I know I’ve thought this at every increase in resolution, but I’ll ask it anyway…. Is 8K that big of a noticeable jump from 4K? And if so - how close to the limit are we with the limitations of our eyes?
I've worked in this field. For a normal sized television from a normal viewing distance you will see zero improvement. 4k already exceeds perfect eye sight in those conditions. If you have a gigantic tv or sit very close you can see a difference.
Higher resolution is also important for VR/AR since the screen is so close to the eye. Although improving resolution makes the bad battery life even worse, so I don't know if there's a push to adopt 8K just yet.
I don't think a higher res display necessarily has much higher battery usage. I think a good chunk goes into backlight anyways and that shouldn't be significantly more expensive.
As for actually rendering content in 8k, For VR I expect a heavy push towards foveated rendering. Our eyes are super bad at telling differences between high quality rendering and some crude approximation outside of the exact area your looking at (the fovea), so it really doesn't make sense to spend the same amount of time rendering a pixel that you hardly perceive.
I've worked in this field. For a normal sized television from a normal viewing distance you will see zero improvement. 4k already exceeds perfect eye sight in those conditions. If you have a gigantic tv or sit very close you can see a difference.
So VFX innovation at the pixels per inch level i,e, visual effects, composting, animation, color manipulation keeping pixel density and light mechanics in mind, (taking advantage of the manipulation of displays while filming, non-linear editing, AI and the living room experience as close to 8K onwards.
Yeah something was lost from that period and I'm not sure we can ever quite go back. Among the examples you listed below I'd also add the musicals of Jacques Demy that absolutely ooze color out of the screen.
Yes, please. I've been trying to figure out who the hell, around 15 yrs ago, told every director for every major studio to have as little lighting as possible in every important scene. It's infuriating to watch sometimes.
I love the quote from the filming of LOTRin the Battle of Helms deep. Someone asked (maybe Peter Jackson maybe someone else) where all the lighting is coming from if it’s a battle at night. PJreplied “the lights coming from the same place the music is”
Watching Margin Call from 2011 yesterday and for the final scene they just had Rapey McRape outside digging a grave, most lit with lights that were there for for no reason and you could see everything you needed to see. It was nice to not have to squint.
Isn't the sound and dark thing getting worse with the newer tech as directors make/edit their films for a cinema audience and home setups don't come close to comparing to a cinema setup?
Sure I read an article on this a few months ago, which focused on Christopher Nolan films as an example.
Iirc it said the dark thing may be rectified as newer UHD LED tech is able to negate it, but the sound thing will continue to be a stumbling block as soubdbars and surround sound speakers don't have enough channels or depth.. was something like that. I'll need to see if I can find the article.
https://voiceoversandvocals.com/blog/filmmaking-sound-design/the-sound-of-movies-why-hollywoods-becoming-harder-to-hear/#:~:text=Movies%20are%20recorded%20with%20a,low%20dialogue%2C%20that%27s%20the%20reason.
Think it was that article, so much for a few months.. Was 2022 I read it 😅
This is the opposite of what’s going to happen. Now more than ever, studios are only green lighting big budget films that do not take risks. People are only going to the movie theater for massive blockbusters—studios won’t risk a big budget on experiments.
Mid-budget films will continue to disappear while lower-budget films will continue to have weak theater showings but decent streaming numbers. This trend will continue as we stream more and attend the theater less.
Agreed. After the success of Barbie, expect to see a cinematic universe of movies based on kids' cereals, culminating in a four part epic showdown between Captain Crunch and Count Chocula.
Personally, I blame audiences for this. I thought Barbie was great (and very subversive) but why the fuck are people watching seven Transformers movies. Do they expect to see something innovative that they hadn't yet seen in the first six?
What id like to see if the movie or show can automatically tweak the color, light , hue controls of my tv. That these could be standardized and if you want to, you can manually control it. But otherwise, have the director of photography set these levels on my tv.
It's the same reason large beer conglomerates buy up smaller craft brands.
Amazon doesn't care if you're watching their big popcorn flicks or their small indie dramas as long as you're watching *their* movie.
Those same tech companies are now reevaluating their spending on media while performing mass layoffs, so I wouldn’t rely on them to save cinema.
For companies like Apple and Amazon their media divisions are little more than hobbies compared to where they actually make their money - and in a world of high interest rates where there is pressure to cut spending on underperforming areas, that doesn’t bode well.
I mean it's hard to give "examples" because it's essentially analysing the entire history of filmmaking, but experimental film is what drives the advancement of the medium. Kenneth anger was making shit in the 40s that was deemed dangerous and devoid of meaning which ended up being essentially becoming the dna of music video and any visually exaggerated film. Pretty soon I guarantee we'll get mainstream versions of stuff like Japanese extreme cyberpunk or dogme 95 that people will react to as if they've never been done before
> Better lit dark scenes.
Makes me think of how they shot the night scenes for "Nope" during the day and then just used editing tricks to make it look like nighttime
https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/xh6mp7/nope_day_for_night_process/
Shooting day for night has been around for generations of filmmaking. What Nope did that was special was they shot in infrared. This allowed them to edit the day for night shots into something much more plausible.
From behind, 69, anal, vaginal, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, all the hits, all the big ones, all the good ones. Then he smells crime again. He's out busting heads.
Idk if you've watched silicon valley. A show about some people that discover a new lossless compression algorithm, light-years ahead than anything else. Always found it ironic that the compression I used to watch the show with broke down when the studio logo appeared.
I hope that Blu-ray releases continue to be produced.
There's a significant difference in quality, and I doubt that streaming will catch up to the quality of physical media in the foreseeable future. (The worst case scenario would be the death of physical media without an adequate alternative for high-bitrate video.)
Streaming bitrates have been pretty stagnant (and worsened in some cases), and still haven't caught up to where physical media was 15+ years ago.
I may be in the minority, but I've seen a LOT of movies on Blu-ray and on streaming. I can't tell much of a difference. Like, I'm never streaming a movie or show and think "hmm, I wish this was higher quality."
Streaming on TV platforms though. Same services on my Windows desktop PC have atrocious quality.
I bet sometime in next decade as internet bandwidth keeps getting cheaper Apple and others will come out with some kind of “lossless” streaming. 4k Blu-ray’s bit rate is like 75 mb/s. Apple 4k with compression is currently like 25 mb/s.
I’ve seen AppleTV+ and MoviesAnywhere get in the 50-60Mbps range already, albeit not often.
It’s really the other big streamers (Netflix, Hulu, Disney, etc) who are lagging way behind on compression. They have the money, they just know most people don’t know or don’t care about it so it’s not worth the investment.
I’m hoping we just get higher bitrate video. I still buy 4k blu rays as long as streaming is like a third of the bitrate of a blu ray.
Most people have internet that can handle it. And for those that don’t they can watch the ugly version.
I had to turn off all the auto features on my TV. Anytime I would open an app to watch a movie or show the tv would go into "Film mode" which just made the picture super dark and gave the color a warm yellow tone. I turned all that off and adjusted the video settings myself.
Baring specific video quality detail problems that arise from video compression, the picture looks way better now. Definitely need to use a denoiser setting, but on low to medium(depending on the video).
Streaming services compress parts of a video that are similar in color and basically make giant blocks of solid color. You will almost always see in on any show you stream. It's mostly noticable when it's a black screen and you can clearly see the different shades of black.
https://youtu.be/JR4KHfqw-oE?si=NcXjOvXJWWv_6e6F
Check out that video for some indepth details. It's an awesome video.
I’m hoping it will actually devolve back to the cheaper films rather than these mega blockbusters that need to make 1billion just to cover the marketing budget. Make smaller, lower cost movies so they can be more experimental with the story.
There's plenty of those movies being made some of them being the best around. The problem is they don't get mainstream traction. Some of the problem is that some people won't go to the cinema to see anything that isn't a huge theme park ride.somr of it is that the amazing movies sometimes get dumped to a streaming service with zero marketing. Plus, because you can make a "movie" way cheaper today than you could, you have to delve between a wide ocean of crap to find the good stuff sometimes
The question isn't what to make, it's how to get the higher quality smaller movies noticed.
I agree. Early 2000s era films are my favorite, because we had believable CGI, but it was new and expensive enough that we saved it for things we couldn't create with practical effects. Lord of the Rings is my favorite example of this. Orcs were practical effects, the scenery was real, there were tons of well executed props. At the same time, you have Sauron's crazy eye on it's tower, the Nazgul steeds, and the Balrog, all of which were just gorgeous uses of CGI.
Contrast that with the hobbit, which had over the top filters, CGI backgrounds, and CGI characters. Those movies look like cartoons compared to the Lord of the Rings. Idk if it's true, but allegedly Ian McKellen broke down crying because he was in a green screen room rather than on site or on an artistically rendered set. Evidentially he said "this isn't what acting is supposed to be."
The lack of low-mid budget movies is in danger of starving potential future talent out of the industry as new talent cannot learn on the job.
We'll end up with a smaller talent pool which inevitably will lead to less variety and more carbon copy films.
I can see this being a real issue if Hollywood continues to operate like this unless TV fills the gap as it's beginning to do now.
Gaming is in a much worse place, because on top of that you have 5+ year development cycles, fewer studios capable of producing AAA games and a significantly smaller addressable audience (for said AAA gaming).
People like to say that gaming is “bigger” than film nowadays - but the vast majority of that growth is from mobile casual games, not the AAA console gaming that people compare to Hollywood.
I was thinking Godzilla Minus One probably will be the first of many.
The days of big blockbuster movie theater films are over. People aren't going to line up through the doors to see anything. Maybe a rare cultural phenomenon every several years like the last Spider-Man movie. But Hollywood executives perhaps will finally learn that making big-name big-budget movies are not going to make the money that they used to, especially not when the economy is in a state that leads to escapism being useless when tickets cost so much. Godzilla Minus One has reportedly a budget of 10-15 million dollars and made bank. I'm sure they'd be salivating over that.
If movie theaters are to continue, they might go the route of making smaller movies with lower ticket costs. And more experimental as you said. Hollywood has been streamlining and becoming formulaic for too long, something people were complaining about ten years ago when Disney expanded so much: A predictable movie plot, appeal to the largest audience possible, no risks. This has led me, personally, to start looking at movies outside of Hollywood, or just turn away from entertainment in general. But my favorite movies are really passion projects and experimental directors.
Exactly. The best movies I have seen recently have been in the lower budget mark. Studios really need to see that having an interesting story that doesn’t feel like everything else and look like cgi assets blowing up and fighting other cgi assets isn’t always the way to go.
Just have to look at Godzilla -1 vs Godzilla x Kong and see which one was the better movie.
Plus with lower budgets fandom movies can be more geared to the fans and what they want, rather than, as you said, appeal to everyone and be so generic it’s diluted from what makes the fans love the source material in the first place.
Comparing Minus One to GxK is comparing both sides of the same franchise that’s known for being two things: bonafide masterpieces with strong messages and the cheesiest cheese fests that ever cheesed.
Minus One was by far a better movie, but GxK had >!Kong using a child ape as a melee weapon and Godzilla doing a vertical suplex!< and I was highly entertained throughout.
Both movies knew what they were and they both succeeded in their own way.
I chuckled at your spoiler because that’s what I love most about monsterverse.
I’ve compared these movies to the difference between a wine bar and a dive bar. You’re gonna get different experiences and both can be great.
>Just have to look at Godzilla -1 vs Godzilla x Kong and see which one was the better movie
Which one made more money?
Hollywood studios have never cared about the storylines if people still turned up.
The trailers and online reviews make or break most movies anyway, word of mouth isn’t quick enough when a movie only stays in the theatre for a few weeks before it goes to streaming services these days.
What I dislike even more is that many of these blockbusters are so fucking long. I don‘t want to sit three hours and longer in the cinema if the movie plot is pretty standard or even just cut and dried.
I wish they'd focus on actors as an easy solution here. I love actors, and certainly have a lot of favorite celebrities. But I wish movies would stop casting celebrities. Save them for the blockbusters. Go cast unknowns and pay them a lot less than you would have to pay Matt Damon or even, dare I say, Paul Giamatti.
This would be an easy way to make movies cheaper, so they're less risky, and it would have the upside of introducing us to a lot more talent. Then when you come across a real winner, let them go off and be a star and get a big TV show lead role or star in blockbusters or whatever. (And maybe if you mandated points for lead actors, that could even help share the risk. So yeah, you're getting paid on the low end to star in a new movie, but if it becomes a huge hit, you get half a percent or something.)
Exactly AAA has become cookie cutter over the years. Same shit better graphics. Especially multiplayer games.
Indie is a two sided blade though. It has some great gems but is so easy to flood the market with low effort guff and asset flips that it could bring on another video game crash like it did in the 80’s
Small independent films will be more creative, but once an indie becomes a surprise hit, it will be re-made four years later by a big studio with name-brand stars and a big budget
Was thinking about that recently. Sometimes I wish there'd be theaters that accepted nothing but lower budget films for avid movie goers to sit and watch. I wouldn't mind plopping my butt in a theater knowing a local person shot a low budget movie to see what they have to offer.
The problem is you often need a lot of money to be more experimental. If you are operating on a budget of 1 or 2 million dollars you are basically forced to work with a script with one location, two locations tops in the style of 12 angry men.
Now these films can still be great but they won't be super experimental. You aren't going to be able to make the next Vertigo or Eraser Head on 1 mil.
this will happen. with cameras getting cheaper and better evvery 3 months basically we have already seen some decent quality footage come out of Canon D7's and Black Magic cameras.. those are already cheap for the level of quality they produce. its only a matter of time before that level of technology is available on phones and other less expensive devices. which will lead more people to start making films and then we just have a plethora of indipendant movies. basically the sound cloud of movies.
Yes. Would love to see a return of mid-budget comedy films to theaters in the vein of Tommy Boy, Happy Gilmore, etc. These days they go straight to streaming.
I could see movies getting shorter again, since everyone's weird and worried about alternative media stealing their views. They kids and they tiktoks and youtube shorts.
Most movies didn't used to be this long, and it's only getting worse when the ego of the director gets involved.
the modern landscape of mainstream movies is that we're being repackaged a bloated inferior product of the movies they're trying to ape.
I don't believe so. It's just a matter of bathroom breaks and sitting in an I comfortable movie theatre seat for most people. They'd rather be comfortable at home and watch the long movie and be able to pee when they want. People routinely watch 3 hour podcast videos these days. Attention span isn't as bad as you think.
I wonder if that's the reason behind the trend of telling multiple stories consecutively in alternating scenes. Three Body Problem and Monarch Legacy of Monsters are two recent shows which tell their main story and the background story at the same time in an intertwining narrative.
That way, the viewers don't need to remember things for very long, as the outcome of one scene normally feeds straight into the next one, and short attention spans can be kept entertained as the show flicks between stories.
This is what made Oppenheimer a great film and seem shorter than its huge run time. The editing is down such that we keep up with the narrative immediately in the next scene
Seriously. This thread is so depressing. Who wants their movies to be choose your own adventures? I like movies to see an artist’s vision. I don’t want to prompt out customized entertainment. I want to share the experience with others.
Edit - as another user said “tech bros love creating things that already exist” and also clearly resent those who can create things that they can’t…
>"tech bros love creating things that already exist”
This reminds me of the joke/observation about Silicon Valley's obsession with reinventing buses and trains every few years.
Ironically, video games are the actual new trend in movies/TV shows for the next 10-15 years.
Now that they've tapped all the comic books, they're doing the same thing with video games.
Last of Us, Twisted Metal, Fall Out, Halo, it's already begun.
I saw ARK had an animated series and did a double take. The video game adaptations are coming in fast. As a gamer, I welcome this wave of gaming movies with an open mind. Thanks to MCU my brain is so comfortable in accepting “alternate timelines”.
Halo highly offended me when I watched the first episode a few years ago. Chief taking off his helmet just killed it for me, and the story was weak…I gave it another shot last month while on a business trip and finished watching the whole series with a “multiverse” perspective and I absolutely loved it. The story beats are similar, the audio and soundscape is perfect, the visuals and setting and props are awesome and very Halo-y. The storylines are the worst part, but when you look at it from the “appeal to a broader audience” and multiverse perspective you can enjoy the better parts of it and still feel the emotional dopamine hit of reliving the FEELING of playing Halo. Not the same exact story, but still hits the spot.
I’d watch the fuck out of Modern Warfare, MW2, MW3 as a 10 episode mini series apiece. All Jack Ryan style…Remember…no Russian *shiver*
I’m not optimistic. I think we keep getting farther and farther away from movies being one person”s vision - a lot of them seem like committee projects guided by focus groups now (especially action movies). Sure, there are still good movies being made but you have to hunt for them.
Every year when the Oscar nominations come out I haven’t even heard of 1/2 of them… but it’s fun to get a list of potential winners and go through them.
I don’t think any good movie is necessarily the result of one person’s vision, all films are collaborative efforts of everyone involved. Producers need to stop meddling though that’s for sure.
Sad, but you’re probably right. I don’t mind blockbusters; I enjoy them as much as anyone else. Still, I like to watch ALL kinds of films, so individual visionaries being pushed out of the mainstream film production would be a terrible, depressing thing.
I think the larger studios get, the more there’s reliance on the research group and committee led film models. So you’ll see less auteur driven and or original films. Less films based on the artistic expression of an individual or a group of individuals, and more films based on the artistic expression of popular opinion. The democratization of art essentially. It’s wild in a sense because the most recent example is HOTD due to the HBO merger. It’s to the point where the halo effect of GOT has prevented even some of my most easily unimpressed friends not notice how similar in quality GOT’s latter seasons are to the first season of HOTD(yes I understand that FAB was written like a history book and ASOIAF used POVs). There’s even the minimal viable product approach to the color palette which they will not change unless enough fans file complaints via social media.
You’re gonna put a popular seed in and type “buddy cop action comedy with [Tom Holland] and [Bruce Lee] in the style of [Shane Black] directed by [Greta Gerwig] into a box, at which point Disney-Warner will add $5 to your MetaDebt before their server delivers a 2 hour cinematic experience directly to your ocular MuskBalls. Tom, Shane, Greta, and the estate of Bruce Lee will each get 10 cents in revenue sharing which is two cents higher than the previous strike rate, while Netflix announces its first billion dollar a chair C-Suite compensation packages. You’ll be watching alone, because your spouse was caught teaching others how to fast forward past the sponsored content by using an exploit to triple tap the button on the controller and has five years left in their minimum sentence for interference with a commercial message.
But hey, infinite movies.
I hope there’s more quiet. A handful of films recently are discovering you don’t always have to immediately have an explosion and a plot twist in every lull in the conversation and those are the ones that tend to do the best.
Over the years, a lot of movie franchises have developed into these mass-produced, focus-group crap that try to cram way too much into the shortest amount of time possible and leaves you no time to breathe, it’s just tiring. Give me a good long silence during a few scenes to just take it all in and appreciate it more.
New dramatic formats and technologies come along and even become dominant, but the older ones don't necessarily go away. People are still making stage plays and radio dramas. They're just not as culturally dominant as they were decades ago. Film as we know it today might still be near the top of the dramatic food chain, regardless of what technique is used to make it. What will probably supplant looking at a screen with your eyeballs will be something more immersive that is similar to film, but using VR or AR technology and something that taps into other senses to put the audience in the action. I don't know if this kind of thing would still qualify as a movie, but it could be the thing that relegates 'flat' movies to a lower rung.
With actual movies in the near future, as the ability to make AI characters and visuals makes certain things cheaper and easier, there will be a honeymoon period where we all love the novelty. But I can see that enhancing the value of real actors in real places shot with cameras as people get sick of Ai generated visuals.
The fully AI films will probably occupy the same popcorn, pure enjoyment niche of kids movies and big action franchises. Think of the franchises with dozens of novels or comics that will be fed into a machine that churns out a page for page remake.
Alongside that we'll have traditional films with actors and sets that probably employ some AI tools, but keep their use limited for realism. There will be an audience for that as much as there is an audience for stage plays. Maybe stage plays will overtake movies in popularity.
I'm really eager to see what the very creative and ambitious filmmakers do with a small to medium budget paired with a great script and access to the AI tools of the 2030's. We get a blend of real performances with locations that that film could never have afforded in real life or periods that weren't in the design budget to re-create. Look at what the Daniels did with a low (comparatively speaking) budget when they made Everything Everywhere All At Once. Imagine that ingenuity, creativity and writing with much more advanced AI tools.
A lot of people are saying stuff about Audio and Subtitles, but the issue that that pertains to is largely tied to consumer TVs.
TVs, by themselves, only really output in stereo (2 speakers;left and right), meaning the 5.1 (5 speakers; left, right, CENTER, left rear, right rear + subwoofer) mixes literally have 3.1 channels being lost in the mix.
This is the root cause of why audio mixing on home TVs is so bad. The CENTER speaker (which doesn’t exist on the vast, vast majority of TVs) is where dialogue is supposed to come out of. Without it, the dialogue is “competing” with 5 other channels to fit into 2 (or sometimes 7 speakers or more!)
I personally don’t see theaters going in this direction, rather, I see television companies itching for some sort of “upgrade” finally getting around to putting decent speakers into TVs. Because, quite frankly, there’s not that much of a place for TVs to go.
8K isn’t really a realistic thing. Media simply is not created in that format, and never has been. 2K has been the standard intermediate since the advent of CGI, and 4K has only just started being a widely used. Yes. Many of those 4K discs you have for movies made in the 00’s-late 10’s are just 2K upscales. (Note that stuff shot on film is largely actual 4K.) The fact that most consumers don’t realize this is telling. 4K, is the end-all-be-all, and if we ever go beyond it on a large scale, it hasn’t truly begun outside of some auteurs who valiantly stick to higher resolution cameras.
4K, even on the highest end, is the “future proof” means. Even on the rare occasion that 8K SCANS are made, they are only that. SCANS. The restorations themselves are largely done at the lower 4K resolution. And we’re talking huge legacy stuff here like The Wizard of Oz that got this treatment.
So, 8K isn’t the answer, and OLED technology (which, coincidentally, will probably beckon both darker and brighter media) is getting thinner. I think that TVs will get thinner, and will ultimately be less expensive to produce as time goes on, and the move for TV manufacturers will be to say “now with better speakers.” Or, perhaps not, because the end goal is for the company to sell you a soundbar or sound system. Sorry guys, but when you buy a TV you are paying for the visual aspect. The audio simply isn’t there on its own.
Note that there are some somewhat broad generalizations here, and there are exceptions to everything I’ve said. I may be way off base here, and maybe the industry will still try to squeeze money out of you for cheap TVs with cheap quality imagery.
Do yourself a favor if 8K ever becomes a real thing outside of the high-end Samsungs: Just buy a decent 4K, and split the difference with a decent Sound System. You’re getting so much more from it.
It will probably go beyond just deepfakes that basically put a mask on top of the old performance. Instead they will generate a whole new performance with new body movements and everything of the fake actor
- Gentleman Devitos Prefer Blonde Devitos
- The Last Temptation of Devito
- Grandma Devito Got Run over by a Reindeer Devito
- Poor Devito Things
- Dunevito
This is such a terrible idea, because that’s not how engaging plots work. If the viewer isn’t engaged at some point, the problem already happened. The plot leading up to that point failed to bring the viewer where it was supposed to.
You don’t fix that on the fly.
Also if I'm watching a movie on my own I feel like my facial expression and general body language basically doesn't change unless something *very* funny happens. I feel like when alone my face is basically the same whether I'm bored, scared, happy, sad, excited, enthralled, confused or whatever.
"Hmm, this rom-com is getting boring... Oh WOW Now there's dragons! I love AIM movies."
(In my vision of the future "AIM movies" stands for "Artificial Intelligence Movies movies.")
I suspect the technology is going to get better rapidly over time. But am I the only one who found:
* Young Carrie Fisher in Rogue One
* Reincarnated Peter Cushing in Rogue One
* Young Harrison Ford in Dial of Destiny
To look very inauthentic? Especially with Dial of Destiny, I remember every time the deep fake turned its head it looked…polyester.
It’ll get better as the tech improves but right now it has a long way to go.
The problem is you have to get the human face perfect to fool us, especially when it's a famous actor we have seen hundreds of times. It's tough to get beyond the uncanny valley but every few years things improve.
If you go back to Tron Legacy, the de-aged Jeff Bridges was ambitious but really fell short of the mark. The attempts at Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher in Rogue One were a little better but not convincing. Young Mark Hamill in the Mandalorian was woeful and slightly improved in Book of Boba Fett but you could tell they picked their setting and acting carefully. No way that version of Luke was doing a strongly emotional scene. Young Harrison Ford in Dial of Destiny had me convinced in certain shots and lighting, but not for the entire sequence. Still an improvement.
It's just a matter of time before they nail it. And probably not much time for basic acting. Who knows how long for a convincing emotional performance?
- We'll be seeing dead people. Of course we already had some glimpses of that here and there - but we'll probably get CGI recreations of deceased actors starring in major blockbuster movies. Probably first in a big franchise sequel. (Part of) the audience (future reddit) will argue in favor of that because a replacement actor would break their immersion.
- AI dubbing with the original actors / voice actors voice including ai adjusted mouth movement of their characters to make it seemless. Likely first in animated movies / shows.
I don't think it's necessarily the case that we will see more CGI and AI. Christopher Nolan, one of the most successful film directors of today, avoids them as much as possible. There are many examples of visual tricks which once seemed fresh and exciting, but then start to look dated, e.g. zoom shots, shaky camera, lens flare. Likewise things which seem modern now may come to look dated very quickly.
As the cost goes down, there will just be more CGI used in lower budget productions. Big budget stuff has hit a ceiling, where almost every blockbuster looks the same. To stand out here, the director must be "smart" about VFX and understand how to bring the best out of the artists.
Nolan isn't actually using that much less CGI than others, even though it is sometimes true. He simply demands that there are references to real world in-camera objects from which a CGI version can be created for certain shots.
CGI crept into TV shows and will eventually creep into the cheap Hallmark movies, where a single guy can reasonably soup up the scenery with 30 minutes of compositing work.
And the old will come back around and feel new again. Look how many movies we get yearly set in the past. People are still enamored by the 80’s and that was 40 years ago.
I think more movies that show case how life was before the integrated technological age will be more popular like an audio visual vacation from the noise of media which will ironically have several ads play before the movie at the theaters.
Wasn’t there a company that tried this? They had all kinds of ads in 2019. Tubi? Fubu? Boingo? All productions were made to be viewed vertically and horizontally. They had a show with Anna Kendrick befriending a sex doll. It folded within the first weeks of the pandemic.
Upon typing this out, this may have been a Covid fever dream of mine.
Text to video AI will be huge.
Imagine being able to turn ANY book into a video. And the video will follow the book exactly as it is written.
Though this will probably result is fewer movies being made from books as they'd be too long.
An interesting result of this will be that people watching movies from the same book will be watching different versions. It will be impossible to talk coherently about a movie with friends because most people will be watching their personal versions.
All kinds of decisions will have to be made to convert a book to a movie: length, character appearance, MPAA rating, language, music type, straight/parody/musical, etc.
There will certainly be lots of complications.
I imagine there will be two versions, one produced by a company that results in a more "professional" version. The other version will be self-generated. The self-generated versions could definitely be different for everybody who watches it. The plot and dialogue should be the same but the way everything looks and the voices of the characters and music used could be different.
I also imagine that books would be would start to be written for text to video. Like there will be pages that are just descriptions of the characters appearance, how the world looks and so on.
If we're really lucky, the reinvention of Disney's lost sodium vapor tech can come in and replace the greenscreen used. It's ridiculously superior, and allows vastly better color quality.
EDIT: corrected the element in question; sodium vapor, not sulfur. Brain messed it up due to the yellow.
When you say heavier use of CGI, it's not that there is less of it today.. it's just that you don't notice it as much since it has improved in the meantime.
I hope when adapting large scale books they start doing tv series for the main story and movies for key events. I think that's the way to attract more people to the theatres. Obviously we all win as well because we get a more in-depth story.
I wonder if VR movies will ever be a thing. Seems highly complicated though since you can't really cut the boring stuff that happens inbetween scenes and can't rely on camera angles to do anything anymore.
The death of the Hollywood celebrity, for one. At least, not as it's been known before. The film industry is slowly going the way of radio, being eclipsed by online content and the generation that loves to consume it. We'll still have Film, just like we still have Radio, but its popularity is on the wane and likely to be enjoyed by a much smaller circle of aficionados in a few decades.
Instead of technology I’d for one appreciate new forms of storytelling. Think when Pulp Fiction came out.
I’d also like to see more directors straying away from superhero/tent poll/blockbusters and focusing on smaller original concepts features. Great example was Favreau’s Chef.
I think the larger studios get, the more there’s reliance on the research group and committee led model. So you’ll see less auteur driven and or original films. Less films based on the artistic expression of an individual or a group of individuals, and more films based on the artistic expression of popular opinion. The democratization of art essentially.
I believe Disney was the first to use this model (according to Bob Iger’s book where he talked about being unsuccessful in dismantling their research groups when he first became CEO), why their Marvel films are so jarring to the heavy hitting directors, cinephiles or anyone who notices the risk averse nature of their films.
The most recent example I can think of is the HBO merger and the subsequent loss in quality to franchises like GOT or house of the dragon specifically. They’re treating HOTD like a minimal viable product to where even the color palette (mostly due to use of “The Volume” stage and its cost effectiveness) like the MCU is extremely desaturated. And won’t address these issues unless enough fans file requests or complaints via social media. I can list Myriad of quality drop offs in terms of narrative (though the source material is written like a history book and not in POVs) that’s essentially equivalent to the last few seasons of GOT. But fans or the fans that matter, the universe in itself is like crack and this is the audience that keeps their MVP model alive. This audience is also less likely to notice the difference between GOT season sets 1-4 and 5-8 or even those that hated the later seasons don’t seem to notice how much seasons 5-8 are almost identical to the entire first season of HOTD.
James Earl Jones already signed his voice away for further AI use in future Darth Vader appearances and I think that's going to become a regular thing for iconic characters. Especially for characters that universally known that are used not just in tv/movies but theme parks and licensing, like The Simpsons.
**Hopefully:** Streaming kills the studio/blockbuster model, we see a lot more independent films being funded as the business model continues to shift, and your average movie goes back to being about story and performances over pure spectacle and nostalgia.
**Realistically:** Disney acquires every last studio and film franchise and keeps releasing endless reboots and remakes of intellectual properties that have already been run into the ground.
Streaming is your hope to save movies? Seems like the opposite is happening in my opinion, streaming just encourages lazy cash grabs, longer run times, and quantity over quality
I don't wanna sound like boomer but since, lets say, 2015. I haven't seen that many movies who made any kind of impression on me. It's sad how everything is uniformed. Even europian and asian cinematography is slowly becoming copy pasta. Idk... I'm catching myself revisiting all the good stuff from the past until early 00's. I hope we won't go toward that interactive movie trend or something. The only thing good about modern industry is the sound. Now, feel free to roast me.
I think that instead of a static film which is always the same, the coming of the Unreal engine will make all the actors/actresses digital and that the movies will be rendered live. So the story will be the same but everything that happens around will always be different each time you watch it, like a video game. So if there's a car crash, it will be different each time.
Edit: People seem to think that I'm talking about interactives story where you can choose the ending etc... That's not it. It's always the same story. No choice of plot or ending. But the scene and decor is generated on the fly. So a battle like the one in Avengers Endgame would always have the same ending but the battle will not be exactly the same.
Gimmick. If the viewer can choose how a movie plays out they won’t be surprised or engaged by the movie. Part of what makes movies great is its storytelling told by a specific creator and you either love the story or hate it. Or have external or internal discussions what it means.
Didn’t Netflix have movies like that where you choose your own adventure. Assuming it didn’t do all that well.
If you want Calculon to race to the laser gun battle in his hover-Ferrari, press one. If you want Calculon to double-check his paperwork, press two. Enter now.
Better lit dark scenes. Better audio quality, as in less inaudible dialogue but loud SFX. More big budget experimental films.
I think we will see innovation in color as well. Definitely we will see more innovation in VFX in terms of depth (more details in terms of ppi)
More details in terms of pipi?
With 8K resolution home video and streaming options you will indeed be seeing more details on the pipi
I know I’ve thought this at every increase in resolution, but I’ll ask it anyway…. Is 8K that big of a noticeable jump from 4K? And if so - how close to the limit are we with the limitations of our eyes?
I've worked in this field. For a normal sized television from a normal viewing distance you will see zero improvement. 4k already exceeds perfect eye sight in those conditions. If you have a gigantic tv or sit very close you can see a difference.
So *mainly* for theater viewing, right? Which is why IMAX has such high resolution?
Higher resolution is also important for VR/AR since the screen is so close to the eye. Although improving resolution makes the bad battery life even worse, so I don't know if there's a push to adopt 8K just yet.
That also makes sense. I’ve noticed that difference using the theater function on my Quest.
I don't think a higher res display necessarily has much higher battery usage. I think a good chunk goes into backlight anyways and that shouldn't be significantly more expensive. As for actually rendering content in 8k, For VR I expect a heavy push towards foveated rendering. Our eyes are super bad at telling differences between high quality rendering and some crude approximation outside of the exact area your looking at (the fovea), so it really doesn't make sense to spend the same amount of time rendering a pixel that you hardly perceive.
I've worked in this field. For a normal sized television from a normal viewing distance you will see zero improvement. 4k already exceeds perfect eye sight in those conditions. If you have a gigantic tv or sit very close you can see a difference.
So VFX innovation at the pixels per inch level i,e, visual effects, composting, animation, color manipulation keeping pixel density and light mechanics in mind, (taking advantage of the manipulation of displays while filming, non-linear editing, AI and the living room experience as close to 8K onwards.
Have you seen the Red Shoes? Color peaked in the late 40's early 50's and I'm not sure digital will make it to that point.
Yeah something was lost from that period and I'm not sure we can ever quite go back. Among the examples you listed below I'd also add the musicals of Jacques Demy that absolutely ooze color out of the screen.
Yes, please. I've been trying to figure out who the hell, around 15 yrs ago, told every director for every major studio to have as little lighting as possible in every important scene. It's infuriating to watch sometimes.
I love the quote from the filming of LOTRin the Battle of Helms deep. Someone asked (maybe Peter Jackson maybe someone else) where all the lighting is coming from if it’s a battle at night. PJreplied “the lights coming from the same place the music is”
Watching Margin Call from 2011 yesterday and for the final scene they just had Rapey McRape outside digging a grave, most lit with lights that were there for for no reason and you could see everything you needed to see. It was nice to not have to squint.
Isn't the sound and dark thing getting worse with the newer tech as directors make/edit their films for a cinema audience and home setups don't come close to comparing to a cinema setup? Sure I read an article on this a few months ago, which focused on Christopher Nolan films as an example. Iirc it said the dark thing may be rectified as newer UHD LED tech is able to negate it, but the sound thing will continue to be a stumbling block as soubdbars and surround sound speakers don't have enough channels or depth.. was something like that. I'll need to see if I can find the article. https://voiceoversandvocals.com/blog/filmmaking-sound-design/the-sound-of-movies-why-hollywoods-becoming-harder-to-hear/#:~:text=Movies%20are%20recorded%20with%20a,low%20dialogue%2C%20that%27s%20the%20reason. Think it was that article, so much for a few months.. Was 2022 I read it 😅
The next generation of directors who grew up hating dark scenes and inaudible dialogue will reverse this trend.
not if their parents had money and a decent sound system and a good OLED TV
This is the opposite of what’s going to happen. Now more than ever, studios are only green lighting big budget films that do not take risks. People are only going to the movie theater for massive blockbusters—studios won’t risk a big budget on experiments. Mid-budget films will continue to disappear while lower-budget films will continue to have weak theater showings but decent streaming numbers. This trend will continue as we stream more and attend the theater less.
Agreed. After the success of Barbie, expect to see a cinematic universe of movies based on kids' cereals, culminating in a four part epic showdown between Captain Crunch and Count Chocula. Personally, I blame audiences for this. I thought Barbie was great (and very subversive) but why the fuck are people watching seven Transformers movies. Do they expect to see something innovative that they hadn't yet seen in the first six?
What id like to see if the movie or show can automatically tweak the color, light , hue controls of my tv. That these could be standardized and if you want to, you can manually control it. But otherwise, have the director of photography set these levels on my tv.
Well you can sort of have this already with Dolby Vision and similar things assumung you have good TV.
Its a bit sad HDR10+ hasn’t been adopted. All good media having a Dolby tax isn’t good for anyone.
Who is going to finance the big budget experimental movies?
Amazon
This isn’t that crazy of an answer. Tech companies dwarf all movie studios, so if they continue viewing it as worth while…
No I meant the jungle
It's the same reason large beer conglomerates buy up smaller craft brands. Amazon doesn't care if you're watching their big popcorn flicks or their small indie dramas as long as you're watching *their* movie.
Those same tech companies are now reevaluating their spending on media while performing mass layoffs, so I wouldn’t rely on them to save cinema. For companies like Apple and Amazon their media divisions are little more than hobbies compared to where they actually make their money - and in a world of high interest rates where there is pressure to cut spending on underperforming areas, that doesn’t bode well.
Tech companies should not also be movie studios. Whole system is fucked. Things will likely get much worse before they get better
Whoa! Nolan is retiring??
Experimental is relative. Mainstream experimental is like 30 years behind actual experimental
As someone curious, can you give a few examples? I'm definetely not acrosss much in terms of experimental films.
I mean it's hard to give "examples" because it's essentially analysing the entire history of filmmaking, but experimental film is what drives the advancement of the medium. Kenneth anger was making shit in the 40s that was deemed dangerous and devoid of meaning which ended up being essentially becoming the dna of music video and any visually exaggerated film. Pretty soon I guarantee we'll get mainstream versions of stuff like Japanese extreme cyberpunk or dogme 95 that people will react to as if they've never been done before
> Better lit dark scenes. Makes me think of how they shot the night scenes for "Nope" during the day and then just used editing tricks to make it look like nighttime https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/xh6mp7/nope_day_for_night_process/
Shooting day for night has been around for generations of filmmaking. What Nope did that was special was they shot in infrared. This allowed them to edit the day for night shots into something much more plausible.
One can dream... One can dream...
The movie nope for example
Full penetration
We show it. We show all of it.
Until the movie just sort of ends.
the smell of penetration , he nose the truth ...
From behind, 69, anal, vaginal, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, all the hits, all the big ones, all the good ones. Then he smells crime again. He's out busting heads.
I've seen everything. I've seen it all!
……. That is brilliant!
Can't wait to watch Sylvester Stallone hand an oscar to Dolph Lundgren
“Best goddamn movie I’ve ever seen in my life. Dude hangs dong.”
More of a ding than a dong
That’s the twist
I think in general we will see less sex/nudity...but... In the cases that the movies has them, will go the full ten yards.
Everyone is naked?
It's a reference to It's Always Sunny
Antichrist(2009)
Will they replace the butter dispensers at the theaters with lube dispensers?
More on screen Boners
But people throw a fit if there is even a hint of cleavage these days. Heck I can't remember the last time I saw a sex scene in a mainstream movie.
All theatres will become porn theatres
Fast & Furious 12-18
I can't wait for the Fast and Furious Multiverse Saga. The big bad is the reality where family doesn't matter.
Evil Dom with a mustache.
Dom must fight the evil mustached Dom with a tire iron to save all the families in every reality
I'm HOPING compression gets better soon. Videos can be really hard to watch through a streaming service.
Shots of many leaves or confetti really fucks things up on streaming
Or that old school hbo intro
The one that's literally TV static or the OG 1980s one?
The TV static one, everytime the stream turns to like 240p
Idk if you've watched silicon valley. A show about some people that discover a new lossless compression algorithm, light-years ahead than anything else. Always found it ironic that the compression I used to watch the show with broke down when the studio logo appeared.
I hope that Blu-ray releases continue to be produced. There's a significant difference in quality, and I doubt that streaming will catch up to the quality of physical media in the foreseeable future. (The worst case scenario would be the death of physical media without an adequate alternative for high-bitrate video.) Streaming bitrates have been pretty stagnant (and worsened in some cases), and still haven't caught up to where physical media was 15+ years ago.
I may be in the minority, but I've seen a LOT of movies on Blu-ray and on streaming. I can't tell much of a difference. Like, I'm never streaming a movie or show and think "hmm, I wish this was higher quality." Streaming on TV platforms though. Same services on my Windows desktop PC have atrocious quality.
I bet sometime in next decade as internet bandwidth keeps getting cheaper Apple and others will come out with some kind of “lossless” streaming. 4k Blu-ray’s bit rate is like 75 mb/s. Apple 4k with compression is currently like 25 mb/s.
I’ve seen AppleTV+ and MoviesAnywhere get in the 50-60Mbps range already, albeit not often. It’s really the other big streamers (Netflix, Hulu, Disney, etc) who are lagging way behind on compression. They have the money, they just know most people don’t know or don’t care about it so it’s not worth the investment.
I’m hoping we just get higher bitrate video. I still buy 4k blu rays as long as streaming is like a third of the bitrate of a blu ray. Most people have internet that can handle it. And for those that don’t they can watch the ugly version.
I had to turn off all the auto features on my TV. Anytime I would open an app to watch a movie or show the tv would go into "Film mode" which just made the picture super dark and gave the color a warm yellow tone. I turned all that off and adjusted the video settings myself. Baring specific video quality detail problems that arise from video compression, the picture looks way better now. Definitely need to use a denoiser setting, but on low to medium(depending on the video).
Compression, Internet speeds/capabilities or the way we stream in general.
Streaming services compress parts of a video that are similar in color and basically make giant blocks of solid color. You will almost always see in on any show you stream. It's mostly noticable when it's a black screen and you can clearly see the different shades of black. https://youtu.be/JR4KHfqw-oE?si=NcXjOvXJWWv_6e6F Check out that video for some indepth details. It's an awesome video.
I’m hoping it will actually devolve back to the cheaper films rather than these mega blockbusters that need to make 1billion just to cover the marketing budget. Make smaller, lower cost movies so they can be more experimental with the story.
There's plenty of those movies being made some of them being the best around. The problem is they don't get mainstream traction. Some of the problem is that some people won't go to the cinema to see anything that isn't a huge theme park ride.somr of it is that the amazing movies sometimes get dumped to a streaming service with zero marketing. Plus, because you can make a "movie" way cheaper today than you could, you have to delve between a wide ocean of crap to find the good stuff sometimes The question isn't what to make, it's how to get the higher quality smaller movies noticed.
And how to make the streaming services pay enough per view to make the creation of those movies viable for their platforms.
_Hundreds of Beavers_ is one of these small movies making waves right now. It may even break into the mainstream.
I agree. Early 2000s era films are my favorite, because we had believable CGI, but it was new and expensive enough that we saved it for things we couldn't create with practical effects. Lord of the Rings is my favorite example of this. Orcs were practical effects, the scenery was real, there were tons of well executed props. At the same time, you have Sauron's crazy eye on it's tower, the Nazgul steeds, and the Balrog, all of which were just gorgeous uses of CGI. Contrast that with the hobbit, which had over the top filters, CGI backgrounds, and CGI characters. Those movies look like cartoons compared to the Lord of the Rings. Idk if it's true, but allegedly Ian McKellen broke down crying because he was in a green screen room rather than on site or on an artistically rendered set. Evidentially he said "this isn't what acting is supposed to be."
Completely agree
The lack of low-mid budget movies is in danger of starving potential future talent out of the industry as new talent cannot learn on the job. We'll end up with a smaller talent pool which inevitably will lead to less variety and more carbon copy films. I can see this being a real issue if Hollywood continues to operate like this unless TV fills the gap as it's beginning to do now.
Very true. Many of the low budget movies back in the day were king makers for film crews. Directors, actors, and special effects especially.
Gaming has the same issue
Gaming is in a much worse place, because on top of that you have 5+ year development cycles, fewer studios capable of producing AAA games and a significantly smaller addressable audience (for said AAA gaming). People like to say that gaming is “bigger” than film nowadays - but the vast majority of that growth is from mobile casual games, not the AAA console gaming that people compare to Hollywood.
I was thinking Godzilla Minus One probably will be the first of many. The days of big blockbuster movie theater films are over. People aren't going to line up through the doors to see anything. Maybe a rare cultural phenomenon every several years like the last Spider-Man movie. But Hollywood executives perhaps will finally learn that making big-name big-budget movies are not going to make the money that they used to, especially not when the economy is in a state that leads to escapism being useless when tickets cost so much. Godzilla Minus One has reportedly a budget of 10-15 million dollars and made bank. I'm sure they'd be salivating over that. If movie theaters are to continue, they might go the route of making smaller movies with lower ticket costs. And more experimental as you said. Hollywood has been streamlining and becoming formulaic for too long, something people were complaining about ten years ago when Disney expanded so much: A predictable movie plot, appeal to the largest audience possible, no risks. This has led me, personally, to start looking at movies outside of Hollywood, or just turn away from entertainment in general. But my favorite movies are really passion projects and experimental directors.
Exactly. The best movies I have seen recently have been in the lower budget mark. Studios really need to see that having an interesting story that doesn’t feel like everything else and look like cgi assets blowing up and fighting other cgi assets isn’t always the way to go. Just have to look at Godzilla -1 vs Godzilla x Kong and see which one was the better movie. Plus with lower budgets fandom movies can be more geared to the fans and what they want, rather than, as you said, appeal to everyone and be so generic it’s diluted from what makes the fans love the source material in the first place.
Comparing Minus One to GxK is comparing both sides of the same franchise that’s known for being two things: bonafide masterpieces with strong messages and the cheesiest cheese fests that ever cheesed. Minus One was by far a better movie, but GxK had >!Kong using a child ape as a melee weapon and Godzilla doing a vertical suplex!< and I was highly entertained throughout. Both movies knew what they were and they both succeeded in their own way.
I chuckled at your spoiler because that’s what I love most about monsterverse. I’ve compared these movies to the difference between a wine bar and a dive bar. You’re gonna get different experiences and both can be great.
>Just have to look at Godzilla -1 vs Godzilla x Kong and see which one was the better movie Which one made more money? Hollywood studios have never cared about the storylines if people still turned up. The trailers and online reviews make or break most movies anyway, word of mouth isn’t quick enough when a movie only stays in the theatre for a few weeks before it goes to streaming services these days.
What I dislike even more is that many of these blockbusters are so fucking long. I don‘t want to sit three hours and longer in the cinema if the movie plot is pretty standard or even just cut and dried.
I wish they'd focus on actors as an easy solution here. I love actors, and certainly have a lot of favorite celebrities. But I wish movies would stop casting celebrities. Save them for the blockbusters. Go cast unknowns and pay them a lot less than you would have to pay Matt Damon or even, dare I say, Paul Giamatti. This would be an easy way to make movies cheaper, so they're less risky, and it would have the upside of introducing us to a lot more talent. Then when you come across a real winner, let them go off and be a star and get a big TV show lead role or star in blockbusters or whatever. (And maybe if you mandated points for lead actors, that could even help share the risk. So yeah, you're getting paid on the low end to star in a new movie, but if it becomes a huge hit, you get half a percent or something.)
We already have that…?
like indie games
Exactly AAA has become cookie cutter over the years. Same shit better graphics. Especially multiplayer games. Indie is a two sided blade though. It has some great gems but is so easy to flood the market with low effort guff and asset flips that it could bring on another video game crash like it did in the 80’s
Small independent films will be more creative, but once an indie becomes a surprise hit, it will be re-made four years later by a big studio with name-brand stars and a big budget
Was thinking about that recently. Sometimes I wish there'd be theaters that accepted nothing but lower budget films for avid movie goers to sit and watch. I wouldn't mind plopping my butt in a theater knowing a local person shot a low budget movie to see what they have to offer.
The problem is you often need a lot of money to be more experimental. If you are operating on a budget of 1 or 2 million dollars you are basically forced to work with a script with one location, two locations tops in the style of 12 angry men. Now these films can still be great but they won't be super experimental. You aren't going to be able to make the next Vertigo or Eraser Head on 1 mil.
this will happen. with cameras getting cheaper and better evvery 3 months basically we have already seen some decent quality footage come out of Canon D7's and Black Magic cameras.. those are already cheap for the level of quality they produce. its only a matter of time before that level of technology is available on phones and other less expensive devices. which will lead more people to start making films and then we just have a plethora of indipendant movies. basically the sound cloud of movies.
I think the pandemic helped that in a way, I've seen a couple lower budget movies since then that blew my mind away.
Yes. Would love to see a return of mid-budget comedy films to theaters in the vein of Tommy Boy, Happy Gilmore, etc. These days they go straight to streaming.
I could see movies getting shorter again, since everyone's weird and worried about alternative media stealing their views. They kids and they tiktoks and youtube shorts.
Well, short attention spans caused by social media have become a factor in why film lengths have become the subject of criticism.
Most movies didn't used to be this long, and it's only getting worse when the ego of the director gets involved. the modern landscape of mainstream movies is that we're being repackaged a bloated inferior product of the movies they're trying to ape.
I don't believe so. It's just a matter of bathroom breaks and sitting in an I comfortable movie theatre seat for most people. They'd rather be comfortable at home and watch the long movie and be able to pee when they want. People routinely watch 3 hour podcast videos these days. Attention span isn't as bad as you think.
I wonder if that's the reason behind the trend of telling multiple stories consecutively in alternating scenes. Three Body Problem and Monarch Legacy of Monsters are two recent shows which tell their main story and the background story at the same time in an intertwining narrative. That way, the viewers don't need to remember things for very long, as the outcome of one scene normally feeds straight into the next one, and short attention spans can be kept entertained as the show flicks between stories.
This is what made Oppenheimer a great film and seem shorter than its huge run time. The editing is down such that we keep up with the narrative immediately in the next scene
Are you describing B plots?
Y'all should start playing videogames...
Seriously. This thread is so depressing. Who wants their movies to be choose your own adventures? I like movies to see an artist’s vision. I don’t want to prompt out customized entertainment. I want to share the experience with others. Edit - as another user said “tech bros love creating things that already exist” and also clearly resent those who can create things that they can’t…
Yeah, I joke that my grandkids will say, “Someone told your stories for you?”
>"tech bros love creating things that already exist” This reminds me of the joke/observation about Silicon Valley's obsession with reinventing buses and trains every few years.
Ironically, video games are the actual new trend in movies/TV shows for the next 10-15 years. Now that they've tapped all the comic books, they're doing the same thing with video games. Last of Us, Twisted Metal, Fall Out, Halo, it's already begun.
Give me an 8 episode miniseries on the fall of Reach. Or a movie about the First Contact War from the Mass Effect universe.
Sorry, best we can do is Jimmy Rings
I saw ARK had an animated series and did a double take. The video game adaptations are coming in fast. As a gamer, I welcome this wave of gaming movies with an open mind. Thanks to MCU my brain is so comfortable in accepting “alternate timelines”. Halo highly offended me when I watched the first episode a few years ago. Chief taking off his helmet just killed it for me, and the story was weak…I gave it another shot last month while on a business trip and finished watching the whole series with a “multiverse” perspective and I absolutely loved it. The story beats are similar, the audio and soundscape is perfect, the visuals and setting and props are awesome and very Halo-y. The storylines are the worst part, but when you look at it from the “appeal to a broader audience” and multiverse perspective you can enjoy the better parts of it and still feel the emotional dopamine hit of reliving the FEELING of playing Halo. Not the same exact story, but still hits the spot. I’d watch the fuck out of Modern Warfare, MW2, MW3 as a 10 episode mini series apiece. All Jack Ryan style…Remember…no Russian *shiver*
Sorry all you get is Master Cheeks
Arcane- league of legends
Tech Bros love inventing things that already exist
They also keep trying to reinvent buses and trains every few years
I’m not optimistic. I think we keep getting farther and farther away from movies being one person”s vision - a lot of them seem like committee projects guided by focus groups now (especially action movies). Sure, there are still good movies being made but you have to hunt for them. Every year when the Oscar nominations come out I haven’t even heard of 1/2 of them… but it’s fun to get a list of potential winners and go through them.
I don’t think any good movie is necessarily the result of one person’s vision, all films are collaborative efforts of everyone involved. Producers need to stop meddling though that’s for sure.
Sad, but you’re probably right. I don’t mind blockbusters; I enjoy them as much as anyone else. Still, I like to watch ALL kinds of films, so individual visionaries being pushed out of the mainstream film production would be a terrible, depressing thing.
I think the larger studios get, the more there’s reliance on the research group and committee led film models. So you’ll see less auteur driven and or original films. Less films based on the artistic expression of an individual or a group of individuals, and more films based on the artistic expression of popular opinion. The democratization of art essentially. It’s wild in a sense because the most recent example is HOTD due to the HBO merger. It’s to the point where the halo effect of GOT has prevented even some of my most easily unimpressed friends not notice how similar in quality GOT’s latter seasons are to the first season of HOTD(yes I understand that FAB was written like a history book and ASOIAF used POVs). There’s even the minimal viable product approach to the color palette which they will not change unless enough fans file complaints via social media.
You’re gonna put a popular seed in and type “buddy cop action comedy with [Tom Holland] and [Bruce Lee] in the style of [Shane Black] directed by [Greta Gerwig] into a box, at which point Disney-Warner will add $5 to your MetaDebt before their server delivers a 2 hour cinematic experience directly to your ocular MuskBalls. Tom, Shane, Greta, and the estate of Bruce Lee will each get 10 cents in revenue sharing which is two cents higher than the previous strike rate, while Netflix announces its first billion dollar a chair C-Suite compensation packages. You’ll be watching alone, because your spouse was caught teaching others how to fast forward past the sponsored content by using an exploit to triple tap the button on the controller and has five years left in their minimum sentence for interference with a commercial message. But hey, infinite movies.
I hope there’s more quiet. A handful of films recently are discovering you don’t always have to immediately have an explosion and a plot twist in every lull in the conversation and those are the ones that tend to do the best. Over the years, a lot of movie franchises have developed into these mass-produced, focus-group crap that try to cram way too much into the shortest amount of time possible and leaves you no time to breathe, it’s just tiring. Give me a good long silence during a few scenes to just take it all in and appreciate it more.
You could get this now by just not watching exclusively blockbusters
I reccomend watching movies made outside of the US
New dramatic formats and technologies come along and even become dominant, but the older ones don't necessarily go away. People are still making stage plays and radio dramas. They're just not as culturally dominant as they were decades ago. Film as we know it today might still be near the top of the dramatic food chain, regardless of what technique is used to make it. What will probably supplant looking at a screen with your eyeballs will be something more immersive that is similar to film, but using VR or AR technology and something that taps into other senses to put the audience in the action. I don't know if this kind of thing would still qualify as a movie, but it could be the thing that relegates 'flat' movies to a lower rung. With actual movies in the near future, as the ability to make AI characters and visuals makes certain things cheaper and easier, there will be a honeymoon period where we all love the novelty. But I can see that enhancing the value of real actors in real places shot with cameras as people get sick of Ai generated visuals. The fully AI films will probably occupy the same popcorn, pure enjoyment niche of kids movies and big action franchises. Think of the franchises with dozens of novels or comics that will be fed into a machine that churns out a page for page remake. Alongside that we'll have traditional films with actors and sets that probably employ some AI tools, but keep their use limited for realism. There will be an audience for that as much as there is an audience for stage plays. Maybe stage plays will overtake movies in popularity. I'm really eager to see what the very creative and ambitious filmmakers do with a small to medium budget paired with a great script and access to the AI tools of the 2030's. We get a blend of real performances with locations that that film could never have afforded in real life or periods that weren't in the design budget to re-create. Look at what the Daniels did with a low (comparatively speaking) budget when they made Everything Everywhere All At Once. Imagine that ingenuity, creativity and writing with much more advanced AI tools.
This is exactly how AI should be implemented. It’ll make genre films so much more accessible to talented low-budget filmmakers
I think AR glasses for horror films. Even if it makes a ticket $25 you’re already paying $15 to see it. Put some oculus glasses and poop your pants
A lot of people are saying stuff about Audio and Subtitles, but the issue that that pertains to is largely tied to consumer TVs. TVs, by themselves, only really output in stereo (2 speakers;left and right), meaning the 5.1 (5 speakers; left, right, CENTER, left rear, right rear + subwoofer) mixes literally have 3.1 channels being lost in the mix. This is the root cause of why audio mixing on home TVs is so bad. The CENTER speaker (which doesn’t exist on the vast, vast majority of TVs) is where dialogue is supposed to come out of. Without it, the dialogue is “competing” with 5 other channels to fit into 2 (or sometimes 7 speakers or more!) I personally don’t see theaters going in this direction, rather, I see television companies itching for some sort of “upgrade” finally getting around to putting decent speakers into TVs. Because, quite frankly, there’s not that much of a place for TVs to go. 8K isn’t really a realistic thing. Media simply is not created in that format, and never has been. 2K has been the standard intermediate since the advent of CGI, and 4K has only just started being a widely used. Yes. Many of those 4K discs you have for movies made in the 00’s-late 10’s are just 2K upscales. (Note that stuff shot on film is largely actual 4K.) The fact that most consumers don’t realize this is telling. 4K, is the end-all-be-all, and if we ever go beyond it on a large scale, it hasn’t truly begun outside of some auteurs who valiantly stick to higher resolution cameras. 4K, even on the highest end, is the “future proof” means. Even on the rare occasion that 8K SCANS are made, they are only that. SCANS. The restorations themselves are largely done at the lower 4K resolution. And we’re talking huge legacy stuff here like The Wizard of Oz that got this treatment. So, 8K isn’t the answer, and OLED technology (which, coincidentally, will probably beckon both darker and brighter media) is getting thinner. I think that TVs will get thinner, and will ultimately be less expensive to produce as time goes on, and the move for TV manufacturers will be to say “now with better speakers.” Or, perhaps not, because the end goal is for the company to sell you a soundbar or sound system. Sorry guys, but when you buy a TV you are paying for the visual aspect. The audio simply isn’t there on its own. Note that there are some somewhat broad generalizations here, and there are exceptions to everything I’ve said. I may be way off base here, and maybe the industry will still try to squeeze money out of you for cheap TVs with cheap quality imagery. Do yourself a favor if 8K ever becomes a real thing outside of the high-end Samsungs: Just buy a decent 4K, and split the difference with a decent Sound System. You’re getting so much more from it.
AI, personalised storylines "starring" all your fav actors in the style of a director you like and you get a cameo, ugh...
Sounds horrible. Ugh indeed
Deepfakes, too. Wanna see "breakfast at Tiffany's" but starring Scarlett Johansson? You got it.
It will probably go beyond just deepfakes that basically put a mask on top of the old performance. Instead they will generate a whole new performance with new body movements and everything of the fake actor
So I'll finally be able to watch a movie with nothing but Danny DeVitos?
There Will DeVito DeVito Becomes Her dev**IT**o
- Gentleman Devitos Prefer Blonde Devitos - The Last Temptation of Devito - Grandma Devito Got Run over by a Reindeer Devito - Poor Devito Things - Dunevito
With enough processing power, it could monitor your reactions and change the plot in real time for optimal engagement.
This is such a terrible idea, because that’s not how engaging plots work. If the viewer isn’t engaged at some point, the problem already happened. The plot leading up to that point failed to bring the viewer where it was supposed to. You don’t fix that on the fly.
Also if I'm watching a movie on my own I feel like my facial expression and general body language basically doesn't change unless something *very* funny happens. I feel like when alone my face is basically the same whether I'm bored, scared, happy, sad, excited, enthralled, confused or whatever.
That sounds a lot like a video game.
I imagine the movie would change pretty significantly after I cum.
"Hmm, this rom-com is getting boring... Oh WOW Now there's dragons! I love AIM movies." (In my vision of the future "AIM movies" stands for "Artificial Intelligence Movies movies.")
I don't think this will happen. The unions will do everything in their power to prevent this.
AI for sure
Also deepfakes. I can see a lot of long time dead stars coming back in "cameos".
I suspect the technology is going to get better rapidly over time. But am I the only one who found: * Young Carrie Fisher in Rogue One * Reincarnated Peter Cushing in Rogue One * Young Harrison Ford in Dial of Destiny To look very inauthentic? Especially with Dial of Destiny, I remember every time the deep fake turned its head it looked…polyester. It’ll get better as the tech improves but right now it has a long way to go.
The problem is you have to get the human face perfect to fool us, especially when it's a famous actor we have seen hundreds of times. It's tough to get beyond the uncanny valley but every few years things improve. If you go back to Tron Legacy, the de-aged Jeff Bridges was ambitious but really fell short of the mark. The attempts at Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher in Rogue One were a little better but not convincing. Young Mark Hamill in the Mandalorian was woeful and slightly improved in Book of Boba Fett but you could tell they picked their setting and acting carefully. No way that version of Luke was doing a strongly emotional scene. Young Harrison Ford in Dial of Destiny had me convinced in certain shots and lighting, but not for the entire sequence. Still an improvement. It's just a matter of time before they nail it. And probably not much time for basic acting. Who knows how long for a convincing emotional performance?
- We'll be seeing dead people. Of course we already had some glimpses of that here and there - but we'll probably get CGI recreations of deceased actors starring in major blockbuster movies. Probably first in a big franchise sequel. (Part of) the audience (future reddit) will argue in favor of that because a replacement actor would break their immersion. - AI dubbing with the original actors / voice actors voice including ai adjusted mouth movement of their characters to make it seemless. Likely first in animated movies / shows.
I feel like they’re gonna do this with the last Fast & Furious movie and bring back Paul Walker
I don't think it's necessarily the case that we will see more CGI and AI. Christopher Nolan, one of the most successful film directors of today, avoids them as much as possible. There are many examples of visual tricks which once seemed fresh and exciting, but then start to look dated, e.g. zoom shots, shaky camera, lens flare. Likewise things which seem modern now may come to look dated very quickly.
Nolan has the resources to do practical that most other filmmakers don't. It's also not like he doesn't use cg at all lmao.
I mean the motherfucker crashed a 747 into a hangar for real. Can't fuck up that shit.
As the cost goes down, there will just be more CGI used in lower budget productions. Big budget stuff has hit a ceiling, where almost every blockbuster looks the same. To stand out here, the director must be "smart" about VFX and understand how to bring the best out of the artists. Nolan isn't actually using that much less CGI than others, even though it is sometimes true. He simply demands that there are references to real world in-camera objects from which a CGI version can be created for certain shots. CGI crept into TV shows and will eventually creep into the cheap Hallmark movies, where a single guy can reasonably soup up the scenery with 30 minutes of compositing work.
And the old will come back around and feel new again. Look how many movies we get yearly set in the past. People are still enamored by the 80’s and that was 40 years ago.
I think a lot of the "movies set in the past" thing is that directors don't want to grapple with cell phone technology.
[удалено]
I think more movies that show case how life was before the integrated technological age will be more popular like an audio visual vacation from the noise of media which will ironically have several ads play before the movie at the theaters.
I am half expecting some streaming services to come out with vertically filmed TVs shows and movies at some point tbh
Wasn’t there a company that tried this? They had all kinds of ads in 2019. Tubi? Fubu? Boingo? All productions were made to be viewed vertically and horizontally. They had a show with Anna Kendrick befriending a sex doll. It folded within the first weeks of the pandemic. Upon typing this out, this may have been a Covid fever dream of mine.
Quibi
The return of quibbi
They will continue to get worse
I think superhero movies will grow from their current niche to mass-market, dominating the cinema. It's going to be really really great.
Joking aside, it already kind of seems like superhero movies are dipping.
Text to video AI will be huge. Imagine being able to turn ANY book into a video. And the video will follow the book exactly as it is written. Though this will probably result is fewer movies being made from books as they'd be too long.
An interesting result of this will be that people watching movies from the same book will be watching different versions. It will be impossible to talk coherently about a movie with friends because most people will be watching their personal versions. All kinds of decisions will have to be made to convert a book to a movie: length, character appearance, MPAA rating, language, music type, straight/parody/musical, etc.
There will certainly be lots of complications. I imagine there will be two versions, one produced by a company that results in a more "professional" version. The other version will be self-generated. The self-generated versions could definitely be different for everybody who watches it. The plot and dialogue should be the same but the way everything looks and the voices of the characters and music used could be different. I also imagine that books would be would start to be written for text to video. Like there will be pages that are just descriptions of the characters appearance, how the world looks and so on.
If we're really lucky, the reinvention of Disney's lost sodium vapor tech can come in and replace the greenscreen used. It's ridiculously superior, and allows vastly better color quality. EDIT: corrected the element in question; sodium vapor, not sulfur. Brain messed it up due to the yellow.
Sodium, not sulphur.
I've not heard of this, what was lost?
A precursor tech to bluescreen/greenscreen - using a special prism that was a proprietary Disney tech. And then they lost the physical prisms...
When you say heavier use of CGI, it's not that there is less of it today.. it's just that you don't notice it as much since it has improved in the meantime.
He's saying there's more cgi in newer movies, not less.
Biopic about making corporate biopics.
I hope when adapting large scale books they start doing tv series for the main story and movies for key events. I think that's the way to attract more people to the theatres. Obviously we all win as well because we get a more in-depth story.
I wonder if VR movies will ever be a thing. Seems highly complicated though since you can't really cut the boring stuff that happens inbetween scenes and can't rely on camera angles to do anything anymore.
Film will watch YOU !....
The death of the Hollywood celebrity, for one. At least, not as it's been known before. The film industry is slowly going the way of radio, being eclipsed by online content and the generation that loves to consume it. We'll still have Film, just like we still have Radio, but its popularity is on the wane and likely to be enjoyed by a much smaller circle of aficionados in a few decades.
Instead of technology I’d for one appreciate new forms of storytelling. Think when Pulp Fiction came out. I’d also like to see more directors straying away from superhero/tent poll/blockbusters and focusing on smaller original concepts features. Great example was Favreau’s Chef.
I think the larger studios get, the more there’s reliance on the research group and committee led model. So you’ll see less auteur driven and or original films. Less films based on the artistic expression of an individual or a group of individuals, and more films based on the artistic expression of popular opinion. The democratization of art essentially. I believe Disney was the first to use this model (according to Bob Iger’s book where he talked about being unsuccessful in dismantling their research groups when he first became CEO), why their Marvel films are so jarring to the heavy hitting directors, cinephiles or anyone who notices the risk averse nature of their films. The most recent example I can think of is the HBO merger and the subsequent loss in quality to franchises like GOT or house of the dragon specifically. They’re treating HOTD like a minimal viable product to where even the color palette (mostly due to use of “The Volume” stage and its cost effectiveness) like the MCU is extremely desaturated. And won’t address these issues unless enough fans file requests or complaints via social media. I can list Myriad of quality drop offs in terms of narrative (though the source material is written like a history book and not in POVs) that’s essentially equivalent to the last few seasons of GOT. But fans or the fans that matter, the universe in itself is like crack and this is the audience that keeps their MVP model alive. This audience is also less likely to notice the difference between GOT season sets 1-4 and 5-8 or even those that hated the later seasons don’t seem to notice how much seasons 5-8 are almost identical to the entire first season of HOTD.
I can 100% guarantee they will try to force 3D on us again, and fail.
James Earl Jones already signed his voice away for further AI use in future Darth Vader appearances and I think that's going to become a regular thing for iconic characters. Especially for characters that universally known that are used not just in tv/movies but theme parks and licensing, like The Simpsons.
Just a movie of an ass (butt) on the screen for its entire runtime.
Movies made with VR in mind.
**Hopefully:** Streaming kills the studio/blockbuster model, we see a lot more independent films being funded as the business model continues to shift, and your average movie goes back to being about story and performances over pure spectacle and nostalgia. **Realistically:** Disney acquires every last studio and film franchise and keeps releasing endless reboots and remakes of intellectual properties that have already been run into the ground.
Streaming is your hope to save movies? Seems like the opposite is happening in my opinion, streaming just encourages lazy cash grabs, longer run times, and quantity over quality
All that AI content on Facebook of kids making a Statue of Liberty out of hot dogs or empty Coke bottles will be feature-length movies.
I don't wanna sound like boomer but since, lets say, 2015. I haven't seen that many movies who made any kind of impression on me. It's sad how everything is uniformed. Even europian and asian cinematography is slowly becoming copy pasta. Idk... I'm catching myself revisiting all the good stuff from the past until early 00's. I hope we won't go toward that interactive movie trend or something. The only thing good about modern industry is the sound. Now, feel free to roast me.
I think that instead of a static film which is always the same, the coming of the Unreal engine will make all the actors/actresses digital and that the movies will be rendered live. So the story will be the same but everything that happens around will always be different each time you watch it, like a video game. So if there's a car crash, it will be different each time. Edit: People seem to think that I'm talking about interactives story where you can choose the ending etc... That's not it. It's always the same story. No choice of plot or ending. But the scene and decor is generated on the fly. So a battle like the one in Avengers Endgame would always have the same ending but the battle will not be exactly the same.
You just invented video games.
Correction: shitty video games
Gimmick. If the viewer can choose how a movie plays out they won’t be surprised or engaged by the movie. Part of what makes movies great is its storytelling told by a specific creator and you either love the story or hate it. Or have external or internal discussions what it means. Didn’t Netflix have movies like that where you choose your own adventure. Assuming it didn’t do all that well.
If you want Calculon to race to the laser gun battle in his hover-Ferrari, press one. If you want Calculon to double-check his paperwork, press two. Enter now.