Deranged Rhino Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 Well that would be an interesting way for studios to fill gaps with short movies/miniseries aimed for television between blockbuster movies. These character moments would fit better in them without having the huge budgets with a number of highly paid actors "just standing around" when not being paid. This could also give publicity for movies if done right. The difficult part of that would be getting the cast to agree to do it. That kind of release schedule, which I agree would be cool to see done right, would probably lock up the cast for three or four years, depending upon how many films you're planning on making. Figure a movie takes 3 months to shoot (more if it's a big effects driven franchise), another 2 or 3 months to market it for the main cast (it requires a lot of travel) -- a TV event series (say, 6-8 hr long episodes) would take at least 3 months to shoot. Even if you're lucky enough to schedule it all one right after the other without a hitch, it'd leave the actors a very small window to do anything else. It is an interesting thought though, and one that would be cool to see. Just tough to pull off from a scheduling standpoint.
Azalin Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 Probably because you have a lot more control over the entire process of film, and perhaps because even now the "pixels" in quality film (i.e. silver particles) are still smaller than the pixels in a CMOS or CCD digital camera. Doesn't that seem to justify my comparison then? If audio is more accurately captured using analog media, isn't that comparable to your description of silver particles vs pixels?
Just Jack Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 Saw Ghostbusters last weekend. It was pretty good, but if there was no original Ghostbusters movie, I'm not sure it would have done as well as it has.
Dorkington Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) The difficult part of that would be getting the cast to agree to do it. That kind of release schedule, which I agree would be cool to see done right, would probably lock up the cast for three or four years, depending upon how many films you're planning on making. Figure a movie takes 3 months to shoot (more if it's a big effects driven franchise), another 2 or 3 months to market it for the main cast (it requires a lot of travel) -- a TV event series (say, 6-8 hr long episodes) would take at least 3 months to shoot. Even if you're lucky enough to schedule it all one right after the other without a hitch, it'd leave the actors a very small window to do anything else. It is an interesting thought though, and one that would be cool to see. Just tough to pull off from a scheduling standpoint. My idea kinda stems from the fact that most movies shoot a large amount of extra footage that ends up getting cut. So if you have 4-8 10-15 minute low budget, character heavy scenes, they'd be pretty easy to throw into a normal movie filming schedule, and then just release them spaced out over time on something like Youtube, where they can get a huge amount of adclicks from. Edited August 9, 2016 by Dorkington
Deranged Rhino Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 My idea kinda stems from the fact that most movies shoot a large amount of extra footage that ends up getting cut. So if you have 4-8 10-15 minute low budget, character heavy scenes, they'd be pretty easy to throw into a normal movie filming schedule, and then just release them spaced out over time on something like Youtube, where they can get a huge amount of adclicks from. Ah, that's a trickier proposition. Most of the time you don't know what's going to be cut until it's cut. Those cuts usually don't happen until well into the editing process, which is normally well after principle photography has wrapped. Most of the time the scenes that are cut are cut for good reason (they either lack something visually or story wise or performance wise) so I'm not sure collecting those scenes from the cutting room floor would be interesting as stand alone type mini-scenes. Character heavy scenes that didn't work in the body of the main film will probably seem even worse as stand alone pieces because there would be nowhere for them to hide. They'd come off as heavy handed and plodding more than likely. You'd have to write something specific to compliment the main film, and something you could shoot simultaneously or between set ups, which is what a lot of TV shows did in the mid 2000s. The Office did a bunch of viral mini-shorts for the web, LOST did a bunch of stand alone segments, and I know there were a bunch of other shows that tried to give their audiences new content between episodes in that manner. The Office did it best (imo), simply because they just wrote and shot a bunch of funny shorts with side characters rather than trying to push mythology (LOST) or drive the story forward.
Dorkington Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 I'm not saying taking the cut scenes, but rather the amount of filming needed for the added 'shorts' wouldn't be a big deal considering the usual filming schedule. I'm thinking simply character development stuff that isn't important to any overarching story, but gives Trek fans a bit of that 'down time/political' aspect that many miss when it comes to the movies.
section122 Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 I'm not saying taking the cut scenes, but rather the amount of filming needed for the added 'shorts' wouldn't be a big deal considering the usual filming schedule. I'm thinking simply character development stuff that isn't important to any overarching story, but gives Trek fans a bit of that 'down time/political' aspect that many miss when it comes to the movies. The Matrix did a pretty good job with these. Not quite what you are talking about but the had the animatrix that explained more of the story as well as a few video games that added to the story and had live action cut scenes.
Dorkington Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 I doubt my idea would ever happen for some of the reasons DR outlined. I just think it *could*, if the right parties played nice and wanted to appease fans haha
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 Doesn't that seem to justify my comparison then? If audio is more accurately captured using analog media, isn't that comparable to your description of silver particles vs pixels? No, because silver particles and pixels are both basically the same. To make an analogy: photos, in any media, are quantized (made up of a set of discrete dots.) Sound waves, on the other hand, are continuous varying values - i.e. not discrete sets of values. So you can digitize pictures with much less loss of fidelity, since they're effectively already "digitized." Sound...not so much, since to digitize a sound (i.e. turn it in to a time series of discrete values) requires removing the "bits" of information that make it continuous. That's also why synthesized sounds like horns or woodwinds are so noticeably synthesized compared to real instruments - they have complex wave-forms that don't lend themselves to digitization without significant loss of data (as opposed to a piano or flute, which have much simpler wave-forms, and have a synthesized sound much closer to real.)
Azalin Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 No, because silver particles and pixels are both basically the same. To make an analogy: photos, in any media, are quantized (made up of a set of discrete dots.) Sound waves, on the other hand, are continuous varying values - i.e. not discrete sets of values. So you can digitize pictures with much less loss of fidelity, since they're effectively already "digitized." Sound...not so much, since to digitize a sound (i.e. turn it in to a time series of discrete values) requires removing the "bits" of information that make it continuous. That's also why synthesized sounds like horns or woodwinds are so noticeably synthesized compared to real instruments - they have complex wave-forms that don't lend themselves to digitization without significant loss of data (as opposed to a piano or flute, which have much simpler wave-forms, and have a synthesized sound much closer to real.) That's an accurate description of audio - a lot of people I know are convinced that digital recording is superior, but they base that claim on the ease in which the recorded audio can be manipulated, seemingly oblivious to the fact that if you get a good take on tape, all you really need to do is mix it. Like I said before - I don't know so much about photography, but your comparison between silver particles and pixels makes sense. Thanks
Deranged Rhino Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 no movies in August? I've heard great things about Hell or High Water. Headed off to see it today.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 Can't recommend Hell or High Water enough. Fantastic flick and worth seeing in the theater.
Dorkington Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 no movies in August? Suicide Squad was terrible. And this coming from someone who *really* liked Batman v Superman
Deranged Rhino Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 Suicide Squad was terrible. And this coming from someone who *really* liked Batman v Superman Check out Hell or High Water. It's terrific.
LewPort71 Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 Finally saw Star Trek Beyond this weekend. Very good movie and I am looking forward to the next one.
Recommended Posts