Everything does not have to look like film but the truth is most people think of the film look as better quality (partially because the cost of film, and partially because the time it takes to properly light) and thus distributers are more likely to pay attention.

Another thing is video and video lighting is strongly associated with news, sports and documentary while film is associated with fiction.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

me personaly, the second i start watching a film i make an anitial assumption. is it amatuer or proffessional. if it lloks profesional my expectations are that of a normal film, but if it imidiatly screams amatuer, then i automaticaly/ subconciously start to notice why it is amatuer, which distracts from the story/ film itself.
so i think film makers like the film look because it imidiatly puts the viewer under the regular illusion of film watching so they can focus on the plot/ empathise with the story. we are a habbitual audience we feel comfortable with the ordinary, aka the film look.
a look of social awarness films dont have the usual film look because the film maker wants you to be aware and activly thinking.
yikes, i never thought id be using A level media theory again

remember this is just one persons opinion, hope it helps:)
christophe lafosse

quote:

---

Originally posted by pond-weed

a look of social awarness films dont have the usual film look because the film maker wants you to be aware and activly thinking.
yikes, i never thought id be using A level media theory again

---

I think your thoughts are pretty accurate, but this part of your post is hard for me to understand. Could you explain what you were trying to tell me there?

iv never been good at summing stuff up in words, but here goes. when we watch the average holly wood film it is a passive experience (ie we sit back and soak up the story without thinking "why the hell am i watching this bullshit, the hero is clearly going to win and its going to end like every other holywood film" our subconcious stops us from thinking about this so we can enjoy the film, thats why its a passive experience, because we dont question why the hero seems to win every time. and the film look is used so much in standard hollywood film, to a point where the moment we see that proffesional film look, our brain automatically goes into that passive hollywood film experience where we dont look for mistakes and flaws in the narrative.

now a social awarness film wants us to question society and the way things are done, the director is most probably unhappy about a certain issue, lets take for example the 'east asian new wave';

about 10 years ago china took control of hong kong from british rule, rusulting in the communist rule spreading, resulting in a much tighter grip on the film industry (films were very thouroghly requlated so as not to promote an anti communist message) and a cinematic new wave burst out, resulting in films which questioned communist rule. but it had to be suttle so as not to get banned by the goverment, and one of the techniques used was a constant changing of cinematography, the filming style constantly changes, director Wong Kar Wai often changed film stock half way through films and it was really obvious. seeing this change in film stock suddenly makes you sit up and think "why had the look suddenly changed", the director now has you activly thinking. if you are interested in these sorts of films with suttle messages, the director wong kar wai is a good one, a lot of his film have his characters walking dwon corridors to represent the forced communist rule that china is oppressing on hong kong etc.

so to sum up, the 'film look' is to put us under the 'hollywood spell' where we soak up the film without question.
but when presented with a look other than this it makes us question why is it like this, thus a social awarness film. a big social issue is "why does films have to look like film" like you said, and to present in in a different way gets us activly thinking which is what the director wants, he wants us to activly think about the social issues he/she is going to present in the film.

once again, sorry for the 'mnind spew' iv never been good at summing up. hope that helps
christophe lafosse:)

Well, for not being good at explaining things, I thought that was pretty good pond-weed.

Anybody else have an opinion as well?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spokane36

I don't get it. I really don't get it. I've heard a lot about cameras that can imitate the look of film for I don't know how long. All I want to know is WHY you need to make your movie look like film in the first place. Does everything have to look like film? Does everything have to be an oil painting? Is it a sin to challenge tradition? The whole you-have-to-make-your-movie-look-like-film deal is really leaving me annoyed, and I want answers as to why.

I hope I'm not rambling, but what do you think?

---

You don't "have to" make your movie look like anything. In the same way, no one "has to" make a movie where the good guys always get the girl and defeat the villain. There are no official rules governing art in most nations of the world.

However, time and precedent have proven that some forms of art, both in terms of media and content, SELL better than others. One can argue all day long about media (film vs video, CG animation vs traditional drawing animation) and about story ("real life" vs "Hollywood" endings), and one is free to make any story that he wants to on any media that he wishes. BUT, the marketplace determines what will be COMMERCIALLY successful. Profit is a way, certainly not the only way, but it is a way to gauge quality.

Are there some projects that are not financially successful but are "better" than other projects? Of course! But this is the lesson that too many indie filmmakers don't want to hear. A feature motion picture is a collaborative effort, not an "auteur" endeavor. An auteur may take personal satisfaction in making a movie entirely on his own and doing it "his way," but if that situation ever truly existed, the odds would likely be that the project would never make back the initial investment much less a profit.

Most movies require vast amounts of working capital to be made. The equipment is expensive, quality skilled and experienced people (Cast and Crew) cost money, and other resources need to be paid for. Marketing is also important in order to get the word out to the general public who usually have more to do than "find" those hidden jewels of brilliance by the latest self-proclaimed auteur.

Video (electronic acquisition technology) wasn't created to be a replacement for film. Film wasn't even invented to be the medium of choice for entertainment movies. It wasn't like there was a choice back in history of "should I invent film or video?" It just happened that way. And over the years, audiences have come to recognize and be comfortable with film being used to tell stories that entertain. Of course there have been experiments over the years with "Filmmakers" and other outlets (sitcoms, music videos, etc) to use video (typically 29.97fps NTSC) to capture the images that otherwise would have been capture on film. But the public reacts to the different "looks" and frame rates in different ways.

Film and tape are distinctly different ways of capturing an image for later viewing. In both cases, an image is being saved, but there???s a pretty big difference between the two. Traditional standard-definition video has a definitive sharpness and looks ???real,??? like you???d see the action as if you were actually standing there. Film has a softer, almost more ethereal look. It does not capture reality per se but a more romantic and hyper-real version of what happened in front of the lens. Generally, fictional narrative and dramatic programs are shot using film stock with film cameras while nonfiction or live events are shot using video cameras.

The advent of high-definition video has allowed filmmakers to take advantage of the immediacy of electronic image acquisition while enjoying a near film-like quality.

"Movies" cost a lot of money to make, so there is a vested interest in getting the initial investment back, and of course, there is an interest in making a profit. If there is no possibility for profit, then what motivation does an investor have to risk his money in the first place? So it is the job of the filmmaker (who wishes to do this for a living) to take every opportunity to improve the odds of A) being financed and B) making choices that are helpful in making money, which includes making the movie look like film, using name talent if possible, and telling stories that resonate positively with most audiences.

You're allowed to do whatever you'd like... tell bleak "the bad guy wins" stories and shoot them on 29.97fps NTSC video with no movie stars in sight... if that is what makes YOU happy, then certainly go out and do that. We live relatively short lives and all that is really important is that you are happy that you've done the things that you wanted to with the time you have.

But if you want to make movies AND be commercially successful (a combination that can afford a comfortable life, food, shelter, the ability to send your children to college, a retirement fund, etc.) then it isn't "selling out." It is doing what is necessary to improve your own odds of having a life MAKING movies instead of bucking the system and trying to prove a point. Movies don't "have to" look like film, but time and the marketplace have proven that in order to be commercially successful, they should.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjdzyak

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spokane36

I don't get it. I really don't get it. I've heard a lot about cameras that can imitate the look of film for I don't know how long. All I want to know is WHY you need to make your movie look like film in the first place. Does everything have to look like film? Does everything have to be an oil painting? Is it a sin to challenge tradition? The whole you-have-to-make-your-movie-look-like-film deal is really leaving me annoyed, and I want answers as to why.

I hope I'm not rambling, but what do you think?

---

You don't "have to" make your movie look like anything. In the same way, no one "has to" make a movie where the good guys always get the girl and defeat the villain. There are no official rules governing art in most nations of the world.

However, time and precedent have proven that some forms of art, both in terms of media and content, SELL better than others. One can argue all day long about media (film vs video, CG animation vs traditional drawing animation) and about story ("real life" vs "Hollywood" endings), and one is free to make any story that he wants to on any media that he wishes. BUT, the marketplace determines what will be COMMERCIALLY successful. Profit is a way, certainly not the only way, but it is a way to gauge quality.

Are there some projects that are not financially successful but are "better" than other projects? Of course! But this is the lesson that too many indie filmmakers don't want to hear. A feature motion picture is a collaborative effort, not an "auteur" endeavor. An auteur may take personal satisfaction in making a movie entirely on his own and doing it "his way," but if that situation ever truly existed, the odds would likely be that the project would never make back the initial investment much less a profit.

Most movies require vast amounts of working capital to be made. The equipment is expensive, quality skilled and experienced people (Cast and Crew) cost money, and other resources need to be paid for. Marketing is also important in order to get the word out to the general public who usually have more to do than "find" those hidden jewels of brilliance by the latest self-proclaimed auteur.

Video (electronic acquisition technology) wasn't created to be a replacement for film. Film wasn't even invented to be the medium of choice for entertainment movies. It wasn't like there was a choice back in history of "should I invent film or video?" It just happened that way. And over the years, audiences have come to recognize and be comfortable with film being used to tell stories that entertain. Of course there have been experiments over the years with "Filmmakers" and other outlets (sitcoms, music videos, etc) to use video (typically 29.97fps NTSC) to capture the images that otherwise would have been capture on film. But the public reacts to the different "looks" and frame rates in different ways.

Film and tape are distinctly different ways of capturing an image for later viewing. In both cases, an image is being saved, but there???s a pretty big difference between the two. Traditional standard-definition video has a definitive sharpness and looks ???real,??? like you???d see the action as if you were actually standing there. Film has a softer, almost more ethereal look. It does not capture reality per se but a more romantic and hyper-real version of what happened in front of the lens. Generally, fictional narrative and dramatic programs are shot using film stock with film cameras while nonfiction or live events are shot using video cameras.

The advent of high-definition video has allowed filmmakers to take advantage of the immediacy of electronic image acquisition while enjoying a near film-like quality.

"Movies" cost a lot of money to make, so there is a vested interest in getting the initial investment back, and of course, there is an interest in making a profit. If there is no possibility for profit, then what motivation does an investor have to risk his money in the first place? So it is the job of the filmmaker (who wishes to do this for a living) to take every opportunity to improve the odds of A) being financed and B) making choices that are helpful in making money, which includes making the movie look like film, using name talent if possible, and telling stories that resonate positively with most audiences.

You're allowed to do whatever you'd like... tell bleak "the bad guy wins" stories and shoot them on 29.97fps NTSC video with no movie stars in sight... if that is what makes YOU happy, then certainly go out and do that. We live relatively short lives and all that is really important is that you are happy that you've done the things that you wanted to with the time you have.

But if you want to make movies AND be commercially successful (a combination that can afford a comfortable life, food, shelter, the ability to send your children to college, a retirement fund, etc.) then it isn't "selling out." It is doing what is necessary to improve your own odds of having a life MAKING movies instead of bucking the system and trying to prove a point. Movies don't "have to" look like film, but time and the marketplace have proven that in order to be commercially successful, they should.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

---

I think you're right, Brian. I know that filmmaking is a business and that I really want to be a successful filmmaker (Writer and Director to be exact), but at the same time, I don't want to do the same old, same old. Maybe that's why I'm asking this. I want my stuff to be different but sellable at the same time. I want to bring something fresh and something people could actually enjoy. I don't know if that's impossible, but if it isn't, it's definitely going to be hard, no doubt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spokane36

I think you're right, Brian. I know that filmmaking is a business and that I really want to be a successful filmmaker (Writer and Director to be exact), but at the same time, I don't want to do the same old, same old. Maybe that's why I'm asking this. I want my stuff to be different but sellable at the same time. I want to bring something fresh and something people could actually enjoy. I don't know if that's impossible, but if it isn't, it's definitely going to be hard, no doubt.

---

You're on the right track. "Fresh" IS important, though it doesn't seem like it sometimes given what gets made and released. The goal is to create something new, yet accessible. "Completely new" is difficult for anyone to get funding for, even those who are already working Screenwriters. The larger the budget, the more difficult it gets because investors are loath to risk their money on the truly untried. So you're more apt to see new stories, new Actors, and innovation on the smaller budget movies. BUT, the Catch-22 is that a smaller "indie" film isn't in that automatic distribution pipeline so it NEEDS every "proven" element it can get to help improve it's odds of commercial success (such as film, name Actors, and high production value). So in a way, a smaller budget film can have less freedom to be innovative, not more.

Aspiring Writers and Directors need to concentrate on the story and then how to best tell that story, both in terms of medium, Actors, shot choices, and everything else. You could conceivably write a story with the media in mind, meaning that if you truly wanted to make a narrative feature using 29.97fps video, then you could write a story that makes sense in the media. Perhaps a local news setting where it wouldn't seem odd to be watching that environment in the "video look."

But typically, you're going to want to concentrate first on telling a quality story with quality characters and then figure out how to bring that story to life. If you decide that you want to shoot on film, that is really only the first decision. Then you (the DP actually) figures out which specific film stock to use plus filtration and shutter speeds, lenses, types of lens (because some are "warmer" and some are "cooler"), any special processing, and any special printing.

You don't just decide that you're going to shoot film and then do it. Each decision triggers a new set of questions to be answered. And those are decisions and choices that should be driven by the story, not by a random decision to just do something different for the sake of doing something different.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

This may not answer your question, or it might give you insight. Pacasso learned how to draw and paint long before he created the crazy genious paintings he's famous for. You need to know why something works the way it is before you can be avente garde and change things.

It's fine to discard the film look but I discard it in favor of what? The standard video look is worse, you need something differnt. Some directors are playing with washed out images and skewing colors. This is a step in the right direction but I suspect the boundaries can be pushed a lot farther if you can think how, and why and make it work.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

my opinion and rule of thumb with film making is,

'be creative but do within the boundries, because once you go out the boundries, people notice.'

now im not saying that going out the boundries is bad, i somtimes enjoys seeing it. i just prefere staying within the boundries. i like being sucked into a film and being completely emersed and goin out the boundries (although keeping completely guessing/thinking) doesnt help with this.

ie: 2 films, 'we were soldiers' (my favorite film) and 'full metal jacket'.
i think that 'we were soldiers' stays within the boundries (but pushes towards the edges of these boundries with the whole bluntness of war), and i think that full metal jacket goes over the boundries (with the extreme slow mo sniper scene, and much else)

let me know if that doesnt make any sense, but remember its just my opinion, though i think (with my preferences) i do speak for a certain portion of the film audience. definately not all though, it is up to you to decide who your audience are.

christophe lafosse

I have only just seen your comment, but my opinion on the matter is that its dependent on what you want to achive?

If your looking for a distribution deal then it might be of relevance? How ever if your enjoyment of production is otherwise then I would advice you to do what ever you want! Boundrys were made to be pushed ?:D?

Cleary

www.myspace.com/b31_film_productions

"Making it look like film" is a creative choice. You do it if it seems right for the story you are trying to tell. However, the "film look" stranglehold is being chipped away. Look at the rise of films like "Religilous" or "The Blair Witch Project" or "Cloverfeild"... they were very definitely NOT tied to the "looks like film" paradigm.

I would also add that you probably won't get an idea of what fresh is or looks like in a forum. If people knew they'd be doing it. If you're looking for fresh you're probably gonna have to come up with some look yourself.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA