3 ms·

Content creators can't make money... yet! Video content is expensive and difficult to produce because it has not become widespread enough for millions of people

by tracy 17y ago

Content creators can't make money... yet! Video content is expensive and difficult to produce because it has not become widespread enough for millions of people to actually be doing this. For example, compare Word Processing to TV editing. Anybody can use a word processor on a PC...now. At the very start of things, a word processor on a PC was a specialised task. As the market grew, things became more automated and a lot easier. YouTube and such are only a few years old. The software to make producing content really easy is not there yet - so there is still a lot that needs to be done manually. This software will improve and content production will get cheaper.

rsheridan6 17y ago
It's still going to be expensive to deal with actors, sets, animators, etc. I doubt better software is going to cut into the main portion of the cost of making a movie. This model would lead to a lot of reality shows and things like that. Maybe machinima if it ever catches on.
- tracy 17y ago
  Actors are cheap, you know. People with name recognition are expensive, but the actual acting is pretty cheap. Sets and animators can be replaced by software. Think stock sets, stock backgrounds, 3d programs that allow you create sets based of standard objects. Reality show is the direction the industry is going in. People prefer reality! Seeing real stuff or stuff that appears real is way more entertaining than acted stuff.
  - rsheridan6 17y ago
    >Actors are cheap, you know. People with name recognition are expensive, but the actual acting is pretty cheap. In other words, actors that people actually want to see are expensive. >Sets and animators can be replaced by software. That may be true in the future, if filmmakers ever get the open source ethos and create a large library of models that covers most situations. Otherwise, anything short of strong AI is not going to replace the artist. >People prefer reality! Some people do, some don't. I don't. If everybody did, there would be nothing but reality programming.
    - yan 17y ago
      Reality programming is quite a stone's throw from reality

by tracy 17y ago

rsheridan6 17y ago

It's still going to be expensive to deal with actors, sets, animators, etc. I doubt better software is going to cut into the main portion of the cost of making a movie. This model would lead to a lot of reality shows and things like that. Maybe machinima if it ever catches on.

tracy 17y ago
Actors are cheap, you know. People with name recognition are expensive, but the actual acting is pretty cheap. Sets and animators can be replaced by software. Think stock sets, stock backgrounds, 3d programs that allow you create sets based of standard objects. Reality show is the direction the industry is going in. People prefer reality! Seeing real stuff or stuff that appears real is way more entertaining than acted stuff.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  >Actors are cheap, you know. People with name recognition are expensive, but the actual acting is pretty cheap. In other words, actors that people actually want to see are expensive. >Sets and animators can be replaced by software. That may be true in the future, if filmmakers ever get the open source ethos and create a large library of models that covers most situations. Otherwise, anything short of strong AI is not going to replace the artist. >People prefer reality! Some people do, some don't. I don't. If everybody did, there would be nothing but reality programming.
  - yan 17y ago
    Reality programming is quite a stone's throw from reality