-
Why FCPX?
-
[Oliver Peters] “The result is a general attitude among key influencers that it’s not the tool to use.”
I can’t disagree about the PR, but the whole “key influencers” thing is, to me, ridiculous. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s real. That “hollywood” needs validation from from “big names” before they’ll try something new. Something that could arguably make their jobs easier, and save money and time.
Focus and WTF? “meh. Sure the whole team loved it and had a great experience, but you know, who are those guys?” All the international stuff being done in X? “Phht… never heard of it.” Now Fincher using Premiere? “Ooh, I’ve heard of him! He’s ‘somebody’!” Validation! Let’s use it on our movie! Deadpool! And Adobe will help us!
Pr is a great NLE but… How’d that work out?
So sure, you’re right. it is what it is. And it’s incredibly stupid.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~ -
[Steve Connor] “Or perhaps Apple are like me and don’t care in the slightest whether the tiny fraction of Editors who are “Hollywood A Listers” or “key influencers” use it.”
Exactly. Let Adobe fight Apple over that niche! 😉
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Charlie Austin] “That “hollywood” needs validation from from “big names” before they’ll try something new”
As the saying goes, “No one ever got fired for buying IBM”. ????
Hollywood needing validation is just a symptom of humans generally being risk averse by nature. If one is happy and productive with what one already has, what’s the motivation for tossing that aside? Especially if hundreds of millions of dollars on the line? The more that’s at stake, and the more people that have to sign off on changes, the longer it’s going to take to make changes. I don’t care what part of the industry you are in, but if you need to convince someone else that the existing, functioning workflow needs to be nuked it’s a much easier sell if you have relevant, real world case studies to hold up as examples of how the new workflow is demonstrably better, faster, cheaper and more robust than the existing workflow.
Of course as was brought up in the article, if there isn’t a decent labor pool for the new workflow than there is very little incentive for businesses to adopt it. This chicken/egg scenario is usually solved by the tool maker spending money to ‘prime the pump’ and help create demand for their product via PR/Marketing.
-
With the goal of simplifying processes, do you think Resolve is the best poised to win in that regard (assuming enough editors will want to cut with it and enough mixers will want to use Fairlight)? Michael Gissing is usually the one championing this point, but he hasn’t made it into this thread yet so I figured someone should go ahead and mention it. 😉
-
Apple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn’t going to move the needle for Apple’s bottom line.
I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles -
[greg janza] “Apple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn’t going to move the needle for Apple’s bottom line.
“Not true at all, Why do they bother with anything than phones then? Apple are an ecosystem and they are rapidly realising the value of content as well. Having content creation tools available fits into this ecosystem.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Apple’s In Action page tells a different story. ????
https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/“
Oh for heavens sake.
Call me when your browser is full of FCP X paid ads like for CC. Or Avid. Or Black Magic.
That apple puts up a passive website that people have to search for and find – is a VERY different thing than spending large sums to actively market a product to boost sales.
Like the software or not, Apple hitting 2 million paid seats WITHOUT anywhere NEAR that type of marketing push says either they are magically more effective with the paltry marketing money that they do spend – or the software’s been simply attractive enough on it’s own in enough places to have hit Apple’s needed sales targets without any need for similar paid promotion.
Which ever – it’s apparently done fine with all but a particular “class” of editors – who still largely don’t get it.
(Not the editors here who’ve followed this stuff, obviously – but out in the broader American Suite Editors of a Particular Class – arena.)
My 2 cents.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[greg janza] “Apple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn’t going to move the needle for Apple’s bottom line.
I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles”Following that logic, Exxon is a “Gasoline” company. Please ignore that most of the “gas stations” now make more profit out of their convenience stores than they do out of gas – and that they are functionally REAL ESTATE holding companies who’s histrorical product was gasolene – but actually isn’t so much any longer.
Apple, similarly is a “technology” company – now. Computers used to drive things. Now portable pocket communications technology has for a while. Maybe auto-pilot software for autonomous transportation – or medical information data collection and records management will take over from monthly phone lease bills someday.
Nobody knows.
You can’t survive playng the same game forever. History is littered with examples like Polaroid and Kaypro that took their eye off the actual ball.
Ny 2 cents.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Andrew Kimery] “Hollywood needing validation is just a symptom of humans generally being risk averse by nature. If one is happy and productive with what one already has, what’s the motivation for tossing that aside? Especially if hundreds of millions of dollars on the line? The more that’s at stake, and the more people that have to sign off on changes, the longer it’s going to take to make changes.”
Oh, I get it. And there are good examples of the new thing working quite well. I guess just not enough. I still think it’s stupid. ????
[Andrew Kimery] “Of course as was brought up in the article, if there isn’t a decent labor pool for the new workflow than there is very little incentive for businesses to adopt it.”
Totally agree. That’s changing though. Not so much in big features yet, but definitely in the indie, Doc, Advertising spaces. Hopefully it’ll trickle up. Or down, depending on one’s POV 🙂
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~ -
[Andrew Kimery] “Hollywood needing validation is just a symptom of humans generally being risk averse by nature.”
I don’t think it’s just that. When you cut a film, you turn over a lot of deliverables at the end, including editorial media and project files. That’s in case of future changes, recuts, etc. That work usually not done by the original editor(s). Also sometimes editors get fired mid-project. So having a commonly used application makes the whole process easier. FCPX is too much of a wild card for many for those practical reasons. The talent pool of whom you would call upon is too small.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up