>>211793873
Swaying large companies to back film doesn't take much, because digital post still costs a fuckload
What you need instead is to go to stuff like
>>211793426 and shill it to people so companies notice profits, because shot on film as a selling point as far as they're concerned is mostly a niche art market.
>>211794062
That's still not the low budget high return that those films used get. You need to get audiences who will pay money to see the film enough it becomes notable profit. Most audiences still are willing to pay for digital slop, but you're lucky there is a return to practicals
One of the things that makes film cheap in some ways is it's physically expensive per foot. You cannot do endless retakes, you will have to pay to process flubs, you need it to look right the first time because hand painting frame by frame is a bitch.
Directors who use film need to put in extra thought, use more practicals, and know the medium well enough that they know they can shoot everything plus mistakes on the stock they have. Practicals making a come back and economies being squeezed makes it more possible for a couple film breakthroughs to major notability in profit.
It's actually the extra millions to fix it in post and constantly reshoot or do multiple unnecessary angles for digital that are the enemy there. Those movies make back profit with large audiences, so there isn't an impetus to get rid of them yet.
