How to further lessen the value of a human being.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

None of the above innovations would alter, in any way, the proportion of good to shit films.

True that, but there would be more variety, a person who had an idea for a movie could actually make it. Youtube's going that way now.

[Clinton Huxley]

None of the above innovations would alter, in any way, the proportion of good to shit films.

True that, but there would be more variety, a person who had an idea for a movie could actually make it. Youtube's going that way now.

They say there is a novel in everyone, and that's where almost all of them should stay....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

None of the above innovations would alter, in any way, the proportion of good to shit films.

True that, but there would be more variety, a person who had an idea for a movie could actually make it. Youtube's going that way now.

They say there is a novel in everyone, and that's where almost all of them should stay....

That's where mine is right now, and not likely to get out, ever.

[Drewish]

Oh no, save the poor endangered actor. What will we ever do when star names can't sell movies and special effects peak to the point where what we're left with is story telling? Oh the horror

Interesting reply, but who said such a thing? I think it would be an interesting turn of events, because they'd be able to do things no human actor could do. True morphing, survival in unlikely environments, etc. The Battle of Trafalgar would be wonderfully bloody.

When movies get to that point, then it wouldn't matter how much money you had to hire actors. It wouldn't matter how much you had for special effects, as the whole process would become dirt cheap. Making a movie would be like writing a book, and it would all come down to the content not the superficials. Now some people like shit content, but the resulting ease with which a variety of content could be created means more of the kind of stuff I like, and you like, and everyone else likes. Cheaper production = more variety = more movies you enjoy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh no, save the poor endangered actor. What will we ever do when star names can't sell movies and special effects peak to the point where what we're left with is story telling? Oh the horror

Interesting reply, but who said such a thing? I think it would be an interesting turn of events, because they'd be able to do things no human actor could do. True morphing, survival in unlikely environments, etc. The Battle of Trafalgar would be wonderfully bloody.

When movies get to that point, then it wouldn't matter how much money you had to hire actors. It wouldn't matter how much you had for special effects, as the whole process would become dirt cheap. Making a movie would be like writing a book, and it would all come down to the content not the superficials. Now some people like shit content, but the resulting ease with which a variety of content could be created means more of the kind of stuff I like, and you like, and everyone else likes. Cheaper production = more variety = more movies you enjoy.

Why wouldn't there be cheaper movies if you don't have to pay the actors? And we have shit content now, so that won't change much, I think. As I noted in a post above you may get more movies, with people who have great ideas but few funds having a chance to make their movie.

[Drewish]

Huh? I was saying that movies would get cheaper without actors and actresses.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Huh? I was saying that movies would get cheaper without actors and actresses.

Oh, then I agree. If everything is done inside the computer you don't have to do sets, gaffers, catering, transportation, and a million other things. And you can try out any number of shots and scenarios until you get one that works for you.

And now I wonder, the "More Than Human" issue?

[amused]

The top paid actors can get $20 million because they can 'open' a movie - enough people willcome see their movies to make it less of a risk to spend the other $50 million for the rest of the production, and another $50 million for advertising. If you owned a digital actor with a huge following, you would still charge $20 million for it to be the star, and nothing will have changed about the cost of movie-making.

[Drewish]

The top paid actors can get $20 million because they can 'open' a movie - enough people willcome see their movies to make it less of a risk to spend the other $50 million for the rest of the production, and another $50 million for advertising. If you owned a digital actor with a huge following, you would still charge $20 million for it to be the star, and nothing will have changed about the cost of movie-making.

People going to see a digital actor? Hahahaha.

EDIT -



GOD DAMN IT JAPAN!

[rasetsu]

Habit converts luxurious enjoyments into dull and daily necessities.
— Aldous Huxley

There will be good movies. Many more good movies. And bad ones, too. So many, that you won't be able to find what you want. And will spend the evening rewatching Back To The Future, part 16, the remake. And eating your soma. Good soma. Faithful soma. Never leave me.