Tribeca Acquires Keanu Reeves Documentary ‘Side By Side’

COMMENTS (12)

• Sure Digital has taken some time to mature but it has already be the superior product. With digital you have a pristine image to make any adjustment imaginable (except alter a bad script), color, lighting, flawless integration of special effects. The technology is improving constantly. No one can argue about the charm and imprecations of film make it warmer, more raw or authentic anymore because thats simply a layer adjustment that can be added to digital. The final product can now be stored, shipped, reproduced and legally shared)purchased) with a fraction of the effort hand packaging it used to take. The single best aspect of digital is it leveled the playing field and equipeted and army of eager creatives with the ability to go toe-to-toe with Hollywood.

  Comment by GIBBS — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 5:50am PST  Reply to this post

  • good luck with that toe-to-toe thing…

    Comment by h. berman — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 8:37am PST  Reply to this post

  • OR, instead of adding a filter, which by the way anyone who actually cares about the image that they’re seeing on-screen will be able to spot as a filter, you can just use film. You get the natural look automatically instead of trying to recreate it. If you actually prefer digital to film, then you shouldn’t be trying to simulate the latter. Embrace the differences, or just do it right.

    The “we can make it look like film!” people are essentially saying it’s better to masturbate to porn than having sex with a willing partner in the next room.

    Comment by Brian — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 8:39am PST  Reply to this post

    • He can do whatever he want with his footage. Apply “film look” or not, whatever. 35mm footage presented to you in most of Hollywood productions is being carefully processed, cleaned and often de-grained to the point it looks like digital.

      So why they even do this, trying to clean the “magic” from photochemical film? Trying to make it look more “pristine” and “digital”?

      Comment by Nexus — Wednesday February 15, 2012 @ 5:49am PST  Reply to this post

• yes, and that field leveling has deprived us of routine (as in recently shown ‘decision at dawn’ TCM) movies that had competent character stars (gary merrill, oskar werner, hildegard neff) who could move the narrative forward with a look.

  a look it took them years to perfect.

  a young aspiring klaus kinski in a bit. just starting to pull the paddle wheeler over the mountain.

  this level playing field has made it easy for any untalented person who can generate an undiscerning investor to make a movie that will go straight to on demand (SAME DAY RELEASE) heaven.

  no wonder ‘the artist’ is faring well.

  a nod to a bygone era.

  Comment by az joe — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 7:41am PST  Reply to this post

  • Get over yourself. Digital vs film has nothing to do with the weaker performances in movies. The Artist has nothing to do with digital vs film. The bygone era was the studio system and the magic and wonder of movies.

    The format means nothing. Content is king.

    Comment by Jake — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 9:21am PST  Reply to this post

  • Economics aside, your suggesting the only people worthy of getting behind the camera are veterans of working with actually film and no one else deserves a shot. There is talent EVERYWHERE, sorry to say it but Hollywood does not have a monopoly on it.

    Like any other industry deliver a well-made product to the consumer and they will consume.

    Comment by Anonymous — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 11:44am PST  Reply to this post

• Digital is still, as complex as it is, a compression. It can never find the actual image, it requires a decoder. Analogue will return in a complex form, called a hologram, and it will beat digital, since it will emerge, unfiltered from your head.

  Comment by anon. — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 9:50am PST  Reply to this post

  • Hologram? Cool story bro. Recent digital cameras from Arri, Red and Sony records RAW images, not compressed. It’s not 2005 anymore.

    Comment by Nexus — Wednesday February 15, 2012 @ 5:52am PST  Reply to this post

• It’s amazing that color film as viable medium has only had a life span of 75 years or so.

  Comment by Jiminy Kritic — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 11:15am PST  Reply to this post

• To paraphrase Robert Levine in his incisive (though not film-centric) book FREE RIDE: “What if we’ve spent the last 20 years creating an information economy, only to find out that content isn’t worth anything?” The supremely gifted, like those interviewed in this film, will always manage to rise through talent, persistence and luck. The technological democratization of film may cut costs, enhance creativity and make entry to Hollywood easier for a talented few, despite the clutter of content it generates. The larger question is whether they will be able to make a living by making films in a sustainable community industry, the export of which will generate profits and contribute to GDP, or if instead they will be nothing more than independent artist/hobbyists who can never quit their day jobs. Until Hollywood can find a way to regain control over copyright in a digital world, that seems very much in doubt.

  Comment by Garbo — Monday February 13, 2012 @ 11:57am PST  Reply to this post

  • Hollywood will never win the war over the copyright in digital world. Well, if they’d decide to ban Web, then maybe. All the Hollywood is able to do is deliver cheap option to buy/receive content online, so less people would pirate stuff. You should let go the very thought, that you can stop anyone from doing things with your “digital” property, it’s the nature of humanity. Some people will be doing it anyways. Get over it.

    Comment by Nexus — Wednesday February 15, 2012 @ 5:57am PST  Reply to this post