i was talking with a few people the other day, and someone brought up that using digital means in the upcoming film Sin City is wrong because it's not "true filmmaking". That because Robert Rodiguez is using HD rather than 35 or even 16mm, it isn't "true filmmaking". I, along with a few others argued that the medium in which you film doesn't determine what "true filmmaking" is and that the term "true filmmaking" doesn't make much sense. I wanted to see what everyone here thought...

Discuss, haha.

This one's a tricky one. I have often called myself a movie maker. The reason being that as a digital filmmaker I feel the need to distance myself from the film medium. Not because I hate film or will never shoot on it, but because as of now I am not making movies on film.

I also call myself a filmmaker because "film" is a term that describes movies in general.

I don't know exactly where I stand on this, but one things for sure, I want to see Sin City.

Poke

my film teacher last year asked me if i was a filmmaker or movie maker, i said "i'm a cinematic magician, i make movie magic!" and then i did a little spirit fingers, hand thing, she just rolled her eyes and walked away...

and who doesn't want to see Sin City?? i can't wait!

i was talking with a few people the other day, and someone brought up that using digital means in the upcoming film Sin City is wrong because it's not "true filmmaking". That because Robert Rodiguez is using HD rather than 35 or even 16mm, it isn't "true filmmaking". I, along with a few others argued that the medium in which you film doesn't determine what "true filmmaking" is and that the term "true filmmaking" doesn't make much sense. I wanted to see what everyone here thought...

Discuss, haha.

hahahaha.. dude.. are you talking about me?

hahaha no, i'm talking about a bunch of d*ckheads on a different forum :P

i jumped at the chance of talking about cinema seeing as you're the only person i know who likes to, and you weren't on

Oh ok.. well anywho.. I'm not a big fan of digital.. I do think it lacks the 'feel'.. it's hard to explain.. but that's just my opinion.

I wouldn't really use that whole 'true filmmaking' thing.. because it isn't about what you use.. it's how you use it...& the direction behind it.. y'know? It really doesn't matter how you capture it.. as long as you do.. & that it turns out just as you invisioned it.. clear as day from your mind to the screen..

its kinda like a glasses thing, you can look at life through different glasses, but it doesn't stop it from being real life, but different glasses can add to or alter the experience. you get me?

it's the content that defines cinema, and really, there is no such thing as "true filmmaking" because everyone does it differently. I don't think the medium in which it is displayed is irrelevant, because it can really add a whole new dimension to what is felt in a film.

Yeah.. there's obviously such a thing as classic filmmaking.. before everyone got lazy..hahaha.

hahaha not so much lazy, it just became more of an art form rather than a business, so things changed, i think for the better, the range now is excellent, so much freedom, but some purists out there probably disagree

hahaha not so much lazy, it just became more of an art form rather than a business, so things changed, i think for the better, the range now is excellent, so much freedom, but some purists out there probably disagree

Dude.. what are you talking about?? It's more of a business now then it ever was!!

hahaha okay, what i said doesn't sound like what i meant, i mean, back in the classic days of cinema, they'd kinda churn out the films, not so much looking for content, but just to make money, they'd make like so and so films a year, because they had a quota kind of thing, but nowadays, it's become more of an artform, yes there is a business side, a big one, but there is more of an artistic side than ever.

hahaha okay, what i said doesn't sound like what i meant, i mean, back in the classic days of cinema, they'd kinda churn out the films, not so much looking for content, but just to make money .

Bwahahahaha.. & they don't now?! Have you seen crossroads?


they'd make like so and so films a year, because they had a quota kind of thing, but nowadays, it's become more of an artform, yes there is a business side, a big one, but there is more of an artistic side than ever.

One more time.. have you seen crossroads?

hahaha no i haven't seen Crossroads, but like i said, there is still a business side, which is why films like that come out, but the industry is far more artistic these days

I don't think there are enough musicals..

yeah, we really need more Singin' In The Rain's... Death To Smoochy had a musical side to it (great film) but not to the level of a full on musical

but hey, i guess we can just hope Baz Luhrman liked making musicals haha, i haven't seen Moulin Rouge but i hear its quite the experience..

but hey, i guess we can just hope Baz Luhrman liked making musicals haha, i haven't seen Moulin Rouge but i hear its quite the experience..

:hmm: It's funny.. coz I just went off at you about this... & you're hiring it tomorrow.. I don't care what your mum thinks.

hahaha, apart from Poke, this thread is just us arguing hahaha, we're subjecting people to stuff they don't need to be subjected to :P

hahaha.. no.. it's you being a girl.. & me kicking your prissy little ass.

like you beat me... HA!

lol.. I'm so getting you with a shiv later.

you and your shivs...

You know, up until the last 4 or 5 posts this was actually not a bad read.. But you dated yourselves at the end there...

haha.. yes.. we know.. & we're ashamed of our last few posts.. well dimp is.. I'm not.

but yes.. continue to add to the topic as it was.

hahaha i'm ashamed?

but yeah, lets get back on topic, what's your point of view on all this "true filmmaking" hubbub Will?

Hey, I enjoy a little levity in a thread!

I agree with Mr.(Miss) Blonde...I don't think there is any substitute for knowing the history of technique within your chosen medium. If you know all the options, then expressing your aesthetic has a more direct route. For me, the moving art starts with the single composition ...it's just easier to envision that as a static frame of film.

I don't think there are enough musicals..

I want to see Christopher Walken in a musical again!

hey bird, not meaning to start anything here but really, it's not necessary to point out that Mr. Blonde is a girl, it has no relelvance to the discussion that she is female, the other Mr Blonde hasn't posted in here (yet at least) so there's no room for confusion, i just think it was unnecesarry..

Personally I simply see digital movie making being just as much a part of film making as more regular 16mm, 35mm, etc. Saying it isnt is like saying stop motion animation isnt 'proper' animation because it dont have no flippin' paper.


And good point about Christopher Walken bird. He should do another musical. Have you guys seen Fatboy Slim's 'Weapon of Choice' music video? Now THATS some cool film making :P

i was talking with a few people the other day, and someone brought up that using digital means in the upcoming film Sin City is wrong because it's not "true filmmaking". That because Robert Rodiguez is using HD rather than 35 or even 16mm, it isn't "true filmmaking". I, along with a few others argued that the medium in which you film doesn't determine what "true filmmaking" is and that the term "true filmmaking" doesn't make much sense. I wanted to see what everyone here thought...

Discuss, haha.
I don't see a problem with digital filmmaking (or movie making) at all. At the moment I am a digital movie maker. If you don't want to waste your money on film, film shipping, and development - why not use a digital medium? There is also less stress involved with digital movie making. You don't have to worry about exposing your film, or if your film is loaded wrong, etc - etc.

hey bird, not meaning to start anything here but really, it's not necessary to point out that Mr. Blonde is a girl, it has no relelvance to the discussion that she is female, the other Mr Blonde hasn't posted in here (yet at least) so there's no room for confusion, i just think it was unnecesarry..

I'm not sure why you felt you needed to lecture me on posting protocol.....When I came to this forum, Mr.Blonde introduced herself to me as the other Mr.(Miss) Blonde, I assumed this is how SHE wanted to be addressed, if not Mr.Blonde can let me know. I'll stay off your threads Dimp Paddy.

Mr.(Miss) Blonde is a female no? It may not have anything to do with the conversation but it is true. And I don't think bird meant it in a bad way. After all, bird (I believe) is a member of the fairer sex as well. As lord supreme chancellor of moderation, I proclaim the labeling of Mr. Blonde as a female to be okily dokily.

Now back to the discussion.

Poke

Everybody knows I'm a film diehard and am not a big fan of HD (nor do I hate it either), but I think people can be considered filmmkakers who work in video formats. It's about story telling and if the medium fits I'm ok with it. If you want to get technical yes, they are not filmmakers without shooting film, but what happens to those who shot video and transfer to film? That's a film product. Hmmm, interesting. Maybe people should just say they make motion pictures and that covers everything that moves, even phone cameras.

Scott

all, bird (I believe) is a member of the fairer sex

Daaaannnngggg, I guess I need a new avatar :weird:

Daaaannnngggg, I guess I need a new avatar :weird:

If I am wrong I apologize. I think we need little icons for male and female so people like me can't get too confused.

Poke

Ahhh, I'm female

I'm so confused.

Poke

I really don't have a major problem with it.. but I'd prefer to be adressed as my screen name yeah.. coz while I am a girl.. I don't usually make a thing of pointing out people's genders here. It's ok bird.. you didn't know so you can't be blamed for anything... but that is why I took it out of my sig.

It's just I am first & foremost a film maker.. then a girl.. so I'd prefer to just be known as a filmmaker.. as opposed to one of the girls here.. if you get me..

but I'd prefer to be adressed as my screen name yeah..

Will do!.....and I appreciate that YOU cleared that up for me. :yes:

It is nice to know peoples real names too.. most of the people I've talked to in the chat room have shared their names, and it makes those discussions more personal.. but then, maybe that's just me, as I'm one of those who uses my real name rather than a nick. ;)

After 15 years the nickname thing just kind of lost its luster, though I do still use it from time to time. I figure I'll be known by my name eventually anyway, so why hide it now. :D

I tend to agree with Will on this one. Screen names can only go so far. My username is actually my last name (an old holdover from football).

Here's my theory to filmmaking: The video does not make the film. The film does not make the film. The people who come in every day and without question do their best to make a story realized: the directors, writers, producers, actors, musicians, editors, lighting, cinematographers, art department, production assistants, even the grips and craft services, make the film. The medium simply records and displays the amount of effort everyone truly put in.

Here's my theory to filmmaking: The video does not make the film. The film does not make the film. The people who come in every day and without question do their best to make a story realized: the directors, writers, producers, actors, musicians, editors, lighting, cinematographers, art department, production assistants, even the grips and craft services, make the film. The medium simply records and displays the amount of effort everyone truly put in.

a very beautiful way to conclude what has been a most engrossing debate to see. Ben, I feel, reminds us of the all important human factor. However one must not forget that without the 'medium' there would be no empirical evidence of any work whatsoever. Conversely one cannot fail to realise that without the work behind the 'medium' than there would be no actual evidence once more.
It is rather a marriage of the two - the medium and the human factor. However, what rings true is that the medium was also made by people - those in the long production lines, those designers, engineers
to quote Ben 'people who come in every day and without question do their best'.
He is truly right. Well played Ben, great conclusion it all.
Oh, i've just ruined it all........................

Nique,
Thank you very much for your comments. I feel I should clarify something

However one must not forget that without the 'medium' there would be no empirical evidence of any work whatsoever.

When I said 'the medium simply record and displays the amount of effort everyone truly put in' I didn't mean we should forget the medium altogether; obviously there needs to be a medium in order for it to be a film. I just meant that it doesn't matter what the medium is, it serves the same purpose, to output the effort- if there was a lot of effort and the movie is good- the type of medium it is shouldn't matter.

Again, I appreciate your comments and I'm glad you agree! :)

Sorry I missed all the action on this one whilst I was away. Going to have my say anyway.

It's kind of pedantic to think that the term "filmmaker" is linked to working on a particular format. Language just doesn't work that way, the usages of words evolve through time until their original meaning is lost and the word becomes merely symbolic. For instance, the word "toady" is commonly used in England to mean a henchman or creep, but the word originates from Tudor quack medicine sellers who would plant a friend in the audience who they would miraculously cure, after the shill had put a live and poisonous toad in his mouth. These days someone can be a toady without there being an actual toad, ergo, you can now be a filmmaker without ever having shot a single foot of celluloid.

I suggest the idiots in the other forum should spend a little less time on the net and a little more time reading modern linguistic theory, Jacque Derrida would be a good start, in the original French. :lol:

I have a great magnet that from the E3 convention that Kodak gave out and it said, "Film Rules, Video Drools!" And i can not agree more!

Each medium has its own posetives and negetives...

Film is a medium that is hands on, its takes skill to load the film, to make sure you are not wasting the film, to develop the film... etc.... and so film becomes a work of passion, But film is also expensive... very expensive and the quality that it provides is quickly (and i know i am going to get some angry looks from this) getting equaled by digital. but that doesnt matter because it is the work and hear that goes into crafting that film into something amazing that really matters.

Digital on the other hand is something that is cheap, reuseable and perfect for adding special effects in post production. And so if you have an idea for a flick the tiume it takes to get it from an idea in your head to a fully edited peice of art is about half that of film.... And so it allows anyone to be a filmmaker, even if you do not have much in the way of funds.

And so there is no real argument in this... both mediums are equal in different ways, it goes the same for digital photography, people say it is going to over take film but that is not true... people are not going to stop using their dark rooms, do you realise the cost of renovations!!!

Each medium has its own posetives and negetives...

Film is a medium that is hands on, its takes skill to load the film, to make sure you are not wasting the film, to develop the film... etc.... and so film becomes a work of passion, But film is also expensive... very expensive and the quality that it provides is quickly (and i know i am going to get some angry looks from this) getting equaled by digital. but that doesnt matter because it is the work and hear that goes into crafting that film into something amazing that really matters.

Digital on the other hand is something that is cheap, reuseable and perfect for adding special effects in post production. And so if you have an idea for a flick the tiume it takes to get it from an idea in your head to a fully edited peice of art is about half that of film.... And so it allows anyone to be a filmmaker, even if you do not have much in the way of funds.

And so there is no real argument in this... both mediums are equal in different ways, it goes the same for digital photography, people say it is going to over take film but that is not true... people are not going to stop using their dark rooms, do you realise the cost of renovations!!!

Good argument, and :welcome:

Oh yeah, thats right... forgot to introduce myself.... oops, will do in the intro thread... at least i think there is an intro thread...

:welcome: I think you're really going to fit in round here, nicely balanced argument.

I have a great magnet that from the E3 convention that Kodak gave out and it said, "Film Rules, Video Drools!"

"Shouldn't that be film spools, video comes in neat cassettes."

Presumably kodak are giving out magnets in the hope that it will degauss any video tape it comes near. :lol:

It's about story telling and if the medium fits I'm ok with it.

There we go :cool:

Film vs. Video means absolutely nothing, if the story itself isn't worth telling.

Presumably kodak are giving out magnets in the hope that it will degauss any video tape it comes near.
Yeah, I was thinking about this the other day, I think Kodak should jump on the video train..

Yeah, I was thinking about this the other day, I think Kodak should jump on the video train..

The only problem with that is that the video tape industry has maybe only ten more years of mainstream trading left in it. (It their own fault for not standardising formats)
The new generation digital cameras are all being designed with hard drives, so that file transfers of data will replace digitising in. This is going to kill tape and also put more pressure on film as a medium. You are talking about removing days of digitising from the post production process. With the development of an electronic flagging system, whereby you mark via the camera the takes you want for the edit, you should also be able to hook the hard drive up to the editing suite and just dump your selected shots straight into editing bins. Which will effectively take log sheets out of the picture too.

With a quantum leap in digital picture quality every eighteen months (HD is just the start), faster computers, ever more sophisticated computer based effects packages and unlimited storage space it's only a matter of time until the whole film/digital debate is a matter of history.

More importantly with software breakthroughs like Bit Torrent allowing low bandwidth data streaming, making video image distribution possible via broadband as it exists now, we are looking at a completely different world opening up for independent filmmakers.

In the end the footage a film is shoot on is irrelevant, it's what happens at the other end of the process that is really changing our world for us.

Exciting isn't it :yes:

However on the other hand it means that even more people are going to be able to make films and so we will see more talent emerge as nothing is holding people back..

However on the other hand it means that even more people are going to be able to make films and so we will see more talent emerge as nothing is holding people back..

I think time will tell on this one. The real question is whether the new technologies will open up new sources of revenue for independent filmmakers and therefore promote new talent or whether via technical fixes and use of the courts the main distributors will retain control of distribution.

I think it is this aspect that I'm most interested in, we are one of those periods in history when a smart entrepreneur can potentially lever open a Bill Gates size crevice in an existing industry. The film/TV industry is in for an interesting ten years.

The only problem with that is that the video tape industry has maybe only ten more years of mainstream trading left in it. (It their own fault for not standardising formats)
The new generation digital cameras are all being designed with hard drives, so that file transfers of data will replace digitising in.

Well... Kodak used to produce cameras too.. maybe they should come out with the next best video camera with a ginormous Kodak brand hard drive. ;)

Did you know that they have now made DVD disks that can hold a terabyte? That means i could have my whole collection on 1 dvd, now that would be awesome!