Incorrect, the rate of compression is at it's highest quality level, so the term stands...
Okay, Im just kidding. I know what you mean. I hate when people write something thoughtful, and some dipshit comes in and says 'You are wrong because [INSERT STUPID OBSERVATION THAT HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR POINT HERE] and Im going to ignore the rest of what you said now.' One thing that bothers me about some of the people that post here is that they'd rather find fault with your details than your ideas. I made the mistake once of confusing Hitler with Communism. I learned more about Communism/Fascism than I ever cared to, but correcting that detail had 0% effect on my point. For some reason, I'm an idiot because I didn't get a Trivial Pursuit question right.
Why are some of you so ready to flush the article because you don't like some of the details? The idea of what this article saying still stands. There are other ways of making money off it. NYT had it right that having tunes alone isn't so valuable. There's too much music out there. It's hard for me to find music I like, so the idea of paying a site for the service of 'find me songs I might like' doesn't sound so bad, provided I can go download found songs on the web. $10 a month tho help me find music on Morpheus that I'd like would be worth it!
The point of making music 'liquid' was another good point that basically illustrates our desire to have our fair use act back. As an animator, I like being able to download music it and edit it in to my movies so I can make a cool vid to show me friends. I have no interest in making money from it (I can't without licesning the music anyway), but I do like the idea of having fun with my hobby.
If somebody likes a band well enough, they are willing to pay a small fee to get a hold of the lyrics, or a greater fee to get the 24-track information so they can do their own remix. It doesn't take that many people for it to be profitable. It's certainly a better idea than trying to pass laws that'll make it so digital music isn't possible.
In any case, listen to the idea instead of nitpicking the details. There's a whole new revenue model for the RIAA out there (Or any other musician) if they realize that the songs themselves may be made free. The RIAA should be ashamed of themselves for not trying to figure that out.
"You can have any color of car you want, as long as it's black." -- was it Henry Ford that said this?
You can measure it's brilliance by how much the investors put in after that comment. If they still gave him money, then his positive 'marketing slant' freed some money from some obviously stupid people. Heh. mmmmDarwin Economics.
I don't think we have compatible definitions of the word 'bloat'. When I used it, Red Hat (KDE) had so much going on it was difficult to track down very specific items. It was slow to repond, and flat out frustrating to use. Windows 2000, on the same machine, was much more responsive. That's either bloat or inefficiency. When Windows takes too long to access the registry, that's sometimes considered bloat. Programs take up too much space (70 megs to download Star Office, for example...) is considered bloat. For me, Windows 2000 is the OS of choice on this machine. If I had the "It's cool to hate MS" attitude and went with Red Hat, I woudln't be any better off. I'd be hurting myself, and that was the point I was making.
" If you mean, "continues to pursue Complete World Domination(TM), continues to lock customers into proprietary formats and solutions, and continues to force customers along expensive upgrade paths," then you would be wrong."
I disagree. Let's talk about proprietary formats for a sec, those aren't 100% bad for everybody. Although I realize this can be used to leverage a monopoly, there's a lot to be said for having a format that MS can diddle with. This gives MS some room to innovate. MS invented the.DOC format, right? Well that proprietary format keeps other people out, that's true. But it also allows MS to make changes and make the format do more. Look at what a.DOC file can do that a.TXT file can't. You can attach other files inside it, format your text, etc. If MS was adhering to a standard like HTML for example, how would they be able to innovate without bending it towards proprietry at some point?
When they do this, they create an opportunity for somebody else to come in and make a better format. When Unisys tried to make people pay for using.GIF files, the.PNG standard was developed..PNG Is a totally kick ass format for us artists who need lossless compression and alpha channel support. This format came around BECAUSE somebody tried to strangle a format they owned.
Long story short? Every time MS tries to leverage their monopoly, a new opportunity arises. Embrace that philosophy, because that is exactly the type of thing that will make Linux a big player out there.
If you're trying to convince me not to subscribe to Slashdot, can you at least tell me why?
So ya hate Slashdot, big deal? Im willing to give them $5 if it keeps them online. Why? Because it's one site I can go to in order to keep an eye on what's going on in the world. If you don't like them, not subscribing is fine, but why on Earth would you be so keen on making them go offline? Did somebody mod one of your posts down?
In any case,/. provides a service, they should get something in return. $5 for 1,000 pages seems like a good model to me. It's cheap, and it's useful.
I think you're right there. I can't help but wonder if the new file system they announced is intended to keep people from dual booting Linux boxes. How much ya wanna bet that Lilo doesn't work with it without some kind of patch?
The good news is that every time MS closes a freedom with people (like XP requiring registration, or a security flaw in their software), Linux has an opportunity to be more attractive.
I just wanted to respond and let you know I appreciate the tone of your answer. I've had a couple of people recommend SuSE, and it's on my list to try.
Name a better alternative. Windows 2000 is easy to deploy on a variety of harware, easy to use, and has well supported software. The gotcha is that it costs lotsa money to license. Can you honestly tell me there is a better alternative? The only alternative I have as a 3D Artist is Macintosh. And though I'd like to have one, Windows works on the hardware investment I've already made.
Linux is hard to install, requires a more knowledgable support people, and has less driver support. This is why Windows is big in the corporate world. Obviously Microsoft isn't so bad if it's doing what people are paying for it to do.
As for being a troll, a troll rarely makes a good point. Getting back to my original point, this attitude of "It sure is cool to hate Microsoft" is blinding people to alternatives that may very well work for them. Call me a troll for disagreeing with you if you like, but I'm not-anti Linux.
Somehow I doubt this guy was sticking wires in his body and wearing a $500,000 computer system to get chicks. He'd be much better off buying a Porsche.
I don't think making fun of this guy is appropriate. It is not funny that he fell down and hurt himself. Making cracks about his mental state after after the stripsearch is hardly mature either.
If you depend on glasses to see, and the airport confiscates them because they're metal, you wouldn't find it so funny if you tripped over something and hit your head.
"no. This "tewaking" only means that they have -failed- to get the correct result from their scene description in the first place, and that they must resort to manually tweaking the result instead of actually going back and modifying what was wrong in the first place."
Err okay. It's not a black and white situation. 3D programs do different things than 2D programs do, and its silly to limit your toolset by expecting it to come out of the renderer perfect.
Getting back on topic, it's like complaining that Windows 2000 is a crappy 3D workstation because it sucks as a webserver . The truth of the matter is that there isn't one grand unified solution that works for every little thing. Me personally, I'd rather use a Macintosh for my mobile needs, Windows 2000 for my 3D Workstation and gaming platform, and Linux running Apache as my web server, and Linux again as a mailserver.
What, you mean besides using Windows 95 to make the appeal of computers so broad that nearly everybody has one? Or maybe bringing the internet out of the geek neighborhood and out into the main stream? Or how about making an OS that can install on such a broad range of hardware that you can cheaply put together a system running Windows?
Did MS do this singlehandedly? Nope, I'm not saying that. They were instrumental in it though. Despite how much everybody hates to admit it, Windows 95 had a HUGE part in making computers as broadly supported as they are today. I remember when having a computer meant you were a nerd.
Did MS use illegal tactics? Yep. They've done shitty stuff. They've made shitty products. I'm not disputing that. But they're not entirely bad either. As a matter of fact, it's MS's shortcomings that are making people fight to make Linux as a replacement to MS.
You can hate MS all you want, more power to ya, but if you're successful in the IT industry, MS was probably instrumental in that either directly or indirectly. No Microsoft? Computers = toys for geeks.
I can imagine porting code being a pain in the ass. I know MS's API is a little weird, and I can certainly understand you having issues getting down that deep into it.
Where I come from is I use Win2K for doing 3D animation. A lot of people I know doing 3D stuff are running on Win2k. We have to rely on a machine constantly rendering overnight, over weekends etc, and we cannot afford to have it crash. I've built a number of Win2k boxes in my time, and Win2k installation and setup is a breeze. I cannot say that for my experiences with installing Linux.
I've witnessed a number of Win2k machines of a huge variety of hardware (i.e. not custom made all from one provider) render for many many hours at a time and never crash. I have never lost rendering time to a Windows 2000 problem. None of my artist friends have ever complained about that.
Seems to me if a program can use so much Windows resources for so long and still behave properly, Microsoft must have done something right.
People have a stigma that there should be one solution to every single problem out that. It's like that in the 3D space. There are purists that believe that when you 3D render a scene, the image must be perfect when they go to hit the render button. They don't undrestand that it is okay to divide up your 3D work into layers and tweak each one of those seperately (i.e. color correction or sharpening). I guess they feel that the render program should be a 'perfect simulation of light' and that they shouldn't have to 'fix an image'. They fail to see that the best simulation of light we have (reality) even needs to be touched up from time to time.
I think there are anti-ms people who think that becaues IIS is insecure as a webserver, that MS themselves should die. There are people of the Linux world that wishes everybody would use Linux and forget Microsoft. They fail to realize that the adoption of Linux isn't slow because of MS, it's slow because it's not beating MS at doing what they like to do.
There's room in this world for both. If Linux becomes what Windows is in terms of usability, it will be every bit as bloated as MS. Don't believe me? Look at Redhat. Their default install wants to eat up a gig of space. Granted it comes with lots of apps, but it has its share of bloat too.
In any case, this isn't an anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft rant, this is more of a 'Be happy to have what you've got' rant. If MS disappears, what will fuel the fire to make Linux better?
It's in everybody's best interest if Microsoft does well, believe it or not.
Heh yah I've noticed that. It's really cool to hate Microsoft. It sure is great that we get news of MS screwing up. Too bad nobody ever pays attention to the good things MS does. I bet that most ppl who bash MS have never spent time with Windows 2000.
"If someone figured out how to unlock the gas in the gas station, people would be outraged," Mr. Eisner added. "They wouldn't say to the oil industry, `You need a different business model.' "
Yes they would. Gas is easy to go buy. There's really no need to try to steal it. There'd be far more drive-offs if people were really trying to steal gas. But let me tell you something, if companies who sell gasoline played games with how much people could by (like they cannot buy gas for their lawnmower), then they just might steal it. In which case, the oil industry would HAVE to have a new business model.
If Eisner really wants to liken Disney to the oil company, then this is a more accurate assesment:
- Gas can only work in cars, it may not be used in any other vehicle like a lawnmower.
- You have to pay for gas while you are using it. So if you are going up a hill, gas costs more.
- You're not allowed to try to make your own fuel.
- Disney has the right to tell you if you can drive or not.
- You may only buy a full tank of gas, you may not purchase only a gallon.
- The gas you bought will not work in anoter car, so you cannot sell your gas to somebody else.
- You're not allowed to store gas in a 1-gallon container, even though it is more convienient and you've paid for it.
If Disney ran the oil companies, and they played games like this, they're basically forcing people to acquire gas through 'unofficial channels'. The RIAA and the MPAA are basically entrapping people by not providing into the market people want to buy content in. "We're not going to sell into that market, but damn you if you try to get it anyway."
I think the end of the RIAA and the MPAA is on the horizon . It's like refusing to turn when the road is swerving to the right.
The RIAA and the MPAA only want to sell the same crap over and over again, with no need to innovate. I have proof:
"If someone figured out how to unlock the gas in the gas station, people would be outraged," Mr. Eisner added. "They wouldn't say to the oil industry, `You need a different business model.' "
Never mind that he's accusing his customers of being natural thieves, but he also likens the content industry to an oil company. I don't think it's any accident that he used this terminology. He wants to be able to sell a movie, and anybody who uses it in any way pays for it, just like oil. He also secretly wants to make the content so easy to manufacture that there's always a supply of it.
Eisner is going to learn a very harsh lesson about how much I'm willing to pay for content.
'Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" he said in an interview. "Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?"'
It's about time somebody said this! A company's inability to stay ahead of customer demand is not the fault of the consumer . Don't punish them for saying "we have more things we want to do with your product."
"My point is/was, a movie does NOT have to be perfect to be enjoyed. Just watch it, gleam what value from it you can..."
Hey, I agree with you here. But E1 had little to no value other than visual effects, and I think Lucas could have spent more time making the story interesting than trying to load it with effects. So I am making a statement to Lucas without avoiding seeing the movie. It would be ignorant of me to avoid the movie all together out of 'revenge', but to say 'I regret seeing the last one on opening weekend' is perfectly justifiable.
"What relevance does this have? I frankly could care less what you do for a living, thanks. "
So? Doesn't mean you're solution is everybody's solution.
"I wish I could understand why any form of entertainment seems to need to be the pinnacle of style just to be appriciated these days....."
Pinnacle of style? Movies tease you by getting themselves all hyped up, and then they turn out to be crap. I, for one, don't want to see the industry realizing they can cut a few corners if they just add to the hype machine.
If the movie industry self destructs, I'm out of a career. The world is a lot larger than you're overimplified view of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect, the rate of compression is at it's highest quality level, so the term stands...
Okay, Im just kidding. I know what you mean. I hate when people write something thoughtful, and some dipshit comes in and says 'You are wrong because [INSERT STUPID OBSERVATION THAT HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR POINT HERE] and Im going to ignore the rest of what you said now.' One thing that bothers me about some of the people that post here is that they'd rather find fault with your details than your ideas. I made the mistake once of confusing Hitler with Communism. I learned more about Communism/Fascism than I ever cared to, but correcting that detail had 0% effect on my point. For some reason, I'm an idiot because I didn't get a Trivial Pursuit question right.
Why are some of you so ready to flush the article because you don't like some of the details? The idea of what this article saying still stands. There are other ways of making money off it. NYT had it right that having tunes alone isn't so valuable. There's too much music out there. It's hard for me to find music I like, so the idea of paying a site for the service of 'find me songs I might like' doesn't sound so bad, provided I can go download found songs on the web. $10 a month tho help me find music on Morpheus that I'd like would be worth it!
The point of making music 'liquid' was another good point that basically illustrates our desire to have our fair use act back. As an animator, I like being able to download music it and edit it in to my movies so I can make a cool vid to show me friends. I have no interest in making money from it (I can't without licesning the music anyway), but I do like the idea of having fun with my hobby.
If somebody likes a band well enough, they are willing to pay a small fee to get a hold of the lyrics, or a greater fee to get the 24-track information so they can do their own remix. It doesn't take that many people for it to be profitable. It's certainly a better idea than trying to pass laws that'll make it so digital music isn't possible.
In any case, listen to the idea instead of nitpicking the details. There's a whole new revenue model for the RIAA out there (Or any other musician) if they realize that the songs themselves may be made free. The RIAA should be ashamed of themselves for not trying to figure that out.
"You can have any color of car you want, as long as it's black." -- was it Henry Ford that said this?
You can measure it's brilliance by how much the investors put in after that comment. If they still gave him money, then his positive 'marketing slant' freed some money from some obviously stupid people. Heh. mmmmDarwin Economics.
I don't think we have compatible definitions of the word 'bloat'. When I used it, Red Hat (KDE) had so much going on it was difficult to track down very specific items. It was slow to repond, and flat out frustrating to use. Windows 2000, on the same machine, was much more responsive. That's either bloat or inefficiency. When Windows takes too long to access the registry, that's sometimes considered bloat. Programs take up too much space (70 megs to download Star Office, for example...) is considered bloat. For me, Windows 2000 is the OS of choice on this machine. If I had the "It's cool to hate MS" attitude and went with Red Hat, I woudln't be any better off. I'd be hurting myself, and that was the point I was making.
.DOC format, right? Well that proprietary format keeps other people out, that's true. But it also allows MS to make changes and make the format do more. Look at what a .DOC file can do that a .TXT file can't. You can attach other files inside it, format your text, etc. If MS was adhering to a standard like HTML for example, how would they be able to innovate without bending it towards proprietry at some point?
.GIF files, the .PNG standard was developed. .PNG Is a totally kick ass format for us artists who need lossless compression and alpha channel support. This format came around BECAUSE somebody tried to strangle a format they owned.
" If you mean, "continues to pursue Complete World Domination(TM), continues to lock customers into proprietary formats and solutions, and continues to force customers along expensive upgrade paths," then you would be wrong."
I disagree. Let's talk about proprietary formats for a sec, those aren't 100% bad for everybody. Although I realize this can be used to leverage a monopoly, there's a lot to be said for having a format that MS can diddle with. This gives MS some room to innovate. MS invented the
When they do this, they create an opportunity for somebody else to come in and make a better format. When Unisys tried to make people pay for using
Long story short? Every time MS tries to leverage their monopoly, a new opportunity arises. Embrace that philosophy, because that is exactly the type of thing that will make Linux a big player out there.
If you're trying to convince me not to subscribe to Slashdot, can you at least tell me why?
/. provides a service, they should get something in return. $5 for 1,000 pages seems like a good model to me. It's cheap, and it's useful.
So ya hate Slashdot, big deal? Im willing to give them $5 if it keeps them online. Why? Because it's one site I can go to in order to keep an eye on what's going on in the world. If you don't like them, not subscribing is fine, but why on Earth would you be so keen on making them go offline? Did somebody mod one of your posts down?
In any case,
"But hey, maybe he could combine his idea and NanoGators, and have a Porsche implanted..."
Haha!! Maybe get an Autobot Tatoo also? *G*
I think you're right there. I can't help but wonder if the new file system they announced is intended to keep people from dual booting Linux boxes. How much ya wanna bet that Lilo doesn't work with it without some kind of patch?
The good news is that every time MS closes a freedom with people (like XP requiring registration, or a security flaw in their software), Linux has an opportunity to be more attractive.
I just wanted to respond and let you know I appreciate the tone of your answer. I've had a couple of people recommend SuSE, and it's on my list to try.
Again, thank you for being civil.
Name a better alternative. Windows 2000 is easy to deploy on a variety of harware, easy to use, and has well supported software. The gotcha is that it costs lotsa money to license. Can you honestly tell me there is a better alternative? The only alternative I have as a 3D Artist is Macintosh. And though I'd like to have one, Windows works on the hardware investment I've already made.
Linux is hard to install, requires a more knowledgable support people, and has less driver support. This is why Windows is big in the corporate world. Obviously Microsoft isn't so bad if it's doing what people are paying for it to do.
As for being a troll, a troll rarely makes a good point. Getting back to my original point, this attitude of "It sure is cool to hate Microsoft" is blinding people to alternatives that may very well work for them. Call me a troll for disagreeing with you if you like, but I'm not-anti Linux.
Somehow I doubt this guy was sticking wires in his body and wearing a $500,000 computer system to get chicks. He'd be much better off buying a Porsche.
I don't think making fun of this guy is appropriate. It is not funny that he fell down and hurt himself. Making cracks about his mental state after after the stripsearch is hardly mature either.
If you depend on glasses to see, and the airport confiscates them because they're metal, you wouldn't find it so funny if you tripped over something and hit your head.
"no. This "tewaking" only means that they have -failed- to get the correct result from their scene description in the first place, and that they must resort to manually tweaking the result instead of actually going back and modifying what was wrong in the first place."
Err okay. It's not a black and white situation. 3D programs do different things than 2D programs do, and its silly to limit your toolset by expecting it to come out of the renderer perfect.
Getting back on topic, it's like complaining that Windows 2000 is a crappy 3D workstation because it sucks as a webserver . The truth of the matter is that there isn't one grand unified solution that works for every little thing. Me personally, I'd rather use a Macintosh for my mobile needs, Windows 2000 for my 3D Workstation and gaming platform, and Linux running Apache as my web server, and Linux again as a mailserver.
"So what, exactly, has MS done thats good?"
What, you mean besides using Windows 95 to make the appeal of computers so broad that nearly everybody has one? Or maybe bringing the internet out of the geek neighborhood and out into the main stream? Or how about making an OS that can install on such a broad range of hardware that you can cheaply put together a system running Windows?
Did MS do this singlehandedly? Nope, I'm not saying that. They were instrumental in it though. Despite how much everybody hates to admit it, Windows 95 had a HUGE part in making computers as broadly supported as they are today. I remember when having a computer meant you were a nerd.
Did MS use illegal tactics? Yep. They've done shitty stuff. They've made shitty products. I'm not disputing that. But they're not entirely bad either. As a matter of fact, it's MS's shortcomings that are making people fight to make Linux as a replacement to MS.
You can hate MS all you want, more power to ya, but if you're successful in the IT industry, MS was probably instrumental in that either directly or indirectly. No Microsoft? Computers = toys for geeks.
I can imagine porting code being a pain in the ass. I know MS's API is a little weird, and I can certainly understand you having issues getting down that deep into it.
Where I come from is I use Win2K for doing 3D animation. A lot of people I know doing 3D stuff are running on Win2k. We have to rely on a machine constantly rendering overnight, over weekends etc, and we cannot afford to have it crash. I've built a number of Win2k boxes in my time, and Win2k installation and setup is a breeze. I cannot say that for my experiences with installing Linux.
I've witnessed a number of Win2k machines of a huge variety of hardware (i.e. not custom made all from one provider) render for many many hours at a time and never crash. I have never lost rendering time to a Windows 2000 problem. None of my artist friends have ever complained about that.
Seems to me if a program can use so much Windows resources for so long and still behave properly, Microsoft must have done something right.
People have a stigma that there should be one solution to every single problem out that. It's like that in the 3D space. There are purists that believe that when you 3D render a scene, the image must be perfect when they go to hit the render button. They don't undrestand that it is okay to divide up your 3D work into layers and tweak each one of those seperately (i.e. color correction or sharpening). I guess they feel that the render program should be a 'perfect simulation of light' and that they shouldn't have to 'fix an image'. They fail to see that the best simulation of light we have (reality) even needs to be touched up from time to time.
I think there are anti-ms people who think that becaues IIS is insecure as a webserver, that MS themselves should die. There are people of the Linux world that wishes everybody would use Linux and forget Microsoft. They fail to realize that the adoption of Linux isn't slow because of MS, it's slow because it's not beating MS at doing what they like to do.
There's room in this world for both. If Linux becomes what Windows is in terms of usability, it will be every bit as bloated as MS. Don't believe me? Look at Redhat. Their default install wants to eat up a gig of space. Granted it comes with lots of apps, but it has its share of bloat too.
In any case, this isn't an anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft rant, this is more of a 'Be happy to have what you've got' rant. If MS disappears, what will fuel the fire to make Linux better?
It's in everybody's best interest if Microsoft does well, believe it or not.
Heh yah I've noticed that. It's really cool to hate Microsoft. It sure is great that we get news of MS screwing up. Too bad nobody ever pays attention to the good things MS does. I bet that most ppl who bash MS have never spent time with Windows 2000.
Hmm... I dont understand the reference. Could you give me a direction to look on it?
"If someone figured out how to unlock the gas in the gas station, people would be outraged," Mr. Eisner added. "They wouldn't say to the oil industry, `You need a different business model.' "
Yes they would. Gas is easy to go buy. There's really no need to try to steal it. There'd be far more drive-offs if people were really trying to steal gas. But let me tell you something, if companies who sell gasoline played games with how much people could by (like they cannot buy gas for their lawnmower), then they just might steal it. In which case, the oil industry would HAVE to have a new business model.
If Eisner really wants to liken Disney to the oil company, then this is a more accurate assesment:
- Gas can only work in cars, it may not be used in any other vehicle like a lawnmower.
- You have to pay for gas while you are using it. So if you are going up a hill, gas costs more.
- You're not allowed to try to make your own fuel.
- Disney has the right to tell you if you can drive or not.
- You may only buy a full tank of gas, you may not purchase only a gallon.
- The gas you bought will not work in anoter car, so you cannot sell your gas to somebody else.
- You're not allowed to store gas in a 1-gallon container, even though it is more convienient and you've paid for it.
If Disney ran the oil companies, and they played games like this, they're basically forcing people to acquire gas through 'unofficial channels'. The RIAA and the MPAA are basically entrapping people by not providing into the market people want to buy content in. "We're not going to sell into that market, but damn you if you try to get it anyway."
I think the end of the RIAA and the MPAA is on the horizon . It's like refusing to turn when the road is swerving to the right.
The RIAA and the MPAA only want to sell the same crap over and over again, with no need to innovate. I have proof:
"If someone figured out how to unlock the gas in the gas station, people would be outraged," Mr. Eisner added. "They wouldn't say to the oil industry, `You need a different business model.' "
Never mind that he's accusing his customers of being natural thieves, but he also likens the content industry to an oil company. I don't think it's any accident that he used this terminology. He wants to be able to sell a movie, and anybody who uses it in any way pays for it, just like oil. He also secretly wants to make the content so easy to manufacture that there's always a supply of it.
Eisner is going to learn a very harsh lesson about how much I'm willing to pay for content.
'Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" he said in an interview. "Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?"'
It's about time somebody said this! A company's inability to stay ahead of customer demand is not the fault of the consumer . Don't punish them for saying "we have more things we want to do with your product."
"My point is/was, a movie does NOT have to be perfect to be enjoyed. Just watch it, gleam what value from it you can..."
Hey, I agree with you here. But E1 had little to no value other than visual effects, and I think Lucas could have spent more time making the story interesting than trying to load it with effects. So I am making a statement to Lucas without avoiding seeing the movie. It would be ignorant of me to avoid the movie all together out of 'revenge', but to say 'I regret seeing the last one on opening weekend' is perfectly justifiable.
"What relevance does this have? I frankly could care less what you do for a living, thanks. "
So? Doesn't mean you're solution is everybody's solution.
Maybe a running headbutt to the crotch like Hank Hill's dad in King of the Hill tonight? hheh
Then I just might buy it! :)
"I wish I could understand why any form of entertainment seems to need to be the pinnacle of style just to be appriciated these days....."
Pinnacle of style? Movies tease you by getting themselves all hyped up, and then they turn out to be crap. I, for one, don't want to see the industry realizing they can cut a few corners if they just add to the hype machine.
If the movie industry self destructs, I'm out of a career. The world is a lot larger than you're overimplified view of it.
He'll notice if other people do too. *hint hint*