GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout
- Thread starter DBP
- Start date
blake2404
Well-known member
finally a voice of reason, ha, ha.
Gary, just to back up a bit, Do you have a 2 hr film to watch? Im not being sarcastic, im just curious. Its tough to get anyone to watch anything you do no matter the budget/camera.
Btw you nailed me on "act of valor" totally went to see it for the 5d. Sadly much of the film was shot on film, but i was not that impressed regardless. A much better film in my eyes was "to hell and back again" all on the 7d/24-70 2.8
There's a ton of movies I haven't seen. Am I not allowed to call 'The Godfather' a success because I personally haven't seen it? (shameful, I know)
I do not. I have worked on low budget films to the point where I refuse to do one where I cannot afford to pay the crew properly. And that takes a lot of money. So just shorts for now. Most of them terrible.
But the content, and the buzz here, was not enough to get you to check it out (much like that Duplass brothers movie that everyone was talking about, but apparently no one rented on iTunes). So if the content of Like Crazy was not enough to get you to go see, what would have? Unless you just haven't watched any over the last year or so.
blake2404
Well-known member
I see. Things seem a lil clearer now.
I was waitin' for this one. And, here is why--if you add finance and return to the equation, content is not king. Advertisement is king, and without it you won't get very far. Advertisement has many forms, and yeah, good content or bad (see: Birdemic, The Room) can stir a very strong word of mouth that gets you the kind of response you need to earn dollars. You can also just pay for the advertisement.
Content is a bit of a no-brainer when it comes to a list of important aspects, I disagree that it's king in a very general sense.
And, what I mean by that (so I don't get my head ripped off) is that if you have plenty of advertising dollars, faces/names, serious production value, you don't need the greatest content in the world. If you don't have all of that, you probably should have some pretty decent content to show for, a sense of craft, or something... cause, you aren't really going anywhere without it. xD
Now, if you're concerned about what camera you use because of an audience's perception, you are on a path to self destruction. As a content creator, you should choose the tool that you are confident in, not because of what the audience may or may not think.
That seems ominous.
I'll give you two examples on opposite ends of the spectrum. The first was 'Game of Thrones', shot on the beloved Alexa. I sought it out because my friends raved about it. Became my favourite show of all time, and I normally hate fantasy. The LOTR series is a giant snoozefest as far as I'm concerned. This show however, gave me content that satisfied my specific taste.
I recently watched a documentary called "I Want To Look Like That Guy". It's about a middle aged guy who follows a bodybuilder training protocol to get into bodybuilding contest shape. I'm pretty sure it was shot SD in 60i. The entire soundtrack is made of songs from Soundtrack Pro.
Very Low budget. I liked it. It wasn't dynamite, but I enjoyed it. I had no idea what the production values were ahead of time, I sought it out because I'm interested in the subect matter (content)
Here's a trailer to give you an idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpQfh0n1lY
There's two examples, one on high end gear, the other one low end gear. In both cases, the content got me through the door and gave me a positive experience.
Documentaries are notoriously forgiven because the 60i look is "real life" or "news". So it's not a problem.
I think you should find a low-budget Game of Thornes-like fantasy film shot in 60i and let me know if you find one that you enjoy.
EDIT: BTW, can you explain the absolute s*%ts-storm that came about due to the 48fps of The Hobbit? I heard nothing at all about "content", and that wasn't exactly a DVXUser audience that the footage was shown to either.
Last edited:
ALSO, before anyone beats me up, I will admit that I have been tainted (and broken down) by the money side of this business. If not almost completely jaded. So that's why I say that.
I whole-heartedly believe in good story, content, yadda yadda. I'm not discounting it, just that when you apply the cash flow things change.
I whole-heartedly believe in good story, content, yadda yadda. I'm not discounting it, just that when you apply the cash flow things change.
Which is why I say that, in practice, "content is king" doesn't really mean much. Usually, if you have good content, that's just a nice "surprise". Take The Avengers for example. I truly expected that movie to be serviceable at best, but I was really astounded by how good it was. The content didn't get my ass in that theater seat. The buildup through Iron Man to Captain America made me excited for it, even while anticipating the worst (and lets be honest, those movies had from good content to some lousy content).
The fact that it was a great, fun film was icing on the cake for me.
Well I was trying to keep to stuff I've seen this year, but I really did enjoy '28 Days Later' in all of it's Canon XL1 glory. I also enjoyed 'Cloverfield'. Some of the party scenes were shot with the HVX200 I believe. I also dug the 'Blair Witch Project' when it came out, and that one had an extremely low budget.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Seriously, what rational person would ever argue that lousy content is valuable at any level?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Exactly.
[/end thread]
Of course I do. If you see a good film you tell people to go see it. If you see a bad film, you tell people to not go see it. Ergo, films that people like are received better by larger audiences than films that people don't like. And before another chase of red herrings commences, the reason people would like it would be because they enjoyed the content, obviously.
Nope, I rented it many years ago. Do you think if they spent millions advertising a movie about grass growing and paint drying that it would get me to buy/rent?
Do you pay money to every movie that's advertised to you? If not, why is that? Would you have been won over if the camera was better and the Ad budget was higher?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, going to disagree, but here I think we're going to get to the fundamental bottom line here: you can have all the advertising dollars, all the faces/names, all the serious production value in the world, and if the content doesn't entertain, it'll fall flat on its face. Surely nobody would argue that "John Carter" lacked advertising dollars? Or "Rock of Ages"? Or "Pluto Nash"? All had massive stars, outrageous ad campaigns, and all tanked horrifically at the box office.
So define "content" -- I define it as "entertainment". Content that fulfills the promise and delivers what the audience is looking for.
I do agree that a massive advertising budget can get you a big opening weekend, but that's about it. Just like when you buy a can of stew at the store because of the incredible packaging -- if the stew's lousy, that's the last time you'll buy that stew, and you'll tell everyone you know, and no amount of advertising budget is going to overcome that.
Very much agreed.
Do you know how often I utter, "You still haven't seen X?!" after telling someone to go see something? Word of mouth is a great thing if you can get it, but it doesn't mean an automatic view.
So Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, had great content then? Along with the Twilight series?