Released into the wild by the BBC in 89. Ran away to sea. Returned dirtside after finding out what fish do in it. Now having extraordinary adventures and making films again.
Television, with its rigid segmentations of shelf space, often wrecks stories by imposing arbitrary running lengths. Watch some of the better channels on YouTube and you'll see that they don't damage their stories on a Procrustean bed. Their content runs to the most appropriate length.
I was quite impressed that the Mandalorian's creators freed themselves from a limitation that makes no sense whatever for on-demand content. Television and Film are being disrupted by a platform without gatekeepers that allows channels to find their niche audiences and thrive if they serve them well. It's nothing to do with attention spans either, it's down to reduced tolerance of crap, homogenous content. I had a career in TV but haven't watched any in over a year, and I'm over 65.
Look for the words Disruptive Innovation being applied to the impact of YouTube on traditional media in the near future. TV is a dinosaur and YouTube is eating its eggs.
A very impressive technology, but I really can't see any storytelling limitation 8k or even 4k mitigates. So what value does it actually bring? Particularly when most video is now consumed on smartphones. Better colourspace is a boon but resolution-independent. At 8k you have to be within 3/4 of the screen height to be able to resolve the pixels. This is manufacturer-led new clothing for a disrupted emperor.
If only our storytelling industries would put more effort into making better stories...
Probably the single most important thing I learned through working with film is the skill of visualisation.
There was no WYSIWYG in film production.
This meant that every decision had a long feedback loop - sometimes half a year or more. 'Seeing' the options for rendering a script, treatment or rushes and being able to discuss them with paper and pencil were key throughout. Exposure, guided by a meter, could not be vindicated until the rushes arrived - even then a one light print would give only a general indication. And framing on cameras with rack over viewfinders had to be estimated if the camera moved.
Hard won experience was king. I doubt many people could properly 'read' a cutting copy now. All those decisions throughout the entire process that had to wait on the answer print for validation. Whatever the job you did in film, visualisation was a vital skill; without it you could not really participate usefully in the process.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that we tend to go with our first ideas far more than we used to. Something I noticed with the advent of broadcast video graphics in the 1980s. Quantel's Paintbox encouraged the new breed of graphic designers to 'design' on the system at a high hourly rate rather than on paper.
Trailers used to be such splendid pieces of film in their own right. Their job? To pose the dramatic premise of the film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvlGh_FgcI did as compelling a job for Casablanca as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5fE0HXkmyo did for Brief Encounter. Those girls and boys knew their stuff; their work trained audiences about high standards.
Before the decline of story, a greater proportion of actual films had an actual dramatic premise to pose in the first place. As action, terror and effects have waxed so productions have arguably waned to mimicry. The result of dual pressure from studio accountants and audiences who get their critical sensibilities from theme park rides. Well, that along with cheap accessible kit and very little in the way of on the job training. I'm off to snort a couple of lines of 'things go better with coke' and then watch Gravity...
It does occur to me that the trailer, for a film in which a film trailer maker goes on holiday, worked well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhKXjJQ-ixQ