Jump to content

Come on, Star Wars


Recommended Posts

 

Now you're using the term "movie" which is simply short for moving pictures. This would apply to both.

 

But it's funny you picked "The Room". Because it was shot on film AND video at the same time, since Wiseau didn't know what look he wanted.

I'm not sure if the end product was film, video or a mix of both, but I still remember the odd billboard for it on La Brea. Man, how I miss home.

Film is a generic term to most people. It's only people who regard the medium as more important than the message who would seek to draw a distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think that's a particularly fair argument Tyler. I copped the shortest possible end of the stick (timing-wise) of the digital revolution. As I spent three years learning exclusively on film, and came out of school in 2008 to the shiny new world of the Red One and 5DMkII. Film was instantly rendered unattainable for newbies like myself, and digital was a completely unknown quantity.

Well, in the late 90's when I started my education, film was pretty inexpensive and when you take into account free cameras from school and low-cost labs, it was a no-brainer.

 

Now my point isn't either/or, my point is film was thrown away and digital took its place. To me, that is blasphemy and it's not about technology, it's about teaching people about the way things WERE done and then teaching them the way things ARE done today. If I had my druthers, I would buy every Mitchell BNC left and place them at film schools and force students to learn with them AS WELL.

 

What does this do? It gives students RESPECT for the movies of the past and how they were made. The fact there isn't an endless "cheap" supply of media. The fact you can't just shoot 20 minute takes. The fact cameras are big and hard to move, taking crews of people to work them. The fact you NEED to slate in order to sync sound. The fact you have to treat every moment the camera runs like it's costing you money. There are dozens of other "technical" reasons you would want to teach students this, but these are some of the no-as-talked about reasons.

 

Shoot forward to today, and this digital age that Lucas owns so much credit for ushering in. And kids at uni have Alexas, Reds and FS7s to learn on, and even highschool students have HD/4k S35mm cameras to work with. The access to appropriate equipment to learn on has improved profoundly. And I can't see how that's a bad thing.

I never said digital was a bad thing. I teach digital right along with my film course, they are one and the same.

 

Yes, kids these days think that buying a camera will garnish them work and they're right in some ways. Where they're wrong however, is that just owning equipment doesn't make you money since EVERYONE owns or can get a Dragon or Alexa, it almost seems like a snap of a finger.

 

Honestly, a camera body is worthless anyway. You can own all the camera bodies you want, without lenses, without support, without a mattebox, follow focus, rails, monitors, wireless video, yada, yada, yada... your kit doesn't have that much value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

And what is 'real' filmmaking? Are you suggesting that a film cannot be authentic unless shot on celluloid? The vast majority of people who work in the film industry, all of whom are 'filmmakers', in their own way, work in occupations that have nothing to do with the medium in which the film is made. Hair, make-up, wardrobe, production design, props, stunts etc, etc. All of these people do the same job regardless of whether it's film or data running through the camera. To suggest that 'real' filmmaking is innately tied to the format on which you shoot is immensely blinkered, and does a huge disservice to the efforts of other crew members.

A FILMMAKER is someone who writes, produces, directs content that came from their own mind, it's "THEIR" project.

 

A CREW PERSON, is someone who is hired to perform a job on a production.

 

Real "filmmakers" are people who write, produce and direct their own stories using the medium the word came from.

 

Also, most "filmmakers" work for themselves, they do not have jobs, they do not work as a "crew person", they work on their own projects, which they find funding to produce.

 

A good example of a MODERN "filmmaker" would be; Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan. People who write, produce and direct their own productions using the medium of their title; "Filmmaker"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the term 'filmmaker' is one that you're not going to find a general agreement on. It can mean what you want it to mean. To Tyler, it means an auteur - A single person who is responsible from the product from beginning to end. For me, it means anyone who is involved in the making of a film (hence the term film-maker). Just like the term 'film' itself. To some people, it means 'celluloid' , to others its a generic term for a movie. Neither person is wrong, since there is no accepted standard for these terms.

 

"Also, most "filmmakers" work for themselves, they do not have jobs, they do not work as a "crew person", they work on their own projects, which they find funding to produce."
This one I can't get behind. You're basically saying that there are only a handful of filmmakers in the world, which is stretching it a little in my opinion. It's exceedingly rare to find someone who has the ability to produce, write, direct, and edit their own movie - and do it while finding the funding for it as well. It's just not the way the industry works any longer. Maybe back in the days of Smith and Rodriguez it was possible, but the industry has changed entirely now. Even with funding, unless your film is produced with the support of a studio, your odds of getting any meaningful distribution is slim to none. Not impossible - but the days when you could make a good movies and see it plasted on screens across the country is over.

 

So, I guess we can use the term filmmaker to mean what you say it means, Tyler - but this will ultimately lead to the term dying entirely, since such auteur filmmakers are becoming less and less viable. That is why, while the terms can mean different things, I don't think people should apply them so literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A FILMMAKER is someone who writes, produces, directs content that came from their own mind, it's "THEIR" project.

 

A CREW PERSON, is someone who is hired to perform a job on a production.

 

Real "filmmakers" are people who write, produce and direct their own stories using the medium the word came from.

 

Also, most "filmmakers" work for themselves, they do not have jobs, they do not work as a "crew person", they work on their own projects, which they find funding to produce.

 

A good example of a MODERN "filmmaker" would be; Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan. People who write, produce and direct their own productions using the medium of their title; "Filmmaker"

What a ridiculously pompous definition. I assume you're including yourself in this exclusive club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film is a generic term to most people. It's only people who regard the medium as more important than the message who would seek to draw a distinction.

 

Stuart, film is not meant to be a generic term. It's an art in and of itself. With film, the medium is married to the message, because what you see, looks like that, because it's on film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Merriam-Webster Definition of "film"

1a : a thin skin or membranous covering : pellicle
1b : an abnormal growth on or in the eye
2 : a thin covering or coating a film of ice
3a : an exceedingly thin layer : lamina
3b (1) : a thin flexible transparent sheet (as of plastic) used especially as a wrapping (2) : a thin sheet of cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose coated with a radiation-sensitive emulsion for taking photographs
4 : motion picture
Calling a motion picture a "film" is a common usage of the term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Merriam-Webster Definition of "film"

1a : a thin skin or membranous covering : pellicle
1b : an abnormal growth on or in the eye
2 : a thin covering or coating a film of ice
3a : an exceedingly thin layer : lamina
3b (1) : a thin flexible transparent sheet (as of plastic) used especially as a wrapping (2) : a thin sheet of cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose coated with a radiation-sensitive emulsion for taking photographs
4 : motion picture
Calling a motion picture a "film" is a common usage of the term.

 

 

Well you can bet they didn't have digital video when that dictionary was written. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, technically, if we want to define what SHOULD be a 'Film-maker':

 

A person who makes film

 

Technically, this means the guy who makes a roll of scotch tape is a film-maker.

 

Therein lies the inherent issue with trying to attach definitive terms to art forms. Of course, when the term 'filmmaker' is used - most people know that we are referring to people who makes movies. Same with the term 'film' - while it has a clinical definition (as David posted above), the general consensus is that 'film' means 'movie', as long as 'film' is used in the correct context.

 

AKA: I'm going to AMC to see the new Star Wars film.

 

So, you can argue all day about your opinion on the term 'film' and 'filmmaker' and what it should or shouldn't mean, but the reality is that there are preconceived notion that already exist - and your belief (or lack thereof) in those notions will not change the end result. You can argue that 'filmmaker' means an 'auteur director who shoots only on celluloid' till you're blue in the face, but the vast majority of the world is still going to see the term 'filmmaker' as someone who makes a movie. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Stuart, film is not meant to be a generic term. It's an art in and of itself. With film, the medium is married to the message, because what you see, looks like that, because it's on film.

Anyone can record a story by running a roll of film through a camera. Millions and millions of hours of 'stories' have been shot on Super 8 cameras by people who had no film training whatsoever. Shooting film does not make you a better film maker.

 

The skills required to competently produce, execute and edit a movie have very little to do with celluloid itself. 99% of the tasks involved are the same no matter whether the medium is film or digital. It's a rather pompous argument to suggest otherwise.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the general consensus is that 'film' means 'movie', as long as 'film' is used in the correct context.

I'll go as far as saying that a film is only a "movie" once it's found distribution. That is something I learned from Roger Corman, and it is also taught by Dov Simens. ;-)

 

Anyone can record a story by running a roll of film through a camera. Millions and millions of hours of 'stories' have been shot on Super 8 cameras by people who had no film training whatsoever. Shooting film does not make you a better film maker.

 

The skills required to competently produce, execute and edit a movie have very little to do with celluloid itself. 99% of the tasks involved are the same no matter whether the medium is film or digital. It's a rather pompous argument to suggest otherwise.

An argument I'll stick to because it's ridiculous to say that video is film. Shooting film does not make you a "better" film maker, it makes you a film maker, period.

Edited by Samuel Berger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument I'll stick to because it's ridiculous to say that video is film. Shooting film does not make you a "better" film maker, it makes you a film maker, period.

So, to you it's just a question of semantics, whereas to Tyler, it seems to be a qualitative judgement.

 

If a 'Film' is not a 'film' unless it's on celluloid, what do you suggest we call everything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to you it's just a question of semantics, whereas to Tyler, it seems to be a qualitative judgement.

I'm not sure about Tyler's view. When I read him talk about it, I see two distinct trains of thought going on simultaneously, in his posts. You seem to be trying to stick to one of them, which I guess is a normal coping mechanism.

 

 

If a 'Film' is not a 'film' unless it's on celluloid, what do you suggest we call everything else?

I'm telling you that wood figurines are not wood figurines unless they're made out of wood, and you are telling me that I should count plastic figurines as wood figurines. What do you think you should call plastic figurines?

Edited by Samuel Berger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about Tyler's view. When I read him talk about it, I see two distinct trains of thought going on simultaneously, in his posts. You seem to be trying to stick to one of them, which I guess is a normal coping mechanism.

 

 

I'm telling you that wood figurines are not wood figurines unless they're made out of wood, and you are telling me that I should count plastic figurines as wood figurines. What do you think you should call plastic figurines?

They are all figurines, though, regardless of the material used. You want to stick to a narrow definition of the term 'Film'. That's fine, I just happen to think it's unnecessarily reductive. The terms 'Film' and 'Movie' are used interchangeably by millions of viewers, and to insist on a narrow definition seems to serve no purpose other than pedantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are all figurines, though, regardless of the material used. You want to stick to a narrow definition of the term 'Film'. That's fine, I just happen to think it's unnecessarily reductive. The terms 'Film' and 'Movie' are used interchangeably by millions of viewers, and to insist on a narrow definition seems to serve no purpose other than pedantry.

 

If we lose language, we lose civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

For the record, I think the term film or filmmaker is universal to anyone that shoots anything on any format, but just to play film purists advocate for a second... and this question is for everybody... would you find it wise or unwise for a producer or a director that is shooting their next movie on film to hire the best DP in the world even if that DP has never actually shot anything on film, only digital?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If we lose language, we lose civilization.

Language evolves. Dictionaries don't define words, just record their usage. 'Film' has been used as descriptive term for the entire movie making process for a very long time now. By your definition, the Film industry would be only companies involved in the manufacture and processing of celluloid. Film makers could be anyone from the guy who creates the chemistry to the the person who slits the film. But, I'm guessing that you don't want to be that literal about it, just literal enough to make a distinction where one is not really needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I think the term film or filmmaker is universal to anyone that shoots anything on any format, but just to play film purists advocate for a second... and this question is for everybody... would you find it wise or unwise for a producer or a director that is shooting their next movie on film to hire the best DP in the world even if that DP has never actually shot anything on film, only digital?

If they truly were the best DP in the world, I don't imagine it would take much time for them to figure out their exposures. For lesser DPs, yes, a little experience would be invaluable :)

 

It's interesting, though, that it should be a question of the DP's competence, rather than the Director, when it is the Director who is apparently the true 'filmmaker'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I'm guessing that you don't want to be that literal about it, just literal enough to make a distinction where one is not really needed.

 

It is absolutely needed. I'm tired of having to explain it over and over, but it seems I can't hold back when people start calling green crap shot on Sonys "film".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing about this whole what constitutes film debate is that the true artistry of film making has almost nothing to do with the capture format. The story, production design, costumes, lighting, composition, pacing, editing, score, foley and basically every artistic aspect of the production are far more important than if was shot of film or an Alexa. The art of cinematography is totally independent of the capture format and really that is what most here care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing about this whole what constitutes film debate is that the true artistry of film making has almost nothing to do with the capture format. The story, production design, costumes, lighting, composition, pacing, editing, score, foley and basically every artistic aspect of the production are far more important than if was shot of film or an Alexa. The art of cinematography is totally independent of the capture format and really that is what most here care about.

 

Then they don't know what "film" means and are getting cinematography mixed up with videography. If they want to call Brazilian telenovelas "film", they can, but it won't make it so. It seems to be a common cognitive dissonance of this generation that believes words should mean whatever they felt like it should mean at the moment.

 

It's insane to live in an episode of South Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If a 'Film' is not a 'film' unless it's on celluloid, what do you suggest we call everything else?

I never said that you can't be a "filmmaker" without film. I merely asserted "REAL" filmmakers generally shoot on celluloid if they can.

 

If you're a "filmmaker" who doesn't work on celluloid, then you are a "videomaker".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

For the record, I think the term film or filmmaker is universal to anyone that shoots anything on any format, but just to play film purists advocate for a second... and this question is for everybody... would you find it wise or unwise for a producer or a director that is shooting their next movie on film to hire the best DP in the world even if that DP has never actually shot anything on film, only digital?

I've worked with many decent digital DP's who've made the switch to film and they've done fine, not a single problem.

 

If you have the talent, it doesn't matter what medium you shoot.

 

I just come in and deal with the "technical" aspects of shooting on film that they just don't have the time to learn perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definition of film

1a : a thin skin or membranous covering : pellicle
: an abnormal growth on or in the eye
2: a thin covering or coating
  • a film of ice
3a : an exceedingly thin layer : lamina
b (1) : a thin flexible transparent sheet (as of plastic) used especially as a wrapping
(2) : a thin sheet of cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose coated with a radiation-sensitive emulsion for taking photographs

Definition of cinematography

: the art or science of motion-picture photography

Definition of photography

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)

Who doesn't know what film means? Here are the official definitions for film, cinematography and photography in the english language. There is nothing here that says a "film" must be shot on film, cinematography as well. For you a film may have different meaning but the official definition states otherwise.

Edited by David Hessel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

For you a film may have different meaning but the official definition states otherwise.

Just google search the word Filmmaker, the first and ONLY thing that comes up states: "a person who directs or produces movies for the theater or television"

 

I only added "writing" to that because most of the time, filmmakers do have a hand in the script even if uncredited. The CRITICAL aspect is that what's going onto the screen, is THEIR vision and they are NOT a "hired" crew person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...