Film Is Dead

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. :(

You had to go bringing up the Library at Alexandria... I think I'm gonna go have a cry now. Thanks. :tear:
 
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.

It's not as though film is indestructible. It will degrade over time, especially if it hasn't been stored with care. Both film and digital files need to be stored and maintained if you want them to be accessible to future generations.
 
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.

I'm sorry you see my point as doom and gloom.

Of course David has a chance. I say that over and over and over.
I also suggest that filmmakers truly understand the business and
the market. How many of you have gone to AFM more than three
times? I've gone every year since 1988. When a filmmaker
understands the business and the current market place they can
make more informed choices on the movies they make for that
market.

The harsh fact is fewer movies made by unknown directors with
unknown stars are getting into the marketplace. The way those
types of movies are getting an audience is changing. In 1988 I
could make a crappy movie, shot on Hi-8 that had a hot chock
getting naked and then killed in a bloody way and get it on the
video shelves and make a profit. I did it. Way to often.

I can't do that today. Doom and gloom? If you insist. And if you want
to push the harsh facts aside and go into a project without fully
understanding the business, hopping you are the David I am not telling
you not to. No doom and gloom from me. I know it happens. You posted
7 titles - I can post 10 more. All I'm suggesting is you not think of
yourself as David, as the rare exception, and understand the marketplace.
The future of our craft has never looked better. Making a living making
these kinds of movies is not as easy today as it was 20 years ago.

Look at it as doom and gloom or use that understanding of the current
market to make the right choices. Just don't hide from the reality.
 
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. :hmm:

Hey, that's cool info. :)


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?

His answer is sort of harsh --given: how many of us will ever make or are even capable of making a Reservoir Dogs? But Quentin Tarantino says that the answer is, "Uhhh, make Reservoir Dogs, huhhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh!"

If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth but don't want to watch the whole clip, start it at about 2:17.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVE296BvOj4
 
Last edited:
I love Tarantino!

directorik, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say so much, with the "Doom & Gloom" comment. That was just hyperbole, on my part. And, after reading your comments, I suppose it's possible that our perspectives on this issue are due to the fact that we literally have different perspectives. You used to make T&A horror movies that got sold, and that's awesome. I've never done that, so I don't have that experience to compare the modern market to. I'm just looking at all these no-name directors who keep popping-up out of nowhere, with low-budget movies, moving on to bigger things, and I find that inspiring (which I know that you do, too).

sonnyboo, I have mad respect for you, and I didn't take the thumbs-down as any kind of slight, just that you strongly disagree with what I'm saying. And there's no problem in that. To be frank, though, you kept using the word "fact", but you didn't really present any. As far as examining hard numbers, what movies are being sold for, and the number of micro-budget films that achieve box office or DVD success, I'd sincerely REALLY like to know where to get that kind of info. Heck, I even started a thread, recently, looking for an answer to these very questions. If you have info, or know where to look, to find out the budgets of films, and what they're being sold for, I would really want to know where to look.

Anyway, I hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers. You guys are really cool, and provide great info. I guess my main point is that I personally find optimism in the current market, no matter how difficult the odds may be.

Cheers! :)
 
It's not as though film is indestructible. It will degrade over time, especially if it hasn't been stored with care. Both film and digital files need to be stored and maintained if you want them to be accessible to future generations.

Yes, but come on, are you seriously comparing the two in terms of durability? And accessibility over time??? No offense intended, but at this point I think you may just be yanking my chain... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I give. In the long run, it won't matter a whit to me cuz I'll be pushing up the daisies by then. :yes:
 
Yes, but come on, are you seriously comparing the two in terms of durability? And accessibility over time??? No offense intended, but at this point I think you may just be yanking my chain... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I give. In the long run, it won't matter a whit to me cuz I'll be pushing up the daisies by then. :yes:

There are many lost movies and TV shows from the past that I wish were still around. George Lucas lamented that the blu-ray transfers of the original Star Wars trilogy would be the last transfer from film as the stock was degrading so much, and that film was stored and maintained in the best facilities available. Film will last longer than some formats, but not as long as others. For instance, Blu-Ray discs have an estimated life span of 100-150 years. As for accessibility, it took me 30 seconds to google a solution for your Samna files. I'm pretty sure it would take me considerably longer to find a 35mm projector. I really do love film, but the idea that we should stick with it for it's durability and longevity doesn't make sense to me.
 
George Lucas lamented that the blu-ray transfers of the original Star Wars trilogy would be the last transfer from film as the stock was degrading so much, and that film was stored and maintained in the best facilities available. Film will last longer than some formats, but not as long as others. For instance, Blu-Ray discs have an estimated life span of 100-150 years. As for accessibility, it took me 30 seconds to google a solution for your Samna files. I'm pretty sure it would take me considerably longer to find a 35mm projector. I really do love film, but the idea that we should stick with it for it's durability and longevity doesn't make sense to me.

Uncle! There's no profit for me in continuing to debate this -- but out of sheer stubbornness I will address your points. ;)

First, when Lucas says the "stock was degrading", what he's talking about are the color dyes, not the celluloid itself. Old black and white silver nitrate emulsion was far more stable than color emulsion, but originally the transparent backing degraded terribly to the point where it literally burst into flames and killed many projectionists. Then they developed what was called "safety film", at which point they transferred as much of the old material as was financially feasible over to safety prints. We lost a huge amount of stuff at that point, either because it melted or because nobody felt it was worth the cost or effort to transfer it. Did we lose anything important? I guess we'll never know.

Then came color film, which was a completely different chemistry than black and white. The three color dyes used were not stable the way black and white was, and certain colors would fade over time. The images were still there; the colors were just off. What Lucas (and others who've restored classic films) had to do was use a computer to restore the faded colors to their original hues. The actual celluloid backing is extremely durable and takes a very long time to decompose. Over the past couple of decades color dyes have improved dramatically and are far more stable today than they were in the first few decades of the technology.

Second point: Yes, a Blu-Ray disc will last 150 years -- it's made of the same stuff as safety film, more or less. But will any equipment to play it exist in 150 years? Or, how about this, you run across a Blu-Ray disc 150 years from now, but accidentally step on it and it snaps in half. Now play it. A reel of film, however, you can scratch it, tear it, drop it on the floor or even down a flight of stairs and, while it might be the worse for wear, you can always clean it up and repair it and figure out a way to use it, whether or not you can find a 35mm projector. Hell, you can build a film projector with relative ease. Think you can whip up a Blu-Ray player in your garage? Sorry, but there is no comparison between the two in my view.

Third point: I know that someone out there can retrieve my Samna files; I believe I acknowledged that previously. That software is only 25 years old, after all. Do they also have a working floppy drive that will read my disc? Maybe so, but how about in another 75 years? My disc will be unreadable long before then, if it's even readable now. It's up to me to maintain those files; if I don't, they're gone, bottom line. Neither the medium nor the technology will last 100 years; not even close.

As an aside, the ideal storage solution for color images is, ironically, Technicolor. It's an absurdly expensive and cumbersome technology, but is the most stable and you don't have to worry about color fade because it uses black and white film -- three strips, one for each color. It's day was short-lived, but the yellow brick road and the burning of Atlanta will always be as vivid as the day they were shot. :cool:
 
In my little film and digital film-making world I've gone full circle with this argument. Seems to me now that it all depends on the content. What content will be important enough to save? Further more, which content created currently will get a deal, make money, people like etc...

I've been focusing my efforts on content, writing. Coming up with "sell-able" content is incredibly difficult. If it was easy we'd all have flicks out and making money. Yet I continue to writing and work on my craft because I love it.

So when I look at the film /digital thing we get stuck in, it's clear to me that "audience" don't care what medium a film was shot on or how it will be stored. Bottom line, if the content is important enough it will be preserved somehow , someway.
 
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).

Okay, this is where the conversation gets *really* interesting (well, to a big geek like me anyway). You've made a decision to edit. You could have preserved that data (convert medium, convert format, etc, easily enough). You chose not to because, as you said, it's not valuable enough to you.

These days, however, EVERYTHING is preserved. Posts you made in a newsgroup 10-15 years ago? Easy enough to find. Blog you maintained? Yeah, it's there. Movies? Even if not available legitimately, most of them tend to get around. We are generating so much noise these days, so many ones and zeros and how many people are bothering, like you did, to say "this isn't worth preserving"? Furthermore, if you let it out in the wild, even if you choose to delete all records of something, someone somewhere WILL be preserving it (again, check out Archive.org). A moment of perspective, there was a concerted effort to back up GEOCITIES before they closed up shop. Presumably so future generations can see where the bottom of the internet used to be (what's next, the AOL Preservation Society?)

Picture how much data you had access to 20 years ago, compared to now. I'm counting physical libraries too...picture the libraries that you could drive to and properly research in a day. Now imagine the data you will be able to access in 20 years, if we keep going the rate we're going. It's all out there, and you never have to leave your house. We're drowning in info, and it will only get worse. Unless some cyberpunk style infopocalypse comes, wipes all the data and we start fresh! Reboot the world for a new dark age!

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. :(

That is very sad; all of the lost libraries and knowledge are. However, I don't think that could ever happen again. These days, there's an effort to scan everything in and back everything up across redundant drives. The idea is to get rid of a medium that can, will and DOES disintegrate and turn everything into flexible data, that you could easily import to new systems as new systems are developed. Burn down the Library of Congress? That's okay, because they have offsite backups. Maybe Joe Average doesn't care about history, but there are lots of people who do, and set about preserving it to a much greater degree. But, as Percy Bysshe Shelley reminds us, nothing lasts forever.

Going back to the original point, and yours too, data mediums come and go. But I think all data created now has a better chance of lasting longer. There's just some odd, if not outright creepy implications to that. Either way, fun to think about, even more fun to discuss!

Addendum: an interesting footnote to this sort of discussion: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/13/passwords_in_wills/
 
Last edited:
IMHO the introduction of cheaper video having the direct effect of causing the decline of film will have the similar social effect of grocery stores vs. grow your own food, cars vs. carriages, air conditioning vs. getting out of the house, equal opportunity employment vs. discrimination.

These things change the feel of the environment.
Things are gained. And things are lost.
Deal with it or take Prozac over it.
Preservationists are fools.



First, I think the next two decades are going to be very weird due to the global financial crisis, so how things will be after that fetid pig has passed through the python is likely incalculable.

Second, here's the "film as entertainment" aspect from a critical time management issue: there will remain 24hrs in a day, as workplace efficiency increases society has a choice to either perform more productive activity with the same amount of discretionary leisure time - or - forego additional productive activity and increase discretionary leisure time.
The latter is basically cramming in more goofing off.
With digital film the cost barriers come down, the content volume increases, and the average quality decreases. Kinda like when the Berlin wall came down all the cheap Eastern block autos started polluting up Western Germany.

Third, now as economic efficiencies increase consumers should have better control over determining their soon to be streaming content as it is progressively commoditized as we see in NetFix's et al. $X/month programs.
There's just going to be more of that in the future.
Feature entertainment expenses will become utility payments just like cable TV.
So the trick is going to be developing some metric for consumers to consistently demand your product, because I can totally see how content providers are just gonna provide token compensation for your "no-one-cares-if-you-ever-made-it-to the-party" feature.
Premiums and revenue streams for content providers only happen for those in demand.
It costs content distributors just as much to send 90min of sh!t down the bandwidth pipe as it does gold.

As always, the distributors have both the providers and consumers by the curlies. ;)


And I imagine that in a hundred years humanity (should it survive that long) will be recording and documenting every GD moment of our entire existence, no matter how mundane, and from a hundred different perspectives.
Every individual's documented existance will be stored according to copyright laws (a hundred years after our death, maybe) then auctioned off or deleted.

Your life = your grandparent's garage full of sh!t collected over a lifetime that the grand kids get to haul to the curb when they croak.

Howzat for doom and gloom?!
 
Last edited:
And I imagine that in a hundred years humanity (should it survive that long) will be recording and documenting every GD moment of our entire existence, no matter how mundane, and from a hundred different perspectives.
Every individual's documented existance will be stored according to copyright laws (a hundred years after our death, maybe) then auctioned off or deleted.

Your life = your grandparent's garage full of sh!t collected over a lifetime that the grand kids get to haul to the curb when they croak.

Howzat for doom and gloom?!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-JFzMb6r0

:weird:
 
What the hell, I'll be the asshole...

On some levels the revolution sucks. I probably would have wound up making films either way. I would have gotten my hands on a 16mm, found the money somewhere, and made films. I would have been competing with the small group of people who did likewise (and the big boys of course). Mine would have been one a much smaller number of total films made. Now I have to try and be heard over the din of thousands and thousands of films, 98% of which suck balls no matter what they were shot in. 15 years ago most of those films would never have gotten made.
 
From sonnyboo's link:

Since the "film is dead" debate began, archivists fought to keep elements on film, the only medium that has proven to last well over 100 years. "Most responsible archivists in the industry still believe today that, if you can at all do it, you should still stick it on celluloid and put it in a cold, dry place, because the last 100 years has been the story of nitrate and celluloid," says Deluxe's Ainsworth.

He jokes that if the world's best physicists brought a gizmo to an archivist that they said would hold film for 100 years, the archivist would say, "Fine, come back in 99 years." "With the plethora of digital files, formats and technologies--some of which still exist and some of which don't--we're running into problems with digital files made only five years ago," he adds.

Hmm, evidently my fears are shared by those with genuine credibility... :hmm:

Now I have to try and be heard over the din of thousands and thousands of films, 98% of which suck balls no matter what they were shot in. 15 years ago most of those films would never have gotten made.

You make a good point, Gonzo. Speaking as someone who was making films 15 years ago - on film - I can confirm that there definitely was less competition.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, however, it occurs to me that the world of 15 years ago (and earlier) didn't necessarily weed out the untalented as much as it weeded out those who lacked the resources and/or wherewithal to get a film made. For someone like me, who lived in the same tiny town in which I still reside, raising funds to make a real film was pretty much a non-option. In my own case, of course, I'm just stupid enough to wipe out my own savings to get it done. But that was relatively atypical.
 
From Panavision on Facebook:

Panavision
As a rental company, Panavision is committed to supporting our customers worldwide by providing them a wide range of camera equipment which includes film cameras. We continue to support our fleet of film cameras, and that includes ongoing major refurbishment, which in many cases means almost a complete rebuild of existing product. There is still significant demand for film equipment in many of our key markets, including studio feature film productions. So, while our ongoing focus is the transition to future products in the digital world, the implication that we’ve quit the film business isn’t accurate.
 
Back
Top