Film Is Dead

[Cracker Funk]

Just remember.... the devil is in the details that aren't made public. The tools are the last thing separating anyone from grabbing that recognition, the gap is only slightly smaller than when the DVX came out.

You probably don't, but thinking that "she just made a movie" and that's it is setting yourself up for fail. She didn't, and there's a reason why it got to SXSW in the first place.

I don't doubt what you are implying, that she had some sort of connection, but I am curious to hear more of your thoughts, and/or knowledge on that subject.

That's all kinda beside the point, though. However she did it -- SHE DID IT! We're on uncharted territory, here. "Puffy Chair" was made with a freaking camcorder!

Good things are happening, for the small-guys (and gals). Yeah, these examples are rare, but they're becoming less rare, and their very existence is relatively new. I think this is directly attributable to the ever-shrinking digital-gap.

 

[sonnyboo]

Good things are happening, for the small-guys (and gals). Yeah, these examples are rare, but they're becoming less rare, and their very existence is relatively new.

I think in the 1990's, people were far more likely to develop a career from obscurity and having a feature film with no name stars. From El Mariachi to Spanking the Monkey to Slacker to Clerks to El Mariachi to Brothers McMullen - the entirety of Miramax's reign was about finding unknown talent, doing the indie theater run, then a successful home video release.

It seems like these success of unknown filmmakers with features with no name stars is a LOT more rare now than then. And there are exponentially more feature films being made now. Along with the lack of success of indie film theaters. Tack on the dying profitability of home video, and we have a recipe for extreme rarity for "good things for the small guys"....

 

[Cracker Funk]

It seems like these success of unknown filmmakers with features with no name stars is a LOT more rare now than then.

Oh, really?

 

[Cracker Funk]

 

[directorik]

I'm wondering if the fact that you can list seven features negates
Sonnyboo's point at all. I can list ten more films by unknown
filmmakers with no name stars that were relatively successful. But
that is getting rarer and rarer.

Of course the very rare exception is what drives all of us - we want
to be that 1 in 500,000. But that doesn't change the facts of the
market. Digital video and very inexpensive high quality cameras make
it easier for people to make movies but the success of unknown
filmmakers with features with no name stars is a LOT more rare now
than then - even if you post the ten I could post.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Who's next?

http://www.superseedsmovie.com/

These days, there is always a maybe. It's possible. The glass ceiling can be broken through.

 

[directorik]

These days, there is always a maybe. It's possible. The glass ceiling can be broken through.

The ceiling was broken in the 1950's as the studio system fell.
You don't need to break it, you need to walk through the wide
opening with a great movie a distributor believes hundreds of
thousands of people (preferably millions) want to pay to see.

There has always been the "maybe" - not just these days.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'm wondering if the fact that you can list seven features negates
Sonnyboo's point at all. I can list ten more films by unknown
filmmakers with no name stars that were relatively successful. But
that is getting rarer and rarer.

Of course the very rare exception is what drives all of us - we want
to be that 1 in 500,000. But that doesn't change the facts of the
market. Digital video and very inexpensive high quality cameras make
it easier for people to make movies but the success of unknown
filmmakers with features with no name stars is a LOT more rare now
than then - even if you post the ten I could post.

Yeah, I don't about that. I'm just not seeing the evidence to support what is being said. It's a tough game we play, but I see no reason to take a Doom & Gloom attitude about the future of our craft. The way I see it, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Goliath will always have the advantage, but David always stands a fighting chance.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Sorry, but that argument does nothing for me. Yes, the big, profitable stuff will be carried over, of course. That's about one-tenth of one percent of everything that's being produced. I'm not just talking about mainstream material -- that's arguably the least valuable stuff from a strictly historical perspective. I mean EVERYTHING from feature films to news footage to home movies to wedding photos. To only save what we feel is important at the time is to skew the historical record.

Youtube is only six years old. A year and a half ago 24 hours of video was being uploaded to the site every minute. Six months ago that had doubled - 48 hours of video being uploaded every single minute of every single day. That was 260,000 minutes ago, or just over 12 million hours of uploaded video ago - assuming the rate hasn't increased in that time, which it has. Most of that isn't the 'big, profitable stuff' - it's all the rest. And even if only one tenth of one percent of that is preserved we're still talking about more than 25,000 hours a year of digital video - for now. Give it just another 5 years and we're talking numbers that likely dwarf the entire media production output of the 20th century.

Except that far more than one tenth of one percent will be preserved. Most of the files that are uploaded to youtube exist somewhere on someone's hard drive as well, so there's at least two copies of each. More than that though, as youtube undoubtably has multiple copies of each in their system as well, and people often upload to multiple sites in addition to youtube - dailymotion, vimeo, facebook, etc. The likelihood that any of it will get truly lost is getting slimmer by the day. Storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, the network is getting faster, and more and more stuff is being stored 'in the cloud' where it's less likely to be truly lost. A film negative can be easily destroyed in a fire, just as easily as a single drive can. But a digital file that's stored on multiple servers all over the world - automatically upon upload - isn't likely to be truly lost. The dramatic rise in the use of virtualization is also ensuring that we'll have systems capable of playing back any of this media as well.

Trust me, the big problem isn't going to be one of preserving digital media. It's likely to be one of sorting, filtering, and finding things in the massive pool of material that is saved.

 

[2001 Productions]

I dearly hope you're right and I'm wrong.

But think how much technology has changed in the last twenty-five years (actually, I don't know your age so you may not have a point of reference). In case you weren't using computers 25-30 years ago I'll tell you: I have huge numbers of data files that are no longer accessible, including screenplays (fortunately I printed hard copies) and video game programs that I wrote. The technology has changed so radically that there is no way for me to even access that material, let alone make use of it or even translate it into a new format. And that's just in the last quarter-century. Now, multiply that by a factor of four and you may start to see what I'm getting at.

Will YouTube exist 100 years from now? Care to place bets?

 

[sonnyboo]

I'm wondering if the fact that you can list seven features negates Sonnyboo's point at all.

No, it doesn't negate the facts presented.

These days, there is always a maybe. It's possible. The glass ceiling can be broken through.

I never said it wasn't possible. I said it is less likely now than it was 20 years ago.

I'm just not seeing the evidence to support what is being said. It's a tough game we play, but I see no reason to take a Doom & Gloom attitude about the future of our craft. The way I see it, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Goliath will always have the advantage, but David always stands a fighting chance.

The evidence is there, if you want to see it, which clearly you are choosing to ignore. Statistically, there are less successes of indie films with no name stars starting the careers of their directors into the studio system.

The home video market is substantially less profitable than it was 5 years ago and 10 years ago. With less money means less opportunities for financial success of independents. That means less opportunities available and less chances being taken.

Sales to distributors is down by large percentages from 1996 compared to 2011 at Sundance and other major film festivals. The amounts being paid for the features is down similarly. Look it up. FACTS, not opinions.

Goliath just got bigger, David has a smaller rock for his smaller slingshot. The odds are lower today than they were in the past for indie filmmakers to make a movie with no stars and translate that into a theatrical or home video success.

Nothing is impossible. I'm not saying you or anyone else cannot succeed. I'm just pointing out the FACTS (not opinions) that it simply is not happening as often or with the same level of success.

 

[bird]

All I can say, in practical terms and after working a couple of years in reprographics; Architects, Engineers, Surveyors, and hobbyists all insisted on hard copies as well as digital files of their works. We offered the option to *store* these hard copies on site or they could take them home and shove them under their mattresses.

 

[bird]

No, it doesn't negate the facts presented.

What's wid the thumbs down? He's agreeing with you.

 

[bird]

I understand the stats Sonnyboo presents and one cannot argue with facts. I do fail to see what all the whining is about. Every great artform, eventually, becomes eclipsed by a new medium. Painting had to become something else, besides realism (though it still can be realism), when photography was invented.

Cinema is more widely accessible but that doesn't make anyone who picks up a camera, an artist. As suggested already, there'sgonna be a whole lot more garbage to filter through to get to that masterpiece.

 

[DeJager]

Digital is a double edged sword .... helps the little guy create movies for cheaper but that means there are thousands and thousands more movies to compete with. Thousands of "so-called" filmmakers and faux production companies. It's saturated the talent pool.

I would love to shoot on film but it's too expensive. Maybe if they lowered the prices then it'd be possible for more films to be shot on film. Those companies priced themselves right out of business and relevance.

 

[JoshL]

I dearly hope you're right and I'm wrong.

But think how much technology has changed in the last twenty-five years (actually, I don't know your age so you may not have a point of reference). In case you weren't using computers 25-30 years ago I'll tell you: I have huge numbers of data files that are no longer accessible, including screenplays (fortunately I printed hard copies) and video game programs that I wrote. The technology has changed so radically that there is no way for me to even access that material, let alone make use of it or even translate it into a new format. And that's just in the last quarter-century. Now, multiply that by a factor of four and you may start to see what I'm getting at.

Will YouTube exist 100 years from now? Care to place bets?

Really? That's actually pretty surprising. These days there are software emulators for all sorts of crazy old machines (not just video game systems). Retro computing is a big geek-y hobby; even if you don't have the hardware (are we talking cassettes? 8" floppies? Something even more obsolete?) I'm sure you could find a group online of people who could grab your code for you. There are even places you can mail stacks of punchcards to have converted to usable binary data. I've found that whatever your interests or history is with computers, there is at least one discussion group (or newsgroup back in the day. Or BBS if your days go back far enough) devoted to it.

Access to data is a lot more flexible these days. There are devices that can make old IDE or SCSI drives accessable via USB. There's even a USB audio cassette player that I would be surprised if no one has hacked to get dumps from old data cassettes (childhood memories of rocking out to a VIC-20 Donkey Kong tape through a standard deck...no wonder I grew into an electronica/noise guy!) Will YouTube be around in 100 years? I doubt it, in the form that it is now, but with various internet archives, I wouldn't be surprised if 100 years from now, you could visit YouTube as of 2011!

Now, the real issue here is what ItDonnedOnMe brought up...the sheer VOLUME of data we're creating and accruing. How do you get through it all? More importantly (for all of us) how do you get YOUR data to stand up above the tide of cat videos, etc?

 

[bird]

I would love to shoot on film but it's too expensive. Maybe if they lowered the prices then it'd be possible for more films to be shot on film. Those companies priced themselves right out of business and relevance.

You know, I hear this all the time. Yes, film IS more expensive, but you can be economical with plenty of pre-production planning and rehearsal. No, you cannot just rattle off hours of footage like you can with digital but that's also the beauty of film, it teaches you to self-edit, to determine what is essential in the telling of your story. It's like working under some really stringent rules and hot deadlines.

 

[DeJager]

You know, I hear this all the time. Yes, film IS more expensive, but you can be economical with plenty of pre-production planning and rehearsal. No, you cannot just rattle off hours of footage like you can with digital but that's also the beauty of film, it teaches you to self-edit, to determine what is essential in the telling of your story. It's like working under some really stringent rules and hot deadlines.

You are right. I think being from MN has influenced my perception on the use of film. It's not very readily available around here (to rent a film camera) nor are there a slew of talented camera ops with tons of experience with film that won't break the bank. They seem to charge more around here because there is less of them.

I think I will make it a point to shoot a movie on film before it becomes too hard.


Also... do people still shoot digital then transfer to film?! Monsters did that. Isn't that still preferred or was that never really the case?

 

[sonnyboo]

I understand the stats Sonnyboo presents and one cannot argue with facts. I do fail to see what all the whining is about.

I am saddened by the loss of film. I shot a feature entirely on film from 35mm to super 16 to 16mm and Super 8 - no video at all. I've also shot on most forms of digital since. I don't think my personal filmmaking is affected much by the loss of film, but I am sentimental about it passing so quickly.

As for the industry, you have to make do with what you have. Be content with what you do and what it does. I just prefer not be delusional about thinking I'm getting into Sundance and a 3 picture deal with Harvey Weinstein.

What's wid the thumbs down? He's agreeing with you.

Thumbs down to the 99% of the response aimed at someone else. Didn't think that was a big deal, as I respect CF quite a bit. I just don't agree with his point of view on this topic.

 

[2001 Productions]

These days there are software emulators for all sorts of crazy old machines (not just video game systems). Retro computing is a big geek-y hobby; even if you don't have the hardware (are we talking cassettes? 8" floppies? Something even more obsolete?)

Evidently I'm doing a lousy job of making my point.

Yes, I'm talking storage media such as cassettes, floppies, 12" swappable hard discs, etc. I'm also talking software (ever heard of Samna word processor? I have many old script files in Samna format). I have little doubt that somebody, somewhere could transfer my stuff for me, and that's all well and good except it's not valuable enough to me to go to the trouble to do it, which is my point. If I don't do it, eventually the storage medium will disintegrate (if it hasn't already) and something that may have been of historical value to someone else someday will be lost forever (not implying that my stuff has that sort of value - as far as I know - but just using it as an example).

Put a motion picture film in a drawer somewhere. If the house doesn't burn down, somebody 100 years from now can pull it out, hold it up to the light and immediately know what to do with it.

Maybe I'm just being nostalgic as I approach 50, but I still mourn the loss of the Library at Alexandria, which was destroyed 2000 years ago. Maybe it's just that nobody today cares about history.