What is the future of film?

by duncandohnut (student)

David Duncan 13D1

Film has been around for over 100 years now, starting at the end of the 19th century. Motion pictures developed gradually from a carnival novelty to one of the most important tools of communication and entertainment, and mass media in the 20th century and into the 21st century. There are three main areas when it comes to film: the film industry, film audience and the relationship between the producers and the audiences.

The film audience is always changing, forcing the relationship between the producers and the audience to change, along with the film industry. While the film industries economic organisation will most likely stay the same, (with the 5 different methods of finance: self-financing, State/national funding, corporate sponsorship, funding from production companies and funding from movie studios) the amount of money being put into films always seems to be increasing. For instance ‘Avatar’ (2009) cost $237 million to make. It is the most expensive film to have ever been made.

The film audience is always changing, due to the fact that different film styles go in and out of fashion, for instance 3D. This causes a change between the relationship of producers and audience, affecting the types of films being made and distributed. The graphic content of film is now much more tolerable than it was 30 years ago. ‘Saturday Night Fever’ is a good example of this. It contains some bad language and a sex scene, and therefore got the age rating of 18, whereas a film like ‘Kick Ass’ contains a sex scene, lots of bad language (including an 11 year old swearing a lot) and a lot of bloody (fairly graphic) violence, yet this film only got the age rating of 15. This allows film directors and producers to include a lot more content in their films.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

3D has been an effect used to try to improve the viewer’s experience of certain films. It has been around since the early 50s. The first 3D film to have been created was ‘Bwana Devil’, it was made in 1952. During this time anaglyph lenses were used rather than polarisation which came about in the 60s and is still used today. Anaglyph lenses contain a red and green image which is combined to create depth in a picture. 3D viewing experiences often seem to come around in phases, becoming popular for a while every 10-20 years. There was a phase in the 60s, the 80s and we are currently going through a phase now, with most films currently being displayed in 3D. The most popular 3D film to date is most likely ‘Avatar’, costing $237 million to make. It won 3 Oscars, all in technical categories: visual effects, art direction and cinematography. This is fair enough as it was a very well designed movie; however, being well designed does not necessarily make it a good movie. If this film had not been created for 3D or contained the visual effects it did, it would most likely go down as a rip off of the film ‘Dances with Wolves’ or ‘Pocahontas’, containing practically the same storyline, but a lot less subtle.

So what does 3D actually add to a film? Many argue that it brings a life like experience to the viewers, creating the effect that they are actually inside the film itself. On the other hand, many people also believe that it is merely a gimmick used to mask a rise in ticket prices. James Cameron believes that 3D is the future, whether it’s in cinemas or at home. This is due to the fact he believes it is a far better experience than looking at a 2D screen. He does not intend it to be used when it comes to watching a film on an Iphone or laptop, but if harnessed correctly, people can watch it at home without the glasses. He does believe that glasses will always be needed when watching a 3D film in cinema though. He believes in trying to create a process challenge, in order to try and make films like ‘Avatar’ quicker and cheaper to make.

Kermode (a famous critic) on the other hand believes that 3D does not do much except make enlarge the image and bring it closer to the viewer’s face. It still looks the same, only a bit bigger. He believes that the storyline of a film is what makes the film good or not. Avatar, in his opinion, was a film about a group of ‘tree-hugging smurfs’ without any form of subtlety, merely recreating American history and setting it in the future. He believes it is unrealistic in the fact that surely the world would have learned from military mistakes and not try to take over other countries/planets.

I personally agree with some points made by both of these people. I agree with James Cameron’s view that if 3D technology is harnessed correctly, it will become a very affective and popular system in home cinema, if glasses do not have to be used. However, because of the glasses, I do not believe it will be an overly affective tool when it comes to cinema. I also agree with Kermode in the fact that 3D is not as good as it is hyped up to be. As he said, it is literally making an image bigger and closer to the viewer. I believe that more emphasis should be placed on the storyline, rather than visual effects.

Overall, though I haven’t really mentioned it yet, I believe that animation will be the future of film. This partially agrees with James Cameron. After watching the film ‘Beowulf’ it appears that many characters can be created through animation, yet look as real as they would during a regular film. By using animation like this, the directors and producers would be saving money on props, costumes, actors, setting, scenery, etc. Actors only need to use their voice, which once again saves money. If this could be combined with 3D, (without the glasses and with a flat screen) I believe that this could be the future of film. Though I didn’t find ‘Beowulf’ particularly entertaining, if a good storyline was created, animation was used instead of actors (but still making it look realistic) and maybe 3D was added, it would be a cheap and effective way to create films. I do agree with James Cameron in the fact that characters should not be recreated however.