Next to be obsolete: Making a living

[BTM_Pix]

6 minutes ago, Clark Nikolai said:

The Wallace and Gromit films are real claymation even though it could be entirely done in CG. It's just a better result and probably more fun making it.

Not for the onlookers though 😉

 

[Andrew Reid]

All it takes is a tiny amount of prompt engineering.

Just a tiny amount.

59 minutes ago, Clark Nikolai said:

Also, the experience of making something is better when it's something tangible. I used to work at a post production house  so all day I would be looking at a screen, it was a nice break to go load the dishwasher in the coffee room sometimes just because the dishes were real and I could touch them.

Is this the secret to embracing household chores then?

59 minutes ago, Clark Nikolai said:

I think that's a bit why there's interest in shooting film now (stills and motion) is that it's tangible. Even if it'll just get digitized and viewed the same way as digitally sourced images, the making of it is a different more satisfying process to some.

The Wallace and Gromit films are real claymation even though it could be entirely done in CG. It's just a better result and probably more fun making it.

You couldn't do it in CG though because it would be the computer moving stuff, whereas claymation is about the human hand moving stuff. It's a big difference.

[Chrille]

Back when i found out about this forum everybody wanted democratization of the filmmaking process (f.e.: 3K for 3K). And now we have that and we find out that the medium has become worthless and filmmakers are even more like musicians were.  In my opinion it was much harder to reach mid level (f.e. shooting 35mm) back in the days, but easier to move from mid level to top level... Now it is easier to move from nothing to mid level. Overall i guess the amount of jobs and the overall money in the market has risen considerably since 2000.

 

[Andrew Reid]

7 hours ago, Chrille said:

Back when i found out about this forum everybody wanted democratization of the filmmaking process (f.e.: 3K for 3K). And now we have that and we find out that the medium has become worthless and filmmakers are even more like musicians were.  In my opinion it was much harder to reach mid level (f.e. shooting 35mm) back in the days, but easier to move from mid level to top level... Now it is easier to move from nothing to mid level. Overall i guess the amount of jobs and the overall money in the market has risen considerably since 2000.

We wanted democratisation of the art of filmmaking not so much the business of it.

It is important in the business end to always have demand outstrip supply. When anyone can pick up a cheap piece of kit and go and shoot adverts, then you have a problem.

Evidently not everyone can pick up a cheap piece of kit and shoot something artistically interesting, so it's still of value to do that.

The problem with that however is that you have to be very fortunate to make any money doing so.

The film industry has put group-think, profits and franchise filmmaking before creative interest, and is now struggling with an unappealing product that is watered down and too much in abundance, i.e. mediocrity in creative terms now passes for the gold standard as long as it has a high production value and gets made by one of the big streaming channels.

It doesn't grab people's attention in a world that is very demanding on one's time and attention.

This isn't the fault of the EOSHD Forum btw.

There's the technology side which is causing the supply and demand problem in the low-end of production and the lukewarm content, oversupply of material killing the high-end of production.

[Chrille]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It doesn't grab people's attention in a world that is very demanding on one's time and attention.

This isn't the fault of the EOSHD Forum btw.

There's the technology side which is causing the supply and demand problem in the low-end of production and the lukewarm content, oversupply of material killing the high-end of production.

I am not sure i understand what kind of movie you  actually have in mind. I am with you that due to the recent streaming wars the market is oversaturated at the moment and this boom is over but on the other hand my watchlist is growing longer and longer with great films and series.

And of course that's not the fault of the EOSHD Forum - but the forum has been a great documentation of the change that has happened in the recent years.

[Emanuel]

One thing is the film production and the other ones, distribution and exhibition sectors... they are much separate waters.

- EAG

[Ilkka Nissila]

Neither cinema and photography are well suited to a small screen and even smaller attention spans, they are supposed to be viewed on a large canvas and in a socially interactive way like in a gallery or theatre. Now with stuff like streaming, this works fine when everyone has a subscription to one or two of the same platforms like Netflix and are stuck at home with nothing better to do like during covid, but after a while there is a total oversupply of stuff to watch, and a total ADHD mess of an audience who is getting constantly distracted by social media content in direct competition to the long form stuff.

 

High quality displays are now higher quality and more affordable than ever, so it's easy to view video content in high quality and on a fairly large surface - people aren't limited to viewing on smartphones if they make the time to sit down for a bit. For it to be a socially interactive viewing experience, that really requires people to gather in the same place at the same time, and that probably requires a scarcity of content. If content is viewable at any time anywhere, then people don't bother to join others to watch it. There used to be a huge scarcity of content and people would sometimes struggle to find things to do on their free time, and this lead to (in-person) social activities being more relevant a part of life than today where one can just entertain oneself at any time with a mobile phone. This state of affairs leads to people not being able to focus on what they should be doing and also it seems to be leading to significantly reduced birth rates in the developed world. So, will a humankind which is too connected to each other lead it to extinction, or will there be a corrective move? Probably fewer humans would be better for the planet's ecosystems, but then this would also likely mean the current level of technology (or technology development) is difficult to sustain because (in the future) there is not enough volume to pay for the costs.

[MrSMW]

So basically, if we wait long enough, we will get an S2H plus the bonus of better air quality.

I'm in.

[EduPortas]

On 10/4/2024 at 12:10 PM, Andrew Reid said:

Some worrying thoughts are occupying my mind at the moment so it might do me some good to let them out for a run... Here goes.

...

All you said is correct.

Unless your James Cameron et al. for the newbie artist the only real way to survive is by "comercial ideological alignment".

That's my term but I'm sure others have used it before.

If you wish to live by art and art alone you better make an ideological statement (which includes politics of course). Once you convince others to back your art by this "comercial ideological alignment" the sky's the limit thanks to digital environments.

Social media has absolutely catapulted these artists into the stratosphere even if their art is "mediocre". Your reach will be massive, you'll get the eyeballs, but you need to find that specific group that sees the world as yourself and convince them to send your money.

Movies, pics, anime, drawings, songs, stupid comments on camera, it's all the same since you can put it on a small screen. 

 

[herein2020]

On 10/9/2024 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Reid said:

The film industry has put group-think, profits and franchise filmmaking before creative interest, and is now struggling with an unappealing product that is watered down and too much in abundance, i.e. mediocrity in creative terms now passes for the gold standard as long as it has a high production value and gets made by one of the big streaming channels.

It doesn't grab people's attention in a world that is very demanding on one's time and attention.

This isn't the fault of the EOSHD Forum btw.

There's the technology side which is causing the supply and demand problem in the low-end of production and the lukewarm content, oversupply of material killing the high-end of production.

It is almost comical to me the new total trash formula that plays out again and again on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and others. If you look closely at many of the movies on those platforms produced starting in 2019 you will start to see a very obvious pattern emerge; no more than 2-6 actors, 1-2 locations, weak if any special effects, and a flat storyline; rinse and repeat.

The actors are all very much c rate, the one location is usually an island, building, phone booth, ship, house, plane, or spaceship that they mysteriously cannot leave for some reason, and the entire movie is spent in that one location as the c rate actors try to explain their predicament to the viewers and to each other.

It is a very low budget template that they use to churn out a sea of mediocrity which their audiences probably just play as background noise while texting away and updating their anti-social media feeds. I think this pattern started out of necessity during COVID and then the studios realized people truly didn't notice the mediocrity and the bean counters realized they could keep making profits without any effort to return to a higher standard of quality.

 

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, herein2020 said:

probably just play as background noise while texting away and updating their anti-social media feeds

‘Anti-social media feeds’

😂 but also 😢