4 ms·
I think you're underestimating-- making a movie is really, really hard. It barely matters how much the camera costs. Producing video of the quality audiences no
by Cushman 15y ago
I think you're underestimating-- making a movie is really, really hard. It barely matters how much the camera costs. Producing video of the quality audiences now expect takes dozens of people who all know exactly what they're doing. That's the major expense.
Anyone with a PC and a HD camcorder can easily produce good video for, say, the early 90s. But people now don't want to watch video from the early 90s, so it still costs a hundred million bucks to make a film.
- Jun8 15y agoI wholeheartedly disagree. Slickness of the film is important, I.e. editing, sound quality, etc., but thisis but one dimension. When I sit on a Friday evening browsing page after page of crap movies on Netflix, this dimensiona is less important than the actual content and originality. I can't believe that film school students, armed with a decent camera (not a camcorder) and audio equipment cannot produce watcahble and interesting content. Well-known examples do exist, most recently Paranormal Activity. Your arguments (it's hard, costs millions) were labeled to some other industries, that are now trickling down to DIYers, e.g. 3D print, self publishing. You can now rent a professional studio to record your own CD and some groups have done so. However all solutions about creation are moot if the created content has no way of reaching the buyers. I still think this is the main problem. Putting your movie on YouTube is not a viable solution.