Hey there K*. As I mentioned about, my delcaration about the death of film is more for melodrama and being facetious. I know it’s not dead…yet. And I’m not saying anything negative about film at all. In fact, as I mentioned to someone else, I love the aesthetic of film. I’m commenting on people who say you have to shoot on film to be considered a “filmmaker.”

And you’re right about the commoditization of the industry. But the question is not about the quality of the films. Ed Wood was indeed a filmmaker, despite the fact he’s credited with making what’s considered the worse film of all time. How good someone is is a topic for another blog post.

Speaking of which, ahem, didn’t you say you’d do a guest blog post for me? 🙂 This sounds like as good as topic as any for Ms. * to do a guest blog post on. Whaddaya say? 🙂

All those in favor of Kristen* wrting a guest blog post on this topic, say “aye.” “AYE!”

Hey there K*. As I mentioned about, my delcaration about the death of film is more for melodrama and being facetious. I know it’s not dead…yet. And I’m not saying anything negative about film at all. In fact, as I mentioned to someone else, I love the aesthetic of film. I’m commenting on people who say you have to shoot on film to be considered a “filmmaker.”

And you’re right about the commoditization of the industry. But the question is not about the quality of the films. Ed Wood was indeed a filmmaker, despite the fact he’s credited with making what’s considered the worse film of all time. How good someone is is a topic for another blog post.

Speaking of which, ahem, didn’t you say you’d do a guest blog post for me? 🙂 This sounds like as good as topic as any for Ms. * to do a guest blog post on. Whaddaya say? 🙂

All those in favor of Kristen* wrting a guest blog post on this topic, say “aye.” “AYE!”

You entiendo mi amigo. But I’m really just being a smart-ass with that line. :). I’m cuutting to the chase. I love the aesthetic of film and the history that comes with it. I don’t mean to belittle that. It just got so frustrating to read so many comments from people saying to be considered a real filmmaker you had to shoot on film.

When I hear the term “movie maker” it instantly makes me think of feature films… sorry, feature length movies. 90 minute story driven motion picture films/videos that are shown on TV or at movie theaters.

With that being said, who’s to say calling yourself a “movie maker” is wrong? I think if that’s what you want to be called, you should go for it!

From what I have heard, celluloid film has a 100+ year shelf life for archiving… unfortunately, we don’t really have that with any digital medium. This is really the only idea that I would miss about film. We have way to many formats with digital. Hard Disk Drives have been around for quite some time, but even those can’t keep the same connections or guts because technology advances so quickly. IDE>SATA>? – HDD>SSD>? Betacam>Mini DV>P2 cards>SxS Cards>CF cards>SD cards>?

I guess the reality is, we will just have to learn to cope with advancements in technology.

Good question Morgan. I know a lot of wedding videographer who call themselves wedding filmmakers. Most corporate shooters I know (including myself) call themselves producer (or some version of that).

Your point about French is interesting. I wonder how this topic is considered in non-English speaking countries.

Thanks for commenting.