But regardless, I have a feeling there is more than one person who can narrate movie trailers.

Blogging and YouTube are a lot more like the independent film industry than massify.

> Apparently they crowd-sourced an entire movie. Everything
> from the script to the casting was voted on, presumably by
> the same lunkheads who turned Digg into an extension of
> Apple marketing interspersed with unfunny comics and left-wing
> commentary. It’s a process scientifically designed to produce a
> film that’s mediocre for its budget range, which apparently was
> somewhere in between what a student film normally costs and
> my monthly car insurance payment.

First of all, the process you've outlined in your post is *not* the process used on Massify. Massify users voted for the story, not the screenplay. The winner did not direct the movie, he served as a producer and got a small role in the movie. What he did get to do, however, is sit in on the production and participate, work with the screenwriters to flesh out the story, etc.

Furthermore the budget for the film was way beyond the cost of a student film and your monthly insurance car payment combined.

> Don’t get me wrong, it’s neat the way the process worked, but I
> guess I’m unable to see the value in coming up with a novel way
> to produce more cinematic detritus. Hollywood regurgitates this
> crap 10 times a year, except (judging from the trailer) with more
> polish. They don’t need crowd sourcing to add to the dung heap.

It's painfully obvious you've had little to do with film, like ever. Do you really believe most films are the work of a single individual? Movies have been crowd sourcing since before the internet tubes. The only thing Massify changes is who gets let into that particular crowd.

> Don’t get me wrong, it’s neat the way the process worked, but

How can you call the process neat when you haven't the faintest clue how it works?

> I guess I’m unable to see the value in coming up with a novel
> way to produce more cinematic detritus. Hollywood regurgitates

I'm not exactly sure our process is that novel. All we've really done is put a web interface on the same mechanic and opened up who can participate, nothing more and nothing less.

> In fact, the one thing the movie industry has going for it is
> that it’s still much more meritocratic than most of the rest of
> America. A good script is a good script, no matter who wrote it,

Again, you write with authority but it's obvious you aren't a student of film history.

I'd argue your points more, but discourse on the web is futile, specifically when there is a risk that the OP will be shown to be clueless and pedantic.

Yeah. He's DEAD bro. Watch the news much?

“In fact, the one thing the movie industry has going for it is that it’s still much more meritocratic than most of the rest of America.”

While a good script is a good script, that doesn't mean that it will ever get recognized or made into a movie. I know you made a comparative statement, and the film industry may be *more* meritocratic than other industries, but I don't see it as particularly meritocratic. Hollywood is very much a “who do you know” business. As you say, there are a lot of independent films made, but they compete at such a disadvantage (budget, distribution) that a quality script can easily fail to ever be made into a quality movie.

Anyway, it would be interesting to me to compare this post to early (and hell, even recent) commentary by journalists relating to blogging. 'Just leave it to the pros, you amateurs will only churn out crap.'

It is a contentious but common issue: Does more content mean more crap or do rising waters float more boats? I'm inclined to think both. Just as there's a ton of wasted disk space and bandwidth spent at YouTube, occasional gems shine through that couldn't if it wasn't cheap and easy to produce content. My stance is that the gems justify wading through the crap. I have no reason to desire your stance to be the same though, and I am always a fan of curmudgeonry.