I Hate the Fact That It's Digital
Digital's for hacks like George Lucas, not serious directors like Jodorowsky. It just looks cheap, no matter how high the resolution.
shareDo you know how much it would cost to shoot on film these days? He barely got it made as it is!
And no, digital is not inherently a bad thing. In fact it's a great thing, allowing many more people to make movies easily, efficiently and, most importantly, cheaply. If it weren't for the advent of digital, we may have never got another Jodorowsky movie.
Well, it says here that the budget was 3 million. Of course they could've shot it on film. Why is such a necessary expense like the recording medium suddenly too expensive? I just find it ridiculous to go through all the trouble of making a movie to just record it on video. Like I said, it looks cheap. I don't even feel like I'm watching a real movie when it's digital.
shareWell, it says here that the budget was 3 million. Of course they could've shot it on film. Why is such a necessary expense like the recording medium suddenly too expensive?
Well, a good portion of that 3 million which went on locations, sets, actors, costumes, effects(?) etc. would have been spent on hiring expensive film cameras, personnel who know how to operate them, hugely-increased post-production costs as well as the cost of film itself. Remember, film is proportionally more expensive to use now than it was in the past because nowadays it's more of a specialist thing rather than the norm. It's like saying "why doesn't everyone just buy vinyl LPs?" So yeah, you may have got the look you preferred but at the expense of other aspects of the film (i.e. the actual content).
Like I said, it looks cheap. I don't even feel like I'm watching a real movie when it's digital.
You'd probably be surprised how many "real movies" were shot on digital without you even noticing. And if the advent of digital means "outsider" filmmakers like Jodorowsky or Lars Von Trier are able to make interesting and potentially important movies they might not otherwise have the money for, I'm more than willing to sacrifice the superficial perks the "film look" affords for that. Like I said, if it weren't for the advent of digital, we may have never got another Jodorowsky movie. He's no spring chicken, and nobody was giving him the money he'd need to shoot something like this on film. share
3 millions, it's Nothing for a movie. Some TV films cost more than that. Even some advertising cost more than that.
share