Many of the great films were done "on a budget", not some lavish Hollywood orgy of spending and "A list" actors. All the schlocky films that are re-makes of some prior concept (which is what we see alot of nowadays) aren't worth the price of admissions. The smaller indie flicks are far more interesting to me anyways. The few talented actors that choose to go this route have more of my respect and I suspect that holds true for others as well.
You are wrong on so many levels. It's the "party line" to say that I am depriving the talent of their just rewards. I would gladly give the talent their due. It's the RIAA that is greedy here, not me. Yes, I do deny them a dollar a song when it costs them nothing to make it. Nothing at all. And I don't pay a barista for my coffee, but I do play in a band in my free time. And we give away our music digitally just to get people to pay to see us at the bar when we play. We record our own music on our own equipment. It is a fact that recording companies, if they make you a star, take 90 cents of every dollar you pay for that song. The talent is lucky to see a nickle.
No big loss.... what they mostly produce these days are special effects for dumbed-down minds and teenagers. Whatever happened to films which told an engaging STORY?
Story requires character and few today would enjoy the painful process of being reminded how much character they do not have.
Are you going to start a new thread every month on the same topic? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226941 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=228347
Speaking of "budget films".. the #1 Film of all time.. for "Revenue vs. Cost"... was a budget... cost $1 Million to make and is very famous... Do you know which film?
You are clueless about the music industry. The big money has been in touring for quite a while. The artists can easily afford to give their music away for free (basicly good PR), lots of them do and make a shitload on touring...
STUPID TALK! What the Hell is wrong with you? Fall of the roof and land on your head? What if an artist/group doesn't want/like touring? Should they be deprived of their intellectual property just because others can "supposedly afford to give their music away for free"? (A dumb-ass assertion in itself, you know.) Just because you'd "LIKE" to get some music for free doesn't mean rationalizing doing so is correct or fair.