> If the algorithms are actually any good, they should lead to more, not less, diversity. The algorithms would be able to detect that enough people want to watch a Kung-Fu thriller set in medieval South India starring Summer Glau to be viable
They don't want "viable", they want blockbuster.
When a film in a series makes only half a billion it's seen as a failure and people are called in to make the next one a success.
> “They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them,” [Simon Pegg] told magazine Radio Times (via The Guardian). “I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little too Star Trek-y.
> “Avengers Assemble, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn. Star Trek: Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant. But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why.”
> He further explained “People don’t see it being a fun, brightly coloured, Saturday night entertainment like the Avengers,” adding that the solution was to “make a Western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it’s more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent.”
> They don't want "viable", they want blockbuster.
That may be what they want, but that's not all they make. To wit, plenty of shows and films (indeed, a large majority in number) aren't blockbusters, and don't appear to have been intended as such.
Films that are expected to make 1.5bn, but only make 0.5bn are failures in that regard, sure - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a large market for films that "only" make 0.5bn.
>They don't want "viable", they want blockbuster.
They want predictable profit. If machine learning will allow producers to make better predictions on niche market - they will go there too
They don't want "viable", they want blockbuster.
When a film in a series makes only half a billion it's seen as a failure and people are called in to make the next one a success.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/05/19/simon-pegg-says-origin...
> “They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them,” [Simon Pegg] told magazine Radio Times (via The Guardian). “I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little too Star Trek-y.
> “Avengers Assemble, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn. Star Trek: Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant. But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why.”
> He further explained “People don’t see it being a fun, brightly coloured, Saturday night entertainment like the Avengers,” adding that the solution was to “make a Western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it’s more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent.”