prime time and bring it to the big screen," said Jonathan Murray, the film's lead producer, who earned his reality wings with MTV's "Real World," the granddaddy of the genre. "Spring break has been a staple of youth movies since the 1950's. We decided it would look good on the big screen and doing it this way would give audiences something they don't get on television, which is, quite frankly, some nudity, some sexual situations and language that's more realistic and honest."


Perhaps most astonishing about the project is how quickly — and cheaply — it was done.


The week at Cancún ended on March 22 and a nearly finished version of the film was shown to New Line executives last Friday. Early screenings for entertainment journalists have taken place. Normally, movies spend months in post-production as the editing is honed, the sound is mixed, and the music is added. This one will be in theaters less than five weeks after shooting stopped.


Part of the reason was a race that had developed between "The Real Cancún" and another reality-based film from Universal Pictures called "The Quest," which followed six young men for a week in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, on a spring break quest for, well, what do you think?


Originally the New Line film was to be released on May 31. But then Universal said it intended to put out its film in early May. So New Line, mindful of the coming, youth-oriented behemoths "X-Men 2" (due May 2) and "The Matrix: Reloaded" (May 15), decided to go for broke and come out in late April. Last week Universal quietly surrendered, moving "The Quest" to some later date in 2003, to be announced.


"The Real Cancún" cost about $4 million to make, Mr. Emmerich said, and the studio intends to spend more than $20 million promoting it. "So you want this movie to do somewhere north of $25 million at the box office," he said. "I'm confident. And I think it will be more successful in foreign markets than some people might think."


About 500 hours of high-definition digital videotape was cut into the 90 minutes that will reach theaters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
Sounds like an HDnet special on steroids.


It will be interesting to see how well received this production becomes.
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by PVR
Sounds like an HDnet special on steroids.


It will be interesting to see how well received this production becomes.
Regardless of how well the public receives it, "The Real Cancun" will be remembered for being:

1) One of the first feature movies produced entirely in HD.

2) One of the cheapest feature movies in recent memory.

3) One of the quickest, if not the quickest, from completion of footage acquisition to market, feature movies ever made.



My Magic 8 Ball says this will be remembered as a true milestone production in HDTV history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken H
Regardless of how well the public receives it, "The Real Cancun" will be remembered for being:

1) One of the first feature movies produced entirely in HD.

2) One of the cheapest feature movies in recent memory.

3) One of the quickest, if not the quickest, from completion of footage acquisition to market, feature movies ever made.



My Magic 8 Ball says this will be remembered as a true milestone production in HDTV history.
Mine says it will be remembered as a piece of trash, just like all the television reality shows.


It is far from being one of the first features done in HD. In fact, the first one was made 16 years ago (Julia and Julia, 1987). And there have been quite a few over the last 3 years - even if you don't count Star Wars and Spy Kids. It is also far from being one of the cheapest features in recent memory. Low budget pictures are routinely made for $1.5 million and less (sometimes FAR less) all the time. On film, often on 35mm film. It is, thanks to a lack of concern for any quality and a major concern with a release date one of the fastest to market. This is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, unless you value junk being released to make some quick bucks.
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by mmost

It is far from being one of the first features done in HD. In fact, the first one was made 16 years ago (Julia and Julia, 1987). And there have been quite a few over the last 3 years - even if you don't count Star Wars and Spy Kids.
I didn't say 'first features done in HD', I said 'entirely in HD'. Shot, posted, without any film related special effects. Whatever, this one I'll concede to you.


As for the rest....




Quote:
It is also far from being one of the cheapest features in recent memory. Low budget pictures are routinely made for $1.5 million and less (sometimes FAR less) all the time.
A low budget picture and a major studio feature are two different things. Let me try again, this is one of the least expensive major studio releases in recent memory.




Quote:
It is, thanks to a lack of concern for any quality and a major concern with a release date one of the fastest to market. This is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, unless you value junk being released to make some quick bucks.
Exactly! Forget about the artistic pretense, which in this case doesn't exist. The point is that it will bring in more $$$ to HD production, and all the positives that go along with the $$$.




Quote:
Mine says it will be remembered as a piece of trash, just like all the television reality shows.
You don't need a Magic 8 Ball for that one, Mike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken H


Exactly! Forget about the artistic pretense, which in this case doesn't exist. The point is that it will bring in more $$$ to HD production, and all the positives that go along with the $$$.
I don't see that as a positive at all. The use of current generation HD equipment for the creation of feature films is a case of bean counters winning. Film is a far superior medium for the creation of lasting images that are independent of current electronic formats, not to mention a much more flexible and forgiving production medium, and as such is a better choice for feature production. For television, I will agree that current HD systems are an economical and artistically acceptable choice.


I understand this forum is made up primarily of HD proponents who see any use of HD equipment, whether sensible or not, as a positive. I don't happen to agree with that assessment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Certainly a cost and turnaround breakthrough.


And the early Oscar buzz is very promising, too.


:D


mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by balazer
"Spy Kids 2" was shot digitally, not "Spy Kids".
Yes, I know that. Star Wars was not shot digitally either (it was shot on film about 25 years ago), but I was assuming that most of the readers here would understand that I was referring to the most recent editions of both of these titles ("Attack of the Clones" and "Spy Kids 2").
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
Quote:
"The Real Cancún" cost about $4 million to make, Mr. Emmerich said, and the studio intends to spend more than $20 million promoting it.
I would prefer to see them spend $20M on the movie, and $4M on promotion. (Or in this case, $0M.:D )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,557 Posts
Is this just going to be one big Girls Gone Wild Movie in HD?


Considering how fast tracked this movie is, I'll wait until its on HD PPV this May.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mmost

I don't see that as a positive at all. The use of current generation HD equipment for the creation of feature films is a case of bean counters winning. Film is a far superior medium for the creation of lasting images that are independent of current electronic formats, not to mention a much more flexible and forgiving production medium, and as such is a better choice for feature production. For television, I will agree that current HD systems are an economical and artistically acceptable choice.
I agree, but:


This is essentially a reality TV show, but in the theater so they can show nudity. It's not a film, and certainly not art.


I don't think "real" movie directors are going to be moving away from film any time soon.


Any major use of HD TV cameras and production equipment is good at this point, especially when the producers can point to a cost savings over traditional means. This has numerous benefits:


* countering the "HD is expensive to make" argument

* selling more HD cameras and equipment.

* giving more people more experience using HD cameras and equipment.


--geekd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Can we boycott this $hit? If this movie is successful, then reality-based garbage will take over movies just like it has TV. Our only chance to forestall this takeover is by nipping it in the bud. But it is probably impossible to stop.


Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,925 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by EK11
Maybe this will start an HD-DVD frenzy!

Just a thought.

E:)
I agree that there are many positive things to come from such a production. At the same time, I think the best way to see this is either at a digital theater or a nice HDTV setup at home. It would be nice that if the home release (HD movie channle PPV whatever) turns out to be a digital copy of the digital master and not from a film transfer.


Maybe this could even lead to HD produced reality TV shows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,338 Posts
I'm fanatical about HDTV because of sports, whether it's football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or even roller derby -- as my wife shouts what about "Trading Spaces in HD!!" Shhheeeshh! If HD efforts also bring garbage shows, I mean reality shows to the fore, so be it. But woe betide any reality show that would be directly responsible for somehow simultaneously causing a downrez of an NFL football game for example that should otherwise be in HD in all its glory. I don't know how that could be, but with multicasting or whatever, it's a troubling thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
I just saw the trailer for this film, and it appears that they shot it 1080i 60 fields per second and converted it to 24 frames on film. The motion on the trailer looked horrible. It has the look of old standards conversions, such as when they would convert PAL to NTSC and the converters would merge fields together to create frames. Even though I wouldn't bother to see this film anyway, you would think that they would have shot 24p to make it a smooth transition to film. Maybe it was and I just saw a bad trailer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
A lot of "real" directors are going to start shooting on HD video geekd. There are many advantages to doing it this way and a lot of directors like it.


Full Frontal may have sucked, but Soderbergh was very jazzed with shooting it the way he did. It allows lightning fast creative turnaround with no wait for "dailies" and all sorts of other nifty stuff.


I am guessing with the next generation of recording of equivalent, things will be sufficiently close to film quality. And given what gets lost with film at the multiplex, once digital projection catches on, video-based films will actually look superior when we see thim -- even though film with be a technically superior medium that could still theroetically be producing better output.


mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo
A lot of "real" directors are going to start shooting on HD video geekd. There are many advantages to doing it this way and a lot of directors like it.


Full Frontal may have sucked, but Soderbergh was very jazzed with shooting it the way he did. It allows lightning fast creative turnaround with no wait for "dailies" and all sorts of other nifty stuff.



mark
Full Frontal is not a good example for your arguement. First of all it was shot on DV using Canon XL-1 cameras not HD. Also, the main reason Steven shot it this way(other than budget) was because he wanted the look and feel(and sound) of a documentary and with this camera he could just pick it up and shoot almost by himself.


And by the way, who are these directors you speak of and how do you know what they like?
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top