Matthew

It is going to happen. Here is what I want you to do:

Print out this thread and file it. Keep it. Don't open it. Just keep it.

It is going to happen. It is where the industry is headed.

They said the same thing about sound films (talkies)

They said the same about Television

Thye said the same about 8 track and tape and Beta and VHS and...

It already is happening. It's not if. It already is. Is it ready to take over? Not yet. But it will.

The Great and Powerful Film
 

Okay look, film has been around forever. Great. It looks good and has great pros to it--but it's still got a great share of cons. And anyone who says that if you really care about your project you'll find a way to shoot on film is simply close minded and snobbish. I guarantee you that some of the most creative people on the planet can't afford film. Hell, some of them might not want to be able to afford film because it gives them a chance to creatively work around THAT problem. Saying nothing will ever come close to film and that film is the only way. . .it's just pure idiocy. As if film is the best thing we've ever invented. Boy, I'm glad no one got stock on the Model A like this--otherwise it would sure as hell be cold on the way to work today.

Oh, and access to the equipment is the point. That's one of film's biggest drawbacks and video's biggest strengths--it allows people who aren't part of the elite, or people who can't possibly afford film to have a chance.

Matthew,

I'm not too much interested in debating what will happen or
who is "wrong" or "right" if there is even such a thing. As always
time and history will tell the final tale in due time.

You say:

" I find it interesting that in this "age of DV," the most recent super low budget feature to get any publicity (Primer at Sundance) was shot on the ultra cheap on film. "

and

" Apparently you think that kids editing HD in their family rooms will mean anything. If the "DV revolution" has taught us anything, it's that video is still second fiddle and there is no reason to believe that it will change anytime soon. It's also taught us that access to equipment means relatively little "

Ofcourse the large percentage of people with a DV camera will
not actually make a movie that will get any notice. That's just how
it works. Not everybody is a great moviemaker or can get his
or her work seen. If you already own a 35mm camera you mostly
are working in the Hollywood system or have connections there
which will help you. And when shelling out that much cash (if
you buy it yourself) there is a much better chance you know you
are going to sell something.

With that said, I'm not at all suprised that we do not hear more
about DV and "common" folk making a hit movie. You didn't hear
that a lot before DV either. In my mind that has nothing to do with
technology. Yes it is more accesible, but that doesn't mean more
and better things will happen.

I do understand this was in reaction to someone else's post, but
I just wanted to give my two digital cents on that.

Second, film has gone through it's many revelations as well (and
I'm no film specialist at all) like 16mm -> 35mm and super35,
anamorphic, 70mm and whatnot.

How can you say this process will not evolve any further? I'm just
curious to that. You must agree that in a lot of theatres around
the world (I hope you have visited and seen some of the bad
presentations here in Europe for example) the film presentations
are just plain bad. Ofcourse this has nothing to do with film, but
it does indicate that it is a very fragile system and there is lots
of room for improvement (even if it just is in handling).

Why do you think a digital system 10 or 20 years from now might
not replace film? I'm not saying it will, but it might.

A lot of films are already using the Digital Intermediates to go
through a digital grading process or visual effects. I never ever
hear any of the film "people" ever complain that this degrades
the film although it is being scanned at 2K resolution or less
(which the newer camera's are shooting) at almost the same
bitdepth. Ofcourse visual effects can be done badly and those
will be commented on.

But if you take a good one like perhaps "O Brother Where Art
Thou". I've never read that there was a lack of resolution or
that it didn't look like film etc. although it went through a digital
process completely. Ofcourse it originated in film and thus got
certain aspects with it from that, but my point is that the digital
work lateron was able to PRESERVE these characteristics
and thus proves (in my mind) that digital can hold up to film if
used properly.

Now we might not be at the point in time just yet where the
footage originating in digital form will be able to hold up to film,
but giving all that I've written it looks to me like it should be
possible with the right techniques. How long these will fully
take to develop is anybody's guess.

Any thoughts on my points?

Actually, Rob, I did complain about the digital intermediate and 2K scans somewhere, possibly this same thread. And it is a quality issue in Hollywood also.

Kevin, they also said television would replace movie theatres yet the amount spent on movies has increased a large amount.

You say dv or hd allows the everyday guy to make his own feature yet you're forgetting hd cameras are the bare minimum right now that someone like RR can use. But the price of the Viper or CineAlta are hardly in the range of "everyman" and, in fact, cost as much or more than 35mm film cameras.

DV/HD is not cheaper than film at the end of the day. Unrelated to movies, you can get a cheap 35mm film camera for a few bucks and take pictures. You can't do that with video.

Some think because they can take pictures without development and instant viewing that it automatically makes it better. But the picture is not as good as film, therefore, art is thrown out the window.

Artists still use paint and pencils.

NO ONE here, if they had the money, would make a movie without film.

DV/HD is not the admission ticket to movie making. It will cost millions no matter what the medium.

<<<-- But the picture is not as good as film, therefore, art is thrown out the window.

Artists still use paint and pencils.

NO ONE here, if they had the money, would make a movie without film.

DV/HD is not the admission ticket to movie making. It will cost millions no matter what the medium. -->>>

Art doesn't need the best picture in the world--are has been done with a burnt stick on the inside of a cave. But has also been created on a someone's PC. Techniques do not define what is or isn't art. Creativity does.

Just so you know, long before your comment about all of us wishing we could shoot film I had decided that even if given the option I would not shoot on film. Why? I like the medium of video. I like working with it. Is it as "perfect" as you think film is? No. Not yet. But that doesn't matter to me. I like the medium I work in.

Oh, and it doesn't cost millions to make a movie. It only cost millions to make a movie the Hollywood way. You can get a good movie, with great production value done on DV for $20,000 easy. Give HD a few years and you'll be doing the same with HD.

To completely dismiss the DV/HD revolution as crap is ridiculous and I seriously doubt you'd find much support for your view from true artists.

Can we please stay civil on this? I understand how some people
might see certain things as "personal attacks" or too much or
whatever, but please let us not go down that road and DISCUSS
the points we want to make. Kevin, I have removed some words
from your post because they do not conform with the forum
rules.

If we can't stay civil on this we will close the thread or remove
the offending posts!

Kevin, your lack of understanding is showing through. A director on a professional shoot would want far more than $20,000 just to show up. A SAG actor alone wants $550 per day minimum.

Sure, you can put "something" on the screen for $20,000 but, please, don't confuse the ability to do this with art or quality.

There you go again
 

You're confusing your system with quality and art.

Are there highly talented actors in this world who aren't a part of SAG?

Are there highly creative directors that have never set foot in Hollywood?

Are there DP's that are highly effective in their mediums that have never touched a film camera, let alone worked in the Hollywood system?

The answer to the above questions is resoundingly YES!!!!!

You're way is not the only way to make a movie.

Quality and art are in no way constricted to your over priced world. You need to understand what is art and what isn't. Art is not merely what your system produces. Art is the outpouring of creativity from creative individuals. They are not going to let a lack of money or ability to shoot on film to stop that outpouring. Furthermore, quality can be obtained--even in SD! With the proper lighting, shot composition, set design, editing, etc. quality can be produced. Yes, technically it might not have the resolution of film, but there is vast difference between actual resolution and perceived resolution--in other words, what may not be as technically of high resolution may look just fine to the people you're trying to show your art to--ie: the public. The public (unless they are rather savvy and do some research) doesn't know when something is HD, Film or even DV (28 Days Later)--they just know it looks different.

So yes, you can produce good quality, artistic products on $20,000.

Rob,

The "arrogant" part is coming from lines like this:

" NO ONE here, if they had the money, would make a movie without film. "


How do you know what any other person would or
would not do? How do you know whether I would shoot on
film if I had $40 million or not? To get a bit back on topic: Robert
Rodriguez has a "professional" shoot but decides to shoot on
HD digital. If you don't agree that this is a professional shoot
how about the $100+ million (or how much it is) that George
Lucas is doing for Star Wars 2 & 3 in HD digital? They clearly
choose for it, so how can you say "NO ONE here" if we are all
clearly a digital society.

You are claiming no-one on a professional (whatever that may
be) shoot will show up for $20,000. If so, that would be truly
sad to hear.

One last thing. Rob: have you seen El Mariachi? If so, what
were your THOUGHTS on the movie itself [not the $7000 budget
or the way it was filmed]?

El Mariachi
 

Ah, someone who gets it.

El Mariachi was a decent film. It was great on it's budget--but let's look at things other than the budget.

RR's intention was to make 3 practice films. These films were to be sold to the Mexican, direct to video market. Could the story have been better in El Mariachi? Of course. Could the acting? Assuredly. In a lot of ways, RR was producing a piece of work for his intended audience--I'm sure they would have thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. BUT--for $7,000 dollars, one man with a camera produced something that turned Hollywood on it's ear. If any of you have read Rebel without a Crew you know that RR turned everyone's head with El Mariachi. He had offers from nearly every major studio for it. Why? Because it was a good film.

Yeah I know, he shot it on film and I'm arguing HD and DV. But what I'm really arguing for is true independents making their art in the way that best suites them, regardless of what Hollywood says. If I want to shoot on DV the rest of my life, but people still watch my work and like what they see and I'm communicating the message that I wanted--what difference should it make to everyone else?

All I'm saying is that I agree that we should be open to shooting on things other than film and that not everyone is completely against the digital society.

So, in a way I disagree with one thing RR has said. I don't think film is dead--maybe it will be one day--but I think there are definately other options. Sure you might not ever see a commercial for one of my flicks. But you just might see one winning an award at a festival somewhere. Or you might not ever see it if I decided that I only want to create for myself. (Look for a massive posthumous collection some of the greatest works ever. . .yeah right.) The point is, not everyone buys into the commercial film system--and they shouldn't have to.

"You can get a good movie, with great production value done on DV for $20,000 easy."

It's been done. Blair Witch, mixed media, no-name actors, no above the line cost, no sets, but a killer hook and major internet buzz that set up huge grosses. Prefigured by The Last Broadcast, first movie to be produced and distributed digitally in cinemas, and later released in Hollywood Video. Jason Tomaric's postapocalyptic science fiction epic One, which to date has not seen distribution, but incorporated fairly sophisticated digital sets and effects.

But shoestring budget filmmaking is difficult to do without leaving some people feeling cheated. There are actors and crew willing to work for just meals, copy, and credit, but what happens when the local union shuts down the production by flyering the crew on a location shoot, as happened with The Year That Trembled?

Polished filmmaking efforts require competent talent and technicians to achieve a director's vision. These are necessarily experienced individuals, and one doesn't get experience in the movie business by working it as a weekend gig. And grips and extras need to pay rent, too, which explains the dearth of quality actors who work for peanuts. Of course the penurious producer can cast and crew his film with amateurs--it's a free country (setting aside, for the sake of argument, the difficulties in getting theatrical distribution he'll encounter later on)--but he'll get what he pays for. A callow performer's apprehensive portrayal, trained by a little more than community theatre stints, may induce today's savvy, Hollywood-spoiled audiences to cringe.

What's more, professionals will demand to have at their disposal the proper tools they'll need for the illusions they're called upon to conjure. This usually entails rentals of reusable equipment and purchases of expendables. A crafty independent filmmaker can sometimes find ways to beg, borrow, steal, make do without. But how does he prevent a mutiny when his crew is setting up shots in the rain and he must explain to them how he couldn't afford Visqueen to keep the lights dry? Or towels to dry the crew?

Location permits and security cost money. An auteur who tries to shoot an exterior daylight city street scene involving vehicles without getting proper authorization, shutting down the street if necessary, hiring city police, portajohns, etc., might find himself in trouble with the law.

Responsible filmmakers purchase insurance so that when the rented grip truck backs into a parked Porsche, they're not bankrupted before they wrap.

Cautious filmmakers invest in a completion bond so that when they become deathly ill halfway through production, their investors aren't SOL.

Even directors who set about to make films wholly by themselves in their living rooms snatch up the offer of Hollywood sheen if it's offered them, as happened to Kerry Conran, director of the upcoming Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

I agree completely
 

Yes, all those things are necessary or cost money. Hell, I'd jump at the chance if a studio offered me $$. But, my point is that art isn't contained in that system. You can make a quality product for less money (maybe $20,000 is a little low), and you should take care of what crew and cast you have, but you can still get your artistic expression out there. To say that it's film and Hollywood system or the highway is what I disagree with.

Robert understands.

How do I know Charles Papert wouldn't do it? I'm sure he's union. On a 40-day shoot minimum, he'd get around $20k.

Kevin, your point was not art can be made on a shoe string. You're point was film isn't necessary and DV has/will replace it.

Yes, Blair Witch made it. There are anomalys. Have you seen one since or before?

The truth? I speak the truth and I'm arrogant? Should I sugar coat it and say grab your dv and make "Gone with the Wind" today for $7000?

I defy any of you to make a digital feature length picture deliverable for projection at any movie house on 35mm film for $7000 complete using any method you choose.

Or do you not want to hear that?

I forgot were I read it, but El Mariachi probably would not have made it if someone hadn't drop a bundle on it.

Film will be around for a while, but I suspect its reign is almost over. I think the battle will be more akin to VHS/Beta/Windows/Mac debates. Is one better than the other and the answer is "of course."

However, is the other one good enough and lots cheaper? Well we know the answer there as well. While there are still a bunch of infra$tructure change$ before digital take$ off, it is pretty clear that film will be used only in specialty applications in the future.

I think the factor frequently overlooked is not the media entertainment is shot on, rather how entertainment will change.

There are a lot of bucks being made on game machines and interactive entertainment. That's is what in its infancy, not DV.

My analysis is that we are more than a few years away from it. I expect epic battles as the technology advances that will pit SAG, et al against the computer geeks that will make all this possible. After all, in order for such a change to take place computer animation has to jump a few levels to synthesize actors and landscapes. One only has too look at reruns of Voyager and Red Drawf to see what it might look like.

Frankly, I don't see how film will compete in that world...

Rob,

The part is "the truth". It sounds like your vision of the "truth"
and not somebody else's, that's where it is going "wrong".
Isn't it your opinion instead of the "truth" (whatever that may
be in such a highly subjective matter as we are all proving here)?

Your also asking us the wrong question. How could anyone
make a full length motion picture on 35mm for $7000. The film
itself would cost more. The question should be can anybody
make a good full length motion picture with a digital technology
for $7000. And I think they can. I've seen a 2 hour long movie
from a young guy here in Holland made for way less than that
which I saw myself in a theatre being projected from a DVD.
I thought it was a very entertaining story. Did it "look" as good
as a Hollywood production? Nope it didn't. Although some parts
definitely did (I didn't even spot a CGI bit which I usually can very
easily). It was shot on DV. Content over technology.

Also no-one said that DV is going to replace film. A lot of people
think that DIGITAL is going to replace film in the FUTURE. Not now,
and not on DV. That's what was originally said.