True Filmmaking

D

Dimp Paddy

i was talking with a few people the other day, and someone brought up that using digital means in the upcoming film Sin City is wrong because it's not "true filmmaking". That because Robert Rodiguez is using HD rather than 35 or even 16mm, it isn't "true filmmaking". I, along with a few others argued that the medium in which you film doesn't determine what "true filmmaking" is and that the term "true filmmaking" doesn't make much sense. I wanted to see what everyone here thought...

Discuss, haha.
 
This one's a tricky one. I have often called myself a movie maker. The reason being that as a digital filmmaker I feel the need to distance myself from the film medium. Not because I hate film or will never shoot on it, but because as of now I am not making movies on film.

I also call myself a filmmaker because "film" is a term that describes movies in general.

I don't know exactly where I stand on this, but one things for sure, I want to see Sin City.

Poke
 
my film teacher last year asked me if i was a filmmaker or movie maker, i said "i'm a cinematic magician, i make movie magic!" and then i did a little spirit fingers, hand thing, she just rolled her eyes and walked away...

and who doesn't want to see Sin City?? i can't wait!
 
Dimp Paddy said:
i was talking with a few people the other day, and someone brought up that using digital means in the upcoming film Sin City is wrong because it's not "true filmmaking". That because Robert Rodiguez is using HD rather than 35 or even 16mm, it isn't "true filmmaking". I, along with a few others argued that the medium in which you film doesn't determine what "true filmmaking" is and that the term "true filmmaking" doesn't make much sense. I wanted to see what everyone here thought...

Discuss, haha.
Click to expand...

hahahaha.. dude.. are you talking about me?
 
hahaha no, i'm talking about a bunch of d*ckheads on a different forum :P

i jumped at the chance of talking about cinema seeing as you're the only person i know who likes to, and you weren't on
 
Oh ok.. well anywho.. I'm not a big fan of digital.. I do think it lacks the 'feel'.. it's hard to explain.. but that's just my opinion.

I wouldn't really use that whole 'true filmmaking' thing.. because it isn't about what you use.. it's how you use it...& the direction behind it.. y'know? It really doesn't matter how you capture it.. as long as you do.. & that it turns out just as you invisioned it.. clear as day from your mind to the screen..
 
its kinda like a glasses thing, you can look at life through different glasses, but it doesn't stop it from being real life, but different glasses can add to or alter the experience. you get me?

it's the content that defines cinema, and really, there is no such thing as "true filmmaking" because everyone does it differently. I don't think the medium in which it is displayed is irrelevant, because it can really add a whole new dimension to what is felt in a film.
 
hahaha not so much lazy, it just became more of an art form rather than a business, so things changed, i think for the better, the range now is excellent, so much freedom, but some purists out there probably disagree
 
Dimp Paddy said:
hahaha not so much lazy, it just became more of an art form rather than a business, so things changed, i think for the better, the range now is excellent, so much freedom, but some purists out there probably disagree
Click to expand...

Dude.. what are you talking about?? It's more of a business now then it ever was!!
 
hahaha okay, what i said doesn't sound like what i meant, i mean, back in the classic days of cinema, they'd kinda churn out the films, not so much looking for content, but just to make money, they'd make like so and so films a year, because they had a quota kind of thing, but nowadays, it's become more of an artform, yes there is a business side, a big one, but there is more of an artistic side than ever.
 
Dimp Paddy said:
hahaha okay, what i said doesn't sound like what i meant, i mean, back in the classic days of cinema, they'd kinda churn out the films, not so much looking for content, but just to make money .
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha.. & they don't now?! Have you seen crossroads?

Dimp Paddy said:
they'd make like so and so films a year, because they had a quota kind of thing, but nowadays, it's become more of an artform, yes there is a business side, a big one, but there is more of an artistic side than ever.
Click to expand...

One more time.. have you seen crossroads?
 
hahaha no i haven't seen Crossroads, but like i said, there is still a business side, which is why films like that come out, but the industry is far more artistic these days
 
yeah, we really need more Singin' In The Rain's... Death To Smoochy had a musical side to it (great film) but not to the level of a full on musical

but hey, i guess we can just hope Baz Luhrman liked making musicals haha, i haven't seen Moulin Rouge but i hear its quite the experience..
 
Dimp Paddy said:
but hey, i guess we can just hope Baz Luhrman liked making musicals haha, i haven't seen Moulin Rouge but i hear its quite the experience..
Click to expand...

:hmm: It's funny.. coz I just went off at you about this... & you're hiring it tomorrow.. I don't care what your mum thinks.
 
hahaha, apart from Poke, this thread is just us arguing hahaha, we're subjecting people to stuff they don't need to be subjected to :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top