RED thoughts

:dankk2: Gordon for the support.

But I think what matters is to follow how will the backyard revolution bring new opportunities to the indie people in terms of the worldwide entertainment market? What is the RED (r)evolution role for this process? And how will hollywood react?
 
Red will just make good movies look great and crappy movies look a little better. We all know a crappy movie is a crappy movie and it doesnt matter if you film it in 65mm film or a $200 super 8mm camera.. or Red, its still gonna be a crappy movie.

The difference with Red and i have said it before, if it lives up to it's reputation and the proposed specs, its going to be the first real camera that filmmakers used to the quality of 35mm film wont need to compromise to shoot with. Depth and texture remain an artistic expression that DP's can finally start using in the digital domain.
 
Jarred Land said:
The difference with Red and i have said it before, if it lives up to it's reputation and the proposed specs, its going to be the first real camera that filmmakers used to the quality of 35mm film wont need to compromise to shoot with. Depth and texture remain an artistic expression that DP's can finally start using in the digital domain.
Click to expand...

Looking at some frame grabs just a few seconds ago on the site... the more I'm seeing from the HVX, Canon, JVC, DVX... the more and more I'm starting to not only like the images but accept them as well...

It'll just be a better tool that smaller productions can use.... and I think what I mean by accept the images is this... if it entertains me who cares what it was shot on... its when it doesn't entertain me that's when I care...

My favorite saying about making movies is this and I've said it more than once... you can make a bad movie from a great script... but you can't make a great movie from a bad script....
 
I don't know how it happens in the United States but in Europe during October 2005 we were looking for any digital shot feature it could possible to find across the street. Nowadays, in the movie house of my neighbourhood a half of the movies there (Superman, Miami Vice, Me and You and Everyone We Know and another title that I can't remember the name now) were digitally shot.

«A lot has changed even since then». «Exactly for that reason this discussion makes an additional sense». I can't imagine how it will be when there will be possible to find more than one backyard masterpiece.

Backyard masterpiece? I like the concept. BTW, the most crappy cinema that I've seen is hollywood made.
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
My favorite saying about making movies is this and I've said it more than once... you can make a bad movie from a great script... but you can't make a great movie from a bad script....
Click to expand...
This has been repeated over and over (and over) on this forum, but at the end of the day, as creative artists, we still like to work with the best tools we can afford. Jarred's point is the key here - I think he was able to sum up the reason for Red's importance in a few sentences very well.
 
Jarred Land said:
Red will just make good movies look great and crappy movies look a little better. We all know a crappy movie is a crappy movie and it doesnt matter if you film it in 65mm film or a $200 super 8mm camera.. or Red, its still gonna be a crappy movie.
Click to expand...
By making a crappy movie look less unintentionally crappy (after all, there are DV-originated films that are intended to look the way they do), you're maybe making it overall a little better, at least technically -- and therefore a little less crappy. And how many reasonably well-scripted and competently acted movies suffer from technical problems (bad lighting, distracting graininess, lousy sound) that render them almost unwatchable. And at the end of the day, when distributors have sat through pitches for a dozen DV-originated films, offering better cinematography may be all the boost a borderline film needs to get a distribution deal.
 
Tzedekh said:
By making a crappy movie look less unintentionally crappy (after all, there are DV-originated films that are intended to look the way they do), you're maybe making it overall a little better, at least technically -- and therefore a little less crappy. And how many reasonably well-scripted and competently acted movies suffer from technical problems (bad lighting, distracting graininess, lousy sound) that render them almost unwatchable. And at the end of the day, when distributors have sat through pitches for a dozen DV-originated films, offering better cinematography may be all the boost a borderline film needs to get a distribution deal.
Click to expand...
If there weren't other people with interesting things to say and I consider as clever points, I'd post yours as the most intelligent of this thread. Yes, it is. And for the benefit of the RED it might be posted and it was. I'm sorry Jarred but now you lost. Though it's not a contest and this doesn't make your post as a loser, maybe just the second or third ones.
 
This whole debate (hollywood scared of backyard filmmakers?) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Hollywood IS.

Hollywood is not a filmmaking industry. Hollywood is a marketing industry. Hollywood, by and large, doesn't care about movies. They care about dollars, and events, and "happenings", they care about fame and fortune and awards and such. Hollywood cares about power. Not films. Power.

What effect will backyard cinema have on Hollywood? None. It'll be irrelevant. Whatever gets made (whether it's a $200 million hollywood blockbuster or a $60,000 "blair witch project"), it still needs to get distributed. And Hollywood has the money, resources, infrastructure, and ability to sway the masses to go see its projects. Hollywood really doesn't care where the project comes from -- they're just as happy to buy yours as they are to make it themselves. Happier, really -- it makes the risk so much lower for them if they can just buy "blair witch" or "napolean dynamite" instead of having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and come up with "pluto nash" or something like that. They would dearly LOVE for "backyard cinema" artists to give them something marketable; they'd much rather steal it from the backyard cinema director for pennies than spend hundreds of millions of dollars.

Red is not a "threat" to the Hollywood system. DV is not a threat to the hollywood system. Heck, we've had 16mm film for how many decades? And it was never a threat to the hollywood system. HD is not a threat to the hollywood system, in fact it's being adopted into it, and I expect RED will as well.

Youtube -- now THAT's a threat to the hollywood system. Free distribution and viral marketing? The ability to create "buzz" without needing Hollywood's multibillion-dollar marketing machine? THAT is the threat. Heck, the web did more marketing for "Snakes on a Plane" than the studio did. They'll ride it while they can, but they'll get in the game soon enough.

Content will come from whatever source it comes from. If you can demonstrate that an audience actually wants to watch your film, and will pay to do so, Hollywood will pick it up. Red, and "backyard cinema", won't change anything about that system any more than 16mm or Super 8 or VHS did.

What RED does, more than anything, is give us that third dimension that we've had so much difficulty getting -- depth. We're starting to get close to it with the 35mm adapters, but RED gives us a Super35-sized sensor, and more latitude, which gives us depth that we haven't had before at this price point.
 
obendega said:
Sorry Emanuel, I thought it was an interesting read, just thought I would point out that it wasn't a brand new article.
Click to expand...
It's not a big deal but thanks anyway for the concern.

Here is another writeup in a similair vain. Hollywood is a changin'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/b...d7d097e8c79a00&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Click to expand...
Another interesting link indeed! The idea is to tease the debate about the digital production and the new opportunities there. In order to help us to understand how much relevant the next times will be.
 
:dankk2: for your POV Barry. Useful to the debate as usual. I salute your presence here among us my friend.*

I agree. It's not hollywood vs. independent film but how the independent initiative can share the power with who have the market. And what's the role of these digital tools in this process. For the indie stuff and its growing up. Still from the hollywood product, as well. Superman or Miami Vice (among many others in the incoming months) are the evidence that they are paying attention to these new and open chances to the indie producer(s). Even if they aren't precisely :D the backyard sample...

Nevertheless, IMHO it's not only a question of more latitude, depth, shallow DOF or whatever. RED means entirely a new concept or if you wish the sum of this one has been known as the digital or HD (r)evolution. Now as the highest resolution as possible and maybe properly renamed as (true) digital cinema.


* EDIT -- And we're waiting for a RED book from you. It's a request!
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
This whole debate (hollywood scared of backyard filmmakers?) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Hollywood IS.

Hollywood is not a filmmaking industry. Hollywood is a marketing industry. Hollywood, by and large, doesn't care about movies. They care about dollars, and events, and "happenings", they care about fame and fortune and awards and such. Hollywood cares about power. Not films. Power.

What effect will backyard cinema have on Hollywood? None. It'll be irrelevant. Whatever gets made (whether it's a $200 million hollywood blockbuster or a $60,000 "blair witch project"), it still needs to get distributed. And Hollywood has the money, resources, infrastructure, and ability to sway the masses to go see its projects. Hollywood really doesn't care where the project comes from -- they're just as happy to buy yours as they are to make it themselves. Happier, really -- it makes the risk so much lower for them if they can just buy "blair witch" or "napolean dynamite" instead of having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and come up with "pluto nash" or something like that. They would dearly LOVE for "backyard cinema" artists to give them something marketable; they'd much rather steal it from the backyard cinema director for pennies than spend hundreds of millions of dollars.

Red is not a "threat" to the Hollywood system. DV is not a threat to the hollywood system. Heck, we've had 16mm film for how many decades? And it was never a threat to the hollywood system. HD is not a threat to the hollywood system, in fact it's being adopted into it, and I expect RED will as well.

Youtube -- now THAT's a threat to the hollywood system. Free distribution and viral marketing? The ability to create "buzz" without needing Hollywood's multibillion-dollar marketing machine? THAT is the threat. Heck, the web did more marketing for "Snakes on a Plane" than the studio did. They'll ride it while they can, but they'll get in the game soon enough.

Content will come from whatever source it comes from. If you can demonstrate that an audience actually wants to watch your film, and will pay to do so, Hollywood will pick it up. Red, and "backyard cinema", won't change anything about that system any more than 16mm or Super 8 or VHS did.

What RED does, more than anything, is give us that third dimension that we've had so much difficulty getting -- depth. We're starting to get close to it with the 35mm adapters, but RED gives us a Super35-sized sensor, and more latitude, which gives us depth that we haven't had before at this price point.
Click to expand...
That's one of the most insightful posts I've seen on Hollywood in a long time. Your last paragraph succinctly spells out one of the major benefits of Red, which along with the technical superiority of 4:4:4 uncompressed is the reason that it will be such a revolution to those of us not already operating inside the Hollywood machine. Outstanding Barry!
 
Nice post Barry. I believe that there may eventually be a revolution in theatrical distribution. As 4k technology evolves and prices of projectors come down, it may become possible for theater chains to be built on very different business models than Hollywood's. For instance, imagine a chain of low-overhead theaters, small but well designed for acoustics and sightlines so the experience isn't small even if the venue is. With an efficient digital distribution scheme instead of film reels, these theaters could show two, three, or more different films per day on the same screen, scaling this in response to demand on a weekly basis. With good accounting procedures in place, production companies could be compensated in direct proportion to the popularity of their movies. Promotion could be in-house, via internet, and through other low-cost means. Even today, my friends and I go to Yahoo movies or wherever to see what's playing locally (Usually to find that there's nothing worth seeing so we find something else to do instead. Four of five times that we want to see a movie, this is what happens, even with more than a dozen screens nearby). Ticket prices can be lower. Movies can be profitable without needing to fill large theaters several times a day. I'm not saying this will happen, but it could.
 
Yes I can see this becoming more prevalent as more and more cinemas convert to digital projection, and/or start up in the first place as independent chains not based on traditional distribution methods. Who needs the expense of film out if you can easily distribute a secure digital form of the film to theatres in exchange for a good cut of the profits?
 
the chain to keep your eye on is Landmark Theaters - owned by mark Cuban - they have other company's ... 2929 productions has a list of films they are producing .. HDnet has 6 pic deal with Steven Soderbergh - BUBBLE was the 1st ... Landmark is easy to work with for the indie to 4 wall in their theaters ..landmark was 1st to install sony 4k projectors in some of it's theaters & has large order for more ...

"In 2003, Landmark Theatres was acquired by Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban's 2929 Entertainment. 2929 Entertainment is an entertainment holding company that owns 100% of Rysher Entertainment, Landmark Theatres, and Magnolia Pictures Distribution, and also holds an interest in Lions Gate Entertainment. 2929 Entertainment produces and finances movies through two production companies: 2929 Productions, which produces films in the $10 - $30 million budget range, and HDNet Films, which produces smaller-budget movies shot exclusively in high definition. Wagner and Cuban are also partnered in HDNet and HDNet Movies, two general entertainment high-definition television networks that are available on most major cable and satellite providers."

http://www.hdnetfilms.com/news/index.html

http://www.2929entertainment.com/index.cfm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top