I went from somewhat indifferent on this movie, to super excited to see it in theaters. Long live film!

@trainsplanesmore

21 күн бұрын

It would be great if this was being shown on 70mm prints somewhere.

@Mattened

8 күн бұрын

It’s an awesome movie!

@Westwardeast

4 күн бұрын

I just saw it. If you loved the original you will love this as well!

Blockbusters shot on 35mm film love to see it. Especially with Dan Mindel being the cinematographer.

@alextan1478

24 күн бұрын

...and also Filmed in Panavision (anamorphic) by Mindel as well.

@VariTimo

24 күн бұрын

Exactly what I’ve been saying!!

They're really respecting the past with these decisions. Love to see it.

Punchy reds, deep greens, and washed out everything else. That's the Kodak I love.

So glad they went this route for the movie, you can really feel the difference watching it!

I'm just glad to see the anamorphic 35mm look in 2024, especially Panavision. So many classics were shot that way.

What a world we live in that we have to justify how good film is against digital, and its usage in shooting a movie as significant, when film has ALWAYS been better than digital.

@trainsplanesmore

24 күн бұрын

Especially when film is simply the capture medium. Everything goes digital after that. Might as well capture the location images on the best format that you can.

@geoffreythomas1452

24 күн бұрын

@@trainsplanesmore True

@michaelj7069

23 күн бұрын

There's oil based paint and water colour. Which one is better? It's all in the artist and if you think a movie is better solely because it's on film, then you've not evolved as an artist.

@hastyscorpion

23 күн бұрын

I mean no it’s not “always better” there are benefits to both mediums.

@geoffreythomas1452

23 күн бұрын

@@michaelj7069 it’s a personal preference that doesn’t discredit taste, style, competence or skill.

Please more of this. Let’s go back to film 🎞️ 🎉

More inclined to see this on the big screen, knowing it is shot on film. I enjoyed the 16mm of Dream Scenario with Nicholas Cage. The colour range of celluloid just hits different.

There’s just something about film, it just looks great every time! 🎞️❤

That's how movies should be shot. I've watched most of the movies from 80's and 90's on tv or vhs in Poland, when I was growing up. And they all had that distinct look. I love well shot movie on digital, as much as next guy, but damn... those older movies have something special. I love original Twister. Seen it probably a hundred times, and I'm glad they shot this one on film as well.

1:17 So nice to see my hometown of Elreno, be featured in this movie and in most of these trailers and BTS. Cant wait to see what happens to it as well.

Would be awesome if we saw a resurgence in Blockbuster scale movies on film compared to the huge wave of digital content that seems to take away a certain element of quality. Really great to see that it was chosen for Twisters

Wish we could have seen these tornados on 70mm film, but 35mm is cool too.

Nice, I would enjoy watching a breakdown of all the weather rigs. Also, I hope we get a Team Deakins podcast on this one!

@nathanaelreyes5854

24 күн бұрын

@@CertainExposures That would be awesome!

i was already gonna watch this in the cinema. yall didn't have to go this hard on me. longlivefilm!

@laurencewhite4809

24 күн бұрын

I find the "shot on film" hysteria so cringe. Nobody but a few people who cant detach from an old medium cares about whether something is shot on film or not in 2024.

@chris_jorge

24 күн бұрын

@@laurencewhite4809ironically an exponentially smaller fraction of that number of people care about what you think 😊

@innerlightfilms

23 күн бұрын

@@laurencewhite4809 not true at all. Our senses are analog and we relate to those formats better. Its why I have a huge vinyl collection. The problem is we don't get the most out of film unless its projected on it. There's a huge difference in the way the image looks. So much so that I can ignore a little bit of dust on a print. I wish someone would do a side by side comparison with a test audience.

@laurencewhite4809

20 күн бұрын

@@innerlightfilms «our senses are analog” is exactly those arguments that are so cringe. You can recreate the look of any film stock with digital footage and you couldn’t tell the difference. On top of that, why would you use film at all? It’s old, outdated, so much more difficult to handle. It makes no sense.

@innerlightfilms

20 күн бұрын

@@laurencewhite4809 ok, go watch something projected on film that was shot on film, and then shut the hell up about it or admit you're wrong.

The choice of the film is still relevant in 2024.

Woah! Just watched it recently and loved it! I also noticed how nice the colours looked in the film and overall the visuals, but I thought it was still digital, just color graded. Knowing that it was shot on film, wow just wow!

wow! i noticed grain and distinct colors in the trailer, but i wasn’t 100% sure if it was shot on film. even more excited now!

embrace with motion picture celluloid, absolutely!

Hells yeah. Would love more movies to shoot on film.

The look of film evokes another world that digital isn't capable of replicating in the same way. This is obvious when comparing the elements comprised in both. It's the cumulative effect of these multiple elements: the dynamic range, the color, the movement of objects due to the mechanical shutter, the image recording on organic material, et al. that takes you into another world. It's no one thing, it's all of them together. Digital is making strides with dynamic range and color, but without all of the previous stated elements, it will never compete. It's like sculpting with marble vs. soapstone. Which is fine, digital is another option and is capable of strengths wholly it's own (shadow detail, lower cost, long recording times, etc.) However, anyone who grew up watching films shot on celluloid that were actually projected in a theater knows the difference between that and a digital projection of an image derived from a solid state sensor. One is binary code that simply represents reality in one's and zero's while the other is made up of raw materials composing an image that interprets reality in a singular representation of light, color, shadow, and movement. One person commented on the superiority of digital by simply referencing dynamic range, as if that was all that made up an image. Put aside the fact that film still reigns supreme in the highlights (the shadows are a different story, but highlights obviously make up the portion of the image most often viewed by observers), referencing one element as proof of supremacy is as ridiculous as saying a team is great simply because they have a great quarterback. If all of the other elements aren't present, your team will never be the best, because it is the cumulative composition of quality elements that creates a result that is equal to or better than the sum of it's parts. This is why many of those who have mastered the craft still choose it (Nolan, Spielberg, PT Anderson, Tarantino). They have a keen eye for what cinema looks like because they know it better than anyone. Tarantino insists on projecting film in his own theater for this reason. That should say it all. Others like Fincher and Zemeckis view the differences as negligible in light of the benefits that digital provides (instant final presentation, long record times, etc.) However, just look at their or Ridley Scott's digital films versus the celluloid flicks they shot early in their careers to see how the two diverge into two separate worlds. One is super clean and sterile, while the other is alive with kinetic granules of color and light. The difference is getting smaller all the time one must admit, particularly since they both eventually find themselves on a digital platform, however when compared to older film stocks of the 60's, 70's, and 80's which contained a character derived from the previously mentioned elements that creates a movie world of singular presence, the digital facsimile just feels like a window into our own in comparison. Unfortunately, this undermines the very intent of cinema, which is the transporting of viewers into a world unlike our own, a cinema world. Film itself is composed of unique properties wholly it's own in a moviemaking medium composed of it's own elements that all require excellence for it to achieve it's true potential. Good direction, character development, editing, these will always be a mainstay. The excellence of an image, like all art, is in the eye of the beholder, so there's no clear winner in an objective sense. However, to anyone who wishes to dismiss film as inferior, I'll defer to the masters mentioned above as ample evidence, unless of course you've produced better work than them.

@JoeMwangi

14 күн бұрын

Cinematographer Steve Yedlin proved a camera is just a data collection machine, the aesthetics in what you're describing, comes from the pipeline. It makes sense, since color vibrancy, tone range, exposure levels, etc., are all pipeline processes. He provided a scientific analysis between a digital and film, and he showed what you're describing also can be done in digital cameras. His websites provides a lot of data and test footages to show that, and his past movies have made people think he shot in film rather than digital, fooling the viewer.

@max31412

14 күн бұрын

@@JoeMwangi I saw those tests when they came out and they're wonderful examples. As I said, the differences are getting smaller and this is a great illustration of that. It's a preference. The color and highlights of film were the key elements that distinguished it for me as well as the subtle softness. Yedlin concludes that processing is the key to creating a close approximation and still comes away preferring film, which I concur with. I can understand someone deciding the differences are negligible and that the workflow is just better with digital. I grew up watching Ridley and Fincher's work on film and see a clear distinction with their digital work. It lacks a certain gravity that film offered, a richness and "not of this world" quality that I just personally prefer and which might not register with other people. That's cool. Contrasting the old Bladerunner with the newer sequel is a great example of the differences. It shows that the distinction between the two is most observable in older film stocks from around that time. Newer stocks have tighter grain structure and other characteristics that make them inherently more similar to digital than the one's Cronenweth used to shoot that film. When I say I prefer film, it's those stocks I am referencing most, where the distinction is clear. This is especially noticeable in those films as well since they were shot by two masters of the craft who were leveraging all of the strengths of the mediums they were using. Some would prefer Deakins newer version, I prefer Cronenweth's. I guess it's a futile endeavor since they no longer produce those types of film stocks so, as with Yedlin's test, we're left with preferences to subtle differences. It's actually great to live in a time when the two are becoming more similar and though I'm nostalgic for the older aesthetic, I'm also grateful to be able to produce an image that can closely approximate it. Thanks for sending those tests.

Once you notice how rich film looks vs. digital in a theater it's impossible to ignore. For a popular direct comparison, look at any scene from Iron Man 1 (film) vs Iron Man 3 (digital), or any MCU film after the first four.

Film looks gorgeous , saw it last week, SUPER FUN and exciting, my kid is fascinated by tornados now.

So ready for this movie!! 🎥 🌪️

You know there's gonna be a high level of artistry on this one 👍💓

in my country this movie has been airing, I can’t wait to watch it on the big screen, I’ve been waiting for a new movie for years❤❤❤❤❤

looks incredible - cannot wait

beautiful. can't wait to see this!

Love seeing some Super-8 in there. It's where my love of film and cinema began.

yes! Way too many movies looking grey and washed out or too dark these days. Hit me with that colour!!

This just shouts "classic blockbuster." Don't get too many of those anymore. Can't wait to see it!

@Mattened

8 күн бұрын

It is a classic blockbuster. So good.

Finally cinema is back

Just got back from seeing Twisters. We loved it! The look of it was incredible. Thank you for not color-grading it to be teal & orange, or some other unnatural looking scheme. Easily the best film since top gun maverick, for me.

Definitely watching this!

I remember thinking in the theater "what an amazing grading they made (im amateur colorist) , is not exagerated and colors pop beautifully, wait... is this film?"

This actually makes me want to see it now.

It’s too bad this wasn’t filmed with IMAX 70mm cameras as well

@LakeHowellDigitalVideo

21 күн бұрын

70mm cameras are way too loud for dialogue scenes. I know Nolan tried in the Dark Knight trilogy to use 70mm as much as possible, but he was shocked how noisy those cameras are.

@3enCooper

21 күн бұрын

IMAX has such a modern feel. It's clinically clean and has such shallow depth of field. Given this is a sequel to a 90s blockbuster, the choice to shoot not only on 35mm but on Kodak, is pretty inspired. You get those punchy reds, warm skin tone, deep greens, and washed blues and browns. It's such an evocative film stock because nearly every great film from the 70s, 80s, and into the 90s used it. So, while I totally get why everyone wants every modern blockbuster to be shot on IMAX, I love the fact that they chose 35mm Kodak for this film.

a little over two Weeks to Go! can't Wait to see this! been waiting 28 Years for this!

@On3_Fons3ca

8 күн бұрын

Holy crap it’s been that long eh? 🤣

I saw it today. Excellent visuals.

I love film but if you do color correction in the computer you’re essentially digitizing the image. For the best film look they should color time chemically.

Qualidade dos Filme gravados em película...insuperável 😊😊😊

1:30 nice one Glenn. Very insightful😂.

Love this decision! Stays true to the original film.

I did not want to see this movie until I found this out and now I do

wow no idea it was shot on film ..film has that 90s look

Let's Goooo!

Bring back film!

KODAK the best.❤.

I'll support for the integrity alone.

I know America through its movies.

Plot twist, not a single person noticed.

@LakeHowellDigitalVideo

21 күн бұрын

Yeah, with all those CGI tornadoes -- shooting on film was an odd choice.

@laurencewhite4809

20 күн бұрын

@@LakeHowellDigitalVideo It sure tricks film hipsters into having an orgasm.

ah hell yeah

Wow I didn't know this Now I want to see it in IMAX

So excited

A true kodak moment

There is only a month left until the release in Korea. I want to see it quickly.

What a shame that at 99% of cinemas it will be projected digitally.

@YuutaShinjou113

8 күн бұрын

that's the issue with progress. it leaves behind tradition and makes it sit there rotting.

If there is a reason to love movies, is because the texture of film. I think the magic is lost with digital.

Don’t know how good this movie will be, but going in, at least I know they got one thing right.

@trainsplanesmore

21 күн бұрын

Bingo! And people on here are going on and on about the CGI. Well, the TRAILER is going to be mostly action scenes. The movie will have a far lower percentage. So yes, seeing a majority of the non-action shot on film is a good thing.

"Sometimes the old ways are better than the new."

Pretty cool until she says "I'm gonna bring my...Super 8", which is a questionable audio edit and a big time ad for that high-priced camera! Clever. Still, I am glad the film was shot on Kodak stock. I miss film.

I think because of how highly scanned this is the image looks like Alexa digital. I wouldn't have known it was shot on film unless I pixel peeped. Good example of how you treat the negative/scan/grade creates the "filmic" look. Secret sauce I think is shooting on 16 like they did for First Man.

@ericellsworth9852

24 күн бұрын

Yeah the cinematographer loves using sharp anamorphic lenses and with it mostly being shot outside they probably shot on a very low speed stock so there isn’t much film grain.

@JoaoFederle

22 күн бұрын

I realized this was shot on film the second I saw the super bowl trailer.

Will there be film prints made for the theaters or will this just be digitally converted for distribution and projection?

I'm going to opt for the Dolby Cinema on this one. With this picture quality, sound design, and a Hans Zimmer regular collaborator on the score... it should be an experience.

Oklahoma is beautiful ❤❤

I miss that buttery smooth grainy film stock they used to shoot on in the 90's up until around 2013 when digital became the norm and of course more cost effective. What's the point of spending so much of the budget shooting on film just to have look like you shot digital? Having said that I'm excited to see this, it looks beautifully shot, and I will make the $50 sojourn to the theater mainly to hear the full effect of the sound of the twisters

HELL YES!

Great decision to shoot it on film

I hope this movie will be shown on 35mm film 🤞🤞

so we'll get high quality 4k blu-rays because of this?

Film needs to reinstate its position as the pre-eminent acquisition format and send video back to capturing news and sport.

more films on film!

If only I could see it projected on film as well!

@joshuagaude6084

12 күн бұрын

Would be cool if they had special screenings on film like Oppenheimer and Dune 2 did. Part of me has this unrealistic hope that theaters will adopt film presentations as a "premium" screening option to attract viewers as these recent releases have shown. Make it an attraction, parade movie goers past a window that shows the projection booth while the projectionist is threading the projector on the way to the auditorium. Just knowing what you're watching is shot on film/being screened on film adds to the experience. There's a theater down in Australia that has pretty much every Nolan movie on IMAX 15/70 and they do occasional screenings of them and always say the screenings sell out quickly. This tells me there is a market for it; people want to see movies on film. But the investment would be a lot.

@innerlightfilms

12 күн бұрын

@@joshuagaude6084 I think you're right. I pay extra for IMAX all the time, and I'd pay for film too. Maybe it'll make a comeback like vinyl has. Studios and theaters just need to see there's a large appetite for it. So the goal would be to convince more people. I like Nolan's idea of releasing the film early on film formats only. One can hope!

Chris Nolan approves of this message.

❤

Much as I’m not interested in the movie, it’s great they’re using film

Hey remember when all the movies we saw were shot on actual film? 😅🎞️🎥

Shot of Kodak film, scanned, transcoded to digital, so basically it'll be a digital film with some real film grain.

Here in Tulsa, there is no need to watch tornado movies. We just look outside. . . ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

#FilmisNotDead

I think this is now nostalgia. I think the Creator looked amazing. The best digital cameras today offer exceptional image quality with high resolution, excellent low-light performance, and a wide dynamic range. They provide more immediate results and offer greater flexibility in post-processing. And it looks like this film has tonnes of VFX and post processing. But It does look good.

I always like how they tell they shot movie on film, and they they appy so much of color grading so at the ent it looks like another digital movie😂 This lloks nothing like film stock. This green tint will be even more when it came out to blue-ray. Because all modern movies (and some of the old but in 4k) needs to be green or teal for some reason😆

You can just see in Glen Powell how much he has learned from Tom Cruise.

Bring back Aerochrome!

Film will always be better, digital is just 1s and 0s

Wait wait wait... could this actually be GOOD...? =__=

I'm surprised Kodak is still around

What is “shooting on film” and who/what is kodak

so she's the one who bought that new super8 kodak camera...

1:24 thats a f5 right?

@caramellamccrea8344

24 күн бұрын

I think it's EF5. Most likely that scene is the scene where the tornado is still rated EF3/EF4 before finally hitting the city of El Reno in Twisters and got EF5 rating.

I live Oklahoma

Wow July 19th for Other people around the world? Welp to bad Australia gets it on the 11th :/

@vivid6708

24 күн бұрын

Yeah i know, im staying home from school just to watch it

In my mind, there is no doubt that film is more vibrant, more alive with grain and more natural than digital. If you have the budget/time, film still would be my choice. But digital has its place and can be used to great visual effect. That being said, I'm not buying for a second that these actors have any idea what they are saying. They are either reading or paraphrasing from a script handed to them by Kodak or the producers and they are being paid to shill for the company.

Ok...

I can't judge a film from trailers, but it actually looked awfully digital. Seems like it's very enhanced and over graded with color casts/distortion. 1996 twister was a very simple no bells and whistles look.

music 1:25 ???

So they are going for this BS now huh? Just like "there are no CGI planes in Top Gun Maverick" and then they go and completely replace all the planes with CGI planes. They say the colors are so beautiful when shooting on real film and then its perfectly obvious that they smeared a digital color grade on everything. Every characteristic that real film has can today be emulated digitally. This is just a marketing trick.

And... you can achieve all that with digital.

@JetPackFlame

24 күн бұрын

Wrong.

Kodak is hurting.