HISTORY Channel's The World Wars IndieTalk CONTEST

THANK YOU!

I would say that the cinematography is of a higher quality than I remember History Channel having when I was a kid.

But don't we think the whole Hitler thing is a little played out? I, for one, feel that we should be looking to the future's history. Who will be the next heinous monster? Is it your neighbor Billy? Is it OBAMA?! Tune in this Sunday at 8/7c to find out!

This looks wonderful - I normally don't watch the dramatized History films/shows, but I'd certainly take a look at this, if not just for the unique direction it has chosen in regard to showing the World War I experiences that shaped the major players of World War II.

In regard to the cinematography, it's certainly impressive for a TV show. More so, I liked the quick cuts between WWI and WWII figures - it accentuated the contrast of their innocence during WWI to the powerful players they became in WWII. (Stalin, Hitler, etc)

Listen to that soundtrack, they went all Inception on that ass! BWAAAAAA!!! BWAAAAAA!!!!

The cinematography looks fine. If it were something from me or any of my zero-budget brethren, I'd brag about it. But from a studio with lots of dollars behind it, it's good, if albeit a little bit paint-by-numbers.

Someone's gonna win a $100 Visa gift card just for posting a comment here!

C'mon guys!

I really dug those circle-dolly transformation shots when they were showing Roosevelt, Hitler,et al as young men from WWI and older ones in WWII. I think those really were hook shots, really developed visual interest. That having been said, the first conversational shot with Churchill felt a bit out of place. Maybe it's in part due to drab lighting, or the really stock camera angle, but the shot felt very made for TV in a trailer that otherwise features many high-quality, cinematic moments.

All and all, very impressed with both the cinematography and the concept.

The QuizUp link is now live. Play The World Wars topic on QuizUp and enter for your chance to win a trip for two to Hawaii to visit historic Pearl Harbor: http://www.history.com/shows/the-world-wars/interactives/quiz-up-sweepstakes

Youtube video "not available in your country"
However, I did manage to watch it from the history channel website. Interesting way to look at these stories, which have been told many many times.
Cinematography is pleasant enough, and it looks like a *film* - which is what I presume you're going for - in that style I'd maybe expect some more crane/helicopter type shots, perhaps. Personally though, I feel that detracts from the verisimilitude of it a little. I don't feel like I'm learning about history (though again, I guess that's the point) rather watching a film loosely historical in story. But if your goal is to hide some sort of education inside entertainment, then from the looks of it, the cinematography (as well as the editng and score) has achieved that. I just hope that the history side isn't skewed by the drama.

The Cinematography is certainly nice - it feels a bit like it sits right in this new trend of telemovie where a decent Cinematographer is brought on, as if it were a Hollywood movies but have to - in a sense - play it safe. So the cinematography ends up nice, but kinda safe, and kinda often feels like I've seen it all before. Of course, it's almost impossible to tell without seeing the whole thing.

I will say this - I'm sick of period pieces for television being shot on Alexa or similar. I would've pushed so hard for S16mm. Alexa might be easier etc. but imagine how much nicer and how much more authentic it would look without that clean modern Alexa look...

The cinematography is interesting.

Right, Jax. I mean, I don't know anything about that. But I remember reading something about how they chose to shoot Ken Burn's National Parks in s16mm. They were saying how much better it would be for the purpose compared to digital...the dynamic range, I think, was the main thing.

Can't watch the video in the Netherlands.
Silly, because History Channel can be watched here

richy said:

Right, Jax. I mean, I don't know anything about that. But I remember reading something about how they chose to shoot Ken Burn's National Parks in s16mm. They were saying how much better it would be for the purpose compared to digital...the dynamic range, I think, was the main thing.

Click to expand...

I'm all for Alexa and the new digital wave or whatever but look at a film like Argo - it looks like it was shot of the time, and yet still looks great! I'm glad there are still productions opting to shoot film. S16 especially is pretty cheap, and I would love to see more period films and telemovies originating on the format. Perhaps it's only me but it really takes me out of it when this sort of thing is shot digitally. To me it looks like a telemovie re-creation -maybe that's what they're going for, but it loses all authenticity for me.

The lighting is quite nice in parts, but as I say I feel like I've see it all before. Impossible to give much more without seeing the whole movie.

It wasn't too bad. Personally, I thought that it could have benefitted from more wide shots. There seemed to be a lot of close up shots and medium shots, and I think some wider shots really could have helped show the massiveness or the epic and large nature of the world wars, really highlighting and intensity and largeness of them. The closeups shots just underwhelmed me. In addition that, some shots seemed to lack in contrast. I don't think that you need to take the Saving Private Ryan route and make it high contrast, low saturation (a bit of a cliche now, anyways), but I think that this episode or trailer could have benefitted from more contrast to give it a grittier, more intense, sharp, focused look. Some shots looked a bit under-lit or lacking in fill light, such as the shots of Churchill, which just looked a bit muddy and dark. In addition to that, I think when you cut to the leaders, first showing them young, then old, those could be improved. I think that if maybe the first shots looked a bit brighter and less gloomy, then the second shots of them look far more intense and gritty could help. The warm light before the older Hitler also looked bit odd. Perhaps if you make it a bluish tone or reddish tone it might help, but that shot made him look innocent, not showing his change in personality from younger to older. I think by changing that shot, you could greatly improve that sequence and make it more effective. The shot around :49 or :50 also looked bluer than the rest of the shots before it, assuming that that shot is part of the scene with the shots we were seeing before. The final choice of shot wasn't very effective. This is more of an editing thing, but perhaps if we heard Churchill's voice over a massive explosion or remove the line entirely might help. Everything looked a bit digital and clean as well too, perhaps some grain and grit to it might help. Some short appearances of black and white could have been cool too. Although the think the biggest problem with the trailer is that it's just underwhelming. It doesn't really grab me, and while the cinematography was nice, I think that with the budget and talent that the studio who made the film most likely had access to could have came up with something far better and really popped and gotten the attention of viewers. But yeah, it's decent cinematography. It's framed well, it's shot well, there are few errors and the lighting (or really anything) is "terrible" or "bad". It got my attention and I wouldn't mind watching, so I guess that's an upside.

Dreadylocks won the $100 using a random number software!

Please PM address for prize and thanks everyone for participating.

Hope you enjoyed the special on HISTORY.

Wowza! Couldn't come at a better time. Thanks Indietalk and thanks History Channel You like me, you really, really like me!

Unfortunately my PM box is full. Do I need to delete everything or can I email you my address. I can be reached at samanthatwoelevens (at) gmail.com

This round is on me

Dreadylocks said:

I would say that the cinematography is of a higher quality than I remember History Channel having when I was a kid.

But don't we think the whole Hitler thing is a little played out? I, for one, feel that we should be looking to the future's history. Who will be the next heinous monster? Is it your neighbor Billy? Is it OBAMA?! Tune in this Sunday at 8/7c to find out!

Click to expand...

I do agree that the whole Hitler thing has been played out...but thinking of World War 2 reminds me how lucky we all are to just be able to walk around relatively safe. To even be alive as opposed to being drafted into an army and sent to War at 18. It reminds me to respect old people because they gave up their young years to be involved in a war that in many cases can only be described as horrific in every sense of the word (and wasn't fought for resources or financial gain) For me, the least we can do is remember.

In saying that, I do agree that looking forward is important too. I would keep an eye on that Billy. If you notice him making rubbing motions with moisturiser or muttering that the lotion goes on the skin, you call the authorities promptly. Obama, Putin, Bill Gates, or will it be the guy nobody sees coming...who knows....


If I win the $100 I hereby vow to spend it as selfishly as possible on camera gear for myself.

FantasyFilmProductions said:

If I win the $100 I hereby vow to spend it as selfishly as possible on camera gear for myself.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I already spent it.