Thoughts on Film and Digital

[Tyler Purcell]

I wouldn't call pitching spec ideas to development execs 'creative consultancy on blockbusters'.

Please stop picking on every single post I make. I will gladly make a thread to discuss my involvement but it has nothing to do with this topic or the other topics you question my even existence.

[Stuart Brereton]

Tyler, you've stated;

 

 

I've been in those meetings as a creative advisor, so you can say anything you want, I've been there and seen the whole process from building marketing look books pre green light, through the final release.

 

implying that you know more than the rest of us on this subject. Yet, when questioned about that statement it turns out that you were an unpaid member of a team working for a unnamed company who were pitching spec ideas, which is basically what hundreds of people do every single day in Hollywood. You may call yourself a 'creative consultant on blockbusters', but I'm seeing no evidence. In another thread, you refer to yourself as a 'professional post-production specialist' who was involved in the creation of ProRes, and use that as a way of asserting your superior knowledge over other contributors. The common theme is an argument from authority; experience that you claim, but that is ultimately unprovable.

 

Apologies, but like others, I'm calling BS.

[Justin Hayward]

 

implying that you know more than the rest of us on this subject.

 

I mean, that's it, Tyler. You seem like a nice guy, but you imply your technical knowledge and your refined taste exceeds anyone on this forum that disagrees with you. It just rubs people wrong... I think.

[Tyler Purcell]

Sorry? I mean nobody else has brought a lick of evidence to prove anything they believe either.

 

I spent 20 minutes checking the facts I posted on wikipedia and it was all there. Unfortunately, it's too spread out to copy and past sections and links, it's kind messy with no direct connections on there, which sucks.

[Robin R Probyn]

Tyler.. did you consult on Walter Mitty.. if not you should have..

[Michael LaVoie]

Tyler.. did you consult on Walter Mitty.. if not you should have..

I sorta "consulted" on that film in a weird way. Not to Ben but to the VFX team. You know those free test screenings we're all not supposed to attend because we work in film? I went to one anyway for Secret Life of Walter Mitty and a few days later got an interview to DP a short by some of the guys at Framestore. A VFX house in Soho.

 

They said they were working on the new Ben Stiller movie. I said "Walter Mitty? I just saw it." They said, "How? We're not done." I told them it was a test screening and then gave them all the info from the focus group I attended.

 

Which probably didn't matter much in the end but I found the coincidence hilarious. Some of the key points of concern seemed to be the length of some of Walters fantasy VFX scenes in the film, tone etc. They seemed to agree with the focus groups opinions.

 

Still don't think it impacted the movie at all. Just funny that I confirmed for myself the very reason I shouldn't have attended the test screening in the first place.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Michael LaVoie

[Brent Powers]

Thanks for all your input. I’ve learned a bit. For example, I was afraid to ask what a LUT is, so I looked it up only to discover that LUT means Look Up Tables. I am old. I don’t feel like looking up any more. I may at some point have occasion to make use of LUT but not so far.

Film is venerable. Digital is a relatively new, upstart medium. It saves us a lot of money, and it saves the planet from tons of celluloid waste. It can be quite beautiful. It won’t go away. Neither will film, judging from the current situation. I see now that many of you professionals are under political and economic constraints that don’t affect me at all as an amateur. I honor you all for having the heart to go on in the face of such obstacles.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

While I tend to steer clear of these debates, I beg to differ on the point that digital is more environmentally friendly than film. Cameras are mass produced and succeeded constantly by new models. Lots of circuitry that perpetuates e-waste. The great thing about film is that the cameras can be 50 years old and do the exact same thing as one that is 10 years old.

[Tyler Purcell]

Film is venerable. Digital is a relatively new, upstart medium. It saves us a lot of money, and it saves the planet from tons of celluloid waste.

Digital technology for acquisition has been around for decades now, it's not really new anymore. Even if you take into account modern digital cinema, most products are still being distributed in the original 2k resolution of the FIRST digital cinema formats, developed 20 years ago.

 

Also, there really isn't much if any celluloid waste. People don't throw film into the garbage. Plus, it can be melted down and used to make other products. So the idea there is any real celluloid waste is not founded on any ground.

 

By contrast, as Kenny pointed out, there is HUGE waste in digital. Lets start with batteries... the modern lithium batteries are tremendously environmentally unfriendly manufacturing wise. Most people just throw them into the trash when they stop working. Then you think about digital technology ever evolving and how everyone needs the newest/best thing. What happened to all those DV cameras from the 90's and early 2000s? Everyone had one, they didn't disappear. Today more people have cameras then ever before and even people who work in cinema, have multiple cameras, all of which are bought and sold on a regular basis. How long does it take for one of them to become obsolete?

 

Today everyone wants to shoot on 4k, but what about that perfectly good F900 for instance? Those cameras are being sold for junk on ebay right now. If they can't be sold, it will be off to the recycler for them.

 

You can go out and make a movie on a 100 year old film camera right now if you want and since the "consumable" (film) is what defines the look, it's easy to make it look like a modern movie. All you need is modern stock and glass. The box you use to shoot it with, plays a very small role, unlike digital where the box is everything.

[Gregg MacPherson]

@ Brent, re the idea of film being bad for the environment, the tons of celluloid waste.

 

Two things...

 

First, why assume that celluloid and any other waste from film can't be disposed of in an environmentally ok way?

 

Second. We have (past tense now) a marketing paradigm, a seemingly usefull myth that results in thousands of prints being required to make almost simultaneous impact on a large-ish number of people. The types of films that may really require this marketing notion are a small subset within the set of all possible films.

 

There may be (past again probably) a viable alternate reality where a more diverse array of films are distributed on celluloid. But much fewer prints each and with much longer runs. An audience that is cultured to be more thoughtfull and discerning. And films that are more thoughtfull and discerning.

[Brent Powers]

Oh, I'm flashing back to the 70s when I worked at Audio Brandon Films as a QA guy. At this point we were just beginning to address the issue of recycling waste. I'm seeing garbage cans filled with damaged film. And I'm thinking of take after take with perfectionist directors or actors who've forgotten their lines on the few sets I've visited. I'm sure we've gone beyond simply tossing all the out takes and damaged footage into the dumpsters with the flop and the leftovers.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not the stock that is so much an environmental issue as the chemicals used in manufacturing and the labs. I'm sure it is all treated and disposed of according to environmental laws...

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

They'll catch you pretty quickly if you pour chemicals down the drains without recycling. One small NYC lab closed a few years ago because of this.

[George Ebersole]

Brent; there've been a ton of these threads on this BBS, but I'll pitch in my two bits anyway.

 

I quit the film industry for a variety of reasons way back in the 1990s, but one of the chief reasons was that it became apparent to me that the technology, but its very nature of being big, expensive and bulky, was not allowing really good indy film makers a chance to show their talent.

 

I'm glad the days of the old movie needing to stay in a theatre for a year or so are over, and that any film maker can post their stuff for the world to judge, and bypass whatever politics they would had to navigate prior to the 2000s.

 

On that same token games have proven to be a far more enticing realm for entertainment than film. So I would conclude that films are to games as oil paintings were to film.

 

Film / video, moving pictures to tell a story, still have an appeal, and always will have. However, one thing I'm noticing is that the mature sense of humor that used to be around in the 80s, 70s, and years prior, in all genres, has really been replaced with real basic or simple unsophisticated humor. And that kind of thing was happening in the 90s before the advent of prosumer gear.

 

So, even though there's more democratization of media, it seems like the talent situation for good smart stories is still a very small set of people.

 

I see more documentaries online (some even have their facts right :rolleyes: ) but it's like the old saying goes; you can't buy class or talent.

 

And just an FYI, apparently the younger generation are rediscovering records and casette tapes. They still have more high fidelity than digital. Go figure.

[Brent Powers]

Well, theatrical movies are not where the greatest creativity seems to be happening today. TV series are far more interesting. They take chances that movie producers wouldn't dare. I very rarely go to a theater any more. The last movie I saw at the local complex was the new Star Wars thingie. Not a good experience. The last movie I remember enjoying was The Martian ... but I saw that one streamed. There have been countless TV series I've enjoyed, admired, wished I'd been a part of, etc., starting with The Wire, and later Breaking Bad, True Detective, and Rectify come to mind at once but there have been several others. This seems to be a Golden Age of TV.

[Aapo Lettinen]

democratising filmmaking does not help bad screenwriting, directing, acting, lighting, set design, etc. or makes distributing the film to larger audiences much easier. it still has to be a very good movie, much better than equivalent commercial movie because the indie film does not have distribution network or marketing available nor money to arrange them.

So one can make a movie with quicker turnaround and at least get an illusion that it is cheaper than it would have been 20 years ago but it is still very unlikely (as unlikely as back then I think) to get a profit out of it or even get back the costs of making it.

 

Democratising filmmaking may be even a bad thing because that encourages making mediocre/low quality content without paying attention to the learning curve. the end result is 100 or 1000 times more awfully crappy indie films and other content flooding the web when the amount of truly great work is not that much higher I think.

The gear also has to be updated every 2 years or so compared to the past when 10 or 20 or even 30 years for a camera body and editing equipment was perfectly normal. A super8 cartridge or a 16mm roll was not that expensive either unless one wanted to make a feature film.

 

What I mean is, democratising filmmaking does not make the indie films generally better. They may LOOK TECHNICALLY better than 20 years ago but they still have as bad writing, directing etc. than back then. better and cheaper cameras don't create experience or talent, at most they can encourage to experiment and learn more about filmmaking the hard way and that way help to make better movies someday

[Guest]

Democratising filmmaking may be even a bad thing because that encourages making mediocre/low quality content without paying attention to the learning curve. the end result is 100 or 1000 times more awfully crappy indie films and other content flooding the web when the amount of truly great

 

I have to agree 100%.

 

I think that access to "cheap" digital formats has LOWERED the quality of independent film, not raised it. If someone has to shoot on film and deal with the costs involved they do a much better job on every other aspect of the production. Film disciplines the filmmaker, a 5D does not.

 

I used to think that making a first feature was a great way for someone to jump into the industry because you learn to do by doing. But.....after watching now many dozen low budget digital first features I have changed that POV. The quality is usually so poor, I have to ask myself, what were these guys thinking?

 

Now I think people are better off learning as much as they can on other people's projects and gaining some real experience in film before jumping into a first feature. Or even *gasp* going to "film school."

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

Yeah, there used to be the old saying for cult films or films that were on the fringe that gained a cult following; "so bad it's good".

 

But today you have huge blockbuster mega-budget movies that hit all the right technical marks, but in my book which I call "so good it's bad" movies.

 

Just my two bits.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

democratising filmmaking does not help bad screenwriting, directing, acting, lighting, set design, etc. or makes distributing the film to larger audiences much easier. it still has to be a very good movie, much better than equivalent commercial movie because the indie film does not have distribution network or marketing available nor money to arrange them.

So one can make a movie with quicker turnaround and at least get an illusion that it is cheaper than it would have been 20 years ago but it is still very unlikely (as unlikely as back then I think) to get a profit out of it or even get back the costs of making it.

 

Democratising filmmaking may be even a bad thing because that encourages making mediocre/low quality content without paying attention to the learning curve. the end result is 100 or 1000 times more awfully crappy indie films and other content flooding the web when the amount of truly great work is not that much higher I think.

The gear also has to be updated every 2 years or so compared to the past when 10 or 20 or even 30 years for a camera body and editing equipment was perfectly normal. A super8 cartridge or a 16mm roll was not that expensive either unless one wanted to make a feature film.

 

What I mean is, democratising filmmaking does not make the indie films generally better. They may LOOK TECHNICALLY better than 20 years ago but they still have as bad writing, directing etc. than back then. better and cheaper cameras don't create experience or talent, at most they can encourage to experiment and learn more about filmmaking the hard way and that way help to make better movies someday

 

 

I have to agree 100%.

 

I think that access to "cheap" digital formats has LOWERED the quality of independent film, not raised it. If someone has to shoot on film and deal with the costs involved they do a much better job on every other aspect of the production. Film disciplines the filmmaker, a 5D does not.

 

I used to think that making a first feature was a great way for someone to jump into the industry because you learn to do by doing. But.....after watching now many dozen low budget digital first features I have changed that POV. The quality is usually so poor, I have to ask myself, what were these guys thinking?

 

Now I think people are better off learning as much as they can on other people's projects and gaining some real experience in film before jumping into a first feature. Or even *gasp* going to "film school."

 

R,

I love how the term "bad" is being thrown around in this thread as though there is some universal standard about what is entertaining and what isnt.

 

If speaking technically and comparing to Citizen Kane, practically every movie is bad. If speaking of what gives people a good time for 90-120 minutes then that becomes a whole different matter. I derived entertainment from some pretty "bad" movies in the past. But I didn't care what others thought of them because I thought they were fun flicks to pass the time. Not everything has to be a "Birth of a Nation" type film to be worth watching.

 

One of my favorite such films is the original Warlock with Julian Sands. Not a masterpiece by most any definition but I would have more fun watching it than 90% of new releases out now.

[Tyler Purcell]

I have to agree 100%.

 

I think that access to "cheap" digital formats has LOWERED the quality of independent film, not raised it. If someone has to shoot on film and deal with the costs involved they do a much better job on every other aspect of the production. Film disciplines the filmmaker, a 5D does not.

 

I used to think that making a first feature was a great way for someone to jump into the industry because you learn to do by doing. But.....after watching now many dozen low budget digital first features I have changed that POV. The quality is usually so poor, I have to ask myself, what were these guys thinking?

 

Now I think people are better off learning as much as they can on other people's projects and gaining some real experience in film before jumping into a first feature. Or even *gasp* going to "film school."

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

The sad fact is that because it's accessible, people just do it. They do instead of thinking. This floods the market with absolutely garbage product that fills up the $4.99 DVD bins with stuff that nobody in their right mind would watch. The good news is, the market for horribly produced features in the US is waining. I know people who work at those crappy C- movie production companies and they've cut budgets in half or even worse, just to be competitive. So as those movies are getting worse and worse, there is a little more room for the decent indies.

 

What people forget is the physical act of production and even post to a certain extent, is only a small portion of the over-all project. Script, Storyboards and Pre-Production, is where your movie is made. The meme that's floating around Facebook right now is "fix it in prep", which is exactly the opposite of what people currently do. It's so easy today to fix things months, maybe even years after the shoot in post. That paradigm is the heart and soul of the digital world we live in today. When you work on bigger films, when you see all the completely unnecessary visual effects shots, put there because during production, the filmmakers couldn't get their act together... it just makes you realize how bad the filmmakers are.

 

In the last 10 years, I've seen indy budgets go from 1.5M to 250k. With 1.5M, you can have a decent cast, you can have a decent union crew, you can have excellent support during production, decent post AND shoot on film. A 1.5M feature with the right script and good marketing potential, is something that could easily turn around and make 2 - 5M from domestic/international theatrical and video. A 250k movie (pre-production, production, post production, distribution) is going to be horrible, it just is. You're basically limiting yourself to green screen, visual effects, single locations, poor unknown actors, poor crew and most importantly, not have enough money left over for all the finishing work necessary to make it good.

 

What filmmakers don't get... and I say this to SO many people; it's FAR BETTER to produce high-end, well produced short subject products, then poorly made feature-length products. Just do the math... If you're making a 15 - 20 minute short film, it's probably 2 - 6 days worth of work at most. You'd raise $5k - $25k from friends, family and crowd funding. It needs to be a group effort as the scope of your final project will be based on that funding. Then all you do is work on weekends, grabbing talented friends to help shoot during the time off between their shoots. You pay them a reasonable rate, have excellent catering and have a lot of fun. It's easier to get bigger cast for a few hours on a weekend as well. Ya know, those little cameo's which help boost the projects validity, they go a lot further in a 15 minute short then a 90 minute feature.

 

I mean no matter what, getting a return investment on a short is nearly impossible. However, having lots of eyes on your project is far more important in my point of view. If you do something special like shoot it on 35mm and have prints for festivals, that really means something. Do a few shorts, get some work on a feature film to learn more about how things work and after a few years of fine tuning your craft, then you'll be ready to make that first feature.

 

:sigh: if only it were THAT simple. LOL :P

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

The sad fact is that because it's accessible, people just do it. They do instead of thinking. This floods the market with absolutely garbage product that fills up the $4.99 DVD bins with stuff that nobody in their right mind would watch. The good news is, the market for horribly produced features in the US is waining. I know people who work at those crappy C- movie production companies and they've cut budgets in half or even worse, just to be competitive. So as those movies are getting worse and worse, there is a little more room for the decent indies.

 

What people forget is the physical act of production and even post to a certain extent, is only a small portion of the over-all project. Script, Storyboards and Pre-Production, is where your movie is made. The meme that's floating around Facebook right now is "fix it in prep", which is exactly the opposite of what people currently do. It's so easy today to fix things months, maybe even years after the shoot in post. That paradigm is the heart and soul of the digital world we live in today. When you work on bigger films, when you see all the completely unnecessary visual effects shots, put there because during production, the filmmakers couldn't get their act together... it just makes you realize how bad the filmmakers are.

 

In the last 10 years, I've seen indy budgets go from 1.5M to 250k. With 1.5M, you can have a decent cast, you can have a decent union crew, you can have excellent support during production, decent post AND shoot on film. A 1.5M feature with the right script and good marketing potential, is something that could easily turn around and make 2 - 5M from domestic/international theatrical and video. A 250k movie (pre-production, production, post production, distribution) is going to be horrible, it just is. You're basically limiting yourself to green screen, visual effects, single locations, poor unknown actors, poor crew and most importantly, not have enough money left over for all the finishing work necessary to make it good.

 

What filmmakers don't get... and I say this to SO many people; it's FAR BETTER to produce high-end, well produced short subject products, then poorly made feature-length products. Just do the math... If you're making a 15 - 20 minute short film, it's probably 2 - 6 days worth of work at most. You'd raise $5k - $25k from friends, family and crowd funding. It needs to be a group effort as the scope of your final project will be based on that funding. Then all you do is work on weekends, grabbing talented friends to help shoot during the time off between their shoots. You pay them a reasonable rate, have excellent catering and have a lot of fun. It's easier to get bigger cast for a few hours on a weekend as well. Ya know, those little cameo's which help boost the projects validity, they go a lot further in a 15 minute short then a 90 minute feature.

 

I mean no matter what, getting a return investment on a short is nearly impossible. However, having lots of eyes on your project is far more important in my point of view. If you do something special like shoot it on 35mm and have prints for festivals, that really means something. Do a few shorts, get some work on a feature film to learn more about how things work and after a few years of fine tuning your craft, then you'll be ready to make that first feature.

 

:sigh: if only it were THAT simple. LOL :P

I hope this is not out of turn but your post sounds extremely condescending. I used to talk to you about two months ago and you seemed like a friendly and down to earth guy...what happened?

[Tyler Purcell]

I love how the term "bad" is being thrown around in this thread as though there is some universal standard about what is entertaining and what isnt.

Well there is a universal standard... we know what good movies are. We've all seen them and every year, there are a few that pop on the radar.

 

I don't go to the cinemas to waste time, I have a beautiful home theater for that. I go to the cinema to see and experience something I can't at home. Whether that's seeing a big movie opening night with an audience or seeing something presented on film, those are really the only two reasons I'd go.

 

A lot of people feel the same way, which is why unique ticket sales have been down year over year since the early 2000's. People would rather watch at home because it's less money and FAR less risk, thanks to the crap in theaters today.

 

There have always been bad movies, but today since there is a new way to see movies at home without having to hit up a video store, there is a lot more crappy content accessible at home then ever before.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Well there is a universal standard... we know what good movies are.

Pardon me but that is BS. You do not get to dictate to me what a good film is just because you repeat yourself.

 

Just because you have an inflated opinion of yourself, your work, and your opinion doesnt change the fact that EVERYONE is entitled to decide what they want to watch, like, and create.

[Tyler Purcell]

I hope this is not out of turn but your post sounds extremely condescending. I used to talk to you about two months ago and you seemed like a friendly and down to earth guy...what happened?

I spent the last 3 months working on two 250k indy features.

 

When it's time for post production it's "we can't afford to pay you up front, but we need a cut of the feature in a week".

 

Wait... A week? You do know it's takes longer then a week to even get a feature film synched up, let alone cut it. That's just one example of the insanity I'm dealing with.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I spent the last 3 months working on two 250k indy features.

 

When it's time for post production it's "we can't afford to pay you up front, but we need a cut of the feature in a week".

 

Wait... A week? You do know it's takes longer then a week to even get a feature film synched up, let alone cut it. That's just one example of the insanity I'm dealing with.

That may be so but you are coming across as a bit bitter lately. Perhaps some rest is in order...not to mention considering your professional reputation before you make controversial comments.