I don't necessarily agree with some of the sentiments in this article; but upvoted anyway, because it's worth a discussion.
FWIW, I believe that this bit
I have had the privilege to meet hundreds of amazing aspiring actors, actresses and musicians through the production companies I advise. Their dream — their only dream — is to be on that stage and entertain millions. Proposing to destroy Hollywood will also destroy the livelihoods and the dreams of these entertainers and the crews, writers and creatives that support them. That is irresponsible.
begs the question of whether the current Hollywood system is the only way that the entertainers, crews, writers, etc., can profit from their work and achieve their dreams. I see no particular reason to believe that such a thing is true, and - to my notions - this undermines the entire argument that YC's "war" is short-sighted.
This article is also ignoring the fact that one could interpret the YC response as nothing but self-defense. It would be one thing if this call were totally unprovoked, but that's hardly the case here.
I think the article is misguided. No matter how creative content is being delivered, actors are going to be acting parts and delivering lines written by writers and directed by directors. And everyone "below the line" stays employed. The problem is with the business entities in Hollywood, not the creative entities.
I didn't read PG's essay as a call to destroy that "stage" so much as rethink, reinvent, and re-imagine it: the stage itself, and the way the stage gets delivered to you.
My take away was: Hollywood studios are damage, we must route creative content around it. Let's create new, direct-to-consumer pipelines that deliver stuff (maybe stuff like today's TV and movies, maybe new stuff we haven't seen yet) without the middleman.
Indie filmmakers, DIY musicians, etc. have been doing this for 50 years. YouTube-based serials have been doing it for a few years now. We have plenty of good (and failed) examples to based ideas on.
You know, I've seen another industry that had droves of aspiring, creative artists clamoring to get into the industry and fulfill their dream. These were creatives who were willing to hand over their rights to the syndicate just to get a shot at getting published.
It's been ten years since the last time I heard of someone who still wanted into the newspaper comic industry. There are still those who dream, but it turned out that the hundred-year newspaper system wasn't really a part of that dream. Maybe we'll discover the same thing about Hollywood.
Small nitpick that doesn't detract from the overall quality of your post: begging the question doesn't mean "raises in response the question." Begging the question involves circular logic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question (I usually point to http://begthequestion.info but it seems to be down right now)
Right, that's the usage I intended here. The argument that YC's war is "shortsighted" depends on an premise that's implicitly assumed to be true in the argument... that the Hollywood system is required in order for the stars and crew to succeed.
This is a war you'll definitely lose. The "raises in response the question" meaning isn't just the most popular usage, it's the only usage most people are aware of.
I'm aware of both meanings and still intentionally use the "wrong" one occasionally . It's well understood by both the speaker and the listener, so I don't think it hurts much. In fact, pointing out the error seems like more of a distraction.
FWIW, I believe that this bit
I have had the privilege to meet hundreds of amazing aspiring actors, actresses and musicians through the production companies I advise. Their dream — their only dream — is to be on that stage and entertain millions. Proposing to destroy Hollywood will also destroy the livelihoods and the dreams of these entertainers and the crews, writers and creatives that support them. That is irresponsible.
begs the question of whether the current Hollywood system is the only way that the entertainers, crews, writers, etc., can profit from their work and achieve their dreams. I see no particular reason to believe that such a thing is true, and - to my notions - this undermines the entire argument that YC's "war" is short-sighted.
This article is also ignoring the fact that one could interpret the YC response as nothing but self-defense. It would be one thing if this call were totally unprovoked, but that's hardly the case here.