Sad truth of our legacy

sfoster

Staff Member
Moderator
For a long time this was how I envisioned the relationship of film maker and audience.

Sistine-Chapel.jpg


When I watch a charlie chaplin film.. it's a legacy he's left behind. I think, perhaps in 1,000 years some people may still watch city lights or some other chaplin film. It's something we can leave on after we die, something with which we can 'connect' to unborn generations to come.

Chaplin has a special place in history because he was there at the beginning. What about the rest of us?

Will The Matrix be rebooted and reimagined 40 times in the next 1,000 years? Or will it just be forgotten?

It seems like there are so many remakes, etc that no matter how great or original it's impossible to make a film that will last for all of mankind.
 
It's all illusory anyway. Even the universe is ephemeral. That is to say, the latest popular theory seems to be that it, too, will "die" as we know it, when it's expanded so far that not even atoms exist and all energy has dissipated.

There's no telling what films people will care about in one-hundred years, let alone one-thousand. And it's quite possible that film will not be cared about at all. Who's to say it won't go the way of opera, for example? Not that no one cares about opera these days. And, supposing that happens, it might not take a thousand years. It might not even take a hundred. Maybe in the next few decades interest in film will die...or fade.

Could happen.

Though it's difficult to believe humans will ever get tired of moving pictures.

Nahhhhh, just kidding. Cheer up, mate. :)



I feel your dismay over the constant remaking. On the other hand, we know why they do it. And to some (at least) small extent I think I've made peace with it; at least they're remaking cool, interesting films that I (and a lot of people) typically like and don't really mind seeing 'reimagined.'

It's better than nothin'.

I guess I'm takin' what they're given. :rolleyes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyqVDewZ2kU
 
Last edited:
Yes you have a good point.
Perhaps video games will overtake film and leave them as a medium of the past.
 
I'm totally cool with video games becoming recognised as a legitiment form of artistic expression.

But fuck, I hope film never goes by the wayside.
 
I'm totally cool with video games becoming recognised as a legitiment form of artistic expression.

But fuck, I hope film never goes by the wayside.

Films will never be as interactive as a video game. If you had a star trek holodeck would you still be sitting around watching birth of a nation to measure it's artist merit and impact on the medium of film? Or will you be out there in the holodeck participating in helms deep trying to kill more orcs than legolas and gimleyl
 
Films will never be as interactive as a video game.
Because of this I don't think games will replace film. That's not to say film won't be replaced by something/fade from obscurity. But gaming and film serve different purposes.

Film's/Television are something people can zone out to (though some of the more worthwhile ones are not something you want to zone out to, and others make it hard to stop paying attention) and just switch off while consuming. Video games are actively engaging (for the most part). Film/TV tells a single story, in video games you *create* the story (and as it stands, storytelling in video games has by no way reached its peak in my opinion - i think most stories are pretty poor, but perhaps as technology improves so too will narrative).

Film/TV is a mediated experience, a forced perspective. Which sounds more limiting that gaming - and in some ways that's true. But that's also part of what's enjoyable about it.

In the short term, I could actually see TV overtaking Film in terms of popularity - if it hasn't already. There may still be film-like things that aren't quite TV, but distribution and the way we consume film will drastically change. I don't know if the cinema will die - and I hope it won't (it's still doing well at the cinema i work in), but it probably will continue to lose consumers.
 
Films will never be as interactive as a video game. If you had a star trek holodeck would you still be sitting around watching birth of a nation to measure it's artist merit and impact on the medium of film?

Yes I would, and even though I'm not a huge fan of The Birth Of A Nation, I still think I'd prefer it to an interactive Star Trek style game.

I think that cinema as an art form will continue to live but it won't be the dominant medium of this century (already I don't think it's the dominant medium like it was in the 20th century). It just seems to make sense to me, did cinema completely outmode painting, sculpture, music (both popular and classical), theater, and literature? No, all of those continued to exist and produce amazing work even though they were not as mainstream as films were.

Video games are an interesting medium but I find them to be too derivative of popular films to create any really interesting art works right now. I think video games should try to really use their unique qualities to create art rather than imitate film through cut scenes and mediocre narratives.

Film will always have unique qualities so it will always last (just as painting, sculpture, theater, literature, music, etc.). Film (and I mean this to include all works of noninteractive moving image such as video and TV) has mise-en-scene, it has the power of editing, it has a special rhythm to it that can be created by the filmmaker, it has the moving camera, it has the underrecognized unique gift of combining staging with composition because unlike theater, film has a fixed perspective to its staging. Film has also produced a countless amount of masterpieces in a variety of genres that can appeal to a ton of different film goers. Right now, in video games there is not nearly as much variety. There's no room for a Yasujiro Ozu, Stan Brahkhage, Steven Spielberg, Tsui Hark, and Satyajit Ray in video games as most of them are dominated by violence or Hollywood style narratives. I feel like video games can serve two functions, it can serve our need for a 'game' like a board game or a puzzle which makes us think about the game and its rules and how we can win. And it can also serve a narrative/artistic function. I think games have done a great job at fulfilling the first function, but the second function needs more artists to create something unique. I think that guys like Yu Suzuki and Fumito Ueda were in the right direction, but unfortunately most video game makers prefer to make less personal projects. Once video games become much cheaper to make, I think it will be interesting to see how it develops. My guess is that it'll be just like cinema, there will be blockbuster games like Call of Duty that are made by big developers, there will be semi-"independent" games which will be bigger but appeal to a more niche audience, and there will be truly independent games which are more personal projects for the game designers. Hopefully there will be great "auteurs" in all forms of video game making. Still, I think that purely as an art form, film will survive and so will all the other art forms. Now I don't know if film will have continued mainstream success.

Oh and if you're just asking about Chaplin let's go a little more recent. Haven't the films of Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Steven Spielberg left a legacy? So have the films of Frank Capra in the 30's and John Ford's best films and Elia Kazan's method dramas and the film noir genre and countless other films. To go to really recent films, Wong Kar Wai's In The Mood For Love is pretty much already canonized, the works of Charlie Kaufman are on their way, and I feel that there are quite a few films from the past decade that will be recognized as masterpieces. Cinema has a long large legacy that encompasses a many parts of the world with many great national cinematic traditions. For me, video games are not even close to dethroning cinema as they are almost exclusively produced in the United States/Canada and Japan.

Not to mention, many films are currently being rediscovered and there are many film scholars, historians, and preservationists hard at work trying to bring great works to light and restore the classics we already love to pristine quality. This field is growing more and more every year as cinema is being recognized as the valuable art form that it is by more and more people.
 
Last edited:
Yes I would, and even though I'm not a huge fan of The Birth Of A Nation, I still think I'd prefer it to an interactive Star Trek style game.

I've never seen the holodeck used to create anything like the star trek universe. my point was the level of realism and interactivity that something like a holodeck provides.. it's a technology inside of star trek, it's never actually used to emulate star trek.
 
I've never seen the holodeck used to create anything like the star trek universe. my point was the level of realism and interactivity that something like a holodeck provides.. it's a technology inside of star trek, it's never actually used to emulate star trek.

I know what you mean, I'm just saying that either way they are both completely different experiences, and I think I would still prefer watching cinema to more interactive forms of media (just as I prefer films to video games).
 
Will The Matrix be rebooted and reimagined 40 times in the next 1,000 years? Or will it just be forgotten?

It seems like there are so many remakes, etc that no matter how great or original it's impossible to make a film that will last for all of mankind.

Think of it this way;

we constantly point to film traditions of various decades, like the 80's had a lot of dark, dystopian futures, the 90's started to use CGI and other VFX in subtle ways, one day we will look back on our time as "when they made countless remakes"

One day we'll be complaining about a new trend.
 
Think of it this way;

we constantly point to film traditions of various decades, like the 80's had a lot of dark, dystopian futures, the 90's started to use CGI and other VFX in subtle ways, one day we will look back on our time as "when they made countless remakes"

One day we'll be complaining about a new trend.

Unfortunately I don't think remakes will ever stop
But I do agree that there are all kinds of trends we see!

I guess if you can make a film good enough to keep being remade.. there is something to be said for that. People would probably be curious about the original and go and watch it.
 
I think remakes will stop and it'll be sooner than we think. Not that there will never be another on, but that it won't be so common. Like the buddy-cop movie
 
I think remakes will stop and it'll be sooner than we think. Not that there will never be another on, but that it won't be so common. Like the buddy-cop movie

Think about it this way.. right now we have 100 years of film history.

What about when we have 500 years of film history. 500 years of features that can be remade, that people will have never heard of.
 
Well I don't doubt that remakes may see a comeback, I guess all we can hope for is a nuclear holocaust that wipes out most of the planet... that way noone will even want to make remakes
 
For a long time this was how I envisioned the relationship of film maker and audience.

Ah, but they are different things. Painting is a fine art whereas film is in essence a technology. This isn't to say that making films is not an art, it obviously is but the art of filmmaking is the art of using technology to capture, combine and juxtapose various other arts. While painting has been influenced by technology, it's not based on technology. Even with today's technology, the Sistine Chapel is still extremely impressive, an incredible technical feat for any age, in addition to the fact that it's also an artistic masterpiece. Film is successful because it presents this combination of arts in a way which provides a more comprehensive experience of the story being told. The history of film is therefore essentially the history of advances in the technology which improve that experience and of the filmmakers who best employed it. For this reason, films become outdated by the technology they employed when they were made. As video games are even more based on technology, they too become dated, even quicker than does film but painting not so much because it's far less dependent on technology.

G
 
Sherlock Holmes is still around, and so is King Arthur. And, if Chinese culture is to have any influence, the Monkey King will also be around, as it has in Chinese communities around the world.
 
Ah, but they are different things. Painting is a fine art whereas film is in essence a technology. This isn't to say that making films is not an art, it obviously is but the art of filmmaking is the art of using technology to capture, combine and juxtapose various other arts. While painting has been influenced by technology, it's not based on technology. Even with today's technology, the Sistine Chapel is still extremely impressive, an incredible technical feat for any age, in addition to the fact that it's also an artistic masterpiece. Film is successful because it presents this combination of arts in a way which provides a more comprehensive experience of the story being told. The history of film is therefore essentially the history of advances in the technology which improve that experience and of the filmmakers who best employed it. For this reason, films become outdated by the technology they employed when they were made. As video games are even more based on technology, they too become dated, even quicker than does film but painting not so much because it's far less dependent on technology.

G

I was referring to the meaning and metaphor behind that particular piece. That we reach out to our audience from beyond the grave but never quite touch them. But you do make a good point about how art with such a basis in technology is more likely to become outdated. Some old games I used to enjoy are no longer enjoyable for that reason.
 
This kind of reminds me of all of the Robin Williams talk going on lately- claims that he is only being adored now that he has passed, and his "Fans" abandoned him in the last few projects he did, which all flopped. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole topic. I'd like to think that what we do matters and will live on. In regards to Robin Williams, there's an article I keep re-reading as it pertains to being remembered. here's the link if anyone is interested. https://medium.com/@Stage32online/remembering-robin-williams-9bef95e112f3
 
Films will never be as interactive as a video game. If you had a star trek holodeck would you still be sitting around watching birth of a nation to measure it's artist merit and impact on the medium of film? Or will you be out there in the holodeck participating in helms deep trying to kill more orcs than legolas and gimleyl

For the record, I was actually actively working towards a career in game design and game programming for a while.

However, I don't see them replacing film any more than I see film replacing literature. You never know, though. Someday, maybe noone will care about the cinema.

Perhaps we should all just adopt a nihilistic no future punk rock approach and make shit regardless if anyone cares 100 years from now.

My guess is that it'll be just like cinema, there will be blockbuster games like Call of Duty that are made by big developers, there will be semi-"independent" games which will be bigger but appeal to a more niche audience, and there will be truly independent games which are more personal projects for the game designers. Hopefully there will be great "auteurs" in all forms of video game making.

Can I just point out the huge community of indie game designers making things on shoestring budgets? People who actually take what they make as a serious art form?
 
Last edited:
For the record, I was actually actively working towards a career in game design and game programming for a while.

However, I don't see them replacing film any more than I see film replacing literature. You never know, though. Someday, maybe noone will care about the cinema.

Perhaps we should all just adopt a nihilistic no future punk rock approach and make shit regardless if anyone cares 100 years from now.

Eventually it will get to the point were CG looks and sounds exactly like real actors. Hell you could take a movie and swap out the main characters for whoever are your favorite people to watch.. or watch a movie with yourself in the main role instead. now if all that technology is there.. it's a very small step to make it interactive. Perhaps video did not kill the radio star, but it sure put a hurting on him.

I don't think video games will replace film anytime soon.. nor am i confident in saying they will at all, ever. I'm just pointing out yeah it's a possibility a hundred or more years down the road
 
Back
Top