Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout
- Thread starter DBP
- Start date
So define "content" -- I define it as "entertainment". Content that fulfills the promise and delivers what the audience is looking for.
And the rules change yet again, making "content is king" even more nebulous.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Simple -- what did they go to see? The next generation (well, prequel) of "Lord of the Rings". And what did they get? A technology demonstration. And a demonstration of technology nobody's asking for.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.
Kind of like what Zacuto's getting now -- they tried to present a substantive opinion about the relative irrelevance of camera in terms of achieving what you want, but that's not what people want to see. They want to see clipped highlights and squirrelly rolling shutters and wavy moire.
So what happened with "The Hobbit"? People wanted "Lord of the Rings" and he gave them something that absolutely didn't match what they were expecting. It's a huge, huge gamble. And I do expect it will be the final nail in the coffin for 3D, this go-around. 3D will be back in 2025, and maybe it'll work then...
... but, of course, we should also consider that what people saw of "The Hobbit" wasn't "THE HOBBIT". They saw a technology demonstration of a scene or two. It would be far more interesting to discuss the audience reaction once they've experienced the entire film.
I think I'll toss ISHTAR and WATERWORLD into Barry Green's big bucket of truth!
Does Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon have better or worse content than Waterworld/Ishtar?
So what happened with "The Hobbit"? People wanted "Lord of the Rings" and he gave them something that absolutely didn't match what they were expecting. It's a huge, huge gamble. And I do expect it will be the final nail in the coffin for 3D, this go-around. 3D will be back in 2025, and maybe it'll work then...
Barry, The Hobbit was entirely just like Lord of the Rings, content-wise. The technology was different. And it caused a near riot.
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?
I don't know anything about the Transformers flick, but the Twilight movies were well received by fans of the series. Just because it's not your thing or my thing, doesn't mean there aren't millions who love it and would consider it great content.
Just because it's not your thing or my thing, doesn't mean there aren't millions who love it and would consider it great content.
That sounds like a cop-out to me.
That sounds like a cop-out to me.
Are you saying that you don't think content quality is subjective?
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.
No, I agree with what you're saying, it's always situational and there will alway be a fistful of contraries to cite. Since we've got 2012 examples here, I'll use THE DEVIL INSIDE.
No amount of bad word of mouth could kill that movies BO success. I mean no amount. And it had a ton. Not just from critics, but from the most basic movie-goers out there. There were people on my facebook literally saying that they were" Tricked" into seeing it... two weekends after it came out!
The trailer was really freakin' good, and despite THEIR friends telling them that it was horrible on their facebook wall, they still went and saw it two to three weeks later. It's still racking up VOD numbers to this day.
I don't know why it worked EXACTLY, but I know it wasn't because of the good content. It's pretty unanimous that there wasn't any good content there.
So define "content" -- I define it as "entertainment". Content that fulfills the promise and delivers what the audience is looking for.
I'm agreeing with this definition. One hundred. Using THE DEVIL INSIDE as an example of a financially successful (and career moving) project, I'd say that Devil Inside failed to bring the content but had the advertising to beat its own flawed delivery.
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.
This is a great analogy, there will always be contraries. There may not be as many as there are examples to the point, but there are a fair number. If I took the time to think about it, I'm sure I could dig up three this year alone.
I'd like to state again that I am an advocate of entertainment, and would never suggest that anyone try to pull an Asylum (unless they're starving, have the time and money, and are at the end of their rope.) But, even Asylum movies entertain. lol
Are you saying that you don't think content quality is subjective?
If saying that Transformers and Twilight had good content because some people may think it has good content, then we're right back around where we started. If my 2 hour paint drying movie can get an audience (even if just one person) who thinks it has good content, then that means my film has good content?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Of course not -- but it absolutely contributes. I don't understand how someone could seriously argue against that?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.
Transformers may or may not have, I didn't see it, because the content of #2 was so awful.So Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, had great content then? Along with the Twilight series?
As for the Twilight series, yes, perfect example -- it is delivering EXACTLY what its core audience wants. Have you read the books? The books were massively popular -- with zero advertising, zero stars, just nothing but content that the target audience (females 12-60) absolutely craved. So they made movies, and they don't spend an absolute fortune advertising them, I think I've seen probably 20 ads for "John Carter" for every ad I've seen for "Breaking Dawn Part 2" -- yet each of the Twilight films has gone on to gross $700 million each. John Carter did $179m total.
The point is also -- whether something is great content or not, depends on who's looking at it. For a 40-year-old male, "Twilight" represents horrible content -- I mean, really bad. But for the 14-year-old girl, there couldn't be anything better. So three billion dollars of success will be made off of 14-year-old girls (and their 45-year-old mothers) while they will love their time in the theater.
And not one of them would even make it through a screening of "The Godfather"...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well done; forgot those two. Don't know how I could, because Ishtar received my favorite review in history, when Gene Shalit summed it up in two words: "Ishtar Ishtarrible."I think I'll toss ISHTAR and WATERWORLD into Barry Green's big bucket of truth!
Barry_Green
Moderator
I don't believe you're interested in a serious discussion, I think you're just trying to play "gotcha".And the rules change yet again, making "content is king" even more nebulous.
Barry_Green
Moderator
And you know this how? Because you saw it? Did you see all two and a half hours? Did the story play out?Barry, The Hobbit was entirely just like Lord of the Rings, content-wise. The technology was different. And it caused a near riot.
Of course not. They showed a couple of landscape vistas, and then a scene with Gollum. If that compares to the three and a half hour epic of "Return of the King", I'll eat my hat.
I'd like to state again that I am an advocate of entertainment
I am as well. And there are movies that I recognize are pretty terrible content-wise, but which entertain me nonetheless (i.e. The Shadow with Alec Baldwin).
Jester2138
Well-known member
I would rather you work on perfecting your art form instead of doing it on a scavenger hunt style shoot...
Perfecting your art form is a far more subjective process than what you are suggesting. Many people (myself included) have found the limitations imposed by various projects, including time limitations, to be the most inspiring aspects of said projects. I believe there is a famous quote by Orson Welles to the same effect. Something along the lines of "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."
The simple fact is that many people find 48hr festivals and the like both inspiring and fun (otherwise they wouldn't be so popular, of course...). You stating that they're "stupid" and "a waste of time" is ignorant and close-minded.
That's filmmaking, the collaborative way, as they describe it in the REVENGE and I think you could talk everyone into doing it for free.
So, I guess all those DP's volunteered their time, both for you and for their past projects?
I am not trolling. I really think that "content is king" is something we hear repeated on here over and over again that simply doesn't hold water when you sit down to think about it.
Depending on how you define content (Barry etc. are using it extremely losely) I agree. There's a lot of overwrought, pretentious romanticizing of the filmmaking process going on here that I think is not helpful. To be honest, "zacuto" is leading the charge and this does not exactly improve my opinion of his company.
Film, like any art, is subjective and everyone takes part in it for their own reasons. Trying to define the "wonder" of film is pointless, and declaring that your way is the best way is downright foolish.
Defining what is most important in "film" as a general rule is equally foolish. There's no such thing as one "KING" element in a film. Every film is different and draws audiences for different reasons. Each member of the audience probably has their own reason for buying a ticket, anyway.
Meaning, you have a much better chance of garnering praise with a fantastic story shot on mini DV, than you do with a crappy story shot on the Red Epic.
Would anyone honestly disagree with that?
Heck yes I would disagree with that! To make an extreme example, the praise many Hollywood films get is absolutely undeserved, while plenty of good smaller films go completely unnoticed. Twilight has been praised by probably tens of millions of people (their age is irrelevant). Plenty of better films shot with lesser budgets are barely noticed.
People see and like movies for a gazillion different, subjective reasons and the films artistic quality is only one of them. We as filmmakers would like to think that artistic quality is the most important element in getting praise and attention - but it's not. It's one of many elements that all interact.
Last edited:
They showed a couple of landscape vistas, and then a scene with Gollum. If that compares to the three and a half hour epic of "Return of the King", I'll eat my hat.
Seriously, Barry, that's flat-out untrue.
From The Guardian:
The 10 minutes of footage included action sequences and character-driven moments, including a scene in which Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) encounters Gollum (Andy Serkis). Returning Lord of the Rings cast members such as Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) and Orlando Bloom (Legolas) were prominently featured.
Barry_Green
Moderator
To that audience, yes.If my 2 hour paint drying movie can get an audience (even if just one person) who thinks it has good content, then that means my film has good content?
I don't know why you're so hung up on this. First rule of marketing ANYTHING, EVER, is "know your audience." I've gotten absolutely rave reviews for all my books, hundreds of private messages from people telling me that it "saved their life" on a shoot, etc; but I wouldn't dare recommend it to a ladies book club as a literary adventure...
They obviously had content that people wanted to see.So Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, had great content then? Along with the Twilight series?
Barry_Green
Moderator
No more untrue than "it was EXACTLY like Lord of the Rings"... I remembered it as being reported that there were some vistas and a scene with gollum. I didn't remember there being action sequences. But even so -- ten minutes of selected outtakes does not make for a three and a half hour epic, so I think my main point still stands.Seriously, Barry, that's flat-out untrue.