Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Spielberg's latest...

Status
Not open for further replies.
number6 said:
Interesting question. My thoughts are that it is a forum of renegades. That is, there are professionals here who have done their due diligence, and there are soon-to-be professionals, a la RED. I think it is just a forum that marks the new starting point of movie-making.

edit: but with all due respect to those who will use RED for something other than making movies
Click to expand...

Skill and talent have always been the things that have marked out people who survive and thrive in the film business. Having a new sharp camera - ie: riding in on the back of a technological step forward - will briefly give people a quick step forward but, in the end, as more people get their hands on such cameras - it will re-stablize to much the same bias as it always had. In other words, we are unlikely to discover thousands of Spielbergs or Truffauts coming out of the woodwork - more like tens. Regrettably everyone suspects themselves to be talents-in-waiting.
 
jtm said:
Skill and talent have always been the things that have marked out people who survive and thrive in the film business. Having a new sharp camera - ie: riding in on the back of a technological step forward - will briefly give people a quick step forward but, in the end, as more people get their hands on such cameras - it will re-stablize to much the same bias as it always had. In other words, we are unlikely to discover thousands of Spielbergs or Truffauts coming out of the woodwork - more like tens. Regrettably everyone suspects themselves to be talents-in-waiting.
Click to expand...

Hah! jtm. Pretty good, but please, don't take this personally...there are much better naysayers than you on this board. Again, no offense intended, but I personally have waded through discouragement that was much, much stronger.

And I gotta admit, I have stopped and taken stock of it all to see if there was any merit to what was said, in my individual case.

I have come out on the other side with a stronger than ever belief that there are people unable to see change, while there are others who just create a sea change.
 
Sure, sure - I'm not a naysayer. I just see the business for what it is. I see and appreciate change just fine - but owning a cheap camera doesn't make anyone a photographer - Moreover I'm not suggesting that you're not one by the way. Just understand this, Judging by the amount of phone calls I'm getting at the moment, I have a horrible feeling that owning the red camera might make me the friend of the low budget guy (as in : "got NO cash" filmmakers looking to make their opus that got rejected by investors, everyone etc).

Just remember...it's a camera. I see many on this board who think it's going to be the answer to their Hollywood (or indie cinema) dream. Owning a DSLR hasn't produced many unsung photographers of note. Why this?
 
number6 said:
I have come out on the other side with a stronger than ever belief that there are people unable to see change, while there are others who just create a sea change.
Click to expand...

Given a choice between being the guy who can see change, or the guy who makes a good movie, I'd rather be the guy who makes a good movie.

The ability to predict future trends or be the first to jump on a new one, is -- in the long run -- relatively unimportant compared to the quality of one's work and one's overall artistic sensibility. There are plenty of people working with cutting-edge technology who are lousy artists.

At least, this is true for filmmakers. Maybe not so much for Wall Street investors or businessmen, where catching a wave before the masses catch on is financially rewarded. But for filmmakers, the technology used is often a small part of the overall process and whether the final work is a success, artistically or financially. There are some exceptions of course.
 
jtm said:
Sure, sure - I'm not a naysayer. I just see the business for what it is. I see and appreciate change just fine - but owning a cheap camera doesn't make anyone a photographer - Moreover I'm not suggesting that you're not one by the way. Just understand this, Judging by the amount of phone calls I'm getting at the moment, I have a horrible feeling that owning the red camera might make me the friend of the low budget guy (as in : "got NO cash" filmmakers looking to make their opus that got rejected by investors, everyone etc).

Just remember...it's a camera. I see many on this board who think it's going to be the answer to their Hollywood (or indie cinema) dream. Owning a DSLR hasn't produced many unsung photographers of note. Why this?
Click to expand...

While I understand, and agree with for the most part, what you are saying, I also wonder if there aren't many talented individuals out there who may be able to make their oun breaks before they get settled into a life where they are afraid to take a chance.

That is, I'm thinking there are some risk takers out in the wild who have no hope of ever becoming an insider and need a shortcut to show what they can do before giving up.

That's the clientèle I think RED will and is attracting. Some of us will fail. Some of us will fail again and again. And some will strike gold. I think what you were saying is that RED is just a pick or shovel that one uses to dig for the gold. But my thinking is that it puts more picks and shovels in the hands of the gold diggers.
 
number6 said:
I think what you were saying is that RED is just a pick or shovel that one uses to dig for the gold.
Click to expand...

...and agreed - but the cost of film stock etc is a small part of the overall costs required to produce a film. But more power to those who try ...and given the dreck that is often produced these days - why not? Someone's gotta try dammit.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Given a choice between being the guy who can see change, or the guy who makes a good movie, I'd rather be the guy who makes a good movie.
Click to expand...

And before someone else says it, it's not like there's a choice in reality, you can do both. But being able to see change coming in itself is not necessarily enough, nor is it a necessary trait of all good artists.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Given a choice between being the guy who can see change, or the guy who makes a good movie, I'd rather be the guy who makes a good movie.

The ability to predict future trends or be the first to jump on a new one, is -- in the long run -- relatively unimportant compared to the quality of one's work and one's overall artistic sensibility. There are plenty of people working with cutting-edge technology who are lousy artists.
Click to expand...

David, spoken like a true bean-counter. (Not that there is anything wrong with bean counters) But I'm thinking that we are in one of those periods where some great lake turns over and that which was once the bottom water becomes topwater. I truly understand your protection of the status quo, even in independent film making.

But read the postings of some of the younger members of this forum. Sure, some of them tread lightly for now, but if you read between the lines you sense something building... at least, that's been my experience.

I think what is coming is a lot of people taking their turn at art, and if it sticks they continue. If not... well then, they get a real job.
 
jtm said:
Someone's gotta try dammit.
Click to expand...

I'll do it! SANCHO PANZA! Bring me my horse. My lance! There's a windmill...
 
Good luck with it Number 6 - I agree people have to chase their desires and callings, some will succeed, some fail. I wish you all the luck. ]

BTW - David's post doesn't sound much like "bean counting" - more a plea for "good work". I second it.
 
jtm said:
BTW - David's post doesn't sound much like "bean counting" - more a plea for "good work". I second it.
Click to expand...

Or a plea for "status quo"

Thanks for the good luck wishes, but I would prefer to succeed on merit rather than serendipity.
 
I don't give a shit about protecting the status quo. I'm all for change as long as it is a change that makes for better movies, not change for the sake of change, doing something new just because it is new. New is not a virtue in itself, it has to lead to something of value artistically.

I'm just saying that the WORK itself is what really matters, and how different artists go about getting there is their own business. If one guy does it with stone-age tools and the other guy with space-age tools, then fine. There isn't extra artistic value added by virtue of using the newest tools rather than an older tool to accomplish the art. When I see a great painting, I don't care whether the brushes used were new or old.

Whether Indy 4 is a great film or a bad film is not going to rest on whether Spielberg cut it digitally or on film, or whether he used a RED camera or a 35mm camera. That may have a cosmetic effect, but not a fundamental affect on its value as art or entertainment. It will rise or fall based on other bigger, non-technological factors.

Now if respecting artists and their different choices is the "status quo", then I'm all for protecting that.
 
'Revolutions' imo are often the result of a third generation product long after the cutting edge technology is considered new.

I could cite hundreds of examples of products released that sported the absolute latest and greatest but failed miserably from a profit/consumer impact standpoint. I've made this point before but the early adopter is often a terrible demographic to market to and very poorly reflects the long term success of a product.

Take a look at Apple products. They're often released years after other companies have done the grunt work of releasing actually revolutionairy products. The 'revolution' of Apple is in usability not science or technology.

You could easily argue that Red is also a third generation technology. Video -> Digital Cinema -> Useable/Affordable form factor. It's not the first 4k cinema product (some even argue that the Genesis has almost as many pixels but just chooses to output 2k.) Dalsa and the Phantom 65 being the notable other holders of the title. It's not the first camera to use wavelets (see Silicon Imaging). It's not the first IT or Flash camera (see HVX or again SI).

There's an instinct to feel that by being someplace first and recognizing the value of a technology before it's common place will translate into success but actually capitalizing on that discovery is very very rare. As a result you'll always have a handful of individuals who are catapulted by harnassing this before anyone else but by and large the average user is not 'left behind' because they adopt anyway when they follow the crowd as the product becomes mainstream.

Things move very slowly in this world. Even if you miss the train you can usually catch up and hop on without breaking a sweat. There's a reason you never hear about a 'secret revolution'. ;)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't give a shit about protecting the status quo. I'm all for change as long as it is a change that makes for better movies, not change for the sake of change, doing something new just because it is new. New is not a virtue in itself, it has to lead to something of value artistically.
Click to expand...

Change allowed as long as it follows the rules? To me that is change by the rule of status quo.

I'm just saying that the WORK itself is what really matters, and how different artists go about getting there is their own business. If one guy does it with stone-age tools and the other guy with space-age tools, then fine. There isn't extra artistic value added by virtue of using the newest tools rather than an older tool to accomplish the art. When I see a great painting, I don't care whether the brushes used were new or old.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the tools. It's about access. Film and the Hollywood "old boy" network is exclusive. RED is inclusive.

Whether Indy 4 is a great film or a bad film is not going to rest on whether Spielberg cut it digitally or on film, or whether he used a RED camera or a 35mm camera. That may have a cosmetic effect, but not a fundamental affect on its value as art or entertainment. It will rise or fall based on other bigger, non-technological factors.
Click to expand...

And so will the work of the small-time innovative movie maker who has a chance to ply his or her craft economically due to the availability of RED.

Now if respecting artists and their different choices is the "status quo", then I'm all for protecting that.
Click to expand...

Me too, but not just the "old Europe" type movie makers, but the emerging ones as well.

I think I should also add the disclaimer that I probably don't like much of what is being made by younger movie makers. I say probably because I actually haven't seen a movie in a theater for more than 25 or 30 years. (I actually can't remember the last movie I watched in a theater. I remember watching one titled "Immanuel", I think. Probably watched one after that but don't remember for certain.) Still, I think RED will offer the opportunity for some good ones to take their shot before they might otherwise have to be driving a forklift to support the wife and kid.

My oun attempts will likely look like a throwback attempt to the movies that gave me enjoyment. So, perhaps you can see why I don't really have much sympathy if some of the clout in movie making shifts to truly independent movie making.

This is not about a revolution in the art of movie making. It is all about availability.
 
Gbabymogul said:
Btw, calling a guy who has spent more time in the indie trenches and has contributed more than almost any pro I know of for those wanting to learn a bean counter is offensive to me. Call someone else a bean counter if you want to deride Hollywood elitism and moneycentricity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I owe David a heartfelt "I'm Sorry!" for that, although I did add that bean counter was not necessarily a bad thing. I too have learned at the feet of David Mullen, but while I'm a willing student of the craft, I require no tutoring in philosophy. (And I was not implying that David was trying to imprint his philosophy on me or anyone else for that matter.)

edit: please tell your avitar to call me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top