See, here's the thing: I have this friend, who is a huge proponent of digital video. He's an amateur filmmaker, and he would never think of originating on anything but video. He is always citing Robert Roderiguez and making me watch the extras on Once Upon a Time in Mexico, you know, where Robert takes you through his digital process and you get to see all of the neat things he has in his home, like sound mixing boards and digital squib readouts and sh**. My friend claims that digital is the only universally acceptable medium, and that the accessability of digital video makes it so that anyone can afford to make a movie. I guess his point is, you shouldn't have to be rich to be an artist.
Yeah, but then I watched [i]Cheerleader Massacre, [/i]which I started after I couldn't get more than 20 minutes into [i]Scarecrow, [/i]both of which are straight to video horror films shot on digital video. The immediacy of the digital medium looked good in [i]The Blair Witch Project[/i], but I have to admit, in regards to my friend's complaint, that I think maybe if paint were a little more expensive we wouldn't be subjected to so many crappy paintings. Who wants to waste paint on a crummy still life if the stuff is $50 a bottle? Similarly, I don't think that everyone with a digital camera should be given a shot at the big time, and [i]Cheerleader Massacre[/i] is the reason why. It looks bad, it is bad, and I have to say, with the same actors, script, and effects, had the movie been shot on 32 mm, it may have been half-decent.
So, now I have learned, all of today's straight to video horror films are digital video and look like crud. Poorly-lit with awful pixellation and abyssmal acting, this films were over before they started. I'll rent a DVD remastering of [i]The Prowler[/i] any day.