Where do you think the industry is heading?

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't agree that you don't need talent to edit with an NLE, because you do still need to know how to tell a story. An editor who doesn't understand what pacing and suspense are won't give you a good cut whether on an NLE or by splicing film.

The point is, in this "trial and error" world with multiple undo layers, it's easy for anyone to learn how to edit, get a job editing and still not really be a good editor. With film, if you're not a good editor, you don't have a job.,

 

Most of the so-called DPs around here are really just rental bodies with cameras. They don't get involved in designing shots or lighting, they light the gaffers take care of the lighting, and for the most part, no one seems to worry much about blocking outside of action sequences and continuity.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

That's one of the biggest detriments to cinema these days. Indie films end up looking bad because the people making them usually assume that raising production value means putting the camera on a jib and keeping it moving, rather than about lighting, blocking, stage direction, portraying emotion, and art direction.

The problem comes down to holding potential buyers and audiences attention. They expect fast pacing, quick cuts and lots of camera moves, so indie filmmakers strive to deliver those things first. Don't let the audience rest for a moment and maybe they'll forget about the poor acting, non-existant production design and horrible lighting. Also, because there is no need to wait for film to be processed, you can shoot WAY quicker then you can on film. That speed of shooting, puts camera's on people's shoulders or steadicam, rather then on a dolly. Slow tracking shot's are almost a thing of the past.

[John E Clark]

On the other hand, back in the 1930's and 40's before TV, people walked into movie screenings in mid-show and watched back-to-back movies plus newsreels and cartoons, etc. -- it wasn't necessarily some sacred activity where everyone had this reverence for movies, a number of people consumed it rather carelessly.

 

When I was young there were only a few movie houses that cleared out the theater after each showing. They were usually the high priced ticket places. The movie houses I could afford usually had 2-4 showings of the same movie, and one could stay through all the showings... then there were some houses that were nearly 24 hours, only closing at about 3-4 am, to open up at 8-9 am. They had perhaps 4 or 5 films shown in cycles. For 25 or 25 cents those did provide my youthful self to be 'somewhere' at night...

 

Then there were drive-ins... who ever watched what was on the screen... unless one was married and had a boatload of kids in the back of the family station wagon...

Edited February 25, 2015 by John E Clark

[John E Clark]

 

In my media arts grad program, there was an entire class devoted to the visual elements. Talk about an eye-opener. It was a GREAT class. Then again, the chair of the department was a cinematographer and he also taught the class, so I guess that helped. ;)

 

I highly recommend the text we were using: The Visual Story

 

I had to go in the wayback machine to look at a college catalog of where I attended, and in their 'Television and Film' department, only 'Radio and Television' BAs were given, and they had two classes in 'Film' film, one of which was a Super 8mm class... not applicable for degree credit, and on class going over Film equipment... probably not an actual 'shooting' class.

 

The rest of the curiculum was TV/Radio.... which is why I did not select that program by a straight Art program...

 

The Wife attended the other 'major' college in the area and their 'media arts' program was mostly theoretical talkytalk... with only a couple of 'film/production' classes, with video being the more significant player, with again one class using Super 8mm for a 'film' experience class. (I think that one was good for degree work...). I worked with her on the 'video' projects, because at the time I was developing software for industrial video applications so I could use 'work' equipment to produce better works for her... but I developed an absolute 'hate' for video... and I mean RS-170/NTSC video... which is perhaps why I recoil at the use of the term 'video' for anything having to do with digital motion picture capture these days that is not destined for broadcast... but I digress...

 

I took a 'production' class a few years ago at a local junior college... I though with all the hubub with digital... the class would be filled, and the school would have some 'good' equipment... what I found was a number of lackluster students, minimal equipment, and that I had better equipment and more enthusiasm for 'film' than most of the students.

 

The other organization that has a small theater and has a number of filmmaking classes, had better students, who appeared to be far more motivated to make films than what I found at the junior college...

Edited February 25, 2015 by John E Clark

[Tyler Purcell]

There were plenty of "disposable" B-movies shot on film decades ago, it was just harder to dispose of them... The issue isn't really the technology, just the attitude behind the camera.

Absolutely! But there are many positive things about technology restrictions.

 

Filmmakers who strive to be artists, pretty much ignore technology... it's just a tool to achieve their goals.

 

The problem lies with people who wouldn't be able to make art without technology.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure but historically plenty of people worked on movies who weren't necessarily competent or artistic -- the financial and technical barriers were just as much an impediment to both artists and non-artists. I think the only difference today is one of volume now that barriers are even lower, more stuff is being churned out. But it would be hard to prove that a lower percentage of people shooting now are artistic than before.

 

I suppose you could argue though that technical skill sets are getting lower because the technology is more user-friendly, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.