The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What role will movies play in the future?
At present they are arguably the greatest form of escapism and a major source of entertainment for millions around the globe. Not troubled by the problem that games have of seperating the viewer and the games world, the viewer can merely sit back, relax and be transported to another world for two hours.
But as the flipside of that coin movie making is prohibitively expensive, incredibly technical and an awful lot of work. But luckily, the cost of making a movie is dropping all the time, and new advancements in technology has made it easier for everyone who wants to make a movie to actually go and do it. While a film shot with a DV camera is no where near as highly defined as a film shot on 35mm film stock, it has major advantages, the equipment is readily avaliable to the home consumer, shooting on tape is non technical and you can record up to two hours of footage on a single tape, compare that to 35mm film stock which has a maximum shooting time of 20 minutes before the film has to be reloaded, and any mistakes during loading or unloading can wipe all the shot footage. Add that to the fact that a 35mm movie camera is large and expensive (and difficult to get hold of), theres no wonder why most low budget film makers opt to shoot on DV. Even some big name directors choose to shoot movies on DV thanks to it low cost and ease of use, an example of which is Steven Soderbergh's recent Full Frontal. A film with the storyline and budget of an indie film, but the stars of a blockbuster. And while you may not be able to get the stars, or utilise all the post production effects avaliable to this kind of semi independent film, you can, with your friends make a movie, so its becoming more and more believable that someday in the near future, you will be able to make feature quality films on a shoestring buget.
When it was anounced that Star Wars Episode 2 would be digitally, it recieved a barage of criticism, mostly from a lot of cinematographers who claimed that the film simply couldn't look as good as a traditional 35mm film. But the High Definition Video Tape was used, and Im sure that most people would agree that while there may have been slight differences in quality, overall there was little real difference. It proved that movies can be shot digitally and presented in Cinemas. It was even recently shown in the IMAX format, which would certainly have revealed any flaws, to great praise. High Definition Digital Video is shot on tape cartridges much like regular DV is, and it shares all the same benefits, but at a much higher (almost 35mm quality) resolution. While at the minute the cameras are far too large for home use, and the editing equipment needed is too processor intensive, these issues will become of no concern when the new versions of the cameras get smaller, and home computers become more powerful - powerful enough to edit high definition video in real time. The potential for a person to make a great movie at home will be vastly increased. Anyone from the postman to the teacher could make their own movie. The old saying is that everyone has at least one great book in them. New millenium, new rules, so maybe everyone has at least one great movie in them. Low cost equipment and easy to use tools, in combination with new distribution methods such as internet streaming will truly allow anyone to make a movie and share it with a potentially endless amount of people around the globe.
Special effects, CGI characters and backgrounds, and big stunts will undoubtedly still be dominated by the big companies, as the time and money needed to design, construct and implement these will be too great, and the task too difficult, but the movie business as we know it will not be the same. There have been suggestions that prehaps actors won't even be needed, but rather be replaced by virtual actors - synthespians. And while this is an intriguing prospect, and its use instead of stuntpeople in films certainly allows for a greater scope in whats possible, but I for one would not like to see the end of traditional acting, after all, its the inperfections that make a performance interesting, and anyway, its easier to point a camera and film.
Movies as a linear medium have the potential to be made by anyone, requiring little technical skill, but rather more creative talent (and ideally both). This is where the advancement of the movie industry has a clear advantage over videogames, the complexities of making a game only get greater when technology advances, film making gets easier. Even if videogames advance to the point of having fully interactive photorealistic enviroments that the gamesplayer can see, feel, smell, taste and hear, the construction of these environments relies upon either big companies with the required technical skills and development budgets, or artificial intellegences, in which case total control over the environment is lost.
Whatever happens, one thing is for sure, much like films didn't replace books, as books allow the reader to create their own interpretation in their mind, games will not replace movies as games don't have the flexibility of movies, they will be around for a long time to come, and we may be able to make them ourselves.....
.....In the meantime, you could still write a book.
At present they are arguably the greatest form of escapism and a major source of entertainment for millions around the globe. Not troubled by the problem that games have of seperating the viewer and the games world, the viewer can merely sit back, relax and be transported to another world for two hours.
But as the flipside of that coin movie making is prohibitively expensive, incredibly technical and an awful lot of work. But luckily, the cost of making a movie is dropping all the time, and new advancements in technology has made it easier for everyone who wants to make a movie to actually go and do it. While a film shot with a DV camera is no where near as highly defined as a film shot on 35mm film stock, it has major advantages, the equipment is readily avaliable to the home consumer, shooting on tape is non technical and you can record up to two hours of footage on a single tape, compare that to 35mm film stock which has a maximum shooting time of 20 minutes before the film has to be reloaded, and any mistakes during loading or unloading can wipe all the shot footage. Add that to the fact that a 35mm movie camera is large and expensive (and difficult to get hold of), theres no wonder why most low budget film makers opt to shoot on DV. Even some big name directors choose to shoot movies on DV thanks to it low cost and ease of use, an example of which is Steven Soderbergh's recent Full Frontal. A film with the storyline and budget of an indie film, but the stars of a blockbuster. And while you may not be able to get the stars, or utilise all the post production effects avaliable to this kind of semi independent film, you can, with your friends make a movie, so its becoming more and more believable that someday in the near future, you will be able to make feature quality films on a shoestring buget.
When it was anounced that Star Wars Episode 2 would be digitally, it recieved a barage of criticism, mostly from a lot of cinematographers who claimed that the film simply couldn't look as good as a traditional 35mm film. But the High Definition Video Tape was used, and Im sure that most people would agree that while there may have been slight differences in quality, overall there was little real difference. It proved that movies can be shot digitally and presented in Cinemas. It was even recently shown in the IMAX format, which would certainly have revealed any flaws, to great praise. High Definition Digital Video is shot on tape cartridges much like regular DV is, and it shares all the same benefits, but at a much higher (almost 35mm quality) resolution. While at the minute the cameras are far too large for home use, and the editing equipment needed is too processor intensive, these issues will become of no concern when the new versions of the cameras get smaller, and home computers become more powerful - powerful enough to edit high definition video in real time. The potential for a person to make a great movie at home will be vastly increased. Anyone from the postman to the teacher could make their own movie. The old saying is that everyone has at least one great book in them. New millenium, new rules, so maybe everyone has at least one great movie in them. Low cost equipment and easy to use tools, in combination with new distribution methods such as internet streaming will truly allow anyone to make a movie and share it with a potentially endless amount of people around the globe.
Special effects, CGI characters and backgrounds, and big stunts will undoubtedly still be dominated by the big companies, as the time and money needed to design, construct and implement these will be too great, and the task too difficult, but the movie business as we know it will not be the same. There have been suggestions that prehaps actors won't even be needed, but rather be replaced by virtual actors - synthespians. And while this is an intriguing prospect, and its use instead of stuntpeople in films certainly allows for a greater scope in whats possible, but I for one would not like to see the end of traditional acting, after all, its the inperfections that make a performance interesting, and anyway, its easier to point a camera and film.
Movies as a linear medium have the potential to be made by anyone, requiring little technical skill, but rather more creative talent (and ideally both). This is where the advancement of the movie industry has a clear advantage over videogames, the complexities of making a game only get greater when technology advances, film making gets easier. Even if videogames advance to the point of having fully interactive photorealistic enviroments that the gamesplayer can see, feel, smell, taste and hear, the construction of these environments relies upon either big companies with the required technical skills and development budgets, or artificial intellegences, in which case total control over the environment is lost.
Whatever happens, one thing is for sure, much like films didn't replace books, as books allow the reader to create their own interpretation in their mind, games will not replace movies as games don't have the flexibility of movies, they will be around for a long time to come, and we may be able to make them ourselves.....
.....In the meantime, you could still write a book.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
What role will movies play in the future?
At present they are arguably the greatest form of escapism and a major source of entertainment for millions around the globe. Not troubled by the problem that games have of seperating the viewer and the games world, the viewer can merely sit back, relax and be transported to another world for two hours.
But as the flipside of that coin movie making is prohibitively expensive, incredibly technical and an awful lot of work. But luckily, the cost of making a movie is dropping all the time, and new advancements in technology has made it easier for everyone who wants to make a movie to actually go and do it. While a film shot with a DV camera is no where near as highly defined as a film shot on 35mm film stock, it has major advantages, the equipment is readily avaliable to the home consumer, shooting on tape is non technical and you can record up to two hours of footage on a single tape, compare that to 35mm film stock which has a maximum shooting time of 20 minutes before the film has to be reloaded, and any mistakes during loading or unloading can wipe all the shot footage. Add that to the fact that a 35mm movie camera is large and expensive (and difficult to get hold of), theres no wonder why most low budget film makers opt to shoot on DV. Even some big name directors choose to shoot movies on DV thanks to it low cost and ease of use, an example of which is Steven Soderbergh's recent Full Frontal. A film with the storyline and budget of an indie film, but the stars of a blockbuster. And while you may not be able to get the stars, or utilise all the post production effects avaliable to this kind of semi independent film, you can, with your friends make a movie, so its becoming more and more believable that someday in the near future, you will be able to make feature quality films on a shoestring buget.
When it was anounced that Star Wars Episode 2 would be digitally, it recieved a barage of criticism, mostly from a lot of cinematographers who claimed that the film simply couldn't look as good as a traditional 35mm film. But the High Definition Video Tape was used, and Im sure that most people would agree that while there may have been slight differences in quality, overall there was little real difference. It proved that movies can be shot digitally and presented in Cinemas. It was even recently shown in the IMAX format, which would certainly have revealed any flaws, to great praise. High Definition Digital Video is shot on tape cartridges much like regular DV is, and it shares all the same benefits, but at a much higher (almost 35mm quality) resolution. While at the minute the cameras are far too large for home use, and the editing equipment needed is too processor intensive, these issues will become of no concern when the new versions of the cameras get smaller, and home computers become more powerful - powerful enough to edit high definition video in real time. The potential for a person to make a great movie at home will be vastly increased. Anyone from the postman to the teacher could make their own movie. The old saying is that everyone has at least one great book in them. New millenium, new rules, so maybe everyone has at least one great movie in them. Low cost equipment and easy to use tools, in combination with new distribution methods such as internet streaming will truly allow anyone to make a movie and share it with a potentially endless amount of people around the globe.
Special effects, CGI characters and backgrounds, and big stunts will undoubtedly still be dominated by the big companies, as the time and money needed to design, construct and implement these will be too great, and the task too difficult, but the movie business as we know it will not be the same. There have been suggestions that prehaps actors won't even be needed, but rather be replaced by virtual actors - synthespians. And while this is an intriguing prospect, and its use instead of stuntpeople in films certainly allows for a greater scope in whats possible, but I for one would not like to see the end of traditional acting, after all, its the inperfections that make a performance interesting, and anyway, its easier to point a camera and film.
Movies as a linear medium have the potential to be made by anyone, requiring little technical skill, but rather more creative talent (and ideally both). This is where the advancement of the movie industry has a clear advantage over videogames, the complexities of making a game only get greater when technology advances, film making gets easier. Even if videogames advance to the point of having fully interactive photorealistic enviroments that the gamesplayer can see, feel, smell, taste and hear, the construction of these environments relies upon either big companies with the required technical skills and development budgets, or artificial intellegences, in which case total control over the environment is lost.
Whatever happens, one thing is for sure, much like films didn't replace books, as books allow the reader to create their own interpretation in their mind, games will not replace movies as games don't have the flexibility of movies, they will be around for a long time to come, and we may be able to make them ourselves.....
.....In the meantime, you could still write a book.
At present they are arguably the greatest form of escapism and a major source of entertainment for millions around the globe. Not troubled by the problem that games have of seperating the viewer and the games world, the viewer can merely sit back, relax and be transported to another world for two hours.
But as the flipside of that coin movie making is prohibitively expensive, incredibly technical and an awful lot of work. But luckily, the cost of making a movie is dropping all the time, and new advancements in technology has made it easier for everyone who wants to make a movie to actually go and do it. While a film shot with a DV camera is no where near as highly defined as a film shot on 35mm film stock, it has major advantages, the equipment is readily avaliable to the home consumer, shooting on tape is non technical and you can record up to two hours of footage on a single tape, compare that to 35mm film stock which has a maximum shooting time of 20 minutes before the film has to be reloaded, and any mistakes during loading or unloading can wipe all the shot footage. Add that to the fact that a 35mm movie camera is large and expensive (and difficult to get hold of), theres no wonder why most low budget film makers opt to shoot on DV. Even some big name directors choose to shoot movies on DV thanks to it low cost and ease of use, an example of which is Steven Soderbergh's recent Full Frontal. A film with the storyline and budget of an indie film, but the stars of a blockbuster. And while you may not be able to get the stars, or utilise all the post production effects avaliable to this kind of semi independent film, you can, with your friends make a movie, so its becoming more and more believable that someday in the near future, you will be able to make feature quality films on a shoestring buget.
When it was anounced that Star Wars Episode 2 would be digitally, it recieved a barage of criticism, mostly from a lot of cinematographers who claimed that the film simply couldn't look as good as a traditional 35mm film. But the High Definition Video Tape was used, and Im sure that most people would agree that while there may have been slight differences in quality, overall there was little real difference. It proved that movies can be shot digitally and presented in Cinemas. It was even recently shown in the IMAX format, which would certainly have revealed any flaws, to great praise. High Definition Digital Video is shot on tape cartridges much like regular DV is, and it shares all the same benefits, but at a much higher (almost 35mm quality) resolution. While at the minute the cameras are far too large for home use, and the editing equipment needed is too processor intensive, these issues will become of no concern when the new versions of the cameras get smaller, and home computers become more powerful - powerful enough to edit high definition video in real time. The potential for a person to make a great movie at home will be vastly increased. Anyone from the postman to the teacher could make their own movie. The old saying is that everyone has at least one great book in them. New millenium, new rules, so maybe everyone has at least one great movie in them. Low cost equipment and easy to use tools, in combination with new distribution methods such as internet streaming will truly allow anyone to make a movie and share it with a potentially endless amount of people around the globe.
Special effects, CGI characters and backgrounds, and big stunts will undoubtedly still be dominated by the big companies, as the time and money needed to design, construct and implement these will be too great, and the task too difficult, but the movie business as we know it will not be the same. There have been suggestions that prehaps actors won't even be needed, but rather be replaced by virtual actors - synthespians. And while this is an intriguing prospect, and its use instead of stuntpeople in films certainly allows for a greater scope in whats possible, but I for one would not like to see the end of traditional acting, after all, its the inperfections that make a performance interesting, and anyway, its easier to point a camera and film.
Movies as a linear medium have the potential to be made by anyone, requiring little technical skill, but rather more creative talent (and ideally both). This is where the advancement of the movie industry has a clear advantage over videogames, the complexities of making a game only get greater when technology advances, film making gets easier. Even if videogames advance to the point of having fully interactive photorealistic enviroments that the gamesplayer can see, feel, smell, taste and hear, the construction of these environments relies upon either big companies with the required technical skills and development budgets, or artificial intellegences, in which case total control over the environment is lost.
Whatever happens, one thing is for sure, much like films didn't replace books, as books allow the reader to create their own interpretation in their mind, games will not replace movies as games don't have the flexibility of movies, they will be around for a long time to come, and we may be able to make them ourselves.....
.....In the meantime, you could still write a book.