The death of film - better, right?

I was looking at another blog the other day for THESE AMAZING SHADOWS, and the post was interesting the from the filmmakers point of view. They had commented on how they had seen their film at a few places, and they were surprised at how the material they spent hours colour correcting material and it looked different every place they saw it.

The comment they made that got me thinking was "as filmmakers we have to accept that we have no control over the final product". I disagree with that. Here's why:

Back in the days of film, I could see the presentation being different.. There were a lot of variables.. The projectors, the lab making the prints, the handling of the print. The projectionist.

However film is now out of the equation, and the chain is smaller.. The digital print, the projectors. There is no degradation over time of the product. Each digital presentation should look exactly the SAME as the final cut as created by the filmmakers, no matter where you see it.

See, theres this thing called standards .. The thing where projectors are set up by. The only reason that presentation is not consistent from venue to venue is because those standards aren't being followed. It is the laziness of the theatres, who don't care about presentation - making sure that their customers just get the bare minimum in quality.

The only place that this doesn't apply is when a film is shown on television. The tv station can make sure that the film is properly adjusted, but no one can really make a person at home calibrate their televisions.

Filmmakers SHOULD be able to make sure that in this digital age, their product is consistent from venue, and it should be up to the theatre owners to make sure that their projection equipment is up to 21st century standards.

 

Star Wars.. Again

So, I was out having dinner with some friends, and we were discussing THE PEOPLE VS. GEORGE LUCAS , the disturbing movie where people spend the entire time complaining about how Lucas has destroyed their childhood by changing his original trilogy and then making 3 new movies.

Eventually there were about 6 people involved in the conversation and one of them said "I am embarrassed to let my 6 year olds see Star Wars in this new form," and there was a slight pause in the conversation, and I pondered the statement for a few minutes, and we started to change the subject.. Now that I've had a few days to think about it here's my response:

Your 6 year old kids... really don't give a shit about what you think about Star Wars. 6 year olds aren't looking at the film and picking it apart, they just don't care - They care about what's on the screen.

I'm sure when you were 6 years old you liked watching stuff that your parents rolled their eyes at.

Now, Lucas has always said that the movies were for kids. Here's a news flash for everyone over the age of 25… you aren't a kid. Your kids, Especially 6 year olds, are getting the SAME experience you did from the films because they are NEW to them, just like the original trilogy was new to you.

I can appreciate Lucas updating the series for the new generation, much like Hollywood is remaking every film under the sun for the new film going demographic.

I'm sorry your childhood has been raped, but for the new generation being introduced to Star Wars, they just don't care.

So, theaters are feeling threatened...

Hollywood has decided to experiment with a 60 day window for theatrical films before those films are put on a premium video on demand service, where you the movie-going public can watch the movie from the comfort of your own homes for a mere $30. This is try and make up for the declining DVD revenue.

Theaters are naturally upset over this development, since it cuts into their share of the small revenue they get from the already shrinking box office. This makes me wonder if The time of the multiplex has almost reached the end.

For me (I can't really talk for anyone else, so why try) I really have to be convinced by quite a few people over the whole "Theatre Experience", where I can see a movie with state of the art projection and sound.

I have a projection and sound system that rivals any theatre in my area. The difference between staying at home and going to a theatre is that I can control my environment at home. In the theatre I have to put up with:

• High admission prices


• insanely high concession prices


• sitting with the most rude group of people that I can meet.

At home I can invite people over, and maintain a theatre going experience minus the talking and texting. The snacks are healthier, and the projection is better than the theaters.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a few people over to help cover the cost of the showing, and actually make it a group experience.

Long Time no talk

Wow..

Has it really been this long since a post? Where has the time gone? I haven't stopped going to movies, I just haven't had time to talk film in a while.

Have you ever been in a group of people where your interest is totally different than the people you hang out with? That's been me for the past couple of years. What has fired me up for these posts have been the interaction between myself and people with the same interests - in this case film, to help me formulate my thoughts so I can make posts that I hope are interesting.

I think I'll give this another go. :)

We've hit the 21st century finally

Last week, the theatre in my town opened a the Hannah Montana movie in
digital 3D.

No, I'm not excited about the movie, I am excited about the fact that
my town has finally got onto the digital age.

I'll miss some things.. The grain film has, the warmth of the picture,
but Im interested in the technology.

So I'm sitting at work, thinking about which movies to see this
summer.. And I'm drawing a blank.. Indiana jones is a maybe.. What are
you looking forward to this summer and why?

Is this thing on? Its been a while since I've posted... Back soon

OK.. Hollywood isn't that dead to me.

The revised AFI List of the top 100 American movies of the past 100 years was announced yesterday, and as was expected CITIZEN KANE was still considered the greatest American film of all time. Since then, I've had quite a few emails from people saying that they've rented it, and were disappointed, and asked what the big deal is about the movie. Here's what I've been telling people:

In 1941 a first-time director; a cynical, hard-drinking writer; an innovative cinematographer, and a group of New York stage and radio actors were given the keys to a studio and total control, and made a masterpiece. ``Citizen Kane'' is a gathering of all the lessons of the emerging era of sound, just as ``Birth of a Nation'' assembled everything learned at the height of the silent era, and ``2001'' pointed the way beyond narrative. These peaks stand above all the others.

The movie opens with newsreel obituary footage that briefs us on the life and times of Charles Foster Kane; this footage, with its portentous narration, provides a map of Kane's trajectory, and it will keep us oriented as the screenplay skips around in time, piecing together the memories of those who knew him. The structure is circular, adding more depth every time it passes over his life.

The movie is filled with visual moments of brilliance: the towers of Xanadu; the doorway of Kanes mistress dissolving into a front-page photo in a rival newspaper; the camera swooping down through a skylight toward the pathetic Susan in a nightclub; the boy playing in the snow in the background as his parents determine his future; the great shot as the camera rises straight up from Susan's opera debut to a stagehand holding his nose, and the subsequent shot of Kane, his face hidden in shadow, defiantly applauding in the silent hall.

It's imagery like this, along with editing and the story that makes CITIZEN KANE great - even after your 130th viewing there's always something new that you'll notice. The fact that this holds true after 66 years is what makes CITIZEN KANE easily the greatest film of all time.

My Oscar Picks

Here are my Oscar Picks, with a couple of Qualifiers..

Best Picture:
Letters from Iwo Jima
I'm picking this against my Gut Feeling which is that maybe, just MAYBE Little Miss Sunshine could take it. It would be like Crash last year - Brokeback was the sure thing, but Crash came out of nowhere.

Best Director:
Martin Scorcese - The Departed. Why? It's his time.

Best Actor:
Forest Whitaker - Last King of Scotland. You can't stem the Tide. I agree with Hobson tho'.. O'Toole should win, since he had the better performance. I wouldn't count out Will Smith either.

Best Actress:
Helen Mirren - The Queen. Again, you can't stem the tide. However Judi Dench SHOULD win, her performance was incredible.

Best Supporting Actress:
Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls. See above. Momentum is there. Although, If Abigail Breslin won for Little Miss Sunshine I wouldn't swear at the Academy.

Best Supporting Actor:
It really pains me to say this.. Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls. Mark Wahlberg will get the Fuzzy End of the Lollipop this year.

So, those are mine.. What are yours?