C@LAg said:

---

azulAg said:

---

no time to die, but tomorrow never dies, so you'll just have to die another day

---

so much fail since you left out live and let die

---

and Today is Never Yesterday:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzvktk

Drones have got to be giving filmmakers so many great options these days.

https://theplaylist.net/bob-iger-james-bond-disney-20191211/

Even though there was early resistance when both deals were announced, Star Wars and Marvel made sense under Disney. This, however, would make no sense at all. Granted, Disney now has 20th Century Fox, and they would no doubt place this under the 20th Century Fox umbrella, but still. No thanks.

Responses as I expected

Nobody is forcing them to submit. Plus I would assume they'll pay whoever they pick.

Lol, that comment section is quite the pitchfork mob.

I still don't see the problem. You could just not submit and go on with your day...

Sure, you can obviously choose not to participate, but it's more about a corporation *asking* for free work with only the prospect of participants getting paid. That, and the fact that they're asking for free advertising work doesn't help either. So I at least get where these people are coming from.

Same, I get it, but some of these are really overly dramatic. Especially telling other artists not to submit. Not everyone might have a problem with working on something just as a fun side project without expecting compensation.

True.

Fair.

TCTTS said:

---

Sure, you can obviously choose not to participate, but it's more about a corporation *asking* for free work with only the prospect of participants getting paid. That, and the fact that they're asking for free advertising work doesn't help either. So I at least get where these people are coming from.

---

You think it's a sign of corporations becoming more exploitative, or just modern day access to technologies devaluing graphic design work in general? I'm not knowledgeable at all on graphic design, but if it's anything like photography, the invention of the iPhone has made everyone an amateur photographer. Similar to how the camera put a lot of painters out of business.

Is technology just making the graphic design field more accessible to more people, so you have people that need the work bad enough that they will do work for free in hopes they get paid on the back end?

fig96 said:

---

While you're not wrong, it's kind of a bigger picture problem hence the backlash.

You get young designers submitting to things like this and slowly undervaluing themselves, and as they start doing more paid work they undercharge. In turn that starts to devalue design work as a whole till you get to the point where clients don't see any real value in design because they think it should be free or insanely cheap.

Not trying to argue, just conveying the perspective of someone in the industry.

---

Sounds like y'all should form a guild. Work less, make more.

Champ Bailey said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Sure, you can obviously choose not to participate, but it's more about a corporation *asking* for free work with only the prospect of participants getting paid. That, and the fact that they're asking for free advertising work doesn't help either. So I at least get where these people are coming from.

---

You think it's a sign of corporations becoming more exploitative, or just modern day access to technologies devaluing graphic design work in general? I'm not knowledgeable at all on graphic design, but if it's anything like photography, the invention of the iPhone has made everyone an amateur photographer. Similar to how the camera put a lot of painters out of business.

Is technology just making the graphic design field more accessible to more people, so you have people that need the work bad enough that they will do work for free in hopes they get paid on the back end?

---

You hit on some of it for sure. Kind of like how many SAHMs are now "photographers"

Technology has definitely made things more accessible, and that absolutely will put some designers out of business or needing to get better or specialize at what they do. For a small business website, for example, something like Squarespace will probably accommodate the needs of what most will need for their first website. That doesn't mean they understand content or organization of a site or branding their business, but it might be a good value for them starting out.

What many don't take into account doing something like that, however, is that they still need content and photos and everything else that goes into a website, not to mention taking the time to learn how to do it (because even a drag and drop setup takes a bit to figure out). So sure, they absolutely could build their own site, but is investing that time and effort into really good investment when they could otherwise be doing marketing, sales, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

There's also sites like 99designs that let you create a brief and bid out a design contest (for lack of a better term) and have designers submit work with the entry of the client's choice getting paid. And while that sounds great, you often end up with either stolen logos or clipart It also discounts a lot of the value working with an good designer brings. Sure, you want a cool logo, but does that logo adequately convey the brand you're trying to portray? Have you really even defined your brand values? Does the logo work in one color for t-shirts and polos? Does it read at small scales? Is it adaptable for other uses and formats? And do you really know what you should be asking for to start with? The idea of getting a bunch of logos sounds great, but it's really more deciding it you want to pay 50 designers for 15 minutes of their time or one designer for 15 hours of their time.

And yes, you do have young designers who are desperate and/or don't know better offering work for free, making deals based on "exposure", or doing the first one for free with the promise of another project coming down the pipe. Spoiler: that pretty much never works out in the designer's favor.

Sorry for the novel

TCTTS,

So I've actually done quite a bit of research from YouTube to Access Hollywood to God forbid CNN Entertainment after you gave me an ass chewing about prejudging this film.

And it turns out, I was right. It's gonna suck. It's going to be a feminist piece of garbage and a shameful end to Kraigs tenure as Bond. You were wrong.

I love ya TCTTS, despite your funneling your rage at conservatives toward me.


And you should know something TCTTS, my name wasn't always PaulSimonsGhost. It use to be AlphaCharlieUniformAggie. I liked that name.

You know why I had to change it? Because of the hit my reputation took in Forum 16 after defending YOU. You specifically and the rest of the Entertainment Board


SO remember that next time you want to RIP me a new ass hole for expressing views different than yours.

https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/2955507/replies/51931587#51931587

fig96 said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Sure, you can obviously choose not to participate, but it's more about a corporation *asking* for free work with only the prospect of participants getting paid. That, and the fact that they're asking for free advertising work doesn't help either. So I at least get where these people are coming from.

---

You think it's a sign of corporations becoming more exploitative, or just modern day access to technologies devaluing graphic design work in general? I'm not knowledgeable at all on graphic design, but if it's anything like photography, the invention of the iPhone has made everyone an amateur photographer. Similar to how the camera put a lot of painters out of business.

Is technology just making the graphic design field more accessible to more people, so you have people that need the work bad enough that they will do work for free in hopes they get paid on the back end?

---

You hit on some of it for sure. Kind of like how many SAHMs are now "photographers"

Technology has definitely made things more accessible, and that absolutely will put some designers out of business or needing to get better or specialize at what they do. For a small business website, for example, something like Squarespace will probably accommodate the needs of what most will need for their first website. That doesn't mean they understand content or organization of a site or branding their business, but it might be a good value for them starting out.

What many don't take into account doing something like that, however, is that they still need content and photos and everything else that goes into a website, not to mention taking the time to learn how to do it (because even a drag and drop setup takes a bit to figure out). So sure, they absolutely could build their own site, but is investing that time and effort into really good investment when they could otherwise be doing marketing, sales, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

There's also sites like 99designs that let you create a brief and bid out a design contest (for lack of a better term) and have designers submit work with the entry of the client's choice getting paid. And while that sounds great, you often end up with either stolen logos or clipart It also discounts a lot of the value working with an good designer brings. Sure, you want a cool logo, but does that logo adequately convey the brand you're trying to portray? Have you really even defined your brand values? Does the logo work in one color for t-shirts and polos? Does it read at small scales? Is it adaptable for other uses and formats? And do you really know what you should be asking for to start with? The idea of getting a bunch of logos sounds great, but it's really more deciding it you want to pay 50 designers for 15 minutes of their time or one designer for 15 hours of their time.

And yes, you do have young designers who are desperate and/or don't know better offering work for free, making deals based on "exposure", or doing the first one for free with the promise of another project coming down the pipe. Spoiler: that pretty much never works out in the designer's favor.

Sorry for the novel

---

No I appreciate the post. I want to make sure I'm not coming across as degrading the value of graphic design or thinking its "worthless."


It would be interesting to see, now that we nearly two decades worth of data of the social media/digital era, the average amount someone in the entertainment industry makes compared to before, as well as the total demand for these services.

Using music as an example, every big artist likes to complain how they don't make as much as they would have if Spotify and other streaming services didn't exist. I wonder though how many total artists are now able to make a living in the music industry because of these streaming services. My point being that Spotify allowing them to be able to share their music more easily and build a fan base means more artists are successful and more distinct genres are created because of the technology.

If that is the case, then I would have to think that Netflix and the other video streaming services are doing the same thing. Someone at any point of the business pipeline might not be making as much per show/movie as they would have in the cable/movie theatre era, but the amount of shows/movies out there is much higher than it was before they existed.

Or maybe I'm talking out my ass and what I'm discussing doesn't apply to you at all.

TCTTS said:

---

---

Yeah, dude, just read the link to the post from 2018 and feel guilty so then we can go back to being amiable cyber buddies again.

You ripped me for my projection of Bond being Charlie's Angels (2019) part 2.

It was a week ago and has been bugging me.

With four months until the movie's release - a movie literally no one has seen yet - I don't see how you can possibly be so confident in that claim, but whatever. I like you, but based on your posting history here, you clearly have a flare for sensationalism, along with an ax to grind with Hollywood. And for the record, I don't have "conservative rage." Far from it. My entire family is hard core conservative and I, personally, am a fiscal conservative who wants the government no where near my money, business, etc. I'm more liberal when it comes to certain social issues, sure, but more than anything I simply can't stand the endless b*tching about the Hollywood "agenda" on this board. That's it.

TCTTS said:

---

With four months until the movie's release - a movie literally no one has seen yet - I don't see how you can possibly be so confident in that claim, but whatever. I like you, but based on your posting history here, you clearly have a flare for sensationalism, along with an ax to grind with Hollywood. And for the record, I don't have "conservative rage." Far from it. My entire family is hard core conservative and I, personally, am a fiscal conservative who wants the government no where near my money, business, etc. I'm more liberal when it comes to certain social issues, sure, but more than anything I simply can't stand the endless b*tching about the Hollywood "agenda" on this board. That's it.

---

Look, I believe in the agenda. But I know you don't. So I try really hard no to mention it.

So the agenda talk, it's not coming from me. That's coming from other posters.

The Feminist agenda talk? That comes from Elizebeth Banks, Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson which I think should make it fair game.

Besides, you're a brilliant man. We both know this.


Phoebe Waller-Bridge is co writter.


You can't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7702085/amp/Naomie-Harris-reveals-female-characters-No-Time-Die-drive-plot-forward.html

Naomie Harris reveals No Time To Die has 'four strong, intelligent women driving the plot' as she addresses claims of the most 'woke' Bond ever

THE SPY WHO RESPECTED ME James Bond will be turned into a '#metoo feminist icon' thanks to feisty Bond girls and Fleabag writer Phoebe Waller-Bridge

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8942445/james-bond-feminist-icon-fleabag-phoebe-waller-bridge/amp/

Phoebe Waller-Bridge wants to 'sneak' her signature feminist humour into James Bond script

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/phoebe-waller-bridge-wants-sneak-signature-feminist-humour-james-bond-script-10099061/amp/

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I believe it does, but only to an extent, and not nearly the extent a handful you and others here claim. Further, I think that sometimes you and others misinterpret good intentions for insidious behavior, and blow it all WAY out of proportion in ways that only serve to damage to your "cause" or whatever you want to call it. Mainly, though, I just hate that *talk* of "the agenda" is so widespread here. Because it permeates and ruins so many threads/conversations. And I know the defense is, "Well, if Hollywood would stop shoving it down our throats, we wouldn't bring it up so much." And I get that, I do. But the difference is that we have no control over Hollywood, yet we DO have control over what we let derail thread after thread on this board. This doesn't *have* to be some big group political venting session day after day. As always, I'm more than willing to talk politics when the movie or show requires it, like with Watchmen or Richard Jewell as of late. I've said this a million times, it just gets old when a movie like this is still months away, we have ZERO context for how this whole 007 thing is going to go down, and yet certain people actively chose to lose their minds, as if Hillary Clinton herself wrote and directed this thing. Put simply, my main request, as always, is to just chill a bit 'til we know exactly what this is - and everything else of this potential ilk - before flying off the handle.

Okay.

I'm cool.

I like you too much to argue and that second Jack and Coke with 4 fingers is kicking in pretty hard.


You know who would make a good Jsmes Bond?


****ing Sponge Bob Square Pants.

I'm as serious as dick cancer. I've seen him do English accents and that muther****er is legit.

GIG'EM

Too Close Too The Source