Film is dead, so says Ridley Scott

M

mrblue1022

Well-known member
For those who missed it in the July issue of Film & Video, when asked if film as a medium is dead, Ridley Scott said:

"Yes. The fact we're still trying to capture an image with a piece of celluloid that can break and get dust damage and so on is nonsense. So its days are numbered. Looking ahead, I'd like to shoot something with Viper. That's imminent.

"But I would miss working on a set. I was talking to Speilberg about all this, and he's the same way. I'd find it very hard to just work with green screen all day long, every day, so it'll be a hard transition for me. Half the fun for me is finding a location or building a great set, and I build a lot of huge, real sets for [Kingdom of Heaven], and it was cheaper than doing it all digital. I'm actually a classicist in terms of my view and I always hang onto what Doug Trumball said, 'Keep it real if you can - it's cheaper and better.'"


I have to admit that when Spielberg and Rodriguez pronounced that film was dead I was reluctant and skeptical to buy into to. Now Ridley Scott is a filmmaker who I really respect and admire, and if he is proclaiming that film is dead I might have to rethink this. Can film's days really be numbered? Should I truly be looking to shoot on video instead of film? Is this the end of the world as we know it?

Rob
 
film will be around for a while to come. but the abilities of digital have indeed already surpassed film. work with what you like and what makes the most sense for you.. the audience doesnt care. just make a good film.
 
Digital is simply another flavor of filmmaking. It may become the mainstream, but film is far from dead.

I find it interesting that by shooting digital, Scott sounds like he will abandon actual locations and trade in for a green screen. That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. How about this, DIGITAL with REAL SETS.

Enough of this Lucas bull ****! SWIII looked like it was shot on a green screen, and that pissed me off like no other. Sin City was great, and time will tell on King Kong. But come on people, less emphasis on technology, more on story!
 
Film isn't dead. Hollywood is dead. Then again, when sound came, they said it was dead. And Hollywood's still here. When television came, they said radio AND film was dead. Still here! They said Nixon was dead and he came back in '68! Now he might be really dead. Oh well, we may read horoscopes but don't really need to believe them!
 
I think that Digital is definitely the future for Hollywood filmmakers, but film isn't going to die off anytime soon. Some directors simply can't let go of shooting on film, while more creative directors will certainly use film as a creative element in their digital productions decades down the road. Film has its own look, some saying it has a life of its own, something that digital photography and video are hard-pressed to duplicate. But the cost of shooting digital is definitely appealing, as well as all of the tools available to the digital filmmaker.

As far as green-screen productions, I too hope to see less and less of them. While Sin City and the new Star Wars films did a good job with few real locations, I think there is definitely an artificiality to them that is good when shooting a stylized film or Sci-Fi, but would never do for a period drama. There is a lot of good work being done digitally, and I am all for it as a creative tool, but most of the time REAL is BETTER. Just my thoughts...
 
Jubal28 said:
Hollywood isn't dead.

But I sure hope doing everything with bluescreen dies.
Click to expand...



Studios - Have money

Producers - Studio lapdogs

Directors - Want more money

Bluescreen - Cheap

Producers - "DO BLUE SCREEN!

Directors - As you command

Studios - Have more money



The circle is complete.
 
mrblue1022 said:
I have to admit that when Spielberg and Rodriguez pronounced that film was dead
Click to expand...
Rodriguez said that, yes. Spielberg? I believe his quote was more like "I will only shoot on film, I will shoot film until they pry it from my cold dead fingers." Perhaps you meant Rodriguez and Lucas?

Can film's days really be numbered?
Click to expand...
Sure. So far they've numbered about 100 years worth of days, and seeing as something like 97% of Hollywood movies are still shot on film, it looks like it has many days ahead of it still.

Will it be replaced one day by video? Probably. Digital cameras have come a long way towards replacing still film; it would seem reasonable that the same thing would happen to motion. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.
 
Sin City doing everything with Green Screen was great; experimental and on purpose. RR was going for this look and style and achieved it.

Lucas doing everything in Blue Screen only served to enhance the sucktitude of those films.

Is film Dead? Damn this question. No it isn't dead. It will be though; it's a dinosaur. In the Cretaceous period perhaps.

Digitial will surpass film but film will never die; just as S16 is still in use. It will always remain another format in which to shoot. If I had a choice; I'd shoot film. But film will become a minority.

In the mean time? Who cares; like Mr Rowe says 'You better shoot a good story' cause the audience doesn't care at this point.
 
so... to add a twist...

Anyone think super 8 could outlast 35 mm?

HD will be able to emulate the "perfect" look of 35 mm one day, leaving super 8 a real niche market. I know some super 8 stocks are cut from 35 mm, so it could be a little problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top