Final Words
Although my posts can be construed as self righteous and confrontational, this tone is due to a perceived apathy and ignorance on this digital vs. film by other users. Although most have never seen digital projection or were even aware of its existence until Amc arrived they are quick to unconditionally jump on this bandwagon and dismiss those extolling the virtues of film as revisionists or hopelessly nostalgic.
I am hardly a Luddite; I'm a filmmaker by day and regularly work with digital equipment and media, mostly out of necessity/circumstance. Nor am I for an autocracy of one medium (film) over all others. My vitriol, offensive as it may be to some is one born of passion, for the medium as an art form. This is what motivates my outlook, nothing else.
The consequences of a shift to digital projection are greater than many here understand or care for. It was a decision hatched in the last 2 or 3 years by the 3 biggest theatrical exhibitors including Amc in the US and the 5 big major studios. It's was only an endeavor of greed nothing else, hard as it is for some to accept it had nothing to do with improving the viewing experience or any benefit to cinema itself. Studios want to save on printing costs, savings which will never be passed on to the consumer and lay the groundwork for the exhibition of 3D films which they think the next big thing, theatres want to expand programming options. Wrestling, sports, Hannah Montana concerts. They want to reduce their reliance on films. In this future film content will exist but it will be restricted to 10 or so blockbusters. Anything out of this category will be marginalized into near extinction. Think this is an absurd doomsday scenario look at Spain now. Most cinemas there are dying, people only rip/download films, theatres only survive by holding videogame tournaments on the big screen. You can google this.
Cinema has been under threat for a long time now; it may already be headed towards obsolescence. People don't care anymore about the quality or experience and are content to watch bootlegs, downloads, or ipods. The art form cannot survive in this kind of vacuum. The notion of auteurism and cinephelia is already an anachronism to most, when up until the 70's it was still the norm. The communal atmosphere and immersion in the work is obsolete, patience for anything which questions or challenges passé. Ever since video was introduced the desire or preference for seeing film in its intended form has waned. People go to see only because of exclusivity, if they're available on dvd no one bothers. If Kubrick's 2001 was shown in a remastered 70mm print in a theatre this week how many of you would bother to go? It's already out on dvd why bother?
I don't give a rats ass how this effects 10 000 BC or Hollywood and Multiplexes. The problem is what happens at the top trickles down to the margins. Last year saw a record for box office receipts, not attendance though but the revenues for Indies fell for the fifth or sixth year in a row. In the worst case scenario films, and I use this term liberally, like 10 000 BC will still be made and exist the same can't be said for anything masquerading as art. The music industry imploded, for every song sold on itunes 25 are not but musicians can at least survive through touring. If the theatrical experience disappears the same or any alternatives do not exist for filmmakers. Film takes lots of money to make. Equipment, crew, cast, locations, post production etc.... are all bloody expensive. People will not pay for content on the web, once you distribute films online most will just copy and steal it, just like with music. It is not even an issue of quality like theatre experience vs. the web download but an issue of these films even being made.
Any savings that are created by eliminating printing costs through digital projection will never trickle down to smaller filmmakers and films. This is an arrangement reserved for the biggest studios and multiplexes; independent film is not on their radar. The reliability of digital projectors hangs by a thread, most last 3 to 4 years, are extremely costly to repair and like computers are obsolete before they're even made. There is documented evidence on this; it is not a leap of my imagination. The cost of the 4K Sony projector is 150 000. A great film projector will set you back 40 000 by comparison, can last up to 30 years, is obsolete proof, and cheap and easy to repair. For comparison look at how long a tube amp lasts compared to any Japanese electronics or appliances? How long did your last ipod live. The studios/big 3 exhibitors created a hedge fund in the billions to pay for the conversion to digital, a cost which will be passed on to the consumer eventually. Wait until you see the ticket prices for the 3D junk coming in a few years. Smaller theatres/chains will never see a penny of this money, either will not or cannot convert to this inferior format, so as a consequence this move will never have any effect on independent/art film, quite the contrary it will force them in a corner.
I can't comprehend the stubbornness of those embracing digital, as it hasn't an iota of effect on their viewing experience. Oh I forgot those dirty, scratched, decaying prints. I've been seeing films in first run theatres over an 8 year period here; I’ve only seen one film which was visibly poor. Besides films are lucky if they last for more than a month in today's multiplexes, unless it's the new AMC which with its lineup of films looks like it's going to be competing with Blockbuster. Some of the "tech heads" here fail to realize a fundamental truism, even if digital projection completely takes over 70 to 80 per cent of distributed films are still shot on film, digital can only and I repeat only approximate this standard, it can't surpass its depth and beauty. This is clearly laid out in the cited Torontoist article posted here. If you read this carefully you will understand this. My "arrogance" on this subject puts me in good company, among other filmmakers. Scorsese, Spielberg, the Coen Bros, Gus Van Sant etc... Have all voiced their rejection of the digital projection medium.
The studios/amc will reap the benefits of what they sow in the end, their extinction. Their last vestige against piracy was the physicality of film, it's pretty hard to stead film rolls and do a telecine transfer of a film. Only poor copies on a camcorder could be made. All you have to do now is steal the hard drive or copy the data and presto you have a perfect copy of Horton Hears a Who, which incidentally is already available. The claim these files are encoded for protection but please. Security may hold up in Kansas which prevents the 16 year old usher from ripping off his employer of a copy of the film, but what do you think will happen when these digital prints circulate in China or Taiwan.
Nuff Said
Adios
