As long as the public still prefers to see movies on a big screen, which is the only true way to watch a movie, in my opinion, and as long as Hollywood can keep their films from being pirated before they come out, then I think the industry will survive.
The thing is, movies aren’t like music. Music can be made for a little bit of nothing. Movies cost tons of money. If people will download movies too much, then it will become financially impossible to make them, and so none will be made. And all we will be left with is tv.
I don’t think that anytime soon it will get to the point that illegal downloading will destroy the film industry, although it could cause the film industry to shrink, which I think could lead to more quality as there will be less money to go around, so I think it could be a bit of a return to the old studio system. Although cheap movies will also be made, to maximize profits as well. I think that once people see the correlation between them staying home to watch movies illegally downloaded, or only on dvd, and the low number of big movies being made, I think that people would return to the theaters realizing that is the only way for Hollywood to keep making the big summer movies that everyone loves.
You might be interested in this thread, where a lot of these points were discussed: Is buying pirated DVDs justified – due to state censorship? cost of original DVDs? love of films? http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/529/comments?page=2
The big screen isn’t the only “true way” to see a movie, nor does it take “tons of money” to make one. Also illegal downloading won’t ever destroy the film, music, software or any other industry. The industries not adjusting to a changing marketplace could only do that.
The big screen is the only real way to watch a movie, and any filmmaker would tell you the same thing.
Secondly, in order to make a summer movie you are going to need atleast 40 million dollars. And if you want to make epic’s like Lawrence of Arabia or The English Patient, you will need lots of money. You can’t just do it with handheld cameras in your backyard. You need to shoot in several different countries, you need planes, you need cranes, you need a talented crew to operate the equipment, build your sets and costumes, etc. You can’t do that on a tv budget, much less guerilla filmmaking.
A big budget that can assure a quality production is the main thing separating film from tv and what I can do with my camera and a few friends. And this is in noway a slight to personal films done for artistic purposes, which don’t require millions of dollars, but most films do in order for them to even be adequate. You cannot reconstruct the film industry around youtube videos, and with half the population of Southern California depending depending on the film industry, I really hope that it does go the of the music industry. The music industry is nothing compared to the size of the movie industry, and music itself can be made at very high levels without record companies. record companies are there merely for marketing purposes, and most musicians don’t even make money off of record sales, but by touring. You can’t compare the music industry models to the film industry.
And while I agree that industry must adjust to the marketplace, it can be hard for the marketplace to compete with illegal free stuff-which is exactly why the theater must remain as the first option in which people look to for watching movies.
Although I don’t necessarily believe in torrent type downloading except as a means of: 1. previewing something I may well buy that isn’t readily available, 2. if that is the only was to see it, because a decent release is unavailable, 3. low availability and to see films I know I will never buy, but might want to see. If I can get something at the library or a local video outlet, I always go that way first. All my dvds are legal, bought copies, but I have tons of films recorded free from tv. When I recently did attempt to download a film from a site to my computer of a film that is virtually unavailable now, I got a virus for just opening up the website, even though there was no download. So, I will be very cautious of any future downloading.
In any case, downloading should just be used as a last resort, or else from legal sites, if they exist for that film. It really highlights the need for more obscure films to find legitimate release, so that we can support them. The film I was looking for, by the way, thanks to a recommendation on this site, was the French film: Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train. I was also looking for Rivette’s Out 1 – currently both are unavailable except through sketchy sites. Jason is right, for current releases, the best place to see them will always be the movie theatre. However, as there are so many ‘questionable’ or over-hyped films out there, I for one, usually wait for a dvd release – which I always get from a legitimate source. I only go to see a film in the theatre if I think there is a good chance I might actually enjoy it. I am restricting my comments on dowloading to include only obscure or hard to get films, as I definitely think it is a bad thing to encourage illegal downloading for current or legitimate releases.
I don’t really download anything because I am afraid to get a virus, and am mainly ignorant of the process aside from thinking that its wrong in almost all instances. If there is not a US release available for a film on dvd, then I sometimes look to the UK or yesasia for a movie. But if there is a US release, I always get it, because it is almost always better, especially if it is on criterion.
Only the “urban” element of viewers are really hooked Pirating. I think any real film lover wants to see it on the big screen even if we own it an d have seen it a zillion times.
I have a allot of Dubbed films. Most of which i paid to rent. Or it is from my library which my taxes pay for and i donate time to my library. So this is how i justify the “cost” of the movie.
Within the next ten to thirty years things such as discs, and yes… even theatrical film prints, will be extinct.
The inevitable future of all entertainment media is high-definition digital downloads, whether on your hdtv at home, or to digital projectors in theaters. So yes, downloading is the future of cinema, but not illegal downloading.
I wasnt going to contribute to this thread but what the hell,this isnt my most eloquent post so bear with me
pirating gives publicity,on a scale not easily bought,that said seeing as most leaks are by company execs it wont stop any time soon,4k cameras are finally on the rise,but i dont think the 35mm or 70mm print will go completely extinct as grain gives a specific aesthetic.The theater experience cannot be replaced easily.
Oh and I DL’d the 2.20 aspect ratio copy of The Last Emperor, as I bought the blu ray and i wanted to see the original again,so fuck you criterion for being cheap bastards and not giving me a second Hi-def disc(already fucking transferred in 1080P) or at least making one available.Bastards
This is a very pertinent issue, given the times. I come from a country where the majority doesn’t know Woody Allen, forget Bergman or Truffaut. So, mostly only “blockbuster” hollywood movies get a release. The situation is improving because we, as a country, are doing well, but it is still far from acceptable.
DVDs are not cheap in my country. I would be blowing a huge hole in my pocket just for getting 4 or 5 DVDs per month. And that, in itself, would be too much of a luxury. So, the only practical remaining option for me is to download it off the net. I do it with a promise to myself that I will buy everyone of the movies I’m downloading, later in my life, when I’m hopefully earning enough :-)
“The big screen is the only real way to watch a movie, and any filmmaker would tell you the same thing.”
This one wouldn’t. I think it’s a pretty bourgeois, utopian notion, actually. Obviously as an ideal it’s always better (assuming the audience is respectful, the projectionist is professional, and the print is worthy), but to tell anyone who was too impoverished or poorly located to see a film in theater that they “haven’t really seen the film” is pretty absurd.
I’ve been bored out of my mind in front of the big screen and awed to tears in front of my CRT. Which was the more authentic experience? I’ve seen Godard’s Contempt (one of my favorite movies ever) on DVD and in a theater and I can actually say I’ve preferred every home viewing. With La Dolce Vita, it makes no difference; it’s an exquisite work every time. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is better on a television.
I really feel that sort of thing only creates a sort of elitism we’ve already got way too much of in the cinephile world. People who want to watch films should watch them any way they can get them, and their positive experiences are just as valid as the next person’s.
i guess giles point is right movie is about experience and feelings u got from it
so wherever u watch it from as long as it helps u to learn some stuff i think illegal dowload is GOOOOD and helpful
also i never believe that movie tickets help to survive moviebiz
theyre always looking for new merchandising like tape dvd blueray
so movies for art????
I don’t think downloading movies is going to reach near the level of illegal downloading of music simply because I believe the majority of the film going audience (not those who are actively searching the net for torrents but the parents and grandparents who took their kids to see “Beverlly Hills Chihuahua”) would rather not go through the hassle of downloading big movie files and will opt to either check it out at the big screen or at the very least just rent it from Blockbuster. It’s so much easier to just check out the movie itself instead of download a 4 gigbyte file for a nice quality copy.
Didn’t mean to double post
Just to clarify, I was ONLY talking about the idea of in-theater viewing as the only authentic way of viewing movies, and not at all about piracy. That’s a pretty muddled subject. Financial support for artists is important, and it’s hard to support them any other way besides paying for their art. Analysis for how illegal downloading has really affected the music and film industries has yet to give any trustworthy conclusions, so I can’t say for sure about that. I think there are people who are going to support artists in general and download things occasionally, and then there are the people who are just looking for a free ride and don’t really understand that art is hard work worth getting paid for.
All the quasi-ethical talk of illegal downloading ignores certain hard facts:
1) Digital delivery, whether in theaters (however those may be redesigned in the future) or to homes is here and will expand greatly. Use of digital cameras in feature film production will at some point be the norm rather than the exception. There isn’t an analogous technological jump in the history of cinema to match this one, as it touches every last bit of the film production/reception process. The unauthorized copying and distribution of everything from dailies to workprints to final product is inevitable.
2) EVERY digital encryption scheme begs a hack, it’s endemic to the ecology of the digital world: file encryption is not the territory of special anti-piracy magi—it’s an engineered solution using certain typical methods of data handling. And what is engineered can in turn be disassembled, reassembled, etc; and it’s in the nature of programmers and engineers to want to take things apart and examine them. The fantasy of anarchistic, thieving “hackers” (such as you see in shitty movies & tee-vee shows) is just that: the advent of bit torrent P2P protocol or of AACS cracking and such weren’t the grand acts of crime media conglomerate shills would have you believe they were.
3) The tendency of corporate DRM (digital rights management) technologies is to hamstring/fuck up the media file and even delivery device. Not one of the millions of IPod users (I’m one) can say with a straight face that they have no clue what quality-destroying DRM means, at the consumer level. Corporations such as Sony and Apple would have you think that the alternative to offering top-quality digital product is to open the store and invite looting—this is pure horseshit. Region-specificity in DVD players – both hard- & software – is another example of a hamstringing technology. And the same people who reflexively scream at the thought of film downloads are the same people who are for some reason more sanguine about the use of region-free players—but you know that those players aren’t sold in major retail stores for legal reasons, don’t you? How do you reconcile your moral stance re downloading with your flouting trade AND copyright laws with a region-free device and DVDs produced for sale in foreign markets?
4) The expansion of officially authorized and sanctioned channels of digital delivery has so far absolutely failed to expand the dissemination of great films. Movies of absolutely no quality are shifted to the consumer a million different ways, as omnipresent as cans of Coke. The Criterion Collection and Turner Classic Movies are by contrast tiny boutiques in the shadow of enormous corporate box-stores. Cinema is not handled like other “product” by the corporations that distribute it: DVD, Blu-Ray, and addressable cable converters and various set-top boxes have worked generally as means to shift inferior and ephemeral product (truly only that – “product”). For commercial reasons, the release of great films to the DVD format has lagged – Criterion notwithstanding – and will continue no less to lag, once that format’s completely deprecated in favor of HD. And theatrical distribution of superior films is a joke. I mean, patience is a virtue, and all—but why the fuck should you spend 20 years waiting to see a film?
I’m not sure if the same can be said about the film industry but music artists are already cutting out the middleman which are the multi-billion dollar corporations in question. More and more bands each year are simply releasing and distributing their music themselves. The net in this context is a powerful thing, as virtually anyone can put their work out there for hundreds to look at.
Hell even major artists like Nine Inch Nails are no longer signed and are releasing music themselves.
I’m not saying the same could work with film since I feel its a bit more intertwined but there is a definite trend of this already happening (Dr. Horrible, The Guild, Sita Sings the Blues) . Prosumerism is definitely on the rise, and if something some random joe can make for virtually nothing can rival million dollar film productions…well, that will lead to an interesting problem for the studios.
Crap Monster, I agree with you that prosumerism is the (near)future – I feel much better doing business directly with the artist, and I’m willing to pay the same amount or even more. Given the choice as to price with Radiohead’s In Rainbows, for instance, I paid $15; and I can’t have been the only one. And an online pay-per-view streaming model for great films – as with this site, though American viewers aren’t allowed to watch most! – is a great way to spread the best of this medium.
The old entrepreneurial spirit (the one for which the Republicans are ostensibly great boosters and advocates, though it’s only a corporate hegemony they’re interested in) which built Hollywood will maybe work in the future in a less exploitative and more widely profitable way to pull cinema away from its current, outmoded business model.
Crap Monster, I agree with you that prosumerism is the (near)future – I feel much better doing business directly with the artist, and I’m willing to pay the same amount or even more. Given the choice as to price with Radiohead’s In Rainbows, for instance, I paid $15; and I can’t have been the only one. And an online pay-per-view streaming model for great films – as with this site, though American viewers aren’t allowed to watch most! – is a great way to spread the best of this medium.
The old entrepreneurial spirit (the one for which the Republicans are ostensibly great boosters and advocates, though it’s only a corporate hegemony they’re interested in) which built Hollywood will maybe work in the future in a less exploitative and more widely profitable way to pull cinema away from its current, outmoded business model.
I have no issues with torrenting films that one might have otherwise never been able to see. I think its a beautiful thing. I live in metro Detroit, and while there a few theatres that specialize in screening classics, their programming is pretty much limited to canonical cinema i.e. Tokyo Story or Children of Paradise, and I make sure to see them whenever possible. But for other works like the films of Raul Ruiz or Andrzej Zulawski, let’s face it, the chances of any establishment in the state of Michigan holding an event dedicated to filmmakers of the like simply do not exist. I’m glad sites like Amazon, Mubi and Netflix exist for this purpose, but there are hundreds of films I would love to see that they simply do not carry, most of which do not exist on a DVD of any kind.
Also, just an honest question, in the case of filmmakers who have long since passed such as Sergei Eisenstein, where would the money go if I were to purchase one of his films?
The cinema house may not be the only way to see a movie, but if the film was made with the big screen in mind, then yes, it IS the way the auteur meant for it to be seen.
Now take a made-for-television film like “Brian’s Song” (James Caan version) as an example. It was made for the small screen, yet later got converted to the cinema screen. Did people watching it on television (its intended medium) not “see” the movie?
What about ad breaks? Surely the makers of the TV version would have allowed for ad breaks. A film made for the big screen, then converted to television, is not damaged so much by a smaller screen as it is by the commercial breaks disturbing the flow of the film.
Either way, I can’t stand commercial breaks in films these days, even if the film was intended for television. That’s actually one of the best thing about DVDs: the chance to visit made-for-TV films minus ads.
Jason Trochesset’s comment about great music costing less to make than great cinema is true. It’s laughable when people say “films can be made for next-to-nothing” just because they made some cruddy college film for under 2,000 clams. Yes, you can make a decent no-budget flick, but the great ones are VERY rare. As Jason said, a film like “Lawrence of Arabia” demands a ridiculous sum of cash. An album such as Kate Bush’s “Hounds of Love” (a masterpiece) can be made relatively quickly and cheaply, and without spending a single day with a cast of thousands in a desert.
i don’t think there would be much of a future for cinema if people illegally downloaded movies all the time.
drew – whatever profits that he would have got from your purchase would go to the holder of his estate – either family, or you can leave your estate to an organization or a company, or something like that
Even the amount spent on “low-budget” films often range in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Sure, decent short films can be made for a couple hundred bucks, but to make a feature of any length or scope is going to be a massive investment.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree with Mark D Vanselow in regard to small vs. big screen. But for people who have limited means on top of living in a culturally devoid part of the world, I simply don’t understand the ethical tussle.
And these people who are morally opposed to illegal downloading but claim to watch 5 films a day and have seen every film directed by Bresson, Pialat, Garrel and Skolimowski, do they purchase every one of them on DVD? Some of the users on here have pretty expansive viewing histories consisting of many films that are considered rare and must garner some relatively high prices, I’m curious as to how they manage to financially support their cinephilia.
and without spending a single day …. in a desert.
ha ha thank the Lord – that porcelain skin!
Quote from Drew Boggemes:
Also, just an honest question, in the case of filmmakers who have long since passed such as Sergei Eisenstein, where would the money go if I were to purchase one of his films?
If a company holding the rights to a title sees profit from that title even after the filmmaker is dead, it lets the company know people are still interested in these works and/or these kinds of stories. You are voting for the future of film with your dollar. By purchasing works from long-dead filmmakers, or supporting (financially supporting, blog all you want but mere talk doesn’t get films made), you are showing the people who finance films that these kinds of projects are worth making, and you are also building momentum to have other works by those long-gone filmmakers revisited for restoration and/or new release if they’ve previously been unavailable.
Quote from Mark D Venselow:
It’s laughable when people say “films can be made for next-to-nothing” just because they made some cruddy college film for under 2,000 clams. Yes, you can make a decent no-budget flick, but the great ones are VERY rare.
Yes. The greatest cost in production is time. Talented technicians need to be paid, and the longer you spend on set to get a shot or performance right, the more you have to pay them. Talented actors with screen presence are obviously in greater demand than lesser actors, and so cost a lot of money to get. And locations. Location costs are never written in stone. Yes you can situate a movie predominently in one location, but most people’s lives and stories take place across many, so by scaling down budgets, you are also limiting the scope of the stories that can be told. Camera and editing suite costs may have dropped, but these costs are miniscule compared to the things that need to be IN FRONT OF the camera.
Drew B said:
“…And these people who are morally opposed to illegal downloading but claim to watch 5 films a day and have seen every film directed by Bresson, Pialat, Garrel and Skolimowski, do they purchase every one of them on DVD? Some of the users on here have pretty expansive viewing histories consisting of many films that are considered rare and must garner some relatively high prices, I’m curious as to how they manage to financially support their cinephilia.”
Oh, there’s a lot of illegal downloading of feature films by people on this site and others, I assure you.
I simply won’t stand to watch films such as “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Cabaret”, “Gone with the Wind”, “Wattstax”, “The Bridge on the River Kwai” and “Seven Samurai” online. I’m very fortunate to live in a city that has the Astor Theatre, a cinema very particular about screening films the way they were meant to be seen. However, even if I didn’t have a great nostalgia theatre nearby, I’d still go to the arthouses to show people that there is still a demand for movies shown at the cinema. I also take pride in going to film festivals that show foreign language films, to show that yes, there is a demand for those films in Anglophone Australia. By supporting films at festivals, we increase their chances of being released generally.
Finally, let me just say something I believe 100 percent: a person who watches 500 films per year yet is not in touch with the world and cannot derive the most from their various themes and imagery is no better “connected” to movies than someone who has seen 20 films per year yet understands them perfectly and can relate them back to life and understand the various messages contained within. Same with books: I see a lot of people reading BOOKS on trains, so where the fuck are all the “smart people” in this world that’s quickly going to shit? Trust me, there are people out there who have seen all major films by Godard, Fellini, Allen, Antonioni, Wertmüller, Bergman, Leone, Siegel, Hitchcock, blah-blah-blah, read books from all the great Russian authours, play all sorts of classical music, but when it comes to everyday life and being a human being and interacting socially with others and just being all round swell people, they wouldn’t know shit from clay. I just don’t think having seen 1,500 movies listed on MUBI entitles one to take a snobbish postion, and surely, a helluva lot of these “viewings” would be illegal downloads—unless MUBI is full o’millionaires.
But for people who have limited means on top of living in a culturally devoid part of the world
I live inside a rich culture in the world, both ancient and CONTEMPORARY but the cinephilia part is simply not as of yet…..advanced like in other, more expensive and money-making countries. Trouble is with mentality instead of structures. Structures always exist, it’s people and prices that leave little room for film rejoice in some parts of the world. You can’t just divide the world in two different armies, the ones with available means like Japan, France, Sweden, U.S.A. etc etc and the rest are purely Senegal, Peru, Malaysia etc etc etc.
Trust me, there are people out there who have…but when it comes to everyday life and being a human being and interacting socially with others and just being all round swell people, they wouldn’t know shit from clay.
You’re speculating about a particular percentage of educated people. Speculation is cultural racism aka social racism. What’s “swell” people to you? People who obey and vote every 4 years, who have a jolly good time at a bar, a party, a concert or a city ride? Maybe all this looks swell and dandy in theory but life is not just that. One can enjoy multiple strings and webs of life’s possibilities and don’t assume that just because one is in-depth with Art’s branches, that he / she isn’t able to communicate and acquaint with other social groups, any type of behavior and norm that is. Most of the cine-addicts you’re accusing of snobbish positions have better political knowledge than all the elected officials you probably voted yourself.
Why aren’t the ones who rule countries is another interesting question: that of political liability and of political blindness on behalf of the mass who votes and elects pointless human beings.
No one wants real change unless it’s a safe couch and their sweet, ol’ television set. Great democracy, bravo mass.
mandake lombardikis
IS ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING FUTURE OF CINEMA
DOES DOWNLOADING HAVE TO BE FREE AT ALL CAUSE PHON COMPANY CHARGES?
DOES ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING HAS MORE BENEFITS THAN PAID OR `legal` ONE?