4 ms·

> Also, consider all the potentially great films that never got made because even the best filmmakers can only get a fraction of their ideas actually produced.

> Also, consider all the potentially great films that never got made because even the best filmmakers can only get a fraction of their ideas actually produced. and that's a good thing. Consider how many bad movies were not made thanks to this! IMO, content creation should be harder, not easier. If it becomes too easy, the quality goes toward hobbyist level, which is not what I want to pay for. Also, bad content was a thing on its own, take for example Troma films, they are entertainingly bad, not just repetitive and dull bad. > Or the problem of finding something satisfying to watch out literally tens of thousands of shows on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, AppleTV+, etc? the problem is exactly the mass amount of content created to lure people in. But do I really want to watch another iteration of the superhero trope? No, I don't. I wanna watch something that I've never seen before. Imagine a book written to mimic the style of my favourite writers on my favourite topic: Sci-fi. On paper it sounds like a dream, but in reality it would be a terrible, confusing, incoherent and ultimately a trying-too-hard-to-match-my-taste product. Like when Data reads his poems on TNG and when asked why people seemed distracted, Laforge answers "Well, your poems were clever, Data, and your Haiku was clever, and your sonnet was clever. But did it evoke an emotional response? To be honest, no" Of course Data being Data, he knows he's clever and he knows he's an amateur poet and wants to hear the truth about his works. But do we want to pay for content generated by the machines so that they can learn to imitate us better? [1] I sincerely don't want to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice EDIT: with [1] I mean that I don't want to pay streaming content publishers to improve their algorithm so that they can mass produce more dull content for people to consume (and pay) If they really want to improve things, they should pay people to make less shows and/or movies but better. Shows like "Another life" (6% on Rotten Tomatoes) would not exist if they were shot on real sets that take time, money, permits and a lot people to recreate.

dougabug 5y ago
Uh, you’re not actually required to watch something just because it exists. Some subset of people not liking content isn’t, in and of itself, reason to stifle peoples ability to create said content. The job of a literature professor is not to protect Literature by ensuring that inadequate students are never allowed to write. If some combination of AI and community driven filtering can prevent sub-par works from entering your queue, you are no worse off. On the other hand, some scripts like Severance, which languished for years on the best-scripts-never-made list, would likely never have been (finally) made but for the vast expansion of content creation due to the rise of streaming. In fact, if only a dozen movies were allowed to be made each year, they would probably all be Marvel movies or something with similar mass appeal. Most of the truly innovative work appears at the margins, hence expanding the margins is more likely to yield groundbreaking art (along with a ton of crap).
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > Uh, you’re not actually required to watch something just because it exists believe it or not, if the money goes all in one direction, you're at one point between a rock and a hard place when it's about choice. > The job of a literature professor is not to protect Literature by ensuring that inadequate students are never allowed to write. But the job of a film production company is not to produce as much content as possible, but taking the financial risk to produce something that will make an impression.
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
> IMO, content creation should be harder, not easier. > If it becomes too easy, the quality goes toward hobbyist level, which is not what I want to pay for. IMO coding should be harder, not easier. If it becomes too easy, the quality goes toward hobbyist level, which is not what I want to pay for.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  code is already hobbyist level. it rarely escaped the mid-low quality level since it became a mass produced product.
langitbiru 5y ago
By the same logic, we can say the same things for no-code tools, IDE, spellchecker, etc.
CuriouslyC 5y ago
Pretty sure you're wrong. Look at what's happening in music right now. It used to be that if you wanted music that didn't sound like total garbage it was going to be a mainstream production, because all the tools around professional music production were expensive. Now hobbyists have tools comparable to what the pros use, indie music tends to be well produced, and we have a much greater proliferation of fringe music than in the past. Considering how shit mainstream music is from an artistic perspective today, and I have to say I'm glad. By lowering the cost to create professional art, it reduces the barriers to producing unique fringe art. Without a need to recoup a massive investment, people can take experiments, and express themselves.

dougabug 5y ago

Uh, you’re not actually required to watch something just because it exists. Some subset of people not liking content isn’t, in and of itself, reason to stifle peoples ability to create said content. The job of a literature professor is not to protect Literature by ensuring that inadequate students are never allowed to write. If some combination of AI and community driven filtering can prevent sub-par works from entering your queue, you are no worse off. On the other hand, some scripts like Severance, which languished for years on the best-scripts-never-made list, would likely never have been (finally) made but for the vast expansion of content creation due to the rise of streaming. In fact, if only a dozen movies were allowed to be made each year, they would probably all be Marvel movies or something with similar mass appeal. Most of the truly innovative work appears at the margins, hence expanding the margins is more likely to yield groundbreaking art (along with a ton of crap).

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> Uh, you’re not actually required to watch something just because it exists believe it or not, if the money goes all in one direction, you're at one point between a rock and a hard place when it's about choice. > The job of a literature professor is not to protect Literature by ensuring that inadequate students are never allowed to write. But the job of a film production company is not to produce as much content as possible, but taking the financial risk to produce something that will make an impression.

Ar-Curunir 5y ago

> IMO, content creation should be harder, not easier. > If it becomes too easy, the quality goes toward hobbyist level, which is not what I want to pay for. IMO coding should be harder, not easier. If it becomes too easy, the quality goes toward hobbyist level, which is not what I want to pay for.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
code is already hobbyist level. it rarely escaped the mid-low quality level since it became a mass produced product.

langitbiru 5y ago

By the same logic, we can say the same things for no-code tools, IDE, spellchecker, etc.

CuriouslyC 5y ago

Pretty sure you're wrong. Look at what's happening in music right now. It used to be that if you wanted music that didn't sound like total garbage it was going to be a mainstream production, because all the tools around professional music production were expensive. Now hobbyists have tools comparable to what the pros use, indie music tends to be well produced, and we have a much greater proliferation of fringe music than in the past. Considering how shit mainstream music is from an artistic perspective today, and I have to say I'm glad. By lowering the cost to create professional art, it reduces the barriers to producing unique fringe art. Without a need to recoup a massive investment, people can take experiments, and express themselves.