Pat Murray

Not good value for what you're doing as pointed out by James.

All my projects have been on film so far. I've also helped other people who used digital for their projects. Whatever works for the filmmaker and his/her vision. I expect to use digital eventually as well. When it's the right medium for a particular project. Contrary to what you keep saying on these boards, digital has not democratized filmmaking. Before cheap HD cams there was cheap 16mm and Super 8. It is the distribution of films that needs to be democratized and the internet has helped to some degree.

I think they are both right, but IMDB's chart can be confusing. Wiki says a total of $33 million, but that might include the director's cut 10th anniversary re-release. It appears that the movie played to mostly empty theaters for around 4 weeks.

Matthew beat me to it. Pacific Rim is not a bomb by any stretch of the imagination. According to Wikidpedia it was made for 190 million and it's still early days for the film. If you go to Rotten Tomotoes and other sites there is an over 70% rating from critics and over 80% rating from viewers so it will probably do well over the long run thanks to positive word of mouth. When it comes to movies in the 200 million range I think you have to distinguish between losing money and bomb. Gigli, made for $75 million brought in 7 million. That's what I call a bomb. I think the question we should ask isn't 'is the blockbuster movie dead?' or are 'audiences interested in these type of movies'? It should be, are studios spending too much on tent pole pictures? Here's an interesting article comparing Disney to Universal. http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/2013/07/a-tale-of-two-studios.html

There's nothing wrong with mindless popcorn movies. I enjoyed Olympus Has Fallen, but I, like many others, prefer my Star Trek to be about something. Not just, start with action scene pew, pew, pew, introduce characters and deal with aftermath of opening actions scene, enter villain, pew, pew, pew, our heros are down and out, heros go on journey to defeat villain, pew, pew, pew, villain's weakness is finally figured out, finish with dragged out chase scene between hero(s) and villain, pew, pew, pew, catch hero, tell lame jokes. The end.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but this movie appears to be ripping off, without giving credit in the trailers/marketing, an Anime movie I watched for about 40 minutes (all I could handle) a month ago. Exact same premise, aliens wipe out most of earth, the last hope of humanity is to build robots as big as the aliens and they are piloted by people who are cerably connected to the machines. Just like in the trailers. I didn't find the anime version very interesting, I'm not too hopeful for Pacific Rim.

I've pointed it out with facts, so it's not more than just saying they are flawed. They are flawed. They are also working on the false premise that governments are for profit entities. There is a reason why we separate profit from non-profit, public funds from private funds.

Should I waste my time doing the math and pointing out the obvious again or should I just bang my head against the wall. That economist is just sabre rattling and throwing out figures that Joe Six pack would find outrageous, but in reality only represent something like .0001% of the budget. Also love the babble about giving corporate welfare to one industry. You don't really believe that load of hooey do you, Brian?

This stuff interests me as well. I have a book on independant filmmaking from over 20 years ago and it dedicates a whole chapter on the distribution process. What I read in the OP article is pretty much mirrored in the Chapter. Filmmaker pays for all distributor expenses, even though distributor gets most of the profits. A filmmaker could produce a 10 milion dollar movie that makes 150 million and wind up owing the distributor 2 million. LOL. Distribution is where the money is at! IIRC, a distributor would take 70% from that 150 million as his/her "share" and then take all advertising, prints etc. expenses out of the filmmaker's 30%. Based on the OP article, the studios certainly understand this truth. That's why I think the internet is the true game changer, not cheap digital cameras. Filmmakers have always had the option of telling their stories cheaply, but the ability to distirubute and be paid for your work is much easier now than before. Granted, it might be tough to get on 3000 screens for a weekend, but by four walling the movie, putting it out to festivals, selling it online and distributing it to Netflix, tv broadcasters etc. you could make some cash. Assuming you have a great story, which can overcome cheap production values.

If the films were lost it was because of a) negligence/fire (same can happen to digital and almost happened to Toy Story 2) b) because the studio tossed the prints and negatives once they were no longer deemed profitable. I hate to break it to you, nothing lasts forever, but some things last longer than others if they are taken care of. We can still watch film from a hundred years ago. Leave a digital file in its original format and see how easy it is to watch 100 years from now. Anyways, my point is, doesn't matter, film or digital, they both have their archiving challenges and whether or not a movie survives is up to the people charged with its protection and pirates/movie theaters that kept their prints.

Films get ravaged by time for the same reasons digital files are damaged, laziness, lack of interest in spending resources on maintaining commercial properties that no longer hold much commercial value. If you want to improve archiving of films, you've got to make it profitable for the people who own the rights to the movies. There was an LA Times story posted here, you can look for it, about some of the problems with digital. 1. There have been 20 format changes in the last 5 years. The cost of continually updating the digital files reportedly closes the gap in costs between film and digital considerably. Even the super digital archiving device you think will be invented one day will likely have multiple format changes. What's the point in sticking to one format? Where's the money in that?? Beyond my cynicism, there's also the fact that humanity is a long way from perfect technology. We're always looking for ways to improve upon our technology, that means eventual obsolescence for whatever it is you think will be the perfect digital archiving tool. 2. There was an example of Toy Story 2 nearly being lost forever because somebody hit the delete button. We can watch the movie today because an employee made a copy to show to her kids the day before. With film all you have to do is pick it up and project light through it and you've got an image. I'm 50/50 on both mediums, so spare me your childish immature vulgarities and consider as a student how much more useful (employable) you'd be once you leave school if you weren't so aggressively one dimensional.

Agreed. I think it was John Waters who said the pen and paper are the cheapest artistic medium and the 20th century produced no Shakespeares. The comment about the camera was surprisingly ignorant anyways. Some poor farm girl isn't going to be able to afford, nor will a rental house give her, a digital camera that gives comparable images to 35mm. Her "masterpiece" is going to be in some crappy low end "HD" or "Standard Definition" camcorder, which is no different than back in the film days when aspiring farm girls and other future directorial greats shot movies on Super 8 and later 16mm. Spielberg shot and presented a feature film on Super 8 when he was a teen and reportedly got his money ($500) back selling (four walling) tickets to the see the movie. I don't know what inflation is today from when Speilberg shot his Super 8 film, but I've got a buddy who shot a short film on a standard definition camcorder and the final bill was $5000. Regardless of your medium and Chris' bullying in this thread, to shoot a proper professional film costs a lot of money, whether you use digital or film. The true democratization of film, IMO, doesn't happen because people can now shoot on cheap low quality digital cameras versus cheap low quality film cameras, it's the access to distribution. You can set up a website and a paypal account, post your trailers and voila! You're a film maker and distributor. No more four walling in church basements and wherever else you can set up a Super 8 or 16mm projector cheap. It's also cheap to send out your movie to film festivals, agents, other distributors etc. I also agree that Coppola is probably a little too off-handed because his comments completely ignore the works of John Cassavetes, the French New Wave, the British New Wave, the Midnight Movies of the late 60s and early 70s, etc. I'm sure people can add an even larger list of independant filmmakers who used cheap cameras and film stock to create low budget Mozartesque cinematic masterpieces that broke the "professionalism" barrier. At the end of the day, the only thing new about digital is digital itself. Pick the medium that works best for you and good luck with your financing. :-)

LOL. You'll be happy to know I'm not a Quebeccer. I live in Ottawa, but living in Ottawa it can be hard not to feel like a Quebeccer sometimes! So hopefully that makes the last post easier. Your other previous post is exactly the agenda I was alluding too. Job thieves and I am sympathetic to people from Hollywood. Billions of dollars going elsewhere is hard on the local economy. I also agree that people don't realize that the investment in the film industry is mostly for the benefit of local talent and infrastructure. If Michigan is bringing in big budgeted Hollywood movies, but are unable to set up a base of local talent, studio buildings, film schools etc. etc. through their investment then they aren't doing it right. Heck, even little ole Ottawa is getting a brand spanking new studio for television and small production films (straight to tv/DVD). As you pointed out, this benefits the local economy. I'd be happy to see all the Hollywood productions go back to Hollywood IF that means the investment goes into Canadian made movies and television and the growth of a proper national cinema for Canada.

LOL!

Louisiana. According to this article, Louisiana paid out 231 million in state subsidies to the film industry in 2012. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/08/film_tax_credits_cost_state_to.html According to this budget report, Louisiana had a 25 billion dollar budget. http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Louisiana_state_budget That equals .00924 percent of the budget AND the State is getting some or most of that money back depending on who you talk too. In the above article slamming the tax credit we get this all too familiar quote: "It'll be a way for Louisiana to reinvest in education and health care and other areas that have really suffered over the past four years from consecutive budget cuts." Hmmmm...a .00924 percent budget cut is really going to make any kind of difference in the Health Care and Education? PLUS other areas???? I don't think so. This is all hyperbole and propoganda. Keeping the readers in the weeds, but no perspective from the big picture. Let's get honest here and quit with the hidden agendas.

Or State for that matter.

There's a reason governments are called non-profit. I bet Lousianna gets a lot less back on Parks and Recreation spending. How about building and maintenance of roads and other infrastructure? The citizens give the government tax dollars to support a community that provides jobs, good infrastructure and security, but also quality of life, arts, culture and sports. What kind of person wants to live in a city run by Vulcans?

BTW, According to the Michigan Fin report for 2012 Revenues of 56.1 Billion exceeded expenses of $51.8 billion. Pg 16 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/budget/CAFR_FY_2012_413282_7.pdf Assuming Michigan spent 50 billion in 2010, film incentives to Disney cost .0008% of the provincial budget. So, if roads aren't being looked after. If sewers are falling apart. The problem isn't overspending on the Arts. Funny how people are so quick to pull out the infrastructure canard when talking about arts funding, but nobody ever questions spending on incentives for other industries. eg computer, manufacturing etc.

Those who know the cost of everything, know the value of nothing.

Ha!

I do agree with you here and it's too bad that English Canada doesn't value arts funding the way Quebec does. Giving tax money to "dirty artists" rather than industry goes against our WASPy Anglo origins. Pip! Pip! Where I live, there's a drive-in on the Quebec side with two screens. One playing Hollywood movies in English the other a mix of Hollywood and Quebec movies in French. A movie made in Quebec on the French double bill is a fairly common occurance and the cars aren't pulling out when it's on. On the English side, maybe an Atom Egoyan movie will play for a couple of weeks at the local 24 screen multi-plex. More likely it'll play the art house theatre for 4-6 days.

LOL. B+ for effort.

Sure it is and no problem on my part regarding your first point. Stay where you are if you can't appreciate a Capital city with a canal running through the middle of it, a massive Greenbelt and many more recreational areas as well as a few hundred kilometers of bike paths. When I visit a US city with these features it'll be a first.

LOL. As Canadians let's not air our dirty laundry on an international forum. I agree that we should get behind any project that brings international attention. Language and identity politics between Quebec and the rest of Canada is a long complicated story. Besides, you can't complain about Quebec whinning for tax payer funds without acknowledging the 3rd class status they used to "enjoy" at the hands of an Anglo minority (in Quebec and specificaly Montreal) with the help of the Catholic Church and complicit provinicial governments who worked with the Feds to maintain the statas quo. The Duplessis government being one of the worst. I grew up in Ottawa on the Quebec border and I took French Immersion in school so my perspective is different than somebody from Toronto. There's a reason why one of the greatest rivalries in pro sports is the Leafs v Habs.

Worth noting - I apologize if this has already been mentioned - that Big Sur was accepted into the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. A tought festival to get into with so many films entered, bravo to Dave and the rest of the team. I tried to see the film, but I could never work it into my festival schedule. Much the pity. Hopefully I'll get another chance to see it on the big screen later this year. Fingers crossed.