And apparently Tony Scott didn't want to be Tony Scott.
/aisle seat, please
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Trey
And apparently Tony Scott didn't want to be Tony Scott.
/aisle seat, please
Don't worry - it's still an unpopular opinion. Tarantino himself doesn't have your back on this one.
Fact Check on this one: In what was clearly a painkiller-induced haze, I incorrectly named the Pet Sematary 2 actress as Darlene Love - which of course is the name of the lead singer of such classics as "He's A Rebel".
The actual actress' name is Darlanne Fluegel.
The Times regrets the error.
Confession time - after being a devoted LOST fan from day one, the final season disappointed me so badly that to this day I haven't seen the last two or three episodes. Once the island became Hogwarts By The Sea, they didn't have to make anything make sense anymore. So wherever they were headed in the finale, I'd stopped caring.
I read a few synopses of the finale - since I wasn't worried about spoilers any more - and it sounded about as lame as I was afraid it would be.
Pretty sure that's how you become Prime Minister in Australia... they have a contest or something.
/it's still ok to insult Australians, right?
/or do they have nukes now?
EDIT: We don't have to add stuff to the store, btw. We can just make referral links right here on the board. Send me the DIF Amazon info and I can add it to the thread here.
And any referral link that leads to an Amazon purchase accrues royalties, regardless of what the purchase actually IS. So even a link to the Amazon main page can create income, basically a kickback for being the site that sent the purchaser to Amazon in the first place.
Best single-sale dividend i ever got from Amazon was a couple years back when somebody followed a Truly Dangerous link to Amazon, and then decided to buy a TV.
So if Teague doesn't want your money, I'll take it. Now follow this link to Amazon and buy something
/the more you know
Me, I liked Descent. Good example of cheap, clever moviemaking.
I once got stuck in two different tight spots in one spelunking trip myself, and as a result a couple of moments in Descent freak me the hell out.
Side note: When I got stuck, I immediately started thinking of Floyd Collins and almost made myself lose it. Yeesh.
As we discuss a bit in the episode, BB isn't available in any form of general release yet. Right now John's making the rounds of festivals and conventions etc, which is standard practice as the first step for an indie project.
The goal is to collect as many "Grand Prize in the _________ Festival" and "Official Entry in ___________ Festival" as you can, in order to make the project seem all the more worthwhile to a potential distributor and encourage them to want to pick it up for release.
I'm just gonna go back to the original thing the thread was aiming at - long ago - and say that the extended Trey interview in itself is already amazing and bringing me back to this whole crazy fanfilm universe.
You mean my story of how we reproduced Ben Burtt's intellectual property without his consent? Yeah, good times.
Wait, what?
*runs away*
Well, sure - the same is true of a lot of shows, especially sci fi and fantasy. Ever tried explaining Firefly to somebody who knows nothing about it? "It's a Western in space, and... hey, come back!"
It's the execution that matters as always, and LOST in its prime was pretty great stuff. I especially liked how hard they pushed the characters. Nobody - not even the supposed "heroes" - got away clean. Everybody was messed up, or got messed up, over the course of the show. And even the worst "villains" turned out to have such godawful back stories that you completely understood why they did such terrible things.
For a while there we had two truly great sci-fi shows on the air at once - Galactica and LOST. Both of which sound pretty stupid if you try to describe them.
EDIT: and, admittedly, both of which had their legacies tarnished a bit by final seasons full of foo-foo magical tripe. But for a while there... golden.
That to my mind was Roddenberry's message in his Star Trek utopia. Instead we're ruled by our greed and short-term approach.
As I mentioned previously, Roddenberry's utopia was made possible by the existence of replicator technology, which made energy and resources limitless. In a world where you can get a chicken sandwich by walking up to a machine and saying "chicken sandwich, please" and it simply appears without any effort on anyone's part - that's a world where you can do away with capitalism. And then all humanity can be free to explore the galaxy - or do whatever else they desire - because everyone's basic necessities are covered without any effort.
Roddenberry wasn't such a dreamer as to propose that new world would happen because we just decided to make everything free - it was a world made possible by new technology. But since replicators don't exist yet, it's not the world we currently live in. For now, creating a chicken sandwich or an episode of Game of Thrones still requires the expenditure of effort and purchase of raw materials. And in either case, it seems fair to compensate the maker for that, if you want to partake of their wares.
With the advent of processes that allowed that service to be quickly and easily replicated, the printing press and the ability to record music and plays, value notionally became attached to the thing instead. Someone could be paid several times over for a single performance/work, and an legal framework came up around to protect that because our culture is capitalist. The thought that we could make something once and be paid every single time it's looked at was a marvel!
No, the marvel is that those scientific breakthroughs made it possible to make a thing and sell copies for far less than the cost of creating the original, because of the special ability of intellectual property to retain its full usefulness even when copied. Thanks to the printing press, you no longer need to be phenomenally wealthy to own a book. Thanks to audio recording, you can enjoy the performance of a great musician for far less than it would cost to pay her to come to your house. And so on.
This is a peculiar trait that applies only to copyable things - it doesn't work with a house or a car (and definitely not with a chicken sandwich). You can't get the full experience of a house or a sandwich by splitting the purchase price with a thousand other people - because you can't all live there, or drive it, or eat it.
But you can all buy a copy of the same book... and your experience of that book will be just as valid and complete as everyone else's. Now that is something to marvel at.
It is also a marvel that a similar system exists whereby a company will spend $200 million to create a piece of entertainment, and then let you experience it for a mere $10. Other companies spend millions creating entertainment and then let you see it for fucking free, as long as you also watch a mayonnaise commercial... and they don't even require you to watch the commercial! Hell, for another $15 or so, most of them will even let you keep a copy of the thing to watch as often as you want. Holy crap, how bout that?
All of these are incredible bargains, and on behalf of the entertainment industry (and science).... you're welcome.
A lot of people paying a little bit apiece is what makes this possible. It is not possible if people avail themselves of illegal methods to experience the entertainment while paying nothing at all.
So, if you don't like the miraculous system we have, in which many people can pay for a thing collectively and still consume it individually... well, that's fine. You don't have to buy one of my magical infinite chicken sandwiches. But then you don't get to eat one either. That's the deal, and it seems fair to me.
And if you think you're somehow entitled to one of my sandwiches, because... hell, I have no idea why you'd think that. I don't even know you. Get somebody else to give you a free sandwich and bring about a new Utopia, if you can. Me, I got bills to pay.
Now THAT would have been an ending that fans hated. Say what you will about the current ending, but at least it fits into the overall tone and mythology of the show.
Who are these fans you speak of? Because I was one until the last season when the show took that bizarre left turn into magicland. Up until that point it had been science fiction.
In fact LOST won me over in its middle seasons, when it straight up admitted that it was a sci-fi show and had been all along. They'd actually sneaked a goddam scifi show in under the radar but didn't admit it until it was the biggest thing on network television. Which was awesome.
And I have different sources than Eddie, but mine also come from high up within ABC. And he speaks true - the explanation for pretty much everything was going to be alien tech...
until that terrible last season when they threw out most of what they'd set up and literally said "a wizard did it" instead. Ptui. It was still sorta interesting, but ultimately - for me - pointless and sad and disappointing.
You know how that earlier draft of Prometheus was pretty much a straight sci-fi actioner until Ridley hired Lindelof to make it all deep and meaningful or whatever? Same thing happened to LOST. *shakes tiny fist*
Really? You think it was only just here?
No, but it built like a symphony to that one perfect crystalized moment.
There was that other thread weeks ago where theGreg said advertising is also dead thanks to the internet.
I still consider that his best work.
It is invented - for digital media.
No it isn't. It is only distribution that is now easier (and even so, it still isn't free. At least my internet connection and my computer cost money, dunno about yours).
Media creation still requires time and resources in the real world, and your "if it exists then everyone deserves access to it" theory still doesn't account for how these things are generated in the first place.
The benefit to humanity is too great to be held back by a small minded lack of imagination around business models.
To which I say, I'd love to benefit humanity, but right now my rent's due. When Star Trek replicator technology is invented, making energy and resources limitless and allowing us to abandon capitalism at last, we'll talk again.
But if you want to set the right example, then whatever you do to make a living please come to my house and do it for free. Free yourself from those tiresome old business models and show us how that works. Y'know, for humanity.
TheGreg is right about one particular point. It has been declared (by the Supreme Court, I believe) that copyright infringement is not the equivalent of theft, because the owner of the thing in question still retains possesion of that thing in its original unaltered form.
So no, it's not theft. Neither is it jaywalking, murder, or animal cruelty... but like all of the above, it is a crime.
It's a crime because it infringes on the right of an owner to distribute a creative work however they choose to do so. Generally this is in order to limit access and create demand in order to sell for profit... but the law is just as adamant that a copyright owner is legally entitled to do absolutely nothing with that thing as well. It's not about what the owner does with their copies, it's that only the owner has the right to do anything.
And is this bad somehow? Or do you believe you have a legal right to do what you want with a thing that I made?
Here I was drafting a reply to theGreg from way back in the thread, and look what's happened in the meantime... goodness.
Anyway, leaving my intended post aside in order to jump into the thread where it stands now...
This is back to whether buggy-whip manufacturers can make money in the current technological age.
Buggy whips may not be the best analogy here, since the market for buggy whips literally disappeared due to technological changes in society. However, the market for media is arguably bigger than ever, which is one of the good things about the new digital world we live in. There are more opportunities and options for content creators than ever before, this is absolutely true.
The "buggy whip" that is in most jeopardy is high-end professional content, which as others have pointed out, only comes from a front-loaded high-priced investment of a lot of time and talent. Nobody will ever make that investment only to give it away for free and hope they get some donations. Without a reliable revenue stream to support such a risky undertaking, then yes, that industry will die out.
And thus it may well be that tv networks and movie studios will eventually go away. There may be a future where "media" is nothing but garage bands and youtube webcam videos, supported solely by donations because that's all they need to keep making them. However, since all of us DiF panelists make our livings in the buggy whip industry, you can maybe see why we're not excited about that prospect.
I'll say this though - at the current state of things, the pay-model is still a far better bet than the donation-model, and the obvious example is Down In Front. Here at DiF we make content available for free on a weekly basis, and only ask (gently) for donations in return. Only Teague knows the dollar figures, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess there hasn't been a huge fiscal return on our three years of effort.
And that's fine, none of us does DiF to make money, nor do we expect to. But you should note that every one of us abandons DiF on any given week if there's a paying job available instead. Even with its damn-near-nothing production overhead, it costs every single one of us something to make DiF every week. Even if it's mostly just time and gas money, that's not nothing.
Now I'll go out on a further limb and bet that if we changed to a paid model, we'd lose most of our listeners... and make a lot more money. If we switched to a ten-dollar-a-month-all-you-can-eat subscription model, and thus immediately reduced our listener base to a total of seventeen people... DiF would be making more money than it does now via unlimited availability and a donation model.
And although you pointed out some cases where donation models are successful, those remain the exception and not the rule. Most internet "we made a thing, now give us money if you liked it!" models are just like DiF - unprofitable.
Regardless of whether it's buggy whips or cars or Cloud Atlas or strawberry smoothies: if a thing is available for free, it has no value. We choose to make DiF free because what the hell, we don't care. But if you insist on removing the value from things that were intended to have it, you are removing the market incentive to make those things. You may not miss buggy whips, but you might miss (name of favorite tv show or movie) when it stops being worth making.
EDIT: Posted before I saw Teague's post, to which I will only say, wow.
So the argument here is "don't even try to sell products because people would rather steal them"?
People like cars and most of us would rather get them for free than pay for them. Should car manufacturers just leave cars on the street with the keys inside, in hopes that people will give them a few bucks before they drive away? It's an interesting concept, but seems like it would be unsustainable as a business.
The idea that someone, anyone, should spend time and effort making a media product, then make it available for free and hope that users will donate money afterward... well, to an end user it probably sounds great, but that isn't a business model that any other industry follows. And for good reason.
Welcome, Katie - and wow, you're pretty much the exact demographic for a video I made called Fish Guys.
There's almost no other demographic for that video, but archaeologists seem to enjoy it...
Also worth noting that the charge was not rape, it was sexual relations with a minor - still a crime, yes, and still a bad idea in my opinion, but the "victim" herself never claimed to have been raped.
In a 2003 interview, she mentions that she resented the media, the police, and her parents' actions far more than she ever did Polanski's.
For me a lot of OHMSS doesn't hold up well, but it does have some great action sequences - the ski chase especially - but yes, I would say it rates most highly because of the Tracy plot. In all the other movies Bond has adventures and saves the world a dozen times and it's usually fun to watch, but that's just him doing what he does. He's interesting and all, but he has no character arc.
Which is fine, he doesn't necessarily have to have one, but as we've said numerous times, a truly satisfying movie story is about the most important thing that ever happened to somebody. And of all the Bond films (up until the Daniel Craig Casino Royale reboot anyway, because a similar thing happens there) what happens to Bond in OHMSS is the most important thing that ever will happen to him. And they acknowledged that by referring to it in a few of the subsequent movies, too.
Also: Diana Rigg in her Avengers prime ( the REAL Avengers, not the comic book), I mean come on, goddam.
So that certainly sets OHMSS apart from most of the pack, but doesn't make it my personal fave. For that, I'll go with Living Daylights or Spy Who Loved Me.
What Dorkman said.
And I'll just add this, because I didn't notice it the first few viewings. Here's that pic again...
The artist of the second panel put all the boys in girly poses, we all get that - but at first I didn't notice the opposite is true as well. Black Widow is in a non-sexualized action pose. Yes, you still can totally see she has tits and an ass. But she's not, as the anthropologists would say, "presenting" them to us. And therein lies the difference between idealized and sexualized.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Trey
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.