JURASSIC WORLD Shooting in 35mm and 65mm; Starts Filming in April in Hawaii

by     Posted 293 days ago

jurassic-world-slice

We have a couple of brief Jurassic World stories for you this morning.  First off, director Colin Trevorrow (Safety Not Guaranteed) tweeted that he’ll be working with cinematographer John Schwartzman on the picture, and they’ll be shooting on 35mm and 65mm.  As Bleeding Cool points out, 65mm strongly hints towards an IMAX release, although I would say the movie being a major blockbuster hints towards an IMAX release.  The 65mm just means it will probably look much better in IMAX.  Schwartzman’s filmography notably includes The Rock, Armageddon, and The Amazing Spider-Man, so he more than knows his way around a blockbuster.

Hit the jump for more.  The film stars Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Nick Robinson, and Ty SimpkinsJurassic World opens June 12, 2015.

We previously reported that shooting on Jurassic World would begin in Louisiana on June 2nd, and while that’s still true (per The Times-Picayune), production will actually start in April in Hawaii.  According to Midweek, the film is “scheduled to begin filming on Oahu for four weeks in April, followed by two weeks on Kauai”.  The Times-Picayune confirms filming in New Orleans will begin on June 2nd, and adds that the production will shoot there for 11 weeks.

You may recall that the film was originally set to shoot in Baton Rouge last year for a 2014 release, but had to be delayed so Trevorrow would have more time to work on the script.  Thankfully, there’s almost no competition in 2015 whatsoever.

jurassic-world-logo




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • Stephens

    This probably means Chris Pratt will be missing for a big chunk of Parks and Rec again next season. That’s a bummer, Andy is one of the best characters on that show.

  • Christian

    I really hope that Jeff Goldblum and Sam Neill have significant cameos.

    • orianalianna

      YES PLEASE YES! Jeff Goldblum will be the stamp of approval for me.

  • Bo

    Why on film? Who cares? People who flock to see films of this nature don’t care and can’t tell film from digital so why make a big deal about shooting on film? Shoot the silly thing digitally and shut up about it. Citizen Kane this ain’t gonna be! Jeez!

    • cezar211091 .

      come on

  • Pingback: Chris Pratt Talks JURASSIC WORLD and Director Colin Trevorrow’s Take on the Franchise | Collider

  • kilar

    Shoot on film, show it digitally on almost every screen, fill it full of digital effects, distribute digitally for home use.
    Makes perfect sense.
    Chris Nolan must have given out more than a few handies under the table to make this seem worthwhile.

    • chadwpalm

      There’s a huge difference between shooting digitally and projecting digitally. A HUGE difference.

  • Brandon

    Is there any particular reason to shoot on 35mm as opposed to using digital capture? I always just assumed that over the past 5-10 years or so, most movies were filmed digitally and somehow transferred to 35mm film as this (if possible) just seems cheaper than burning up film that will just end up on the editing floor, film that could possibly be physically damaged where digital files can be possibly more safe or secure. I’m admittedly a huge fan of 35mm film as having worked film projectors in the 90′s/early 2000′s, so anytime I read about 35mm still being around, I get a little excited. Taking individual 20-minute chunks of a film on small reels and snipping and combining them with trailers to create this whole, flawless creation that others would enjoy…yeah, it made me feel somewhat like an artistic badass, at least of the editing world.. haha.

    • Bo

      Yes, Brandon, there is a reason to shoot on film rather than digital. It looks better on film. It feels better on film. Everything about film as far as aesthetically is better than digital. Digital is cheaper and easier and that’s why it is becoming the norm. It has nothing to do with aritistic integrity and everything to do with financial gain and prosperity. Anyone who tries to tell you different is either being dishonest or doesn’t know what they are taking about. Technology has allowed the money makers to make more money faster and easier. But digial, not now and in my opinion will never match film aesthetically. There are people who disagree with me and so be it. Digital may eventually look as good or even better than film; it doesn’t right now, today, in the present…and that’s the only place we reside. And again, in my humble opinion…lol…digital will never match film…it’ll never ‘look like’ film. And that is my problem with it. I like the look of film and always will. Digital will never look like film and will always be compared to it just as it is being compared, always, to film now…today! I rest my case and I’m indeed laughing as I know the digital nuts will come for me bearing their arms and outrage…lol…

      • Alvaro

        this decision is obviously out of spite, in the end, the film will be scanned, cleaned up, uprezzed and even modified to make up for so many limitations (like all other 35mm movies), and then POST converted to 3D.

        It´s bending over backwards to please film fossils.

      • Bo

        Perhaps. You are right in one respect, but incorrect in another. Maybe out of spite, or to look good, or to please, as you call them, film fossils. I don’t think much cleaning up was needed for the original prints of Lawrence of Arabia. Maybe now after so many years, but I can’t imagine what Lawrence would look like if they attempted that on digital. Just sayin’. I think it matters not, as most don’t care and digital is here to stay. We’ll see. But it would seem prudent to shoot this film digitally what with all the CGI and computer effects and special effects shots they’ll have. Doesn’t make sense to shoot it on film…so…you’re right, Alvaro.

  • GG

    A lot of digital worshippers/film haters on this thread.

    Film looks better, that’s why they’re shooting on it. Sorry if that bursts your digital bubble.

  • GG

    A lot of digital worshippers/film haters on this thread.

    Film looks better, that’s why they’re shooting on it. Sorry if that bursts your digital bubble.

  • Pingback: Tarantino, J.J. Abrams et Christopher Nolan veulent sauver Kodak

  • Pingback: La lettre ouverte passionnée de Scorsese pour sauver la pellicule

Click Here