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 :)

Technology and story-telling

But filmmaking mimics life - the good, the bad, the ugly. Those who succeed will apply a distinct set of sensibilities to thier craft. You cannot stop people from at least trying.
 
There are Athletics tracks in all over the place, specialized sports equipment that's available to everyone, does that mean that the Athletes are out of jobs because everyone CAN train...

I'd don't think we'll see an increase in "crap", just higher quality "crap". You still can't beat Cinemas Class Studios with a Scarlet.
 
Ameer Ally said:
There are Athletics tracks in all over the place, specialized sports equipment that's available to everyone, does that mean that the Athletes are out of jobs because everyone CAN train...

I'd don't think we'll see an increase in "crap", just higher quality "crap". You still can't beat Cinemas Class Studios with a Scarlet.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Nothing to worry about.

Get a Scarlet and Rock`N`Roll.

Spring is in full bloom, I'm going out to experience it.

Sya. :sorcerer:
 
mralmostpopular said:
There is a lot of talk and a lot of worry in the industry right now. And what individuals who are very anti-corporate/down with the corporations fail to realize is that once these companies are gone, the entire industry is gone. These companies ARE the industry. Industry meaning big money here. Theaters will have to close down too. Good products take a lot of time and energy to make, and if there is no industry and no money left in it, you won't have people dedicating their lives to it, because they won't be able to afford to. Thus you will be left entirely with the aforementioned crap. At least, that's the worry and the reality that is happening.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the RED Scarlett, but do understand the concern about it. Once the business loses its elite status, it will lose some of its greatest assets as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, I'm gonna have at it with your statements here. Your premise seems to be that an elite status is a good thing, and that corporations make a valuable contribution to our culture and understanding. So let's start with this: Elite status. The reason why you're writing on Reduser, is because the RedOne gives everyone a chance to make high quality. It's about taking away the elite status. The "business" will lose some of its greatest assets? What might those be? Why have you chosen to make this an examination of 'assets'?
At it's core, real art isn't an industry, and artists don't make art for money. They make it for themselves.The term "starving artist" mean anything? And before you tell me I'm full of it, remember Tarantino's line about Reservoir Dogs: "I made this film for me, and I invite all of you to come and see it." All artists start with nothing. Very little gets handed to the vast majority of us.
That's what this needs to get back to, cause most of the filmed image that's currently being projected on a variety of screens is garbage. Absolute tripe that contributes to the mindlessness of this culture. And let's not even talk about television. Corporations put out more crap than a police horse. We'll all be better off when the "industry" is gone. On a dollar for dollar basis, "the industry" puts out way more shit than any independant filmmaker. It's not art, it's greed that makes alot of these big budget turds.
Theatres will have to close down? You mean the multiplex p.o.s models that dominate the market, have crappy sound, crappy viewing theatres, charge you a shitload of money for crap, monopolize the distribution of crap, and perpetuate the idea that only Hollywood can make films 'properly'? Good riddance. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I'll project my film on the side of a building using a Redray, or work something out with the independant cinemas that still exist and fight on.
The talent will remain. It always has, by the way, been self-sufficient. No self-respecting producer has ever worked for a corporation a minute longer than it took to set up their own space. And there's this crazy thing called the internet for distribution, so you can stop genuflecting to the corporate idol anytime. Time to stand on your own two feet. I guess that means you'll have to get out of the office tower and into the street. Welcome.

EDIT: and I'd much rather pay a few dollars to watch and support someone try something different and new using a redone camera and fail, and discuss WHY it failed, then pay fifteen dollars to watch another turd get unloaded from the monopoly truck which leaves me with nothing to say or talk about.
Jeez, i don't think i've written the words shit and turd as much in my whole life as here. Guess it's clear where I stand huh?
 
All that's fine and well, Evolve, but you can't be unaware that it takes more money than most people can ever hope to raise and earn themselves, to make movies. It's not as if no one has ever tried no-budget moviemaking before. And for every piece of crap out of Hollywood, a self-described "indie" or "artist" filmmaker does nearly as bad. American indies have not proven to be an oasis of quality and innovation, whether they're corporate-financed or the products of someone's garage.

The problem, of course, is money, and who controls it.
 
jpp said:
All that's fine and well, Evolve, but you can't be unaware that it takes more money than most people can ever hope to raise and earn themselves, to make movies. It's not as if no one has ever tried no-budget moviemaking before. And for every piece of crap out of Hollywood, a self-described "indie" or "artist" filmmaker does nearly as bad. American indies have not proven to be an oasis of quality and innovation, whether they're corporate-financed or the products of someone's garage.

The problem, of course, is money, and who controls it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely jpp. I guess that's why the RedOne is so revolutionary for many people. As an independant filmmaker myself, I will be trying to avail myself for independant artists and filmmakers with my camera and post facilities when I'm not shooting my projects. I like to think that there are many on this board who will do the same....

I guess my thinking is that Hollywood actually used to make some important social films. Nowadays it's patriotic nonsense mixed in with pop culture, although there is the occasional odd gem, which sticks out for it's actual storytelling and emotional resonance and doesn't need the 110 piece orchaestra prompting your cerebellum. It's almost always based on the retelling of true events, as opposed to a new creativity from filmmakers. It's one of the reasons why documentaries have enjoyed a renaissance. Of note, I find Steven Soderbergh as an exception in Hollywood, as I believe that most of his films show a remarkable translation of depth and understanding of the country and world he lives in. **the ocean series notwithstanding. He is also a RedOne adopter.
Sure there are many bad artfilms. But at least they are trying to contribute something, rather than just make money, no?
 
Evolve said:
Sure there are many bad artfilms. But at least they are trying to contribute something, rather than just make money, no?
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree here. Most of the people you run across in the indie world, at least in the U.S., are as clueless and cultureless as the Hollywood types, and often less talented. Truth is, few real artists would ever go into the medium in this country, given the obstacles. And it shows, at least in the realm of American dramatic cinema.

When "indie" film making depends on Robert Redford, Fox Searchlight and indie producers, things are about as desperate as they can possibly be.

So I'd continue to insist that it really comes down to who's financing these movies. The stuff produced can be no better than the funding sources, unless something goes horribly right or wrong (depending on your point of view). The best (or worst) example of this is the movies "developed" at Sundance Labs, and later produced. Virtually all of them reflect the pieties and middle-brow interests of the Redford crowd.
 
Wow, this thread has become very interesting since I went to dance with the butterflies.

Evolve said:
Theatres will have to close down? You mean the multiplex p.o.s models that dominate the market, have crappy sound, crappy viewing theatres, charge you a shitload of money for crap, monopolize the distribution of crap, and perpetuate the idea that only Hollywood can make films 'properly'?
Click to expand...

This is hilariously true.

Jeez, i don't think i've written the words shit and turd as much in my whole life as here. Guess it's clear where I stand huh?
Click to expand...

And "crap" :). Yeah, it's totally clear where you stand, don't worry. Lol.

I must agree with Evolve on most accounts.

Nevertheless, I don't think that the REDVolution and the overall democratization of filmmaking will ruin the industry.

It will just open more space for the indies. A space that they totally deserve.

It is obvious that things are not going well with the big-$ Hollywood productions. The crap-o-meter has been jumping more and more intensively during the last 10 years.

For example: Die Hard 4 or the AVP abominations.

I mean OMFG!

So a change has to come, or we'll drown in crap.

I think that the indies [after RED] will just become real competitors to Hollywood. I don't think that will ruin the industry, it will just change it.

For good or bad - who knows?

Actually, all these technological changes that are happening now [the Internet, Digital Music, Digital Cinema, RED, etc.] are so fundamental to the whole process, that I sincerely cannot say for sure what's gonna happen in 10 years and what's the film world going to be.

Hell, I don't know if there's going to be a world in 10 years. With all this nonsense happening around the globe.

A friend of mine says that the best solution for mankind is a meteorite hitting the Earth.

I called him up yesterday and asked: "What's up, what are you doing?".

And he said: "I'm waiting for the meteorite."

:).

A bit misanthropic but he's a good musician.

So, in general, I think that Hollywood won't crumble beneath the feet of the zillions Scarlet-armed indies. It will just find a new and awesome competition and that will force it to change...

In what way... I dunno....

Of course, indies can't afford a Michael Bay styled stunts and explosions even with a RED One, but - who needs those. These things are secondary. People need life-like stories, characters, problems, struggles, solutions, victories, failures.

One thing's for sure: As long as there are people, they'll need stories and they'll need cinema. So we won't stay jobless. :)

The Russians say: We'll live and we'll see.

So, we'll live and we'll see what happens.

Or the meteorite will fall.


P.S. We might just start a new film chronology:

Events that happened before RED [BR] and after RED [AR, or anno REDi].

So in this way, Scarlet was born in the first Year of our RED [1 AR].

Lol.

Jazz having fun. I think some of those buterflies has gotten in my brain.

Watch out for the meteorite. :)

Yeah.
 
jpp said:
I'd have to disagree here. Most of the people you run across in the indie world, at least in the U.S., are as clueless and cultureless as the Hollywood types, and often less talented. Truth is, few real artists would ever go into the medium in this country, given the obstacles. And it shows, at least in the realm of American dramatic cinema.

When "indie" film making depends on Robert Redford, Fox Searchlight and indie producers, things are about as desperate as they can possibly be.

So I'd continue to insist that it really comes down to who's financing these movies. The stuff produced can be no better than the funding sources, unless something goes horribly right or wrong (depending on your point of view). The best (or worst) example of this is the movies "developed" at Sundance Labs, and later produced. Virtually all of them reflect the pieties and middle-brow interests of the Redford crowd.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make here. If the industry no longer exists there won't be very much money to support films anymore. Several decades ago, you could easily find a place to develop actual film. Now you have a limited number of places and because of the lesser amount of films being processed, the price goes up, thus making it more difficult to produce something on film, which means less films, which drives up cost...you get the idea. It's an endless cycle.

Now, evolve, I do appreciate your stance on the matter. And I completely understand the want/need to have control as opposed to corporations. But you show a lack of real knowledge for how this business works. Starving artists will always be starving artists if that's all they allow themselves to be because of stubbornness or pride. That's fine if that's all you ever want to be. But there are many who actually do want to make a living and be able to support a family. Often I have found Indies to be much more elitist than on the corporate side of things. They make the starving artist out to be some higher plane and if you actually make money doing your job, you're not a REAL artist. That's a load of crap. A truly talented person doesn't stay starving for very long. Why? Because a truly talented person will find a way to make sure that doesn't happen, even if it means leaving the thing that they love doing. And you forget that people like Tarantino did put their lives into their work, but it was really more of a hobby that evolved into something else. Tarantino funded his early works with his job from a video store. And since you're using him as your model for independent, I will use him to further jpp's point. Let's take a look at Grindhouse. This was an attempt to go even further "Indie". And it was a complete flop. The studio lost millions and millions of dollars. It wasn't very good. I personally don't believe Tarantino is indie at all, but you brought it up.

Again, I hear you on the issues you're bringing up, but I think you're far too utopian about it.
 
dvazp said:
I'm a little bit concerned because it seems there are a lot people on this forum who do not make a living from film/tv production and yet are willing to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on technology they think will make them into great filmmakers.
Click to expand...

I don't see why I should be concerned how OTHER people are spending THEIR money - so shouldn't be you.

dvazp said:
I find it very shocking and very sad. You have all heard this before, but technology is not the most important thing to making a great movie. The most important thing is having something to say.
Click to expand...

First: once in a while somebody here or in another forum like cinematography.com jumps up to tell us that technology is not making a great movie. This is shocking news! No really, do you honestly think people are that stupid? I don't think so.
Most people here want Red's products as a cinematographer to improve the quality of their output camera wise. It raises the limits. Nothing more.
It has zero influence on the creativity of a director or the script writer. They can do a bad job or a good job regardless the tools.
The same goes for the cinematographer - if he lacks the talent and knowledge he lacks it despite the camera he is using. Not the best hammer and saw in the whole world will enable you to build a boat if you don't know how to use the tools and how to build a boat.

Second: I don't think the most important thing is to have something to say. Indeed some of the most boring films I have seen had something to say, but couldn't deliver the message. Have a closer look at what most people watch in cinema and you will find it is not the artfilm and it is not the film which has something to say. People want to be entertained, they want to escape their own life for some hours, they want to relax or be moved emotionally. That is what people are willing to pay for.

Third: I am European. We lack those huge Hollywood budgets even for commercially made movies. A 'blockbuster' from Germany costs about 20 Mio Euros - which is considerd a huge budget over here. Most movies are made for 2-6 Mio Euros with most of the money coming from goverment aid (Filmförderung). Most companies can't make a living out if it. In US thinking those budgets are laughable. So if a new camera can lower the costs for making the movie this is very welcome - it will free some money to be spent on other parts of the filmproduction process.

Fourth: The european distributor channels for movies are in the hands of US companies. If you want your movie been seen in the US as an European it is a long hard fight. They are protecting their industry while flooding the world with their own products. It is even hard to get your movie into local cinemas in your own country without the support of an US distributor, because they own the cinemas here and dictate them what to play and how long to play it (even if nobody watches the movie it must be played for some weeks, while indie movies will get kicked out sometimes even before the first weekend).

Fifth: Nobody in Indie world (and mostly not in commercial world) does intentially make a bad movie. Everyone is certain to be part of a great thing - otherwise nobody would waste time and energy in making that. Sometimes it is lack of talent, sometimes lack of knowledge, or money or technology which makes a project fail. Sometimes it is just bad luck and the wrong point in time (Zeitgeist).
 
No one has really solved the problem of how super low-budget indie productions are really supposed to support the filmmakers and their crew in the long run, actually give them a middle-class income doing what they are skilled at doing while making a commercial product. Sure, maybe a director and producer can hope to make costs back and some profit down the road... but not only is that hit or miss, it doesn't address the fact that the crew people involved are still going to have to go out and get work on bigger productions to actually support themselves.

Truth is that most directors take a big chance on their first film, make no money in the process, pay the crew some minimal rate, often see only pennies back from the eventual distributor, and then parley the experience into a chance to enter into regular commercial filmmaking as part of the bigger industry... and THEN if they are lucky, start to actually earn a living as a director.

I'm talking about feature filmmaking in the US.

So with all this talk about new forms of distribution, the question is how will you make money off of this? Regularly? How do you create a system where everyone participating in the process also benefits financially? Otherwise, all you are doing is letting Hollywood subsidize your talent base and you're not really independent of them. You only think you are being an independent.
 
Sure, if you want to make big money from it, you still need to go wide in distribution and have a lot of people pay the ten bucks. But as in the previous example of athletics, it is not everybody that is going to be a professional runner or basketball player, that doesn't mean that they won't enjoy running or shooting hoops. These new cameras and distribution models simply allow people to get their vision seen at a great quality, no matter what kind of ambition level they have, financially or creatively. Some of this city's basketball games are played with the same ferocity and intense participation both for the players and the audience as the major league games. Nobody expects to make money from it, but still get a lot out of it. Sometimes it is more fun to watch as a certain freedom comes from this. And it doesn't even have to be either or - I think of Cassavetes who existed in this industry both in the commercial world and created his own way of being independent. Could he have used an inexpensive camera where he could have made movies with his wife and friends for virtually no cost?

Why not work both on big productions to make money for the family and at other times explore complete creative freedom on super low budget projects made with friends. In fashion photography it is done all the time, you do a hyper creative session for an editorial where the magazine knows the barter for a talented guy is to give him creative control, they provide the distribution. Then at another time, the same guy makes an advertising shot that perhaps appears in the same magazine without giving credit to the photographer, highly controlled artistically, but it pays the dough and the salaries for the team.

The creative Fly DVD magazine can exist because it's contributors work in this way. I could see some very talented commercial directors going down this route.
 
I don't like seeing Hollywood studio films (just too predictable) so i just cant wait to see some of the indie stuff from red. There's going to be some great films coming out, the likes that never have been seen. I just hope people use this tool responsibly and not try to do hollywood copy films that just look wannabe. But to make films that utilize this technology, that's exciting.
 
How to make a profit from internet distribution?

Not so long ago, I wrote a gigantic post about that, here on RedUser.

I gotta see if it's still up.

The key is to legalize and regulate what is now considered pirate network and pirate distribution technology.

Otherwise, piracy will keep devouring legal distribution anyway.

Create a new business and network of legal, competing torrent trackers [content-sharing sites], which would be the virtual equivalent of dvd rentals in the internet.

They would offer monthly subscriptions and\or individually-paid downloads of music, movies, games, etc.

In such a system, indie musicians and filmmaker will have MUCH greater chance to have decent or even excellent income from their work [if it's any good, of course].

The industries should wake up and adapt to the Internet or they'll keep losing money.

Big Studios and indies alike.

Legalize It. :biggrin:
 
David Mullen ASC said:
No one has really solved the problem of how super low-budget indie productions are really supposed to support the filmmakers and their crew in the long run, actually give them a middle-class income doing what they are skilled at doing while making a commercial product.

So with all this talk about new forms of distribution, the question is how will you make money off of this? Regularly? How do you create a system where everyone participating in the process also benefits financially?
Click to expand...

David you named the problem exactly. Some years ago I produced and worked on a 110 min feature for 3 years in my spare time, together with a lot of other people who dedicated their time and energy to the project. It was exhausting, after 3 years I was almost burned out (100+ hours working week) and had no money anymore (so did the rest of the team). I worked as the producer (doing all the budget calculations and lots of paper work), lighting cameraman, technical & visual effects supervisor, compositor, color grader, dvd author and cover designer. I spent a lot of time in learning my stuff. The project came out quite well and we nearly crossed the zero line, so at least we did not lose a lot of money. We got a name in the business and I can now make a so so living from working in film business.

But I cannot afford such a project again and I wouldn't participate in such a kamikaze project for other people without being paid for my work.

If you want to make a feature, at least you need money to pay people for their work.

agwah said:
Sure, if you want to make big money from it, you still need to go wide in distribution and have a lot of people pay the ten bucks. But as in the previous example of athletics, it is not everybody that is going to be a professional runner or basketball player, that doesn't mean that they won't enjoy running or shooting hoops. These new cameras and distribution models simply allow people to get their vision seen at a great quality, no matter what kind of ambition level they have, financially or creatively. Some of this city's basketball games are played with the same ferocity and intense participation both for the players and the audience as the major league games. Nobody expects to make money from it, but still get a lot out of it. Sometimes it is more fun to watch as a certain freedom comes from this. And it doesn't even have to be either or - I think of Cassavetes who existed in this industry both in the commercial world and created his own way of being independent. Could he have used an inexpensive camera where he could have made movies with his wife and friends for virtually no cost?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't want to see movies with bad actors (and wife and friends are almost 100% certain bad actors). To get my movie watched by others I have to make sure that certain levels of quality have been reached. That means at least a good story, believeable actors and acceptable sound. If you are planning to make a full feature, then you have to dedicate a lot of time and energy to deliver a good product. Making some bucks out of your movie means normally to invest a lot of your money and time into the production, distribution and marketing.


agwah said:
Why not work both on big productions to make money for the family and at other times explore complete creative freedom on super low budget projects made with friends. In fashion photography it is done all the time, you do a hyper creative session for an editorial where the magazine knows the barter for a talented guy is to give him creative control, they provide the distribution. Then at another time, the same guy makes an advertising shot that perhaps appears in the same magazine without giving credit to the photographer, highly controlled artistically, but it pays the dough and the salaries for the team.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference in the effort to make some indie photography versus an indie movie. We are talking about days versus years.

supernovafilms said:
I don't like seeing Hollywood studio films (just too predictable) so i just cant wait to see some of the indie stuff from red. There's going to be some great films coming out, the likes that never have been seen. I just hope people use this tool responsibly and not try to do hollywood copy films that just look wannabe. But to make films that utilize this technology, that's exciting.
Click to expand...

I don't get it why people are so anti Hollywood. I have a huge collection of movies on DVD, Hollywood and Arthouse, European and Asian movies - I enjoyed them all. Sometimes I prefer to watch a well crafted Hollywood blockbuster, sometimes I prefer some artsy flick, sometimes it is just Kitsch I watch - all depending on the mood.
 
To try to answer David Mullen's rhetorical question (to which he knows the answer), there really is no way to earn a living in this country making alternative films. A handful of people do manage to do it, coming up with a new feature every few years, often financed with foreign money, or they manage to straddle the indie/Hollywood world, and in those few cases, Hollywood is subsidizing their crew and talent base. It's also notable here that the indie directors who do manage to emerge under this system, thanks to their own risks and sacrifices, or great luck, haven't for the most part proved to be world-class talents, to put the matter politely. We could go into the reasons why, but it may be enough to look at what's required to get an indie film made in the U.S.

These structural characteristics are probably the main reason the U.S. has never had a real art-house tradition, despite large numbers of people engaged in feature filmmaking outside the Hollywood system.

It's an unfortunate situation, but one to which the market place, including alternative forms of distribution, doesn't seem to have any answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top