Since I'm not able to more eloquently state this idea myself, the full text of the post is below:
Better, smaller, cheaper cameras don’t make better films; better filmmakers do. The digital revolution will probably quadruple the number of feature films shot and edited in a given year, but most of them will still be garbage, just like most of them are now. Look at the first video revolution ten or fifteen years ago – when Beta SP and Hi-band 8 became cheap. What is its legacy? Porno flicks. There won’t be any more artists born in a given year just because movies become cheaper to make. That particular form of insanity is in your DNA, and you either have it or you don’t. Pen and paper are the ultimate low-budget technology, but how many great novels and plays and poems are written every year? I don’t see a stream of Shakespeares being produced just because writing is inexpensive. Emotional clichés still lurk like land mines waiting to destroy you.So, once again we're back to content. Is there any real storytelling or story ideas behind the moving images? Are the characters compelling and of interest to the viewer? Are the ideas expressed through the medium worth expressing at all? Do we even care what happens?
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=470655#post470655
That has been the challenge of the storyteller from the moment of the first recounted story: be it one told through gesture or dance, the painting of the hunt on the wall of a cave, the appearance of scratches on parchment so the juglar might remember the verses of the epic poem...
And this list will go on an on and on as the storyteller struggles to make real (realize) the moving images, sounds, and feelings that sometimes play in his or her head – a story, a message – until they are performed or "recorded" (put to heart, as in to learn something by heart) somewhere, somehow, sometime.
What an amazing perspective Nova Invicta has.
Right on!
No comments:
Post a Comment