"Film is Finished" article

Ha ha ha. Feels like its been an article a month for several years now with the same protagonists mentioned in every article. Just a bunch of writers looking for a sensationalist headline because they've got nothing better to write about that will get them page views.

I can tell you from first hand experience that film has made a huge comeback in the motion picture industry. Almost every film I've worked on lately has gone back to film.

And if that Robert Downey story is true he can go F**k himself. 14 hours on your feet is what every crew member does on a regular basis unlike Downey who takes a 6 month shooting film and maybe works a total of a months worth of worked days for his 10 million dollar paycheck when crew members are on their feet for 14 hours almost daily for all the six months so they can keep they're health insurance and a roof over their heads if they're lucky enough to get on a 6 month job.
 
Last edited:
"...Another is Nolan, who made the Dark Knight trilogy: "I am now constantly asked to justify why I want to shoot a film on film," he said. Nolan likens digital to an "amazing" cookie until you realise "this is some horrible chemical crap that's giving you this bad illusion that fools you at first.""

I think this is a great quote and a great analogy because it's so flawed.

He's saying that you can eat a cookie with something in it that is poison, which you cannot taste. It tastes the SAME as a cookie with no poison, i.e. "natural".

And part of this is true with digital. It can look the SAME as film. Take the best Arri or Red with an awesome DP and shoot some footage, put it up next to 35mm Film and ask 100 audience members to spot which is digital and which is film. The success rate will be REALLY low.

Did audiences know which scene in Black Swan was shot with a 5d Mark II without being told? They absolutely did not.

So you CAN hide the fact that it's digital and not Film, just like you can hide the poison "chemicals" in a cookie.

But...where's the poison chemicals in the film? Is the film going to make you fat, give you breast cancer, or high blood pressure? If you cannot SEE the difference, how are you being harmed?

To me the funny thing about Tarantino and Nolan is they both use Digital Intermediates and don't complain about it. IMO, that's where the "look" comes from, in the color correction and grading which is all digital, more so than the acquisition format.

If you're going to be a Film purest, then don't grade or color correct digitally either. They go to all this trouble to shoot 35mm film...so they can digitize it and put it in a computer. But yet digital is evil. Makes no sense IMO.
 
Last edited:
I'm getting back to film photography because digital photography doesn't entice me. I'm not saying film is better, but I akin the film/digital thing to painting. For some painters, water based paint just don't work, oil does (which doesn't make them any better or worse as an artist), then they make film (then digital) prints and sell it cause it is easier to duplicate.

So yeah, I will shoot in film and digitize cause the whole experience during the making of an image works for me with film (I'm talking stills); maybe I'll try analogue printing as well. Maybe that is what works for Nolan et al. The sad part is, for better of worse, film will one day not be available any longer because of economic reasons. I say it is sad because as an artist you suddenly do not have a particular brush any longer, i.e. oil paint can't be used anymore.

Luckily the stills guy still has tin type to fall back on....or me who will hopefully make a 10 tons of money, design and build my small batch production film factory. :grin:
 
mico said:
And if that Robert Downey story is true he can go F**k himself. 14 hours on your feet is what every crew member does on a regular basis unlike Downey who takes a 6 month shooting film and maybe works a total of a months worth of worked days for his 10 million dollar paycheck when crew members are on their feet for 14 hours almost daily for all the six months so they can keep they're health insurance and a roof over their heads if they're lucky enough to get on a 6 month job.
Click to expand...

Well, Downey is the one bringing "it" to the screen, and if he feels he needs some down time to prepare and get in the space he needs to be for a scene then he should probably have it. Sure the scene will probably be passable if you want to beat him like a mule and plow through the day, but there might be some screen magic lost by not giving him time to "get his #@#$ together" as Downey stated. As an actor I need to prepare and that might be perceived as loafing or relaxing in a trailor but it's still work to get in the right mental and emotional space. And in Downey's case, he's the one shouldering the production. That's an unimaginable pressure to have a whole multi million dollar company resting on your shoulders when all aspects of production amounting to hundreds of thousands a day are devoted to recording your every nuance.
 
mico said:
...
And if that Robert Downey story is true he can go F**k himself. 14 hours on your feet is what every crew member does on a regular basis unlike Downey who takes a 6 month shooting film and maybe works a total of a months worth of worked days for his 10 million dollar paycheck when crew members are on their feet for 14 hours almost daily for all the six months so they can keep they're health insurance and a roof over their heads if they're lucky enough to get on a 6 month job.
Click to expand...

Good, go make a make movie with the grips doing the acting.
 
Personally I still like the look of film for motion pictures. I can't afford to shoot film, but I do prefer the organic quality of it over digital. Having gotten that out of the way, digital cinema cameras (Alexa, Red, even Black Magic) are so darn close and are truly great tools for just about everyone out there besides big shot directors like Nolan or Tatantino and DPs such as Wally Pfister or Roger Deakins. I know Deakins has more recently embraced digital as an option and not the one preferable cinema medium. So if he can make the jump, I can't imagine that some of the other holdouts won't eventually give it a shot. If anything to just try it out and experience new tools.

My bet is Spielberg trys out shooting and posting a whole project on digital soon. He was one to embrace CGI and digital effects tech so I wouldn't be shocked to hear about him giving digital a shot.

Anyways, I'm rambling a bit here. Personally I am cool with digital. I'd love to shoot on film (35mm or S16mm), but I realize I probably won't get that chance unless I win some big $$$ in the lottery in the next year or two. Over the last two years I have been having a harder time figuring out what movies are shot on film vs digital. I remember when Star Wars Episode II released a decade ago and while not bad in terms of looking digital, definitely stood out as more clinical and crisp. Other digital films like Collateral a couple years later, also had that digital crispness and dullness that worked for the story and setting, but definitely stood out.

Nowadays the digital stuff has truly become viable for cinema. It isn't the F900 days anymore. Think about that. In a decade digital cinema cameras and post tools have gone through their technical puberty. Digital might still be a bit like a young early 20 something rebel, but it will get better. If digital cinematography continues to grow and improve over the next ten years the same way it grew over the past ten, then we'll all be better off for it.

No, the real problem is that artists shouldn't be forced into aesthetic choices purely by buisiness and economic interests. The fight over film vs digital is really just a small firefight in the war between art and commerce. These days, commerce is winning.
 
"Near-death"... as if it hasn't already happened. As someone else pointed out, this is another in a long line of articles about the exact same topic from the past couple years.

Film died last year when the major players stopped making new film cameras and, more importantly, film stock. Sure you can still make a film on film if you really want to, or have the luxury of a Hollywood budget, but for 99% of filmmakers it is either impractical or unaffordable to do so. Film is no longer the default and is typically the "forced" choice, one probably made for either stubborn, nostalgic, or niche reasons.
 
I enjoyed the end result of David Fincher's method over the majority of films I've seen; so as a viewer, I'm glad he wasn't given the opportunity to get his #@#$ together. That said, I'm so very lazy... So I can also sympathize with anyone who doesn't want to be bossed around for 14 hours a day.

f64manray said:
Well, Downey is the one bringing "it" to the screen, and if he feels he needs some down time to prepare and get in the space he needs to be for a scene then he should probably have it. Sure the scene will probably be passable if you want to beat him like a mule and plow through the day, but there might be some screen magic lost by not giving him time to "get his #@#$ together" as Downey stated. As an actor I need to prepare and that might be perceived as loafing or relaxing in a trailor but it's still work to get in the right mental and emotional space. And in Downey's case, he's the one shouldering the production. That's an unimaginable pressure to have a whole multi million dollar company resting on your shoulders when all aspects of production amounting to hundreds of thousands a day are devoted to recording your every nuance.
Click to expand...
 
The premise of this article is wrong, this is most certainly not film's last Oscars. I know of several productions with award aspirations that have shot on film in the past few months, and there will be many more this year.

The Academy Awards will have film originated projects involved for as long as film stock is produced. Kodak's financial issues are the only thing that will kill film - but even that has been overstated as any corporate reorganization will likely save the still-profitable Motion division.
 
nothing said:
The premise of this article is wrong, this is most certainly not film's last Oscars. I know of several productions with award aspirations that have shot on film in the past few months, and there will be many more this year.

The Academy Awards will have film originated projects involved for as long as film stock is produced. Kodak's financial issues are the only thing that will kill film - but even that has been overstated as any corporate reorganization will likely save the still-profitable Motion division.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a bit dramatic for the article. But I do believe film is on its way out. Fuji has stopped producing motion picture film. I read last year that there hasn't been a film movie camera sold since 2009, but I can't verify if that's still true.
 
refocusedmedia said:
"Near-death"... as if it hasn't already happened. As someone else pointed out, this is another in a long line of articles about the exact same topic from the past couple years.

Film died last year when the major players stopped making new film cameras and, more importantly, film stock. Sure you can still make a film on film if you really want to, or have the luxury of a Hollywood budget, but for 99% of filmmakers it is either impractical or unaffordable to do so. Film is no longer the default and is typically the "forced" choice, one probably made for either stubborn, nostalgic, or niche reasons.
Click to expand...

Ah, so much ignorance on internet forums.
 
I think a more accurate statement would be film is now irrelevant. Audiences are not going to movies based on whether or not they were shot on 35mm film or digital. It's become irrelevant to the audience what sort of media is used to produce a good movie.
I don't know of any movie in the last year or two that didn't do well because it was digital or did do well because it was film. Audiences don't care even if some directors and DP's do.
 
Gillvane said:
I think a more accurate statement would be film is now irrelevant. Audiences are not going to movies based on whether or not they were shot on 35mm film or digital. It's become irrelevant to the audience what sort of media is used to produce a good movie.
I don't know of any movie in the last year or two that didn't do well because it was digital or did do well because it was film. Audiences don't care even if some directors and DP's do.
Click to expand...

Audiences never did care. To them, the tools have always been irrelevant - the final product is what they care about.
 
Folks,

Why would you want fewer options to choose from and fewer tools in your tool kit? Film is a great tool, it's existed for over 100 years for a reason. Digital is to a point where is competes with film technically in image reproduction, but this is like comparing acrylics to oil paint or pastels. Use the best tool for you project, the one that helps you tell your story best, fits your budget, and meets your aesthetic goal.
 
visugeek said:
Folks,

Why would you want fewer options to choose from and fewer tools in your tool kit? Film is a great tool, it's existed for over 100 years for a reason. Digital is to a point where is competes with film technically in image reproduction, but this is like comparing acrylics to oil paint or pastels. Use the best tool for you project, the one that helps you tell your story best, fits your budget, and meets your aesthetic goal.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that they want LESS options. More options usually IS a good thing. However the article does appear to be hyperbole and for the most part the "artificial cookie" analogy is fairly silly.
Motion picture film (other than super 16mm) has become more of a higher class luxury to shoot on these days. Considering the stronger digital options today, it's not nearly as much of a necessity as it once was [on a technical basis] and most of the aesthetic qualities can be imitated in post.

Now for ARCHIVAL storage, that's a different conversation altogether.
 
visugeek said:
Folks,

Why would you want fewer options to choose from and fewer tools in your tool kit? Film is a great tool, it's existed for over 100 years for a reason. Digital is to a point where is competes with film technically in image reproduction, but this is like comparing acrylics to oil paint or pastels. Use the best tool for you project, the one that helps you tell your story best, fits your budget, and meets your aesthetic goal.
Click to expand...

I think the analogy is flawed because acrylic does not look look like oil or pastel. Everyone will go, that's oil, that's pastel, that's acrylic, all nice but all different.

The point is audiences do not go that's 35mm film, that's shot on an Alexa, that's a Red Camera, that's 16mm, etc.

Oil is not interchangeable with pastel. 35mm film is now interchangeable with digital, not merely different. It's like if you developed a paint that looked like oil, and people in the gallery thought it was oil, but it was water soluble and cleaned up easily. Would anyone care it wasn't REAL oil paint that required a solvent to clean your brushes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top