As the studios lose the lock on distribution (thanks to the internet), it does open the doors to more quality material. The problem becomes separating the wheat from the chaff. The Studio system (and networks) acted as editors in the same way as publishers of books. In other words, they selected what would get made, and while not always correct, think how much cap they kept us from having to slog through. (Cue YouTube)
The future belongs to whoever nails the algorithm for determining what you would like to se and delivering it to you. Sort of like Pandora is to music. My bet has been on Google to be the guys who nail it.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, James Culbertson <albion@...> wrote:
<< And I'll pose another question to Terry: Were most of the greatest films embraced by Hollywood? I mean Hollywood was't the greatest judge of what was a bad product or not. How would Truffaut, Fellini, Greenaway, Tarkovsky, etc., have fared in the Hollywood distribution model? Admittedly there is the occasional Malick and Aronofsky, but as viewers at least, aren't we better off today then we were when the moat was wider. I guess today the moat is thinner but the walls are the length of the earth.>>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (23) |
No comments:
Post a Comment