The Fate of Blood and Chrome May Be Online

[Gatefan1976]

I suspect Starz and Sony will eventually rue their decisions. If they try to market their stuff in their own streaming pipelines the pricing they charge won't attract enough subscribers because the content is heavily limited. The beauty of a Netflix is they all have their stuff together, in one place. Then the monthly fee becomes worth the cost.

Yes, but does the cost "cover" the content??

 

[OMNI]

Yes, but does the cost "cover" the content??

well if it doesnt it may be time to rethink a few things such as the pay writers producers directors stusio and network exec's actors etc etc get for their work as imo NO ONE is worth 10k/hour neither are they worth 1million/episode.

 

[Joelist]

True, the cost needs to cover the content. Which again goes back to Sony, Starz and the like. They need to price their content to a provider like Netflix at a point where it is profitable but they also need to not go crazy on it (like Starz is). Also, remember that a lot of the content is also being seen in theatres or first run TV. Those theatrical runs also generate revenue.

Thus, I would posit that all parties are going to need to rethink their revenue models a bit to devise a way that everyone along the pipeline makes a consistent profit while keeping the end price where people will find it desirable.

 

[Gatefan1976]

True, the cost needs to cover the content. Which again goes back to Sony, Starz and the like. They need to price their content to a provider like Netflix at a point where it is profitable but they also need to not go crazy on it (like Starz is). Also, remember that a lot of the content is also being seen in theatres or first run TV. Those theatrical runs also generate revenue.

Define "crazy" Joelist. Really, it's like I said earlier, the studio's can just splat an indie by denying them content, a quick tour through the netflix thread will show that people are getting annoyed with either lack of content or price rises already! Also, as far as "first run" TV goes, if people shift thier viewing to "mostly" online, the networks will just replace pretty much everything with cheap "reality crap" or whatever, leaving it *incredibly* hard for new shows to survive against the ratings/profit margins of the "crap". Movies (Theatrical releases)however are a different animal true. I have noticed however that *out here* at least, unless it is a "major movie", most films don't last longer than 4 weeks in the cinema's, is that true for the US as well?? If so, would think that despite the "DVD crash" I would bet many films are breaking even/drawing profit from either DVD sales or "on demand"/online rental sales.

Thus, I would posit that all parties are going to need to rethink their revenue models a bit to devise a way that everyone along the pipeline makes a consistent profit while keeping the end price where people will find it desirable.

Possibly, but really, I think it will come down to huge 'corps owning every stage of potential viewership, be it theatrical, commercial or online and owning the studio's as well.

 

[Gatefan1976]

well if it doesnt it may be time to rethink a few things such as the pay writers producers directors stusio and network exec's actors etc etc get for their work as imo NO ONE is worth 10k/hour neither are they worth 1million/episode.

True, but it's hard to "dial that back" once it has been blown out to the rediculous levels it is at now, esp in hollyweird

 

[OMNI]

True, but it's hard to "dial that back" once it has been blown out to the rediculous levels it is at now, esp in hollyweird

too true but its either that or the industri will eventually go chapter11.

 

[Overmind One]

True, but it's hard to "dial that back" once it has been blown out to the rediculous levels it is at now, esp in hollyweird

Hmm...gotta disagree here. Rise of the Planet of the Apes proved that the LEAD character in a high grossing movie can be a CGI character. Even Caesar's voice was artificial. Its rather easy to "dial it back" by eschewing the A-list actor/actress who demand millions and millions of dollars to play in a movie. Just looking at OMNI's work proves to me that CGI renderings can look ABSOLUTELY real and can completely replace studio sets, locales and yes...actors and actresses. The writers do not get paid as much as the actors and actresses, and then there are gaffers, sound people, set hands, assistants and services for all of that to pay for. It can EASILY be dialed back by just not hiring the actors and actresses and also using completely computer generated sets. Sure, pay the writers because THEY are the creative element at the foundation of all movies and TV shows. But have the Will Smiths and Megan Foxes take a hike. Same with all of the useless assistant producers (only one is needed) and assistant directors (only one is needed). No more paying expensive studios or paying crews to build/teardown sets, etc.

Before Rise, there was Beowulf, but it sucked because the story sucked. That CGI character looked fake. I still dont think they have humans down well enough to pass them off as real. But for those apes...the second movie could be made with NO human characters except those in the jungle. Or, simply use the B and C-list actors like those used in Rise. Science fiction lends itself extremely well to CGI production. If Alien or Aliens were produced today using CGI, it would cost MUCH less than the original because none of the hundred or so models produced for the originals would be needed. CGI Yoda in The Clone Wars cost less than the puppet Yoda in the first three Star Wars movies because no actor or puppet or pneumatics or robotics were needed.

 

[OMNI]

Hmm...gotta disagree here. Rise of the Planet of the Apes proved that the LEAD character in a high grossing movie can be a CGI character. Even Caesar's voice was artificial. Its rather easy to "dial it back" by eschewing the A-list actor/actress who demand millions and millions of dollars to play in a movie. Just looking at OMNI's work proves to me that CGI renderings can look ABSOLUTELY real and can completely replace studio sets, locales and yes...actors and actresses. The writers do not get paid as much as the actors and actresses, and then there are gaffers, sound people, set hands, assistants and services for all of that to pay for. It can EASILY be dialed back by just not hiring the actors and actresses and also using completely computer generated sets. Sure, pay the writers because THEY are the creative element at the foundation of all movies and TV shows. But have the Will Smiths and Megan Foxes take a hike. Same with all of the useless assistant producers (only one is needed) and assistant directors (only one is needed). No more paying expensive studios or paying crews to build/teardown sets, etc.

Before Rise, there was Beowulf, but it sucked because the story sucked. That CGI character looked fake. I still dont think they have humans down well enough to pass them off as real. But for those apes...the second movie could be made with NO human characters except those in the jungle. Or, simply use the B and C-list actors like those used in Rise. Science fiction lends itself extremely well to CGI production. If Alien or Aliens were produced today using CGI, it would cost MUCH less than the original because none of the hundred or so models produced for the originals would be needed. CGI Yoda in The Clone Wars cost less than the puppet Yoda in the first three Star Wars movies because no actor or puppet or pneumatics or robotics were needed.

indeed rise of the POTA sure displaed a level of realism for the CG apes that holds great promise for the future, and im flattered you thing so highly of my work but i am far from as good as id like to be thank you though!

and i agree they need to stop this BS with using "stars" as the main selling point or movies as i personally dont give a flying frak about who the actors are in a movie i care about STORY and cinematography when deciding what i want to watch.

and realistic humans? i have to disagree there as you can get em perfectly real BUT it takes time to make motion/movement etc real, time that is most of the time denied the studios that makes the CG as they are under a tight deadline and horribly overworked.

personally id like to see credit where credit is due ie the people that ACTUALLY make the stuff wee "swoon" over not the actors wich are jst tools and should imo be lowest on the totem pole.

 

[shavedape]

I think as the Internet infrastructure merges with TV then indie films will have a much easier time getting seen. Eventually everyone will use their living room TV's as simply another computer. Their "cable" or "satellite" hook up will be simply a high speed Internet hook up. We already do it now but it will become even more simplified and much more common. When that happens you'll be able to "dial up" whatever you want to watch, some pay channels and also whatever free stuff is out there. And I'm sure plenty of enterprising film makers will post their indie films on their sites and we'll be able to check out their stuff. (There is already several film editing programs out there, the Mac version [Final Cut?] being just one and it has been used to edit some big films. I believe the cost of the film producing/editing software is only several thousand dollars at the most, and that will no doubt come down in price in years to come. The more the actual production abilities are made available to the common man the more will be produced. Win, win,win for everyone.) Plus there will be sites of a sort of Netflix nature where you can browse their offerings and choose what you want to see. Some sites will offer pay per view and some a membership thing and who knows where it will all suss out, but the good thing is that we, the viewers, will be the winners in the end.

I guess in regards to the future of film I have to say I'm more of a glass half-full type of guy. The more viewers will be able to interact and have a say in what they wish to view the better the shows and movies will get. Competition is a good thing in this regard.

 

[Overmind One]

I think as the Internet infrastructure merges with TV then indie films will have a much easier time getting seen. Eventually everyone will use their living room TV's as simply another computer. Their "cable" or "satellite" hook up will be simply a high speed Internet hook up. We already do it now but it will become even more simplified and much more common. When that happens you'll be able to "dial up" whatever you want to watch, some pay channels and also whatever free stuff is out there. And I'm sure plenty of enterprising film makers will post their indie films on their sites and we'll be able to check out their stuff. (There is already several film editing programs out there, the Mac version [Final Cut?] being just one and it has been used to edit some big films. I believe the cost of the film producing/editing software is only several thousand dollars at the most, and that will no doubt come down in price in years to come. The more the actual production abilities are made available to the common man the more will be produced. Win, win,win for everyone.) Plus there will be sites of a sort of Netflix nature where you can browse their offerings and choose what you want to see. Some sites will offer pay per view and some a membership thing and who knows where it will all suss out, but the good thing is that we, the viewers, will be the winners in the end.

I guess in regards to the future of film I have to say I'm more of a glass half-full type of guy. The more viewers will be able to interact and have a say in what they wish to view the better the shows and movies will get. Competition is a good thing in this regard.

Precisely! Thats what is happening and will continue to happen. The only "losers" here will be the huge greedy conglomerate studios who have a chokehold on the Industry. They have layers upon layers of useless chaff making obscene amounts of money doing basically very little. Did you know that the AVERAGE pay for a studio manicurist at Paramount is $46,000/year? Its true. There are people paid to make coffee (not the caterer). They make about $30,000 doing that.....REALLY? . If I wasnt aware of where that money was coming from, I might not be as bothered. But when I look at prices for theater tickets or read about how much the actors make, it makes me resentful and rebellious. Its being paid for by US the viewers and subscribers to cable and consumers of products.

The Industry is expanding and shrinking at the same time. The huge studio wont be much of an advantage in the new Industry. CGI studios can be a home bedroom! A new industry will rise, offering CGI workstations and rendering facilities for those who do not have the equipment at home. Similar to regional music recording studios. Like you said, complete websites could be fashioned around a cottage production company which produces things. Social networking sites will make those productions go viral, without any advertising needed. The entire landscape is changing.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Precisely! Thats what is happening and will continue to happen. The only "losers" here will be the huge greedy conglomerate studios who have a chokehold on the Industry. They have layers upon layers of useless chaff making obscene amounts of money doing basically very little. Did you know that the AVERAGE pay for a studio manicurist at Paramount is $46,000/year? Its true. There are people paid to make coffee (not the caterer). They make about $30,000 doing that.....REALLY? . If I wasnt aware of where that money was coming from, I might not be as bothered. But when I look at prices for theater tickets or read about how much the actors make, it makes me resentful and rebellious. Its being paid for by US the viewers and subscribers to cable and consumers of products.

The Industry is expanding and shrinking at the same time. The huge studio wont be much of an advantage in the new Industry. CGI studios can be a home bedroom! A new industry will rise, offering CGI workstations and rendering facilities for those who do not have the equipment at home. Similar to regional music recording studios. Like you said, complete websites could be fashioned around a cottage production company which produces things. Social networking sites will make those productions go viral, without any advertising needed. The entire landscape is changing.

Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79JuYdG5KY

They have videos of its making. Most of the sets are CGI and they used a small green screen in their apartment. The animation and special effects were done using commodity hardware.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Hmm...gotta disagree here. Rise of the Planet of the Apes proved that the LEAD character in a high grossing movie can be a CGI character. Even Caesar's voice was artificial. Its rather easy to "dial it back" by eschewing the A-list actor/actress who demand millions and millions of dollars to play in a movie.

Oh really?
All you are doing then is modifying who is the "most important" element by shifting it from actors to the CGI guys and audio guys. I'm NOT saying it cannot be done, just that you won't really change alot. The "genie" is out of the bottle so to speak, and if "actor A" can get "30 mil" for a pic now, why can't the SFX/audio guys get the same if they become the "leads". All you are doing is replacing one err,"elite class" with another.

Just looking at OMNI's work proves to me that CGI renderings can look ABSOLUTELY real and can completely replace studio sets, locales and yes...actors and actresses. The writers do not get paid as much as the actors and actresses, and then there are gaffers, sound people, set hands, assistants and services for all of that to pay for. It can EASILY be dialed back by just not hiring the actors and actresses and also using completely computer generated sets.

No, it can't. the "climate" of what is expected has already been created. Imagine if you will someone coming in and saying "hey OM, your skills are not so valuable anymore, I have others to do what you do. you can stay "on staff" but instead of being paid $100 bucks an hour, I'll pay you $10." and then having the same person turning around to your "replacement" and saying "well, you are replacing him, but I will only pay you $20 bucks an hour"
It's NOT gonna fly
Sure there are "individual factors" involved and such, but in the end, the climate exists and NO ONE likes a "pay cut"

Sure, pay the writers because THEY are the creative element at the foundation of all movies and TV shows. But have the Will Smiths and Megan Foxes take a hike. Same with all of the useless assistant producers (only one is needed) and assistant directors (only one is needed). No more paying expensive studios or paying crews to build/teardown sets, etc.

Sure, I can agree with changing the method to achieve better results
HOWEVER I think you are missing the idea that the "Will smiths and Megan Foxes" bring more than thier appearance or talents to the table. They bring "brand recognition", and "fan adoration" to the table.

Before Rise, there was Beowulf, but it sucked because the story sucked. That CGI character looked fake. I still dont think they have humans down well enough to pass them off as real. But for those apes...the second movie could be made with NO human characters except those in the jungle. Or, simply use the B and C-list actors like those used in Rise. Science fiction lends itself extremely well to CGI production. If Alien or Aliens were produced today using CGI, it would cost MUCH less than the original because none of the hundred or so models produced for the originals would be needed. CGI Yoda in The Clone Wars cost less than the puppet Yoda in the first three Star Wars movies because no actor or puppet or pneumatics or robotics were needed.

No, you may not need those "physical" models, you would CGI them instead, woud it cost less?? debatable. A modeller spends hours making models to a "finished state" how many hours does OMNI spend on doing the same thing in a virtual environment?? More? Less? I don't know.

 

[Overmind One]

Oh really?
All you are doing then is modifying who is the "most important" element by shifting it from actors to the CGI guys and audio guys. I'm NOT saying it cannot be done, just that you won't really change alot. The "genie" is out of the bottle so to speak, and if "actor A" can get "30 mil" for a pic now, why can't the SFX/audio guys get the same if they become the "leads". All you are doing is replacing one err,"elite class" with another.

Bolded is the gamechanger, bro! Out here in Hollywoodland, being an actor in demand (because of name recognition/fan adoration, etc) can command millions of dollars. When that fan adoration and name recognition belongs to a CGI actor, the game is CHANGED completely. The scale moves way way down, and the money is distributed to all the CGI/Audio guys and not given to some demanding, hard-to-please pouty actress or cigar smoking bad boy actor. It doesnt take millions and millions of dollars to do CGI. OMNI has done what you see in these forums AT HOME! And on modest equipment at that. I dont understand how you dont see that as being tantamount to an apocalypse for the "Industry". I drive by those huge studio properties all the time...I see shoots on the streets (so does Illiterati). They are public, exhorbitantly lavish productions centered around filming a scene which might take up 5 minutes in the final product. All of that is GOING AWAY. Its changing a whole lot, man! Its the difference between the caterpillar and the butterfly. Whole new game.

No, it can't. the "climate" of what is expected has already been created. Imagine if you will someone coming in and saying "hey OM, your skills are not so valuable anymore, I have others to do what you do. you can stay "on staff" but instead of being paid $100 bucks an hour, I'll pay you $10." and then having the same person turning around to your "replacement" and saying "well, you are replacing him, but I will only pay you $20 bucks an hour"
It's NOT gonna fly
Sure there are "individual factors" involved and such, but in the end, the climate exists and NO ONE likes a "pay cut"

Im the guy who filled the niche of "company who is large enough to require enterprise-class services, but too small to support IT staff". My company maintains small to medium sized Windows-based networks with 10 or more workstations (cutting off at 100). These companies used to employ a full-time Network Administrator. Now, they outsource it to my company which can fill the role but only cost the client a set fee for a contracted number of hours per week. That, plus not having to pay for a benefits package or for overtime or salary. So, Im certain that the IT guy who got fired didnt like it, but hiring my company in his place made more sense. That is the way all companies are going and any staff IT guy better realize it's coming. The huge studios WILL fall, because they are top-heavy and they are wasteful and complacent. There is no need to pay somebody several million to be "in" something. I couldnt care less who is playing characters in a role as long as the character is engaging and attractive/intriguing. Why pay 1 person 20 million when you can pay 5 people each 1 million? A CGI artist is WORTH the million. Just sayin.

Sure, I can agree with changing the method to achieve better results
HOWEVER I think you are missing the idea that the "Will smiths and Megan Foxes" bring more than thier appearance or talents to the table. They bring "brand recognition", and "fan adoration" to the table.

Hmm...does that include Yoda, Hermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Thor, Bumblebee and now Caesar the Chimpanzee? See where this is going? There will be overlap, and the Will Smiths and Megan Foxes will have their cake, but eventually the new CGI/Star model will overtake the present "Celebrity" model because its CHEAPER. More people will be producing, and the best of those will become major players regardless of whether they made it in a bedroom or a studio. Being a mega-studio will not be any advantage. The same technology is available to way more people now.

No, you may not need those "physical" models, you would CGI them instead, woud it cost less?? debatable. A modeller spends hours making models to a "finished state" how many hours does OMNI spend on doing the same thing in a virtual environment?? More? Less? I don't know.

The point is that ONE PERSON can do an entire movie in CGI if he/she has the time. Several in a shorter time. If you mete that out in hours, its gonna be a whole lot less than 20 million.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Bolded is the gamechanger, bro! Out here in Hollywoodland, being an actor in demand (because of name recognition/fan adoration, etc) can command millions of dollars.

Yes, it can because the system not only allows for it, it ENCORAGES it. If you "did away" with "real stars", you shatter alot of "follow on" industries (not that I actually think most of them are worth squat, Papparatzi, Entertainment tonight, Who weekly etc, etc can go jump for all I care )

When that fan adoration and name recognition belongs to a CGI actor, the game is CHANGED completely. The scale moves way way down, and the money is distributed to all the CGI/Audio guys and not given to some demanding, hard-to-please pouty actress or cigar smoking bad boy actor.

Right, It will be given to some pouty or cigar chomping CGI creator instead. The scale moves nowhere, it has been set, all that changes is exactly where those "buckets of cash" go to. I'm sorry, but if the "lead" can get 30 mill based on some kind of percieved "skill scale" or "marketability", then if people flock to a movie because "XYZ did the CGI" you are gonna end up in the same boat.

It doesnt take millions and millions of dollars to do CGI. OMNI has done what you see in these forums AT HOME! And on modest equipment at that. I dont understand how you dont see that as being tantamount to an apocalypse for the "Industry".

I don't see it as an apocalypse at all, I DO however see it as an attempt to bring, err, somewhat "socialist" reforms to a concept that thrives on the ideals on capitalism. Lets face it, nothing *REALLY* costs money, it is an abstact concept we use to determine percieved worth. Given the time, resources and knowledge, anyone could create pretty much anything they had the talent to do, and money is not required. Money is a number on a screen or a bit of "paper", not exactly useful when actually building stuff is it??

I drive by those huge studio properties all the time...I see shoots on the streets (so does Illiterati). They are public, exhorbitantly lavish productions centered around filming a scene which might take up 5 minutes in the final product. All of that is GOING AWAY. Its changing a whole lot, man! Its the difference between the caterpillar and the butterfly. Whole new game.

In theroy, yes. The question is not so much "is it gonna change", but "what is it gonna change into?" A catapiller is very much a different creature from the one that emerges from it's cocoon isn't it? Sure it has some elements in common on a basic physiological level, but really, are they the same??

Im the guy who filled the niche of "company who is large enough to require enterprise-class services, but too small to support IT staff". My company maintains small to medium sized Windows-based networks with 10 or more workstations (cutting off at 100). These companies used to employ a full-time Network Administrator. Now, they outsource it to my company which can fill the role but only cost the client a set fee for a contracted number of hours per week. That, plus not having to pay for a benefits package or for overtime or salary. So, Im certain that the IT guy who got fired didnt like it, but hiring my company in his place made more sense.

Yes, hiring you does make more sense (and please, don't look at my last comments as a "rip" on *you*, merely an observation)
HOWEVER
If a company turned around to you and said "OM, we will pay you 30M a year to work exclusively for us", don't tell me you wouldn't do it!! (barring some kind of personal ethical situation, which is understandable).

That is the way all companies are going and any staff IT guy better realize it's coming. The huge studios WILL fall, because they are top-heavy and they are wasteful and complacent. There is no need to pay somebody several million to be "in" something. I couldnt care less who is playing characters in a role as long as the character is engaging and attractive/intriguing. Why pay 1 person 20 million when you can pay 5 people each 1 million? A CGI artist is WORTH the million. Just sayin.

Well, obviously you "do care less" because you are qualifying your position that they have to be "attractive/engaging" If all you cared about was the "story" of what they were "in", they could look like the back end of a camel and you wouldn't care as long as they delivered the story. Then you go on to qualify that the CGI guy is worth his "mill"?? What if having Tom Cruise as the lead made the movie 100 mill simply because of actor loyalty? is he now "worth" the 20 mill you paid him?

Hmm...does that include Yoda, Hermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Thor, Bumblebee and now Caesar the Chimpanzee? See where this is going? There will be overlap, and the Will Smiths and Megan Foxes will have their cake, but eventually the new CGI/Star model will overtake the
present "Celebrity" model because its CHEAPER.

Would those characters be worth as much without the voice actors behind them? (Frank Oz and Mel Blanc)
Let me ask you a question here OM, when you see and hear "Darth Vader" in SW 4-6 Do you think of David Prowse, the guy in the outfit, or do you think of James Earl Jones as the "voice"

regardless of whether they made it in a bedroom or a studio. Being a mega-studio will not be any advantage. The same technology is available to way more people now.

Yes it is!

The point is that ONE PERSON can do an entire movie in CGI if he/she has the time. Several in a shorter time. If you mete that out in hours, its gonna be a whole lot less than 20 million.

Yes they can, the question is, will they??

 

[Overmind One]

This is a great discussion!

Yes, it can because the system not only allows for it, it ENCORAGES it. If you "did away" with "real stars", you shatter alot of "follow on" industries (not that I actually think most of them are worth squat, Papparatzi, Entertainment tonight, Who weekly etc, etc can go jump for all I care )

Thats the idea...to shatter the "follow on" industries. Entertainment now costs TOO MUCH. It long crossed the threshhold when movie tickets went up above $5.00. With the introduction of 3D and the increasing price of gas and the ridiculously high cost of snacks and parking, paying that kind of money for the crap that is being produced today is simply not worth it (to me). But the reality is that millions of people worldwide are very much appreciative of theaters. Being a Californian, seeing shoots and driving past studios is a daily occurrence for many southern Californians. One of the more centrally located ones is Fox studios. Here is a map of the property:



Note, that most of what is taped here is for television, not movies. It covers several acres and costs several million just to maintain. Entities like this are unnecessary and lavish to a degree no longer acceptable. Its comparable to the old 6gb Fireball hard drives of the 1990s as opposed to the ultra small SSD drives we use in laptops today. The Industry has never downsized. Indeed, they have bloated out even further. That is going to change because costs are out of control. I will not miss Fox Studios. But I will miss some of the stuff they have produced in those studios. They can produce more in facilities a fraction of that size. Look at all the sound stages! A high end CGI workstation (say, $4000 with external SAN) and a database of voice waveforms and algorithms can produce an entire cast of characters as well as the sets they are using. A modest sized (2000sq ft green screen sound studio can cover live action in any virtual locale.

Right, It will be given to some pouty or cigar chomping CGI creator instead. The scale moves nowhere, it has been set, all that changes is exactly where those "buckets of cash" go to. I'm sorry, but if the "lead" can get 30 mill based on some kind of percieved "skill scale" or "marketability", then if people flock to a movie because "XYZ did the CGI" you are gonna end up in the same boat.

I disagree because the type of person that acts/performs is not the same type of person that programs in CGI. I have never seen a cigar chomping geek or a pouty female geek. Never. Many CGI artists would be ecstatic for a million dollars. They certainly dont get that right now! The scales are only set for live actors, not for CGI actors or teams producing them. Those scales are being made now, and they are far below that of actors/actresses. The buckets of cash come from the audiences of films, and the audiences will go where the fun is. If a great movie is made, people will flock to see it no matter where they have to go to see it. The Industry has made the grave mistake of assumption. They assume that if a movie is made, people will go to see it. If it is in 3D, then even more will see it. The same will be true, but the things being made may come from some small four-man production company doing CGI instead of Paramount or Warner Bros. The little man has been squeezed out by not being able to get on a cable network owned by their gigantic competitor, and by being denied running time in theaters. Its a freakin monopoly! But that is changing because home theaters are becoming the weekend outing. Those home theaters are usually connected to the internet which means that the distribution model can shift to paid subscribers to a specific producer's website ("XYZ did the CGI"). Artists would love to get just 2 mil. Right now, they are shut out. Soon, many of those waiters and waitresses who claim to be "writing a screenplay" will be taken seriously. When I look at OMNI's renderings of Atlantis, I find myself thinking "How is what he is doing any different (in quality) than the CGI done in the real show?". I dont see any...except his looks better . People will flock to what is fun and entertaining.

I don't see it as an apocalypse at all, I DO however see it as an attempt to bring, err, somewhat "socialist" reforms to a concept that thrives on the ideals on capitalism. Lets face it, nothing *REALLY* costs money, it is an abstract concept we use to determine perceived worth. Given the time, resources and knowledge, anyone could create pretty much anything they had the talent to do, and money is not required. Money is a number on a screen or a bit of "paper", not exactly useful when actually building stuff is it??

1000% agree. But the reality is that many entities which became obsolete because of technology had to scale down considerably (newspapers, magazines and related entities). The cable industry cannot survive in its present form. The internet will replace it completely. When that happens, the control of the entertainment infrastructure will be wrested from the hands of the Industry.

In theory, yes. The question is not so much "is it gonna change", but "what is it gonna change into?" A catapiller is very much a different creature from the one that emerges from it's cocoon isn't it? Sure it has some elements in common on a basic physiological level, but really, are they the same??

Its going to get smaller and more efficient. Its going to transform the idea of what a "movie studio" is to something much different than it is right now. Its going to go through the same upheaval that the auto industry and the print media has gone through.

Yes, hiring you does make more sense (and please, don't look at my last comments as a "rip" on *you*, merely an observation)
HOWEVER
If a company turned around to you and said "OM, we will pay you 30M a year to work exclusively for us", don't tell me you wouldn't do it!! (barring some kind of personal ethical situation, which is understandable).

Never taken as a dig. But I dont think I would like to work for just one company, and YES I would take the 30M. But that scenario is not likely to happen. But I can see Joe Producer who has a garage green screen studio walking up to Hot Body Lola walking on the street and offering her a part in his little production for $1000 and making a fortune.

Well, obviously you "do care less" because you are qualifying your position that they have to be "attractive/engaging" If all you cared about was the "story" of what they were "in", they could look like the back end of a camel and you wouldn't care as long as they delivered the story. Then you go on to qualify that the CGI guy is worth his "mill"?? What if having Tom Cruise as the lead made the movie 100 mill simply because of actor loyalty? is he now "worth" the 20 mill you paid him?

Well sure....there is still going to be good stuff and bad stuff. But who else but a huge studio is going to pay a guy like Tom Cruise 30 million dollars? :roll: I have seen better looking dudes working as waiters and salesmen. The hottest women I see are working as secretaries or clerks in offices, not on the screen. Jennifer Anniston....really? If the story is good and the actors can portray the parts, its all good and can compete head to head with anything a big studio puts out. Yes, that includes the big stuff too.

Would those characters be worth as much without the voice actors behind them? (Frank Oz and Mel Blanc)
Let me ask you a question here OM, when you see and hear "Darth Vader" in SW 4-6 Do you think of David Prowse, the guy in the outfit, or do you think of James Earl Jones as the "voice"

I do think of them, but if Leroy Johnson from Figueroa & Main did Vaders deep voice I would love it just the same. Its the Vader character that is important to me, not who did his voice. I think the characters are more valuable because of those actors who did the voices, but I didnt go to the movie because of them, nor would I in the future. They can change Vader's voice as long as it is deep and menacing. Its the same reason I like the new James T Kirk by Chris Pine as well as the original by William Shatner. Its because Pine captures KIRK. Not because he is channeling Shatner.

I think that CGI artists will begin to emerge as their own powerhouses. Thats because now they see a way to get their stuff to an audience without having to do the Casting Couch or the Runaround when shopping their stuff "to the studios". SCREW the studios. Lets wait until some truly great Science Fiction is made by CGI geeks and written by true science fiction aficionados is available. Illiterati mentioned in another thread that she has taken up writing. I have as well, and Kindle Direct Publishing is free and available (I joined. ). You can publish your books AND sell them on Kindle without ever needing to send anything to Clearing House or Publisher X in New York.

 

[OMNI]

Bolded is the gamechanger, bro! Out here in Hollywoodland, being an actor in demand (because of name recognition/fan adoration, etc) can command millions of dollars. When that fan adoration and name recognition belongs to a CGI actor, the game is CHANGED completely. The scale moves way way down, and the money is distributed to all the CGI/Audio guys and not given to some demanding, hard-to-please pouty actress or cigar smoking bad boy actor. It doesnt take millions and millions of dollars to do CGI. OMNI has done what you see in these forums AT HOME! And on modest equipment at that. I dont understand how you dont see that as being tantamount to an apocalypse for the "Industry". I drive by those huge studio properties all the time...I see shoots on the streets (so does Illiterati). They are public, exhorbitantly lavish productions centered around filming a scene which might take up 5 minutes in the final product. All of that is GOING AWAY. Its changing a whole lot, man! Its the difference between the caterpillar and the butterfly. Whole new game.



Im the guy who filled the niche of "company who is large enough to require enterprise-class services, but too small to support IT staff". My company maintains small to medium sized Windows-based networks with 10 or more workstations (cutting off at 100). These companies used to employ a full-time Network Administrator. Now, they outsource it to my company which can fill the role but only cost the client a set fee for a contracted number of hours per week. That, plus not having to pay for a benefits package or for overtime or salary. So, Im certain that the IT guy who got fired didnt like it, but hiring my company in his place made more sense. That is the way all companies are going and any staff IT guy better realize it's coming. The huge studios WILL fall, because they are top-heavy and they are wasteful and complacent. There is no need to pay somebody several million to be "in" something. I couldnt care less who is playing characters in a role as long as the character is engaging and attractive/intriguing. Why pay 1 person 20 million when you can pay 5 people each 1 million? A CGI artist is WORTH the million. Just sayin.



Hmm...does that include Yoda, Hermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Thor, Bumblebee and now Caesar the Chimpanzee? See where this is going? There will be overlap, and the Will Smiths and Megan Foxes will have their cake, but eventually the new CGI/Star model will overtake the present "Celebrity" model because its CHEAPER. More people will be producing, and the best of those will become major players regardless of whether they made it in a bedroom or a studio. Being a mega-studio will not be any advantage. The same technology is available to way more people now.



The point is that ONE PERSON can do an entire movie in CGI if he/she has the time. Several in a shorter time. If you mete that out in hours, its gonna be a whole lot less than 20 million.

yes but it would take something like15 years for 1 person to make said movie.

 

[OMNI]

Yes, it can because the system not only allows for it, it ENCORAGES it. If you "did away" with "real stars", you shatter alot of "follow on" industries (not that I actually think most of them are worth squat, Papparatzi, Entertainment tonight, Who weekly etc, etc can go jump for all I care )



Right, It will be given to some pouty or cigar chomping CGI creator instead. The scale moves nowhere, it has been set, all that changes is exactly where those "buckets of cash" go to. I'm sorry, but if the "lead" can get 30 mill based on some kind of percieved "skill scale" or "marketability", then if people flock to a movie because "XYZ did the CGI" you are gonna end up in the same boat.


I don't see it as an apocalypse at all, I DO however see it as an attempt to bring, err, somewhat "socialist" reforms to a concept that thrives on the ideals on capitalism. Lets face it, nothing *REALLY* costs money, it is an abstact concept we use to determine percieved worth. Given the time, resources and knowledge, anyone could create pretty much anything they had the talent to do, and money is not required. Money is a number on a screen or a bit of "paper", not exactly useful when actually building stuff is it??


In theroy, yes. The question is not so much "is it gonna change", but "what is it gonna change into?" A catapiller is very much a different creature from the one that emerges from it's cocoon isn't it? Sure it has some elements in common on a basic physiological level, but really, are they the same??


Yes, hiring you does make more sense (and please, don't look at my last comments as a "rip" on *you*, merely an observation)
HOWEVER
If a company turned around to you and said "OM, we will pay you 30M a year to work exclusively for us", don't tell me you wouldn't do it!! (barring some kind of personal ethical situation, which is understandable).


Well, obviously you "do care less" because you are qualifying your position that they have to be "attractive/engaging" If all you cared about was the "story" of what they were "in", they could look like the back end of a camel and you wouldn't care as long as they delivered the story. Then you go on to qualify that the CGI guy is worth his "mill"?? What if having Tom Cruise as the lead made the movie 100 mill simply because of actor loyalty? is he now "worth" the 20 mill you paid him?



Would those characters be worth as much without the voice actors behind them? (Frank Oz and Mel Blanc)
Let me ask you a question here OM, when you see and hear "Darth Vader" in SW 4-6 Do you think of David Prowse, the guy in the outfit, or do you think of James Earl Jones as the "voice"


Yes it is!


Yes they can, the question is, will they??

no.

 

[Gatefan1976]

YES!!
It is a fun discussion , I agree 1000%

Thats the idea...to shatter the "follow on" industries. Entertainment now costs TOO MUCH. It long crossed the threshhold when movie tickets went up above $5.00. With the introduction of 3D and the increasing price of gas and the ridiculously high cost of snacks and parking, paying that kind of money for the crap that is being produced today is simply not worth it (to me). But the reality is that millions of people worldwide are very much appreciative of theaters. Being a Californian, seeing shoots and driving past studios is a daily occurrence for many southern Californians. One of the more centrally located ones is Fox studios. Here is a map of the property:

True, but you are........ fortunate enough to live in the area. "Movie Magic" as a concept still attracts masses of attention, either directly via the movies or by the "follow on" markets.
I won't argue with you that the "entertainment industry" costs way, WAY too much (cause I wholeheartedly agree), but it is doing what any other industry does, charge what the market can bear (or tolerate). I RARELY go to the cinema, simply because it is FAR better for me to just buy the DVD of movies I am interested in, it's why I own so many movies, even ones I will happily say are junk.

Note, that most of what is taped here is for television, not movies. It covers several acres and costs several million just to maintain. Entities like this are unnecessary and lavish to a degree no longer acceptable. Its comparable to the old 6gb Fireball hard drives of the 1990s as opposed to the ultra small SSD drives we use in laptops today.

Sure, but that not really the issue I am trying to address is it? It's not so much about what is "possible" but HOW it works? To use politics for an example (example only, I have ZERO interest in a debate on that issue ) How much of the "red tape" is actually useful? do you *need* a structure like the White House as a "presidential home"? do you NEED the "Pentagon" as a buiding to be it's size? Do we Aussies need a frakking huge "parliament house" with what amounts to it's own purpose built state to govern a population smaller than New York State??
So much comes down to "image" as to be redonkulous, but that is the system we operate in. I think it sucks, but hey, I won't change it, so all I can do is try to understand it.

The Industry has never downsized. Indeed, they have bloated out even further. That is going to change because costs are out of control. I will not miss Fox Studios. But I will miss some of the stuff they have produced in those studios. They can produce more in facilities a fraction of that size.

See my previous comments

Look at all the sound stages! A high end CGI workstation (say, $4000 with external SAN) and a database of voice waveforms and algorithms can produce an entire cast of characters as well as the sets they are using. A modest sized (2000sq ft green screen sound studio can cover live action in any virtual locale.

Yes, I agree, and I think that is one reason why this discussion is interesting to us both, we don't actually "disagree" per se in essence, just the way we percieve the issue is different. What I'm asking I suppose is WILL people accept those changes? Will they (or even do they) WANT to loose the "movie magic" they grew up on? Most people have precious little "suspenstion of disbelief" in thier lives and reality has a fist like a brick sometimes. People thrive on "the ideal" (weather they admit it or not), so will they continue to pay to maintain that "ideal"? So far, the answer is YES.

I disagree because the type of person that acts/performs is not the same type of person that programs in CGI. I have never seen a cigar chomping geek or a pouty female geek. Never.

You need to get out more bro............
Yes they are wildly different skill sets, one is high on the "social aspect", one is high on the "technical aspect" (or left Vs right brain dominance if you prefer ) That However does NOT mean that given the same options, they would not become the same way..............

Many CGI artists would be ecstatic for a million dollars. They certainly dont get that right now! The scales are only set for live actors, not for CGI actors or teams producing them. Those scales are being made now, and they are far below that of actors/actresses.

40-50 years ago ACTORS would dream of a million bucks, they did not get it then either. Yes you are looking at a theoretical "reset" on pay and such, but AGAIN, the scales are already set much, MUCH higher than they were 40-50 years ago. Its a temporary "fix" at best.

The buckets of cash come from the audiences of films, and the audiences will go where the fun is. If a great movie is made, people will flock to see it no matter where they have to go to see it.

No, they won't. I have lost count of just how many excellent shows or movies I have missed because they were not "marketed" to me at the time. Many Indie films are FAR superiour to the crap getting regurgitated through hollywood, yet the "GP" still follow the "hollywood" market, and as such, that is were the money is. Again, it sucks, but there it is. I know YOU hate Advertising bro, but don't let your dislike of it minimise your understanding of the impact it has on people.

The Industry has made the grave mistake of assumption. They assume that if a movie is made, people will go to see it.

No, they haven't, they utilize the tools availiable to them to make sure "you" WANT to see it.

If it is in 3D, then even more will see it. The same will be true, but the things being made may come from some small four-man production company doing CGI instead of Paramount or Warner Bros. The little man has been squeezed out by not being able to get on a cable network owned by their gigantic competitor, and by being denied running time in theaters. Its a freakin monopoly!

Yes it IS a monopoly, that is why it is at the point it is now, and that is very much part of my point. If you "control" every aspect of a feild, you can do whatever you want with it. (within certain reason)

But that is changing because home theaters are becoming the weekend outing. Those home theaters are usually connected to the internet which means that the distribution model can shift to paid subscribers to a specific producer's website ("XYZ did the CGI"). Artists would love to get just 2 mil. Right now, they are shut out.

Yes they are shut out, see my comments on "monopolies"
As to "shifting the distribution model" Yes, I agree, I shift needs to happen, my question is, *HOW* will that happen? YT views? they register hits and views yes, they measure "popularity" ,but until you can monetize that popularity, it don't mean jack, simply because *Money* is how we determine "worth" in western culture. Again, fair, no, real, yes.

Soon, many of those waiters and waitresses who claim to be "writing a screenplay" will be taken seriously. When I look at OMNI's renderings of Atlantis, I find myself thinking "How is what he is doing any different (in quality) than the CGI done in the real show?". I dont see any...except his looks better . People will flock to what is fun and entertaining.

It's not (OMNI's work), any different *in quality* the difference is in it monetary value. The guys doing the CGI for shows are getting PAID, AFAIK, OMNI isn't (much as I think his work is worth it). People won't "flock" to quality, they will "flock" to what gets sold.

To be continued

 

[Gatefan1976]

no.

Thank you

 

[Gatefan1976]

Coninued.........

1000% agree. But the reality is that many entities which became obsolete because of technology had to scale down considerably (newspapers, magazines and related entities). The cable industry cannot survive in its present form. The internet will replace it completely. When that happens, the control of the entertainment infrastructure will be wrested from the hands of the Industry.

A distinct possibility, yet it is not going to happen under the current model. The problem is, the "current system" STILL does what it was designed to do. UNTIL it fails, it will still be used for better or worse. It has nothing to do with "quality", but what "makes the money"

Its going to get smaller and more efficient. Its going to transform the idea of what a "movie studio" is to something much different than it is right now. Its going to go through the same upheaval that the auto industry and the print media has gone through.

Yes, it will, it can just "defend" itself better than either print media or the auto industry.

Never taken as a dig. But I dont think I would like to work for just one company, and YES I would take the 30M. But that scenario is not likely to happen.

"likelyhood" is not an issue, I offered a price and you agreed, THAT was my point, simple as that.

But I can see Joe Producer who has a garage green screen studio walking up to Hot Body Lola walking on the street and offering her a part in his little production for $1000 and making a fortune.

Alot of people could not do that scenario as they don't possess the required self confidence, and we build the system again

Well sure....there is still going to be good stuff and bad stuff. But who else but a huge studio is going to pay a guy like Tom Cruise 30 million dollars? I have seen better looking dudes working as waiters and salesmen. The hottest women I see are working as secretaries or clerks in offices, not on the screen. Jennifer Anniston....really? If the story is good and the actors can portray the parts, its all good and can compete head to head with anything a big studio puts out. Yes, that includes the big stuff too.

YES they can compete in "quality", for sure, the burning question STILL is, would it be viable from a monetary perspective?

I do think of them, but if Leroy Johnson from Figueroa & Main did Vaders deep voice I would love it just the same. Its the Vader character that is important to me, not who did his voice. I think the characters are more valuable because of those actors who did the voices, but I didnt go to the movie because of them, nor would I in the future. They can change Vader's voice as long as it is deep and menacing. Its the same reason I like the new James T Kirk by Chris Pine as well as the original by William Shatner. Its because Pine captures KIRK. Not because he is channeling Shatner.

You are taking ONE example and tryng to build a case
(yeah, so did I, sure,but that was just as an example)
Watch a few pixar movies in a row and you will see what I am trying to get at.

I think that CGI artists will begin to emerge as their own powerhouses.

I rest my case