There Are No Bloodless Revolutions

[Peter Moretti]

I'm not saying that the digital revolution is wrong or should be stopped. I was just reminded that like in any revolution, there are casulaties.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...lose-north-hollywood-film-printing-plant.html

 

[Martin Weiss]

November 9th 1989 was bloodless.

 

[Clint Lealos]

Yeah, bitter sweet. Bitter because film is dying. Sweet because digital is being born. I don't shoot on film much, so its more sweet than bitter for me

 

[Brian Petrie]

However, in the article it is stated that Technicolor has spent 200 million to move towards digital post/effect facilities and has even opened a new digital headquarters in Hollywood. So one is lost, one is opened. The times they are a-changin'.

 

[mike ogden]

This has more to do with the decline in production in L.A. and distribution going more digital. Nothing to do with acquisition.

That's the reality.

 

[M Most]

This has more to do with the decline in production in L.A. and distribution going more digital. Nothing to do with acquisition.

That's the reality.

The reality is also that Technicolor's only remaining studio contract is with Warner Brothers ever since Universal switched to Deluxe a few months ago. While it is true that there is less film production in Los Angeles, the vast majority of film projects shot outside of Southern California are still shipped back to Los Angeles for front end processing and post production. And while it is also true that distribution is involving more digital elements, that was not the only focus of the North Hollywood lab. The majority of Technicolor's release printing for worldwide distribution has been done in Montreal and Rome for a number of years now. So there's quite a bit more to the picture than you think.

 

[mike ogden]

Hi Mike

Agree with all that. I didn't mention post specifically, but you can already see the financial creep eroding the businesses of traditional post vendors, producers going outside of LA and other traditional centers of post work (London, Toronto etc) to complete more independent projects.

I think only the large studio projects will stay with those vendors until they too deem it financially unsound to do so and they'll go elsewhere. There's a good reason PJ built WETA in NZ and Lucas opened their outfit in Singapore recently. $$$$$

 

[M Most]

Hi Mike

Agree with all that. I didn't mention post specifically, but you can already see the financial creep eroding the businesses of traditional post vendors, producers going outside of LA and other traditional centers of post work (London, Toronto etc) to complete more independent projects.

I think only the large studio projects will stay with those vendors until they too deem it financially unsound to do so and they'll go elsewhere. There's a good reason PJ built WETA in NZ and Lucas opened their outfit in Singapore recently. $$$$$

In post production, it's not just about money. Post production has largely remained centered in Los Angeles because the vast majority of the talent base lives there. That includes writers, directors, and all studio executives, all of whom are involved in post production decision making, and none of whom like to spend 3 or 4 months away from home for anything other than shooting. This is true of features as well as television series, but television series are particularly interesting because of the short turnarounds involved. And one should not forget that for most directors and producers, post production means sound. It doesn't have anything to do with the picture, the picture is created by production and simply finished and hopefully enhanced by post. Sound, on the other hand, is completely created by post production, and therefore gets by far the most attention, not to mention the most time and much of the budget. The sound facilities and, more importantly, the sound editors and mixers in Los Angeles can and do work on ridiculous schedules for television, and do a rather amazing job. With few exceptions, the work they do in the time they do it cannot be done as well anywhere else. So when one is talking about post production going elsewhere for financial reasons, one is not looking at either the reality of the situation or the practical reasons why it hasn't gone anywhere else in any great numbers.

As for your two examples, I would say that Jackson built Weta in Wellington because he lives there and because he was embarking on a project that was going to require his involvement in both production and post simultaneously in order to meet a release schedule (the Lord of the Rings trilogy). The only way that could happen was to have post and production in the same location. Not to mention that he did it because, well, he could. In Lucas' case, there are a number of reasons, but it's fair to say that "grunt" work in VFX has been outsourced to various Asian and South Asian locations for a number of years now, so that kind of move is certainly nothing new. But don't confuse visual effects with nuts and bolts post production. One is done largely in isolation by artists and submitted for review, and the other is done with the continuing involvement and participation of the creative principles, which usually requires direct contact in order to be done efficiently.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I see film as a barrier to talented people with no studio funding or personal wealth. Digital is a revolution that is democratizing filmmaking, and that's not just a catchphrase. It's real.

RIP film.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

In post production, it's not just about money. Post production has largely remained centered in Los Angeles because the vast majority of the talent base lives there. That includes writers, directors, and all studio executives, all of whom are involved in post production decision making, and none of whom like to spend 3 or 4 months away from home for anything other than shooting. This is true of features as well as television series, but television series are particularly interesting because of the short turnarounds involved.

An interesting counter to that is that a lot of commercial production in the NW goes to LA to shoot and post in part because the agencies like to travel. (Who doesn't? )

 

[Leo Ticheli]

The best advantage of digital over film is education and training. With film you do what you think is right, shoot, then wait, then finally get feedback, some of which is obscured by the services of the colorist at the transfer. With digital it's instant; not enough fill; you see it; too flat; you see it; all the possible mistakes can be corrected and skills can be improved on the spot.

Of course the economic advantage is obvious, although some tried for a while to spin it down to mitigate the cost liability of shooting film.

I do admit to having great affection for film, it's time is well past for all but the highest budget work.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Tom Lowe]

Good point, Leo. The instant feedback is priceless, IMO. Of course, in the stills world, that is exactly what swept film out so quickly. That and the rise of the internet, with people wanting to email photos without waiting for labs, then having to scan the stills, etc.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I see film as a barrier to talented people with no studio funding or personal wealth. Digital is a revolution that is democratizing filmmaking, and that's not just a catchphrase. It's real.

RIP film.

Film is not really a barrier of any sort nowadays -- since you admit that there are alternatives to using it. So I don't see how you can call it a barrier in the present tense.

Truth is that we have had decades of independent filmmaking before high-end digital technologies existed, so as barriers went, film wasn't a particularly high one for people who had drive and determination.

Sure, there are even more shooters than ever because it's easier and cheaper than ever, and that's a great thing... but I can't say that the independent filmmaking scene is healthier today than it was 10 years ago, which shows the limits of technology.

As someone with little income who made films in Super-8 and 16mm for decades, I didn't find film a huge impediment to shooting. But there certainly were costs, no doubt. But there are costs to getting a Red One package as well.

If you were a landscape shooter or a time-lapse filmmaker in the 1970's, you could have gotten by with the existing film technology of the day and not necessarily have had to be rich to do so. You could have made little indie movies with a 16mm camera, etc. So the cost and complexity of film was a barrier of sorts, but not the Himalayas, more like a bunch of high hills.

There are a lot of other problems that make filmmaking difficult other than film technology. Getting a good script, getting a cast to sign on, getting locations, scheduling, etc. have very little to do with the camera side of things but can be very difficult barriers at times for certain types of projects. Since you are doing a lot of landscape shooting, those are not necessarily the problems you are running into, but if you had some idea for an assassination attempt at the World Series, or some other idea that needed movie stars, crowd scenes, major sets to be built, period costumes, whatever the particular needs of the script, if you could solve all of those problems, it's unlikely you'd be stopped dead at that point by the need for a film camera. So I don't see the need to make film technology the major villain in the fight to make movies. It's a type of misdirection, or misplaced anger or something, there are a lot of other hurdles out there, many of them not technical or even financial in nature.

I mean, honestly, is the main problem for indie filmmakers Kodak and Fuji, or is it the studio distribution system?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Well, film NO LONGER has a stranglehold on the filmmaking business. That's a valid point. But it did for a hundred years. Only recently has digital been able to match 35mm, and that is when the floodgates open. All the young filmmakers now are 100% digital, so it's almost become a moot point.

I heard on the Redcentre podcast a couple weeks ago a very interesting thing. They said something along the lines that Disney now has 12 pictures in the pipleline, and only one is slated to be shot on film. Things are changing really fast now, and Epic will accelerate that an incredible pace once it's tested.

 

[M Most]

Well, film NO LONGER has a stranglehold on the filmmaking business. That's a valid point. But it did for a hundred years. Only recently has digital been able to match 35mm, and that is when the floodgates open. All the young filmmakers now are 100% digital, so it's almost become a moot point.

Then why continue to harp on it?

I heard on the Redcentre podcast a couple weeks ago a very interesting thing. They said something along the lines that Disney now has 12 pictures in the pipleline, and only one is slated to be shot on film.

Many of those pictures are stereoscopic. It is not logical at this point to shoot a stereoscopic picture on film, although some pictures are being shot 2D with a planned conversion, in part to allow them to shoot on film (Men In Black III, for one).

 

[Tom Lowe]

Then why continue to harp on it?

Because the subject of the thread was the death of film? I wanted to give a proper "RIP" :beer:

Many of those pictures are stereoscopic. It is not logical at this point to shoot a stereoscopic picture on film, although some pictures are being shot 2D with a planned conversion, in part to allow them to shoot on film (Men In Black III, for one).

Well, whatever the reason, digital is taking over fast. You say it's because of 3D? Well, everyone is shooting 3D these days, so it will make the move toward digital go even faster, as evidenced by Disney. Once Epic hits, it will be a tidal wave that will sweep the industry with incredible speed. Watch and see. These types of trends build slowly at first, then the chart basically goes vertical at some point.

 

[Matthew Bennett]

There are a lot of other problems that make filmmaking difficult other than film technology. Getting a good script, getting a cast to sign on, getting locations, scheduling, etc. have very little to do with the camera side of things but can be very difficult barriers at times for certain types of projects. Since you are doing a lot of landscape shooting, those are not necessarily the problems you are running into, but if you had some idea for an assassination attempt at the World Series, or some other idea that needed movie stars, crowd scenes, major sets to be built, period costumes, whatever the particular needs of the script, if you could solve all of those problems, it's unlikely you'd be stopped dead at that point by the need for a film camera. So I don't see the need to make film technology the major villain in the fight to make movies. It's a type of misdirection, or misplaced anger or something, there are a lot of other hurdles out there, many of them not technical or even financial in nature.

I mean, honestly, is the main problem for indie filmmakers Kodak and Fuji, or is it the studio distribution system?

Yeah, if someone in the future could make it as easy to obtain great actors and great scripts as it now is to get a 35mm sensor camera.... we'd have something!

But this is an excellent point - there is a REALLY LOOONG list of things that have to happen to make a great film. Obtaining the camera and stock are pretty far down the line!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I see film as a barrier to talented people with no studio funding or personal wealth. Digital is a revolution that is democratizing filmmaking, and that's not just a catchphrase. It's real.

RIP film.

Yes, professional cinematic imaging has been controlled exclusively by a relatively small faction of people with corporate, political or capital ties. Their respective agendas were given full voice by those of us eager to serve them or otherwise harness our talents for their benefit and our entertainment and amusement. Now the individual can speak loudly and reach many with their message.

I see the demise of the film lab as a step in the right direction. We have not seen the full flower of capitalist creativity yet. Soon, we'll all be traded on a kind of stock exchange that will track our individual potential.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, professional cinematic imaging has been controlled exclusively by a relatively small faction of people with corporate, political or capital ties.

Yeah, that perfectly describes John Waters making "Pink Flamingos" in 1973 on 16mm stock for $10,000. Or Kubrick making "Killer's Kiss" in 1955. They were powerful corporate stooges.

The way you guys talk, there was no such thing as independent filmmaking before the video camera was invented!

Sure, it's sort of a no-brainer that digital is taking over film, I don't see why it's such a big deal, why there is such an anti-film attitude that kicks in, as if Kodak has been this big dream killer over the centuries. People place far too much emphasis on technology here. If people really needed digital to be invented in order to become beginning filmmakers, then there is no explanation for how we've had a century of films, or even how the film industry started in the first place.

It's like there is some sort of collective amnesia going on here, ignoring decades of independent and amateur filmmaking using Super-8, 16mm, etc. Maybe it's simply due to age, many people here weren't making films on their own back in the 1970's and 80's so they think that no one was, ignoring the movies sitting in cans in closets and garages that their grandmother made of her daughter's first day of school or something like that, or some experimental b&w work shot in college by their father.

Film is going away, no doubt about that, though I guess it's not going away fast enough for some folks here who for some reason have heaped their frustrations about becoming filmmakers on a piece of technology -- an inanimate object! -- rather than other factors.

We've had a century of AMAZING images shot on film. Let's celebrate that as film passes away into history.

People have been telling me that film was dead since 1998 if not earlier. It's now 2010, almost 2011. Eventually these people will be right.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think there is a bit of ego wrapped up in using technology, on all sides, whether digital or film. People want to perceive themselves as being ahead of the pack in some way or the other, or bigger or better or more artistic than their competitors. 10 years from now when everyone is shooting digital, and film is likely to be gone, there won't be anything to brag about by shooting digital, instead it will be something else that will be used to make oneself seem to be visionary and everyone else to be old-school.

"You're shooting 2D but I'm shooting 3D", "you're using a five-year-old camera but I'm using a camera that hasn't been released yet", etc. This will never end because people form emotional attachments to things, to pieces of technology. So for some reason, if their choice in technology becomes successful, it means they were "right" and somehow that makes them more successful or better, whatever. I just don't get it.

Technology keeps changing, making some things easier, faster, cheaper, whatever. That's great, and it's fun as well. But fundamentally, do important things change? Does art therefore become more meaningful, deeper, do human relationships improve across the planet, do we treat each other better because now we can control our TV set from our iPad or because the home movie we shoot with our friends on the weekend has the same resolution as "Lawrence of Arabia"? These are all just tools for artists, and tools are important as a means to an end, but they are not the end, the art is the end, the IDEAS are the end.

Last century, film was the primary tool for transforming visual ideas into concrete images; now it's becoming something else. Technical change is somewhat inevitable. But what I'm asking is how much that matters in the big picture so to speak. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Are the movies I have a choice to see this weekend fundamentally better than the ones I would have had to choose between on a December weekend in 1979 or 1939? After all, we've had digital tools for this past decade. So was "The Social Network" a fundamentally better movie because it was shot on the M-X Red One rather than in 35mm? I'm just asking for some perspective here. What does it really mean, or matter, if more Disney films this year are being shot in 3D Digital? Does it mean they will be better movies than what I saw a decade ago?

Technical innovation is important and helps enable creative ideas, but it's important to be honest about what technology is doing to the process, pro and con, by asking if some other technology had been used for a particular project, would the artistic intent have been lost, or merely altered cosmetically? Will Terence Malick's digital movies be "better" than his movies shot on film, or just different?