241–250 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're wrong. A lot of people who dislike AI in art are putting their money (and their actions) where their mouth is. They don't buy stuff done with AI, ask authors whether they use it, and ban it/kick it from their communities. I've seen it and done it. I can't tell you whether this will be sustained in the future, but it's disingenuous to claim it doesn't happen.
> a lot The data disagrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of these things have awful plots. As yet, the AI systems used are not very good at plotting. If given a screenplay and character sheets, they can do reasonably well. But the "generate a 60 episode drama from one prompt" jobs are not very good. This is more of a problem with the Asian drama industry than the technology. There are not that many different plots. The visuals are consistently good now. If you put in…
Here's a half-decent example.[1] The visuals are good, the plot is adequate, and the audio is poor. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5w1jiTYrTw
Any idea of the production cost?
Was it originally released as episodes?
I'm currently reading David Copperfield which was serialized as 20 monthly installments - which had side-effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems inevitable for most industries in the US (car/general manufacturing) 1. City/region becomes a boom-town based on a new high profit-margin industry 2. As that region becomes more wealthy, labor increases in price, thus there is more incentive to seek labor/resources for that industry outside the city/region 3. City/region hollows out of middle-class level jobs for the industry, retains ceremonial labor and…
Cape cod. In the 1980s the rich people had trouble getting their trash picked up because no one could afford to live within an hour of the wealthiest areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cape cod. In the 1980s the rich people had trouble getting their trash picked up because no one could afford to live within an hour of the wealthiest areas.
Sounds like Jackson Hole in 2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGSn0AC3-ok
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A staggering amount of film and TV is shot in Canada.
Living in Vancouver ruins a lot of tv shows. Chicago? Nope, Vancouver. New York? Nope, Vancouver. SF? Nope, Vancouver! On the flip side, they use a lot of local place names and things, so it’s like a little in-joke when you notice them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nolan is irrelevant. He is the last of a dying breed. Once him and his ilk are gone, studios will go 100% into AI slop, Oscars be damned. No company is funneling 200 million into risky Oscar bait when they can make one hour Tiktok equivalents and get higher ROI. Movie theaters as a whole might go the Blockbuster route in a decade or two. The younger generations are not supporting the film industry with their eyeballs…
> Nolan is irrelevant Irrelevant to whom? He's not irrelevant to me and many movie fans. Also, you are lecturing someone who seems to actually work or has worked on the movie industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This works because a movie is not a separate accounting entity. Each movie is set up as a separate legal business entity (LLC). That's the SPV (special purpose vehicle). https://www.google.com/search?q=each+hollywood+movie+is+a+se... There's also a separate LLC for the parent production company. The production company LLC can also send invoices to the individual movie LLC for services. People can get creative with p…
> whatever creative accounting they want to do still needs to ultimately satisfy IRS scrutiny if there's an audit. Well, yes, but avoiding taxes is not the point of "Hollywood Accounting", rather avoiding paying actors. The IRS can collect taxes from whichever business entity makes a profit, but, critically, actors cannot . They signed a deal with one entity, and are only payed a share of net profits if that one part…
I wasn't saying avoiding taxes was the purpose. Instead, I'm saying whatever "bogus" or "inflated" expenses that the production company LLC is charging to the movie LLC still has to be somewhat plausible. A simplistic example of what they can't do:
- Tom Cruise TC Productions LLC sends an invoice to MissionImpossible8 movie LLC with a single line item that says "script advisory service for $1 billion dollars" which then conveniently causes the movie's balance sheet to be negative $1 billion dollars and thus never make a profit.
The point is the production LLC, the distributor entities, etc all charging the movie LLC so that it shows zero profits ... still need to play their financial accounting games with more sophistication than that. Yes, go ahead and fabricate various costs to avoid paying actors on "net profit points" but it still needs a veneer of plausibility. Otherwise, the IRS comeback will be, "Is the $1 billion fee the real market rate for script advisory services? Do you have evidence of that amount ever being paid? etc etc"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe those nepos actually were interested in the craft and came there by active choice?
Arguably everyone was. Certainly no one was doing it for the money. I suspect there is a myth among most people that executives -- especially Hollywood ones -- didn't get to that position by being smarter or harder working than others, or in doing so did not pass those qualities onto their children. Perhaps there is truth there, but I have yet to see it with my own eyes.
The cost of housing is probably the #1 reason and, in my opinion, California’s biggest problem. California as a whole is still doing pretty well but high housing cost is slowly pulling out the rug from under the state. But the California legislature does know that and has forced many cities to start building housing but there is still a lot work still in flight.
It also utilizes the space extremely inefficiently. Single level single family houses everywhere and the rest is parking space. The few parks are difficult to access by kids arriving by foot/bike.
This is what results in the high rent: Can't grow supply and don't use existing land efficiently.
Density: LA = 8,210/sq mi, Lisbon = 17,040/sq mi, Paris = 10,100/sq mi, Amsterdam = 13,670/sq mi, Copenhagen = 19,195/sq mi. (from wikipedia)
Look at Google Street maps: LA is a hellscape of concrete and asfalt. Lisbon and Amsterdam are much nicer and greener and they stil have higer density.