The mass media is finally catching up to the biggest story in years: major technology disruption in the most important art form of the past century. Took ‘em a while, and I’m not sure they get it yet:
AO Scott is NYT's best film critic, but while Dargis keeps trying to bring up the process of making movies, and the role of the filmmaker and the studios and disruption all around, Scott keeps steering the interview back to aesthetics. Digital can look cool– got it. But the article does not go into the all-important question: in the digital transition how will movies be sourced, distributed, and consumed? Regardless of the look and texture of movies, going forward, how is the business changing? Among studios, film makers, distributors, indies, and the audience, who wins, who loses? For those with a longer attention span, see my article on this topic posted earlier this summer:
Part II of that story is coming soon. (Christie Digital showed a 63,000 lumen laser projector, at IBC, for the screening of a full-length movie. 63,000 lumens is more than the 55,000 lumen laser projector Barco demo’d in Texas in January. That difference is somewhat academic, as both were prototypes. But there are new developments on all fronts in this ongoing story.)
The big battles have just started.