Zero Dark Thirty, as previously mentioned, was shot digitally. As was The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Skyfall, and The Avengers. All also shot digitally. All with epic budgets, granted, but it’s doubtful that the films would have been anywhere near the length they ended up being if they were being shot on film. Peter Jackson shot the Lord of the Rings series on film, because digital simply wasn’t up to industry standard for that scale of film in the mid-2000’s.
With this in mind, it’s not inconceivable to make a logical leap and suggest that the money saved by shooting digitally gives filmmakers more freedom to make longer films. Cinema prices may seem like they are the highest they’ve ever been, but according to NATO (no, not that one – the National Association of Theatre Owners), cinema prices are cheaper than they’ve ever been when adjusted for inflation (here’s a boring .pdf all about it). As hard as that is to believe, surely NATO wouldn’t lie to us. Cheaper tickets means more bums on seats, which means higher viewing figures. A longer film makes more money to the customer financially because they’re getting more bang for their buck (literally) and makes sense to distributors and cinemas because more customers in the cinema for longer means higher snack sales – where the real money is.
“But surely longer films mean less potential screenings per day?” I hear you ask. Not necessarily, because in a large multiplex the same film can be shown across two, three, or four different screens. My closest cinema, at the height of Skyfall-mania, was showing Skyfall fifteen times in one day, across three screens. You do the math.
So digital plays a part, as does money. But what good is money and the right format when you don’t have imagination? Could it be that filmmakers are getting… better? More talented? More opportunities? Access to better equipment at an earlier age? Is it heresy for me to suggest such an idea?
Continue reading on next page…
Published: Jul 15, 2013 10:19 am