Pfister, speaking with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune:
Q: What’s most important in shooting a film?
A: What’s really important is storytelling. None of it matters if it doesn’t support the story. I thought “The Avengers” was an appalling film. They’d shoot from some odd angle and I’d think, why is the camera there? Oh, I see, because they spent half a million on the set and they have to show it off. It took me completely out of the movie. I was driven bonkers by that illogical form of storytelling.
In conclusion…
Actually, I made a similar complaint in my Avengers review, that there were certain shots, especially in the beginning, that just had random detritus (leaves, bushes, etc) framed in the foreground that were only there so they could show off the depth of the 3D. It didn’t ruin the movie, but it was still lame. Nonetheless, I’m excited for the inevitable pissing contest between humorless Dark Knight Rises apologists and humorless Avengers apologists. I bet it will be humorless!
Okay, so that was the blatant link bait, here’s a more interesting bit:
Q: How do you feel about today’s technology and the switch to digital?
A: “Moneyball” was the last outpost of my battle for shooting on Kodak film. I said, “That’s no problem for me, you’ll just have to find another guy.” They finally said OK, but added “We need you to cut your salary.” I said, “If you didn’t get the (expletive) on the last call, get it now.”
I hate when publications just use (expletive) without any clue as to which expletive they mean. “If you didn’t get COCKS*CKER on the last call, get it now.” Dude, I have no idea what that means.
What’s troubling to me is that digital has eclipsed film before it has eclipsed it artistically. I will be accepting of digital when it is the equal of film; there’s something wrong with technology that moves you backward rather than forward.
There are a lot of knee-jerk “GRRR, DIGITAL SUCKS!” people out there, and I’m sure digital did used to suck (and as always, hipsters tend to idealize the oldest method of creating art), but it seems like we have the technology to produce some amazing looking digital nowadays. That said, by far the best-looking films I’ve seen this year have been Argo, The Master, and The Dark Knight Rises, all of which were shot on film.
And with all the technology we have, some of the best porn comes from couples filming themselves wallypfisting in the Mervyn’s changing room on their iPhones. It goes to show you never can tell, you know?
[hat tip: ThePlaylist]
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/257/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/rumor-chris-nolan-to-produce-justice-league-with-christian-bale-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/movie-supercut-video-everything-wrong-with-dark-knight-rises-in-3-min-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/video-honest-trailer-for-the-dark-knight-rises-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/your-mid-week-guide-to-dvd-and-streaming-the-dark-knight-rises-and-hope-springs-eternal-filmdrunk-150x150.jpg)
Admirable restraint in starting a post with Pfister and ending with amateur porn but not directly connecting the two.
Sorry, i meant to. I changed the second to last sentence now.
Balance restored.
Also appalling, how cheesy the Avengers look in any still photograph.
Honestly, I think the only thing that looks really cheesy in any Avengers still shot is Captain America’s uniform. There’s just something…off…about the plastic + fabric combination.
Somewhere a woman in boots and an orange apron is laughing at that plumbing hardware joke.
Fuck this bro.
The guy who makes Batman movies calling out the The Avengers. This is like Jenna Jameson calling out Lisa Ann for having Appalling fake tits.
now that’s a reference
Look at those pfists of fury.
A rousing game of Pfisticuffs I say!
I still maintain that Marvel needs to make a Power Man & Iron Pfist movie.
Wally Pfister? Why woody?
Pfister? He hardly knew her.
Relevant.
I wanna’ see the Avengers fans and the TDKR fans take to the streets and run at each other all dramatic like… until they run out of breath.
You’d have to settle for drive-by insults or jousting. THANK YOU HOVEROUND!
I’d like to know comic book guys opinion
Ignoring the fact that my two favorite comic book gus were Thor and Hulk, the avengers did bother me. This guy was right. Watch it again, and count how many times they used a reflection to show something. A mirror, the glass prison thing. It felt at times like that’s all they did. Every shot that has any kind of attempt at real acting is shot through a reflection.
I don’t like the Thor. All the other Avengers are based on science (Hulk is on roids, Captain A is on roids and cryogenics, Iron Man bought some cool tech) and then it’s, by the way, Norse mythology and aliens are totally real. His whole story is an extended record scratch.
Come at me, Internet bros.
I dare you to say that on tumblr!
Thor is Marvel’s counter-punch to Superman. Oh, you have a god-like being from another world? Well we have an actual fucking god from another fucking dimension. So, like, fuuuuUUUUuuck you!
No, I agree. Thor was probably the Avenger ‘prequel’ I enjoyed the most, but he and Loki just do not fit with the rest. Was a little bummed when I found out that Loki was the Avengers’ villain.
I don’t care if something is shot digitally or on film…it’s all about STORYTELLING…BRO!
Slapfights among tech/media snobs have no winners or losers, only survivors who are that much dumber for participating.
That being said, if cinematography is supposed to add to the story instead of distract, Mister Pfister needs to crawl further up his own asshole and die. Inception was nothing but visual distraction from a weak and hole-filled plot, while the Batman movies were even worse in that regard. Just say you didn’t like their choices, numbnuts.
“when he’s not selling faucets,”
Well played, Vince. Well played. I guess I’m now adult enough to get that joke, which scares me. I just bought a fucking house.
Hey mister Photographer sir, could you please tell your “genius” Director the next time he’s shooting a 250 million dollar budget action movie, he actually learns how to direct action?
[i.imgur.com]
(I wish I had the privilege not to care.)
My favorite shot in Avengers comes around the 2:22:00 mark when the focus of the shot is the Acura RDX that they run around. It actually took me out of the moment in the theater.
[i586.photobucket.com]
People who actually notice, and claim they are “taken out of a movie” because of fleeting things like this are the kind of people who routinely ruin everyone else in the theater’s experience as well by selfishly talking loudly through the whole fucking movie, and predicting each plot point or rough dialogue line seconds before it happens.
Do yourself a favor, next time just stay home.
What excellent commentary! Thank you for your amazing insight! Clearly I should check with you before posting in the future!
You really know me from two sentences. I bow to your wisdom!
Just playing the odds, champ.
No worries. I was merely pointing out that that particular shot struck me as odd while I silently viewed the Avengers. It seemed really out of place, like it was forced upon them by Acura. A glamour shot of sorts.
You get that in a lot of Hollywood movies now, particularly blockbuster-type movies where the studio needs product placement to off-set the massive production costs. When you watch any really “big budget” Hollywood movie from, say, 2005 to today, you’ll definitely notice corporate logos lingering in-frame. It’s mildly annoying but it is what it is.
FWIW, Argo was shot on a variety of formats, and a large portion of it was ARRI Alexa/Codex.
Meh, I don’t care, it’s all free to me… Huh? What? COME AT ME STUDIOS!
Hey man, I don’t download. I totally down-borrow. Completely different.
There sure were a lot of words in this post. Whew.
You know what else has taken people out of a movie?
James Holmes.
HERE COMES THE BOOM
(Just testing to see if that takes people outta this blog)
You know what never took Ted Kennedy Jr. completely out of a movie?
His right leg.
P-Fister is cinematography’s P-Diddy.
What this guy hasnt realised is that while its fine take a shot at Avengers, nerd rage coming in his direction anyway. He hasnt taken into account the amount of Joss is God supporters.
What is the best-looking digitally-shot film? Sin City?
“digitally-shot film”
Goddammit.
Winter’s Bone, hands down.
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Fincher) a close second.
It’s worth noting that every movie you see these days is digitally edited and color corrected. The film is converted to digital then distributed that way or converted back to film. This is what ‘digital intermediary’ is and all films use it. Dismissing digital media out of hand is kinda stupid. I realize this isn’t the same thing (shooting vs intermediary) but even film goes through several processes before you see it up on the screen. There is nothing ‘pure’ about a filmed image you see these days.
If you watch a movie and you think ‘digtial’ takes you out of it, you’re just watching a poorly shot movie. The bottom line is that a camera’s job is to collect light regardless of where that light is captured to. I’ve seen plenty of very poorly shot movies on film. Digital is just a new tool that some are slow to embrace because digital doesn’t ‘act’ like film and people don’t want to learn new things.
Aside from the brilliant looking films mentioned above (Winter’s Bone, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) you have things like Blue Valentine and District 9, which each certainly have their own distinct look with regard to color, saturation and depth, and were shot digitally. You see more digitally shot films than you realize.
That’s not even getting into TV. You might not guess by watching it that Louie is mostly shot digitally.
It’s also worth noting that, unless you live in the boonies, pretty much every new movie you see these days is projected in the theater in a digital format rather than from film prints. The GRRR, DIGITAL SUCKS! attitude is equally, if not more so, about theater projection as it is about the format the film was shot on.
And don’t give me any “digital projection is virtually indistinguishable from film” because it’s not. I saw The Hunger Games more than two months into its run and the screening was still nearly sold out because of some sort of school class trip, so I had to sit near the front and the image at that close distance is very grainy, as if you can make out the pixels. And then there are still conversions, like last year’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, where it’s obviously grainy from any distance.
Vince, when you say the best-looking films you saw this year were Argo, The Master, and TDKR, I have to wonder if you actually saw them on film or on digital format. (Unless you were wise enough to catch The Master in 70 MM projection.)
“…and people don’t want to learn new things.”
This.
Tom Frank, I’d be interested to know if you’ve seen any filmed movies at the same theater at the same distance from the screen. I’ll agree that when you sit close you can definitely, in most circumstances, see a difference between digital and film projection, but from the back where I sit it’s difficult to tell. Sometimes I’m shocked to go home and find a movie I just watched was shot digitally.
The neighborhood theater up the street from me looks like garbage regardless of how they’re projecting.
It helps that I have a movie theater at my work. You better believe that they spared no expense on projection and sound so most of what I see is in an ideal environment. When I’m slummin’ out out in public I have to go to the same places Vince goes, though there are one or two venues in this town that have world-class sights and sounds.
They have been doing post work digitally for about 15 years on almost EVERYTHING you see. I understand that “old school” mindset, I was a studio musician for 25 years. But, there came a time when I could get a better mix straight into the board with a digital box, than I ever could with my Vintage 60′s Tube Marshalls, time changes all things. There are a few holdouts but 99% of Hollywood now accepts (and takes advantage of) Digital cameras and Digital Post Production. I’ll bet it’s been 10 years since you’ve seen any second unit work on film, for example.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Mervyn’s went out of business in 2008.
WHAT?!?! Now where am I supposed to get my corduroy OP shorts?
I really liked both movies.
Also, say what you will about its story, but Prometheus is one of the most VISUALLY stunning films I’ve ever seen and it was shot digitally using the Epic RED camera. So movies can look great when shot digitally, they just need to have the right creators in order to achieve it.
If some nobody who shot cinematography for the Batman films which werent true to the to character the Batman calls a movie that was completely true to the content of the Avengers “appalling”, something is seriously wrong with his judgement. Personally I like Nolan’s Batman films. However, when someone becomes so smug that they think that just because they shot cinematography for some movies that a good director did, that their opinion is legit, then they have a sever case of biased bs. The Nolan batman films do their thing and the Avengers does its thing. Both are great and both are completely different.