How long until film is dead?

ok, I realize this thread has gone a couple of different directions, but while I'm on a roll with quoting others, here's another from Scorsese in Millimeter magazine back in January:


Scorsese: “Films as we know them will no longer be made the same way now that we have the kind of control with digital intermediates and digital rushes. I haven't shot with a digital camera yet — lots of guys know more about it than I do. I will always prefer film. But on the other hand, as I look back [on The Aviator], I realize I made many judgments on this film based solely on digital rushes and digital projection. That has made me start thinking about [shooting digitally]. I look forward to the day when I can try a digital camera. I'm sure I will shoot an all-digital movie eventually. It's a different tool, and it's about time I tried it.”

http://millimeter.com/digitalfilm/video_scorseses_color_homage/
 
I say in 2013. Yah, it's a random number but this thing is moving fast (the digital age that is). 20 years I believe is too long.

Anyways, like someone once said a long time ago...

All good things come to an end.

In this case, it will be film.
 
It may all be dead soon, the hollywood system that is:

"overall movie revenues skidded for the 17th-straight weekend, tying a slide in 1985 that had been the longest box-office decline since analysts began keeping detailed records on movie grosses."

Who cares what its shot on? As I said formats are commodities and mean little. Bad stories make bad movies whether 65 mm or DV.
 
There's been a major shift in theatrical releasing idealology in the past decade. Gone are the days when film prints lived in a theater for weeks-on-end. Now, for the vast majority of features, DVD distribution is where the profits are and studios rush to have them to market within days or weeks of "second-run" pull dates.

So what have theatrical releases become?

They're an almost incidental market-building tool to the real release on DVD. Remember a time when studios had two prices for the same movie - that was only a decade ago. Virtually no one purchased movies for their permanent collection because they were $80 to buy and $2 to rent. The transition became most pronounced when Laser Disc was the popular cinephile format. Before that, they had a virtual lock on third-run ancilliary distribution through the video rental stores.

Regardless of how many screens War of the Worlds opens on, track how many weeks it is in first or second-run release. It won't be long. The largest blockbusters like Star Wars, which make the most money in domestic theatrical release against P&A costs, earn equal or greater sums through tie-in promotions and DVD sales.

I don't know how much this theory plays into film dying, but you gotta have people in theaters to watch a celluloid film print. That's just a fact. If no one is watching anything but the biggest summer blockbusters during their theatrical release, it makes a lot more sense to digitally pipe high-fidelity content to theaters instead of striking a bunch of expensive, clunky prints. Pure data projection suffers no degradation through repeated showings - save for keeping a fresh globe in the projector, you've got lossless exhibition.

I'm telling you, the valid technical merits of celluloid over digital up to distribution are no match for the power of the bottom line. I think people are fooling themselves if they think for a minute that the studios have any romantic nostalgia for that old technology. If anything, it's been a preservation albatross they've had to wrangle for nearly a century. Good ridance say they!

e
 
"So what have theatrical releases become?

They're an almost incidental market-building tool to the real release on DVD."

Incidental? Not really. Total 2004 theater revenue last year worldwide was 44 billion. Rentals generated 21 billion total. So statistically, the 1.5 billion that saw movies last year still make for a mighty punch. Yes theater goers were down last year 1.5% but theater is far from dead, its the system that's the problem. Home rental is easier because its just not worth going to see 80% of the crap they come out with.
 
I like going to the theater. There is nothing more satifying than seeing a made for the big screen movie with full surround sound and larger than life. It doesn't matter to me whether it's on film or video. The problem I have with theaters is that most won't show true indies. They only show them after they've been picked up by major distributors. Theaters are also one-dimensional. They just want you in to see a movie, buy some candy or popcorn and get you out. There could be so so much more. First of all they should sell beer or wine to adults. Am I correct in saying they do serve alcohol in some European theaters? They could have a lounge area in the back of the theater for people who want to sit on a sofa or around a small table in sort of coffee house style. Midnight classics would be a great pull too. When I was growing up, a few theaters in my area showed The Song Remains The Same, Pink Floy'd's The Wall or Rocky Horror Picture Show late at night. Stadium style seating was a good step in making the theaters more comfortable but they need to get more creative and drop the prices a bit too.
 
Videoguy,

Sometime European cinema's do serve alcohol. But the only one I knew has just closed :undecided Someone is putting in another nightclub.

I believe that cinema will always exsist. No matter how good home cinema becomes, it won't be the same as watching in a crowded theatre. Cinema is also a night out.

I am looking into the possibility of a restaurant cinema hybrid, but I am yet unconvinced of the audience and commercial viability.

You have to be a little careful in reading this year's box office. Remember, last year was the most successful ever, so year to date results are not a true impression. It certainly seems to be opting towards massive openings and fast declines. This also encourages a move away from costly film prints to HD projection.
 
mmm said:
Videoguy,

Sometime European cinema's do serve alcohol. But the only one I knew has just closed :undecided Someone is putting in another nightclub.

I believe that cinema will always exsist. No matter how good home cinema becomes, it won't be the same as watching in a crowded theatre. Cinema is also a night out.

I am looking into the possibility of a restaurant cinema hybrid, but I am yet unconvinced of the audience and commercial viability.

You have to be a little careful in reading this year's box office. Remember, last year was the most successful ever, so year to date results are not a true impression. It certainly seems to be opting towards massive openings and fast declines. This also encourages a move away from costly film prints to HD projection.
Click to expand...

There is a Theatre/Bar&Grill in the town I am living at right now, the Cinema Cafe in Roanoke Va. It is great to get a pitcher of beer and an excellent steak sandwich while watching a flick. The biggest problem is that their projection and sound system is second rate and nowhere near what the new cineplexes have.They also only show second run features. This business is locally owned and seems to be a little undercapitalized. All in all though it is a very good night out. I would love to see what a well capitalized company could make of this concept.

As for the boxoffice slide, I think that it is a trend, but that using last years fiqures compared with this year will not give a true look at the available audience. We have to remember that last year had two films, "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 911" that hit box office paydirt with non-traditional movie goers. I think that it is possible that the figures from these films skew the results. However, there is something going on and I am afraid that the studios won't do what needs to be done, exactly like Walter Graff says, and make better movies.
 
I think film will be around for a long time, especially in the motion picture industry. Remember film is not that expensive. Not for the big productions. Actors are! And face it. Almost all motion pictures are BIG BUDGET today.

You mention 'SUPERMAN'? Well, I think they use the Genesis for special effects. Not because of the cost of film etc. Film also gets better all the time. Look at vision 2. What will Vision 6 look like?

I do think however that TV productions will be 100% digital in the future.
 
Jonas Hansen said:
..Remember film is not that expensive. Not for the big productions.
Click to expand...

I've heard a number of people make generalizations about the "cost of film", yet I wonder how many of us really understand the economics and politics of the costs of film vs. digital; end-to-end, from production to distribution.

Perhaps you didn't get a chance to read the earlier quote posted in this thread, or to watch the related keynote speech by Walter Murch, but for some reason when it comes to predictions and opinions about the distribution and production costs associated with film vs. digital, I find that the credibility of a Walter Murch prediction holds a bit more weight than most. Nonetheless, I would sincerely love to hear further opinions on the subject of the economics of film, however, preferably with some level of technical and financial detail to back up the opinion. Not that opinions aren't appreciated, but at some point they're just that...



Walter: "right now there's a standoff between the studios and the exhibitors of who's going to pay for the digital projectors, but when that finally happens, when either the price goes down low enough, or the studios realize that they're going to save so much money that they might as well buy it for the exhibitors, celluloid will simply disappear, and it won't only disappear as a tool to watch film, cause that's where the labs make all their money, is in making 5000 prints of a film, once that's no longer the case, then there's going to be no profit in shooting film, so even if somebody wants to shoot film it's going to either become impossible, or increasingly difficult to do"

he describes the current state of filmmaking as...

"a digital sandwich between analog slices of bread"

saying that "these are very thin skins on either side, and I would guess within five years they're going to drop away completely"


From a keynote speech that can be seen over at dv.com: http://www.pqhp.com/cmp/dvxw04/
 
Okay, I admit Im no expert and that I don't have full insight in the economics of filmmaking. I can only offer my view and opinion on this message board. I can't predict the future only offer my humble opinion...

With crazy price tags on stars like Brad Pitt and Zeta-Jones I don't see how the decision to shoot digitally would matter, really. (I know prints are expensive, so is piracy).
 
I am also wondering about filmmakers moving to HD because they prefer it to film. I personally still prefer the look of film for origination however once it gets close enough to "not really make much difference" (I am being deliberately vague there) I think that many filmmakers will make the move because of all the advantages HD offers...

... to an extent I suppose I am really just agreeing with Walter_Graff. When and where the HD technology is more suitable for the job, it will replace film.


I did read that a load of studios, including Sony, have agreed to fund cinemas moving to HD projection and an international "HD pipeline." It will pay for itself soooo quickly! Anyone know any more??
 
Funny, I remember when computers were talked about as the next big thing., They promised to make this a paper free world. Don't tell my friend in Canada who owns a big paper company and tells me that since the advent of computers people use ten times as much paper.
 
Film is different to paper though. I agree that HD won't completely replace it, not for a long time at least. Maybe one day the world will be paper free, it would make my desk tidier! :laugh:

Video technology is different from paper in that the more casual you shoot, the more advantages it has over film. Computers are kind of the opposite, if that makes any sense!?! :undecided
 
Dead Film?

Dead Film?

There is also a system out now - Thompson Grass Valley that even surpasses the CineAlta. I cannot remember the name, but the lattitude IS THERE, along with many advancements over film. The camera alone is $78,000.00, and talking to a dealer, getting properly set up is about $250,000.00 - including the proprietary editing system that comes with it.
Before this, I was a photgrapher. Up until NOW, ALL advertising shots were done with large format cameras (4x5 or 8x10), and I mean EVERYTHING. At least the high end stuff like you see in Architectural Digest, etc. There is a SIGNIFIGANT investment in large format equipment, even today. So with the advent of 20 megapixel cameras, a lot of photographers are reluctant to take the leap with yet another huge investment, when their equipment currently does the job. It will take the major players saying, we only ACCEPT digital submissions to change their minds, and they won't go down without a fight.
Filmaking is a different ballgame, but some of the same principles apply IMO. We all WANT a CineAlta, but we use DVX100a's because of the minimum acceptance level of the audience, we can get by with it, and even use it for creative genius.
By the way, film has an equivalant of 25 megapixels, ( if I remember correctly)and the human eye has probably ten times that in capable resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top