What is Hollywood and should it be the cinema of the world?

JAMedia said:
The problem is the Italian/French/German markets were a hell of a lot smaller than the US market. So it would be easier to finance a film in the USA and get a return on that than any single country in Europe. The UK had the advantage of being native American speakers :)
Click to expand...

Sound changed things too. Before talkies, everything was just intertitled and so you just cut out the original French inter titles and swap in an english set and there is no extra barrier to understanding a french film over an english film.

The french had a huge role in early cinema. Lumiere brothers. Melies. And according to that article I linked to, fully half of the films shown in the US pre-WW1 were european.

But even after talkies - Europeans just watch dubbed american movies. we may be watching dubbed chinese movies in short order
 
Run&Gun said:
The burning question I’ve had for well over a decade, when do “we” stop calling any movie not shot on film a “film”? ; )
Click to expand...

What do you suggest? Movie, Talkie? Video? It's a sort of serious question as I haven't watched a "film" for well over a decade. Even if shot on wet film all them have been viewed digitally. In the UK all the main cinema chains went digital years ago. In the multiplexes they download over a secure network the movies for the following week. There is no physical distribution any more. I believe at one time movie distribution accounted for 90% of film produced.

It's only art houses and specialist places that still have wet film projectors and overhead projectors....
 
Euros don't have a problem with the voiceovers and are quite good at it.


The difference is that Euro films that come to the US are mostly art films, where the original language carries some weight. Hollywood exports can safely be dubbed.
 
JAMedia said:
What do you suggest? Movie, Talkie? Video? It's a sort of serious question as I haven't watched a "film" for well over a decade. Even if shot on wet film all them have been viewed digitally. In the UK all the main cinema chains went digital years ago. In the multiplexes they download over a secure network the movies for the following week. There is no physical distribution any more. I believe at one time movie distribution accounted for 90% of film produced.

It's only art houses and specialist places that still have wet film projectors and overhead projectors....
Click to expand...

I was just referring to acquisition, not distribution and viewing. I usually just say 'movie'. But others criteria may be that it needs to be physical film, end-to-end. But heck, we've had DI for over two decades, now. Even true "films" today, like The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood, that were shot on film and had (limited) distribution on film, still had a DI, so they were shot on film, transferred to "digital"(video) and scanned back to film.

I'm not trying to be pedantic and argue semantics, but it is one of those things that has always kind of bugged me and in my book, the term is incorrect, unless you are in-fact shooting on film. Especially coming-up shooting on Betacam and other video formats, because it never failed that someone, usually from the general public, would always ask, "Whatcha filming?" I always wanted to say, "Nothing".
 
DLD said:
Euros don't have a problem with the voiceovers and are quite good at it.


The difference is that Euro films that come to the US are mostly art films, where the original language carries some weight. Hollywood exports can safely be dubbed.
Click to expand...

Even though I'm not exactly a huge fan of the voiceover, because even with the best of jobs, it still usually looks like the lip-sync is off just a tick, I would MUCH rather have voiceover than subtitles. To me, it completely defeats the of purpose of a movie, a VISUAL medium, to have the whole thing subtitled. You can't watch the "movie" and read the dialogue at the same time. You have to pay attention to ONE or the OTHER.
 
JAMedia said:
[/I]
//////////////////////////////////////////////

That was in August last year so 9 months on is his assessment accurate?
Click to expand...

At least based upon my own experience, I seem to have called it pretty accurately. This past week was the first Hollywood project I have worked on since I wrote that last year. Interestingly, the reality show I just shot probably won't be on any American broadcast, I think it is going to be on the client's website and
was intended for an international audience and was financed with money from Eastern Europe. So while it was shot in "Hollywood" (actually about 40 miles north of Hollywood), the end product has NOTHING to do with Hollywood and Amercans, other than two of the judges are popular American figures. But we also had talent from
Russia, South America, Mexico, etc.

As far as friends and colleagues, a few have actually worked on some Hollywood product the past year but only a couple of projects for all of 2020/21 so far. Production in Hollywood is starting to ramp back up but very slowly and as we emerge from the Pandemic haze, I would say the groundwork
has been radically changed. Not to mention as most of my family and friends get vaccinated (or at least "half vac", a new phrase I heard on set yesterday), we are already getting rumbles that the South African variant isn't responsive to the vaccines (I don't know if this is true at all, I know many of you
are studying up and following this). I was tested eight times this week, we had to wear K95s AND face shields and they had the crew broken up into Zone A and Zone B for less cross contamination, what a PITA way to work. I couldn't even use the Zone B Honeywagon and the Zone A broke down one day!
So far, I have not heard about anyone getting sick and this was a week long shoot with a crew of about 125. Maybe one of you can explain to me too, with everyone getting vaccinated, how long do the antibodies stay in the body and do their thing? Are we all going to have to get vaccinated every
three months or something or there will continue to be outbreaks? I have read that the Michigan, Brazil and a lot of Europe are going back into the dark of lockdown? Is this the new normal, that even with the vaccines, much the world will be in perpetual lockdown? I've been far too busy to read and research
as much as many of you so if you have time, enlighten me with your opinions on this. I know how Influenza vaccines work and if that's the Covid vaccine works, it's far from the societal savior that the government is selling it as.

Most of my friends and colleagues report to me that 2020 was the worst year of their career financially and several dropped production and went into real estate, back to school or other endeavors (and these are people who have all been in the business at least 15 years or more).
As far as as theaters surviving, our local cineplex SOMEHOW has held on by simply selling snack bar stuff to the local residents on the weekends and now I see they are pushing people to book their own private theater and bring their own Blu Ray! It's quite sad.
The only way I survived 2020 was live streaming, I only produced two things the entire year that weren't live streaming. I used to make about 70% of my revenue from entertainment based "Hollywood" production.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I've been far too busy to read and research
as much as many of you so if you have time, enlighten me with your opinions on this. I know how Influenza vaccines work and if that's the Covid vaccine works, it's far from the societal savior that the government is selling it as.

Most of my friends and colleagues report to me that 2020 was the worst year of their career financially and several dropped production and went into real estate, back to school or other endeavors (and these are people who have all been in the business at least 15 years or more).
Click to expand...

The vaccines will not totally eradicate the disease, however indications are that it all but eliminates the most severe, fatal outcome if you do still contract the virus. Covid will eventually become like the flu, something you get a yearly shot for, that you still might get sick from and suffer, but that rarely kills you.

2020 was one of the best years of my career. Go figure. I'm not in production though, only an editor. With production slowed down distributors acquired more stuff that was already produced as the streaming services were clamoring for content so I got deluged with trailer work. So much so that last month I asked the main producer who funnels me work for a break from the grind, as I worked all through the holidays without respite. Work is already piling up again.
 
Batutta said:
2020 was one of the best years of my career. Go figure. I'm not in production though, only an editor. With production slowed down distributors acquired more stuff that was already produced as the streaming services were clamoring for content so I got deluged with trailer work. So much so that last month I asked the main producer who funnels me work for a break from the grind, as I worked all through the holidays without respite. Work is already piling up again.
Click to expand...

This kind of talk can get a person virtually punched. ;) And feed the conspiracy theory that trailer editors started the pandemic intentionally. But yeah, my editing clients increased volume last year whilst my shooting clients largely shut down.

Dan, there's no way this will be the new normal. People wouldn't tolerate that. And, as Batutta said, the vaccines should be effective enough. Moderna is already working on a booster shot for the SA variant.

And I think that some production will return to normal when this is all over. It sort of depends on how geographically independent the work is, right? Like, I do a lot of work for Christie's auction house. They're always going to need artwork shot in Manhattan. With Hollywood production, I think it's more complicated. There are big benefits from working in a town that has so many centralized resources. But, a lot of these productions COULD be shot on sound stages anywhere. Australia will absolutely benefit at Hollywood's expense going forward because it's a beautiful place to live and work and they fared well in the pandemic.

As to your point about dinosaur film production and unions, etc - I don't think things are going to change THAT much as far as feature filmmaking goes. Sure, youtubers and video games compete for audience. But that doesn't mean you can make a movie any more cheaply than before. Youtubers can't make superhero tentpoles. Unions exist for a resaon. Working in the film business is punishment enough before you take away the safety and overtime benefits. And as far as I know, streamers are still working with unions and, if anything, splashing cash even more wastefully than the legacy players.

Hollywood itself could decline as a center of production. Film viewership could shrink. The medium could be in a death spiral already. But that doesn't mean you can make a movie with less.
 
Run&Gun said:
I'm not trying to be pedantic and argue semantics, but it is one of those things that has always kind of bugged me and in my book, the term is incorrect, unless you are in-fact shooting on film. Especially coming-up shooting on Betacam and other video formats, because it never failed that someone, usually from the general public, would always ask, "Whatcha filming?" I always wanted to say, "Nothing".
Click to expand...

Stickler alert. This is one of the verbal inaccuracies that bothers less than others.

Run&Gun said:
Even though I'm not exactly a huge fan of the voiceover, because even with the best of jobs, it still usually looks like the lip-sync is off just a tick, I would MUCH rather have voiceover than subtitles. To me, it completely defeats the of purpose of a movie, a VISUAL medium, to have the whole thing subtitled. You can't watch the "movie" and read the dialogue at the same time. You have to pay attention to ONE or the OTHER.
Click to expand...

This is a thorny and age-old debate, isn't it? Because the sound of the original language/dialogue is also an integral and carefully crafted part of the audiovisual medium that was created. And also, if you have to make a translation that roughly matches the mouth movements of the actors, it's probably a lot harder and less likely to make an accurate translation. I think I come down squarely in favor of subtitles. But I'm a fast reader, which helps. And it's easy for me to see the other side of the argument, because the reading is distracting and often covers the image, subtly changing the effect of the composition.

Or hey- just learn the language! ;) My wife and I watched the first 2 seasons of the Spanish show Grand Hotel on Netflix. But, at the time, the 3rd season was only available online elsewhere without subtitles. So we watched it in Spanish, which neither of us speak. My wife speaks Portuguese, which helped. But we muddled through understanding it, and it was a fun, if unusual, viewing experience. The larger problem with the show was that it started out seeming class-critical and pro-worker but ended up soundly reaffirming the aristocracy and class hierarchy. So many TV shows betray their foundation at the end.
 
Run&Gun said:
Even though I'm not exactly a huge fan of the voiceover, because even with the best of jobs, it still usually looks like the lip-sync is off just a tick, I would MUCH rather have voiceover than subtitles. To me, it completely defeats the of purpose of a movie, a VISUAL medium, to have the whole thing subtitled. You can't watch the "movie" and read the dialogue at the same time. You have to pay attention to ONE or the OTHER.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I remember watching most foreign films - few that got through the iron Curtain - with a multi-actor professional voiceover. I was annoyed at subtitles, with the exception of Czardasfürstin, which was a musical and with only the musical parts being subtitled (the musical performances, obviously, had to be kept intact). Once, a Russian translation was funnier than the original. In "Mad, mad, mad world", Mickey Rooney and Buddy Hackett were playing two guys who didn't know how to fly a plane flying a plane. They somehow landed it but then Mickey screams, "Watch out for the restaurant". In Russian, they used the passive tense, which came out as "We're about to be hit by a restaurant".

I guess you had to be there.

History-wise, as I had mentioned earlier in the thread, the special "elite" movie theaters had a live narrator reading off a translated script. Those were theaters that you needed a special permit to get in. And they were guarded by the police.

Most others were one man voiceovers. Now, it's a real group of the voiceover artists. This would be the "old style".

 
Batutta said:
The vaccines will not totally eradicate the disease, however indications are that it all but eliminates the most severe, fatal outcome if you do still contract the virus. Covid will eventually become like the flu, something you get a yearly shot for, that you still might get sick from and suffer, but that rarely kills you.
Click to expand...

That is what I am hearing. We only eradicated the miss-named Spanish flu (from 1919/20) about 20 years ago. For COVID lock downs and masks to stop the spread. The problem is that many are asymptomatic carriers who spread COVID whilst not having active symptoms or little more than "a slight cold".

The Vaccines will give immunity for (they think) over 6 months for the majority. This will break the spread and eradicate COVID in many places. It looks like we will need an annual booster that takes account of any new strains for the next few years at least. In the UK the Vulnerable and over 65's automatically get the Flue Jab It will probalby be the same from 2022 for COVID after "everyone" has had the Vaccines this year.
 
Run&Gun said:
I was just referring to acquisition, not distribution and viewing. I usually just say 'movie'. But others criteria may be that it needs to be physical film, end-to-end. But heck, we've had DI for over two decades, now. Even true "films" today, like The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood, that were shot on film and had (limited) distribution on film, still had a DI, so they were shot on film, transferred to "digital"(video) and scanned back to film.
Click to expand...

yes, even "proper" films i.e. shot on wet film and distributed on wet film all have a phase where they are completely (or mostly) digitised for some or all of the post production. SFX and editing.

Run&Gun said:
I'm not trying to be pedantic and argue semantics,
Click to expand...
Yes you are... but then so am I. :)

Run&Gun said:
but it is one of those things that has always kind of bugged me
Click to expand...
Me too.


Run&Gun said:
and in my book, the term is incorrect, unless you are in-fact shooting on film. Especially coming-up shooting on Betacam and other video formats, because it never failed that someone, usually from the general public, would always ask, "Whatcha filming?" I always wanted to say, "Nothing".
Click to expand...

I would agree... so it is "a movie"?
So instead of filming are we movying? :)
 
"and in my book, the term is incorrect". If it makes you feel any better, the roots of the word "film" are all words meaning skin or animal hide. It was then generalised to refer to any membrane. This is why film as a medium never went anywhere in the middle ages. Every frame had to be etched onto the side of a pig.
 
Andy9 said:
"and in my book, the term is incorrect". If it makes you feel any better, the roots of the word "film" are all words meaning skin or animal hide. It was then generalised to refer to any membrane. This is why film as a medium never went anywhere in the middle ages. Every frame had to be etched onto the side of a pig.
Click to expand...

In some places they used cow and others goat. It all depends on culture :)
As a tangent I saw a recent item (a video) explaining that now you can get "ethical" film as they don't use animal products. Some sort of gelatine substitute.
 
Andy9 said:
"and in my book, the term is incorrect". If it makes you feel any better, the roots of the word "film" are all words meaning skin or animal hide. It was then generalised to refer to any membrane. This is why film as a medium never went anywhere in the middle ages. Every frame had to be etched onto the side of a pig.
Click to expand...

I just had some sort of Gladiator/Tombstone/Bacon fantasy...
 
JAMedia said:
yes, even "proper" films i.e. shot on wet film and distributed on wet film all have a phase where they are completely (or mostly) digitised for some or all of the post production. SFX and editing.


Yes you are... but then so am I. :)


Me too.




I would agree... so it is "a movie"?
So instead of filming are we movying? :)
Click to expand...

What’s with me this morning. I started trying to come up with bad puns about ‘movying’/‘moving’ people and trucks and then the old jingle for Kroger’s popped in my head... “Let’s go Krogering”. (grocery store chain)
 
We had film, we had tape too - we had job titles linked to historic processes - 'grams' still comes up linked to operators, or the sound that comes up on a fader - but gramophones? A theatre I work in has a room that houses the followspots - however, on the old telephone system and cue light system it is labelled epidioscope room. My research concluded that these were dual function projectors that could project slides AND images from printed documents - like signs or graphics images. Never seen the real device, it's long gone!

I think my own personal categorisation is that movies are moving images, but are stories and have actors. They usually follow established formats for screen shape, length (as in duration) and have titles and credits in specific places. They follow sound conventions as to speech, music and effects. I don't think the media carrier is remotely important. I also think I could watch just a few minutes and decide if it's a movie or a documentary or even an advert simply by the style and delivery? This means my decision is not quality based at all. A 40 year old 4:3 VHS copy of Blazing Saddles is still perfectly obviously a movie, and David Attenborough's Blue Planet is clearly not, despite the massive difference in image quality. I also don't subscribe to the notion that 24fps makes something a movie that 25/30/50/60 somehow doesn't. I've accidentally produce material at 24 and never noticed because it was a training product or advert. I can put a camera on a tripod and decent head, or I can put the same camera on a very heavy boom and the image looks subtly different. I just know when I'm watching TV and when I'm watching a movie. I can tell the difference between loads of media products and put them in boxes because the content does it. How exactly my brain comes to that decision, I genuinely don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top