Lucas & Spielberg discuss the future of cinema

[Brian Merlen]

Personally I am more into the technical side I'd say then trying to make a name for my self in a "film maker" capacity with digital. I like the technical side, things have answers and add up, the creative side, who knows its all aesthetics and personal choice, too ambiguous to wrap my mind around.


The medium changing from going out to sitting in does change the paradigm we are living in as far as audiences enjoyment, the fact they now might not be paying as close attention, so many things. Youtube harlem shake videos, and cute cats are viral, for sure. But I think the higher end blockbuster kind of a thing might change on where we go to watch it, but I'd like to hope that the level of budgets and talents will remain and that the greats won't be lost in the digital distribution shuffle. I don't want to live in a world of only Gangham Style and Angry Cats lol!

But the changing medium does scare me from a film experience side. Going out provides a certain level in quality that some of these consumers surely will be lacking in. Will Avatar 4 direct to computer be as good as seeing the real thing out of your house? Will the colors be right? Will your home computer speakers ruin the actual experience that the film should of been? With the cable companies pining to not lose to the web, and the local film venues losing attendance its sure a different market these days. Every time a major production bombs that worries me, major productions are what pays people like us. I can't make a living on some of this bs I see on CL these days...

I hope that a cheapening of the medium and the experience doesn't tarnish the high end art (or budgets)

 

[Christopher Mills]

The real barrier to entries are

The real barrier to entries are

Mostly, your film sucks.

Not because of the image resolution

but
Firstly: Filmmaking failure

Because you are not good directors. you are good at getting your hands on a camera and learning how to take a picture with it, but not at orchestrating the action in front of it to tell a story or communicate an emotion. How do I know? I have watched decades of crap. Old school low budget crap had better craftsmanship and storytelling, even when actors sucked or scripts were terrible. At least the bad ideas were new then.

and because you are not good producers. Most of you can not tell a good script from a bad one, and you will not take the steps to put good actors in it, nor know why you should have a good audio recording of them using their instrument (voice).

Secondly: Marketing Failure
It IS expensive to let you audience know your film exists, and that they should watch it. It takes a huge amount of media bandwith and man hours and connections to reviewers and writers and bloggers and street teams to make the world aware of your film.

If no one is willing to play along with that process, then you will not have eyeballs watching your project roll on..

The barricade to creation has never been camera ownership, it has been lack of vision and team leadership.

Good Luck Everyone, if you are good enough, you will get exposure. No matter how great you are, you may not become lottery winner wealthy.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Personally I am more into the technical side I'd say then trying to make a name for my self in a "film maker" capacity with digital. I like the technical side, things have answers and add up, the creative side, who knows its all aesthetics and personal choice, too ambiguous to wrap my mind around.


The medium changing from going out to sitting in does change the paradigm we are living in as far as audiences enjoyment, the fact they now might not be paying as close attention, so many things. Youtube harlem shake videos, and cute cats are viral, for sure. But I think the higher end blockbuster kind of a thing might change on where we go to watch it, but I'd like to hope that the level of budgets and talents will remain and that the greats won't be lost in the digital distribution shuffle. I don't want to live in a world of only Gangham Style and Angry Cats lol!

But the changing medium does scare me from a film experience side. Going out provides a certain level in quality that some of these consumers surely will be lacking in. Will Avatar 4 direct to computer be as good as seeing the real thing out of your house? Will the colors be right? Will your home computer speakers ruin the actual experience that the film should of been? With the cable companies pining to not lose to the web, and the local film venues losing attendance its sure a different market these days. Every time a major production bombs that worries me, major productions are what pays people like us. I can't make a living on some of this bs I see on CL these days...

I hope that a cheapening of the medium and the experience doesn't tarnish the high end art (or budgets)

I completely hear what you're saying. One thing is certain: things are changing -- and fast. As such, I don't feel there is any reason a person needs to be out to "make it," or "create a name for themselves" to be willing to supply their skill set to a team that is focused on the betterment of each individual team member.

I know that can be difficult to accept because it is so at odds with our traditional approach to consumption. However, I believe in helping one another achieve more than an individual effort could supply for. Simple. Otherwise, we will always be working from job - to job - to job. And in this world, we're all only a few checks away from total ruin it seems. I'm not out for "riches," whatever that even quantifies to...I would just like to see those I care about and admire -- secure. And I have a hard time placing my security entirely on an employer's ability/willingness to generate a check for me.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Mostly, your film sucks.

Not because of the image resolution

but
Firstly: Filmmaking failure

Because you are not good directors. you are good at getting your hands on a camera and learning how to take a picture with it, but not at orchestrating the action in front of it to tell a story or communicate an emotion. How do I know? I have watched decades of crap. Old school low budget crap had better craftsmanship and storytelling, even when actors sucked or scripts were terrible. At least the bad ideas were new then.

and because you are not good producers. Most of you can not tell a good script from a bad one, and you will not take the steps to put good actors in it, nor know why you should have a good audio recording of them using their instrument (voice).

Secondly: Marketing Failure
It IS expensive to let you audience know your film exists, and that they should watch it. It takes a huge amount of media bandwith and man hours and connections to reviewers and writers and bloggers and street teams to make the world aware of your film.

If no one is willing to play along with that process, then you will not have eyeballs watching your project roll on..

The barricade to creation has never been camera ownership, it has been lack of vision and team leadership.

Good Luck Everyone, if you are good enough, you will get exposure. No matter how great you are, you may not become lottery winner wealthy.

Hmmm. While I don't completely disagree with some of your points, I think your delivery could be softened a bit. First, when using the pronoun "you," your statements come across as a direct attack against the people on this thread.

Yes, filmmakers could be more focused on their craft at times, and could have better stories, and could have better actors...and on, and on, and on. But this is not something specific to any level of filmmaking, maybe it is just more pronounced at the lower end.

There are a lot of films in the world, and quality is apparently an enormously subjective thing. Who is to say what will work, and what won't? And on what basis? I hear filmmakers say things like, "El Mariachi was garbage," all the time. Yet it proved a large success for one individual. Should Rodriguez not have attempted it because a few armchair critics might pan him?

At this stage, I have watched things on Netflix that came to me with absolutely no outside marketing. Just sheer chance, and because I was looking to watch something that others were rating. Has the experience always been good? Definitely not. But surprisingly, my random choices have been a lot better, more often than I would have thought. If those same films were rated highly on another streaming service, such as ODEMAX, and charged a nominal fee to view, I would do it. And I don't think I am alone.

But as you mention, the key is focusing on producing the best content possible. And then focus on using the best tools at your disposal, hardware and human, to realize that content.

If one's actions are motivated by false concerns (such as a payday), the choices made because of that preoccupation generally do not lead to the desired end. Obviously, there are always exceptions to every rule, but they are just that -- exceptions. For example, Platinum Dunes, or most studio pics for that matter, may be chiefly concerned with setting opening weekend records, but those environments also tend to heavily insulate creatives. That is not a matter for the creatives -- they need to operate as effectively and efficiently, as possible.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

The barricade to creation has never been camera ownership, it has been lack of vision and team leadership.

Good Luck Everyone, if you are good enough, you will get exposure.

Very nice sentiment, and very salient point. Vision, competent execution and teamwork are completely necessary for success. A film crew is a team, and it seems a lot of individuals either don't get that, or choose to ignore it.