MovieChat Forums > In Your Eyes (2014) Discussion > Even for Joss I Will Unlikely Pay $5 for...

Even for Joss I Will Unlikely Pay $5 for Something Shot on Digital

posted 11 years ago by plasticanimalz
11 replies | jump to latest

I'm supposing this shot-on-digital thing won't end soon since anyone with $5,000 to buy a quality camera and a Kickstarter account can make a film these days. Come on, most of you know at least one person who sent you a Kickstarter campaign where if they raise $100,000 they can shoot a movie. So, if a low-budget movie shot on film runs for about 2-5 million, I imagine you can see the cost and quality of a shot-on-digital is far less, regardless of who is writing, producing, directing it. And, notice, you never know the majority, if not all of the actors in these shot-on-digital movies. My question is, if say one of these films only costs $100,000 to, I'll give it a lofty price tag of a million, how come we're still expected to pay the same price or MORE for a movie ticket or a rental? Not to mention, I can rent a movie at Apple for $2.99 or at one of the few remaining indie video stores out there. So, the fact they're asking $5 I find a bit offensive...aside from the mediocre quality of the cinematography along with some moments of bad acting in the trailer. $5 is a lot for what looks more like an experimentation than a film.

I would be more likely to see 'Much Ado About Nothing,' since I at least have an affinity for the ex 'Buffy' and 'Angel' actors, but, probably not unless I can see it for free on Netflix. Cone on, Joss has a lot of money and all he could invest was a shot-on-digital venture? I would rather see him do another 'Doctor Horrible' that looked of better quality and had more notable actors.

I know some people see shooting film on digital as increasing opportunities for actors, writers, directors, etc., but anyone I know who started out that route, even with festival success...are still doing that and making no or little money at it. With all of the technology out there today are we, the consumers, really going to pay more money for an industry that is taking a step backwards?

[–] laballatician 11 years ago

Well, Joss Whedon isn't exactly a random FB friend asking for money to shoot his film. He has talent and ability.

And yeah, film looks better, but to make it a deal breaker is the same as saying that things like acting and writing don't go into making a movie worth seeing. Film or digital can't really be your sole determining factor, can it?

All that said, I can't enthusiastically claim it's worth the $5. There is nothing groundbreaking here. It's well-written and well-acted, but it's not giving us we haven't had before done better. The end is silly, too. The film is indie melodrama at its most melodramatic.

I still recommend it, though. Like I said it's well-written and acted and residual-Angel love gives me affinity to all things Whedon.

[–] Sundance-A-Kid 11 years ago

Well... 35mm is still the standard for high budget productions but if you researched a little more you would find that numerous big films are being shot on digital formats - check out this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_digital - with the Arri Alexa and the Red cameras dominating the list of cameras (includes such mega-million movies like Iron Man 3/Transformers/Hunger Games etc..).

Even more interesting is this article about the master himself: Roger Deakins - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cinematographer-roger-deakins-switching-film-178661

The quality is so good these days that you'll be hard pushed to be able to discern the difference unless you work in film and deal in details. Also, film is actually not much more expensive as stock is getting cheaper with decreased demand and the process of offlining high-end digital material is becoming more expensive. So your 'shot-on-digital venture' jibe is fairly hollow and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the quality or the budget of the film - and especially not the cinematography. Cinematography is not about the camera you use but how you use it - the quality will affect the richness of colour and contrast and clarity and so on. That in no way affects the choices that the cinematographer makes when it comes to framing and lighting.

This film was shot for 1 million which is a tiny budget (it's nigh impossible to make a feature film for 100,000) and it looks great. This is definitely NOT experimentation as digital has been around since the late 90s. You can judge the film on its merits as a film - its writing, acting, directing and cinematography - without having to feel like it has any less dollar quality - an 'experimental venture' as you like to put it.

The industry is not stepping backwards at all. It is embracing the new technology as the technology catches up with the old and the practical benefits that digital brings with it (smaller cameras means more mobility - easier transfer for post-production etc..). Those whom you know who are making no money are simply not making successful films. It's a tricky industry where no one knows how well something will do but what usually helps is if the important things - script/direction/cinematography - are done professionally and with some creative flair. So please do spend your money on those who are managing to get films made - who cares if the film is expensive or not. If it's good and you like it then it was worth your money. This film may appeal to you if you like romantic films with a magical twist. If you don't like those kinds of films that will be what you felt was a waste - not that they used digital cameras.

Oh, and Joss Whedon wrote and exec-ed the film - he didn't produce or direct it...

[–] Buffyfan45 11 years ago

Actually, 35mm is NOT the standard anymore. Nearly ALL movies are shot digitally now. It's waay cheaper and easier. It's actually a rarity to have movies shot on film. I think the only people who are still shooting on film are Chris Nolan and a few other holdouts.

[–] Suntory_Times 9 years ago

35mm is not the standard for big budget films anymore, it really is now more the exception. Digital is basically what everything uses and that is just fine. It looks great and both have there pros and cons. Now had you been discussing 65/70mm, then yes I haven't seen anything digital that matches that, but very little is made with that and whislt stunning it has a ludicrous number of cons that make it only practical for a small number of productions.

I find it generally easy to tell if something is film or digital, but I am a bit of a videophile and I can't say one is better or worse then the other on a whole. Sure in some areas digital is clearly better (dark scenes), but overall I would say they are just different.

Digital capture is increasingly the future though, there is no escaping that. It's pros simply far outweigh the pros of film, and its cons are far less as well.

Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/

[–] Sundance-A-Kid 9 years ago

You are right now - but one year ago when I wrote that post less so. Things are changing incredibly rapidly. The Deakins article had just come out and he was only starting to flirt with digital. But now he is a great Alexa aficionado like most of the painterly cinematographers. The quality of digital is such that the difference is minimal - also because of the great leaps that have been made in digital colouring and grading. You can pretty much make digital look like 35. The die hards like Nolan and Tarantino still prefer the oil painting-like qualities of film but I reckon you can pretty much achieve that now anyways.

[–] c-e-douglass 11 years ago

So they made a product which doesn't cater to your every whim and fetish. You're choosing not to support it. That's usually how that sort of thing works out, only with a lot less whining.

[–] e14iron 11 years ago

The loss is entirely yours.

[–] ChinpokomonTrainer 10 years ago

If you think digital is a trend, you're going to be disappointed with the future.

As someone with a Master of Science in Digital Cinema Production, I think you film snobs are bunch of pretentious whiners. The truth of the matter is the average movie goer can't even tell the difference. So who gives a *beep* What, are they gonna cater to the 1% of people like you who actually care whether it's shot on film or digitally?

[–] userrrrr 10 years ago

yes, OP should watch Side By Side http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/?ref_=nv_sr_1 to get a dose of reality, but oh no, it's in digital ...

[–] Mesektet 10 years ago

It doesn't look any different. To me at least. It's not like Public Enemies, where it ruins the entire film.

Is it the concept of digital itself you don't like for some reason or could you notice a difference? I watch tons of movies and if I didn't even notice then it couldn't be that bad. Unless you are some kind of expert on the subject. I mean someone who is actually educated on the matter, not someone who really likes movies and thinks that qualifies him/her as an expert.

[–] SUNNYandSTORMY 9 years ago

Anal much? Bless your heart. Miss out on good movies due to being anal about what the film is shot on. I can understand having a preference, but damn.