The Future Of Film Making

[happyfilmluvguy]

A 70 foot screen isn't exactly something you can fit in your living room, and you more than likely can't find one that's affordable. Your only other option is to take a seat, amongst 700 others, and stare up at that giant screen, your eyes fixed on the images projecting across it. This is the movie theater. Your night out on a Saturday, the location of your first date, or just your place to escape. But ever since the release of movies like Sky Captain, the creators of those images are now talking.

With the release of 300, I thought it was a good time for a deep discussion in the future of the movies. With innovative technology like facial mapping and blue screens (which have been around since the 50s), as well as high definition, there is more than likely going to be a change in the way movies are made and seen.

Sin City, Sky Captain, and 300 all have two things in common, and it's not their technology. It's that their processes are cost effective and less time consuming. While normally with a set, make up, actors, etc, take up to 3 years to complete a movie and costing millions of dollars, these films are made in 60 days or less, costing around $10 million or so, and making hundreds of millions of dollars in the box office and DVD sales.

Sooner or later, the industry is going to go completely digital, with many films, at the most, being done on a blue screen, with their share of computer graphics, but first they will start cancelling out positions like set design, costume design, and make up. With innovative things like this, there is no need for these positions. At least a physical person to make the costumes, build the set, or powder the actors faces. They still will be needed as guidance.

Some day even, the only way you will see a movie will be on your computer, because it is also cost effective to distribute a film online, rather than it is to millions of theaters around the world. It's all about the money.

What do you think will be the future of film making?

 

[Novella]

Sooner or later, the industry is going to go completely digital, with every film, at the most, being done on a blue screen, with their share of computer graphics, but first they will start cancelling out positions like set design, costume design, and make up. With innovative things like this, there is no need for these positions. At least a physical person to make the costumes, build the set, or powder the actors faces. They still will be needed as guidance.

Some day even, the only way you will see a movie will be on your computer, because it is also cost effective to distribute a film online, rather than it is to millions of theaters around the world. It's all about the money.

Sounds like a nightmare to me. There is something about physically being in a movie theater, in the dark, surrounded by others all sharing an experience that just can't be replaced. If the movie theater does eventually disappear, I think there will be something hugely lost.

I'm not too impressed with all the fancy graphics and construction of Sky Captain and Sin City, and I'm sure 300 will be equally unimpressive in it's attempt to impress. I think Sky Captain and Sin City on a conceptual level sound like they have a lot going for them, but in action there is something missing. A good story, characters to really care about, that sort of thing. It is as if the movies are too stylized, and in that focus on the look, the soul of the movies goes AWOL. Maybe one day when these technologies are more commonplace it'll be possible to make movies in this fashion that are more than just spectacle. Even then it would be sad. Although, would shooting movies entirely on stages really be moving forward? A lot of films back in the day were shot on sets. I like a combination of technology and reality for movies made today. I think new technology should be used, just not to the degree that it becomes more about technology than the storytelling and human element of a film.

 

[Feraud]

Sin City, Sky Captain, or 300 is probably not the sole future of filmmaking. These films seem to better showcase a style though a particular technique than a final phase of the filming medium.
The fact that films like Hollywoodland or The Good German were recently made tells me there are filmmakers looking to tell a story and not rely on special effects to do so. I enjoy the variety of shots on location, backlot sets, blue screen background, and digital effects.
The next Indiana Jones is supposed to be produced as "in the old days". This means locations, costume people, makeup artists, and stunt people.
Senator Jack and I were discussing films over dinner a while ago and expressed the need for a technicolor film. I think Woody Allen is just the guy to do it.
The future of film looks o.k. to me.

 

[Novella]

Senator Jack and I were discussing films over dinner a while ago and expressed the need for a technicolor film.

That would be great!

 

[Senator Jack]

They thought canned music was going to kill the Broadway orchestra, too. The union put a stop to that.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

there's been a couple films that have revived the technicolor process. Blood Diamond was shot in Technicolor. Pearl Harbor was as well. A few others, can't think of them. The basis of a film is it's story, but to tell a story, you have to make it look convincing. I think with present based films, they'll stick with locations, but the "look" of a film captures it's essence, no matter how good the story is. The story, the actors and the look all blend in together. Movies are also being made overseas and in Canada, since filming within the US is expensive.

There's virtual music too. Very realistic. Here's some software I've been eyeing over for the past few years: http://www.soundsonline.com/home.php

Listen to the samples. You wouldn't believe they were made by a computer. Also, less expensive than a 20 piece orchestra

 

[Paratrooper]

the thing the Sin City and 300 will give Holywood is another tool to help a movie. yes their will be bad CG films just as their are bad live action films. It's not the tech that they use it is how that use that tech.

 

[Leading Edge]

Too much Sci-Fi/Fantasy?

I have been a science fiction/fantasy reader long enough to know that much of what writers of that type of fiction envision is not so much a matter of research as development, not so much of could be as coming soon to a theatre near you. Having made that excuse for this response:

It is well known that the entertainment consumer is no longer the couch potato passively accepting whatever you put on its plate. Now, the proverbial couch potato wants buttons to press that will tailor the entertainment experience more directly to their needs or at least a web site to go to to vote for a particular option. Furthermore, the entertainment industry's need to recapture declining revenues has already necessitated acknowledgment of the increasingly self indulgent consumer's demand for inclusion. Finally, with enough satellites in orbit to satisfy basic governmental demands, the entertainment consumer is increasingly the main beneficiary of telecommunication's space toys.

The entertainment industry's response to the new couch potato has been the development of more democratic entertainment, i.e., entertainment which is the cumulative result of an amicable interaction between the planned creation of the studio and the immediate direct input of the consumer. Precursors for that type of development in the visual media is evidenced by the "unexpected" success of small screen programming such as American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, and that one showcasing comedians (sorry, it was so bad my mind refuses to recall the name). Imagine what happens on the big screen were you to add in the interactive use of cell phones: the movie-going experience becomes unique to the audience participating in the experience. Thus, not just the outcome, but the twists and turns of the plot, the development and inclusion/exclusion of character, and maybe even the setting itself is an immediate reflection of that audience's collective intention. The technology is available now and, to some degree, film has begun testing these waters with the release (on DVD) of alternative endings, the inclusion of deleted scenes, as well as alternate versions of the released movie.

Of course, to me, that scenario is just too disruptive of that wonderfully seamless immersion that I have come to identify as a satisfying movie experience, but other possibilities are already in evidence for those who share my opinion. The development and introduction of the HDDVD is the greatest example of meeting my pre- and post-millennium entertainment demands. As the industry becomes even bolder in its exploitation of the HDDVD, I believe its historical importance may very well eclipse that of the VCR - not to mention enabling better conceived and produced You Tube videos.

(For some reason, whenever I post to this forum, I do seem to go on and on.)
In the interest of brevity, also consider what happens when the industry realizes the income bonanza from employing strategies such as pay-per-view with ability to download to cell phones, computers, or even personal DVD viewers.
(And we all know, piracy is just an updated version of cops and robbers.)

 

[Twitch]

I can see that movie production costs like everything else from gasoline to houses has escalated into the stratoshpere. A lush, extravagant epic like Cleopatra was made in 1963 for 1 million bucks. Yeah well a Jag XKE was $6000 then too with 14¢ gas. The reincarnated XK runs like 80 grand now and gas is nearing $3 again. I bought my house in 1981 for for $75,000 did a $10,000 adition and the silly thing is now valued at like half a mill!

But let's face it, everything has gone up and if CGI is a way to assist production and keep costs down so be it. Is any one but a handfull of people truly interested in a personal relationship drama with talking heads and corny dialogue? Hell there are no more romanitc movies. They use dorks like Hugh Grant to do tongue in cheek parodies that poke fun at the very concept in assinine romps of frivilousness that are so cutesey they gag you.

I do think they should hold a movie for a minimum of 6 months before it goes to DVD. Too many people just say, "Eh, I'll wait for it on disc," because now in no time after the theater run iit is on DVD.

The theater experience for me has become a crappy one for a simple reason- the damned over use of sound. I like loud music and play video games less than muted but the previews in theaters just suck!

I went to see 300 this weekend and once the movie was going any elevated sound track decibles were warranted and integrated into the immersion of the film. But the previews are edited by monkeys no doubt. They do nothing but shoot video bites at you in a staccato of unrelated visual impressions accompanied by "dramatic?" sound effects the result in a series of audio "whomps" that seek to punctuate how great the upcoming flick will be. It ends up being a mis-mash of crap akin to a bad acid trip assaulting your ear drums when it is completely out of context other than as a stun factor. The cobble together an orgy of sights connected by a "whomp!"

They use the sounds in between each vid bite for no apparent reason as they are not part of the finished movie's sound track. There are no more movie trailers as such just an assault on a captive audience.

I watched Lost Horizon Saturday and it included the theater trailer on the DVD as well as an alternate ending. Quite a difference to say the least.

Too often the brief scene bites patched together end up being the only good parts of the movie. The catch phrase repeated in previews by actors sometimes is about all you remember after a couple years. Once you've seen it as a whole you realize it was simply editing hype. There was 2 minutes 25 seconds of memorable entertainment intersparsed with 92 minutes of all too familiar crap linking it.

TV is in a sick state as well. Reality shows are nothing of the sort but they're cheap to shoot. With all the people in Hollywood carrying a SAG card they have to put a mediocre dork like Regis Philbin on a banal show several nights a week plus in the morning. When something like this Idol or Millionaire show some glimmer of public interest what do they do? They assault you with it every damned night of the week till you're sick of it. Then they screw with scheduling and move things around till you lose track of them and then the networks say viewership was down. No wonder since the shows bounce around or go on haitus for months till you forgot what the hell was going on in the plot.

Frankly the movie without visual effects and a fantasizing plot where you have a dialogue rich tale of a divorced mom making it in the cruel world interacting with her dull friends and looking ofr love interests is best left for the "made for TV" production entities. Nobody is going to pay to see the same old story over and over and over. The ones that do make it to the big screen produce lackluster profits despite rave revues from critics.

With theater prices what they are today people want to be entertained like hell not slightly amused by some homey flick or well up because some little kid gets hit by car. People go to the theater to escape the banality of their lives wanting a full on romp into fantasy. When they leave they have to deal with sagging interpersonal relationships, low wages, insolent kids and attempting to live on a budget. They don't want to pay to see a bunch of actors depict their lives on screen.

Film making in the future has got to make money. The production companies basically go with the flow of what is in demand by the consumer. While a few flicks are visions of certain inspired creators on a quest to share it with the world the vast majority are formulated for consumption. The artsy, interpersonal relationship, tragedy, romantic pictures have their limited audience and will continue to be produced for reasonable budgets. But CGI and spectacular visuals will continue to sate the desires of the paying theater goer whether we like it or not. Film is a business. True, it fills all niches but some more than others when it comes to profitability.

Hell there was some damned preview of some sillyazzed bunch of very expensive exotic cars racing to Las Vegas. Don't ask me the name. It was so stupendously absurd I can't even remember it. They had cars flying through the air in every preview scene. I commented to my wife it was nothing more than a video game as a movie. This will have an audience if pre-teen gamers no doubt. It will probably make money.

I too choose very carefully when spending my money to go to a theater. I want to be entertained. I can tune into a made for cable flick on HBO or Lifetime if I want to be depressed with aunt Bess dealing with her breast cancer while uncle Buddy is detached and likes to go fishing instead of dealing with her illness as her sister consoles her and little nephew Bobby asks her poiniant yet innocent questions about why she never had children or some similar dirge.:eusa_doh: I ain't gonna spent for that in a movie house and most people aren't either.

The movie house has mostly always been a step into a place where fiction rules for entertainment's sake. I personally have had my fill of romance and interpersonal dramas having seen most of the classics and B movies of the past. I've seen them all my life repeatedly, would choose to see only a relative few again, and again and simply wish to escape for the sake of entertainment immersion and not dissect any particlur film ala Ebert & Roper.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Some good points, some I can't agree with without proof. I think one reason 300 (fantasized) is becoming so popular is it's innovation, the success of Sin City (which does use fantasized tales), and it's rugged edges, probably the #1 reason. The consumer may have the money and the interest, but the seller can throw whatever they like at the consumer, and with the slightest bit of similarity in their interest, it will lure that consumer.

Does anyone think that the reason people went to see Cinderella Man was because they had an interest in James Braddock? I sure didn't. But afterwards, I learned of the story of the man and of his life. An article I read once, the writer says that movies successes are unpredicable. You don't know whether it will be a flop or a box office smash. I'd like to think if the creators of any movies have common sense, you could have a pretty good idea that the movie will be a unsuccessful or not. It's all a game.
I can't imagine a romantic film being done with special visual effects, nor can I with a period film, or a comedy, or a drama. Right now it seems more focused on action and adventure than anything else.

 

[Feraud]

Hell there was some damned preview of some sillyazzed bunch of very expensive exotic cars racing to Las Vegas. Don't ask me the name. It was so stupendously absurd I can't even remember it. They had cars flying through the air in every preview scene.

Was Adrianne Barbeau in it? I think I saw that one a looong time ago.

 

[Baggers]

Was Adrianne Barbeau in it? I think I saw that one a looong time ago.

Adrianne Barb**bs? Nah, you must have been thinking about Death Race 2000 with David Carradine and Sly Stallone, which, in what seems to be a stunning bit of irony when related to this thread, may have spawned a remake, Deathrace 3000.

As for the future of film making, All I can hope is that SAG is as successful in preventing "canned actors" as the musicians' union was on Broadway as mentioned earlier by Senator Jack. Onscreen talent constitutes a large portion of a film's overhead, especially when one considers the money a film's stars can negotiate beyond the union minimums that are paid out to all the supporting and day players.

 

[Dr Doran]

This is what I think.
There will always be at least a niche for seeing movies on screen with a group of people. At least a specialty niche. It's too fun to see a movie with strangers for that to go away. The market for all forms of entertainment is being fragmented and specialized anyway (the "Long Tail" model of retail).
The technology by which you digitize a person's facial expressions, even a dead person, and thus have no need for actors, will be fun for awhile. Resurrecting Bogart will produce some amusing movies. Controlling trademark rights for these actors' faces will make money for some lawyers for the actors' estates for a while.
There will always be at least auteurs making movies with live actors and probably not only auteurs but big studios. At worst, these studios will move to countries with cheaper actors' salaries and no SAG.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Sounds like a nightmare to me. There is something about physically being in a movie theater, in the dark, surrounded by others all sharing an experience that just can't be replaced. If the movie theater does eventually disappear, I think there will be something hugely lost.

I totally agree with this, and not just because it's how I pay my bills these days. I have never felt that seeing a film -- any film -- at home is in any way a full experience. Films are meant to be a *communal* experience, and no matter how big your home screen, no matter how plaster-cracking your speakers, watching a movie at home just doesn't compare. The day the last theatre closes -- if that ever happens, because I don't believe it will -- the whole idea of "the movies" will cease to exist.

Technology in films doesnt impress me at all, really -- it's the script that counts. Without a good solid story, all the technical tricks in the world are just flash and glitter, and that doesn't change just because the tricks are done in a computer rather than in a process lab. The whole idea of "digital actors" is really nothing more than just another twist on the animated cartoon -- something that has its niche, but will never replace actual people. I just dont see it happening.

 

[Quigley Brown]

I really don't know the answer to this question...but what was film industry's strategy to succeed when television first came out?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, you saw an explosion of gimmicks -- Cinemascope, 3-D, Todd-AO sound, Cinerama, all sorts of special-effects-type ideas that were supposed to give you something that you couldn't get at home. But the thing is, people got tired of all the gimmicks -- and by the sixties, the focus was back where it belonged, on the story. Technical fads come and go, but there'll always be a place for good stories.

 

[Feraud]

Well, you saw an explosion of gimmicks -- Cinemascope, 3-D, Todd-AO sound, Cinerama, all sorts of special-effects-type ideas that were supposed to give you something that you couldn't get at home. But the thing is, people got tired of all the gimmicks -- and by the sixties, the focus was back where it belonged, on the story. Technical fads come and go, but there'll always be a place for good stories.

Great point LizzieMaine!

 

[Lady Day]

Right now the big hype is '6X more clarity' etc etc, with the big push of digital imaging for film and movies. But we are still relying on the human eye here, and truthfully, how much attention are you going to pay to that extra hair you can see of actor's X's head, when the frames are moving at close to 30 FPS?

Why is there this push for this super resolution? Isnt the art of the medium getting people to see what you WANT them to see?

People still debate the look of a film, but pay no mind to the story, which still makes or brakes it. Cant we work on the art of storytelling instead of its package for a while?

LD

 

[Lady Day]

Technology in films doesnt impress me at all, really -- it's the script that counts. Without a good solid story, all the technical tricks in the world are just flash and glitter, and that doesn't change just because the tricks are done in a computer rather than in a process lab. The whole idea of "digital actors" is really nothing more than just another twist on the animated cartoon -- something that has its niche, but will never replace actual people. I just dont see it happening.

Totally! And speaking of animated cartoons, you have seen in the last 8 months a slew of CG toons come out. Can you name them? I sure as heckfire cant. The idea that 3D toons were to replace the 'extinct art' of 2D is just stupid. Mundane is mundane no matter what mapping it has on it.

LD

 

[Dr Doran]

WE can work on the art of storytelling, but THEY (the majority) cannot. They care about exploding cars, blood splattering, tsunamis, all to a soundtrack of the Carmina Burana by Karl Orff, over and over and over.