3 ms·

> torrents didn't kill the movie industry because people still want to see movies on a big screen experience Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill

by Ukv 3y ago

> torrents didn't kill the movie industry because people still want to see movies on a big screen experience Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the movie industry is because people weren't satisfied with smaller screens: would you be satisfied with content that is stuck in "2020-2030 forever" and can never produce anything "entirely new"? Personally I think novelty in art thrives when the entry barrier is low and experimentation is possible without a huge budget - which AI can help achieve.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the movie industry is because people weren't satisfied with smaller screens: would you be satisfied with content that is stuck in "2020-2030 forever" and can never produce anything "entirely new"? I fear the enshittification of movies - similar to, say, the situation in video games or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base bullshit, customers won't move (because why move from a pile of cow dung to a pile of dog dung? it's all dung in the end), and everyone can keep fleecing the customers. > Personally I think novelty in art thrives when the entry barrier is low and experimentation is possible without a huge budget - which AI can help achieve. Oh even now even utter novices and two-three person teams can produce hours of high quality content, youtube is enough proof of that. Experimentation is not the problem, the problem is all the marketing to get people to sit in the cinema. For a lot of modern movies, music and video games the cost of production is at least on the same order of magnitude as the cost of marketing - even a blockbuster movie like Avengers Endgame [1] reportedly had 356 M$ of production cost vs 200 M$ of marketing cost, and of the production cost at least 100 M$ were compensation for the star actors. [1] https://collider.com/avengers-endgame-box-office-budget/ https://collider.com/avengers-endgame-box-office-budget/
- Ukv 3y ago
  > or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base bullshit, customers won't move (because why move from a pile of cow dung to a pile of dog dung? it's all dung in the end) So, if I'm understanding, you believe you wouldn't be satisfied with the movies, but wouldn't have a choice because of a silent agreement (as with residential ISPs) leaving customers with no good options. Is lowering barriers to competition not one of the ways that such oligopolies are fought? To me this seems far more of a risk in our current environment where the vast majority of high-production-value movies come from a small handful of companies that have the budget to make them (and give us plenty of safe low-risk sequels). > Oh even now even utter novices and two-three person teams can produce hours of high quality content, youtube is enough proof of that There are reasons why working-class people are vastly under-represented in arts - the time and resources required to create "hours of high quality video content" is a hefty investment even for Youtube videos, not to mention a feature film that people will want to watch.

by Ukv 3y ago

mschuster91 3y ago

> Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the movie industry is because people weren't satisfied with smaller screens: would you be satisfied with content that is stuck in "2020-2030 forever" and can never produce anything "entirely new"? I fear the enshittification of movies - similar to, say, the situation in video games or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base bullshit, customers won't move (because why move from a pile of cow dung to a pile of dog dung? it's all dung in the end), and everyone can keep fleecing the customers. > Personally I think novelty in art thrives when the entry barrier is low and experimentation is possible without a huge budget - which AI can help achieve. Oh even now even utter novices and two-three person teams can produce hours of high quality content, youtube is enough proof of that. Experimentation is not the problem, the problem is all the marketing to get people to sit in the cinema. For a lot of modern movies, music and video games the cost of production is at least on the same order of magnitude as the cost of marketing - even a blockbuster movie like Avengers Endgame [1] reportedly had 356 M$ of production cost vs 200 M$ of marketing cost, and of the production cost at least 100 M$ were compensation for the star actors. [1] https://collider.com/avengers-endgame-box-office-budget/ https://collider.com/avengers-endgame-box-office-budget/

Ukv 3y ago
> or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base bullshit, customers won't move (because why move from a pile of cow dung to a pile of dog dung? it's all dung in the end) So, if I'm understanding, you believe you wouldn't be satisfied with the movies, but wouldn't have a choice because of a silent agreement (as with residential ISPs) leaving customers with no good options. Is lowering barriers to competition not one of the ways that such oligopolies are fought? To me this seems far more of a risk in our current environment where the vast majority of high-production-value movies come from a small handful of companies that have the budget to make them (and give us plenty of safe low-risk sequels). > Oh even now even utter novices and two-three person teams can produce hours of high quality content, youtube is enough proof of that There are reasons why working-class people are vastly under-represented in arts - the time and resources required to create "hours of high quality video content" is a hefty investment even for Youtube videos, not to mention a feature film that people will want to watch.