[olavk]

Your point about "shooting on location" versus CGI seem absurd to me. A Hollywood production is so much more that just the logistics to shoot on location. It is actors, directors, casting, production design, production management, music, manuscripts, editing etc. All of these things requires a specialized skillset. None of these can be replaces with a server rack. Animation is somewhat different production-wise, but still need the same kind of talent, just not as many trucks.

Hollywood accounting is infamous, but it seems Hollywood actually know what they are doing business-wise. They pay stars a lot of money because it translates into ticket sales, not because they are idiots.

Many movies are made outside of Hollywood (so-called independent movies) with cheaper talent (sometimes working for free), but only rarely are they as financially successful as Hollywood movies.

[thenomad]

"Many movies are made outside of Hollywood (so-called independent movies) with cheaper talent (sometimes working for free), but only rarely are they as financially successful as Hollywood movies."

There are one or two individual producers who crack the code to making movies that are financially successful AND outside the Hollywood model, but they're rare.

Right now, Jason Blum (Paranormal Activity, The Purge, Insidious) and Mark Duplass (The Puffy Chair, Safety Not Guaranteed, Creep) are the two names to watch in the indie-but-also-profitable space.

[rwhitman]

Those roles can be outsourced offshore to cheaper labor markets or handed to cheaper (aka non-union) domestic talent markets, which is what I was hinting at. Wasn't really implying that computers can replace creatives. Basically the argument is when you level the geographic playing field, quality creative talent is a cheaper commodity.

[olavk]

Lots of movies (and especially TV) are made on the cheap outside of Hollywood and around the world. There still seem to be a significant demand for Hollywood-style grand productions and movie stars.