Come on, Star Wars

[David Hessel]

That was not directed at your comment, you posted while I was. I have made no comments on what it means to be a film maker.

[Landon D. Parks]

So, I should start saying 'I'm going to see the latest video at the cinema" when referring to movies shot digitally? I'm a little lost here. Some here want to stick true-to-their-guns on definitions, but definitions change over time - that is just the reality of the world. As much as people want to conserve the past, it never works out. Years ago, 'film' was celluloid not necessarily because it was celluloid, but because that was what all movies where shot on. So the term 'film' came to mean a movie. Now, are we going to have to stop the presses and change everything to "video" instead of "film" when referring to the 98% of movies that shoot on digital now?

 

It's a nice, quaint idea - but not remotely realistic.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Landon D. Parks

[Justin Hayward]

Well, to quote William Shakespeare, to be called a filmmaker or to be called a video maker, It just doesnt matter if your script sucks.

[Samuel Berger]

Well, to quote William Shakespeare, to be called a filmmaker or to be called a video maker It just doesnt matter if your script sucks.

 

I'll let you know my last play received rejection letters from over 20 agencies. Rejection letters! Why, do you realize how good you have to be to get a rejection letter? Most playwrights don't even get rejection letters, they get ignored. But, my work is good enough to earn me not one, not two, but over twenty rejection letters and a spot on the Sporting Club's blacklist.

 

But my footage is always amazing. Except for that soul-crushing failure to light that interview with the dying Vietnam vet back in '79...or was it '89? I can't remember, it was such a traumatic experience that I only remember my bones turning to ice as everyone saw I had not properly diffused my key light...it took a long time to recover, and even longer for anyone to work with me again...but I pulled through, and here I am.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Samuel Berger

[Stuart Brereton]

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".

 

This sounds like one of those hipster arguments about authentic artisanal craft beer, full of implied criticism for those who do not brew their own beer in a centuries old recipe handed down by trappist monks.

 

Pure snobbery, masquerading as pedantry.

[Samuel Berger]

Pure snobbery, masquerading as pedantry.

 

Certainly you do not mean to imply...

[Robin R Probyn]

But can we agree one thing.. the people who pay directly or indirectly by fees to Netflix etc.. without which there would be no film or video industry.. don't give a fcuk about what its shot on.. because they only care about the story and the acting.. and that they can hear it and its in focus 90% of the time..

 

But I guess to real filmmakers ,who don't actually have a job.. it doesn't matter anyway ..?

[Stuart Brereton]

I wonder whether, back in history, painters spent much time obsessing over their paints and brushes, or were they just concerned with expressing themselves? Were oil painters sneering at those who chose watercolors, and telling them they weren't 'real' painters. Did sculptors look at wood carvers and shake their heads in amusement?

[David Mullen ASC]

Some were like that, some weren't.

[Tyler Purcell]

But can we agree one thing.. the people who pay directly or indirectly by fees to Netflix etc.. without which there would be no film or video industry.. don't give a fcuk about what its shot on..

Why should they care when the industry places no value on going to the cinema?

 

Why should they care when all they do is watch stuff on their internet feed which looks NOTHING like the DCP or film print in this arguments case. Using an uncalibrated display at 120 or 240hz "high motion" bullshit mode, on a computer monitor/portable device or an airplane.

 

Why should they care when most people are watching content at 480p because their web service isn't fast enough to stream 720 or 1080.

 

Why should they care when most people watch for a few minutes and shut it off when they don't care for it because again, the industry doesn't place value on the cinema experience.

 

Ohh an people do give a **(obscenity removed)** Robin, people do come out of the woodwork to see a movie projected on film. It's probably the only thing they DO come out for now a days. If you lived in an analog rich city like Boston, New York or Los Angeles, you would see this.

[Stuart Brereton]

Why should they care when the industry places no value on going to the cinema?

 

Why should they care when all they do is watch stuff on their internet feed which looks NOTHING like the DCP or film print in this arguments case. Using an uncalibrated display at 120 or 240hz "high motion" bullshit mode, on a computer monitor/portable device or an airplane.

 

Why should they care when most people are watching content at 480p because their web service isn't fast enough to stream 720 or 1080.

 

Why should they care when most people watch for a few minutes and shut it off when they don't care for it because again, the industry doesn't place value on the cinema experience.

I think you've just made his point for him.

 

Also, Robin lives in Tokyo, Japan, a country which has a rich tradition of cinema. I doubt it's hard for him to find a film projected theater if he wants to.

[Tyler Purcell]

I think you've just made his point for him.

I wasn't disagreeing with him at all actually lol

 

Also, Robin lives in Tokyo, Japan, a country which has a rich tradition of cinema. I doubt it's hard for him to find a film projected theater if he wants to.

I'm sure they have "revival" cinema.

 

It's just, I'm talking about new releases, rather then projecting "classics" on film, there is a pretty marketable difference between them.

[Justin Hayward]

I'm talking about new releases, rather then projecting "classics" on film, there is a pretty marketable difference between them.

Kinda like the marketable difference between digital today and digital only a decade ago?

[Landon D. Parks]

The thing is, most people care about a good story rather than the technical specs of how they are watching it. The reality is, while we in the industry can spot differences between 10-bit and 8-bit, HDR and non-HDR, 4k and 8k, etc - most of the general public cannot. They view stuff on what they have available to them - which happens to be their TV's, computer monitors, and phones.

 

Even as someone who works with high-quality content through post, I still watch stuff on my phone and my crappy TV. Does it look as good as it might projected on a pristine film print on a 100 foot screen? No, but it looks plenty good enough.

 

People care more about rather it is a good film, than rather its in 12-bit vs 8-bit color space. Only other filmmakers care about that - and maybe 0.5% of the population who are technical savvy to such things. Those people are not the audience we are aiming for.

 

REAL filmmakers make films for the story, not to please the 0.5% of the viewership who might be pixel peepers. Make it a good film and people won't care what you shot it on.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Landon D. Parks

[Samuel Berger]

I think you've just made his point for him.

 

If somebody that knows no ill really comes to a palais de danse and dances around the place or stills his heels in the air because he’s a Celt, why should he go down and how do you forgive yourself because he’s a better dancer?

[Justin Hayward]

So the gun to the head question is, would you rather shoot a fantastic script on an iPhone 3G or shoot a terrible script on top notch, state of the art, 35mm film?

[Samuel Berger]

So the gun to the head question is, would you rather shoot a fantastic script on an iPhone 3G or shoot a terrible script on film?

 

That depends on who is holding the gun and whose head is facing the barrel.

 

But I think I would rather shoot a terrible script on film because twenty years from now people will still remember PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE but in two years no one will remember TANGERINE.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Samuel Berger

[Samuel Berger]

Some were like that, some weren't.

 

And none of them had internet at work. I think that's probably why they got so much done.

[Justin Hayward]

 

But I think I would rather shoot a terrible script on film because twenty years from now people will still remember PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE but in two years no one will remember TANGERINE.

Ok... copy that.

[Samuel Berger]

Ok... copy that.

 

Here's your iPhone movie.

 

[Justin Hayward]

 

Here's your iPhone movie.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALSwWTb88ZU

Well, I shot 35mm film for ten years of my life before everything switched to digital and I have to admit... Im a little jealous of the authenticity Sean Baker was able to capture in that movie. Forget film or digital, he captured life on the screen. Thats all I aspire to these days.

[Landon D. Parks]

I'll just leave this thread with one final comment: Make a good movie. No one of any importance cares what you shot it on if the movie is good. If it's a bad movie, you can shoot it on 65mm, but will still be a 'good looking bad movie' in peoples eyes. In my experience watching movies, I have seen no correlation between what people think is a good movie, and what it was shot on.

 

From a filmmakers perspective, we need to stop thinking so technical and get back to the craft at hand: making movies. So much of how nice something looks comes down to the skill of the cinematographer, not the format it was shot on. I have seen many films shot on Arri Alexa's that are more beautifully shot than many other 35mm projects.

 

BTW) I have taken it upon myself to rewatch all the original and prequel Star Wars movies... Episode 1 is on right now.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Landon D. Parks

[Stuart Brereton]

 

But I think I would rather shoot a terrible script on film because twenty years from now people will still remember PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE but in two years no one will remember TANGERINE.

So there you go. You're not so much a film maker as a film fetishist.

[Stuart Brereton]

 

If somebody that knows no ill really comes to a palais de danse and dances around the place or stills his heels in the air because he’s a Celt, why should he go down and how do you forgive yourself because he’s a better dancer?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but thanks for the post.

[Samuel Berger]

So there you go. You're not so much a film maker as a film fetishist.

There is nothing in my post that could lead you to that conclusion.