The MacGuffin

I own Clue. But it was given to me and I have never actually watched it. So I’m not sure which of you that supports…

Hey, longtime listener and fan here; thanks for the consistently high-quality conversation and film analysis.

Regarding the debate about the necessity of “new” technical innovations in the moviegoing experience (3D, rumble seats, etc): As someone who immensely enjoys stimulating intellectual debates, I don’t feel Spencer really ever adequately responded to John’s arguments against new film innovations (of the sorts you’d been discussing). John’s argument, if I understood it correctly, was twofold: a) if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and b) if it is broke, it’s certainly not broken in ways that will be fixed by new technical innovations. These are points with which I absolutely agree, and I don’t quite understand why Spencer was so reluctant to admit the strength of this argument.

So, Spencer, I’m wondering: what, again, is the argument for studios putting more time and effort into technical innovations, rather than putting that same time and effort into, say, looking harder for better scripts, or scouting talented young filmmakers, or investing in cheap-but-riskier independent projects that could potentially yield large returns, etc? I don’t mean to imply that “finding better scripts” is a simple catch-all solution to the sorry state of film, but I also completely fail to see how introducing, say, higher frame-rates or rumbling seats or more 3D, would do anything whatsoever to improve the quality of films out there.

I suppose the argument could be that gimmicky stuff like 3D, while not improving the quality of film for die-hard film snobs like us, will bring in more money for the studios in general, which can trickle down and allow them to make more investments in riskier projects. But Spencer wasn’t arguing this; he seemed to be making the more direct claim that new technological investments would directly improve the quality of the films to which they’re applied, and I just don’t see how this is so.

Anyway, thanks again for putting out a great product. I look forward to your podcasts every week.

Seth, thanks for such a thoughtful analysis of the discussion. I absolutely
agree with John that if they would be willing to put more money into quality
projects and better scripts that would be the ideal. For me the point of the
discussion was to debate where we think film will be heading in the future,
more from a technology standpoint. The segment was inspired by James
Cameron’s recent presentation at ShoWest (http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/).
For me, to simply say story is the most important thing wasn’t really the
topic.

I think Hollywood is much more apt to invest in something like 3D that they
know will give them an easy bump in revenue as opposed to gambling on
unproven projects. They look more at the business side of “show business.”
Sometimes these changes have a dramatic effect on the world of film.

I’m not advocating frame-rate changes or D-Box seats or anything
necessarily, but I’m curious as to where things will be going next. When
someone as influential as James Cameron says he wants to change the
frame-rate that is a pretty significant statement. One direction that things
are obviously heading (and we touched on this) is towards the realm of
digital filmmaking. There are some people who really love the look and feel
of film (such as Steven Spielberg) and there are those that are firmly
settled into the digital realm (George Lucas for example).

The film industry has changed so much over the last hundred years when you
think about it (black and white to color, from silent to sound, from film to
digital, non-linear editing/storytelling, 3D)…trying to forecast what is
next in that arena was more what I’m curious about.

Hey, thanks for the reply, and that makes a lot more sense. Now I’m realizing that you and John weren’t necessarily in disagreement with one another from a prescriptive standpoint; you just have different dispositions toward the technological future of film (yours being one of curiosity, John’s being one of dread and disgust). I think I feel more similarly to John, but I do share a bit of curiosity as well.

You also bring up a very good point about how film has changed in the last hundred years. What I really wonder is, was the advent of color film as contentious in its day as the advent of 3D is now? Were 1930′s film snobs angrily color film as a gimmick, a passing phase, a way for the studios to make more money? The answer to that question could be instructive if we’re to prognosticate on the future of film.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond, and congrats again on a quality show. I’m about to listen to the most recent episode now.

Yeah, I think describing it as different dispositions is probably a better
way of putting it. Though I will say I do fear where things are headed
(given the large amount of novelty stuff out there – smell-o-vision, etc.),
I’m also of the perspective that it is better for people to voice their
thoughts rather than react when the changes are made. Hopefully we can help
steer things in the right direction. Given the amount of change over the
past 100 years it is hard to imagine things will stay the same for too long.
Just look at the transition from film to digital over the last decade (or
from SD to HD…). The industry is constantly evolving.

If you saw our “Intro to Chaplin” we discussed a bit about his fear about
the change from silent movies to “talkies.” I imagine at any major
transition there are a group of early adapters and a group of people who
fear the change. The trouble is figuring out which changes are the ones that
are going to be lasting, and which ones are going to be a flash in the pan.
My love of technology has made me an early adapter, but that doesn’t mean I
love everything that comes out (i.e. 3D).

Thanks again for the support, and if you ever have any topics you want to
hear us discuss, feel free to ask.