no shit

Hartley, John
McWilliam, Kelly
Burgess, Jean
Banks, John
2008
The uses of multimedia: three digital literacy case studies

60
the industrial mode of production further distances producer and product from consumers, who no more know how the ‘dream factory’ actually operates than they know how plastic is actually made.” In my case film.

61
“In digital media, by contrast, learning by doing is the norm, with peer-to-peer emulation and proprietary tutorials.”

62
In other words, in its day of popularity, reading occupied exactly the same niche in the cultural pecking order as YouTube does currently.” Every generation looks down on new culture. The same will go for entarchs.
“The invidious distinction between school-based print literacy for cognition and science and the playful use of popular media for sensation and uncontrolled self-realisation is by no means new.”

68f
Co-development with users: expert gamers “forcefully and persuasively lobbied the professional developers for” changes in weak game features => co-development of films possible?

Amiel, John
Amiel, J ~ A Director’s Perspective

“The history of Hollywood can be described in terms of who has held the power to get films made at any given time. Broadly speaking the key eras have been:

  • Studio Heads 1930s – ‘50s
  • Directors late ‘60s – ‘70s
  • Agencies ‘80s
  • Corporate Heads early ‘90s
  • Stars late ‘90s – now”

Hollywood increasingly caters for the young audience who can “open” the film by turning up in large numbers on the opening weekend. These films are star-driven: a handful of leading actors effectively determine which films get made.

Bruns, Axel
Reconfiguring Television for a Networked, Produsage Context
Available in print at QUT KG library.

Scroll down to “THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF THIS ARTICLE!!!”

“”salience determines whether an audience will gather around and share media, not production values. In the time before hyperdistribution, audiences had a severely limited pool of choices, all of them professionally produced; now the gates have come down, and audiences are free to make their own choices.” (Pesce, “Hypercasting”, n.pag.)”

“”media people often criticize the content on the Internet for being unedited, because everywhere one looks, there is low quality”: he points out that “what they fail to understand is that the Internet is strongly edited, but the editorial judgment is applied at the edges, not the center, and it is applied after the fact, not in advance“”

“By industry standards, the production values for much of the content shared through such systems may be low, but the entertainment value – or more generally, the salience – of such content for its viewers is evidently high enough to attract large numbers of users; in the process, we can observe the emergence of new content genres from machinima to mash-up, as well as the revitalisation of older forms (such as the short film) in new contexts. This is a process of format innovation, of creative prototyping, which is likely to have impacts on audiovisual formats well beyond present online video hotspots.”

“the technologies and processes of television – once constituting an effective and powerful network for widespread content distribution – have now been outclassed by the Internet, to the point that in the absence of significant innovation on part of television operators, many users themselves have begun to do the industry’s work of shifting content from one network to the other

“”Buy a chunk of radio spectrum, or a satellite transponder, or a cable provider: none of it gives you any inherent advantage in reaching the audience. Ten years ago, they were a lock; today, they’re only an opportunity.” (Pesce, “Nothing Special”, n.pag.)”

“users [...] have “come to understand that the sharing of media is an act of production in itself”

users who are increasingly embracing the produsage and sharing of their own media content, and of hybrid content mash-ups incorporating a wide variety of sources: such users can no longer be wooed effectively and consistently even with the higher production values which the industrial model of audiovisual content production may be able to provide, if the same model also entails their return to a relatively passive position as viewers and audiences; instead, they must be embraced through new models which allow for their participation, their creative contribution, even their leadership in content production and distribution.

how, then, may the television industry reconfigure itself to participate in this information and entertainment space, while remaining financially sustainable?

“Three related strategies are now becoming visible”

  • IP Networks as the New Backbone
  • Harnessing Video- and Filesharing
  • Harnessing Users as Produsers

the field of television (or more broadly, audiovisual content distribution) beyond broadcasting is today in considerable flux, with new technological, corporate, operational, and content models emerging with great frequency.” Creative destruction!

IP Networks as the New Backbone
“a gradual replacement of other networking infrastructures with IP-based networks”

Harnessing Video- and Filesharing
“”The age of hyperdistribution demands the development of new economic models which can harness piracy, for profit” (“Piracy”, n.pag.)”
“outsourcing of part of the distribution effort to audiences – a process of what has been called “crowdsourcing”"
“”today the broadcaster aggregates audiences, aggregates advertisers, puts commercials into the program breaks, and makes a lot of money doing this. But … wouldn’t it be economically more efficient for the advertiser to work directly with the program’s producer to distribute television programming directly to the audience, using hyperdistribution?”"
“The answer to this question would require a cost-benefit analysis of conventional and new models which takes into account factors such as

  • continued advertising income from commercials inserted into downloadable content, and from general Website advertising,
  • direct pay-for-access fees, including potential premium fees for commercial-free versions of the content,
  • additional income from content which could not have been broadcast on conventional networks due to scheduling limitations or limited mass appeal (a long tail market),
  • cross-promotion effects for content shown on conventional television channels,
  • savings resulting from the ability to potentially bypass broadcast or cable distribution altogether,
  • additional revenues from sales to a potentially global audience, but also
  • reduced revenue from global syndication deals,
  • a potential decline in advertising on traditional television channels,
  • losses from the unauthorised redistribution of downloaded content,
  • the uncertainty of content success or failure in an unknown environment,
  • and the likelihood of increased competition with other commercial and enthusiast content creators.”

“”Why has YouTube become the redistributor of these clips? Because none of the copyright holders made an effort to distribute these clips themselves.“”
“”the fundamental paradox of hyperdistribution” is that “the more something is shared, the more valuable it becomes.“”
“the gradual erosion of existing boundaries between professional and amateur content [...] may allow for the emergence of new content genres to wider recognition, as well as for the discovery of new on- and off-camera talent, and could therefore also be seen as a pathway into the industry proper, similar to (but offering a significantly wider intake than) short film competitions and other events.”
“If direct download and filesharing models can be shown to be financially sustainable, then, this may ultimately even lead to a bifurcation of the television industry into live broadcasting (which may well find increasing commonalities with industries staging sports, musical, and theatrical events) and drama production (which is necessarily closely aligned with the movie industry), with these two components gradually drifting apart as the medium which once held them together, broadcast and cable television, declines in importance. Simultaneously, we may see the emergence of new direct-to-download drama production houses, and direct-to-streaming live channels, which can no longer meaningfully be said to belong to the same overall industry.” THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF THIS ARTICLE!!!

Harnessing Users as Produsers
the core problem emerging from this discussion is that many new genres for audiovisual content in an Internet-based, produsage-driven environment have yet to be invented and identified
we may well see a similar shift from compilation and collective hosting to syndication and aggregation. In this model, video content would be widely dispersed across the network, and its availability would be highlighted through frequently updated RSS-style content feeds” -> www.koldcast.tv
“The television industry in Australia and elsewhere (and in particular in those nations where fast and cheap broadband access is readily available) is now approaching a tipping point [...]. Beyond that point lies a substantial structural transformation of the industry, and an opportunity for new business models and content formats to emerge.
significant potential for fundamental changes to conventional broadcasting models

Keane, Michael
Exporting Chinese Culture: Industry Financing Models in Film and Television

13
“The question is then: how is such ‘creative destruction’ occurring in media industries, if at all?
“In spite of the success of a few media enterprises, creative industries in China are fragile when compared with the corporate structures and production relations of Hollywood. In developed economies the mass media are dominated by highly concentrated forms of organization.
“In China, the options for development of audiovisual industries are still uncertain and subject to vagaries in national media policy. Media organizations may expand provincially; they may aspire to horizontal integration; but the bottom line is likely to remain a lack of capital, which forces them to seek out low-cost ways of competing in a crowded media industry.

14
“In television industries for instance financial returns on program development and production are extended across, and within new territories. In cinema co-productions and runaway productions are a means of ensuring cost savings.”

15
“Globalization by franchising provides a very different model of development, one that is flexible, post-Fordist, and subject to user innovation.”
“Within the context of globalization, [...] there are four levels of economic activity: economic specialization, de-territorialized production (production of goods in lowest cost locations), partially traded or non-traded services, and routine manufacturing and services.”

economic specialization

    “These blockbusters and global brand services are often incubated in ‘export-oriented, specialized industrial clusters’. Hollywood and Silicon Valley, which are result of institutionally embedded know-how, produce continuous learning and innovation. The output of these centres targets world markets.”

de-territorialized production

    16
    “Outsourced productions in cinema are the most noteworthy example of how international producers seek to minimize costs.”

partially tradable or non-tradable services

    “The internationalized services as such need to partner up with local knowledge, in turn creating mutual benefits and cultural technology transfer.”

routine manufacturing and services

    “it is possible to make products and services at any location in the globe.”

16f
“The demand for innovation drives the imperative to constantly examine the international market for opportunities.”

17
“This leads back to the conundrum of creativity: how do developing countries compete? If it is easier to compete in the cultural economy by making local versions of global products—or by acting as a low-cost location for footloose multinationals—then the specificity of culture is ultimately eroded. On the other hand, a focus on the national can have the effect of marginalizing the cultural product and ensuring that it fits only into a niche culture market, as illustrated by national cinema and world music. The dilemma for producers, moreover, is making a leap into high-value markets: independents located in developing countries do not have the resources to incubate, produce, and market so as to produce ‘winner-takes-all’ branded products and services. In many instances, new artists are discovered in the margins and expediency drives them or their agents into to the arms of international financiers, often handing over the valuable IP rents in the process.
Over-bureaucratization is endemic to the cultural sector and works against implementation of long-term business models.

17f
“These factors, in combination with existing conventions within the marketplace, notably a propensity to rely on relationships make it difficult for cultural enterprises to generate start-up capital. Product innovation is therefore more likely to be incremental and imitation is favoured over innovation. The focus on imitation has led to the success of Japanese and Korean creative industries. Whereas these countries have managed to move to the next stage (innovation), China remains locked into a cycle of dependency.”
The principal financiers of the Chinese film industry are government: direct support for approved films as well as indirect support for co-productions via tax breaks and reductions of expensive red tape; foreign investors: particular in co-productions and joint-venture arrangements; major business enterprises: through revenue-sharing arrangements and product endorsements in film; advertising companies: often through brokering of services such as post-production; and state-owned enterprises: many of these such as the People’s Liberation Army, are in fact highly profitable enterprises with interests in communications.”
“In 2003 80 percent of revenue from box office receipts came from the 20 imported blockbusters (Hua 2004). According to official statistics copyright earnings on imported films were 10 times more than those received from domestic productions.

18f
The politicization of film content, erratic censorship regimes, and the necessity of managing scripts to appease officials, impacts on production investment in two ways. First, it discourages domestic investors who are unwilling to sink their capital into scripts that are politically doctored; and second, it opens up a private investment market for the more adventurous producers. Since 1997 the partial privatization of China’s leading film studios (Beijing Forbidden City Film Corporation, Xian Film Corporation, Ermei Film Corporation, and Shanghai Film Corporation) has stimulated private investment and co-productions. Most of the capital investment has come from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan. While the majority of films in 2003 were still produced by the state-funded studios, there was a significant increase in the number of films (Ibid, 32) produced by privately invested companies. Some of the more notable independent production and investment houses are Beijing New Vista, Huayi Brothers and Taihe Film Investment Company, and Century Hero Audio-visual Investment Company (Yin 2004).”

19
The success of China’s film industry and the capacity to create exportable content is contingent on unleashing creativity as much as stimulating finance.
“Tarantino has undoubtedly been impressed by the willingness of the Chinese to work enthusiastically for low salaries in contrast to the spiralling costs in other international locations.”
“With a population of more than 1.3 billion China’s cinema box office revenue is just 25 percent of that of Korea, whose population is 47 million.”
“The success of the Korean new wave has seen film financing models going on-line, allowing ordinary people to buy into the movie-business (Kim 2003). Netizen funds are a way by which (mostly) young Koreans invest in film projects for a return based on the movie’s success after release.”

19f
“International connections are important in order to break out of the cycle of dependency on state funding. In 2003 more than half of the 140 feature films made in China received substantial investment from government but less than half the number of films legitimately screened in Chinese cinemas in 2003 were profitable, and as mentioned above, the heavy grossing films were international ‘blockbusters’.”

20
the average cost of production was only rmb 3 million (USD362,000), or 0.5 percent of the average cost of production in the U.S.
Cellphone received investment finance from a number of sources with major contributions coming from Motorola, China Mobile, BMW, and Mtone (a Chinese internet content provider). Motorola invested rmb 4 million (USD484,000), China Mobile rmb 800,000 (USD97,000), while BMW contributed rmb 1.2 million (USD145,000). Sponsors received product placement and visible recognition in the film promotional messages. For instance, the protagonist of the film—a successful TV talk host who inadvertently left a message from a lover on his new Motorola cellphone—also drives a BMW. In addition, Motorola and BMW’s logo were displayed prominently on advertising billboards. Music copyright delivered a further rmb 8 million (US$968,000) (Meng 2004). In addition to securing financial support, the production company (Huayi Brothers and Taihe Film Investment Company), which is incidentally the advertising agent for China Mobile, sought to ensure returns on investment by working with a Guangdong-based DVD maker to produce cheaper legitimate versions in efforts to limit piracy (Shanghai Daily Jan 21, 2004).”
Television is an industry that employs an army of people in China. The flow of investment is more dynamic than cinema as the market is shaped by domestic consumption and broadly supported by advertising.”
“Television stations are still technically owned by the state but they are now allowed to apply for licenses to operate as corporate entities responsible for their profits and losses.”

21
“This is not straightforward philanthropy, however, but investment based on guanxi (reciprocal) relationships.”
“In China cable television is ubiquitous but the business model remains low value because subscription to the 30 or so channels is under priced.”
“the mass audience for television – some 900 million — is shared among some several hundred stations. The bulk of income for television stations, and for producers, now comes from advertising.”

23
Digital content industries provide new challenges for investment in the creative industries.
Chinese government is investing heavily in video games production in Shanghai and an animation centre in Beijing. These are joint public-private ventures that draw upon government largesse towards new industry/new economy development in the wake of Korea and Japan’s video games exports. The government recognizes that digital content industries are growth industries and that they have global impact; that is, products and applications developed in China can be marketed globally, in comparison to television and film, which is hampered by being nationally specific. In addition, digital content is invariably produced with the intent of repurposing in multiple platforms: cable, free-to-air, Internet, mobile phone etc.
“Until recently oligopoly structures have not existed in China due to the need to control information.”
“Digital media is especially relevant to user-led innovation. There is a need to respond quickly to consumer demand and this gives China an advantage in that it has a large consumer base to test new products and applications.

24
while ideas may be generated in developing countries, finance to commercialize still comes primarily from multinational investors.
“In order to avoid becoming a low cost location for media production (Miller et al 2001), China needs to further develop its own industrial base and to recognize the importance of intellectual property protection in developing local creativity. The synergy between creative enterprise and financial inputs into core creativity, R&D, incubation, and marketing now becomes central to meet the challenge of developing export content.” Not sure about that.
“how do countries move from a low national production base into competitive export markets? The transition encompasses a five-stage process.

  1. low-cost outsourcing,
  2. isomorphism and cloning practices,
  3. legitimate co-productions and franchising agreements,
  4. niche markets and regional breakthroughs,
  5. cultural/ industrial milieu and local clusters can be produced to target high-value exports.”

“These media capitals (Curtin 2003) bring with them economies of scale and scope, the attraction of foreign investment, the certainty of rights management, and greater network and distribution complementarities.”

25
Successful exports of Chinese film and television, moreover, are ultimately contingent on institutional reforms within China, which will bring these five growth stages into synergistic alignment in order to generate greater value and industry confidence.”

Wicker, Heidi Sarah
Making a run for the border: should the United States stem runaway film and television production through tax and other financial incentives?

483
It is difficult to pinpoint “how many people are affected by runaway production because of the locomotive nature of the industry.”
“Entertainment executives counter the unions’ argument that the decline in production jobs is due to runaway production, saying that the decline is due to a decrease in the number of films made per year and other efforts to cut costs as above-the-line production costs rise while profit margins fall.”

483f
“Proponents of a petition filed with the Commerce Department in late 2001 supported regulations compelling tariffs equal to the amount of the Canadian subsidy of a particular film or television production to be paid in order for it to be distributed in the United States.”

484
“Other labor groups such as the MPAA, DGA, the International Alliance of Theatrical State Employees (IATSE), and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) opposed countervailing tariffs because a possible trade war could result in the loss of thousands of jobs.”
“The petition was withdrawn in January 2002 without prejudice.”

485
One of the historical benefits of working with a union is that the producing company is assured a certain standard of work and experience, without having to bargain about the workers’ rates and benefits.

486
“Co-productions are beneficial because they decrease the costs for all parties; foreign entities view them as a “vehicle for collaboration with Americans who excel in technical and creative expertise” and, as a result, better equip them to compete with Hollywood.”
partnerships generally permit filmmakers greater creative control than if a major studio were the backer of the film or program.
From the corporate point-of-view, producing in the United States is no longer cost efficient.

486f
“While a higher percentage of Canadian workers are unionized than their United States counterparts, the average wage for below-the-line workers is less than in the United States. Further, the “costs related to the acquisition and production of a movie prior to its release,” so-called “negative costs,” doubled between 1990 and 1999, as did the average distribution costs. Entertainment conglomerates dealt with this reality in the 1990s via vertical integration, layoffs, co-productions and other joint ventures, and by conducting more aggressive market research prior to production and distribution.

487
“”We don’t want to do a TV show in Canada called ‘Pasadena,’ but we can’t justify to our parent company the extra $200,000 per episode it costs to shoot here.”"
Production revenues in British Columbia, where the popular production city of Vancouver is located, were about $1.2 billion in 2000, compared to $43 billion in revenue for California, furthering the Canadians’ argument that their industry is infinitesimal compared to that of the United States.”

491
“The concept of tax credits for labor expenditures has been gaining support amongst legislators and within the entertainment industry.”
Ever since the 1920s [...] the entertainment industry has been largely self-regulated.

495
“North Carolina has consistently ranked as the third highest production center in the country since the mid-1980s.”

498
From the signing of the Declaration of Independence, capitalism has ruled the federal government’s approach to the arts.
“The U.S. government should be cautious in its approach, however, not to favor independent or television productions over high-budget feature films, since in the aggregate, high-budget productions do the most damage when they flee U.S. shores. Federal involvement through retraining and displaced worker assistance programs is the least intrusive option.”
“Accepting that runaway production will occur and dealing with the consequences may be a more prudent approach than trying to direct the economics of the entertainment industry from the outset of production.”

499
In a competitive international marketplace it is neither realistic nor economically practical to completely halt runaway production.

Parker, Rachel
Parenta, Oleg
Explaining contradictions in film and television industry policy: ideas and incremental policy change through layering and drift

1960s

  • Australia needs identity
  • Less connection between Australia and Britain
  • Cultural nationalism
  • High ratio of Australian productions on pay TV

1980s

  • 10BA

Today

  • Free trade agreements all around
  • Lure foreign film production to Australia
  • Low ratio of Australian productions on pay TV
  • PayTV probably overtakes free-to-air TV
  • Policy embraces internationalism

Australian film and TV industry (AFTI) drifts gradually from cultural nationalism to internationalism.

“Australian film and television policy is a case of incremental change through ‘layering’ and ‘drift.’”

The fashion industry is a good example of how things change really quickly and everybody copies and an industry is built around this.
And there is no IP involved whatsoever.

Lotman, Yuri
1992 Russian
2009 (?) English

“Where gradual processes ensure succession, explosive ones ensure innovation.”

“Lotman, here, presents the notion of ‘inspiration’ as the ‘moment of explosion’ as an element which, as stated earlier, is ‘out of time’ and recognisable only in retrospect, at which stage it is no longer viewed as explosive but is framed by its participation in the gradual development of culture.”

“”The state of explosion is characterized by the moment of equalisation of all oppositions. That which is different appears to be the same. This renders possible unexpected leaps into completely different, unpredictable organisational structures. The impossible becomes possible. This moment is experienced out of time, even if, in reality, it stretches across a very wide temporal space. [...] This moment concludes by passing into a state of gradual movement. What was united in one integrated whole is scattered into different (opposing) elements. Although, in fact, there was no selection whatsoever (any substitution was made by chance) the past is retrospectively experienced as a choice and as a goal-oriented action. Here, the laws of the gradual processes of development enter into the fray. They aggressively seize the consciousness of culture and strive to embed the transformed picture into memory. Accordingly, the explosion loses its unpredictability and presents itself as the rapid, energetic or even catastrophic development of all the same predictable processes.“”

“Death is marked out as both the beginning and the end.”

Explosion is part and parcel of linear dynamic processes. He distinguishes between binary and ternary structures, emphasising that explosion in the latter takes the form of a specific form of dynamic, whereas in the latter it permeates the multiple layers of semiotic space at different speeds and different intervals, such that whilst its effects are felt throughout all the layers of culture, traces of the old remain to which the ternary system strives to adapt itself, transporting them from periphery to centre. In binary structures, by contrast, the explosion penetrates life in its entirety, replacing all that previously existed in an apocalyptic manner.”

Let us “look forward … with an eye to the past, and our feet firmly in the present.”

Court, David 2009. Copyright gets it – Both barrels. Lumina (Strawberry Hills, NSW) (1):75-80.

80
“The hearts and minds of the new generation are set against copyright. The copyright industries are losing the war.”

Lucas, Rachael 2009. From here to eternity: what virtual worlds can teach us about creating infinite participant experiences. Lumina (Strawberry Hills, NSW) (1):161-168.

Very interesting but very utopian.

161
“Many screen practitioners I have come across don’t seem to recognise that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between how you construct old media and how you construct new media; that old media is about story arcs, editing to build inference and dramatic connotation and achieving narrative outcomes, whereas new media is largely about a real-time, private, momentary, disposable experience that unfolds in a virtual space.” This is way overgeneralised. The two can be combined => entarch!

163
“Even the so-called leaders in global, virtual world thinking, are still thinking old media. Hence the opportunity for the Australian screen industry. […] Australian screen practitioners just need to get ahead of the game and embrace progress, rather than be determined by it.”
“In a film, we measure our codes of morality and values against what is happening to a character. In a virtual world, we get the cathartic benefits without being put in the line of judgement (whether or to this is a false illusion). We are questioning our own reality.”

164
“[…] in our traditional way of looking at things we have to work with a timeframe, whereas someone could remain engaged in a virtual world forever.” (“That could be a young guy starting at 17 years old and ending at 42!”)
“The new era of vital word is about a conceptual exploration of emotions in more abstract ways. It is about exploration of consciousness. Your mission as a creator is to keep that fantasy going. This is based on the relationships your participants find within that world. The basic journey is of participants forming relationships and developing confidence to becoming a mentor or even a collaborative designer.
If audiences are both beneficiary and creator, the virtual world producer is the facilitator, the town planner – it’s a totally different role. You’re centre management. It’s customer service. The creative element is in setting up the next project: what its conceptual design and machinations will be. You want to get to a point with your brand where it can be licensed and sold off, to support your other brandable entities. Filmmakers will do best to think of each business as one aspect of a greater brand.
The six key principles of virtual worlds are shared space, persistence of world, immediacy, interactivity, a graphical user interface (GUI) and the encouragement of communities.The Big Brother house shares all six key principles but, again, from the point of view of the Big Brother participant. The unique experience of each contestant is their “ego journey”, as they experience self growth. But someone self-evolving in real time makes for rather uninteresting TV viewing for the rest of us, so we rely upon the edited highlights.”

165
“In fact, Reality TV is perhaps the closest example of an ego’s journey, although the editing, dramatic musical inferences, “highlights” packages and competitive “winner” outcomes tend to make it lean towards an audience friendly “hero’s journey”. It is still about structuring a passive, prescribed story which builds dramatic point cliff hangers to ad breaks. The Ego’s Journey in the virtual world is more private. There is no audience.” Not sure that’s true.
“There is much that can be learnt from the virtual paradigm in terms of screen content. Films don’t have to be films anymore. The notion of three acts, 90 minutes, does not keep up with the next level of internet customisation already being enacted out there in society every day.” I only partly agree. Film will continue to exist.
“If Johnny Rocku becomes enough of a presence to become a film, so be it but that shouldn’t be the starting point. This is a fundamental conceptual problem.
Filmmakers need to think of themselves as a brand first that has multiple slate of projects under that theme. Once you are established and have a core following you can branch out.

166
“The reason I prefer to talk about brand is that it has longevity far beyond 90 minutes. Disney, for example, does not have a beginning, middle of end. Disney will go on forever.” “A child will form relationships and an identity with Disney for as long as he or she desires it. That’s his or her journey. Until eventually he or she grows out of it. It’s not about imposing a story within that space but rather gives it enough interest to sustain participants creating their own journeys there.”
“I’m starting to think that social communication is entertainment.” Of course it is.

167
“There is also a need to design for different personality types: some people seek socialisation, some seek a sense of control, some want to nurture and some just want to blow things up! And the one person can go through many different phases. The whole system of designing the virtual world is about human psychology and how people relate to each other at various stages of their own evolution.”

168
“What does the age of ego-centricity do to character arcs?”
“In this new frontier of filmmaking, I’d like to inspire Australian screen practitioners to take a unified approach, to redraft policies together and rethink conceptually the future framework of our ideas. “Who am I?” is, after all, the oldest question on the planet.”