Thoughts on Film and Digital

[Michael LaVoie]

In this whole film vs digital debate I'm surprised no one has brought up the fact that film is hardly a "green" technology. Given that it goes through the same digital processes in post as digital, you're only adding a huge carbon footprint on top of it what with all the chemicals and extra waste associated with dealing with celluloid to begin with, negatives, release prints, shipping those canisters etc. The new Millenium DXL will have a much friendlier environmental impact than it's predecessors. Not something to completely ignore.

[Stuart Brereton]

Actually technicolor and Deluxe went under at nearly the same time at the end of 2013 I believe. Both for different reasons, but both labs were busy making prints the weeks before the cut off date. They were fully working facilities with no reason to shut their doors. Technicolor didn't want to invest in another lease and Deluxe's owner, felt film was dead, so they closed up shop.

 

 

The fact that Technicolor and Deluxe closed up for different reasons kinda flies in the face of your conspiracy against film.

 

 

had there been leeway for theaters to PAY for their own prints, instead of the studio's (many would have done that),

Your source for this information?

 

 

Had the status quo continued, with a slow ramp up to digital over 20 years, things would be very different today

You're joking right? Digital acquisition/distribution comes along, and proves itself to be both technologically and (importantly) economically viable, yet the studios are supposed to sit on it for 20 years? We're talking about an area of the industry which is evolving and improving almost on a weekly basis, yet you think it should have been phased in over a generation?

[Tyler Purcell]

The fact that Technicolor and Deluxe closed up for different reasons kinda flies in the face of your conspiracy against film.

Not really, they both closed due to predicting the future.

 

Your source for this information?

It was a thought. I was questioning the idea of theaters paying for prints and if they HAD been allowed to do that, would film projection stuck around.

 

You're joking right? Digital acquisition/distribution comes along, and proves itself to be both technologically and (importantly) economically viable, yet the studios are supposed to sit on it for 20 years? We're talking about an area of the industry which is evolving and improving almost on a weekly basis, yet you think it should have been phased in over a generation?

I disagree, on anything going theatrical, digital has been nothing but a costly mess. Most digital screens as of the end of 2015, are still LOWER RESOLUTION then good anamorphic 35mm film prints. For gosh sakes, just talk to the guys on film-tech in the digital section on how they have to defocus the projectors because the fixed pattern imagers, are distracting to audience members. What kind of technology does "softening" the image, make it better?

 

Plus, as I said earlier.... What good is a technology if less people can use it? If there are LESS theaters as a consequence of the technology change, how does that help the distributors? You'd think they'd want MORE screens showing their movies. But today, there are physically less screens out there, then prior to the digital push.

 

Film stopped evolving after digital audio came out in what, the mid 90's. Sure, there were slightly less grainy stocks made, but that's really the extent of the technology burst. High Definition digital cinematography has been around since the late 90's and today this exact moment, we're still using an almost identical resolution!!! Yes, camera prices have gone down, imagers have gotten better, we have higher resolution formats as well, but the net result is still a 2k image! So in almost 20 years, what the consumer sees at the theater, is almost identical to what the system started with 20 years ago during the first Toy Story movie.

 

When the industry is shooting and projecting in 8k, I will relax a bit... because then they will finally be up to the quality of film (5/70 or 15/70). But until then, digital hasn't even come close to the quality of those formats. Heck, when IMAX went digital, they had to make the screen smaller not because they couldn't develop a 1.45:1 display and playback device, but because the quality wouldn't be good enough. SO now even in IMAX, you're seeing sub-par quality compared to formats that have been around since the 50's!

 

So again, what "technological" breakthrough has actually made ANY difference at the box office? The reason we have crap movies is a direct effect of the technology boom. People are so interested in playing with tech and not simply telling a story, that's what people expect to see and every film has to out-do one another on the tech side. The "tech" (which includes all digital technology from acquisition to visual effects to distribution) should be thrown out the window with the sunday trash. I don't see ANY benefit, only detractors.

 

There are many filmmakers who went digital and are slowly starting to turn around and go back to grass roots again. I can see the "fun" of technology slowly weaning but the problem is, those filmmakers can't go back to film projection and photochemical finish because when the time came for them to speak up, they were so busy playing with new toys, nobody made a big enough stink. It wasn't until all the big labs closed and Kodak filed bankruptcy, that people stood up to make a difference. By that point, it was too late and what we have now is a limited art form... everything and I mean everything we do, MUST be digital at some part of it's life. This does not give filmmakers any option what so ever and its very disheartening.

 

All I want are options, that's it! If a filmmaker wants to distribute on 35, there should be a path to doing so and today, there really isn't.

[David Mullen ASC]

There haven't been fewer theaters due to the switch to digital:

http://www.natoonline.org/data/us-movie-screens/

 

If anything, today there are almost twice as many screens than there were 30 years ago, but if you just look from the mid-2000's when digital started taking over, the increase has been milder, but certainly there aren't fewer screens due to digital.

 

Personally I think we have too many screens right now anyway -- I can see the same movie at a dozen multiplexes in only a 15 mile radius of my house.

[Tyler Purcell]

There haven't been fewer theaters due to the switch to digital:

http://www.natoonline.org/data/us-movie-screens/

 

If anything, today there are almost twice as many screens than there were 30 years ago.

David, that data is "screens" not "theaters"

 

I'm referring to "theaters" the actual physical buildings.

 

The small-town theaters that couldn't afford to make the switch, either went out of business or were sold to big theater chains like AMC, Cinemark and Regal. These guys own more then half the theaters in this country, basically making a borderline monopoly. They made deals with Sony to get projectors on lease, stuff that mom and pop theaters couldn't do.

 

Again, this whole thing was a power play by these companies, who control the studio's and distributors. They wanted to buy up all those little theaters, kick the mom and pop's out, get rid of the projectionists and ready for this shocker... MAKE MORE PROFITS!

 

You do know that 2015 was the most profitable year for the studio's and theater companies since the 90's!

[David Mullen ASC]

David, that data is "screens" not "theaters"

 

I'm referring to "theaters" the actual physical buildings.

 

This is what you wrote:

 

 

Plus, as I said earlier.... What good is a technology if less people can use it? If there are LESS theaters as a consequence of the technology change, how does that help the distributors? You'd think they'd want MORE screens showing their movies. But today, there are physically less screens out there, then prior to the digital push.

 

You're the one who said there were fewer SCREENS out there today, not me.

[Stuart Brereton]

The big theater chains own the studios.

If this was true, how exactly were the studios able to set a deadline for "the end of 2013 for all theaters to be digital."

 

Not really, they both closed due to predicting the future.

 

 

The fact that they were able to predict their main source of income would soon disappear does not prove a conspiracy.

 

 

So again, what "technological" breakthrough has actually made ANY difference at the box office?

People are so interested in playing with tech and not simply telling a story,

 

If simply telling a story is all you care about, then it shouldn't make a difference what the origination format is. You seem to be as obsessed and zealous about the idea of shooting film as the people you accuse of only being interested in technology are about digital.

 

You sound like some hipster espousing the philosophy that vintage and traditional is somehow more authentic, and therefore better.

[Tyler Purcell]

Sorry, I mistyped... My point in that statement was diversity; more brick and mortar locations in diverse locations.

[Tyler Purcell]

No they don't. Even if they did, a small 2nd or 3rd run movie theater would pose no threat to them, and would still be providing the studios with income.

Yes, the theaters own the studio's. Do some research.

 

The fact that they were able to predict their main source of income would soon disappear does not prove a conspiracy.

I'm not trying to prove a conspiracy. I'm merely saying there is more to this puzzle then meets the eye, including some HUGE Chinese companies wanting a piece of America.

 

If simply telling a story is all you care about, then it shouldn't make a difference what the origination format is.

That's correct, but imagine if an artist could only paint with water color. What if all the other types of drawing and painting stopped existing? There would be some issues now wouldn't there.

 

To kill off a medium due to big businesses making decisions outside of the creatives who MAKE the product, is just flat out insanity.

 

You sound like some hipster espousing the philosophy that vintage and traditional is somehow more authentic, and therefore better.

Man, I grew up in a house that was originally constructed in 1770 and re-built in the mid 1880's. Do you think any of the structures we make today are going to last 200 years?

 

Yes, vintage is more authentic because it's proven. It's been around the block and back, yet survived.

 

It's not a "hipster" thing, I have dozens of friends who feel the same way I do. There is a certain essence, a certain feel about "vintage" that is disappearing very rapidly, to the detriment of society.

 

Again, it's about having options. If I want to live in a 200 year old house, I can. But if I want to make a movie using an older technology, I'm going to be shown the door. How does that work?

[Stuart Brereton]

Yes, the theaters own the studio's. Do some research.

 

 

I have. I haven't seen anything that shows either of the two largest theater chains (Regal & AMC) having any interest in the major studios. If you have links that prove what you're saying, I'd be happy to read them.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I do remember Paramount had a press release stating that they would cease shipment of film prints in 2013, which they made an exception for with "Interstellar" – but I really think that the double-blow of "Avatar"/subsequent 3D films (which saw the initial mass-push towards digital projection) and the SAG dispute were all it really took to deal that blow.

 

Maybe the biggest upset to me is the decline in repertory films being shown on film. Very often, a great rep house I used to frequent in NYC, will be showing a DCP of a film. Even if it's restored, I'm simply not interested in paying $14 to sit in a cramped theater if it's something I can get pretty close to at home on my 1080p projector. Watching the restoration of "The Third Man" last year was an instance where I was bit bummed, having seen a 35mm print of the photochemical restoration (from the 90s?) not long prior with lush blacks I remember from Robert Krasker's photography.

 

Metrograph has sort of addressed this head-on. They almost exclusively show rep films on 35mm or 16mm. Museum of the Moving Image, which does a great job at programming and sourcing prints, had one instance in which they showed the Godfather Parts I and II on a 35mm IB Print – a sold out screening with a line out the door. They had an encore showing of the film on a DCP a couple of weeks later and the house was half empty.

 

I'm all for shooting on whatever you want. I work with digital every day. But after reading a writeup in "Artforum" by Tacita Dean who cites medium specificity as an important part of her filmmaking, I'm very conscious about how I watch films I'm paying for.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Tyler Purcell]

I have. I haven't seen anything that shows either of the two largest theater chains (Regal & AMC) having any interest in the major studios. If you have links that prove what you're saying, I'd be happy to read them.

Regal, Cinemark and AMC are all owned by the same Chinese company.

 

If they choose not to show your movie, for whatever reason, you're screwed in the US.

 

So they have THE BIGGEST impact on what movies are made in this country because without them, there is no theatrical release.

 

Also, the same Chinese group that owns those theaters, also funds many of the big blockbusters, but through a subsidiary, so it doesn't seem monopolistic.

 

When you start digging, you start seeing the connections. I can't just copy and paste stuff, this is something I've studied over the years and learned from my industry friends. You can choose to believe them or not, but they have no reason to lie.

[Stuart Brereton]

Regal, Cinemark and AMC are all owned by the same Chinese company.

 

 

AMC is owned by a Chinese conglomerate. I could find nothing to suggest that Regal and Cinemark were also owned by the same company.

 

In any case, what you said was that the theater chains OWN the studios, which is demonstrably not true, and would fall foul of anti-trust laws even if it was. It is true that they have some influence, but it's evidently not that great, or they might have been able to prevent the switch to digital projection that they didn't want, as you yourself pointed out. It's also true that both Regal and AMC have interests in production, co-owning Open Road, and that AMC's parent company owns Legendary Entertainment, but this represents a tiny portion of the content created every year.

 

 

learned from my industry friends. You can choose to believe them or not, but they have no reason to lie.

I prefer verifiable facts to unsourced hearsay and opinion.

[David Mullen ASC]

The Supreme Court in 1948 in United States Vs. Paramount Pictures ruled that the studios could not own their own theater chains because it was a monopoly:

http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountdoc_1948supreme.htm

 

Of course, that only applied within the United States.

[Bruce Greene]

from Wikipedia: "National Amusements, Inc. is an American privately owned theater company based in Dedham, Massachusetts, United States. The company was founded in 1936, as the Northeast Theatre Corporation by Michael Redstone.

National Amusements is now owned by Michael Redstone's son, Sumner Redstone, who holds 80% of the company, and Sumner's daughter, Shari Redstone, who owns the remaining 20%. Through National Amusements, the Redstones control both the CBS Corporation (owner of CBS) andViacom (owner of Paramount Pictures) through supervoting shares.^[2]'

So, there is some connection between Paramount and theaters...

[John E Clark]

The Supreme Court in 1948 in United States Vs. Paramount Pictures ruled that the studios could not own their own theater chains because it was a monopoly:

http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountdoc_1948supreme.htm

 

Of course, that only applied within the United States.

 

What is not clear is if a 'holding' company such as Wanda which owns AMC and Legendary Pictures, violates Paramount... I suspect no... as Legendary is one of a collection of holdings, and AMC is not a subsidiary of Legendary, nor is Legendary a subsidiary of AMC.

 

In any case, it is true that 3 chain companies dominate the theaters in the US. But unless they are found to 'price fix' or make other noncompetitive agreements, monopoly laws don't apply.

 

It's my observation that with the rise of the the multiplex, the tendency has been to limit material to a certain type... say PG-13, and R which doesn't have 'too much sex, drugs and rock-n-roll', but violence is ok.

[Tyler Purcell]

AMC is owned by a Chinese conglomerate. I could find nothing to suggest that Regal and Cinemark were also owned by the same company.

Well, they are. It's hard to find the data but if you search Wikipedia and read through all the text, you will see the acquisition dates.

 

In any case, what you said was that the theater chains OWN the studios, which is demonstrably not true, and would fall foul of anti-trust laws even if it was. It is true that they have some influence, but it's evidently not that great, or they might have been able to prevent the switch to digital projection that they didn't want, as you yourself pointed out. It's also true that both Regal and AMC have interests in production, co-owning Open Road, and that AMC's parent company owns Legendary Entertainment, but this represents a tiny portion of the content created every year.

There are no laws stating the owners of the theaters can control the content they put into those theaters. In fact the anti trust law is just the opposite... The studios controlling the theaters.

 

Yes, the big blockbuster movies are made by committee and in the executive meetings are representatives from AMC who give their input. So not only are the people pitching properties going after the studios, but the theaters themselves. Mind you, 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.

[Stuart Brereton]

There are no laws stating the owners of the theaters can control the content they put into those theaters. In fact the anti trust law is just the opposite... The studios controlling the theaters.

 

The 1948 US vs Paramount case was about studios owning theaters, yes, but Anti-trust laws deal with monopolies generally. Theater chains controlling studios would be an inversion of the historical situation, and still anti-competitive

 

 

the big blockbuster movies are made by committee.... 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.

That's quite a claim to make. You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical, as without details that just sounds like an argument from authority.

[John E Clark]

The 1948 US vs Paramount case was about studios owning theaters, yes, but Anti-trust laws deal with monopolies generally. Theater chains controlling studios would be an inversion of the historical situation, and still anti-competitive

 

 

There were several aspects of the Paramount Decision, of which the ownership of theater chains by studios was one.

 

There was also the practiced, instituted by Paramount, of Block Booking, and even 'sight unseen booking'. Independent theater owners, were offered 'package' deals of films. Paramount would offer a film with a hit star, then pack the booking with films with lesser known, and of dubious 'quality'. In 'Blind Bidding', the theater owner pretty much had no idea 'what else' was in the package.

 

The Paramount decision outlawed studio theater chain ownership, as well as the 'block booking, seen or unseen'. Now a theater owner or chain owner may pick an choose what films they take up.

 

Sort of like Cable these days... where one has to buy a 'package' whether one wants the channels or not, just to get the channels one does want.

 

I think it is because in terms of 'nation wide' there are a number of cable companies, hence the Sherman Act or various decisions and additional anti-monopoly law at the federal level can't be applied, despite the cable company probably being the 'only single choice' for content distribution in a given locale.

 

Also Anti-Trust can't be applied just because there is only one supplier, even nation wide, if that supplier is not proven to be actively excluding competition.

 

For example if I had a Direct Brain Distribution System (DBDS), sold it high and low... if no one enters that market, be it due to my patent on the only way that process can be done (that is the 1 billion clairvoyant cockroach brains (C^2B Technology) required to telepathically distribute the media), or because of the expense, even if I do offer 'reasonable licensing', of setting up a system, again 'anti-trust' will most likely not apply.

[Tyler Purcell]

The 1948 US vs Paramount case was about studios owning theaters, yes, but Anti-trust laws deal with monopolies generally. Theater chains controlling studios would be an inversion of the historical situation, and still anti-competitive

If the cable companies aren't a monopoly, then what I describe is no way a monopoly. Heck time warner, my cable provider, owns TV networks, prevents other content providers from distributing their networks. They block any other internet provider from coming near my neighborhood and worst off, they force people to buy packages of content they don't need or want. Plus kill package deals without informing the consumer. If you want to talk about manipulative and monopolistic practices, time warner is at the top of that list and they get away with murder because they pay off the right people in government.

That's quite a claim to make. You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical, as without details that just sounds like an argument from authority.

If you think the industry isn't controlled by the distribution methods, I don't know what to say.

[Stuart Brereton]

If you think the industry isn't controlled by the distribution methods, I don't know what to say.

I was actually referring to your claim to be a creative consultant on Hollywood blockbusters.

[Gregg MacPherson]

... the big blockbuster movies are made by committee.....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.

 

So which big blockbusters were you a creative consultant on Tyler? And consulting regarding what? Something among the hailstorm of professed achievements has to be real. Perhaps this is it?

[Tyler Purcell]

One of them was the development of the Marvel products. I worked as a development creative consultant with a small team of people. This has nothing to do with making a movie, it's all the prep work to convince a studio on what to make and how it will be sold and marketed. I was dragged along to the meetings with studio execs and even asked to speak on a few occasions. Unfortunately I had a falling out with the owners of the company after I got a full time job I couldn't refuse. It was a lot of fun, but it was almost entirely spec work, so money wasn't consistent.

[Stuart Brereton]

it was almost entirely spec work, so money wasn't consistent.

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

[John E Clark]

If the cable companies aren't a monopoly, then what I describe is no way a monopoly. Heck time warner, my cable provider, owns TV networks, prevents other content providers from distributing their networks. They block any other internet provider from coming near my neighborhood and worst off, they force people to buy packages of content they don't need or want. Plus kill package deals without informing the consumer. If you want to talk about manipulative and monopolistic practices, time warner is at the top of that list and they get away with murder because they pay off the right people in government.

 

Unfortunately cable companies are not seen as monopolies since they cover only 'local areas'.

 

A company could spend the money, put up poles, dig up ground, with attendant expense of such, to provide a 'competitive' alternative... right...

 

Direct TV, via satellite and ATT's reuse of existing infrastructure, has allowed for limited 'competition', but that's all it takes to avoid a monopoly.

 

What the big talk in cable land is called 'over the top(OTT)' content. Netflix and Hulu being 2 such providers, and now more content providers are developing or providing alternatives to 'cable' via the Internet.

 

"net neutrality" is a method of dealing with the potential for 'monopolistic' practices by cable companies that provide internet service.