The decision to shoot this with DV camera was an unfortunate one…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 28 Days Later...
BLightyear — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 04:39 PM)
I like watching my movie a certain way, and this is not it. I believe there are lots of other ways to make a film look gritty other than shooting it with low quality camera. Even cameras that millennials have now are better than this supposedly financed film. I'm just dying to see the high definition images that I'm sure would be extremely beautiful, especially that of the deserted London. The resolution is even only 720x572, if I'm not mistaken. Who agrees with me?
-
Existen-Chill — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 03:15 PM)
There was a time when I would have agreed with this, but not now. A long time ago I read an interview with Danny Boyle defending his decision to film with a DV camera (I don't have a link to it but honestly I probably found it on this board somewhere). He said something to the effect of "it's ugly and it's beautiful". I have to agree with that now. The dated quality makes it almost spookier in a way. I think genuinely old-looking footage has an inherently creepy quality to it, and this movie used it perfectly. It reminds me of mysterious, grainy movies that would play at ~2am when I was a kid.
There are definitely times when I think the movie would look great with a clearer image, but I also think the tone of the film would lose something had it been filmed any differently.