You are probably wondering what this thread is about, well it is about the film industry, about the change from film, to digital technology. I am wondering what everyones opinion on the matter is. George Lucas is by far the biggest supporter of switching to digital film in order to make movies, but there are still a few rebels out there that want to stick to regular old film. I personally believe that digital technology should be the new way to make movies, its actually cheaper too. Lucas helped create the whole SFX industry, and is now leading the way into the digital area with the empire he created. So what is everyones thought on the matter, do you believe we should stick to film, or take advantage of the new digital technology we have?
Well, right now I'm in several film classes, preparing to hopefully shoot my feature. I want to shoot on 16mm film. Although I've been told for my project, 8mm would make my film look just how it should. 8mm is rarely used even on indy films. 16mm is pretty much the standard for indy films, or at least it once was. Studio films and larger budget indies are usually shot on 35mm. The point here? They all look different. 16mm is relatively close to 35mm, however, there are still somethings that losers like me can point out. However, the look of film can also vary per camera. I think my movie would look good shot on a Bolex camera (unfortunately those do not have sound sync. However, it would achieve the look I want.) Now, Mr. Talentless Hack George Lucas wants us to believe that Digital Technology will render film useless. I don't mind Digital Video technology. I think DV and HDV cameras are a welcome addition to the filmmaker's arsenal. But so are Commercial grade camcorders. Yes, I mean the same things we use to record our family vacations. I've seen plenty of halfway decent films shot on commercial grade camcorders. I believe that the choice of what is used comes down to how you want your film to look. Digital Technology is not where it should be. Not yet. And I don't think it will ever be. Every size film, every type of camera, adds many different elements to the look of a movie. DV can be disguised with a generic "film look." However, it's not the same. Do you really think filmmakers should take advice from the man who made Star Wars Episode 1, 2, and 3? Look, this is a man who has made outrageous claims like "I had the prequels planned when I made the original trilogy" and "I always wanted Greedo to shoot first." His idea that Digital Technology is superior is just another insane rambling of a talentless hack.
I would not consider Lucas a talentless hack, considering he basically helped invent the blockbuster, and the whole SFX industry. The prequel trilogy was poorer then the original, but that was not because of the digital technology used, it was because Lucas didnt seem to bother to ask for anything from his actors, especially his young actors. If he would have let others direct, like he did during Empire Strikes Back, then most likely they prequels would have been immensely better.
Well, there is a totally separate Reason I consider George Lucas a talentless hack. The fact that he lucked out on a few movies because he was surrounded by the right people, for example. He told Spielberg he wanted him to direct the Indiana Jones Trilogy after showing a picture of man in a hat jumping from a horse to a tank. Spielberg agreed, and asked for all materials on the story. All the materials? More pictures of the guy in the hat, jumping off of things. Note on most of Lucas's early films he has writing assistance to help weed out the garbage. Not so much on his newer films. But the point about digital video technology is it is not at the point where it needs to be to really take the place of celluloid, and it never will be. Not when even the type of film camera you use can drastically change the appearance of the movie, and therefore the quality. However, I believe that Digital Video is a great technology that can exist along side film. It's all about what works best for your film. Star Wars Episode 3 should have been shot on 35mm. Remember, he's basing the films off the old serials, right? You don't want the digital look. You want it to look like film. So you shoot it on film. Or at least treat the DV in post.
I thought Episode III wasnt near as bad as the previous two, and the visuals were amazing. Lucas is a good writer, considering he did write, or had the most influece in writing Indiana Jones, Star Wars, etc. When it comes to directing he seems to not care what kind of emotion his actors display.
Okay, I agree with you on the writing, but many writers have writing assitants. I just hired one for myself. It's nothing to really be ashamed of. He hasn't had one, though, in a really long time.
I didnt think the writing was that bad either for Episode I and II, its just the young actors he for some reason didnt expect much out of, hell the kid who played Boba Fett acted better then Hayden who played Anakin.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, I dont have any training in such issues... but wouldn't it be possible, probably even easy, to create the effect of film, in digital? What it is that makes 35mm, or 16mm, or even 8mm film or a specific camera look the way it does is a set of qualities, maybe it is lighter with darker shadows, or really vibrant colors or something else. I imagine that any set of qualities possible to achieve in film can be recreated in digital, if that effect were desired. Assuming this is the case, bring on the digital! All the capabilities of film, plus much more, for cheaper!
You CAN achieve a generic "Film Look" which is close to the standard 35mm film. You can't really achieve different variants. I actually asked a cinematographer (or director of photography, that's how he's credited) "Can I use this camera (I was showing him a CineAlta i1080 ad. Good, cheap DV.) and get the look of a 16mm bolex shot film?" He said "No. You can make it look like film, but not that specific. The only way you can get that look is either use a bolex Camera, which I would not recommend, or we can focus light towards an Arriflex like this (he shows my on a piece of paper how to focus the light)." And I'm trying to shoot on a later Arriflex 16mm model. A variant of what Rodriguez's El Mariachi was shot on. The cost to buy a 16mm camera these days is about as much as it costs to rent a DV. A good DV costs as much to buy as it is to rent a 35mm camera, because that's the standard, and will be until digital technology is at the right level. The film stock is only slightly more expensive then Tape stock. That is, if you are not resourceful. Resourceful filmmakers will often keep there eyes on post houses for a chance to snatch up unused film at discount prices. The added cost for 16mm is mostly post production. This is because, well, it's obviously harder to edit. You don't simply plug the camera in the machine and start to edit. No. If using an old fashion machine, you slice and sew and fight to add after effects. Or you transfer your film to a more AVID (or other modern editing station) friendly format at an extremely high cost.
