With technology in media like a Atmos or an expensive OLED sometimes people are watching “the TV” and not the actual content. You can also watch the content and the story and the technology becomes ambient. You can have a mix. Gamers sometimes don’t play the game they play the video card and the frames per second others play the 8-bit retro graphics and then for other it just becomes ambient and the game matters. All valid. In the end all I care about is how it makes me feel the other aspects are icing on the cake. Artificial constraints are great for making art and maybe the only way they could get funding is Apple asking for that constraint in exchange for bucks and exposure.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'28 Years Later' to Be First Blockbuster Movie Shot on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But we didn't miss the production shot at the top of the article. That rig looks just as bulky as some Red rigs.
The original was shot using a camcorder because of the need to show an abandoned London. If the film makers had waited a mere 22 years they could have had a realistic abandoned London set done up using AI and shot it on the iPhone as they are doing now.
How many times did they have to pause filming to let the iPhone cool down?!
First and second movies were great. I'll be ready to download the third when it comes out.
28 Days Later
28 weeks later
In case you don't know the previous titles.
28 Days Later
28 weeks later
In case you don't know the previous titles.
I'm pretty sure Apple have run the numbers.
They have a military grade marketing department and they will have calculated the return they'll get form not just people watching/buying the film but the positive press that generates sales from those that looked at things on a superficial level.
Only when they get home and film their wedding on their 16 Pro Max will they wish that Public Enemy had been playing in the background.
While I'm inclined to hate this, there's also a sort of punk aspect to it that I quite like. Strip all the effects off, just focus on the story & performance... if they didn't drive a million bucks worth of cine lenses into it & millions more in post, but just shot an actual good movie on the phone, that'd be no less cinéma vérité than anything else. I mean you have to be in more of a theatre kid frame of mind to want to watch a movie recorded on a potato in the first place, but if you're already there and can sit through Godard & Cassavetes recordings, or even Blair Witch etc, then whatever, shoot it on whatever, & if it's a format appropriate for the story, such as a zombie movie shot with a camera that would actually exist in a post apocalyptic wasteland, then that makes sense.
I was going to post the same thing!
Sadly many of the commenters don't know the story of this film, what it was originally filmed with, nor do they really care about anything outside of trolling the idea.
Considering the limited tools they used in the original, I am looking forward to how the look and feel is using non standard cameras yet again.
Apple probably paid for part of the production and this is an advertising stunt.
Co-directed by Siri. What could possibly go wrong?!
Disagree.
It is just a more limited digital back. A far cry from a Red, Black Magic, Sony, Canon or others, but effectively the same process.
Think of it as being a body without a lens. A Red camera, a Canon, a Sony will have Zeiss (or other) lenses, external screens, or video recording modules with screens (like Atomos) lens hoods, camera rigs, tripods.
The same thought / comment could be applied to a Red camera with all the other accessories attached to it.
It was made to be watched in theaters. I know, I saw the original in a theater and the aesthetic was part of what made it work. The director, Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, The Beach, 127 Hours and many more) knows what he's doing.
Just why. Unless this is sponsored by Apple, it's a wasted opportunity to cram a $75M production onto a smartphone camera that will be laughed at in 5 years from now as antiquated. What movie goers ever cared about the camera anyway? So why waste the quality? I hope Apple is covering this shoot
According to the WIRED story that this piece relies on, "WIRED understands that the producers of 28 Years Later looped in Apple before filming started, and that the Cupertino company provided technical assistance to the moviemakers."
So there's no proof that Apple paid for any part of this production (as several commenters here have stated, without evidence), unless you mean that they paid for their employees' time when they helped the filmmakers.
As an aside, I think it's hilarious that the WIRED story comments more than once that the filmmakers didn't even use Apple's latest iPhones. Though it was filmed last summer, and Apple's latest phones were just released this week.
Danny Boyle isn’t one for stunts (particularly marketing ones) as far as I’m aware (except for when the Queen jumped out of a helicopter for the 2012 Olympics).
I assume the approach is to emulate a ‘Blair Witch’ style ‘anyone could’ve filmed this possible reality’.
…but of course it’s an actual film that needs actual worldwide release production values. So rigs, etc.
I assume the approach is to emulate a ‘Blair Witch’ style ‘anyone could’ve filmed this possible reality’.
…but of course it’s an actual film that needs actual worldwide release production values. So rigs, etc.
Another couple of more years and they won't need AI to get pictures of London post-apocalyptic.
This video is misleading. He does a comparison at 4.9x zoom. Yes well you’re not using the 5x zoom lens at that level so of course it’s going to look bad.
Best news is that they're finally releasing a third film in the series. Honestly thought it was never going to happen.