Lucas: Hollywood needs to face up to digital age

[Terrell]

Before anyone misconstrues this article to mean that Lucas is talking about CGI, he's not. What Lucas is talking about is embracing digital technology such as shooting films with digital cameras, sending movies to theaters over a digital pipeline, and designing studios on a digital backbone like they did at the Letterman Digital Arts center.

I think he's right on in most respects.

This is shows that ticket sales are declining. Why? Because of home theaters and DVD releases. More and more people would rather wait for the DVDs and watch them in their own home. To maximize profits, you need to save money, time, and workload. Film is a cumbersome medium that is very, very expensive to buy and work with. Digital on the other is very inexpensive compared to film. The cheaper your film is to make, the more likely you are to make your money. Avid editing machine is another digital tool that helps editing movies cheaper, faster, and easier. Then you get to the point where the theaters in the U.S. have a digital backbone, and you can send digital movies to the theaters without having to buy and ship tens of thousands of reels of films across the country and world, then you can see the cost savings you're talking about. Millions upon million.

[cJaynes]

I don't know if file sharing is hollywoods future, but to some extent I think instead of going to premieres at movies theatres we are going to be watching movies at home opening night. Big screen tvs and incredible sound systems are becoming very cheap and witht he release of blue ray iminant I think we might see a shift in the way we "go" to the movies. It's still nice to get out of the house though... so who knows just my thoughts.

Haha, even when Lucas dies his company will never become and IPO.

[cJaynes]

Avid editing machine is another digital tool that helps editing movies cheaper, faster, and easier. Hmmm who started that technology??? Yes, It was infact Mr. Lucas himself. He is responsible for so much technology in the film industry its scary almost, so its going to be interesting where he takes us next.

[mummey]

Hmmm who started that technology??? Yes, It was infact Mr. Lucas himself. He is responsible for so much technology in the film industry its scary almost, so its going to be interesting where he takes us next.

How ironic then that it is Spielberg who is one of the biggest opponents to the technology.

[eks]

just more $2 cents

The cheaper your film is to make, the more likely you are to make your money.

and the cheaper your film is to distribute, the more likely you are to make your money and also more likely more people are going to see it.

excellent article.

EDIT: another one, from wired: The Empire's New Digs (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,68017,00.html?tw=rss.TOP)




eks

PS: problem is, p2p distribution is uncontrollable. no matter how many lawsuits they make, no one is ever going to control this. so how do you make money when everyone can grab your content without paying you for it? the first one to solve this question is going to get a huuuuuuuge amount of money...

[Andrew W]

There's a little more depth on this in the interview with George Lucas in the new Cinefex (issue 102).

I think he's right and having watched Ep. 3 on both 35mm and the digital projector at a different cinema I have to say that the digital projection was superior in every respect. And as someone who has inordinate extra pain added to his working life by having my work shot out onto film (colour, gamma, lab issues etc. etc.) I say, "Vive la revolution".

A

[G3D]

... I live in San Francisco and often see old fashioned movie houses that are shut down. I always thought it would be funny if one was converted into a DVD store. Does anyone know if this actually happened anywhere in the USA (or anywhere else)

[eks]

... I live in San Francisco and often see old fashioned movie houses that are shut down. I always thought it would be funny if one was converted into a DVD store. Does anyone know if this actually happened anywhere in the USA (or anywhere else)

in my town, Porto Alegre (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=porto+alegre,+br&spn=0.129604,0.170631&t=k&hl=en), this happend also. "sidewalk cinemas", as we called, all closed down in late 90s, saving one or two, now cinemas only exists in shopping malls.

one of them, though, was saved and is going to be turned into cultural center focused on movies.



eks

[greynite1]

I would actually like to see some of these places get digital projectors Some how. I don't like the idea of the neighborhood movie theatre going away personally. I think it would be great to update them though. I know I know Expensive as heck but hey its better then having them become a parking lot or something.

[kiaran]

Digital technology has the power to revolutionize the indy film industry. Personally, I would love to see more private digital cinemas showing the best that the independant have to offer.

[DrOnion]

How about not paying actors 20 million to star in a film. That would save some cash too.

[Jhonus]

"No more Star Wars. The advantage I have of not doing an IPO is I can say we’re not going to do another Star Wars. It’s a finished work; the story has been told. And if I were in a corporation they’d say, “No, this is a franchise. We have to exploit this.” And they would beat it to death."


Lucas does run a corporation and he did beat the franchise to death.

[Beamtracer]

"No more Star Wars. The advantage I have of not doing an IPO is I can say we’re not going to do another Star Wars. It’s a finished work; the story has been told. And if I were in a corporation they’d say, “No, this is a franchise. We have to exploit this.” And they would beat it to death."
Yeah, Lucus did beat Starwars to death. However, if he was Disney he would beat it to death some more, and some more. "Hey, lets make some more rehashes of all those Pixar movies!"

re Filesharing: The net is the future of movies. We'll watch them all over the net. No more video or DVD hire. Television won't continue in its current form.

[Terrell]

How about not paying actors 20 million to star in a film. That would save some cash too.

Good point!

Lucas does run a corporation and he did beat the franchise to death.

BULLSHIT! Lucas made the prequels because he wanted to tell the back story and he succeeded. He didn't beat the franchise to death, regardless of how you or anyone else feels about them.

His point is well taken because if some larger studio or company owned Lucasfilm, they would end up making Star Wars films until they bled it dry, and it no longer made any money. They would have made 10, 11, 12 Star Wars films. They would have kept making them until they stopped making money, just like every other franchise. Too bad you didn't get his point.

Yeah, Lucus did beat Starwars to death.

No he didn't. He made two trilogies, nearly two decades apart. All 6 films made a ton of money and were hugely successful. The last one, Episode III is a very good film. That doesn't constitute beating Star Wars to death. Making 10 Star Wars films all for the almight buck is beating Star Wars to death. There is a big, big difference. Look no further than Star Trek. They couldn't give enough tickets away to fill a theater anymore.

[Crithon]

Although, I find it interisting, isn't the the original intention of Skywalker Ranch?

Sure, the Ranch makes a lot of money with Spielberg and other companies hiring them for ILM, Skywalker Sound and THX systems but his other company Lucasfilms hasn't released films since Radioland Murders and the Young Indy TV series.

Although after the Prequel Trilogy has been finished I assume he's built and army of artists and technicians to incress room for a new facility. Being Cynical that was the point of making the Prequel trilogy, to help bring some life into Lucasfilms which wouldn't have made another film outside of Indiana Jones. Right now Lucas has some harsh competition with Weta Digital, Sony Imageworks, Pixar and countless other CG and special effect companies trying to make an impact in his Industry.

Although I do find it a wee bit off when people who make over $700 million dollar blockbuster films, break record books and then claim, "We are losing money because of internet piracy!" So you mean to tell me if it wasn't for Internet Piracy your film would be 4 times bigger then what it already is?

That's just me being Cynical, I'm actually a big supporter of Lucas. I feel that he's helping the industry with the talent used with the Prequel trilogy. If he wants to make a small movie studio, let him. I mean he founded Frank Darabont, we get some remarkable writers and directors out of this.

[KayosIII]

For me all the Digital Technology won't bring me back to the cinema's - The truth is that nothing released at the cinema's in the last few years has enticed me to go. I am not 100% sure why that is. Anyways I guess digital technology might lower costs but other than that I can't see any real advantage.

The real reason most people go to the cinemas is to socialise... play on that.

[Projectkmo]

I have several Friends that have spent thousands of dollars on High end Home theatre systems....Plasma TVs etc etc and holy crap they sound awesome...I mean I can FEAL the movies when I watch them at their houses....

However...

Nothing...and I mean Nothing to date Awes me more than weh nI can sit infront of a Huge Screen in a theatre....about halfway up and in the middle...right where I dont need to turn my head to take in the whole screen...but I can just sit there adn take it all in....Nothing beats that to me. Yes, I would like to see more movies released to theatres Digitaly....but I for one will always want to see some movies on the big screen....usually those that are just so beautiful....the landscapes etc....the LOTR trilogy for sure....but the likes of Braveheart.....The Last of the Mohicans.......Open Range....and on and on...I have yet to feel the same of any movie in my family room as I have at the theatre.

and while the demise of the local theatre is a good ways down the road still....I do hope they live on....at least until lI can afford my own personal theatre...lol.

[dmonk]

The real reason most people go to the cinemas is to socialise... play on that.

When I go to the theater, I have a guy two rows behind me talking on his cellphone cursing out one of his friends during the film.

A woman coming in late shouting to find where her family is sitting.

Some airhead in my isle that has to get up at least 6 times to go to the bathroom or get snacks.

Some more kids in the theate who won't shut the hell up.

A few amateur film critics who feel it is there duty to search out and verbally analyze and point out every flaw or inconsitency during the film.

Did I mention I pay almost $8 a pop for a matinee and $11 a pop for a night time feature. $5 for $.25 worth of popcorn and $4 for $1 worth of soda and don't get me started on snowcaps.

Damn I love to socialise.

P.S. I forgot to mention the 20 mins of commercials before the film, that's my favorite.

[Projectkmo]

When I go to the theater, I have a guy two rows behind me talking on his cellphone cursing out one of his friends during the film. I forgot to mention the 20 mins of commercials before the film, that's my favorite.

Well, the Cell phone part....when I DO go to a show when it will be crowded....well, my roomates and I have very nearly beaten the tar out of a few people for talking on their phones. I've had words with several people concerning this....and while most of them got realy pissed at me...they all turned off their phones. Im a real nice guy....but I look mean.

Usually though...I just try to go when I know not many people will be there.....sometimes thats at Midnight....sometimes it means I have to wait a week or so after release to go see it once the hype is gone down...sometimes I see it with the crowd, just to see it...then go back a week or so later to see it when the theatre is empty.

and I too HATE the 20 Mins of BS Crap commercials befor the movies...VERY LAME! that would be my one main complaint about modern thatre going experiences.

[L.Rawlins]

I've made a post along similar lines here: http://cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=253935

[js33]

I just saw War of the Worlds and it was awesome. But I wonder what happens to those 10,000 or so film prints after a movie has run it's course at the theaters? Do they throw them away? That would seem to be a lot of waste that could be saved by going all digital at theaters. Also I agree there's nothing like seeing the blockbusters on a big screen with big sound.

Cheers,
JS

[Coliba]

I have several Friends that have


You mean friends with a capital F?

Ticket sales are down? Maybe people are beginning to grow weary of all the visual bombardment and want a movie with good dialog and good acting first of all, and talking digital puppets second. We're going back to silent movies......

The only thing cg and the digital revoluciòn has done is swamp us with B and C movies for children. Sure it will also help the indies who might actually have a story that doesn't include aliens or supernatural powers, or videogame characters, but will their digital movie be distributed in these digital cinemas, or any cinema? Nope.

It's the same crap, only it will be cheaper to produce which means we'll probably see more of it. It makes me wonder how bad a movie actually has to be for someone to say "No, I don't care if it's based on my favorite video game, this one I just won't pay to see."

[Pavlovich]

The only thing cg and the digital revoluciòn has done is swamp us with B and C movies for children. Sure it will also help the indies who might actually have a story that doesn't include aliens or supernatural powers, or videogame characters, but will their digital movie be distributed in these digital cinemas, or any cinema? Nope.

It's the same crap, only it will be cheaper to produce which means we'll probably see more of it. It makes me wonder how bad a movie actually has to be for someone to say "No, I don't care if it's based on my favorite video game, this one I just won't pay to see."

he's not saying go digital to put wookies and dinosaurs into your movie :rolleyes: shindler's list could have been shot digitally.

[dmonk]

You mean friends with a capital F?

Ticket sales are down? Maybe people are beginning to grow weary of all the visual bombardment and want a movie with good dialog and good acting first of all, and talking digital puppets second. We're going back to silent movies......

The only thing cg and the digital revoluciòn has done is swamp us with B and C movies for children. Sure it will also help the indies who might actually have a story that doesn't include aliens or supernatural powers, or videogame characters, but will their digital movie be distributed in these digital cinemas, or any cinema? Nope.

It's the same crap, only it will be cheaper to produce which means we'll probably see more of it. It makes me wonder how bad a movie actually has to be for someone to say "No, I don't care if it's based on my favorite video game, this one I just won't pay to see."


More movies at a cheaper price tag could alos lead to more variety and risk taking.

Not al movies are bad, if you think they are than that's just your personal opinion.

[Trenox]

Lucas: Neither one [laughter]. No more Star Wars. The advantage I have of not doing an IPO is I can say we’re not going to do another Star Wars. It’s a finished work; the story has been told. And if I were in a corporation they’d say, “No, this is a franchise. We have to exploit this.” And they would beat it to death.

Interesting and highly appealing statement from Lucas. However i already feel that StarWars is about to get 'milked' and stretched too thin. I guess the cartoon was alright (didnt see it though), but there are now rumors about a TV-series. A series can never reach the same production value as the movies and would most likely feel 'cheap'.

Also i feel that all the crappy cross-branding with other products sucked big-time (pepsi i think, pringles and some shitty loudspeakers made to look like darth vaders helmet). Its borderline ruining the experience for me when im presented to this crap in the theater before SW3 (a 'good' reason for piracy i guess.. :shrug: )

[Nemoid]

i believe in cinema as a thing to be seen in theatres, and also as an art form wich can avoid to use sfx massively. i love to see movies into a big screen, with good sounds, and with a public too.

digital can be good tho, because it makes the whole process of taking footage easier and economically cheaper. this will bring a huge evolution in filmaking, especially once cameras will give results similar to traditional ones, and allowing artists to express themselves more and more with movies. this is the good side.

are visual fx the most important part of a movie? well' it depends from the movie. sci fi and fantasy movies can't avoid going towards massive sfx, even if the story always rules the film.

other kinda movies don't need sfx or need only little touches, and maybe color corection and other things. the positive thing is that sfx are coming more and more easy to make and so cheaper, and even here artists can express themselves in this art form too.

[Coliba]

Well, what good is risk taking and variety, if you can't get your movie shown?

The cinemas are going more and more towards giant multiplexes were people want to be bombarded by sights and sounds, while your cosy neighbourhood theatre is having difficulties staying in business.

You think someone invests 10s of millions of dollars in digital equipment, state of the art audio equipment to build a bombastic multiplex, so they can show "indy" movies?

The risk taking is both production and distribution.

I'm not saying that all movies suck, but the ones that suck are suddenly the standard, while a movie not for 13 year olds is "indy", or "artsy".

Back in the 50s they had a guy in a rubber suit playing the monster, now they are digital and cost 340 times more :) I think they should make a new genre: SFX. For the sfx movies with a 4 pages of grunting dialog thrown in.

he's not saying go digital to put wookies and dinosaurs into your movie :rolleyes: shindler's list could have been shot digitally.

oh? And what difference would that have made in the films 25-30 million budget?

[Spritemare]

This is shows that ticket sales are declining. Why? Because of home theaters and DVD releases. More and more people would rather wait for the DVDs and watch them in their own home.

true...plus, alot of movies that seem to be coming out are just pure crap. Yes, they LOOK great, and we all appreciate that here, but most of the time, the writing/plot is awful and ruins the whole experience. [now I'm hearing this about War of the Worlds :( ]

If the movie industry wants to improve, they should get back to the drawing board with writing movies more creatively and choosing the right actors. As for special effects, that's what their purpose is, they're "special," they happen maybe two or three times throughout the whole movie. Instead, we have an entire movie with special effects, where nothing is appreciated.

[FabioMSilva]

i really think hollywood should sit back with a nice japanese development team, and create some sort of screen to use in theathers which videocameras can't record.

[Nemoid]

If the movie industry wants to improve, they should get back to the drawing board with writing movies more creatively and choosing the right actors. As for special effects, that's what their purpose is, they're "special," they happen maybe two or three times throughout the whole movie. Instead, we have an entire movie with special effects, where nothing is appreciated.

i totally agree here.movies are a medium to tell stories.

no story - bad movie.

story, ideas , good dialogues. thats the point.

watch Tarantino's movies,
watch old Hitchcock movies and also watch
more traditional movies where the plot is the key.


after that , sfx can come, if they serve the story.


u can't do a SW movie without spaceships, aliens and other things.
but u can fill the movie with those things and end up with a bad movie
however, because you wrote an unsignificant story, bad dialogues and
used badly your initially good ideas.

[Airflow]

I think the issue that most people miss, is the fact that bosses in hollywood, do not want indie films, or decnt scripts, they want bang for your buck, big explosions and one liners, huge movie stars to guarrantee a return on thier investment, its a buisness that we happen to be on the other end of, which is why george lucas has been trying to buck the trend and show others how to split away from the hollywood corporate mentality....
Example, the duality that was Batman begins....
first half of the film, pure film making, plot , pace, pathos.... second half of the film, pure hollywood, pyrotechnics, poor scripting. This is not the fault of the director more the pressures put on the production from those who are in control of the purse strings, that and the dissapointing continuity of dual villans, like you can fully tell the story of 2 tortured souls as well as batman fully....
The system needs to change and again like so many other forerunners, Lucas is about to change the industry, wonder what it will be this time....

[[nitin design]]

I like watching movies in the theatre BUT I would preffer home cinema. WHY?
Well I am fed up of STUPID inconsiderate people in the theatre.

Examples-

1. People who comment after every scene and break my concentration.
2. People sitting next to me who smell like shit!
3. On another ocassion some dumb lady after accidentaly shaking a coke bottle realized that it was starting to spray so she chucked it on my wife's lap. Can you believe the nerve of some people?
4. Talking on mobile phone.

I really don't have patience for these type of ignorant people anymore! Most of the times I preffer getting a DVD.

[f97ao]

The "cinema"-issue is somewhat problematic. It's great fun when it works out, but it can be crap when it doesn't. There is quite alot of potential if they do try out new things.

Some problems with cinemas (I'm sure you know most of them)

Things that easily could be fixed, and is the cinemas fault:
- Sound issues. Sound is too high or too low, happens surprisingly often. A few times I have had stuttering sound, and very low sound so you can barely hear what they are saying.
- Image problems. When I saw Final Fantasy the screen was way too bright, so the black was gray instead of black and as you know 3d art really needs the black areas too work.
Another time the image was so much out of focus so you could barely read the text. Sure I normally always yell or run out as soon as I see this crappy errors, but sometimes the camera guy is hard to find, and you miss the beginning of the film.
- Seat. Well the seat can be good but is often not so good. In Sweden we rarely have the soda places, and often you have to sit with your knes bent, can't have them straight. Seats are usually not super comfortable either.
- Other minor irritating things. At one very good cinema the "emergency exit" was screaming green and quite distracting.
- There is often alot of dust on the image. Especially the intro is quite scratched, this varies though and I'm sure it's better with digital material.
- Commercial. Well, this is quite silly. Commercials should begin before the movie, then it's ok, and some do this. If it's say 5min then it's ok, but never ever 20min. I once sat 40 minutes watching trailers before seing Godzilla. I actually stopped going to the movies in that city, because I couldn't take all the time invested in getting tickets and waiting for commercials.

People around you (not easy to "fix", but perhaps they should run more of those commercials begging them to respect folks).
- They may take your soda spot if there is one. Also often make it narrow to sit, since they use your arm seat. This is quite common.
- Of course may be tall and in your way, doesn't happen often though.
- Probably the worst thing is people talking. Not super common for me, but happens perhaps 20% of the time.
- 70% of the time people is making serious noise with candy bags, chips popcorn, this could often be easily fixed if they had soft bags. This I find too be quite distracting, I'm always ripped out of the movie if you hear serious crunching around you in emotional monents. Gollum finally gets his belowed ring plunging to your death and all you hear is chips crunching. Annoying but not a major problem.

Comfortable problems
- Not being able to go to the bathroom is not always so cool. Most of the time not a problem but sucks big time if you have to go. I just had to in Return of the King, stepping on peoples jackets on the floor in the dark.
- You can't get more candy etc without disturbing. You can't eath say a nice dinner at the same time.

Tickets and travel
- Well you do have to travel to the cinema. So you can't drink anything unless you takes a taxi.
- Ordering tickets can be troublesome and time consuming. Some smaller cinemas don't let you order tickets by phone (!). So you have to be there early then fool around for say 1 hour waiting for the film to begin. I often take a trip in to the city the day before to get tickets for the next day.
- Ordering on the internet is promising but often has some troubles. Bonus cards don't work, the idiotic seat selector always selects a seat in the back, when i prefer one in the front.
- They do cost quite alot the tickets. 12-15$ each in Sweden. If you are say 4 that is after all 60$, so if you visit the movies 2 times a month it's 120*12=1500$/year.

Conclusion
Now, I'm not trying to whine here. Just pointing out that there are quite a few negative things with cinemas (of course many positive too, I always see good movies on cinema). I think for the cinemas to keep people they should try to improve some of them. Buying tickets should got damnit be simple. And the image/sound should always be perfect. Ok seats and not super yber expensive drink would be nice too.

Also there are many new Ideas that could be interesting. Wouldn't it be cool if you could eat your dinner while watching a movie? I don't think i have seen this anywhere but I know it's quite comming in Asia on small restaurants.
Also what about showing reruns? I would sure like to see old classics again. All the old classics, chaplin, starwars, indiana jones etc. That would be fun. Perhaps the digital media can help greatly in this.

I just saw Sin City on a big screen and I must say that it felt quite impossible to replace with a home theater. This time everything was indeed perfect. Except I was there alone watching I guess :|

/Andreas

[Nemoid]

ok in theatres u have obviously to deal with the fact that other people are around you, but there's also the positive thing of participating to some life aspects indeed.its the good and bad of going to cinemas. its a problem of politeness of people, and comforts rather than being into a cinema .lets think to theatre. u go and see a shakespeare tragedy, and usually ther you find polite people and a very lot of respect. the same should happen
for cinemas but that's life.

this being said, to me, seeing a good movie into a cinema is a big show. i also tend to appreciate more movies that way, and sometimes watching them in my Tv with dvd i find that they were not so great as they seemed to be

my theory is actually this : if a movie is good in my "crappy" tv and i like it, even rewatching several times, then movie is actually good. if its not, sorry, but the movie is actually bad.

a good movie entraps you in its storyline, and power you enter into the story, and in characters mind, and vision sometimes. you forget quite everything of technical aspects in that moment, because a litlle magic is what it happens.

however, to return on topic :

digital is very good if well used. it allows and will allow a lot of things that were impossible or very difficult and expensive to achieve.

what i hope is that new directors will reach to manage those instruments to tell good stories

[PhilOsirus]

Have people not realized this yet? The movie industry is against this (at least many are) for the same reason the music and news industry are scared of technological advancements. They are afraid it will give more power to smaller independent studios just like online music distribution is scaring the crap out of the big dinosaurs running the music industry and all digital news content means nothing can be truly ignored or erased.

[fabianv]

Before anyone misconstrues this article to mean that Lucas is talking about CGI, he's not. What Lucas is talking about is embracing digital technology such as shooting films with digital cameras, sending movies to theaters over a digital pipeline, and designing studios on a digital backbone like they did at the Letterman Digital Arts center.

I think he's right on in most respects.

This is shows that ticket sales are declining. Why? Because of home theaters and DVD releases. More and more people would rather wait for the DVDs and watch them in their own home. To maximize profits, you need to save money, time, and workload. Film is a cumbersome medium that is very, very expensive to buy and work with. Digital on the other is very inexpensive compared to film. The cheaper your film is to make, the more likely you are to make your money. Avid editing machine is another digital tool that helps editing movies cheaper, faster, and easier. Then you get to the point where the theaters in the U.S. have a digital backbone, and you can send digital movies to the theaters without having to buy and ship tens of thousands of reels of films across the country and world, then you can see the cost savings you're talking about. Millions upon million.


Ideally a new system should be built (which wont happen because of greed) where dvd's should not even exist .(as much as I love having them on my shelf) DVD's. Like any other entertainment material which exists out of data packaged in fancy covers it is a waste of material to reproduce in the millions and there should be a new.. LEGAL way to distribute movies over the internet (ofcourse we have to wait for the age of superfast internet which is around the corner. HELL. what am I saying? Video codecs are improving by the day *drools*).. I think that soon enough the way we purchase and view movies will be different and most probably all done through computer as human beings move more and more into the computer age.

But greed, greed will make this a very, very slow process because as all things.. there are better alternatives (and usually lower profits).. one good example is the fact that there are good alternatives to OIL for the use of carfuel but because of big companies the fuel is still being used in cars. This will change through time though as those greedy bastards in those big companies lose power. POINT is.. we dont need dvd players and dvd's and all those things.. we just need computers and internet... its cheaper and more efficient.

/end rant

[Nemoid]

... and what about people without computers ?

distribution through the net could be good, but it sounds to me more a system to protect in some way the content from being hacked,(good thing) and making us pay everytime we see a movie.
BTW goindg with such a distribution system things could also allow a more massive hacking of movies than now.

this being said i agree with Lucas. digital is good for filmaking. in ROTS the use of digital camera was not so noticeable, and also, movies like Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow demonstrate the goodness of going digital, in good hands.Digital is going to give us better material and easier to use to take footage, manipulate it, edit and more, at our hearth content.

sfx are another thing however: there are things that are better made using real stuf (example? ILM often does falls with....... salt! and other things wich are better done digital and that are becoming better and better through technology evolution)

[olijosman]

Nemoid- a good movie entraps you in its storyline, and power you enter into the story, and in characters mind, and vision sometimes. you forget quite everything of technical aspects in that moment, because a litlle magic is what it happens.

however, to return on topic :

digital is very good if well used. it allows and will allow a lot of things that were impossible or very difficult and expensive to achieve.

what i hope is that new directors will reach to manage those instruments to tell good stories


I agree with you, Nemoid .

[fabianv]

... and what about people without computers ?

distribution through the net could be good, but it sounds to me more a system to protect in some way the content from being hacked,(good thing) and making us pay everytime we see a movie.
BTW goindg with such a distribution system things could also allow a more massive hacking of movies than now.

this being said i agree with Lucas. digital is good for filmaking. in ROTS the use of digital camera was not so noticeable, and also, movies like Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow demonstrate the goodness of going digital, in good hands.Digital is going to give us better material and easier to use to take footage, manipulate it, edit and more, at our hearth content.

sfx are another thing however: there are things that are better made using real stuf (example? ILM often does falls with....... salt! and other things wich are better done digital and that are becoming better and better through technology evolution)


When I meant new system I meant a special operating system for movies in a completely un-decodable format.. something that doesnt exist and cant be cracked.. something super advanced. Anyways.. its just me being idealistic and hopeful! As for people without computers.. day by day that is changing.. even the most conservative families have computers these days :)

[Pavlovich]

Quote:
he's not saying go digital to put wookies and dinosaurs into your movie :rolleyes: shindler's list could have been shot digitally.


oh? And what difference would that have made in the films 25-30 million budget?


eh...i think if you actually read the posts, it's about the picture quality (NOT the quality of the story) and cheapness of shooting and distribution. right? did i miss something?

[Nemoid]

When I meant new system I meant a special operating system for movies in a completely un-decodable format.. something that doesnt exist and cant be cracked.. something super advanced. Anyways.. its just me being idealistic and hopeful! As for people without computers.. day by day that is changing.. even the most conservative families have computers these days :)

That is possible, of course, but, being realistic...dvd have become like old VHS system , with a better quality btw, and not to forget, there's a sort of pleasure to collect them too, surely there will be a day in wich through our tv or home theather system we'll be able to connect to the web, pay for the movie, download it in a few seconds and see it, but that day is a bit far for now.
also, such a system personally gives me the feeling not to own the movie at all.

another thing is that no sistem can't be cracked. if someone reached to pass through Pentagon protections, banks protections, and way more, well, its very very difficult to create a so solid system.


i'm not against this possibility tho. things change in life, and so we'll get used if it will be the case.

[Boone]

You see, this is George's problem in that not everyone is going to leap on the Digital bandwagon just because he says "you have to face up to it".

People need to be shown that it can dramatically reduce costs, improve their work flow and that it takes alot of stress out of filmmaking. He has the new Star Wars films to show this, but not everyone is going to be convinced over night.

Getting this message across will take time and experiance. Maybe the most welcoming filmmaker to embrace this digital age is Robert Rodregiez. As one of the first young directors( compared to ol'George! ) to put this to technology to work, many will look to him as he gets older and want to follow in their hero's footsteps...

Another problem with movies that are VFX heavy is that they spiral out of control in terms of budget when they "bite off more than they can chew" and have to employ additional CG specialists to get things done on time. From a certain point of view, they are defeating the point of trying to cut costs. Its alright for the VFX houses - work is work after all! - but the labour don't come cheap and can add an incredible cost to an already tight-budget.

Afterall, a Film like Hellboy is considered a low-budget movie at $65 Million! :eek: A few years ago that would have been considered "The biggest budget ever! Shock, Horror!"... :rolleyes:

[JB]

"People will always go to theaters, because they will always like a social experience, but I don't think it's going to be as big as it is now."

I don't see going to the theater as merely a social experience. To me it's combination of a social, a visual and an aural experience no home theater can fully provide.


Lucas said he will not be alone in Hollywood. The growth of home theaters, new delivery mechanisms and alternative viewing devices like mobile phones will inevitably alter moviemaking.

Yeah, I mean who wouldn't rather watch a movie on their cell phone than at a theater? :eek:



"The big tent-pole movies will be the first victim of the rapid technological changes we're seeing now," he predicted. "We're just not going to see those being made anymore."

The shift from big-screen epics toward television and mobile devices is also inspiring an aesthetic shift, Lucas said.


What a sad sad statement.

I think George is a bit off his rocker here. Instead of "predicting" this stuff, he should be leading the charge to avoid it.

[Nemoid]

people always liked big shows. and funny to say, even Lucas joined with Rodriguez, and Cameron on 3D movies technology(i don't like that idea, but try and see something like that onto a cell phone)

people always liked big shows and this happens since ages. remember how the romans used to recreate navy battles in the coliseum,(big, big show!) and what about greek teathre?
i don't think people will like seeing things onto smaaall cell phone devices.
it will be another system to make us view things, but it will not substitute cinemas IMO. so, for example we'll see the trailer on the cell and see the entire movie in cinema.

[PureFire]

Hands down I would much prefer watching a movie at home than at the cinemas. Theres this huge hype of Digital Sound and Stadium seating when i can quite easily have adequate sound at home which isnt wayyyy too loud like most cinemas have and be able to lounge around, pause the movie for calls of nature and not pay an exorbitant price for popcorn and coke which costs a pittance from the supermarket.

Cinemas had the attraction in days gone bye because they had everything you couldnt get at home. Things have changed since.

[iocomposer]

As someone who owns a really great home theater system, I can say that watching a film at home is so much more attractive to me and I await the time in which I can see movies in my own environment when they're released and not have to wait for the second-run DVD release. On a typical film, theatrical only accounts for 20% of the films take these days...why penalize your primary market with a 3-6 month delay?

I have kids, so every time I go to the movies with my wife, I have to get a babysitter, pay for the sitter, find parking, wait in line for tickets, pay for tickets (now $10!), pay for popcorn, find a seat (usually compromised unless I go and wait up to an hour before hand) and then have to deal with people talking, loud a/c systems, uncalibrated sound systems, ringtones, etc. When all is said and done, I've spent $70 for a movie. Why go through this hassle and expense for an ultimately mediocre movie-watching experience?

I'm reading all over the place that theater attendance is down (although I find it ironic saying this when we have record-breaking figures just about every few weekends) and is this any real surprise when there are now alternatives to the traditional movie-going experience? Lucas' efforts to digitize everything will make this effect even more profound because it takes consumers like me closer to the happy place. Though, I doubt it's going to happen without a big fight from Hollywood and Mr. AMC. We are of course, talking about infrastructures that have been evolving for 50+ years.

[JB]

Well, Mr Lucas says the epic film will die. So I guess none of you have to worry about the nasty movie going experience. You can watch all the independant films you want...at home. :D

[iocomposer]

Well, Mr Lucas says the epic film will die. So I guess none of you have to worry about the nasty movie going experience. You can watch all the independant films you want...at home. :D

That's absurd! The epic will not die. Studios still have to sell DVDs.

[Nemoid]

hey only because Lucas did 2 baad chapters of SW, and a mid -level chapter III doesn't mean epic movies are dying.
LOTR trilogy was way better and makes me want to see even better movies with lots of epic.

what about a new Conan movie. what about movies like Excalibur what about a "4rth world" movie from kirby comics with Orion, and Darkseid and millions of aliens battling.

i'm not against family movies , comedies and so on, but epic movies can exist however. i really think is rather a matter of periods in movie production. some years are good for western, others for fantasy, and other for sci fi.

a good movie remains a good movie tho.and goes beyond the genre it can be cathegorized.

oh, and hopefully a movie like battle angel Alita could raise the quality both in sfx and storytelling and still contain lots of epic.

[pearson]

Neither one [laughter]. No more Star Wars. The advantage I have of not doing an IPO is I can say we’re not going to do another Star Wars. It’s a finished work; the story has been told. And if I were in a corporation they’d say, “No, this is a franchise. We have to exploit this.” And they would beat it to death.



Ummm (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/18/1710255&from=rss). So yet another rerelease of all 6 movies, plus lots of TV shows isn't beating it to death?! Wake up George. You may be off to run through the lillies and make tiny pictures that no-one would pay to see, but the corporation you own is going to keep exploiting the franchise until it is no longer profitable.

[gnomon_fan]

Enough with the GL bashing. The guy has given so much to the industry. Most of us won't ever contribute even 1/1000 as much as this guy has...

[parallax]

"has given so much to the industry"

I can't stand that sentence. I respect George Lucas as much as the next guy, and he sure has been an innovator, but what he didn't do that just for kicks. He saw an opportunity and used new tech to push his own agenda. To make moviemaking easier/less of a hazzle for HIM.
Not for you.

How is that giving? This goes for all people that have said to be major 'contributors'. The defacto anwser to 'lucas bashing' is 'most of us will not contribute this or that much in our lifetime' Did Lucas personally drop off a HDCam and a Nitris at your house? I don't think so. He just did what he did for his won sake. Good for him, end of story.

Stop treating him like he's Ghandi.

[Tirjasdyn]

I'm pretty careful about what I spend going to the movie. I don't bother too much because for the price of two tickets I can do netflix. Since joining that I've seen more movies than I have in my entire life in the last year. It's great. New movies seem to be jumping on the list faster and faster.

[Boone]

Re: Parallax.

"Stop treating him like he's Ghandi."

thats a bit difficult when he outsources to India! :D

[parallax]

Touché. :)

[snwbrdn7]

:rolleyes:Ya Ya Ya. I agree. George lucas has given me a great movie going experience. He has always got me really excited and looking forward to waiting in long lines to see his movies as well as seeing all the cool freaks that come to them. I was excited for all his new films and I wish there was some way to keep the whole saga going but it is definately a done work and now all he is going to give me is an invoice to see his flicks over and over.

Oh well enough of GL it's time to look to our new GL, Peter Jackson for great Sagas and future vision for movie direction.

That's my thought:D

[Nemoid]

Well, George Lucas. well its difficult to talk about his role in the movie industry.

Well, GL isn't exactly a good director.

what i like is that he contributed alot to improve technology and its applications to the movie industry, gathering all things used in the past, and bringing them at a new level.

He gathered great talents to give life to his SW project, and was very very lucky to end up with a good movie.

He trusted on them, and truely they were great innovators and artists, like ralph, Mc Quarrie, John Dykstra, Phil Tippett, and alot of other very talented people.

Founding ILM GL allowed them to experiment and in time give also life to programs like Photoshop, and other good technologies.
He trusted in computer possibilities as well.. that's why now there's the possibility to literally paint on screen entire movies.

To me he's more a man with the gift of organization and the ability to recognize other people's talents. he's not a good director unfortunately, but he creates interesting characters.

So, he deserves respect, even if he's not Gandhi at all.
Maybe Harryhousen its more similar to a Gandhi here if u really want to make a comparison.


then the industry of visual fx reached a point in wich the consequences of what GL established with ILM, went beyond, and this means that research and innovation
was made in several places different from ILM and that other directors founded their own companies for VFX. Digital Domain for example , and more recently WETA

This means that innovation continued mainly elsewhere, and also that we are now since some years in the age of GL "sons", wich in this case are also brilliant directors, like Jackson, but also Zemeckis, Rodriguez, and Cameron himself.

but these directors couldn't create their movies if GL never made SW.

So, i can bash GL because i don't like the new trilogy in many aspects, but i can't bash him for his importance in movie history and technique. He is important.

[igorstshirts]

Hey,
Sorry to bump this to the top again but...

This does not sound like the G.L. I've been reading about. He is quick to embrace the digitech in this article but is way too shortsighted about it. (I can't believe I've just typed that about him, but...).

Digitech is in it's infancy. PROsumer products have always been "better" than CONsumer ones. Compression, codecs and bandwith will probably evolve along the same pace as "HD" cameras and projection equipment, maybe a little faster.

How big is the T.V. in your house? A whoppin' 45" 1280 by 720P/ 1920 by 1080i? 60"? OOOOOOOOOOH! Yeah right. How about squeezing 100,000 lines by 60,000 lines on that same 45"? In 20.2 Surround sound even.

If/when it gets to that point, imagine what theater specs will be like. Cameras might not be line but dots based. Can you imagine an IMAX sized picture at 2400 D.P.I. at 100 frames per second? George Lucas seems to not be able to? You wanna talk about 3D? You could have a pair of binoculars at your seet and peer into the distance of the picture!

Epic movies are not going anywhere... I don't think anyone wants to take a date or their family to the next screening of an Indiana Jones movie as a 320 by 240 12 f.p.s. compressed .mpg.

[Nemoid]

well, movies are bbased on persinstence of vision, so 100 frames per second are enough to trick the eye to believe images are moving. TV is at 25 FPS, video 30 FPS but... 100 ??

high definition will surely improve image quality. however, i think we're not completely there with imitating perfectly film characteristics. BTW, Lucas used advanced DVcameras and reached good results, but the shots are surely processed to imitate better film characteristics.

this being said , we're very near and technology will advance rapidly so no problem for that .

DV and HDDV is the future.

[victor throe]

i hate going to the cinema. big heads in front and noisy pant wetters behind

if they didnt sell such fresh popcorn, i would never go.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.