Roger Ebert's Journal: "If sound were a new idea today, it might not be tried. The studios now seem to work in concert when it comes to issues like this. Had they been so unified back in 1930, sound would never have emerged because, as I'm sure you know, all the studios were convinced that it had no value. Check out the newspaper clip that I found. Jack Warner's logic about the 'international language of the silent picture' is absolutely true. It's just that Jack didn't consider how much richer 'the picture business' could be when supplemented by sound. Jack had to actually be tricked to show up at the Vitaphone demo. He was that disinterested.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
After 3D, here is the future of film
Roger Ebert's Journal: "If sound were a new idea today, it might not be tried. The studios now seem to work in concert when it comes to issues like this. Had they been so unified back in 1930, sound would never have emerged because, as I'm sure you know, all the studios were convinced that it had no value. Check out the newspaper clip that I found. Jack Warner's logic about the 'international language of the silent picture' is absolutely true. It's just that Jack didn't consider how much richer 'the picture business' could be when supplemented by sound. Jack had to actually be tricked to show up at the Vitaphone demo. He was that disinterested.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Wow, that was not a very convincing letter. While I feel for the guy that he can't get anyone to buy his film, I can sorta tell why. He spends most of his time decrying the use of the digital format, and wishes people would use his film, but he does not do a very good job at all of explaining WHY his film is better. Sure, there's charts and stuff, but I need some explanation! I'm not sold, and maybe that's why he can't get his film to catch on.
Whenever a revolutionary format in art first arrives on the scene it is as unnecessary sometimes even ridiculous. here is the prime example . where as in 1927 when the first talkies emerged they had no idea that four years later the last talkie would be produced. there's no way to foresee what revolutions will change the industry and which ones will fall through the cracks. because there is no way of really knowing, you can understand and should expect some skepticism involved in the early years of any format and like VHS Beta and other formats and types of effects in cinema . what is one days revolution is the next day antique.
I agree with both Sam and Jared. The author of this article had my attention for the first few paragraphs but then instead of closing his argument he wandered his way all over the topic. I could not even finish the article.
However, 3D technology is improving and it is interesting to participate in the debate. Someday movies will feel like the Holodeck on board the Enterprise. But no matter what technology we have, we can not lose sight of the fact that we love stories. Anyone in colloquium will tell you. It is stories that make the technology compelling: not vise versa.
Like Sam, I don't think that his letter was very focused. It may be true that film has some advantages over digital at the moment, but just as in sampling audio, most of the digital content that I see is at a point where any drawbacks or artifact of sampling is imperceptible. Not to mention the workflow of it - the idea of changing film canisters every 10 minutes of footage and sending them all to a processing facility when compared to, for instance, taking REDCODE directly into a Mac Pro, is ridiculous for 2011.
If Mr. Goodhill had any truly compelling points (other than the historical stuff, which I did enjoy), they were obscured by his blithering about politics.
The comparison of innovations in 3d film to innovations in film with sound in the 1930's is very telling. it is all too common that we as people regard our own problems as the first of their kind, however this is more often than not, not the case. The argument that people go to the movies for an experience which they cannot receive elsewhere is very true, and seems to suggest that if 3d is something people cannot receive at home then it is something people will seek out in theaters. 3d film technology developed in Avatar is also used in surgeries now, so the technology has motivation form within and without the film industry to develop. I think it could go somewhere very interesting with enough time.
Post a Comment