What makes a "Film?"

Future user

Future user

Well-known member
So I'm watchin' TBS at work the other day and I'm examining the differences between Charmed, Law and Order, and then what was left of The Matrix. Now it occurs to me, I am looking at three very different styles of visual media and I cannot determine the element responsible for the differences. Then I compare the best of the submissions on this site, everything from Disjecta to the very newest of the new, and try again to put my finger on what makes each example different. What is the key to film?
A few things have begun to become noticable.
1. camera moves are very different in films than in most of the stuff posted here.
2. sound. don't ask me what it is because I am still working it out.
3. lighting, see above
4. scene composition
5. acting. I realize now why good actors make BIG money. You don't notice they are acting.
Please add to this list the things you have noticed or learned. I realize it's an old question, but I think it's still a valid one.
 
I think you answered your own question.

But to further the point... a large reason for the DVX's success is because it could mimic "the film-look" with it's gamma and 24p.

Still it 'aint no Panavision $250K camera... and neither is whatever they use on Law and Order (Beta maybe? I dunno') and there's an even cheaper cam for Charmed.

The cam matters a lot. The lighting is important, but any of those projects COULD have great lighting... but the fact is that it wouldn't be prudent to spend $20 million dollars to make an episode of Law and Order.

A good movie made for $100million means PERFECT lighting setups, the BEST cam available, the BEST sound available, the BEST special FX (half the scenes in The Matrix were in front of a green screen or in a green room... and everything you see around the actors is a seperate, perfectly lit and shot scene)...

Basically it's like saying I notice a difference between a Yugo and a McLaren F1... but yet they are still both cars.

It's price points based on the intended consumer and the life of the product... then go the trouble that's worth whatever the potential profit is. Simple no?

You 'aint gonna' buy a $20 DVD of that episode of Law and Order... and the entire planet isn't gonna' push Law and Order revenues to $500 million.
 
Okay my bad. The only reason Law and Order and Charmed don't look like the Matrix is 'cause they lacked story.
 
MattinSTL said:
Okay my bad. The only reason Law and Order and Charmed don't look like the Matrix is 'cause they lacked story.
Click to expand...


I think production time is the biggest factor.
A movie that runs 90-100 minutes will often take 2 months to shoot.
An hour long TV show (which probably runs 40-45 minutes) is usually shot in a week or two.

That time means more attention and care given to lighting, performance, etc.
 
Sirius_Doggy said:
please..... Law & Order has a better storyline than any of the three Matrix movies.....:evil:
Click to expand...

2 and 3 yeah... but one? C'mon dude! The first Matrix is one of my all time favorite movies.

All those shows, Law and Order Any Victims Unit... or CSI Insert City Here... those are just shows to get the conservative viewer's wax-off. It's wanna' be soft core and wanna' be R. The stories are just the excuse to put up T&A or a graphic killing (within MPAA boundaries).:cheesy:

You guys honestly think that it's mainly TIME that makes films look like films and television look like TV?
 
MattinSTL said:
2 and 3 yeah... but one? C'mon dude! The first Matrix is one of my all time favorite movies.

All those shows, Law and Order Any Victims Unit... or CSI Insert City Here... those are just shows to get the conservative viewer's wax-off. It's wanna' be soft core and wanna' be R. The stories are just the excuse to put up T&A or a graphic killing (within MPAA boundaries).:cheesy:

You guys honestly think that it's mainly TIME that makes films look like films and television look like TV?
Click to expand...

I was a fan of all three Matrix movies..........For the EFX, NOT the story.

T&A in Law & Order??? WTF are you talking about? Not even in the SVU series......
 
Tiresome and Annoying.

Okay I'm just kidding... I got desperate when Luis set me straight on the Panavision stuff.

I'm graspin' at straws here!
 
I was a fan of all three Matrix movies..........For the EFX, NOT the story.
Click to expand...

I found Matrix 1 great cinema; the last 2 (sans the action sequences) were 'Eh'


For me lately; it has been composition and camera angles. Framing of the shot.

I had a revelation recently (Watching TEXAS FORTUNE no less) on what makes a composition look professional and what does not. (see how many people actually ask what that is)

I look forward to the next short out of the box to see if this theory is true for me.

----------

Check Peter Jacksons DEAD ALIVE and then jump to THE FRIGHTENERS in terms of Comps and Framing and it is night and day.
 
no one has mentioned 'Titanic'....

I'm going to get so flamed now...I actually hated that movie
 
John_Hudson said:
I had a revelation recently (Watching TEXAS FORTUNE no less) on what makes a composition look professional and what does not. (see how many people actually ask what that is)
Click to expand...
What is that John?
 
John, thank you for bringing the thread back on track. My original intent was to get everyones thoughts on what exactly achieved the "cinematic" look and so forth of a "film." Please reveal your answer.
 
Story is the main difference. At this level (many of us here anyways), we have to do a hundred different jobs instead being able to concentrate on one thing (ie: directing) instead your the production manager, camera op, editor etc..

as well, composition, lighting, blocking, acting are all things that make a film what it is. That, and shooting on film gives a different look.
 
Loki said:
Story is the main difference. At this level (many of us here anyways), we have to do a hundred different jobs instead being able to concentrate on one thing (ie: directing) instead your the production manager, camera op, editor etc..

as well, composition, lighting, blocking, acting are all things that make a film what it is. That, and shooting on film gives a different look.
Click to expand...


Directors on Television are hired to direct, DP's are hired to DP, etc.
I don't think there is a major difference in crew responsibilities between TV and Film.
But there may be a difference in approach.

Most major television shows are shot on 35mm (until recently when HD started sneaking in).

I think there are a few differences that are inherent in the medium that haven't been brought up:

Television shows are shooting for the 'small screen.' This usually means the use of many more close ups and mid shots, and less wides. Whereas on feature films people are shooting for the big screen and tend to shoot much wider shots for the most part. Speilberg has said that he keeps a small cardboard cutout of a row of people's heads taped to the bottom of his video monitor while ediitng. That way he can remind himself that he's cutting for the big screen.

Another difference inherent in the medium is script.
Movies are written and structured to be watched beginning to end.
Television shows are structured around commercial breaks, and have to take into account that people often tune in to the middle of the show. Have you ever noticed how easy it is to tune into a show in the middle and still figure out quickly what's going on? Try doing that with a movie.

Lastly, I still that that production (and post production) time is a HUGE factor, as I mentioned earlier.

Movies take much longer at every step of production than television shows do. And they can afford to do that because a movie is essentially a "one off" (unless you're making the Lord of the Rings trilogy all at once). Television shows have to worry about churning out one show after another, and are equally as worried about finding an efficient workflow as they are about keeping or creating a certain look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top