Post by london777 on Sept 20, 2021 22:47:09 GMT
Agreed. So do it!
Yet, this also reduces the types of films that can be made ...
... no historical films w/ extensive costumes or sets
Good! 99% of those are complete rubbish.
... no crowd scenes
There are ways round that with existing technology, but no great loss anyway. Shakespeare managed OK.
no FX
I have seen ingenious FX that cost very little. Even better is when the director fools the audience into believing they have seen something without even using FX. Kirk Douglas made that point in The Bad and the Beautiful.
... no extensive music score, etc.
That would be a tremendous blessing. Far more movies are ruined by the score than enhanced by it. Usually employed to steer the audiences feelings. The script, direction and acting should be doing that job.
My point is that, as technology improves, we will be able to get budget films that don't feel like budget films.
If you are watching a film and it feels like a budget film then something is wrong. But never did it cross my mind when watching "The Daytrippers" that they were stinting on costs. "After Life" was different and unusual in that the director actually highlighted cost restrictions in the scenario in a humorous and clever way. I will give examples of that if I post a review here.
I agree that imagination and talent are very important- but they are not the only factors. Money strongly limits what types of films can be made.
We seem to be managing OK. As many good films are being released each year as at any previous time. Just do not look to the US studio system for them.
If your cut-price innovations arrive, they will be a welcome bonus, but they will not be a substitute for good writing and direction.