>In an interview at the Cannes Film Festival, Spielberg told Reuters that virtual reality is a “dangerous medium” that could take hold in a profound way,” the news site reports.
>"The only reason I say it is dangerous is because it gives the viewer a lot of latitude not to take direction from the storytellers but make their own choices of where to look," he said in an interview.
>"I just hope it doesn't forget the story when it starts enveloping us in a world that we can see all around us and make our own choices of what to look at."
https://www.inverse.com/article/15867-steven-spielberg-thinks-virtual-reality-is-a-dangerous-medium-for-film
Why is he so threatened by creative mediums?
Who?
>>69725414
>old man yells at clouds
alternatively
>video killed the radio star
I agree that a good VR movie should be made differently than a normal one, though.
At least it's not as hypocritical as that time he complained it was hard to make movies with original stories in the current climate.
>>69725414
Because he looks a generation or two into the future and sees his two-dimensional work being as primitive to young people as cave drawings.
I understand his angst. Getting old wildo that. It'll happen to us, too. If we live to be so old.
>>69725414
I guess he's got a point. Artistic direction could get diluted if the viewer can look anywhere they want. But it opens a lot of new opportunities as well, there's lots of creative stuff you could do with a 360 degree image. I don't see VR catching on with mainstream movies though, a flat screen that a group of people can sit down and watch with no peripherals is so much more convenient.
He's right. The difference between film and literature is that a filmmaker gets to control what an audience sees.
Virtual reality is more in line with a theme park ride.
power hungry jew wants you to look where he wants you to look
pay your ticket. buy some popcorn and look where i tell you
no thanks jewish faggot. based red pilled poster here ama
>>69725414
>it gives the viewer a lot of latitude not to take direction from the storytellers but make their own choices of where to look
So just the same as stage plays?
I think VR will kill film, so I understand Spielberg's position. If the audience has a choice between a format where they have to confront and engage someone else's expression and a format where they can fuck around they will go with the latter because it's easier and more pleasant. VR, like information technology in general, is a tool that enables people to shut out everything they don't agree with or care about.
>>69725414
>jews butthurt that nonjews are in control of hollywood now
top kuck
>>69725414
>old man yells at cloud
You're gonna ruin the visual language of cinema if you let people look where they want.
Fucking plebs don't understand cinema and think they can improve it with gimmicks.
>>69725595
+10 cents was deposited into your steven spielberg shill account
>>69725414
VR is just the new 3D technology that isnt ready yet at all. It's a gimmick that adds nothing real beyond eye strain, is fun for a few minutes 'wow!' experience but cannot be used for anything comprehensive.
In 40 years if its more immersive and they find a way for you to be able to walk around without being blocked every 2 steps or with a controller in your hand then it will be great.
But i used a VR set for some basically on rails zombie shooter and using a controller for most movement and just your head for peering around feels alien and nauseating.
>>69725557
No, because there are just big enclosing walls and other spectators facing forward sitting next to you in a theatre. A virtual world would be a lot more distracting.
Which is true. But this is where Steven's age catches up to him.
anyone who's played GTA or any such game knows how quickly you get tired of just running around randomly stealing cars and shooting people up and shit. It would be the same with movies. The VR environment might be big and realistic, and you might have a lot of freedom to better simulate the experience of actually being in the story- but it would be made to be boring, and even if it wasn't you'd still get bored of it.
There would be VR porn by then so you certainly wouldn't be getting distracted by some VR extra.
You'd just follow the narrative and pay attention to the "actors" and events, because that's what would be most fun.
He's kinda right, you know. Film as we know it could be made obsolete as soon as we introduce the viewer as an actor and not just a spectator of the story
>>69725414
Because he knows VR will surpass movies.
>>69725667
> anyone who's played GTA or any such game knows how quickly you get tired of just running around randomly stealing cars and shooting people up and shit
t. someone who hasn't played IV or V. The main game of V was total shit, but you could play for hours just fucking around on the street.
>>69725688
Literally only people who don't go outside in real life to gang bang do that, mate.
>>69725595
>Fucking plebs don't understand cinema
Pretty much, most people probably see film as some kind of primitive form of virtual reality that was always meant to be replaced with updated technology. Like people who ask "what's the point of paintings now that we have cameras lol?". There's no understanding or appreciation of the art of what film IS.
I can't believe so called geniuses like Spielbeg didn't think of that sooner. Video games have existed as a storytelling medium for what, 30 years now? He should've expected something like this would happen at some point
>>69725672
Interactive movies have existed for a while.
They're mostly shit.
>>69725704
I dont gang bang though.
>>69725414
In a well made video-game, the director of the game WILL control what the player sees and does. Gamers are mostly predictable.
>>69725414
I agree, and hate this era.
Shitty technology has to change every 2 seconds.
>>69725710
But what actually is the point of paintings now lol. They used to try portray something as closely as possible and cameras have invalidated all of that. With smartphones literally everyone is a picasso, and you can even use the snapchat drawings if you really want to make it arty for whatever reason.
>>69725717
Shit like that (360 movies, interactive movies) have also existed for fucking 30 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futuroscope
It won't be classed as "film" though. VR is an entity to itself and there won't be any full length features. There'll just be 5-10 minute "experiences". It's not a challenge to film and tv any more than it's an evolution. It's new and it's crap.
>>69725786
of course I'd forget the pic
>>69725786
> Fagoscope remotely comparable to Oculus Rift
>>69725572
VR will not kill movies.
Movies haven't killed books.
It will just be another form of media.
>>69725526
>Virtual reality is more in line with a theme park ride.
Actually it's the other way around. Movies are more in line with a theme park ride because you don't get to control what you see. You're pretty much stuck on the ride that's made for you.
>>69725802
> 'experiences'
> 'sexual experiences'
> porn
For a visionary I'm surprised by his comments. VR could completely revolutionise entertainment, yet he wants to remain in the past? Cmon dude.
>>69725833
Speak for yourself, every time i see a horror movie i just look in the bottom corner to avoid jump scares.
>>69725775
>They used to try portray something as closely as possible
Dude no. You're conflating a particular movement with the entire artform.
>>69725841
His prostate is probably inflamed.
>>69725815
The storytelling is similar, tardo.
>>69725841
He joined pic related in the circle of directors that were completely left behind by their respective media and turned bitter as a result.
>>69725866
t. salty
>>69725414
But videogames invalidated film as a medium decades ago? Hence why the games industry is worth far more than films, they've been dying out since the 70s.
>>69725890
If I wait long enough will you post a real argument?
>>69725414
>watch a spielberg interview
>he sounds like that governor that got shot in the head
What's wrong with him?
>>69725854
Yea, but you didn't get to choose when or if there was going to be a jumpscare. That was already preset.
>>69725841
VR won't replace film or even the most entertainment-focused flicks, it's more of a side genre or its own concept.
>>69725914
> Waste my time arguing with a gayboy
> Don't waste my time arguing with a little gayboy
Hmm what a hard choice
>>69725923
I choose whether to shit my pants.
vr is retarded and it's gonna die out like it already has countless times
>>69725775
>They used to try portray something as closely as possible and cameras have invalidated all of that. With smartphones literally everyone is a picasso,
>associating Picasso with realism
Just stop.
>>69725927
My one night stand won't replace gf or even the wife, it's more of a side chick or its own event.
See what shitty logic you have?
>>69725984
He's right though...and you don't make any sense. Even if you were remotely attractive to women and these hypothetical people existed what does your analogy prove?
>>69725927
how can you say that with such certainty? You are not looking far enough bro, VR is gonna be HUGE.
>>69725542
yeah fuck the jews!, now lets see need a 900 dollar headset, a decent PC
>>69725977
I dont know his art but i assume he drew things like fields and people like everyone else to sell them to kings. Well that's antiquated and passed out of time, just like film might eventually.
>>69725977
To be fair early Picasso did realism
>>69726029
>>69726047
And then he stopped and started painting.
>>69725975
ignorant point of view
>>69726020
How can you say *that* with such certainty?
>>69726017
The point is that it is damaging, the time you spend in VR is time you can't be spending with film or tv (gf), that's money you aren't spending with them. It's like buying drinks for the side chick but then having to miss a holiday with film (wife) because you dont have the cash.
The wife will probably get bored of your shit and will go sleep with some arty fuck who pretends to understand her, so you get less blockbusters.
>>69725984
Unless your gf or wife disappears because you have a one night stand you're comparison makes no sense.
Terrible analogy.
I'm not that guy but what he meant was that it will be like something between games and movies. Games didn't kill movies and neither will VR. It's a totally new concept.
The fact that you don't get this means you're probably retarded.
>>69726047
There you go so i was right, as fucking per.
>>69725414
VR has no chance for movies.
Or at least it wont work for most people
The thing with VR is that YOU choose where you are looking at.
And if you cant choose where to look at, your brain will go nuts.
>no more goat tier shots, because you looked from the wrong angle
>missing story relevant details, because you prefered looking at the tits of the girl behind you.
VR is for videogames and medicine
AV is for marketing and product design
2D is for film
3D is for flicks
>>69726078
How is a 10 minute VR experience going to compare with a 2.5 hr cinema one?
>>69726078
Is that really a bad thing?
If all the plebs move on to the next meme media, it could help separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of movies Hollywood produces.
>>69726094
Not that anon but my gf left after she had a one night stand so his comparison isnt too bad.
>>69726078
>The point is that it is damaging, the time you spend in VR is time you can't be spending with film or tv (gf), that's money you aren't spending with them.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. You understand that VR can be shared right?
You and your gf can enter a virtual world with VR goggles and create your own little paradise.
Fuck off retard, go back to preschool.
>>69725414
It might be because he's jewish but Spielberg seems like a pedo
>>69726099
You're trying too hard, nobody believes you're actually this dumb anon.
>>69726115
Yea, but she didn't DISAPPEAR right?
Books didn't disappear when movies were starting to get made. In fact there are more book writers now than there ever were before movies were made.
It's stupid and everyone thinking VR will kill movies is retarded.
It's like saying Fanta or Sprite will kill Coke.
>>69726123
So you are saying my analogy is even more right then? Because of course VR (one night stand) can be shared, you can do whatever the fuck you want on a one night stand, and the girl is probably a slut desu.
Even more apt is the fact that VR is so expensive you probably even share the headset around, making it more of a prostitute even than a one night stand.
>>69726158
So thread theme?
https://youtu.be/W8r-tXRLazs
>>69725414
>"The only reason I say it is dangerous is because I'm old."
Fix'd
>>69726158
My ex is fucking more people now than she ever was when we were together.
>>69725775
>this whole post
Fucking underage primate
>>69726185
Probably this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyCOZG9pZQw
>>69726163
>share the headset around, making it more of a prostitute even than a one night stand.
Wow, you don't have many friends have you?
If you play games on the console with a couple of friends you're going to pass around the gamepads. So fucking what?
How is this prostitution?
> Because of course VR (one night stand) can be shared
Movies are shared by the hundreds when you go to the theater. Does that make it a gangbang?
Fucking retard.
>>69726249
Everyone has a different angle on the screen so its like a gangbang i guess, but where you each have a girl.
VR is literally just lining up to have the same experience so its like running a train on a slut. But you dont own the slut, your friend does so its just being whored out.
SPIELBERG IS NOT JOKING GUYS.
VR IS SERIOUS FUCKING DANGEROUS SHIT.
DON'T FALL FOR IT YOU SHEEPLE
Film will never be obsolete because people want to watch the product of an artist, not make the art themselves, because they are lazy and also shit artists.
It's like those cook your own steak joints. I go to a restaurant because I want someone else to make my food and serve it to me, not make my own.
VR will be a passing fad. Video games will evolve in VR, they will NOT replace film. Mark my words.
I think this thread might have the most forced comparisons I've ever seen.
I feel like I'm watching a conversation between the Clerk characters, but not in a good way.
>>69726103
I agree, I don't know why people are suggesting VR is for film. It makes more sense in other areas like gaming, education and stuff we haven't even thought of. VR will expand though, and it'll include various forms of entertainment.
VR movies will so fucking bad.
video games have been trying to tell stories that the user can control and direct for decades now. they're all so fucking bad and lacking.
VR movies will be no different.
>>69726300
>Everyone has a different angle on the screen so its like a gangbang i guess, but where you each have a girl.
YOU EACH HAVE THE SAME FUCKING GIRL
You can't be this retarded, can you?
>VR is literally just lining up to have the same experience
Every VR experience is different the same way every game of GTA V you play will be different.
You don't understand or want to understand what the fuck you're talking about. You're ridiculously retarded and I'm done lowering myself to your level.
Please, do the world a favor and kill yourself.
>>69726400
He shouldn't kill himself, the entertainment industry needs people like him to suck up all that they throw at him.
>>69726400
So you are just admitting you cant continue the argument?
> Hurr im done in this debate
Yeah, you are done. Roasted.
>>69725775
great b8 m8 i audibly kek't
>>69726343
>using clerks as a reference
This a pleb board for capeshit and star wars
True VR, or Lucid Dreaming you could control are to dangerous for humanity. No one would ever leave, or wake up. Nukes, and biologically/natural disasters isn't' what will cause our end, but our own reality.
It would be interesting to see how they could tell a story in a 360 VR environment. Cut scenes every now and then like games?
>>69727470
A VR environment that would serve as a movie would be one continuous cut scene.
A VR environment with interaction could have some cut scenes but it would be a game more than it would be a movie.
>>69727342
>No one would ever leave, or wake up.
Bullshit. People would still need a job, food, sleep, etc.
It's like saying that people that go on a vacation would never return because they are having too much fun.
>>69725749
>modern technology
>is shitty
Kek
I don't really see how it could work. You would have to make the movie a continuous shot or risk disorienting people every 5 seconds.
Even if you did manage to get something like Russian Ark in VR, it would be like a theme park ride. People would get frustrated they can look sideways and see a closed door but never know what's behind it.
I think it only works for video games because you can explore and not have to worry about cutting.
Speilberg seems like he is just bitching to bitch. You could apply his logic to any new medium or invention of the last 100 years and it would make fuck all sense
>movies will kill books
>cars will kill transportation and bring chaos (something ppl actually believed)
It's always something new that is gonna kill it all and threaten art
Then it doesn't
>>69727637
Don't see how it could work either. Say you're in a VR room, people in front of you are talking. You look to the left for a second at a lamp and miss something important, like one character out of nowhere shooting the other one. Then the next scene takes place outside, so what, you have to follow the characters outside to see what they're doing and hear what they're saying? That's just a video game.
What would be better is a screen or a headset or something that encompasses the whole field of vision, and a movie plays and you just watch it.
>>69725414
Threatened? Where in his statement does he sound threatened? Merely observational.
>>69725854
>tfw I turn then volume down low and then rewind after the jumpscare
>>69725414
Fuck this kike
>>69725414
OY VEY THE GOYIM CAN CHOOSE TO AVOID HAVING PROPAGANDA SHOVED DOWN THIER THROATS
SHUT IT DOWN!!
>>69729140
>>69729178
Good posts, /pol/
>>69729211
I hate him since yesterday, after i saw what he wrote about based Mel
>>69727555
>People would still need a job
Automation says hello.
>>69729288
Nice meme
>>69727854
>Where in his statement does he sound threatened?
He calls VR "dangerous" and goes on to say that it's dangerous to storytellers because they won't get to chart their audiences on a prefixed, preconceived idea of what the story is supposed to be. The marriage of calling it dangerous and then saying (essentially) dangerous for people like him does have a hint of panic.
When I first started reading it, I thought he was going to say it's dangerous because people will want to quit their jobs and neglect their families in order to live in fake worlds. But, no. It's dangerous because "I can't tell my story!"
>>69725507
>Artistic direction could get diluted if the viewer can look anywhere they want.
Don't you think it's fairly arrogant and questionable to whine about how you can't transfix the audience to experience exactly what you want them to?
>>69729288
Entertainment will be automated? Ok. Nice. I didn't know machines could relate to human emotion.
Fucktard. There will always be jobs.
>>69729435
True artists should be arrogant
>>69729477
>Spielberg
>artist
topkek
>>69729514
(u)
Sounds like he's butthurt because vr won't allow him to as efficiently manipulate the audience. Seriously I can't watch any of his films anymore because the emotional pornography is so overt.
>>69725810
European "architecture"
>>69725667
There will be that one VR porn movie where they did that absolutely perfect kitchen with that uncannily detailed view out of the window, though.
>>69729387
He implies it's dangerous because it threatens to take film down a path where story can't be maintained and so will devolve further into mindless drivel that only tickles the senses.
>>69725667
You're talking about interaction. That isn't cinema, that is a video game.
