Letters: Apr. 10, 2006

Coming Soon to the World Near You

Every year we like to lift our eyes from the toil of the present and peer further ahead, at the trends on the horizon. Our exploration this time raised a lively debate on the merits of digital moviemaking, as well as keen observations that underscored the human element of our technology-driven world

TIME's article on George Lucas and the new digital age in moviemaking [March 20] was especially poignant for me. My father worked as a technician at Technicolor for more than 30 years and helped with the production of several Disney animated movies. Now my daughter (an avid Star Wars fan) is helping digitally restore the Disney films her grandfather worked on. When I was growing up, I was so proud to see the Technicolor logo on the screen. And today when I see my daughter's name in the credits, I am just as proud. I don't understand Hollywood's reluctance to go digital. Perhaps younger producers will embrace Lucas' vision.

DIANA ROBERTSON Laguna Niguel, Calif.

Your headline asked, "Can This Man Save the Movies? (Again?)," and I would say no. Not that Lucas isn't capable of doing almost anything with the art form, but very few people in a theater care about the process that was used to shoot the movie they're watching. They just want a good story. It is important for the talented people behind the camera to come up with better techniques, but I would suggest that they start a major hunt for some good writers who have new ideas.

HARPER PAUL WILLIAMS Alpharetta, Ga.

TIME's film critic Richard Corliss said Lucas' Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge of the Sith was "the most popular live-action digital movie in history." It didn't win any Oscars, however, and that's because it was horrible, not because of some conspiracy against digital technology on the part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. All the technical achievement in the world can't make up for a horrendously bad script.

GEORGIA MANRY Portland, Ore.

I understand Lucas' enthusiasm for technological advances, but I think the look of film has more aesthetic value than digital's supercrisp, ultra-clean images. I agree with writer-director M. Night Shyamalan, whom you quoted as saying, "You almost have to degrade the [digital] image to make it more real." I hope Hollywood doesn't have to choose between digital or film but can combine them to enhance the image on the screen. After all, shouldn't technology be used to serve art? The financial returns will come later.

SEAN TAYLOR Silver Spring, Md.

Your story seemed to imply that Hollywood's reluctance to accept high-definition video as the standard for image capture is due to nostalgia or a vague notion that film just feels more organic. No digital camera has yet achieved the dynamic range of today's film stocks, but that will change. Digital imaging technology will surpass film quality, and that's when moviemakers will start shooting their films digitally.

JOSH SILFEN New York City