Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jackass the Movie

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Jackass the Movie

Author

Topic: Jackass the Movie

Frank Rapisardi
Film Handler

Posts: 96
From: Methuen, MA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 10-28-2002 02:30 PM

This was shot on video and looks horid on a large screen. I saw it this weekend and was shocked at the quality. No one in the audience complained.They sat and laughed there asses off! What's going on? Our audience seems to be adult;with the brains of twelve year olds.

------------------

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-28-2002 02:49 PM

Would you really want to see those antics shown with greater image detail and color fidelity?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Joe Beres
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 606
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-28-2002 02:50 PM

Frank, there are a couple of factors to remember here. First, aesthetics are most likely not of the biggest concern to the filmmakers. (The obvious exceptions being the opening of the movie, and the trailer at the end) They are trying to capture whatever insanity is happening in front of the camera, period. Secondly, people that are seeing the movie are already used to the look and quality of the image from the tv show, and their expectations pertaining to the image quality are probably not much higher. As far as the intelligence level of your audience is concerned, I'd agree to a degree, but I have to admit that Jackass is somewhat of a guilty pleasure, as I'm sure it is for many, but I don't count myself among the dumb and dumber.

| IP: Logged

Jacob Huber
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 172
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-28-2002 08:26 PM

The cameraman also has to be very quick on his toes and move a whole lot. Most film cameras used on films are way too bulky for this kind of flexibility. The smaller, more agile, although less aesthetic, digitals are what works for them. Not to mention that they are most likely of the MTV/average joe mindset that digital equals better.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-28-2002 09:13 PM

Jacob Huber wrote: "Most film cameras used on films are way too bulky for this kind of flexibility"

NOT true!

A Super-16 camera like the Aaton A-Minima provides image quality greatly superior to any DV camera, and weighs in at less than 2 kilograms, film and batteries included! This small Super-16 camera was used to photograph "Monsoon Wedding":
here Monsoon Wedding
here A-Minima Article
here Kodak Info About A-Minima Films
here Aaton A-Minima

Even some sound capable 35mm cameras weigh in at less than 6 kilograms:
here ArriLite Camera

| IP: Logged

Joe Beres
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 606
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-28-2002 09:20 PM

I think the choice of digital had more to do with money and experience than anything else. They had been shooting video for years and could still do so without compromising anything from their audience's perspective. Pluys they had a "limited" budget from what I hear, and I'm sure that part of the logic was that the less they spent on production meant more money in their pockets. I would have made the same choice if I was in their shoes.

| IP: Logged

Jacob Huber
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 172
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-28-2002 09:52 PM

I stand corrected.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-29-2002 01:05 PM

According to an article in Entertainment Weekly, the budget was $5 million. A drop in the bucket these days! But about $4,999.999.95 more than that movie's worth, IMHO.

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-30-2002 09:45 AM

With using Digital rather than film, they didn't have to worry about the film can getting smashed open during some of their stunts (golf carts come to mind) and becoming exposed. The camera may have got trashed, but they could recover the tape.

| IP: Logged

Bob Maar
(Maar stands for Maartini)

Posts: 28608
From: New York City & Newport, RI
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 10-30-2002 09:51 AM

Mike said:

"budget was $5 million. A drop in the bucket these days! But about $4,999.999.95 more than that movie's worth"

Mike, you were over charged. I would ask for a full refund.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-30-2002 02:02 PM

Many film productions use expendable "crash cams" in situations where the camera is in jeopardy of damage. Severe damage to a digital camera tape transport is just as likely to ruin the footage as damage to a film camera magazine.

IMHO, film would have added to the quality of this production, if that is possible.

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-31-2002 04:03 AM

Such a type of "crash cam" was HOPEFULLY used on the tail end scene of "Fast and the Furious" where the car goes airborne. Watching the DVD extended bits, you can view the footage from all eight cameras, as only one take was done. When you watch from the long distance, you can see the crash cam getting creamed by the car after it lands. But the film inside was safely protected, as it was used in the scene.

So really on this film Jackass, they know that the intended audience is so brain dead they wouldn't know the difference, and that way, you wouldn't need any film crew really.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 10-31-2002 09:45 AM

quote:
you can see the crash cam getting creamed by the car

Those are usually B&H Eyemos or Arri II's in a crash housing. They're pretty solid, as evidenced by the surviving shot.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

| IP: Logged

Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 11-01-2002 01:03 AM

The thing is none of these guys is probably experienced with film. I know that sounds like a lame excuse, but these aren't just a bunch of actors brought together to do a movie, they're friends who happen to be making money by doing what they do best-acting like idiots. Its all very spontaneous and un-scripted. My point is, if they would have shot it on film they would have had to bring in an outsider who had experience with film. You can't just add someone to a group of friends and expect them to act the same. Bringing in someone new would have changed the group dynamic.

Or I could just be talking out of my ass, who knows.

| IP: Logged

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 11-02-2002 01:38 PM

The most "intelligent" idea I could give is that the filmmakers wanted to preserve the look and feel of the show. It's bad enough that the people who went to see this movie had to venture outside and try to interact with the rest of the "normal" world, but I guess Johnny Knoxville thought that his audience would be scared by a traditional movie feel

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.