[dylangs1030]

I'm not sure you grasped the real point of the author's post.

It doesn't matter if you think the movies are crap - the "art of narrative storytelling" isn't mutually exclusive with shallow film making. It's a technical expertise with developing a story/dialogue/scene sequence. The literal story can be shallow and unappealing, but the story's visuals, acting, etc. are all highly tuned.

I also don't agree that "works of art" are what keep Hollywood profitable. You just said most movies are terrible and formulaic. Those are the biggest money makers, unless you call those more artistic than the indie films everybody loves.

You go on to compare Hollywood to the typewriter. The typewriter is an extremely poor analogy. It was literally eclipsed by superior technology and made obsolete.

You cannot make Hollywood "obsolete" - there is a worship culture to celebrities, a direct product of Hollywood (as the author describes). Hollywood survived the television being put into homes, which would arguably be more of a technology progression. You can't just beat a cult of personality with technology is the author's point - Silicon Valley isn't going to remove something so deeply embedded in America just by getting "smarter" about it. It's vastly more complex than that, and it's not going away just because a startup comes out with something that attempts to make Hollywood "obsolete."

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that your argument doesn't work.