------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
See Bob Maar's copy pasted below.
Thanks, Bob!
July 11, 2002 Talk about it E-mail story Print
COLUMN ONE
Filming Without the Film
High-definition digital cameras, feared by some directors, could end the careers of those unable to make the transition.
Audio
Times writer P.J. Huffstutter discusses digital movie making, courtesy KPCC and "All Things Considered" of National Public Radio.
July 10, 2002 (RealAudio)
Graphics
Times Headlines
One Man's Quixotic Quest for Telecom Glory
Filming Without the Film
Disney Channel Scores With Repackaged Hits
Bush Spurs Debate Over Loans to Execs
Nasdaq, S&P Plummet to 5-Year Lows
more >
By P.J. HUFFSTUTTER and JON HEALEY, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
NICASIO, Calif. -- Oliver Stone stared in disbelief. Here he was, sitting in a velvet seat in George Lucas' private screening room, listening to the "Star Wars" director foretell the death of film.
To Stone, director of such films as "Platoon" and "JFK," Lucas' vision of digital movie making sounded like blasphemy. Around him, other A-list directors--including Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and Robert Zemeckis--fidgeted as Lucas challenged a century of tradition, warning his colleagues to embrace the future or be left behind.
Lucas' blunt message stands at the center of a schism in Hollywood over the fate of film in the film business. New high-definition video cameras and digital editing equipment challenge the longtime supremacy of film. They are cheaper and more flexible. But they also frighten directors and cinematographers who understand every nuance of film. A creative misstep can tarnish a career, so many of those established in the film industry blanch at the thought of showing their inexperience with the latest technology. A colossal mistake, seen by millions of fans, might reveal that they are passe storytellers--easily replaced with younger, cheaper and more tech-savvy rivals.
"Film is what we do. It's what we use," Stone sniped at Lucas. "You'll be known as the man who killed cinema."
Lucas merely rolled his eyes as Stone waxed about the poetry of celluloid and the coldness of pixels.
Finally, according to those who were there, Lucas interrupted.
"Just watch."
Raising a hand, Lucas cued his demonstration and told his audience what they would see: identical clips--each stored on different formats--from the animated movie "Monsters, Inc."
One was completely electronic--compiled by a computer, stored on digital tape and shown through a digital projector. In footage looking less like a motion picture and more like an open window onto a real world, the monsters gabbed in crisp clarity and rich tones.
Next came a traditional film reel that spent four weeks in a mall theater. With each showing, heat from the projector and dust in the air faded and degraded the reel. The difference was jarring. Radically out of focus, the film reel cast an image on the screen that jiggled and popped, as if an earthquake were rocking the projector.
Lights came up as the demonstration ended. No one spoke for several seconds.
Debate within the industry is not nearly so quiet.
For directors such as Lucas, the choice is obvious. Breaking new ground for major motion pictures, his "Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones" was shot entirely with high-definition digital cameras, edited with digital equipment and, for a few dozen theaters, distributed and projected digitally.
Testing the Technology
Spotting the change, a growing number of filmmakers have been testing the digital waters. From students and independent filmmakers capturing their low-budget works on digital video to established directors such as Michael Mann testing high-definition cameras in "Ali," they are curious about the new tools and fearful of being left behind.
But after nearly a century of using film, much of Hollywood's old guard is reluctant to shift gears, a reticence that speaks to a powerful culture of fear among some of the industry's most elite directors.
"Film is rather like the magic lantern. There's a sense of mystery, because you don't know what's going into the magic black-box camera until you send the film to the lab," said cinematographer Roger Deakins, director of photography for Ron Howard's film "A Beautiful Mind."
"With digital, it's all very businesslike," Deakins said. "We're not businessmen. We're artists and magicians."
Despite significant advances in the art and science of film since the first roll of flexible celluloid was produced in 1889, the basic process remains the same: Chemicals layered on the surface of the film react when they are exposed to light, changing into hues that match the light's wavelength.
Digital cameras, which began to appear in the mid-1990s, use powerful computer chips that convert light into electronic pulses, which they then translate into data and store on videotape.
With the first cameras, the images were unusually crisp and realistic but no match for the smooth lines and range of colors delivered by 35-millimeter film. Those differences stemmed partly from the cameras' chips, which couldn't capture as much information as film, and partly from the technology used to shrink and store the data.
Sony Corp., Panasonic and other manufacturers developed high-definition digital cameras in the late 1990s that could deliver far more detail and a wider range of color. This summer, Thomson Grass Valley is bringing out a new line of cameras that can capture almost five times as much detail and twice the range of color as previous high-definition models, said Jeff Rosica, vice president of marketing.
Frugality also is pushing studios and filmmakers to consider digital tools. Advocates insist that the technology cuts costs, partly by eliminating key parts of the movie-making process. For example, there's the time-honored--and time-consuming--ritual of handling "dailies."
When a day of shooting wraps, the crew sends the footage to a processing lab. After the film negatives have been developed, the reel is returned to the set. The director and often the crew gather inside a screening room. Then they cross their fingers.
Shoot-and-Pray Method
What they want to see up on the screen--and what the camera actually captured--aren't always the same. Perhaps the spotlights burned too brightly and washed out the image. Maybe the director didn't spot the catering truck parked in the background. If someone loaded the film into the camera incorrectly, the reel might be blank.
"With film, you get 60% of what you want," said director Robert Rodriguez. "In film, cinematography is the art of guessing."
Each mistake, each reshoot, eats up time and money. The shoot-and-pray cycle is nearly erased with digital cameras, because the images can be viewed instantly.
By replacing film in the cameras with videotape and speeding the flow of work, Lucas saved at least $3 million in production costs on "Attack of the Clones," producer Rick McCallum said. That's a small fraction of the movie's $100-million budget, but "when you're financing it yourself, and you're financing the marketing, anything you can do to be more cost-efficient helps," he said.
The need to cut production costs led News Corp.-owned 20th Century Fox Television and the executive team behind the series "The Education of Max Bickford" to take the digital plunge. The tactic worked, said producer Rod Halcomb, who estimated that the crew saved as much as $25,000 per episode in post-production and filming costs.
Regardless of the savings and technical innovation, no tool could save "Max Bickford": CBS dropped the series after its first year.
"Digital technology is the director's friend, just in principle. Because of it, directors can come closer to realizing what's in their minds," said director Ron Howard. "I'm open to it. I'm just not open to using it until all the bugs are worked out."
A Digital Weak Spot
Managing the problems of a digital set remains a daunting task, since such "bugs" can eat up much of the savings that the digital process promises.
Amid the ashy dust of the Mojave Desert, just up a worn road from the boarded-up Oasis Motel, "Confidential Report 001" director Chris Coppola sits and waits impatiently for the crew to set up the cameras.
"This was supposed to be a $600,000 independent film," said Coppola, nephew of Francis Ford Coppola. "Now, we're way, way over budget."
The culprit, the younger Coppola said, is the high-definition gear. Two of the Sony cameras died in the last month as dust and heat made the computer electronics useless. The cameras' computer chips, which are sensitive to distance, can require more time to set up a shot than traditional gear. Then there was the mysterious blue pixel.
"We played back the footage and there it is, in random spots: a single blue pixel," said director of photography Andrew Giannetta. "No one knows why. Even Sony told us, 'We don't know what's wrong. If you figure it out, and figure out how to fix it, tell us.' "
One of the most difficult artistic hurdles is manipulating the look of the footage. Film blurs colors together around their edges, but digital cameras achieve a clarity that strikes some as harsh.
Unexpected Clarity
For filmmakers such as Rodriguez, this sense of clarity fits into his stylized action films. While recently shooting actor Johnny Depp in "Once Upon a Time in Mexico," the director relied solely on digital cameras.
The tools picked up every detail, and uncovered the unexpected.
"I always thought Johnny Depp's eyes were black," Rodriguez said. "On the playback monitor, I realized they are really a light caramel color. If the eyes are the window of the soul, what ... are we doing shooting film and blurring that window?"
Reality, however, doesn't fit into the vision of every filmmaker. For some, manipulating what the eye sees is the goal.
While working on the "Max Bickford" series, director of photography Michael Mayers tried pairing various digital cameras with the lenses and filters he often used when shooting with traditional film.
Again and again, the equipment from these two worlds failed to work together and fell short of giving him the look he wanted. The images appeared far too sharp for the softer, cinematic feel of the script, Mayers said.
Ultimately, he found his solution at the grocery store: Saran Wrap. The plastic sheets, when attached to a camera lens, gave the footage a subtle diffusion he wanted.
"Not everyone is comfortable taking on this type of challenge," said Eric Brevig, an Academy Award-winning visual-effects supervisor at Lucas' special effects shop, Industrial Light & Magic. "A lot of people are testing out high-definition cameras in secret. They're terrified of making mistakes."
They have reason to be, as the technological evolution in movies has left behind a landscape littered with casualties. When sound was added to film, thousands of musicians lost their jobs because theaters no longer employed live orchestras to accompany silent movies. A generation of actors failed to make the transition, and directors weren't spared.
Onetime Hollywood giants such as Rex Ingram, who directed "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," and Fred Niblo, who directed "Ben-Hur" and Douglas Fairbanks Sr. in "The Mark of Zorro," quickly disappeared as the new tools became part of daily life.
Digital cameras herald a similar and potentially traumatic shift. Directors and cinematographers face a terrifying question: What happens if you lack the skills to continue telling stories in a world in which the narrative tools have fundamentally changed?
"You become afraid," said cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. "I'd spent 20 years learning how to use a film camera. Now, I had to pick up something new, and there were all these other people who were far better at using this new technology than I was."
While working as director of photography on "Ali," Lubezki spent time scouting locations and photographing them in the middle of the night using a digital video camera.
The result "was so different and interesting," he said, that director Michael Mann asked him to re- create the surreal feel of the footage with a film camera. After weeks of experimentation, the cinematographer realized he couldn't do it. The only alternative was to use a high-definition digital camera--something he had never used.
"I took classes. I made mistakes," Lubezki said. "I was afraid. I didn't know if I could make it work. But I did, and it was worth it. This is different from film. Not better or worse but different. You can't let fear of the unknown prevent you from taking that chance."
Oliver Stone agrees. Several days after seeing the digital camera demonstration at Lucas' ranch, Stone called an executive at ILM.
The firm had been responsible for figuring out how to make the connection between the digital camera and the post-production effects work on the latest "Star Wars" movie and has close ties to several camera manufacturers.
"Listen, I know you're going to shoot me for this," Stone said to the executive. "But I'm starting work on a new project. Do you know where I can get ahold of some high-def cameras?"
Like a lot of other aritcles on the subject, this author chooses to compare the introduction of digital filmmaking to the introduction of sound, which is utterly ridiculous. It's much more comparable to the introduction of single-strip color (as opposed to three-strip color). A stated goal for many digital cinema companies is to create something that's "indistinguishable from film". If it's truly indistinguishable, why would the audience care? To them, it's just another movie -- they don't care what kind of camera was used. This is nothing like the introduction of sound. Nobody's going to get "left behind" because they stick with film. I thought this kind of wild eyed techno-hype died with the dot-com era.
On the other hand, it is refreshing for once to see one of these article talking about the fact that electroncis have problems, too. The reaction from Sony ("We don't know what's wrong. If you figure it out, and figure out how to fix it, tell us.") to the problems Coppola was having sounds pretty typical for dealing with a large electronics engineering firm. Digital filmmakers better get used to that sort of thing.
And I've still yet to see an article about film vs. digital that didn't incorrectly refer to film as "celluloid".
How do we know if that print of monsters was four weeks old. It could have been 8 weeks or even 12 weeks old. Maybe he needs to use a print that has been treated with filmguard for twelve weeks. Nah, that would just make him want to go back to using film instead of video.
A true artist paints with a paint brush not a mouse pointer.
The most frustrating thing is that these high-end directors are being led to think that ALL film exhibition is crappy, and we are powerless to prove otherwise because these guys probably hardly ever set foot in a real theatre.
As for who are all these directors that were there. The article pointed to a few well known ones, and also included Robert Rodriguez, who I am quite sure has spent time in a real theater at some point in his life, most come from nowhere indie directors did.
The comment on that the advent of digital cinematography bieng compared to the advent of sound not being applicable or even close is missing the point. The point was to compare a time where a new technology changed the way films were made and presented, which either left a slew of filmmakers in the dust or forced them to come along for the ride. Many filmmakers could not make the adjustment, and were long forgotten. Such would be the case here, with the change to digital filmmaking and presentation, several people could be lost in the fray, so you either play along, or try to keep things the way they are. Most are fearful of getting forgotten, so they will at least learn and experiment with the new technologies.
I will agree that showing a digital version of Monsters inc, a digitally produced digital feature, vs. a film version is pretty moronic, and anyone there who bought into it is not to bright, mr. stone.
I admire those who take the forefront of technology, but still remember that you should not lose what you have for the sake of change itself.
Shame on Mr. Lucas. He may think he is a god, but the numbers on SW2 prove he is not.
Dave
And when digital projection does take hold, who is going to pay for the damn thing?
With most of the crap that is being released now, many momma and poppa theatres have all they can do to pay their bills!
Maybe that is what Lucas wants....the fall of the independents.
....and with the numbers on SW1 and SW2 were not that great as compared to others, who is he to talk?
I think the directors listening to Lucas were morons. He shows an example of DLP that was digitally generated in the first place. Then he shows the worst film copy of that same scene he can. He probably rejected a dozen better looking reels before he came up with that one. Guaranteed. He may have also had his projectionist intentionally damage it a bit further. And these directors seemed to buy what he was saying because of this fabulous demo. I wish I was there.
If he were to truly compare the two, he would have used a new 35MM reel along with the digital copy.
I also noticed the lack of distinction between shooting movies in digital and presenting them in digital. The writers of this article are ambiguous on that point.
quote:All technological change is not the same. Some technologies allow you to do things you couldn't do before. Other technologies allow you to do the same things as before, just in a different way. The introduction of sound was the former; digital cinema is the latter. I feel this distinction makes the author's comparison a bit of a stretch.
The comment on that the advent of digital cinematography bieng compared to the advent of sound not being applicable or even close is missing the point. The point was to compare a time where a new technology changed the way films were made and presented, which either left a slew of filmmakers in the dust or forced them to come along for the ride.
My point about not calling film "celluoid" is that people who do so (like the author of this article) often seem to be doing it in an attempt to make themselves appear knowledgable and authoritative. Such pretentiousness only works if what one is saying is correct, and in this case, it isn't.
Sorry if I'm coming across as angry or defensive, but I do feel rather strongly about that first point. The second one ... well, I suppose you're right, in the end it doesn't matter. But I still find it annoying.
Side note: I'm a little surprised that the article claims digital cameras capture a greater "color range" than film. In every color gamut chart I've seen, the HTDV color space, while slightly bigger than NTSC, is dwarfed by that of film.
Lucas is slanting the comparisons just like TI did when they tried to get me to run a reel of film (that was BEATEN TO SHIT) split screen with their DLP "print" of the same material. Had they given me a new print or one that had been properly taken care of, I would have been pleased to embarass them with it.
George being a guy one would think would know at least SOMETHING about presentation should know that that demonstration does not reflect the majority of theatres out there.
I'm not a big Oliver Stone fan, but I'd have to agree with his statement that Lucas will be known as "the man that killed cinema"
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
I wish I still had my print of Jerry Maguire that I ran for over six months with no scratches. I just had a little bit of dirt around the reel changes that I know filmguard would probably take care of. The film still had good color and no fading.
Anyway...the test, as reported (and we know how the press doesn't always get things right) has it's ups and downs. A true test would have both film origination and video origination and each presented on both video and film. That is, "if I shoot with this, what will it look with that." comparison.
As to a reel from a "mall theatre" there IS validity in showing what happens to the "typical" film print. If a computer were to psudo-randomly pick a print of a 6 reel film such that each reel was chosen from a different theatre and assembled as a complete print...just what do you think it would look like? Since it is random, you might get a reel from one of Brad's theatres and it would be perfect but for that statisicial possibility one would have to believe that nearly 17% of the theatres out there are good. I'm not that optimistic but I grant that it IS possible. But the other five reels will be a mix of scratched and otherwise wasted prints.
Next, I would want a listing of all DLP shows that faild vs all scheduled shows and compare that failure rate versus all film presentations that didn't run vs scheduled shows (all of the above presumming they were not cancelled ue to lack of attendance or power outages...just failures associated with the medium).
After all, how well is the director's "vision" coming across if the system locks up or dies? Here, I think film will be a clear winner.
What bugs me about George Lucas is doing is that he seems to be more interested in pushing a new technology rather than pushing the BEST technology. For conventional "Hollywood" films and storytelling in general is 65mm origination with 70mm projection period. Bar none! Let that be DCinema's target. Not until DCinema can top 65/70 will it EVER be state of the art.
Lucasfilm used to represent the best this industry had to offer. Now it seems like it represents new technology even though it is inferior to what is available. There will always be new out there, if it is cheaper, it doesn't need to be pushed. Pushing the limits on quality is another issue. Too much of the world is "good enough."
I wonder how that meeting would have gone if Mr. Lucas had instead pushed the 65mm/70mm medium as what everyone had to shoot in. Then showed them how it can look as compared to ALL other mediums. Then go back and show a 1954 film _Oklahoma!" and ask...why cant our images look as good as they did nearly 50 years ago? Technology should allow us to advance not regress, as DCinema currently offers.
DCinema is going to come with or without Mr. Lucas' help though he may be able to help shape it. I have no problem with him trying to improve it and making it the best medium. I do have a problem with it being used in the main-stream at this point in time. It just isn't ready.
Mr. Lucas, make experimental movies to develop DCinema until it is ready. Use the best medium you have until it truely is toppled. The look of EP:2 was "junk" in either film or DCinema if you are judging on a mainstream scale. It shouldn't be passed off as anything other than what it was...an experiment into DCinema. To pass it off as a final product is wrong.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
quote:
But isn't it true that, for the most part, prints are not taken care of?
Speaking as a guy who runs used prints about 80% of the time, I would have to say that for the most part, the prints we get are in very good to excellent shape. I remember in my earlier projecting days, it was common to find multiple scratches and mega-dirt around the reel ends....this isn't the case any more. I would guess that at least 80% of the prints we get are virtually new-looking. We usually run about 3 to 5 weeks off the break. When we do receive damaged film, a call to TES has almost always solved the problem.
The biggest problem these days from my view is the way the prints are packaged and shipped. The bands come off, the tape doesn't stick, the reels fall apart in the under-filled shipping cans...this leads to more damage than projectionist mishandling, I think. The biggest projectionist problem I run into with used prints is bad splicing and poor handling of the heads and tails (fingerprints, etc), and not sticking the end of the film down firmly when shipping (although this last one is probably caused more by TES "inspectors" than projectionists).
We use Film-Guard here, so our prints always leave better than they came!
"""The comment on that the advent of digital cinematography bieng compared to the advent of sound not being applicable or even close is missing the point. The point was to compare a time where a new technology changed the way films were made and presented, which either left a slew of filmmakers in the dust or forced them to come along for the ride."""
Then this comment was made in response...
"""All technological change is not the same. Some technologies allow you to do things you couldn't do before. Other technologies allow you to do the same things as before, just in a different way. The introduction of sound was the former; digital cinema is the latter. I feel this distinction makes the author's comparison a bit of a stretch."""
The point is missed again here.
What I had referred to was not the change in technology, but the advent of it. This is a major change in how films are made and presented. Yes I know that sound and picture are not the same. But recall our history that when sound was added, there was a huge change. When color was added, there was a huge change. Imagine if someone was still making huge science fiction blockbuster films with spaceships still hanging from fishing line? Sure it can still be done, but it would be financial suicide.
My point is that digital filmography and presentation are just a huge a change as the advent of sound, color, cgi special effects, blue screen special effects, green and red screens, DTS, Dolby Digital, SDDS, stereo, surround sound, stadium seating, concave screens, scope presentation, super 35, etc.
Some of these things are just nice additions, some are required if you want to really play along. It is possible that Digital Films will win out, and everyone will have to play along. If you think this cannot happen, just ask the creators of Betamax if this cannot happen. VHS, a far inferior video format, won, all because of marketing pushes and info campains that just wasted Beta. The same could happen to Film IF, IF we just sit here and talk about it. George Lucas has power, and that power can be used to totally destroy how film SHOULD be done.
We have to do more than just bitch about it.
Suggestions???
Dave
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/
That being said, I still feel that digital will generally look better than film a few weeks into the run.
I wonder what the maintenance costs are going to be on these machines? I'll bet those costs will be sky high. We are not dealing with mickey mouse parts like a pad roller or gate bands. We are dealing with very costly CCD chips, and those WILL fail, as some DLP booths have already found out. That nice little blue spot on the screen is not cool.
OK, let's blow up a computer, too. That'll create some headaches as well. Real time to load a program? HAH! What a joke. When it finally loaded, did it load correctly? I guess they will find that out on ticket refunds. 
I would LMAO if the computer fried itself about 5 minutes before the end of the loading. 
But the computer manufacturers and sodftware people will say, "That will never happen with OUR equipment!" (Yeah, right....) What a load of 
Q. Delving a little further into the digital subject: I just watched “Episode II,” which was shot on digital video – and speaking as a lay viewer, I couldn’t distinguish it from a movie shot on film. If you like the way it looks, will you convert to digital tape?
A. I’m less worried about shooting movies digitally than I am about projecting movies digitally. I think that George Lucas’ concept for, you know, 25,000 theatres with digital projectors is nothing short of a total disaster.
Q. Really.
A. Yeah. It offers good things for the studios and the filmmakers, and unbelievably bad things for audiences.
Q. How so?
A. Well, the reason it’s good for studios is, obviously, they save tens of millions of dollars a year on having to make 35-millimeter prints. And if you don’t have to make all those prints, you gain more post-production time – you just have to make a final mix and a master tape, and then that gets satellite-beamed or whatever.
For instance, on “Men in Black II,” I’ve lost a month of joyful post-production simply because we’re making 8,500 prints worldwide – and they need a month to do that.
Also, a digital release is perfect for George Lucas and the kinds of films he makes – because he can make a version with four more scenes, and four weeks into the run, when the movie’s making only $65 million a week, George can take out full-page ads saying, “Now with four additional scenes,” without having to make 4,000 new prints. He can literally satellite it to all the theatres.
So for those reasons, I think it’s great. Where it is a total disaster – and I don’t understand why George Lucas doesn’t realize that – is in any modern art form, it is always the delivery system that is the weakest link. In terms of television, it’s how bad the picture is, it’s how bad the sound is … now what you’re going to do is take a mechanical medium – a light bulb with film running through it – and you’re going to have a digital projector with 57,000 moving mirrors? Believe me: Three days into any setup, everyone will be seeing a green, blue and red band around everyone’s faces when the projectors get out of alignment. You’re going to have no one who cares enough to even fix them.
So the concept of digital projection is incredibly frightening to me. You can’t imagine how often – based on heat, humidity, temperature – these things go out of sync. And I think it will be a disaster for the moviegoing public, but it will be a helpful thing for studios and directors. It will give them more control.
I know this is off-topic, but I know your readers are interested in this stuff. I think people – especially George – are being naïve about the reality of what the moviegoing public sees in most theatres.
Also, I don't think that Lucas' primary concern on this issue is money. He has always helped to advance film as an art form. Granted, he's made a shit load of money in the process. But that never seems to be his sole reason for doing things. Unless you count Jar Jar.
Oh by the way we had a power outage for a second today. All screens were back up and running in just a couple of minutes. I wonder how long it takes a DLP machine to reboot it's self and how you will know where the last scene took place in the movie.
Wow! Care to elaborate on that "belief" Mike?
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
I personally think that he has exercised a lot more restraint than most people in the industry when it comes to exploiting potentially cool things in order to simply make a profit. He didn't have to wait 16 years to make another STAR WARS movie, and he didn't have to do all of the work himself. He could have easily hired a group of hacks to make dozens of STAR WARS movies while he just sat on the Ranch and collected paychecks. He could have also released his movies on DVD without any extras in order to make a quick buck, and then get everyone to buy them again in 4 years with all that extra crap which he's planning. But he didn't do these things, because he cares about quality.
As for his digital fixation, I truly believe that he thinks it's what's best for the industry. He has stated why. His reasoning makes sense. I think he's wrong, but that's just a matter of opinion.
Lucas has done a lot of stupid things in his career. Some of them are unforgivable, like, on a moral level. But his intentions are usually good, and not primarily motivated by money.
quote:
He could have easily hired a group of hacks to make dozens of STAR WARS movies while he just sat on the Ranch and collected paychecks.
OK, so he didn't make dozens of movies. The paychecks came from the Star Wars video re-re-releases, games, bedsheets, potato chips, soda cans, toys, posters, records, books-on-tape, theatrical re-issues, etc etc etc not one of which did a damn thing to further the art form.
Not motivated by money, my foot. He's just a greedy gadget freak.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Dave
As for the theater terms, I'm not too well-versed in them for this movie, but from what I remember from the last movie, they were unreasonable. But at the same time, a lot of them helped to ensure a better presentation of the film. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Yeah, you're right. He'll try to suck up all of the money that he can. But not at the expense of the art.
If they want to run a truly fair comparison they need to take one of those Sony HD cameras and also get a good Panavision or Arri 35mm film camera and shoot some footage of the same exact thing. The film footage should be transferred to a brand new print and played on a film projection setup adjusted to the best possible standards.
That's the ONLY WAY to do a proper video versus film demonstration. Until they do that, putting it bluntly, they are full of shit.
The digital projection people need to shoot for a target matching 35mm film at its very best possible standards. That means a digital projector capable of showing at least 12 million pixels to 24 million pixels for a scope image. And if they want to get into the 5/70mm range, they need to be above 30 million pixels.
Further, videography simply has a much different look to it than film. While HD videography can look very good, it still doesn't look like film. Color gamut is way different and basic things like how depth of field is handled is also much different.
If film companies and filmmakers really care about the highest standards of image quality, they'll at least keep shooting on 35mm film but really ought to consider 8-perf 35mm VistaVision for flat ratio films and 5-perf 65mm/70mm for widescreen. Anything shot on those ultra-high-res film formats is totally "future-proof" against any kind of video format that could be developed for at least the next 50 to 100 years.
As for the Ewoks, while they are very marketable to kids, I can see why they were put into the movie from an artistic standpoint. That doesn't mean I like them, just that it makes sense for them to be there.
The more the big wigs push it, the more the electronic companies will provide it.
Either way, film presentation is the only way to go. It's cheap, efficient, and fun. Video is stale, sterile, and costly.
Dave
On a related note; Thus far, the Episode titles (A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, etc.) seem to reflect the view of the "good guys" (rebels). Now, the "Attack of the Clones," taking into context of the story, appears to reflect the viewpoint of the bad guys, otherwise it would have been called "Attack of the Robot Army." Could this be Lucas' subtle attempt to let the rest of us know that he has finally turned to the Dark Side? I apologize if this subject has been broached beforehand.
Anyway, Sony and others are going to continue building much higher resolution CCDs for video cameras --mainly since there is a ton of money to be made by introducing the products in consumer still image cameras and consumer level camcorders. The movie industry and its needs are mere window dressing to the much greater consumer market.
Digital video image capture and non-linear editing/visual effects is going to grow into the next "killer app" for home computer gear. That's really the thing the computer industry needs to pursue to drag their asses out of the doldrums. The Internet and its low-bandwidth nature requires no one to upgrade their hardware at all. The computer industry was really pretty dumb to promote product via that.
Within 10 to 15 years, people will be making home digital videos featuring jaw-dropping sophistication. With proper lighting and composition one will be able to match anything any broadcaster can do today, even in HiDef.
That's the convincing reason for the film industry to keep shooting on film, with the only real change being perhaps moving to larger film gauges and much sharper imagery. VistaVision and 70mm provide that. John Q. Public will be able to make 1080i HD videos with real time CGI. But in 2010 or 2015 he still won't be able to afford to rent a Panavision camera, lens system and a whole damned film crew to get his shots.
Lucas needs to take a look at the fact that even with the home video market embracing DVD, the majority of HDTVs have progressive scan pulldown (Or DVD-ROM with it's superior refresh rates). With this technology that makes digital images more "film-like" why is there still an attachment to film? Because movies have a heritage on celluloid.
Lucas and his brainwashed, mind-control legion of directors should focus on making this heritage look as good as it can with film preservation awareness. That and making decent sequels without campy, lifeless dialouge and overrated product placements too. 
To the Editor of the Los Angeles Times,
I’m writing in response to the July 11th article titled “Filming Without the Film: Embraced by some directors and feared by others, high-definition digital cameras are changing the art form”. As the regional Vice President for Eastman Kodak’s Entertainment Imaging division in Hollywood, what surprised me most about the article was its obvious bias.
You stated that the only reason directors or cinematographers don’t shoot with high definition cameras is because they are afraid. Maybe they know something you don’t—that it isn’t about what medium you use but rather how you use the medium. Our industry’s talented cinematographers and directors know exactly the looks they want to generate and know how to get them using all the tools at their disposal. In some cases they may choose to use video (whether 24p or a lesser format) because it has its own unique characteristics. But they don’t confuse video with film—they have completely different looks, which generate unique emotional responses.
Also, to suggest that these talented filmmakers “are passé storytellers—easily replaced with cheaper and more tech-savvy rivals” is quite an insult to artists everywhere working in every field--whether painters, sculptors, musicians or writers. What it comes down to is expressing your vision and effectively communicating it to others.
As a representative from Kodak I wonder why no one took the time to ask us about the significant advances being made in film technology. Kodak has a long heritage working with cinematographers to find ways of developing new tools and pushing technological boundaries. We have developed a wide spectrum of film, digital and hybrid products and services, capitalizing on the best possibilities of these technologies. True artists know how to maximize the attributes of all three types of media to achieve their visions.
Also, to suggest that, in film, cinematography is the art of guessing, is to say that the many masterpieces created by such great cinematographers as Storaro, Zsigmond, Richardson, Hall, Almendros, Poster, Deakins, Wexler, Roizman, Dibie, Willis, Daviau, Kovacs, Toll, Seale… were all due to luck. I would like to hear some of their responses to that claim. These artists take challenges everyday to create their art--they are often the silent heroes behind the films. To suggest that the reason they choose film over 24 p is because they are afraid to take a risk is to fall victim to the hardware manufacturers marketing hype. Let’s all get above that self-serving argument and give cinematographers and directors the credit they have earned as visual story-tellers who aren’t afraid of exploring all possibilities.
Cordially,
Michael J. Morelli
VP & General Manager, Hollywood Region
Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
______________________________________________________________________
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Yeah. If everyone weren't so afraid, EVERYONE would be shooting in HD right now. Everyone. Yeah.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Was it the Star Wars series? The money? If the Phantom Menace was an example of the new way of doing things, then I'll stick to the old ways.
Bruce
Just think of it. If you own any current HDTV system sold in the marketplace, you'll only have a grandiose 480p NTSC set when the "5C" copy protection measures are enacted. HBO knows exactly how idiotic this scheme is. They already market tested turning on and off the "broadcast flag" and found they would lose far more in business to lost subscriptions than preventing any kind of piracy. So they keep the flag turned off.
There is a lot more to this controversy than can be mentioned here. But basically Hollywood and its legion of bean counters must be so high on drugs they cannot see the proverbial forest for the trees. In broadcasting, I thought the whole idea was getting as many people as possible to watch your show. So who gives a shit if someone takes a tape of last night's show to their friend's house so they can see it too? I'm lost on that. But apparently Hollywood thinks that is piracy instead of improved ratings and word of mouth. What dumb asses!
So, to get back on topic, there's this whole stupid push for producing feature films in 1080p HD instead of film. Why????? The format is VERY FAR from being stable.
And of course this baloney goes right on top of all the other technical stuff that far favors film imagery over videotape.
quote:
Just one question. Who died and put George Lucas in charge?
Indeed. There's a lot of talk about this digital "filming" technology and digital projection but, no matter how hard George Lucas has pushed, he is still far out-numbered both on the production and exhbition side by film. And we've all talked until we're blue about how this whole trend will cost lots of money and take lots of time to play out. So why is everyone here acting so frightened? Why would the people at this forum care so much about a hype article in a non-industry publication?
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Dave
quote:
why is everyone here acting so frightened?
I wouldn't say everyone is frightened. More like "pissed" that all the misinformation is being thrown about like truth, and by one of the world's most powerful directors no less.
quote:
Why would the people at this forum care so much about a hype article in a non-industry publication?
Because hype can become public gospel really quickly. Hollywood hype is what sells movies afterall. And there's still a fairly good sampling of John Q. Public doesn't know how a movie is actually transferred on screen. Some people are baffled that the industry still uses film. 
There are still enough people out there, beyond this forum, who want to keep film alive for some time to come. Not just film handlers with a job on the line. (myself included)
...or perhaps the production side of movie making is not involved with your industry in any way.
Prior to Ep.III being released, there will be zero push for theatres to install them. Even when Ep.III is imminent - by which time this issue will no doubt flare up again - there will be theatre owners who will remember how Ep.II lasted 5 weeks and wont worry about 'upgrading' at all.
My money is on that Ep.III will be released in the vast majority of theatres on film. Maybe there will be over 100 d-projectors by then, maybe not. Maybe there will be a better model available that TI/JVC or whoever will want to test in the field, thereby increasing numbers. Those theatres stuck with the old models will be just that: stuck with them.
Here's my speculation for the future of cinema: d-cinema won't happen en masse. It is the paperless office all over again. Remember how absolutely convinced everyone was that that was going to happen? Have we forgotten exactly how convinced? Yet, it didn't happen. In my opinion, neither will this. There are very sound business reasons - as we all know - why this is so.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. If so, I will gladly stay away from theatres and watch an affordable HD-DLP projector at home, and why shouldn't I?
Regarding acquisition, Bobby is right: why film in HD video instead of film?
July 16, 2002
To the Editor of The Los Angeles Times:
I was disappointed when I read the front-page article headlined “Filming Without the Film” in the July 11 issue of The Los Angeles Times. The story proclaimed that the careers of directors who can’t make the “transition” to digital cameras are “threatened.” It used the word “fear” to explain why they aren’t using digital cameras and predicted they will be “left behind.”
I can’t imagine the directors and cinematographers I have been privileged to meet “blanching” because a misstep with new technology could tarnish their careers, or that they “cross their fingers and pray” that there are no mistakes while waiting for dailies. I am not going to respond to all of the marketing rhetoric your story misrepresents as fact. The filmmakers you have offended are articulate artists who are capable of speaking for themselves. I am sure you will hear from many of them.
However, I am surprised and disappointed that your reporters didn’t call me or anyone on my staff before they reached their conclusions about the future of imaging technology. Kodak has been the world-class leader in providing imaging technologies for the motion picture industry since 1889 when Thomas Edison wrote a letter to George Eastman telling him about the prototype camera and projector his lab was developing.
From that day forward, we have consistently directed our research and development efforts to provide the film, and more recently, digital and hybrid (combining film and digital technologies) motion imaging tools our customers tell us they need to advance their art form. The truth is no one knows exactly what the future will bring, but I can assure you that today’s film and digital imaging technologies are fundamentally different in the same way that acrylic and water paints are different. Film has a unique capacity for recording nuances in colors, textures and tonal ranges that are an important part of the language of visual storytellers.
It is our experience that directors and cinematographers make informed decisions regarding choice of media based on how it serves the emotional tones of their stories. It is also our experience that they are fearless in their willingness to embrace and test the possibilities of any new imaging technologies.
I don’t think it is possible to undo the false impressions you have created, but I hope you will try. You will have the complete cooperation of our scientists and research staff. More importantly, I urge you to contact Steven Poster, ASC, president of the American Society of Cinematographers, and George Spiro Dibie, ASC, national president of the International Cinematographers Guild. You owe that much to the artists you have offended and also to your readers who deserve the truth.
Cordially,
Eric Rodli
President
Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
CC: Steven Poster, ASC and George Spiro Dibie, ASC, letters@latimes.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Steven Poster, President of the ASC, has also written a letter of protest to the bias of the LA Times article, posted on the Cinematography Mailing List (CML).
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Dave
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
All of the things you mention (sound, color, spaceships on strings) are so vastly different from what we are talking about here, it makes any comparison meaningless. To paraphrase Jules in Pulp Fiction, "It ain't the same ballbark, it's not even the same sport!"
Even after every aspect of post-production and exhibition goes 100% digital, a filmmaker could still choose to shoot on film and scan it in. And as we have seen (and even the LA Times article admits), the cost of film is miniscue compared to the overall cost of production, so it will not be cost prehibitive to do so.
A filmmaker who continues to shoot on film has no need to fear being left behind.
You often do come off as a guy with a "holier than thou" attitude and judging by the majority of your posts on any given thread you like to either argue or start arguments, and seem to have a slight resentment for the Film-Tech posting community and their opinions. Just because you work on "Touched/Molested by an Angel" doesn't necessarily make your opinions carry more weight than other members here. And since I get the impression that you think it does, that is what bothers me. You seem to think that I was trying to knock your reputation but I was trying to point out why you often seem to have different views, since you are not involved in exhibition. But take it as you will. So instead of saying something like "I don't know why everyone on this thread seems to have this opinion since I have a different one" you might try saying something like "Here is my opinion and here's why I have it". Thanks.
I didn't know you were working on "The Hulk"... I didn't even know they were making a "Hulk" movie until I read your post. But then again I don't follow the scene of making movies about superheroes so it is likely that I just overlooked that one. I'm sure it will be a big moneymaker.
Yes I am quite well aware that it is not the same ballpark, but you are talking about apples and oranges, but guess what...
THEY ARE BOTH FRUIT!!!!!
The point I am talking about is not the type of technology, but the advent of change.
Guess what? Horse drawn carraiges and automobiles are not the same thing either. They are apples and oranges. But how many interstate horse drawn carraiges do you see in operation?
You are focusing on the type of technology instead of the size of the change and the impact it could have on the industry. You may not agree with me that this is what point I am actually making, and instead try to convince me of what I already know, that the advent of sound and the advent of digital are not the same technological change, but they are of equal importance in the kind of impact it could have on the industry.
If you fail to see that point, that's ok too. Just remember that I do know and are quite aware of what you are trying to say, so you don't need to educate me. You just don't feel that it's a very big deal and thats fine.
History is replete with instances of change where people who held on the old technology got left behind. That isn't to say that the best technology is going to win either. History is crammed with tons of crap that replaced really much better solutions.
Dave
If that was the case please explain how Zenith and Sanyo (neither of which are subsidiaries of Sony) produced Sony-licensed Beta-format machines?
-Aaron
quote:
please explain how Zenith and Sanyo (neither of which are subsidiaries of Sony) produced Sony-licensed Beta-format machines?
Zenith did not build Betamax VCRs. The ones they sold were manufactured for them by Sony. (The store I work at used to sell them, so I'm a veteran!) I don't know about Sanyo, but I'd bet the situation was similar.
Your analogy about horse drawn carrages versus Interstate highways carrying cars, or the advent of sound on movies or color films as it relates to the advent of "digital filmmaking" is a bit off. Those changes you mention were actual improvements. Videotape is no improvement over film. The basic fundamental result --the image itself-- is of lower quality. Very simple. I don't care if it is digital either. It is still lower quality.
To provide another answer to Greg's question "why would the people at this forum care so much about a hype article in a non-industry publication." Anything affecting film production will eventually affect film exhibition, so it is actually a related topic. But the thing that pisses me off is this article is very wrongly using the word "digital" as a gee-whiz trump card.
I've griped about this before. The public in general thinks digital equals perfect. The L.A. Times seems to think so as well. They don't think about the actual image quality, or even consider that certain analog mediums like film may still be better.
I also like the archival flexibility of analog film. Come up with any digital video format for the next 100 years and you can digitize a film negative to it. The same is doubtful for any 1080p videotape production without highly noticeable image flaws. And then you have to consider the problems that can occur with digital archives. Digital tapes can develop "tape sweat" and totally corrupt the data. Optical discs can develop rot. Film can get dirty but you can clean it. If an optical disc develops a problem in any critical area you'll be screwed (even those data recovery utilities may not even help).
Just to add to that...
I saw at the auto parts store they were selling "Digital Tire Preasure Gauges" Certain they will make your car run better and get better mileage.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Does anyone know how high of a resolution a currently available digital videocamera can reach? I assume George is shooting in progressive, right? Plus, digital formats change all the time. Try playing a tape shot today back on equipment in 50 years. You'll have to go to the Goodwill store to get the equipment to play it on. No way they are going to keep everything backwards compatible and/or just decide on one format as it is right now.
3 Mpixel and 4 Mpixel still cameras are fairly common. And their CCDs are way too slow for video as well.
My biggest gripe with digital cameras, however, is battery life. Sony seems to be the only one that understands the problem since they include a camcorder style battery on some of their models. All digital cameras should be able to run for at least 2 hours on a single charge. The vast majority do not.
Don't take this the wrong way but once again I am getting shown the door for all the wrong reasons. Remember, I am on the side of film, not digital.
Yes I am aware that in the earlier advents they were improvements, and that advent of digital would not be an improvement. The level of improvement is not the issue. Remember that I also said in the same post that history is replete with examples of deprovements that made major changes. The best technology does not always win out you know.
The value of the technology is not the issue. The fact that they are not even in the same sport is not the issue. The issue is that it is highly possible for digital filmography and presentation to completely take over the market and totally leave film in its tracks. This would be a huge impact, the same level of impact that the advent of sound, or color, had on the industry. Sound and color were improvements, in retrospect. At the time, how many people do you think were critical of the horrible sound that was attributable to the first attempts. I have heard them. They are horrid. But we pressed on, hoping it would get better. And it keeps getting better. We all know digital pales in comparison to film. But as technology driven as our society is, they will push for constant improvement. We still don't settle for the sound we have now, we keep pushing that envelope to this day, introducing new formats with broader frequency response.
What makes you think that fifty years from now a whole new breed of tech people wont be on a web site called "digital-tech" bitching about the newest form of movie making and presentation threatening thier digital domain, laughing about the days when they used to make movies on film?
I am guessing the same thing happened during sound and color. The same thing is happening now with digital. It is happening. It is happening now. If you want to preserve film as a medium, I suggest you accept that digital could destroy it, and fight that horrible possibility with truth.
Film must live on, and rule. But we cannot be complacent thinking its no big deal. Fighting about the size or importance of the deal is just what the digital big boys want us to do. We will never see it coming when it runs us over. We cannot be caught like a deer in headlights.
I can say this two thousand different ways, but the same fact remains. Digital is a huge threat. It is because of corporate misinformation, media hype, and patron indifference. We have to fight propoganda with truth.
Into the fire we go.
Dave
I agree with just about everything you said but just wanted to point out that "back then" they didn't know what good sound was. They were jacked to get ANY sound. Now we can look back and say it was horrible, but then, not so. Had they a choice between todays sound (or had they even heard it) and the crude sound of the time it would have been a no brainer.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
I imagine that seventy five years from now, someone will find this site and all of our rantings and wonder to themselves... "Hmmm, rather passionate bunch of people, what's all this talk of film? You mean they used to make movies on film? HA? That's preposterous. Why George Lucas III just the other day told me that's nothing but a fairy tale?" 
Dave
Mr. Lucas has three adopted children: Amanda, Katie and Jett. No George II (yet).
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Dave
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
I haven't seen the new 70mm DTS print of "Patton" (but hopefully I will). I've read comments the new print looks great. I was amazed at the quality of "Lawrence of Arabia" and I imagine the new 70mm DTS prints will likely look great as well. So it would only seem logical that if a movie production used the latest 65mm cameras and film stocks available they could generate a movie with staggering levels of high image quality that would stand up against any other format for decades.
With so many films costing more than $100 million to make (not counting marketing expenses) it seems silly the studios don't go to the extra effort of protecting their investments with better film stocks like 70mm and VistaVision.
On top of that, 70mm has some cool logos. The logo for DLP sucks.
quote:
On top of that, 70mm has some cool logos. The logo for DLP sucks.
If I were driving down the street and I saw the cool 70mm DTS logo on a theater marquee I'd probably do a very sharp turn without braking into the theater's parking lot to check out the show. Same goes for scanning newspaper ads.
Now I just try to remember what movie theaters suck my ass, and avoid those like the plague. It's more like what theaters don't suck my ass actually.
My apologies to anyone here who might be sucking my ass.
Dave
Seriously though, do you think he's talked to someone like, say, Spielberg, and said, "Look dude, if I die before Episode III is finished, you need to take over and make sure it gets done."?
Well, to get slightly back on topic, or at least in relation to the current thread, I do have some rather nice 1980's era 70mm logos in a variety of graphics formats. 70mm is just waaaaayyyyyy cool. DLP is worth only a bucket of luke warm hamster vomit by comparison.
I am sure that lucas has assured that episode three gets made in the event of his death. But I do not think he would will that to speilberg, because as you recall, speilberg will not shoot with video. As I recall, he will hold on to film with his last dying breath. I would think he has willed it to a george cloney, I mean croney, someone willing to do it as willed to him by the ghost of lucas.
Dave
I have right here in front of me a Rolling Stone magazine from June 12, 1980 which contains an interview with Lucas. From what he says there, it looks like he condensed some parts of what were supposed to be 7-8-9 into parts 5 and 6. Here are some excerpts:
LUCAS: It was January 1973. I had been paid $20,000 for [American] Graffiti, it had taken two years, and I was $15,000 in debt and Universal hated the film so much they were contemplating selling it as a TV Movie of the Week. I had to start paying back some of this money. So I thought, "I'll whip up that treatment, my second deal at United Artists, my little space thing." (NOTE: He originally had a 2-picture deal at UA, for Graffiti and Star Wars.) I did a fifteen page treatment, showed it to United Artists. No deal. So I took it to Universal.... I hated Universal, but I had to go to them. Part of my deal to make American Graffiti was that I had to sign my life over to them for seven years. They owned me. They had first refusal on any idea I had. I showed it to them and they said no. I took it to [Alan Ladd Jr.] at Fox and he said he would take a chance. I was only asking for $10,000 to write the screenplay. In August 1973, American Graffiti came out and was a huge hit, and that sort of finished my financial woes once and for all.
RS: What happened to Star Wars?
LUCAS: At that point, I was thinking about quitting directing, but I had this huge draft of a screenplay and I had sort of fallen in love with it. Plus, I was a street filmmaker. I had never done a big studio picture, so I thought, "This'll be the last movie I direct." I finally finished the script. I wanted to make a fairytale epic, but this was like War and Peace. So I took that script and cut it in half, put the first half aside and decided to write the screenplay from the second half. I was on page 170, and I thought, Holy smokes, I need 100 pages, not 500," but I had these great scenes. So I took that story and cut it into three parts. I took the first part and said, "This will be my script. But no matter what happens, I am going to get these three movies made." [Laughing] When I made the deal to write and direct Star Wars at Fox, I obviously made it for nothing. All I had was a deal memo, no contract. Then Graffiti came out, was a hit, and suddenly I was powerful. Fox thought I was going to come back and demand millions of dollars and all these gross points.
RS: Did you?
LUCAS: I said, "I'll do it for the deal memo, but we haven't talked about things like merchandising rights, sequel rights.'" I said I wasn't going to give up any of those. Fox said fine. They were getting me for less than $100,000....All I knew was that I wanted to control the sequel rights because I wanted to make the other two movies.
RS: What is your deal with Fox?
LUCAS: They have first refusal on every Star Wars film I want to make.
RS: How many is that?
LUCAS: Seven left.
...........
RS: In the movie, ["The Empire Strikes Back"] Ben says Luke is the last hope and Yoda says no, there is another.
LUCAS: Yes. [Smiling] There is another, and there has been for a long time. You have to remember, we're starting in the middle of this whole story. There are six hours worth of events before Star Wars, and in those six hours, the "other" becomes apparent, and after the third film, the "other" become apparent quite a bit.
RS: What will happen to Luke?
LUCAS: I can't say. In the next film, everything gets resolved one way or the other. Luke won the first battle in the first film. Vader won the second battle in the second film, and in the third film, only one of them walks away. We have to go back to the very beginning to find out the real problem.
.....
RS: Do you have story lines for the seven Star Wars movies left to be made?
LUCAS: Yes, twelve page outlines.
RS: How can you think that far ahead?
LUCAS: Marcia says I either live in the past or the future, never in the present. I'm always sort of living for tomorrow, for better or worse. It's just a personality quirk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(This is Mike again) So from this, I'm not sure where the other "seven" movies would fit in. He says there are 6 hours of events before Star Wars, but that's only 3 movies worth...and then everything's wrapped up at the end of Jedi. But, he supposedly had 12 page outlines for nine films. So, what is the DEAL?
I've always wondered about this.
LMAO!!!!!
I'll have to agree with mike on that one. One of my first full time projection jobs was running a theatre it seems no one wanted. Hardly no money was dumped in and I had the rare opportunity to be the only projectionist they had at the age of 16. We ran Cinemacannica V18's and let me tell you brothers and sisters, I never had a problem other than what Mike has mentioned above and NEVER needed a replacement reel. At that time we varied from four weeks of the break 'till almost video. And yes, I had my miracle print also. I ran Soul Food for 9+ weeks with no visable sign of degradation other that Mike has mentioned. Such as dirt at reel ends. Wish I new about Film-Guard then!! The booth I was in was installed completely by Martin Murray. The theatre, Plaza Cinema (Now Closed).
My point in all of this is, our ratio of "film done right" versus "film done wrong" has got to be higher than what you would think if I was getting close to perfect prints in a little town called Burlington N.C.
------------------
Film-Guard directions:
1.) Lather
2.) Rinse
3.) Repeat
***Do Not Ingest***
Brent
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
We can answer that demand in two words: Full Frontal.
quote:
"He already has a division called Lucasdigital. Nothing beats the mighty "D-word." Right Brad?"
Yes that is correct Steve. In fact we are planning on changing the name of our company to Film-Tech Digital, because that will make it ten thousand times better.
"At one point early on, George Lucas talked of possibly needing nine movies to tell his tale of the Skywalker family. But as he actually worked through the story line, he realized long ago that the story he wanted to tell could naturally be told in six two-hour films. The nine-episode mantra, however, refuses to die...and we realize, never will. But George says that the story he has to tell will be complete in the six films, which can then be viewed as one epic saga. He says that he honestly has no story to tell now beyond the destruction of the second Death Star."
-Paul
I predict that a few years after Episode III comes out, the original three movies will be remastered, have more new scenes added, and released "only" to digital theatres. Then, if those make big bucks, he will have a revelation that there is more of the saga to be told.
------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.
"This URL was posted on rec.arts.movies.tech:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/hiltzik0902.asp "
Thanks for the link. Reading it reminds me how much of Kodak's digital technology is already in use in the motion-picture industry.
Kodak supplied key technology for digital scanning to Lucasfilm ILM well over a decade ago:
http://movieweb.com/movie/starwars/swtech.txt
http://www.randomhouse.com/delrey/sample/ilm2.html
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/3577/1980nofrm.html
Some of the folks mentioned at Kodak Cinesite are friends who moved from Rochester.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Check out Kodak's Organic LED displays:
OLED Features
Kodak OLED Technology
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
God, I hope not! I'll shoot myself before I ever sit through any more of the crap like the last two.
Mark