Home
Todd Suomela's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
"When I say superhero movies aren't taken seriously (by critics, fans or filmmakers), I don't mean that people aren't invested in them (analytically, emotionally, financially) but that, as we've been saying year in and year out about certain kinds of fantasy-action-science-fiction blockbuster attempts since the late 1970s, they're more like amusement park rides (and they eventually become those, too) than movies. Superhero partisans do indeed take these pictures seriously, but only insofar as "seriously" can be interpreted to mean "lacking a sense of humor." "
"“It was the biggest upheaval in film exhibition since synchronized sound. Between 2010 and 2012, the world’s film industries forever changed the way movies were shown.”
This is the opening sentence of Pandora’s Digital Box: Films, Files, and the Future of Movies. Written in lively and accessible language, it tells the story of how the recent revolution in film projection came about. It also situates the digital change in the history of American film distribution and moviegoing."
"I’m left with two observations.
First, there was a time when exhibitors called these directors’ bluff. When Lucas griped that there weren’t enough digital screens for Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith (2005), John Fithian, president of the National Organization of Theater Owners, replied memorably: “I don’t put projectors in just for Star Wars.”
Now, it seems, the exhibitors are so scared of missing the next blockbuster that the filmmakers can dictate terms. It’s remarkable that these men can do something neither Griffith nor DeMille nor Disney nor any other powerful Hollywood filmmaker of the classic years dared do. They keep asking that the fundamental technology of cinema be changed so we can all watch a couple of their movies for a month or two every few years.
Second, if these guys are so passionately committed to quality, why don’t they make better movies?"
"My experience has shown me that in spite of the fact that there’s incredible genius in this room, with these master craftsmen that are really holding up the tentpoles and making these amazing visions that everybody wants to see, the latest amazing thing, amazing monster, amazing place, whatever it is, there are some structural problems inside the motion picture industry and the entertainment industry, which is that the studios who are producing and distributing the content have virtually no technological infrastructure inside their management structure. They rely entirely on third-party purveyors of special services, whether they’re actors, directors, or special effects people, and so they don’t really understand the technology of their own medium."
-
THR: Are there filmmakers working today that you feel like are even close to tapping into that kind of spectacle that you would like to see?
Trumbull: There’s only a few filmmakers that I know and I hang out with who are really in what we call the “special venue” business – it’s the kind of IMAX, science museum, historical museum. [And] there’s a small group of people who make these 4K, extremely high-resolution films, shooting 65mm negative and scanning it at 8K and putting it out digitally at 4K - a tremendous amount of detail, particularly for very large screens, which are in science museums. But in the theatrical movie industry, I’ve seen almost nothing, except people that I know and admire like Jim Cameron and Peter Jackson, who are very aware that 24 frames a second is not good enough for 3D. There’s a real fundamental technical problem that’s hard to explain, but 3D is just a slight difference between the left and right eye, and when the motion from one frame to the next becomes more than the difference, the 3D effect is destroyed in blur and strobing.
-
THR: Is the process of creating images and spectacle the same now on something like Tree of Life as it was on 2001 or Blade Runner?
Trumbull: I think it’s been disturbed by the fact that a lot of people bought into computer graphics as the solution to all of their problems. We’ve gotten into this period right now where in spite of the artistry and the magic of all of the people in this room, visual effects from a producer and studio standpoint has become a commodity. They bid these companies against each other, they say, well, if you’re not going to give us a better price we’re going to go to New Zealand or we’re going to go to India or someplace else to get it done, because we really don’t care about the ultimate quality. We care about price. And so there’s a really shocking lack of ingenuity that’s possible because it’s all computer graphics – there’s very few miniatures or the broader range of visual effects experimentation that I’ve done in my life because there’s almost no major companies left. One of the biggest ones was George Lucas’ company, Kerner Optical, and they just went bankrupt, because there was not enough work for them. Because the fact that the studios bid all of these companies against each other, it’s bid on the basis of computer graphics, and algorithms and computer hardware and render issue, and so there’s not a broad range of diversity to the way effects are done, or movies are done. Because Hollywood would just like to figure out how to make a movie for less money so they don’t have to build sets and they don’t have to go on location, so they do it with set extensions and digital effects to supplant what they don’t want to pay for. That’s all well and good, but it’s become very homogenized.
Discusses spoilers for movies and the viewing practices of the 1920s to 1950s when people often went to the movies without a specific showtime.
"I am a British writer and critic living in New York. I have written two books, Blockbuster: How Hollywood Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Summer (Simon & Schuster, 2004) and In The Rooms (Thomas Dunne, 2011). From 1994-1999 I was film critic of the London Sunday Times."
Founded in November 1996, Film-Philosophy is an international academic journal dedicated to philosophically reviewing film studies, philosophical aesthetics, and world cinema.
Self-Reliant Film was started in November 2005 by Paul Harrill.
The purpose of the blog is to champion small-crew, low-budget, and regional filmmaking.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in cinema
-
Video Goggles Comparison
A comparison of products ava...
Items: 7 | Visits: 92
Created by: timandmonica henderspn
-
film
filmplus.org (film-north) + ...
Items: 22 | Visits: 114
Created by: anatoly antohin
-
russia
Russia, Century 21
Items: 9 | Visits: 107
Created by: anatoly antohin
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo