Replies

“It’s actually better than the original, IMHO.”

You can say that again :-) ... I used to call that album Metallica’s downfall ... now that designation has moved to the black album thanks to the remix :-) (I like the old school metal sound ... never cared for their 90s on stuff save their latest album ... plus I’m more of a Megadeth fan :-) ).

“But what I AM saying is that Hollywood should take note that if they take their audience for granted,”

I don’t think we are that far away from a “movie studio in your garage” kind of software package that will allow anyone to make anything for a fraction of the Hollywood price. Once that catches on and the software tools plummet in price, Hollywood as we know it is done for.

I don’t see actors pulling down huge dollars in the near future nor do I see the need for practical sets. You can render almost anything today that looks acceptable ... that includes people. Add another decade’s worth of technological advances to the mix and you’ll have a tough time distinguishing “real” from “rendered”. Why would you pay someone millions when you can generate the character out of thin air for next to nothing (in a relative sense ... artists need to be paid and good ones are VERY hard to come by)?

Have you seen “Star Trek Continues”? It’s basically a new season of the old Star Trek series. It is frigging GOOD. Yes, the actors look nothing like their counterparts on the old series, but the stories and sets are fantastic. I think shows/films developed like that are the way things are going to be in the very near future. STC relies on older practical sets and the like, but it was developed on a tight budget and shows what people can make on their own independent of Hollywood.