July Movies: Star Trek, Jason Bourne, BFG, and Tarzan

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Secret Life of Pets was really, really well done. Take it from a guy with two young children. They enjoyed it immensely, and I thought it was really funny. There were more than a few times when I was laughing so hard I had tears rolling down my face (probably in part from watching my kids crack up).

 

I thought Bourne was pretty good. It was what I have come to expect from Bourne. Fight scene, brief dialogue, car/motorcycle chase, wash...rinse...repeat. I walked away from the theater satisfied. My favorite Bourne is actually the one with Jeremy Renner. Worth seeing in the theatre, IMO, but definitely worth a rental.

[Deranged Rhino]

Here's a good glimpse behind the scenes as to why studio movies are in trouble, DC's specifically:

 

Yet if the villain team-up ultimately works — and it has drawn some harsh early reviews — it will be in spite of the kind of behind-the-scenes drama that is becoming typical for giant franchise movies that now are the main focus of the studio business: a production schedule engineered to meet an ambitious release date; a director, David Ayer (Fury), untested in making tentpole movies; and studio executives, brimming with anxiety, who are ready to intercede forcefully as they attempt to protect a branded asset. Often, efforts to fix perceived problems ratchet up costs, which drive anxiety ever higher. In extreme cases, such as Fox's troubledFantastic Four, the intervention is so aggressive that it becomes unclear what it means to be the director. (In each such case, studios are careful to stress that the credited director is on-scene and in charge, which is essential to avoid DGA issues. And the wise director plays along.)

So despite grueling moments, multiple editors and competing cuts, the production of Suicide Squad barely stands out in today's landscape. In a joint statement to THR, Ayer and Warners production president Greg Silverman say: "This was an amazing experience. We did a lot of experimentation and collaboration along the way. But we are both very proud of the result. This is a David Ayer film, and Warners is proud to present it."

Warners chief Kevin Tsujihara announced the project in October 2014 as part of a slate of 10 DC films stretching into 2020. Though the studio believed there was enough time to get the movie done, a source with ties to the project says it was a sprint from the start. "[Ayer] wrote the script in like, six weeks, and they just went," he says, arguing that the whole process would have benefited if Ayer, 48, had been given more time to work. But another source closely involved with the film says once it was dated, pushing back the release was not an option: "It's not just that you've told the public the movie is coming, you've made huge deals around the world with huge branding partners, with merchandise partners. It's a really big deal to move a tentpole date."

(snip)

A source with knowledge of events says Warners executives, nervous from the start, grew more anxious after they were blindsided and deeply rattled by the tepid response to BvS. "Kevin was really pissed about damage to the brand," says one executive close to the studio. A key concern for Warners executives was that Suicide Squad didn't deliver on the fun, edgy tone promised in the strong teaser trailer for the film. So while Ayer pursued his original vision, Warners set about working on a different cut, with an assist from Trailer Park, the company that had made the teaser.

By the time the film was done, multiple editors had been brought into the process, though only John Gilroy is credited. (A source says he left by the end of the process and that the final editor was Michael Tronick.) "When you have big tentpoles and time pressure, you pull in resources from every which way you can," says this source. "You can't do it the way it used to be, with one editor and one assistant editor."

In May, Ayer's more somber version and a lighter, studio-favored version were tested with audiences in Northern California. "If there are multiple opinions that aren't in sync, you go down multiple tracks — two tracks at least," says an insider. "That was the case here for a period of time, always trying to get to a place where you have consensus." Those associated with the film insist Ayer agreed to and participated in the process. Once feedback on the two versions was analyzed, it became clear it was possible to get to "a very common-ground place." (The studio-favored version with more characters introduced early in the film and jazzed-up graphics won.) Getting to that place of consensus, however, required millions of dollars worth of additional photography.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693

[unbillievable]

Here's a good glimpse behind the scenes as to why studio movies are in trouble, DC's specifically:

 

Yet if the villain team-up ultimately works — and it has drawn some harsh early reviews — it will be in spite of the kind of behind-the-scenes drama that is becoming typical for giant franchise movies that now are the main focus of the studio business: a production schedule engineered to meet an ambitious release date; a director, David Ayer (Fury), untested in making tentpole movies; and studio executives, brimming with anxiety, who are ready to intercede forcefully as they attempt to protect a branded asset. Often, efforts to fix perceived problems ratchet up costs, which drive anxiety ever higher. In extreme cases, such as Fox's troubledFantastic Four, the intervention is so aggressive that it becomes unclear what it means to be the director. (In each such case, studios are careful to stress that the credited director is on-scene and in charge, which is essential to avoid DGA issues. And the wise director plays along.)

So despite grueling moments, multiple editors and competing cuts, the production of Suicide Squad barely stands out in today's landscape. In a joint statement to THR, Ayer and Warners production president Greg Silverman say: "This was an amazing experience. We did a lot of experimentation and collaboration along the way. But we are both very proud of the result. This is a David Ayer film, and Warners is proud to present it."

Warners chief Kevin Tsujihara announced the project in October 2014 as part of a slate of 10 DC films stretching into 2020. Though the studio believed there was enough time to get the movie done, a source with ties to the project says it was a sprint from the start. "[Ayer] wrote the script in like, six weeks, and they just went," he says, arguing that the whole process would have benefited if Ayer, 48, had been given more time to work. But another source closely involved with the film says once it was dated, pushing back the release was not an option: "It's not just that you've told the public the movie is coming, you've made huge deals around the world with huge branding partners, with merchandise partners. It's a really big deal to move a tentpole date."

(snip)

A source with knowledge of events says Warners executives, nervous from the start, grew more anxious after they were blindsided and deeply rattled by the tepid response to BvS. "Kevin was really pissed about damage to the brand," says one executive close to the studio. A key concern for Warners executives was that Suicide Squad didn't deliver on the fun, edgy tone promised in the strong teaser trailer for the film. So while Ayer pursued his original vision, Warners set about working on a different cut, with an assist from Trailer Park, the company that had made the teaser.

By the time the film was done, multiple editors had been brought into the process, though only John Gilroy is credited. (A source says he left by the end of the process and that the final editor was Michael Tronick.) "When you have big tentpoles and time pressure, you pull in resources from every which way you can," says this source. "You can't do it the way it used to be, with one editor and one assistant editor."

In May, Ayer's more somber version and a lighter, studio-favored version were tested with audiences in Northern California. "If there are multiple opinions that aren't in sync, you go down multiple tracks — two tracks at least," says an insider. "That was the case here for a period of time, always trying to get to a place where you have consensus." Those associated with the film insist Ayer agreed to and participated in the process. Once feedback on the two versions was analyzed, it became clear it was possible to get to "a very common-ground place." (The studio-favored version with more characters introduced early in the film and jazzed-up graphics won.) Getting to that place of consensus, however, required millions of dollars worth of additional photography.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693

 

It's funny that the studio version with the altered beginning won over the original, because most reviews say the movie started great then, suddenly started sucking around the midpoint mark and beyond.

 

So the parts where the producers intervened were good, and the original parts shot by the director sucked, which puts into question people's outrage over so much studio interference.

 

It seems that DC and (non-Marvel) studios have been hiring too many directors who care more about creating their "vision" than honoring the source material, and the fans are fighting back.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

It's funny that the studio version with the altered beginning won over the original, because most reviews say the movie started great then, suddenly started sucking around the midpoint mark and beyond.

 

So the parts where the producers intervened were good, and the original parts shot by the director sucked, which puts into question people's outrage over so much studio interference.

 

It seems that DC and (non-Marvel) studios have been hiring too many directors who care more about creating their "vision" than honoring the source material, and the fans are fighting back.

 

Producer interference, even at the studio level, isn't inherently bad. It can be bad, but so can any note. Great producers (and studio execs / heads) make the behind the camera talent better. There's a reason Producers are the ones who accept the Oscar for Best Picture.

 

The issue is about balance between the corporate side and the creative side of the studio system. The creative side used to be the one calling the shots in the sense that studios deferred ultimately to the highest ranking creative on a project (studio heads exempt from that statement). Today it's the marketing departments making the ultimate decisions, which isn't always a bad thing especially if you're a stockholder or less invested in the quality of the product, including not only what gets made but how it gets made. They're taking the creativity out of what is a creative driven business. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money, but the results since this change have been self destructive to the industry itself.

[Deranged Rhino]

Definitely not a July movie, but the trailer leaked and I figured it wasn't worth its own thread.

 

Nolan's next film: DUNKIRK

 

[Azalin]

 

Actually, Chekov was added because the Russians publicly bitched about how Russia wasn't represented, even though they had a space program the equivalent of the US's.

 

I was unaware of that, but knowing a bit about Roddenberry's sensibilities, it makes perfect sense.

 

It seems that DC and (non-Marvel) studios have been hiring too many directors who care more about creating their "vision" than honoring the source material, and the fans are fighting back.

 

That describes my feeling as a fan completely. I have no desire to watch any of the new DC-inspired movies, and those were the comics I grew up with almost exclusively.

[DC Tom]

Definitely not a July movie, but the trailer leaked and I figured it wasn't worth its own thread.

 

Nolan's next film: DUNKIRK

 

 

I like Nolan. I'm not sure how I feel about him directing a period war picture.

 

Still, it can't be worse than Pearl Harbor.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I like Nolan. I'm not sure how I feel about him directing a period war picture.

 

Still, it can't be worse than Pearl Harbor.

 

I hear you there, though I'm excited by the prospect mainly because he's one of the last that still uses film. Nothing against digital, but film looks way better -- especially when you're doing period.

[DC Tom]

 

I hear you there, though I'm excited by the prospect mainly because he's one of the last that still uses film. Nothing against digital, but film looks way better -- especially when you're doing period.

 

Why is that? I mean, has anyone actually studied the difference?

[unbillievable]

 

Why is that? I mean, has anyone actually studied the difference?

It's the nostalgia. Like people who like the pops and scratches sound on vinyl.

From the Trailer, Dunkirk could be about anything.

 

Those WW II soldiers were probably ducking to avoid an Alien space ship.

Edited August 6, 2016 by unbillievable

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Why is that? I mean, has anyone actually studied the difference?

 

I'm sure people have, I haven't though. I've heard DP's talk about pixels vs film grain being a key component but I have no idea. For me it's more a feel thing. Film requires more discipline and experience to do correctly, which usually makes the end product better, so maybe that plays a role?

[unbillievable]

 

I'm sure people have, I haven't though. I've heard DP's talk about pixels vs film grain being a key component but I have no idea. For me it's more a feel thing. Film requires more discipline and experience to do correctly, which usually makes the end product better, so maybe that plays a role?

 

You like the stray hairs, discoloration, and burnt edges?

[Mark Vader]

Suicide Squad is getting hammered in the early reviews. If you remove the inflated rating of Ghostbusters (from fear of feminist backlash), this would be the worst rated summer of movies since the dawn of the internet age.

 

It's officially the Summer of Suck.

 

I'm still going to see it, but if it disappoints once again, I'm giving up on DC completely.

 

Yes, it has not been a good Summer. Oh well, it happens. There's always next year.

[DC Tom]

It's the nostalgia. Like people who like the pops and scratches sound on vinyl.

From the Trailer, Dunkirk could be about anything.

 

Those WW II soldiers were probably ducking to avoid an Alien space ship.

 

From the title, I'm guessing it's about Dunkirk.

 

And that sound they were ducking from was the horn on a Ju-87 Stuka.

[Azalin]

 

Why is that? I mean, has anyone actually studied the difference?

 

 

 

From the Trailer, Dunkirk could be about anything.

 

 

Film is not one of my areas of expertise, but music and recording is, and there is a strong belief among some professionals that there is a warmth in analog recording that can't be attained with digital. If I had to guess, I'd say that also held true with some film makers.

[DC Tom]

 

 

 

Film is not one of my areas of expertise, but music and recording is, and there is a strong belief among some professionals that there is a warmth in analog recording that can't be attained with digital. If I had to guess, I'd say that also held true with some film makers.

 

I reject that analogy, on physical grounds: conversion from analog to digital requires some information loss, and that loss is noticeable in audio because of the interference inherent in sound waves (that is, digitizing audio causes the truncation of tones that would be inaudible except for the harmonics they produce with audible tones - the loss of harmonics gives a more "tinny" or colder sound to an expert ear.) It's not just digitizing that that's evident in, either...a high-quality stringed instrument well-made out of a dense, acoustically consistent hardwood sounds noticeably warmer than one made to lower tolerances with less consistent wood because the defects in the wood will suppress and absorb those inaudible frequencies.

 

While you'd theoretically get the same loss in a light medium...light doesn't act the same way as sound, nor does sight act the same way as hearing. You don't get infrared and UV frequencies of light interfering with each other to produce visible light, and the structure of the eye is more analogous to digital than analog (with an array of rods and cones, as opposed to an tympanic membrane).

[shrader]

I had to look up the cast for that movie. I didn't think it was possible for him to do a move without Michael Caine.

[Azalin]

 

I reject that analogy, on physical grounds: conversion from analog to digital requires some information loss, and that loss is noticeable in audio because of the interference inherent in sound waves (that is, digitizing audio causes the truncation of tones that would be inaudible except for the harmonics they produce with audible tones - the loss of harmonics gives a more "tinny" or colder sound to an expert ear.) It's not just digitizing that that's evident in, either...a high-quality stringed instrument well-made out of a dense, acoustically consistent hardwood sounds noticeably warmer than one made to lower tolerances with less consistent wood because the defects in the wood will suppress and absorb those inaudible frequencies.

 

While you'd theoretically get the same loss in a light medium...light doesn't act the same way as sound, nor does sight act the same way as hearing. You don't get infrared and UV frequencies of light interfering with each other to produce visible light, and the structure of the eye is more analogous to digital than analog (with an array of rods and cones, as opposed to an tympanic membrane).

 

I don't know anything about film or photography, so I can't disagree with anything you're saying here. A friend of mine is a photographer, and he frequently argues that traditional photography yields a better picture than do digital cameras, but I've never heard him effectively say why.

[DC Tom]

 

I don't know anything about film or photography, so I can't disagree with anything you're saying here. A friend of mine is a photographer, and he frequently argues that traditional photography yields a better picture than do digital cameras, but I've never heard him effectively say why.

 

Probably because you have a lot more control over the entire process of film, and perhaps because even now the "pixels" in quality film (i.e. silver particles) are still smaller than the pixels in a CMOS or CCD digital camera.

 

But that's really kind-of a guess...I have experience with both kinds of photography, but only astrophotography, which is wildly different from normal photography (and on ridiculously old equipment - a 150 year old 15" inch reflector telescope with a 64 kilo-pixel CCD attached that had to be cooled in liquid nitrogen.)

[Saxum]

Honestly, I think its just 'blockbuster fatigue', most people don't go to the movies every week, so they have to pick and choose which they want to spend $20/person on to go see in theaters.

 

Well if the people who spent $20/person looked for ways to spend less (and there are many including skipping the 3D and IMAX) they would have less fatigue. Never paid $20 for a movie in my life and I go to a fair number of first run movies.

Moving on to Star Trek... I found Beyond to be a very enjoyable and balanced film, which the trailers did not show me. Heading into it, I was worried that it was going to be a mess. The first 30 mins or so of the film gave us some of the 'downtime' greatness that Star Trek is famous for, and I wish we had a show, or a few shorts to flesh out the crew more in between blockbuster movies.

 

Well that would be an interesting way for studios to fill gaps with short movies/miniseries aimed for television between blockbuster movies. These character moments would fit better in them without having the huge budgets with a number of highly paid actors "just standing around" when not being paid. This could also give publicity for movies if done right.