People are desperate for content?

If you think people don't have anything to do but watch TV and movies then you need to get out more... This post makes me shake my head. I hope you get out and enjoy life some.

people have to be desperate for content

Click to expand...

They do? And if they are, what then happens?

So how hard can it be?

Click to expand...

Professional Tennis looks easy to me. It must be so easy, anyone can do it at that level, right?

I might be wrong but I really think movies and TV are going to be outdated soon to bigger and better technology like virtual reality.

Click to expand...

That point of view has been around for decades. I'm far from convinced it's taken over yet.

So just as long as youre not retarded and put good effort into something, you should be able to create something people would watch right?

Click to expand...

Define what do you mean by people. If you mean the general public, you are very much mistaken. If you mean yourself and your pet dog, yeah sure. Go for it.

I do think Virtual Reality can stake a sizable claim on the entertainment market in another decade or so, depending on how it's utilized. But movies and TV will still have their place, simply due to taste.

Virtual Reality is based on fooling the brain into believing something is in three dimensions when it really isn't. This can cause serious strain on the eyes and mind, inducing headaches, blood-shot eyes, vertigo, general dizziness, and/or fatigue. And this occurs in varying degrees in many people, including myself, if one exposes themselves to it for too long. So while virtual reality and 3D movies can be effective for short bursts, the fact is I don't see everybody just jumping over to VR in totality as much as they do Movies or TV right now, even when the technology is so perfect that it's nearly real. Our bodies simply can't handle that much stimulation, or that much mental foolery.

We also have yet to reach the point where we feel it's necessary to include procedural smells and tastes mixed with VR sight and sound. And until we CAN do that, I think the novelty will be a little more mild than you expect.

I mean, we've had VR simulators on par with the Oculus Rift for decades, and no one has yet been clamoring to have it in their homes as much as a Television or a Game System, because it's simply a novelty item. Same goes for 3D televisions. They're still releasing 3D movies in theaters and releasing 3D blu-rays, and yet most of the 3D capable televisions have been pushed to the side and are a lot harder to find and purchase, because very few people were genuinely interested in them. Most of the time when I watch the 3D movie, I can sense the 3D for the first 20 minutes or so, after that, though, the 3D melts away and is no longer noticeable. If I could actively control my environment in some manner, however, then it would be different. 3D itself has also been around far longer than you think, as far back as the late 1800s with proto-View-Masters that used swappable dual-photographic cards. Eventually this became the View-Master slide disks, and then the Blue/Green and Red tinted films with the accompanying glasses. Did people desperately want this technology in their homes? Not really. Because if they did, then the market would have provided it to them a lot sooner than it has.

Technology always advances where the money and the demand is. And there's just not enough of it outside of the movie-theater/theme park/arcade arena for special trips and excursions. We're just too comfortable with how things are now that what really needs to advance is how films are shot, and how stories are told, not how fantastically they are presented to the viewer. We are moving into 4K Blu-ray and TV now, which will blur the line greatly between the real world and the edge of your TV screen, which could be enough for many people for quite a while longer. We're far closer to having everyone consume movies and television through their phones, in fact, than we are having people consume them through heavy electronic goggles. Besides, the best VR experiences are the ones you can physically walk through. And unless your environment is perfectly synced to what you see in your goggles, your more likely to walk right into a wall than have an enjoyable and free roaming good time.

RealJasonBourne said:

I was watching The Revenant with my brother and was thinking to myself "movies and TV are outdated now" because I was bored and already know what to expect with movies. We walked out an hour in but we plan on watching it again in a few days lmao.

Click to expand...

The Revenant is an incredible masterpiece of a motion picture and you should feel bad for walking out.

RealJasonBourne said:

So just as long as youre not retarded and put good effort into something, you should be able to create something people would watch right?

Click to expand...

Proof by contradiction: There are plenty of bad movies made by smart people who put in effort - and the end product is not something I want to watch.


VR is a far cry from a star trek holodeck.
Yes.. if a holodeck existed and I had a room in my house where I could have massive orgies with hollywood starlets, fly a star wars speeder through the woods and take over the white house I might not watch films.

I don't think that is going to happen in my life time.
Besides.. did you have some type of deadline before too? something about having to enlist in the military.

Sweetie said:

They do? And if they are, what then happens?


Professional Tennis looks easy to me. It must be so easy, anyone can do it at that level, right?


That point of view has been around for decades. I'm far from convinced it's taken over yet.


Define what do you mean by people. If you mean the general public, you are very much mistaken. If you mean yourself and your pet dog, yeah sure. Go for it.

Click to expand...

a lot of times I get paranoid with my projects and think "this idea is stupid" "what if this is a waste of time" but I think youre more likely to make something worth watching than not because 99% of people arent making something

sfoster said:

Besides.. did you have some type of deadline before too? something about having to enlist in the military.

Click to expand...

yep I think I pussied out lmao

VR and 3D isn't the same thing. Not even close.

We're just too comfortable with how things are now that what really needs to advance is how films are shot, and how stories are told, not how fantastically they are presented to the viewer.

Click to expand...

VR and filmmaking isn't compatible. It's chalk and cheese. It's the difference between radio and TV. Film is an deletion medium. It's full of cuts, face, dissolves, angles and so on. These are the tools required to focus the viewer on the story being told. VR eliminates the cuts, it allows the viewer to watch what has nothing to do with the story, and on top of that, requires a complete change in production methodologies... which in my opinion not only won't work, it'd turn $200mil movie budgets to $800mil or more movie budgets.

VR has possibilities for video games and simulations. I doubt it'll work for movies.

RealJasonBourne said:

............

We have literally nothing to do on this planet.
..............

Click to expand...

Bizarre statement. Makes me wonder what people did before motion picures were invented....
Don't read Sartre, please. He agrees with you, but will make you feel depressed.

We have to live life.
Love.
Experience emotions and grow as a person.

If you need a purpose, try this one:
'we have to make the world a happier and more beautiful place'

RealJasonBourne said:

............
It's just something I use to motivate myself because I have 0, and it's absurd how I haven't made it to the end of a project before.
.....................

I was watching The Revenant with my brother and was thinking to myself "movies and TV are outdated now" because I was bored and already know what to expect with movies. We walked out an hour in but we plan on watching it again in a few days lmao.
..............................

Click to expand...

I don't know you personally, but from your posts on IT it seems you just have a short attention spam by nature and lose interest in your projects before you finish. Go do some personality test, maybe you'll get to know yourself better so you can learn to persevere...

Sweetie said:

............

VR has possibilities for video games and simulations. I doubt it'll work for movies.

Click to expand...

Indeed.
The story in a movie is told by forcing the viewer to see what is deemed important.
In VR the director will lose control over what is seen and that makes it pretty hard to tell a lineair story.
That is why it is more an 'experience medium' than a 'storytelling medium'.

WalterB said:

Indeed.
The story in a movie is told by forcing the viewer to see what is deemed important.
In VR the director will lose control over what is seen and that makes it pretty hard to tell a lineair story.
That is why it is more an 'experience medium' than a 'storytelling medium'.

Click to expand...

I disagree

Games like The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, The Stanley Parable, Portal 2 and Half-Life 2 can tell an interesting story all without having absolutely no control over the camera.

I find it odd that everyone assumes you can't still make use of design elements found in film within a VR system, just because the user or audience is holding the camera, because you can. Some games, like The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, take into account the use of negative space, lighting and contrast, sound placement, and other elements of design and directing to guide the player from one place to another in a linear fashion. Also, if you wish to create a linear progression in a more direct way, you only need to build the world your audience will inhabit in a linear path. Make the world look open, but only give your viewers the ability to go in one direction, with a few branching paths here or there, that all still lead to a particular end. Or, maybe even multiple ends.

It's a very different form of storytelling and direction, and typically works best if you are unfolding bits and pieces of information that you are meant to assemble later, but it nonetheless is still an exciting and entertaining form that some people will just have to adapt to and get used to if VR makes a bigger splash on the market than we think.

FilmmakerJ said:

I disagree

...............

Click to expand...

You mix up gaming and watching here.
Because in a game the element of time can be 'disabled' and (re)actions can be triggered by the the actions of the gamer. So, gamer A may take 30 seconds to enter a certain room, gamer B may take 5 minutes, but they often get the same situation in that room.
Besides that in a game you not only look around, but also walk around: a reason why it is CGI and not filmed.
In VR movies you can only look around and have lineair video; meaning that looking in the wrong direction will make you miss things. Off course you can use design to draw attention in a certain direction, but you still have no control over what the viewer will see. Only what the viewer might see.
And that makes a huge difference in the way this medium should be approached.
Without realising that the nature of VR-video, games and movies in fundamentally different, you can't create great content for it. (Just like books, theater and movies are different.)
The level of interactive control in either platform asks for a different approach on everyone of them.
Movies have a fixed length, while in games you often have time to figure things out OR get to try again and again and again until you got it (or give up).

Some people will not realise that, just like the first TV ad was basicly print mixed with radio: although not a disaster, it totally showed a lack of understanding of the used medium.

I've already seen a corporate video in 360. Looking around didn't add anything, but did blur or even erase the (key) message of that video, because it lost control over the story that they wanted to tell. Instead of a video that sold their service to potential clients, they paid someone to produce a meaningless gimmick video.

I am not saying you can't tell stories in VR, but if looking around is the only interactivity a lot will be missed by the viewer, unless everything is either obviously on the nose, or so slow the 'fast viewer' will be bored. There will be clever and creative exceptions, for sure, but you can't take Birdman, 12 Monkeys, Sherlock Holmes, etc add the 360 option and expect it to have the same or even more impact.

There was a German horror movies that was interactive but not VR.
Everyone in the cinema had his/her phone and the maincharacters would ask for help in the decisions. It was about 20 minutes I believe and had lots of different endings, since there were so many possibilities. So here they gave viewers influence on decisions, like in a game (old text game style), but the director still was in charge of watch was seen.
So, yes, interesting things can be done, but it will move beyond the concept of movies and move toward games.

BTW, a lot of game stories are just about collecting stuff to upgrade weapons to be able to finish a level. Cool as an experience, but not always that cool as a movie.

It's a very different form of storytelling and direction

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I say I don't think VR is a suitable medium for films. I'm not saying it won't be a successful tool in other mediums. Storytelling in films is quite specific. Lets say you watch The Usual Suspects and start by going to the ending first, then wander through, look at a few bits in the middle, take a glance at the beginning. I'm sure the audiences reaction would go from a great movie to "That makes no sense".

Maybe I don't know what you mean by VR?

and typically works best if you are unfolding bits and pieces of information that you are meant to assemble later, but it nonetheless is still an exciting and entertaining form that some people will just have to adapt to and get used to if VR makes a bigger splash on the market than we think

Click to expand...

Sounds like interactive entertainment to me. Isn't that called gaming? VR suits gaming very much.

VR would work for certain movies. Like.. the titanic. That would be cool to be in VR with everyone as the ship crashes and sinks. Obviously not a traditional movie experience.. and with VR you could experience it a second time as a totally different story.. maybe with the underclass instead of first class.

A night to remember had the events unfold in real time after the iceberg hit.

sfoster said:

VR would work for certain movies. Like.. the titanic. That would be cool to be in VR with everyone as the ship crashes and sinks. Obviously not a traditional movie experience.. and with VR you could experience it a second time as a totally different story.. maybe with the underclass instead of first class.
.................

Click to expand...

You mean it would work for the sinking experience..
It is the big dramatic event of the movie, but it is not the whole movie.

WalterB said:

You mean it would work for the sinking experience..
It is the big dramatic event of the movie, but it is not the whole movie.

Click to expand...

The Titanic hit the iceberg at 11:40pm on April 14, 1912 and roughly two hours and forty minutes later at 2:20am on April 15th the ship plunged to the bottom of the ocean.

It was basically the whole movie for A Night to Remember, which had events occurring in real time.
Unlike james camerons or the 1953 Titanic which are drama's with a little sinking at the end.

lol, I got confused...
In that case: yeah: such a thing is what I meant with an experience (instead of a story).

sfoster said:

VR would work for certain movies. Like.. the titanic. That would be cool to be in VR with everyone as the ship crashes and sinks. Obviously not a traditional movie experience.. and with VR you could experience it a second time as a totally different story.. maybe with the underclass instead of first class.

A night to remember had the events unfold in real time after the iceberg hit.

Click to expand...

I think VR would be a GREAT way to give an immersive experience for a mystery movie, you want the viewer constantly looking for clues on their own which you could frame in. I could be fun to see the audience catch subtle hints that are sometimes too obviously given away by camera focus in regular cinema format

WalterB said:

You mix up gaming and watching here.
Because in a game the element of time can be 'disabled' and (re)actions can be triggered by the the actions of the gamer. So, gamer A may take 30 seconds to enter a certain room, gamer B may take 5 minutes, but they often get the same situation in that room.
Besides that in a game you not only look around, but also walk around: a reason why it is CGI and not filmed.
In VR movies you can only look around and have lineair video; meaning that looking in the wrong direction will make you miss things. Off course you can use design to draw attention in a certain direction, but you still have no control over what the viewer will see. Only what the viewer might see.
And that makes a huge difference in the way this medium should be approached.
Without realising that the nature of VR-video, games and movies in fundamentally different, you can't create great content for it. (Just like books, theater and movies are different.)
The level of interactive control in either platform asks for a different approach on everyone of them.
Movies have a fixed length, while in games you often have time to figure things out OR get to try again and again and again until you got it (or give up).

Some people will not realise that, just like the first TV ad was basicly print mixed with radio: although not a disaster, it totally showed a lack of understanding of the used medium.

I've already seen a corporate video in 360. Looking around didn't add anything, but did blur or even erase the (key) message of that video, because it lost control over the story that they wanted to tell. Instead of a video that sold their service to potential clients, they paid someone to produce a meaningless gimmick video.

I am not saying you can't tell stories in VR, but if looking around is the only interactivity a lot will be missed by the viewer, unless everything is either obviously on the nose, or so slow the 'fast viewer' will be bored. There will be clever and creative exceptions, for sure, but you can't take Birdman, 12 Monkeys, Sherlock Holmes, etc add the 360 option and expect it to have the same or even more impact.

There was a German horror movies that was interactive but not VR.
Everyone in the cinema had his/her phone and the maincharacters would ask for help in the decisions. It was about 20 minutes I believe and had lots of different endings, since there were so many possibilities. So here they gave viewers influence on decisions, like in a game (old text game style), but the director still was in charge of watch was seen.
So, yes, interesting things can be done, but it will move beyond the concept of movies and move toward games.

BTW, a lot of game stories are just about collecting stuff to upgrade weapons to be able to finish a level. Cool as an experience, but not always that cool as a movie.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you here. And I honestly wasn't mixing up gaming and watching, I just didn't know that VR movies existed in the way you describe them, because what the hell is the point of that?

Why have a medium where a linear story is played out like a regular movie, in 360, where you could miss any number of crucial details if you're looking in the wrong direction? It's just kind of stupid.

This is why I am a firm believer that if you want to tell stories in VR, the best and perhaps only way to truly do it to where nothing is lost and the player has all of the control over when story progression occurs, is if they are all done in a video-game fashion. That's just what makes the most sense.

Being able to look around in a film that cannot be halted or stopped by the player unless you just pause the film will likely alienate the viewer, and make them feel like just an omnipresent observer, or a ghost, rather than an active participant in the story: which I think should be the ultimate point of VR. Why be a ghost watching everything from invisible cameras when you can be one of the protagonists?

WalterB said:

lol, I got confused...
In that case: yeah: such a thing is what I meant with an experience (instead of a story).

Click to expand...

It sort of .. gives you a story instead of telling one to you. I bet every passenger on that boat could've told a great story about it.

Certainly different and interesting. But no where in the near future for us unfortunately.