The future of the film industry.

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Kopikatsu said:
Leighcakes said:
I've often wondered if eventually they'll never be any need for human actors. One day it may all just be CGI, and looking back we'll all say 'you wouldn't notice the difference'! It'd remove the need for casting, behind-the-scenes drama, and you could pretty much just design the characters exactly how the directors envisioned them.

It could be cool. I'm sure there would be many downsides, however. :p
Get voice synthesizers and you won't need actors at all, voice or otherwise.

Actually, have you seen Halo 4's CGI cutscenes? That shit looks like it's live action as it is.
Except most people go to see movies based on who is in them.

Lose actors? Lose a whole big chunk of marketing.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
Nouw said:
Incredibly bright, because there is a Starship Troopers reboot coming out.
I am still worried that the reboot will take the ultraconservative message of the books seriously. A big part of the fun of the first movie was that it was a parody of the message.
 

EHKOS

Madness to my Methods
Feb 28, 2010
4,815
0
0
I haven't seen a movie in ages. I got dragged to the Avengers, didn't think too much of it. They just don't interest me anymore. Although if Will Smith did another action movie....
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Rawberry101 said:
Special effects were never the most important parts of the greatest films. Films will remain the same in heart but directors will have more and more tools to showcase their visions.
Honestly, I think we're already there. Special effects used to be called that because, well, they were special. They were something that not every movie had, and the ones that did have them couldn't afford to use them constantly. That's not the case anymore, they're more just "effects" than "special effects." Can a movie still be sold on just the pretty pictures? Sure. Is that enough on its own to make a major hit anymore? Probably not. It certainly won't be within 10 years, barring some major advancement like freestanding holograms or something. I'm not saying that means the writing is going to get better, but I think the spectacle of "whoah, there's a spaceship flying on screen! Those don't exist in real life, how did they do that?" has become simply "there's a spaceship on screen." The fantastic has become the mundane, is what I'm getting at.

Edit: Another way of looking at this: it used to be amazing when a movie had good, believable special effects, because that was not the norm. Now it's disappointing if they aren't excellent. We've effectively reached the goal of competent effects being fully believable on screen, and what's more, it's nothing unusual for them to be that way.
 

Ron Alphafight

New member
Oct 10, 2012
40
0
0
There have been far too many remakes and reboots for this to be considered any kind of "golden age" of film making. I'd say we're actually in a funk with a few exceptions coming out every year. Reboots and remakes are a mark of no originality and studios playing it safe, which is NOT good for the industry. If no risks are taken, new and potentially ground-breaking ideas are squashed and the industry just stagnates.

The good news is that I think we're starting to come out of this. Earlier this year, movies like Battleship and John Carter flopped big. And soon after that, it was announced that GI Joe Retaliation was to be delayed from it's June 29th 2012 release to March 29th 2013. Actually, it was announced only 5 weeks before it's release.

Why did they delay it? They initially said it was to "convert it to 3D in post" which nobody bought because it doesn't take 9 months to do that. Later it came out that the movie's test screens went horribly (big surprise) and they were shooting additional scenes to make it better.

All this to say, it appears that studios are realizing that audiences are less and less willing to see garbage movies with dazzling special effects. That means studios have to make a better product, which is a win for everyone.

Now, on the indie film level, it's hard to say. With digital film making, it is now cheaper to make a good looking film than it has ever been. You can buy a Canon 7D camera for around $1,300 dollars, get some decent lenses for an few thousand dollars more, rent some equipment and you're good to go.

The thing that makes indie film making trickier is that it's very difficult to get your stuff noticed without some sort of recognizable actor. Actors have been more willing to do indie films recently, so you have recognizable names (or at least faces) in indie stuff like Little Miss Sunshine with Steve Carell or Never Let Me Go with Keira Knightley. Most distributors will obviously pass on a film that doesn't have someone that will put butts in seats.

But overall, I think things are looking up for the film industry. As for where it's heading in the distant future, who knows? CG definitely won't replace real actors anytime soon though.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
There will be more Summer Movies shot like a Michael Bay film. Simple reason is that movie executives are a cowardly lot, not willing to take any risks. They do not look towards the future, but focus on the immediate past instead. What has worked the last 7 years is Transformers, a franchise that made almost 2 billion dollars.

Summer will be dominated by superhero movies, mostly Marvel, but some other companies as well.

In the lower end of the spectrum, Romantic comedies will still be around.

But, I'll look forward to the future of movies. As long as the Asylum is still around, I can get some entertainment out of hollywood.
 

xxmyhero64xx

New member
May 25, 2011
128
0
0
I feel like I was misunderstood. When I say special effects I mean that filmmakers have broken so many barriers that stopped them even ten years ago. Could you have imagined an Avengers movie working as well as it did in the 90's?
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
Machinima. I think one day a machinima movie should get a full hollywood budget. I watched a whole 1 hour and 30 minute movie made entirely in GTA IV, and it was pretty good. Imagine what a clint eastwood movie would look like in Red Dead Redemption.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
Leighcakes said:
I've often wondered if eventually they'll never be any need for human actors. One day it may all just be CGI, and looking back we'll all say 'you wouldn't notice the difference'! It'd remove the need for casting, behind-the-scenes drama, and you could pretty much just design the characters exactly how the directors envisioned them.

It could be cool. I'm sure there would be many downsides, however. :p
That would be really interesting and a great way to reintroduce people like Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and, Lon Chaney to modern audiences. The problem though is the current level of technology and budget constraints. We could probably make something very close to Dracula vs Frankenstein right now but the cost would be astronomical.

---

I think Avengers and the Marvel films will encourage other studios to try making franchises not so much in the mold of movie -> movie 2 -> movie 3 -> movie 4 -> movie: the 3D reboot but rather by having a bunch of movies which are interconnected through plot points, settings, characters, time line or, all of the above. Then again, this may just be speculation since Kevin Smith and, Quentin Tarantino do that sort of thing with their movies (seriously: Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction and, Resovoir Dogs are apparently all taking place in the same continuity!)
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
Elect G-Max said:
malestrithe said:
There will be more Summer Movies shot like a Michael Bay film. Simple reason is that movie executives are a cowardly lot, not willing to take any risks. They do not look towards the future, but focus on the immediate past instead. What has worked the last 7 years is Transformers, a franchise that made almost 2 billion dollars.
Bayformers is 5 years old. Transformers is 28 years old. Where are you getting the number 7 from?
Thought the movie was released in 2005.

How old the franchise does not matter. It is nothing more than a distraction from the point, which is Bay's Transformers are the future of Hollywood: loud vapid juvenile movies that costs a lot of money to produce, but also make billions of dollars each year.

What matters is the movies made almost 2 billion dollars. Hollywood executives see that this makes money, so make things like that, See also Smurfs.
 

GTwander

New member
Mar 26, 2008
469
0
0
Less artistic expression and stories that someone wants to personally tell.

More demographic pandering and stories that someone thinks hits a larger margin of retards.
 
Oct 12, 2011
561
0
0
krazykidd said:
I think films need better writing to be honest . I find most blockbuster movies to be say too predictable . I go to the cinema every week and very few actually surprise me . Yes , they are entertaining but so damn predictable . That's why when i do get surprised by something , i praise it to hell and back *cough*loopers,inception,suckerpunch,shutterisland*cough*
This. Movies are becoming WAY too formulaic. Hell, I remeber sitting in the theater watching Avatar and quoting the movie's lines just before the characters spoke them. I was watching the film for the first time at that point, by the way.

A good story can do far more for a film that special effects. Tell a really good story, and you can create a film with crappy special effects and almost no budget. Engage the audience with something more than BIGGER EXPLOSIONS!!!!!!!!! and I would consider it a wonderful change for the better in the industry.

Captcha: neckbeard
Ummm. Captcha, I actually shaved today. What are you suggesting?
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I don't think they can ever get rid of actors, or rather they can for the cheap blockbusters, but not for higher class films. Because even if the graphics become completely cheap and realistic, the trick is in doing the actual acting, programming every little gesture and movement. And I just don't think it will ever be cheaper for someone to manipulate model to get that information, than just paying someone to do it. I mean if you look at all the game cutscenes today, they're almost universally motion-captured to some extent because it's easier to have a human move about than try to animate to make it look perfectly like a human moving about

The actual appearance of an actor will being to matter less though as it becomes more mainstream to photoshop someones appearance in a film and generally mess around with the looks as they see fit. This might mean that we lose the big names of actors, because mo-capping onto a different appearance might create a different sense of identity, but if acting is actually difficult and there's a limit to the number of great actors in the world, then people are still going to want to see the ones with the good actors doing the motion capture.

Another thing is, I imagine it will be very hard to create a completely different look that looks realistic and again, it's probably cheaper and easier just to scan a real person in. But it might mean that we have models 'sell' their appearance, which then gets touched up, and have someone else do the acting for it.

Maybe when computers get so advanced they can more accurately gauge and piece together human gestures and emotion than we can it will change. But by then we'll have already faced the serious question of how life will function when machines are actually smarter than us, and films are the least important consequence to worry about =D


In the shorter term, I don't see anything changing. Films survived TV, so I don't see the internet as too much of a threat to them. Maybe cinemas might get replaced by streams, but people like meeting up with friends and physically going places. I wouldn't be surprised if we do start seeing some films get streamed simultaneously with a release though. At least when people feel like the technology is safe enough that the pirating won't lose them money. (In all honesty, this is something companies could start doing now (are there examples of this? Sky Box office stuff i guess?) but I think they're a little afraid of technology and also they'd probably be cutting down their potential revenue a lot because all the money from popcorn sales and the like would be cut from the industry chain. Also people are less willing to pay on the internet.)

And so I can't see anything thats going to disturb the blockbuster cycle ever. Films will probably get even quicker paced now though. Already the way people's memories work are changing, because it's becoming pointless retaining information, when remembering how to acquire it is much more important. (I mean why should I remember x-date from history, when I can find it in less than a minute from pretty much wherever I am in almost any conceivable situation where I would use it. It's just using up brain space). I'm 20 and I didn't completely grow up with the internet, and smart phones hit towards the end of adolesence, so even I'm not part of the true information generation. In 6-10 years time the true smart-phone/internet generation will be hitting and the way their brains process information is going to be even more quicker and demanding. (My younger family members routinely split a computer screen and perform multiple tasks whilst a video is running as well). Movies will reflect this. People now might complain Michael Bay is messy and hyperactive but (apart from the poor sense of geography) that stuff's going to be clear as crystal to young people in the 2020's and the equivalent of Michael Bay then is going to be more like Moulin Rouge
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
More sequels, reboots, remakes. More commercialized bullshit like Battleship®. More movies broken into parts so that people have to pay multiple times to see the whole thing. The quality of movies won't necessarily drop, they'll just become more commercialized.
Independent films will grow to be a prominent industry of their own (though I say industry in only the loosest sense) they will maintain the artistic integrity that Hollywood at large will forsake and will be the main source of new directors and ideas.

In essence film will follow the same path that video games have been taking.