How wonderful ... yippie ...

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chuck Testa.

xhonzi said:

Chuck Testa.

DuracellEnergizer said:

The film will rise again!

yeah, but it will probably

become a niche format.

much like vinyl, or cassettes

have become.

later

-1

The problem is going to be where it can be presented. If you can get around the high initial cost for film production, that will be the big hurdle that gets larger as the years go by.

I don't think shooting movies on film is going away anytime soon. Spielberg and others still have the weight to get their way on that for now.

SilverWook said:

I don't think shooting movies on film is going away anytime soon. Spielberg and others still have the weight to get their way on that for now.

Not to mention directors who use it for artistic purposes like the article said, or find film more aesthetically pleasing than digital.

I don't pay ticket prices to watch videos.  I can do that at home on dvd and blu ray well enough. 

I watch films shot on film.  If at all possible and try to stay away from most of the over used cgi pieces of crap, which now tends to be all movies.

SilverWook said:

I don't think shooting movies on film is going away anytime soon. Spielberg and others still have the weight to get their way on that for now.

while that may be true for the more prolific ones

the vast majority will stick to digital, and never see,

touch, or use film.

besides,it really doesn't matter what they shoot on,

its the distribution thats digital, and of concern here.

later

-1

If more filmmakers made their digital movies look like they were shot on film, then I wouldn't mind the phasing out of actual film so much. As it is, though, they continue to go with that ultra-glossy, high contrast look which I can't stand.

Half the time I can't even tell if something is digital these days. If I hadn't learned that Prometheus was shot digitally I would have never guessed. Once you know it's easy to say "oh, now I can see." But the truth is that digital cameras have the exact same lattitude as film cameras these days. That high-contrast, glossy look is what you find even on film productions. It's just a style, and it's been around a while. Transformers 3 doesn't look much different than Transformers 1, yet the original was an old-fashioned film production and the third was all-digital. The difference is often pretty minimal. Six years or seven years ago a good eye could tell, but now you can't really trust your eye because the film productions look like the digital ones much of the time.

Everything gets a Digital intermediate anyway. Oftentimes the 35mm print you'll be watching had a digital transfer and was then printed back to film or was all digital and had some prints struck from a DI. I still prefer a print in this case but there's never anything that truly comes across better as it was originally digital.

I take that back, The American looked stunning in 35mm theatrically and likely came from a DI.

I prefer a battered 35mm print of a movie in a second run theater than a digital presentation, not just because I'm a film geek, but also because I can't find a decent presenting theater anywhere around, especially for sound.

Speaking of which, TDKR is getting a handful of 15perf/70mm film prints made for IMAX theaters that are willing. Here's the list: http://www.thedarkknightrises.com/imax.html

Though I wasn't a fan of TDK, I am beyond psyched to see one of these prints!!

My local revival theater of choice, the Aero (as part of the American Cinematheque series in Los Angeles) just installed a digital projector. Most of their screenings from here on out will be in that format, even ones they previously bragged about otherwise (they're known for showing 2001 on 70mm on a semi-regular basis). Speaking of 2001, their next screening of that film is a digital one. Guess I missed out :(