Zodiac

[cron]

the other day i was taking the dog to take a shit and i thought about david fincher and  how arrogant he sounds in some of the stuff i've read from what he has said like:

"People will say, 'There are a million ways to shoot a scene,' but I don't think so. I think there're two, maybe. And the other one is wrong.

to me that's like a discreet waying of saying he's a beautiful and unique snowflake.

and that thing he said about casablanca also pissed me off, even though i haven't seen that movie. i hope he gets lost in a forest.

[cowboykurtis]

.

Yes, film is still superior to digital.

The conversation for me is over, thats all I wanted to hear.

[cowboykurtis]

I love film. However, and I'm going to be perfectly blunt about this: if you want to be an independent filmmaker today you have no business shooting on film. Until you've made it and have the budget to shoot otherwise. I don't submit to film festivals. I don't make prints. My work screens exclusively online -- and subsequently on DVD. And for this format shooting 24p on a DVX-100A does the trick.

This is a whole different talking point which I also disagree with.

So here's my attempt at being perfectly blunt:

Obviously one's opinion very much depends on what the intended channels for distribution are. If one is solely looking to do small projects utilizing self distribution online, I agree that digital is more cost effective. However this returns to the issue of quality. There is a reason most theatrical independent films are still aquired on film. They are of better quality.

Also it is very rare that extremely small films distributed online garner the attention which lead to bigger budget endeavours.

And where are you getting your stance that independent filmmakers of "today" have no business shooting film? Has it become more expensive than it was 10 or 20 years ago? It's not like film/camera costs have become exponentially higher than those before you. The cassevetes and coppola's found a way to make it work. It entails being a little more inventive and business savy, but it is possible. Recent filmmakers of "today", like darren aronowsky and chris nolan, have shown that to be the case. And that is why they are where they are.

The people who find a way to make independent films with little to no money without an extreme sacrifice of quality are the ones who continue to larger budget ranges. At the end of the day, the powers that be in the film world DO care about quality( moreso of product than content). And they care, because audiences care.  

Films aquired on pro-sumer cameras that get widely exhibited are few and far between - and theres a reason for that, they're of lower quality.

[mutinyco]

You're completely out of whack with reality if you genuinely believe what you've just said.

Online is not a means to replace theatrical distribution right now. That's not what I'm talking about. What it is replacing is the need for film festivals to get filmmakers exposure. If you want to be a filmmaker, why spend $20-40-50 a pop on festival applications that will lead, if you're lucky, to a single screening somewhere (maybe two) -- when for $100 a year or cheaper, you can simply upload to your own website for ANYBODY to see at ANYTIME?

It's not about getting your feature exposure online. It's about getting yourself as a filmmaker exposure online. More and more, established filmmakers will tell you this is the best route: keep posting your work and eventually, if people like what they see, they'll jump on board.

Indie movies shot on mini-DV or film is another matter. You mentioned Nolan and Aronofsky. Well, if I'm not mistaken, both of them made their feature debuts before the consumer revolution really took hold -- and I date that to approx. 2001 -- give or take. Had mini-DV been available at the time, their budgets would have been miniscule to what they needed to complete them in 16mm. If you own a high quality mini-DV camera and a computer with say FCP, you don't need money to create anything. Just hard work and talent. By this very measure I've been able to create 50 short films in the past year at an average cost of $0. The longest one, clocking at 15 minutes, cost nothing. If I'd had to shoot it on film, like I would've had to 10 years ago, the entire project at the very least would've run $10,000.

And don't bring Coppola into this. Because you're humiliating yourself. He's probably the biggest proponent of digital cinema out there. 25 years ago he was enthusiastically predicting it would be the future and everybody laughed at him. He was right. It's now reality.

One more point: there isn't a single established director I know who believes it makes a difference between digital or film. What matters is telling a good story and getting good performances. Even Martin Scorsese admits that if he were starting out today he'd probably be shooting mini-DV.

[cowboykurtis]

You're completely out of whack with reality if you genuinely believe what you've just said.

Online is not a means to replace theatrical distribution right now. That's not what I'm talking about. What it is replacing is the need for film festivals to get filmmakers exposure. If you want to be a filmmaker, why spend $20-40-50 a pop on festival applications that will lead, if you're lucky, to a single screening somewhere (maybe two) -- when for $100 a year or cheaper, you can simply upload to your own website for ANYBODY to see at ANYTIME?

It's not about getting your feature exposure online. It's about getting yourself as a filmmaker exposure online.

One more point: there isn't a single established director I know who believes it makes a difference between digital or film. What matters is telling a good story and getting good performances.

Again our opinions differ.

They differ to the point that my opinions are viewed as being "out of whack with reality" to you. They're far from that, but debating you is useless.

I stated that online "distribution" was a useless channel. I never made the distinction of feature distribution. You brought it up as an alternative to festivals and that's what I was responding to. I know you don't make features because i'm familiar with the work you've posted. .

The main problem is - who the hell is looking at your films? At least at festivals there are people within the industry who have the power to give you an opportunity. Those same people aren't scowering the net for hidden filmmaking talent.

Here's the reality of the situation. And frankly your opinions lead me to believe that you are the one who's out of whack. You've made over 50 shorts last year and posted them online - Has anyone one of substance seen these? Have they gotten you anywhere?

Also saying that "there isn't a single established director you know who believes it makes a difference between digital or film" is inconsequential. I never adresseed what established directors opinions were becuase they're meaningless. Directors don't greenlight films. You should be concerned with the opinion of people who have money to invest in film - those opinions, as I said before, greatly lie in the quality of the product.

My suggestion would be - take the time and energy it took to make 50 films in a year and put that into ONE film - then spend the 40 bucks to send it to a film festival, where people that could actually finance your next film can see it.

But if your view of reality is that making films and putting them on your webpage will lead to greener pastures, and that film festivals add no prestige or exposure for filmmakers, we don't have much more to discuss...We'll go our serperate ways and agree to disagree.

[mutinyco]

Agree to disagree.

And yes, it's all been quite successful.

[cowboykurtis]

Agree to disagree.

And yes, it's all been quite successful.

I'll look for your name on the marquee

[mutinyco]

Please do.

But back to David Fincher's Zodiac...

[Pubrick]

should the rest of us vote on who won that argument? cos i'd really like to know (if ppl agree with me).

[polkablues]

should the rest of us vote on who won that argument? cos i'd really like to know (if ppl agree with me).

If there was a winner, it's cinema itself.

But there wasn't, so it's not.

[Tictacbk]

When does David Fincher post his opinion?  Because I was under the impression this thread was about him...

[killafilm]

He's working on the animatic of his opinion.

[RegularKarate]

Unfortunately, while Fincher is going to side with Mutinyco, he's going to shoot his opinion in HD and Cowboy will disregard it completly because of this fact.

[mutinyco]

Um... as I was saying: http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2005/10/unique_four_eye.html

[cowboykurtis]

Um... as I was saying: http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2005/10/unique_four_eye.html

um...you must be pumped up