Film Making Believability Is Often Wiser Than Accuracy and Unfortunately

Sometimes I am blown away by the political correctness of the socialist elite in Hollywood. They tell us that we shouldn't stereotype, that we should live and let live, and that everyone is equal, and not to pick on any group or segment of our population. For that, I do concur, however I am upset because I see so much hypocrisy going on in Hollywood. Specifically, in the filmmaking industry, so let me explain, because this is not only a critique of the folks in Hollywood, but more so our entire population, as so many are unable to see through the fog of society's entertainment.
It seems that all too often to make a film believable, these movies have token stereotypes which fit the general overall perception of our public. One might ask if we are not perpetuating the stereotypes in doing so, and then condemning people for adopting those stereotypes into their belief systems. I was discussing this not long ago with a gentleman who was getting his degree in filmmaking, and we got into a lively debate, although we were pretty much on the same wavelength. He told me it was funny, because while you need artistic creativity, you also have to appeal to the audience's beliefs.
If you don't, they won't like the movie, and they won't tell their friends to go see it, and therefore it will be a bomb or a bust. I explained to him that accuracy is quite important as well, and while he agreed, he also explained that if the movie doesn't make money, those screenplay writers, directors, and movie producers won't be able to produce anything else in the future. He explained that the movie industry is quite harsh in many regards.
He explained to me that the trick was to put in the various stereotypes, but have a storyline which went behind the scenes, and told of the differences behind the stereotype, in other words on the surface the stereotype was there true enough, but behind the scenes was a real person, albeit a character in the film, which wasn't like the stereotype that all. He said that was hard to do, but he had those sorts of scenarios in each and every film that he had ever produced while working with his friends on projects at the film school. In fact, they have one which should be ready for the next Palm Springs Film Festival coming up.
You see, it's hard to change people's minds and belief systems, and you have to make your film believable, which is actually more important to its success than accuracy. Therein lies the rub, and the challenge for all good filmmakers. It was so great to talk to him and get his perspective, because now I understand what they are dealing with, and how much impact the art of filmmaking has on our population. Please consider all this and think on it.

Film Making With Immortal Virtual Images of Historical Actors

Due to the incredible new software available it is now possible to make a movie without the actual actor. The software can look at the actor in various scenes, and those working in the editing room can control the actor on a digital basis. Once that is completed a hologram can be made, and it can interact with the actual actors who were on the scene, or put into a scene with various objects. Okay so let's talk about this shall we?
We have the capability to take Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, and any other past actor and put them into a scene as if they were real today. We can make a brand-new movie with these actors wearing clothes of this present period, and it will look as real as if they were there. We are talking about filmmaking with immortal virtual images of historical actors. Yes, there are issues with this having to do with the "likeness" and copyrights. Still, many of the families of these former actors would be happy to release their likenesses considering the amount of money involved.
It also means that very famous actors such as Tom Cruise can produce several movies at the same time. They could actually be filming in one movie, and their likeness is being used in four others at the same time through digital editing. Perhaps he might get $30 million for doing one movie, and only 4 or 5 million for the movie which has licensed the copyrights to his likeness, with final editing cut privileges either from himself, or his agent. Can you see how that might work out?
A few months ago, I was in Beverly Hills at a Starbucks there near Rodeo Drive. I was talking to a young USC film school grad student about all this. I told him I wonder who will pick up the Academy Award the first time one of these films using an immortal virtual image wins an award for best actor. Will they have a hologram come up to the podium to make the speech? A hologram cannot pick up the Academy Award above their head and thank the crowd. The hologram could mimic what could be construed as an authentic speech, but holograms can't lift objects, at least not yet.
Indeed this is such an intriguing topic for the future of filmmaking, not to mention all the legal issues having to do with intellectual property, likenesses, copyright, future patented technologies, and so on that perhaps we need to talk about this more as time progresses forward because these technologies are nearly upon us. Please consider all this and think on it.