3 ms·

>The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. This is the only point I disagree

>The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. This is the only point I disagree with. I don't care how much more accessible the tech gets it's still about te storyline, the acting and cinematography.

jasonwocky 15y ago
I assume sunchild called it "harder" to spot talent simply because the increased accessibility of tech means there's now more crap to wade through.
- technoslut 15y ago
  I can't make that assumption. Any one of these crafts: direction, acting, editing, cinematography and soundtracking is always hard to find. You always had to wade through a mountain of garbage. The way most execs did it previously is through word of mouth. I don't believe that's changed today.
- sunchild 15y ago
  That's exactly what I meant. It becomes a real problem when you're looking to fill a technical spot. It's really no different than casting actors, though – that's always been a flood of wannabes. My point was just that lowering the barriers to entry on the technical side means more people feel qualified, even if they aren't. Practical issue more than an insurmountable obstacle.
alan_cx 15y ago
Im not even that sure acting and cinematography are essential. I know with web based TV type shows, the only thing I have cared about is the plot. An example is Pioneer One. Terrible production values, which is OK because it only cost $10k ish per episode, but the plot was interesting enough to keep watching. OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better, but then there is more cash coming it to cover that. Anyway, my silly little point, is that a good plot and script can carry a hell of a lot of iffy production.
- technoslut 15y ago
  If you're looking for talent they all matter. You, as a studio exec, go after what you see or feel. For example, one of my favorite films was The Brothers McMullen which was made with $25,000. It was done on a low budget but anyone could see that Edward Burns was the true talent in the film when he was the actor, director and writer. The movie didn't become popular because a ton of execs waded through thousands of movies but rather by word of mouth. This has been the same in the music industry for years. >OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better I'm not sure if that's true. A good portion of that 'experience' of movies is to see it with other people – even with people you don't know. It is just something to do. Some just like to see a bad movie and throw popcorn at the screen. I'm sure that many didn't go to see Transformers 3 because they expected better than an indie flick.

jasonwocky 15y ago

I assume sunchild called it "harder" to spot talent simply because the increased accessibility of tech means there's now more crap to wade through.

technoslut 15y ago
I can't make that assumption. Any one of these crafts: direction, acting, editing, cinematography and soundtracking is always hard to find. You always had to wade through a mountain of garbage. The way most execs did it previously is through word of mouth. I don't believe that's changed today.
sunchild 15y ago
That's exactly what I meant. It becomes a real problem when you're looking to fill a technical spot. It's really no different than casting actors, though – that's always been a flood of wannabes. My point was just that lowering the barriers to entry on the technical side means more people feel qualified, even if they aren't. Practical issue more than an insurmountable obstacle.

alan_cx 15y ago

Im not even that sure acting and cinematography are essential. I know with web based TV type shows, the only thing I have cared about is the plot. An example is Pioneer One. Terrible production values, which is OK because it only cost $10k ish per episode, but the plot was interesting enough to keep watching. OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better, but then there is more cash coming it to cover that. Anyway, my silly little point, is that a good plot and script can carry a hell of a lot of iffy production.

technoslut 15y ago
If you're looking for talent they all matter. You, as a studio exec, go after what you see or feel. For example, one of my favorite films was The Brothers McMullen which was made with $25,000. It was done on a low budget but anyone could see that Edward Burns was the true talent in the film when he was the actor, director and writer. The movie didn't become popular because a ton of execs waded through thousands of movies but rather by word of mouth. This has been the same in the music industry for years. >OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better I'm not sure if that's true. A good portion of that 'experience' of movies is to see it with other people – even with people you don't know. It is just something to do. Some just like to see a bad movie and throw popcorn at the screen. I'm sure that many didn't go to see Transformers 3 because they expected better than an indie flick.