Where is the film-industry heading?

[Gunleik Groven]

This post came up in the "Recap" thread, but pretty much sums up a couple of things I have been wondering:

While I can totally understand the excitement over these news and I honestly think Red has every right to be extremely proud of where they are now (and where they're heading), I cannot help but notice 2 things in the list: first of all, these are almost all 3D (not being a fan of the format, it doesn't really matter to me), so while it clearly shows that Epic is becoming the de facto choice for that kind of production, and given its size it makes perfect sense, i'll be more interested in seeing the camera used in a more "traditional" way, because realistically that's what's going to happen on this side of the world for most things (and I guess Soderbergh and Fincher movies in the list will answer that question, though they were shot on MX as well).

Secondly, am I the only one in noticing that, aside from the Ridley Scott movie and Contagion, out of 8 movies (so far) 3 are sequels/prequels, 2 are remakes, 1 is a reboot? If this is a trend for the future, I don't like it...at all...

(doesn't have ANYTHING to do with Red or any other camera or format, so I apologize if I put my little rant here).

... and the Ridley Scott is a prequel AFAIK

I also found this article by Francis Ford Coppola quite interesting (Thanks Detlef!)

http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-On-Risk-Money-Craft-Collaboration

Just thought this might be a good time as any to get into theis discussion... again...

Cheers!

G

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

1st of all these blockbusters maybe make 1% of the movies shot in the US and Europe.
in europe especially i see that the huge arthouse segment (which is 80% publicly funded) slowly dies, because the usual audience of 30+ years olds and students are stopping to watch arthouse.
is this because most european movies are boring or that the audience dont get them anymore?... i dont know.

and in bad times maybe fantasy and adventure movies work better at the box office?
anyway i am sure that in 5-10 years there will be a new wave of films...comparable to the 70ies wave of US and European movies (new hollywood and novelle vague).
and for this generation the red company will be a blessing.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

This post came up in the "Recap" thread, but pretty much sums up a couple of things I have been wondering

Thanks for re-posting, Gunleik, i think it's a potentially interesting discussion, and it didn't really belong in the "recap" thread.

... and the Ridley Scott is a prequel AFAIK

It was, but it's not anymore. Since it's going to an original story, I felt it was better not to include it in the prequel/sequel/reboot/remake list.

1st of all these blockbusters maybe make 1% of the movies shot in the US and Europe.

Maybe so, but when it comes to distribution to multiplexes and big cinema chains, it's not unusual for one of those movies to be shown on half the screens available, while so many other movies are struggling to get shown on a few screens across Europe.

in europe especially i see that the huge arthouse segment (which is 80% publicly funded) slowly dies

Actually, and I'm only talking about Italy, the arthouse audience is quite faithful and hasn't declined in years (and here public funds are virtually non-existent anymore), actually it has increased. It's usually the big movies who are declining a bit as far as attendance is concerned (i'm not talking about the US), but they're pulling more money in anyway, because they are indeed huge and recently because of 3D.

Anyway, what I was trying to say in my original post in "recap" was NOT some kind of holy crusade against blockbusters or Hollywood: one of my favourite movies last year was Inception, and you cannot really say it was a arthouse film, and there were plenty of good original, not-blockbuster-y movies coming out. I do believe there will always be room for both kind of movies, but looking at the "Epic list" so far, I wonder how many of those sequels/reboots would have been made if not for the availability of 3D. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the thinking behind it is something like "no way in hell people would see this sequel in 2D, but they definitely will in 3D".

 

[Gunleik Groven]

francesco, thanks for joining in, and sorry for taking your quote out... )

The 3D thingy is an agreed policy between the large studios, initially intended to keep the audience in the cinemas instead of the web and home (blueray) TV's. Adding experience-value on a movie that anyway cost more than XXX$

It seems all the studios stick to their side of that agreement for now, probably because it makes economical sense.

That is a technical evolution that def opens door for a low-mass digital-cinema camera like the Epic.

The more interesting part (rather than the 3d vs 2d discussion) is the general trend of making sequels to successfull movies, filming successfull novels and remaking older successes, rather than investing in "fresh" ideas.

there are exceptions, of course - like Inception...

But on the general, and for now, the studios seem to act quite cautios as to what they risk their money on.

I am not saying I don't understand that, but Ihope we will continue to see a mix where risk-taking is more artistically expressed, even amongst the multis...

I sincerely think the 2D/3D debate is a different one, but it might be a driving reason for the above...

waddaiknow?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I only want to make movies I want to see. Financing them is really hard. I've had to work as a writer for hire at times- which has been enormously frustrating. Its my biggest regret. I have many spec scripts that I want to make that are well beyond my capacity to self-finance, but I want to see them made.

Red has put many of my projects within reach of my ability to fund them myself. I can shoot 35mm at the highest quality now. My point is: I'm not unique. I believe a vibrant community of regional auteurs will emerge now that the roadblock of image quality has been destroyed. Arthouse cinema will return, it will be artist-funded and it will give rise to great works of art and great independent success stories.

Red has given those of us without a wine empire the tools to make our films the way we see them. If we can harness the technology affordably, there is no limit to what we can create conceptually. I'm amazed at what I'm able to do now with the tools at my disposal. There is no way I could ever repay Jim and the team at Red for the sheer magnitude of whats possible on my desktop.

Some of my personal films will only see an audience measured in dozens of people, some will make it to a festival. But I can make them without a studio committee telling me what I can and can't do. If my collaborators are willing, I can do it.

This market will quickly eclipse the Hollywood model. The revenue from personal arthouse cinema will finally exceed the industry on an aggregate basis. This will be likely very soon. But in order for this to occur, the content we personal, individual and very independent filmmakers create must be challenging, inspiring and intellectually stimulating-- we can't make just studio fare on a small scale and expect to compete with them.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

its heading towards talent.. thank god..

gear is everywhere and available to everyone..

so now its all up to the individual film makers to actually have talent..

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Jeff...

I like this thought...

However, the screeningrooms themself must make money, too...
And a s far as I know, many of the large chains are actually owned by the multies. What's their incentive to screen "off the mainroad" films...

I think digital distribution is an opening to make moore places to screen movies (outside the festivals), but there is a paradox here.

The multis have partly - through securing their own distribution - made themself inbreed on the "viable" ideas...
One does Marvel, the other does DC... (just an example, I really Dunno who does what... The point is: It's not very inventive... Compared to RED f. ex...))

Sure... You can distribute it over the web, but will that make the audience see your project the way you imagined (unless of course you don't deliberately produce for web, which is just fine, but besides the point...)

The great thing about cinemas, is the controlled environment...

I see RedRay may have a role to play here alongside more affordable 4k projectors...

But one still need a lot of more infrastructure besides a room, a projector and audio to get people to see anything at significant numbers...

Don't get me wrong.
I love a great blockbuster as much as the next man.
But I love plurality too...

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

francesco, thanks for joining in, and sorry for taking your quote out... )

No prob Gunleik, actually, Thanks for doing that!

The more interesting part (rather than the 3d vs 2d discussion) is the general trend of making sequels to successfull movies, filming successfull novels and remaking older successes, rather than investing in "fresh" ideas.

Exactly. And you're right, it's not about 2D vs 3D, it's a more general subject, and it's nothing new, though I've read somewhere there are 40 sequels planned for 2011, and that number is pretty big.

Still, I have to disagree with you on one thing: Spiderman was indeed a huge success, and a relatively recent one, but I can't help thinking that maybe a sequel to Underworld (a not very successful series by all accounts) or to Clash of the Titans (a remake itself, pretty much destroyed by critics and not a huge commercial success) wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for 3D.

Again, I'm not against sequels or remakes per se: I think the rebooting of Star Trek was fantastic, as well as the one for Batman, which proves, in a way, that in the end it doesn't really matter if it's a sequel, a prequel, a remake, a reboot, etc: if it's done in a skillful way and with a fresh approach, it can be a great thing anyway. In other words, a great movie is a great movie, regardless of its originality. (personally, if i have to choose between watching some original work and a remake, usually I'd choose the first, but that's me and it's definitely not a rule...when is The Dark Knight Rises coming out? :biggrin

With some of the movies in the list (and with some of the sequels coming out later this year), it almost feels like those studios are taking the easiest way of all, betting on projects that weren't going anywhere in the first place, and trying to sell them again to the same audiences, at a higher price, with shiny "3D" attached to it.
On the other hand, I can't wait to see the new Pirates movie (in 2D), and I think a sequel like that makes sense, because I think that Jack Sparrow as a character has so much more potential and so many stories could be told about him (kind of like 007, in a weird kind of way).

But on the general, and for now, the studios seem to act quite cautios as to what they risk their money on.

Well, that has always been the case, I guess.

I am not saying I don't understand that, but Ihope we will continue to see a mix where risk-taking is more artistically expressed, even amongst the multis...

I do understand that, and I accept it as part of the "system", if we can call it that. And I'm 100% that we'll always see a nice mix of things, no doubt about it at all. I wish I was at Sundance now

I sincerely think the 2D/3D debate is a different one, but it might be a driving reason for the above...

It should be a different one, I would hope so, but I'm not that sure...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Agreed.

AND about batman...

Havt say that if it wasn' for my 9 YO son, I'd probably have left Transformers after II...

 

[David Rasberry]

For most Indies, getting above the noise to reach significant audiences is going to be the major roadblock. Economically viable distribution is the the real bottleneck.

 

[Elsie N]

I don't see the fact that Epic being the camera of choice for 3d movies as being a concern. I am more interested in the fact that 2 billion dollars worth of production chose the Epic over any other option, even before the official release.

I don't think there will be any doubt that 2d movies will follow.

I am even thinking about shooting my low budget project in stereo. I will probably go to festivals with a 2d version, but will let it be known that if warranted, a 3d version is possible.

 

[Elsie N]

For most Indies, getting above the noise to reach significant audiences is going to be the major roadblock. Economically viable distribution is the the real bottleneck.

I've said this since the very first time I heard about RedRay. This is going to turn distribution as we know it on its head. Not only have RED cameras freed the Hollywood slaves, but the RedRay will free the exibitor slaves.

 

[George Butterfield]

I've said this since the very first time I heard about RedRay. This is going to turn distribution as we know it on its head. Not only have RED cameras freed the Hollywood slaves, but the RedRay will free the exibitor slaves.

Elsie, can you please elaborate, further on this belief? I find it very, very, interesting.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Jeff...

I like this thought...

However, the screeningrooms themself must make money, too...
And a s far as I know, many of the large chains are actually owned by the multies. What's their incentive to screen "off the mainroad" films...

I think digital distribution is an opening to make moore places to screen movies (outside the festivals), but there is a paradox here.

The multis have partly - through securing their own distribution - made themself inbreed on the "viable" ideas...
One does Marvel, the other does DC... (just an example, I really Dunno who does what... The point is: It's not very inventive... Compared to RED f. ex...))

Sure... You can distribute it over the web, but will that make the audience see your project the way you imagined (unless of course you don't deliberately produce for web, which is just fine, but besides the point...)

The great thing about cinemas, is the controlled environment...

I see RedRay may have a role to play here alongside more affordable 4k projectors...

But one still need a lot of more infrastructure besides a room, a projector and audio to get people to see anything at significant numbers...

Don't get me wrong.
I love a great blockbuster as much as the next man.
But I love plurality too...

As the brick and mortar retail stores move the shopping experience to the internet, we'll see more culturally relevant businesses begin to invade this space. Communal spaces for people to congregate like off-site remote office workers. Places like Starbucks, restaurants, comedy clubs, bars, bookstores, designed indoor playspaces for children. Its in these venues that I see viable screening facilities emerge.

We'll also see groups of like-minded film-goers band together and rent facilities in the established chains for local screenings. I think we'll also see more non-studio content in the larger, corporate owned cinemas, streamed in via satellite, broadband, and Red Ray shown between, before and after the Hollywood stuff. Some Cinemas will be 24 hour establishments.

Its important to note that while I believe the aggregate market for arthouse cinema will eclipse Hollywood, the individual filmmaker and the cast and crews won't see the financial rewards that a blockbuster wide release could garner. There will be stand-outs, exceptions, but the possibility that you could become a professional filmmaker, shooting and exhibiting your own content in a communal space-- I see that as increasing in likelihood. I can see professional micro-studios emerging across the world regionally and many filmmakers able to make a modest living doing this.

Self-publishing cinema if you will. Why not? For a Starbucks-like chain-- it would be a huge boon. Imagine REI hosting a monthly festival of extreme sports films.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

I don't see the fact that Epic being the camera of choice for 3d movies as being a concern. I am more interested in the fact that 2 billion dollars worth of production chose the Epic over any other option, even before the official release.

Elsie, I never wrote it was a "concern", actually it wasn't something about the Epic, at all, but more about the fact that 3/4 of the movies announced so far on the Epic are a) sequels/reboots/remakes and b) in 3D. I'm pretty sure that if Epic wasn't available, those movies would have happened anyway, with different cameras: Pirates was shot with MXs, Scorsese's Hugo Cabret with Alexa, others with F35s, etc.

But, cameras aside, while The Hobbit is a sequel to a very successfull (and beautiful) series, and Spiderman is a reboot of a successfull (although some could say too recent) movie, Underworld 4 and Clash of the Titans 2 are sequels to movies that, to put it mildly, haven't received lots of love from either the audiences or the critics.

In other words, as I wrote earlier, it looks like they (the studios) are going to give the audiences a product that wasn't even successful in the first run, shoot it in 3D, and try to bank on that, thinking the audiences will make it a box office champion just because it's 3D.

If I were someone who's interested in using 3D at its best and believed in that new tool as a powerful medium for new exciting possibilities in storytelling, I'd be concerned that the studios are willing to shoot ANYTHING in 3D, even old and not successful franchises, just to bring some cash in. The big question, of course, is: will audiences go to see Underworld 4 in HUGE numbers because it's 3D or will they react in the same way they did to the other previous 3 movies in the series?

I don't think there will be any doubt that 2d movies will follow.

I'm sure you're right, and we'll see many more "traditional" movies being shot in 2D with Epic. So far, Epic sounds (and probably is) the best choice for 3D, and it makes perfect sense from a marketing point of view to announce huge blockbusters being shot with it. I'm sure it will be a great tool, but I'm also sure that it won't be the only choice (and that's a good thing, for everyone). Some people will choose it, others won't, for different reasons. Not a big deal, really. But that's not even the subject of this thread, sorry for the off-topic...

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie, can you please elaborate, further on this belief? I find it very, very, interesting.

George, I see many possibilities. For instance, (and I've posted along these lines before) I see movie clubs forming... buying their own RedRay/projector and tent/warehouse-rental for exhibiting. Those that are bigger clubs with more money will have a better show area.

For the most part, they will have the same interests, much like a book club. They will need to have a distro center available so they can get online and browse the titles available and order in that movie on whatever way the content is distributed. This could even be on a dedicated 2.5" hdd that fits into a docking station, or perhaps an optical disc.

This would have the advantage of being able to watch a movie comfortably among a group of like-minded people who laugh at the same moment or cry at the same time during a movie. Still has that movie theater feel but without the annoyances that often come with a varied audience.

Carrying the tent concept further, an Indie movie could be promoted like a circus. Come into town, put up a tent, show your movie. Find local sponsors and charge for tickets.

Another idea is for small towns to sponsor a local Indie movie-maker. The town owns part of the movie and sells rights to show that movie in other towns at their own RedRay arthouse. A movie getting lots of buzz might even bring people to their town to watch the movie.

Sure, blockbusters still get made in Hollywood and will still be shown in regular theaters. But now, an Indie can be both a movie-maker AND exhibitor, if he or she so chooses.

This may or may not happen, but I see these as just some of the possibilites. Especially in many 2nd or third world countries.

EDIT: Didn't properly address the "free the exhibitor" slaves comment. I think that many small theaters (in the above scenario with a distribution center) would be able to affordably upgrade to RedRay digital and show what and when and for how long. They would likely be shut out of the blockbuster showings but could probably be more profitable showing available mainstream movies, possibly as soon as they are released by streaming them via the new Bit Torrent-like Screamin' Streamin' (my terminology) protocol.

 

[George Butterfield]

Is it Hollywood that is making Obama try for control of the internet. Does Hollywood want to take that distribution channel away from the independents? Will you have to pay Government a fee to distribute "approved" films over the internet. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

[dean merrill]

its heading towards talent.. thank god..

gear is everywhere and available to everyone..

so now its all up to the individual film makers to actually have talent..

I'm glad to see this being said. With more easily accessible distribution methods ( web, netflix, etc. ) the public is able to see that other 90% of films being made in the US. With cameras like the RED ONE/Epic and even other lower end prosumers, the ability to shoot is relatively affordable and now the story is coming more important... although people are still making zombie flicks.

I must say though, that on average there are about 5 films a year from Hollywood that I am impressed with. Unfortunately I see way too many "big" films that leave me wondering:

"Why did someone spend money making this."

The truth is that from what I see the formula is more important to achieve the bottom line which is $$ instead of the art. There are of course exceptions and making films is a combination of art and business. Again, we are still only looking at "1%" of the films being made.

Another thing is that for the most part, the general populous isn't looking for a complicated story, or to be challenged so it makes sense that these films are being made.

On a positive side though, I have seen some really amazing things being made (posted on REDuser), just look at Tom Lowe's work... breathtaking! This forum itself is helping to cultivate the art, and making it more solid. The inspiration I get from this group is fantastic, and am happy to be a part of it.

 

[dean merrill]

Is it Hollywood that is making Obama try for control of the internet. Does Hollywood want to take that distribution channel away from the independents? Will you have to pay Government a fee to distribute "approved" films over the internet. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

This is a terribly complicated thing, and I don't it is a part of Obama's "agenda". The government (people) is hugely controlled by corporations (again people), and Communications is a MASSIVE part of it. There has been a push for many years (before Obama's administration) to control the web, mostly by telecom companies. What we are seeing is a strong push by an elite few to control information to make profit. This is being presented as the government, but it really isnt. Lets not forget that its people that make up the government, not a fictitious/ambiguous single entity.

There is always going to be a struggle over controlling the flow of information. Information = power, and unfortunately humanity has a deadly apatite for power.

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie, I never wrote it was a "concern", actually it wasn't something about the Epic, at all, but more about the fact that 3/4 of the movies announced so far on the Epic are a) sequels/reboots/remakes and b) in 3D.

Francesco,
I read your post the first time for content and posted, then re-read it for comprehension. You are right.