I kind of think you contradicted yourself with your statement. If there are a ton of piss poor content that nobody wants to watch, and it is very hard to make a living unless you're a mainstream artist, then they will eventually stop making content anyways. But Web3 can hopefully help those diamond in the roughs get recognition without being supported by big corporations.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes I guess I did. I work in drama TV production and see the blood, sweat and tears along with a huge amount of talent that goes into making TV shows, quality also costs... a lot! I think it's very much underestimated by those not involved. "Talking head" type entertainment and opinion pieces are much easier but there is no offer of escapism or suspension of disbelief involved there, most people often want to zone out for an hour or two. You mention e-sports which I absolutely concede can be covered much more easily than mainstream sports but if you've ever watched amateur footage or even footage captured at academy level for post match analysis, it leaves a lot to be desired and there is no way pro sports or even non contemporary drama is being captured on semi pro equipment by people without experience. Having said that (to contradict myself again) I have seen some great low budget short films but they are exclusively produced by students with the back up of academic staff after a couple of years of studying but even the good ones are generally shown within a sea of utter dross. It's complicated, on many levels.
Hopefully, Web3 can help those great low budget short films get the recognition, funding, and support they deserve.
For context - Band 1 - the lowest budget band for scripted TV is £850K per hour of completed programme, to produce something that "cheaply" and it be worth watching you need incredible scripts, then one realises that there are a thousand ways to interpret scripted material by actors/directors/producers, the writer/creator has to let go at that point and trust in the process and the people. Writers are notoriously bad at hitting deadlines and writing stuff that you can afford to actually make. Web3's role may be around the area of script development, people need to eat and pay their rent while writing, and the pay off comes if the show is actually made, its very speculative though.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with it. When was it made? The good news is, a lot of the things you mentioned have drastically changed over the years. Smartphones now have the capability of high quality capture, and there have been a lot of films made through it. Generative AI can handle the script and stills/visuals. It is one of the reasons why the writer's guild went on strike in the US. The generated script are good and fast enough that they already put Hollywood jobs in jeopardy. For the actors, if you don't go for famous ones, and look for those wanting to start their career, you can get them for cheap or even free just to add to their portfolio, and get experience/exposure.
Band 1 isn't a show, budgets for TV are set in bands, Band 1, 2 , 3 etc. Band 1 is the lowest. It helps when offering pay rates to crew etc. I'm a bit sad that you're advocating thousands of people losing their jobs to be honest not that I think it will happen.
Nobody is making any commercial content on smartphones beyond youtube,
In terms of AI, its soulless, is there any Ai art thats selling for millions?
Taskmaster mentions the Superbowl in the video and yes alternative commentary and analysis is welcome (and already exists) but without the insight and expertise it's worthless. I love rugby but there is only 1 maybe 2 analysts on youtube that really add any value.
From my perspective niche interests will be catered for but it wont be Hank down the road making high value content it will still be experts in their field producing content.
I'm not advocating anything. I'm just stating how things are. A lot of artists and programmers have already lost their jobs to Generative AI.
I agree that AI art is soulless, but do your research before making sweeping statements like these. A simple google search showed multiple results. https://motioncue.com/best-movies-shot-on-smartphones/ Some movies there even won awards.
Ok fair enough, I guess I'd just watched the video when I commented and the guy in the video seems to be projecting some hope about the disruption based on his own biases. Ironically making a video on a smartphone by the look of it against a flat background with zero visdual interest. If i had to guess I'd say he has an axe to grind because he never got a job in production but of course I'm probably way off the mark.
Interesting that the image you uploaded shows examples of AI art that hasn't sold for millions, no.13 being 4 pieces that sold for a combined 1.1 mil. Crypto bros may be paying this for computer generated art, I don't see serious collectors buying this stuff, its ape jpegs all over again. Humans are stupid though, people pay 10's of thousands for handbags ffs.
Interesting link re smart phone films, Soderbergh is definitely an established filmmaker, he knows the game, is very skilled and he's experimenting, tell him tomorrow that he's only to make films on smartphones in future and he'd have a fit. Searching for Sugarman is great but I've not heard of the rest. Film festival accolades are sometimes a bit meh, I've sat through so much utter shit at a couple of film festivals you just want to vote for something by the end so you can get to the bar. A member of my family used to curate a festival and the voting is, um, biased at best, corrupt at worst.