The inevitable death of film in the wake of the digital revolution - Page 3

Planning to try some of that new Kodak Vision3 500T color negative film.

I've shot plenty of Vision3 500t through my super8 cameras. Love that stock. The 200t has less grain, of course, and can be pushed beyond what one would think is reasonable.

A similar thought came when tv was introduced. And we all know how that turned out.

Wait, you can't do that; film's dead!

I believe that was about motion pictures being dead, not the medium used to create them.

Art

Film will never die. It may become unconventional, but analogue will always have its place.

Using an example in a different realm, guitarists of any value still predominately use analogue amps. So many digital amps out there due some neat stuff that really make playing at bedroom volumes feasible and work great as practice amps, but all of them fail to reach the tone and dynamics of a tube amp. The point of this comparison, is that digital doesn't always mean better.

Digital film makes it easy and cheaper for filmmakers to shoot footage -- no doubt about that. Honestly, even though I'm a technically picky person, shooting digital is fine...you can even recreate some of the grain post-process and if you use the right lenses, it will look great. However, many filmmakers take it too far, and add cheap digital special effects, while skimping on the composure, too. The problem today isn't that stuff is shot on digital film, so this thread is misleading. The problem is poor collaboration, and poor artistic efforts. Times are changing...compare a modern "rock band" with a band like Led Zeppelin. There is so much difference to notice that it's unreal. One has talent. The other doesn't. I'm making generalizations, yes, but I feel it's true.

Even if an older film is crap, many times, you can really see a lot of hand-sweat and hard-work that was involved behind the scenes.

My brother's friend (who is 16) started in on the conversation with me this weekend. It almost felt like I was talking to lwright. It was funny because he uncovered a fallacy in his argument, and then realized it during his statement. "Older films look weird with the fake blood and effects. Newer movies are better because the effect looks better. Well, I guess new films have issues with looking fake too...so..um..." I didn't even have to say anything.

it might be true to a certain extent, but there are many talented bands today, just as there was many average-to-crap bands before. I think someone like Britney Spears does have talent, if any the same kind of Madonna's: she knows how to surround herself by the right people. Muse, a relatively young band, is musically so talented it puts a lot of their peers to shame. It's just an example so let's not get carried away about who's the best that's not my point. Bottom line I think technology doesn't, and will never, make up for lack of talent. Technology is a tool, the true talented people know how to get the most from it. It's the same in films I guess.

Your last few sentences are so true that it almost hurts. Technology is indeed only the medium. As I've mentioned, the problem is/was never with technology. It's the reliance and complacency on technology when it should be the art of the person driving it.

Surprise, that's why so many modern films suck, especially all the piss-poor remakes. Big special effects don't make up for jack crap in my book. If "modernizing" films is remaking them, making them soulless, and adding digital effects, then modern films suck. I could care less about the Battleship movie. That includes Transformers, or anything else that tries to sell itself based on technology for the Nintendo gamer viewers that have ADHD. That means Michael Bay = I care nothing about you. Every remake he's produced/directed sucked so much ass that it's obvious he cared or knew nothing about what made the classics so great. Well, Amityville Horror was fine, but there's reasons why his version worked so well.

What ever happened to films like:

Brazil
Tommy
Blade Runner
The Forbidden Zone

It should be stated, that high technology isn't needed to make a film great. "The Stepford Wives" was able to be a "great film" without using very much technology -- and it's a sci-fi film. Carpenter was able to make "Escape From New York" a brooding masterpiece by taking very little money and shooting at the right locations and using effects very carefully and only when needed. "Westworld" didn't pout technology and didn't have tons of visual effects, and it told it's story in a genuine fashion. Hell, the first "Superman" is truly the godfather of Super hero movies. Many flight scenes still look unbelievable and real. Now, the modern superman will be CGI, and shot entirely against a green screen.

Many things are turning into commodity items. It could be that film is well headed in that direction. Guitars are mostly a commodity item now, which is wrong in my book. Such things that involve art should never be a commodity. It's the good directors (Quentin, Scott, etc) that keep their films from heading in this direction.

I'm defining commodity as:

A means and method to make a cheap, fast, and easy product that most, if not all people, can utilize.

Two of those films Brazil and Blade Runner (two of my all time favorites btw) where big fat box office bombs. So as much as I love them, it's not surprising that we aren't seeing any more films like those...

Yep. Hear me out for a bit.

Those four films that I've listed are fine examples of films that are not commodity items. They were not developed to be shown to every human being in order to generate money. They are ground-up developments to where the creator wanted to make something that was magical and put in so much effort into everything involved, regardless of what the general public "would like." In return, you have a timeless ethereal piece of art, even if it isn't "mainstream." All of Kubrick's films are like this, that is why they are all splendid.

That's precisely what we need more of. Not films that are made in the cheapest way possible (via technology) in hopes to generate the most money from the masses. We need ground-up films, from ground-up ideas, that aren't made for everyone. Films should be like a book. It's either for you, or it's not. You're going to either love it, or dislike it. Clive Barker, Stephen King, etc don't write their books for everyone. If they did, they would suck. For the people that can adore these works, they will find some magical things within. Marketing should affect the distribution of the end-product; it should never affect the "development" of that product for ART. Beethoven didn't write his music for the mainstream. He wrote his music for himself and people loved him. Same for many of the classic greats.

Likewise, Brazil wasn't made to sell well. It was made to sell on its ideas. Same for Blade Runner. Same for Tommy. Hell, same for even the Forbidden Zone and many others.

I think I've given some great explanations above that explain:

1) that "box office" results for either movies or music means nothing. Just because something is at the top doesn't make that said music/movie a good "artist". Many of them get to that position by developing their "art" for the mainstream. Britney Spears is a fine example. Many music and movies today follow this example.
2) Why lwright irritates me by dissing on almost every classic in which art was the backbone of that said film -- now he knows my reasoning.
3) Making a good film involves risks. Too few today are willing to product and create projects where "risks" is involved. But when it works, the payoff is historical. Blade Runner, for example. A Clockwork Orange, for example. Many to list, so I'll stop.
4) Why I now prefer easy-over eggs instead of scrambled.

"video games killed the cinema star".

Regarding "fake" blood a documentary about films I watched recently mentioned that the MPAA required that blood look fake back in the day. That's why it looks like spilled red tempura poster paint in those 70s films.

Doing some recon on cameras doing video I note that Canon has some sub $200 cameras doing 1080p and 24fps. Some of the video posted on the reviews looked very good. They need to do something about the rolling shutter thing though.

If weekend boxoffice for Hollywood keeps up it has the last two the film industry will be going the way of Nollywood.

And the music star....

But now it's possible for a lot more people to make those types of unique films. Before, you had to be an industry insider AND have a pretty good track record at the box office for the studio to give them a chance. Scott made Alien a big hit, Gilliam had Holy Grail and Time Bandits. Without those successes, they wouldn't have been given the chance to make Blade Runner or Brazil.

So now you can make a film without relying on a studio, and people who have some real talent can make a film on a limited budget thanks to digital. They don't have to put up with studio shenanigans.

This. Not only that but movies killed the video game cuz now every game trys WAY too hard to be overly cinematic and that means tons of scripted events. It all takes away from the gameplay when you aren't allowed to do anything.

Great points Tulpa. There's definitely some problems with producers (I explained this by "risk" on my previous post), and that's always been the case, especially for Blade Runner. Great insights to your post that adds more complexity to it all. This is why everyone should be a fan of Carpenter. He preferred to have the most control, so he filmed independent in most cases. What he produced was certainly historical.

I've never seen Time Bandits--been thinking about it. I didn't care too much for The Holy Grail (I like it and have uber respect for it, however). The Meaning of Life was the biggest hit for me...I friggin love it. So I'm wondering if I'd like Time Bandits. I do also "really" like Brazil...so....

Back in the mid-1990s the game industry wanted to make movies and the movie industry wanted to make films. The game developer conferences had talks on doing both. The AFI even inquired if our designer could give a talk at their place.

But it's still nearly impossible to distribute a movie without a big studio backing it (at least in the USA).

Which makes me wonder if small-budget film makers would be better off making their movies primarily for foreign distribution and treating any subsequent distribution in the USA as a bonus?

True, but that's going to be the case regardless of the medium.

Name some off. Don't make me laugh, either.

Triangle
Inception

Umm...........

Sunshine was pretty good. That one bombed at the BO.

Moon is a good one. It's no Brazil or Blade Runner, though. But it's damned good compared to the other turds of our day.

Equilibrium must be a joke. This is very much like Event Horizon, where it yanks ideas from other movies and tries to be something cool and only comes up shallow IMO. In this case, it was a fine combination of THX-1138 and The Matrix that gave this movie life, and it failed to deliver and achieve what it was influenced from.

Repo Man...that's 80s. That's what you're talking about, right? That's a good movie, btw. Something different and unique that has soul. Or are you talking about the 2010 version, which is completely different and has almost nothing to do with Sci-fi?

Donnie Darko is good. That's a movie that has soul.

Idiocracy is good stuff. Saw it recently. The movie will never be a "great" movie though. It was fun for what it is.

Children of Men is good.

Seen some of the other stuff...mild reactions. None of those really come close to Brazil or Blade Runner. You were expecting me to say that, though.

Some movies shot on a shoestring budget do wind up with big studio distribution. "Monsters" was one that I can think of. I enjoy a lot of the "indies" that come out of LA since they are more "genuine" than the contrived studio crap. They're often done by folks in the industry between major films and done they way they want to do them without the studio bullies sticking their nose in.

I think it is worth considering the destination of the final product when making decisions about digital and film cameras. I could be very happy shooting for HD broadcast (episodic or commercials) with a number of the digital cameras. I could "shoot around" and light for each's idiocyncracies, and the smaller screen will be forgiving to remaining shortcomings. If it is a feature, then the parameters and considerations change significantly. If it is going to be an anamorphic shoot, it changes again.

That said, the handwriting is on the wall. The digital cameras are all getting a whole lot better quickly now.

I am particularly anxious to see the Alexa Studio which is a hybrid design accomplshing much of my wish list for a dream digital camera. It has a film camera-style optical viewing system and full-frame sensor so that 2x anamorphic lenses can be used. http://www.fdtimes.com/news/arri/arr...dio-usa-debut/

Get that sensor up to 4K and you will indeed have a feature dream machine.

When I saw Moon I really enjoyed it but I didn't think others would like it lol. Sunshine was also great!

Sony Steps Up Manufacturing After Pre-Orders Land F65 4K Camera in U.S. Top 200





http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...top-200-272128

The F65 looks and sounds very sexy. I'd still like to see a version of it with an optical viewing system like the Alexa Studio. I would bet that they will also have a 4:3 sensor option/variant for anamorphic lens compatibility. Hopefully, it will do better on sensitivity and shadow detail than the F35, too.