Ebert on the Future of Digital

Dalton Boettcher

Dalton Boettcher

Active member
I don't know how many people here read Roger Ebert's blog, but I found one of his recent posts an interesting read. He's been known to be very anti-digital and pro-film, especially when it comes to distribution and projection. He makes some interesting points and comments in this entry, however. The blog mainly deals with the future of movie-going and watching, from both a distribution and viewing perspective.

Here's a couple quotes I found interesting:
The answer is digital distribution, and this is a good time for me to declare a cease-fire in my long war against digital projection. For years I said it was not as good as light through celluloid, and for years I was correct. I still believe that in principle. But digital projection has become very good indeed, to the point that most people aren't aware if they're watching it. In fact, the other day a 35mm print wasn't delivered to a Chicago screening room, and we watched a DVD screener of the same film, on the same screen, and it looked just fine. Much more to the point, 35mm prints are expensive to manufacture and ship, and if you want to open in 100 theaters on the same day you need 100 prints. A digital version can be distributed by internet or disc at a fraction of the cost, and that represents the future of the kinds of films we're looking for.
Click to expand...
and
By the way. I'll let you in on a professional secret. All of those 12 films got rated either three and a half stars or four stars from me. And I viewed every one on a DVD screener.
Click to expand...
That last one highlights a point we forget all to often: tell a good story and the technical aspects won't seem as important. Anyway, here's the link to the full blog/article
 
Nice find. I loved Eberts rant on Transformers 2 and Hollywood excess.

Just reading the quotes above, I'd have to say that overall I agree with him. Film is glorious, but it is expensive. I don't think every theater should be digital only, but if they can alleviate the burden that having to have so many film prints per film creates, then that might be a good change for the industry.

One thing I've thought might be an interesting way to get more films out there is to have smaller theaters. Not the size of the exterior building, but the size of each screen and the room it is in. If the screen was smaller and the screening room not as big, then there can be more films shown. For big releases like Harry Potter, just have it play on more screens. If the actual room each screen is housed in is smaller, there is no need for such large screens due to the audience not having to sit as far away.

Instead of an AMC 30, how about an AMC 60?

Wouldn't it be great if you could reserve a 30 seat theater for a party and invite 30 people you want to show up? Smaller screens would allow this, while also allowing more independent and obscure films to get a chance to be seen.

Digital distribution would also allow older films to be rereleased to theaters. I would love to be able to go watch Aliens or Network or Lawrence of Arabia in the theater. Not having to do film prints could make this a possibility. Also, how about instead of remaking all these old films, why not just rerelease the original and make new never before seen films to go alongside some classics?

Also, I would love to have the option to buy a Blu-ray or DVD of a film as I'm walking out of the theater. When are we more jazzed up about a great film? When we are walking out of the theater after having just seen it. Three to four months later, and many times people are not as excited and will just rent it instead.
 
The thing is, technology improves exponentially. The tipping point will soon arrive when digital is superior to film in every aspect, and then it will quickly be far superior. I'm betting in less than a decade, maybe less than five. And then the issue will be moot. Nobody will shoot on film for any reason other than nostalgia.
 
This is a good article. A very interesting read. I really have a lot of respect for Roger Ebert. I don't always agree with him but I almost always do. In fact, before I put a flick in my Blockbuster Online queue, I always check out his review first.

Nektonic said:
Wouldn't it be great if you could reserve a 30 seat theater for a party and invite 30 people you want to show up?
Click to expand...

That would be a great idea. Especially if the theater served somewhat edible dinner food. In fact, that'd probably one of the only ways they would do it and not lose money. If you guaranteed you'd be dining there. But, great idea.

Rick
 
Rick Meyer said:
That would be a great idea. Especially if the theater served somewhat edible dinner food. In fact, that'd probably one of the only ways they would do it and not lose money. If you guaranteed you'd be dining there. But, great idea.

Rick
Click to expand...

There are a pair of theaters out here called The Big Picture or something like that that are single screen and maybe 45 people that you can reserve for group showings. The don't have food though. They do have bar, and will deliver drinks to your seat. It's awesome...:beer:
 
Los Angeles (and probably most other major cities) is lousy with small, 20-50-seat screening theaters, many of which are much more comfy and luxurious than pretty much any commercial-sized theater...
 
Mike Harvey said:
There are a pair of theaters out here called The Big Picture or something like that that are single screen and maybe 45 people that you can reserve for group showings. The don't have food though. They do have bar, and will deliver drinks to your seat. It's awesome...:beer:
Click to expand...

YIKES! I'd be there every weekend.
 
I hate to be disrespectful but that being something that is earned, I'll be dadgummed if I can find a movie he ever made.
That said, his opinion or critique has never meant anything to me.
I had a creative director I worked for once who lacked creativity and direction because he had no hands on experience. I use to have to make him scram so I could do work. Same thing here.
Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.
 
grinner said:
Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.
Click to expand...

You know, my attitude towards Ebert used to be as one of the perpetrators of 'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls' he has no business at all critiquing the work of others - and I am generally dismissive of critics of any sort (those who can't do...)

...but that said, Ebert's work speaks for itself, as an art, film and social critic and commentator. Fine, he's never directed or produced a blockbuster, he probably couldn't draft a set and I question whether he can read a light meter...but so what? What he has to say stands up, whether he's got production chops, or not (remember the bad practice of poisoning the well...?)

And I have to admit that, taken on its own terms, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is not exactly a bad movie, after all.
 
grinner said:
I hate to be disrespectful but that being something that is earned, I'll be dadgummed if I can find a movie he ever made.
That said, his opinion or critique has never meant anything to me.
I had a creative director I worked for once who lacked creativity and direction because he had no hands on experience. I use to have to make him scram so I could do work. Same thing here.
Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.
Click to expand...

Grinner, if Ebert claimed to be a film maker, then you might have a point. But he doesn't. (Well, unless you count writing "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" for Russ Meyer sometime back in the Stone Age. :D ) Ebert is a film critic. It's his job to watch movies and write down his opinion. If you don't like him, or agree with his opinion, that's fine, I'm not saying you have to. Just don't hate on him because he's not something he's not even supposed to be.

For the record, I probably agree with Ebert more often than I don't; but I still have a little issue with him for convincing me to see "Spiderman 2." :)
 
Batutta said:
The thing is, technology improves exponentially. The tipping point will soon arrive when digital is superior to film in every aspect, and then it will quickly be far superior. I'm betting in less than a decade, maybe less than five. And then the issue will be moot. Nobody will shoot on film for any reason other than nostalgia.
Click to expand...

First, Ebert is talking about film distribution, not origination.

Second, that kind of thinking is as ill-informed as the video-bashers of the last decade. Film will continue to have practical applications as well as aesthetic ones. IMAX will likely be around for a long time, for example. For some projects, shooting super 16 is still the cheapest origination format, especially in situations where you need wide exposure latitude or flexibility in ISO sensitivity. Film has also had almost 100 years to perfect nuances like skin tone rendition, something that will likely take video more than 10 years to catch up. Plus film has a long history of scientific applications, and you can't just change stocks to IR, UV, or X-Ray on your F23. Of course, the trend will be toward more use of digital cinema cameras, but 100% is a very high number.
 
ProfessorU said:
First, Ebert is talking about film distribution, not origination.

Second, that kind of thinking is as ill-informed as the video-bashers of the last decade. Film will continue to have practical applications as well as aesthetic ones. IMAX will likely be around for a long time, for example. For some projects, shooting super 16 is still the cheapest origination format, especially in situations where you need wide exposure latitude or flexibility in ISO sensitivity. Film has also had almost 100 years to perfect nuances like skin tone rendition, something that will likely take video more than 10 years to catch up. Plus film has a long history of scientific applications, and you can't just change stocks to IR, UV, or X-Ray on your F23. Of course, the trend will be toward more use of digital cinema cameras, but 100% is a very high number.
Click to expand...

Yes, film has had 100 years, but digital cinema in a very short period of time has nearly caught up to something that to the casual observer is indistinguishable from film. Technology progresses on an exponential curve, not a linear one, so you can't compare the rate of progress of film with that of digital cinema. I'm not a cheerleader for either camp. I just forsee that at the rate things are going digital cameras will soon be able to reproduce and then surpass all the nuances of film origination. Wider latitude and color reproduction and ISO sensitivity and all that jazz. It's not a question of if, but when.
 
Mike Harvey said:
There are a pair of theaters out here called The Big Picture or something like that that are single screen and maybe 45 people that you can reserve for group showings. The don't have food though. They do have bar, and will deliver drinks to your seat. It's awesome...:beer:
Click to expand...

Sad Max said:
Los Angeles (and probably most other major cities) is lousy with small, 20-50-seat screening theaters, many of which are much more comfy and luxurious than pretty much any commercial-sized theater...
Click to expand...

That's what I'm talking about. The movie theater scene needs to be shoken up a bit. Give us options beyond sitting in a massive dark room with a bunch of disrespectful twittering Twilight tweens. Give us more concession choices beyond soda, popcorn, Dots, Milk Duds, Junior Mints, Good and Plenty, unappetizing hot dogs, and microwave pretzels.

Smaller. A little more upscale. Serve good but not exorbitantly priced food and beverages that actually constitute some sort of a meal, and not a bunch of salt and butter. What the hell, sell nice cigars. Everyone can puff away and watch the movie like they're a mogul at a dailies screening.

Show some short films before the main feature instead of Pepsi commercials. Didn't they show short films way back in the day? I would love to see some great short films. It would be another way for up and coming filmmakers to get their work seen.

Batutta said:
I just forsee that at the rate things are going digital cameras will soon be able to reproduce and then surpass all the nuances of film origination. Wider latitude and color reproduction and ISO sensitivity and all that jazz. It's not a question of if, but when.
Click to expand...

Add to that easier shooting in 3D, more cameras can be used on set, smaller cameras (Scarlet anyone?), and eventually higher-than-35mm celluloid resolution once the sensors get there. How about a bio-cam? It would basically be a lab grown human eye that is connected to a digital recording device. The human eye should surpass pretty much any lens and sensor system out there now and in the future. Or, tap into the optic nerve. There would be no cameras anymore. At least not one you hold in your hand or mount on a tripod. We'd have human cameras and total breakdown of the fourth wall.

I believe that over the next 100 years, cinema, if that is what it is called by then, will change so drastically that it will be completely indistinguishable from what we have now. Just think what the early pioneers of film would think if they saw Transformers 2 or The Matrix.
 
Last edited:
grinner said:
That is my very point. Anyone can critique but it take the unemplyed to do it professionally.
Click to expand...

Since they're doing it professionally it follows that they are in fact employed, at doing it.

I don't think I want to involve dinner in the theater experience itself. Before, fine, after, great, but it sounds like a distraction. I'm pretty sure that if I had a meal in front of me during anything really engrossing, I wouldn't end up eating it.
 
Making a great movie doesn't assure one's ability to analyze and communicate their opinion about what makes a movie good or bad... and more importantly, it doesn't ensure that opinion will be interesting to millions of people.

I don't always agree with Ebert, but I usually enjoy his analysis... and find it thought provoking... which is way more then I can say for most movies... including many popular flicks.

Intelligent writing is a skill unto itself... and if a person consistently displays high intellect through logical points... all while holding my interest through creative storytelling, I have no problem with their suitability to analyze the very same thing that I'm analyzing as well.

On the other topic... I saw UP in digital... and it was stunning.
 
MattinSTL said:
I don't always agree with Ebert, but I usually enjoy his analysis... and find it thought provoking... which is way more then I can say for most movies... including many popular flicks.

Intelligent writing is a skill unto itself... and if a person consistently displays high intellect through logical points... all while holding my interest through creative storytelling, I have no problem with their suitability to analyze the very same thing that I'm analyzing as well.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't always see what he sees, but almost always enjoy reading his critiques. They get the wheels turning and make you think. And in the end, it's just one man's opinion. Not worth getting worked up over.

Now as for the smaller and more upscale theater idea, I love it! After building a small home theater system and watching well transferred blu-rays, I have a hard time shelling out $10 a ticket and $3 for bottle of water, only to find myself distracted and removed from the film with all the cellphones lighting up. (Why do people pay to go to a movie if they don't have the attention span to actually watch it?) Anyway, that's a whole nother topic.
 
Digital projection is great. The first time I saw something projected that way was when I saw Star Trek and it was nice and clean, no scratches or anything like that (obviously).

It's funny he mentioned the DVD and nobody noticing. Most film prints by the time they hit the theater anyways are like 720p in resolution...so 853x480 (16x9 DVD) isn't far off.
 
Speaking of the evolving nature of film distribution....from film to digital projection, etc. I'm wondering where that is headed?

It seems that the studios would like even more control over their distribution rights than they already have. Its like not paying your light bill and having the electric company shut you off. The studios could presumably flick a switch and shut down a theater if money was owed. But on the flip, it would be so much easier to have a wider distribution for smaller productions.

Not only that, but the more theaters that convert to digital projection they better the odds that movie theaters will evolve from just cineplexes to huge LIVE EVENT showings, from boxing matches to the SUPER BOWL to pretty much whatever they'd want to air for the sake of airing it. It would give them more opportunities to make $.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top