Why it isn't worth getting into mainstream cinema anymore than it is today.

Getting into mainstream cinema was a big deal for an aspiring creative practitioner at one point in the past. It meant that either a production company, producer, a talent agent or a manager discovered you or you constantly had to go around and knock on their doors like some sort of an obsessed maniac until someone gave you the time of day or by some pure luck of the Irish to be discovered. However, the way things are headed in this day and age, be it all the cost cutting decathlons, I wouldn't hold my breath. Pretty soon, AI might be taking the place of a lot of the gatekeepers and this might make that even tougher for an aspiring creative practitioner to be discovered, given the fact that AI could be programmed to go through criteria that is often impossible to meet.

Overreliance on unqualified critics:

There is a lot of overreliance on critics who is by far more times than one, unqualified to make any credible criticisms of a creative practitioner's work from the get go. Granted that a producer or a show runner would want an ROI of the breakeven cost of a production + 30%, and considering the time and effort that is needed to develop an idea, a lot of them resort to taking the easy way out and a part of that would be to rely heavily on critics that do not have a background in film or TV production. A lot of times, these critics offer criticisms that sound smart, but in actuality, isn't. These critics are more about destructive criticism rather than being constructive. The only ones that are worth listening to or taking advice from are the established critics who do not have a god complex. If these so called 'critics' are supposed to take place of the average Joey to help decide whether an idea being developed is commercially viable or not, they aren't doing a very good job of it.

Sticking to a recycled formula:

The 'roll your eyes' kind of stick to the formula mentality applied to most of the movies produced through the decades and in recent years with all the book adaptations, the remakes and the reboots speaks volumes. Luckily, there are a handful of production companies and or producers or show runners that are taking the risk when a fresh idea comes across their eyes. The stick to the formula kind of movie production may also be a contributing factor for utilizing unqualified critics to safeguard the industry practice. At some point, we the average Joeys may be getting sick and tired of this type of movie production, leading to the gradual gravitation towards independent productions.

The ridiculous mantra and daily production schedule being followed:

When I was still in film school learning the filmmaking craft or fine tuning it, I quickly discovered that you are allowed to work a maximum of 12 hours a day in a production set and that there are productions that would easily take advantage of this. This leaves you little to no time for yourself or to unwind properly. You are expected to be on call at any time of the day no matter where you are or what you are doing at that time of the day the call comes through. I remember one perverted producer telling me (and I quote): "You can't have days off unless you are a hot girl", which was borderline disgusting and perverted. Also, the industry is infected with the saying: "If you're early, you're on time, and if you're on time, you're late." Personally, I found this to be not only ridiculous, it should have no impact on the quality of the work or the work itself that is produced that yields the finished product. You also sometimes get treated like you do not exist or verbal abuse is thrown at you for not trying hard enough. For this reason, independent productions are far better.

Do not be fooled by the celebrities and their facade of fame and fortune as what is happening behind the scenes suggests that the juice may not be worth the squeeze anymore for aspiring creative practitioners and screenwriters alike.

What is an acceptable cost for consumables when using writing tools and your printing equipment?

Buying and using your equipment is one thing, but as soon as you start factoring any operational or maintenance costs, they tend to add up to a significant amount. A lot of us make the mistake of adding in what it costs to operate or maintain our writing instruments or printing equipment into the cost of ownership and conclude that the new figure is in fact the true cost of ownership. However, this will not be the subject of discussion in this article. The focus is on the question on what is the acceptable cost of operation of the printing equipment or writing instrument after we have acquired it to make it worthwhile the initial investment. In other words, what would be a reasonable price to pay to use given a lot of times, equipment manufacturers will discourage us consumers to purchase competing brand or manufacturer's supplies so that the equipment manufacturers get the best benefit from the deal?

To help us decide, I've included a list options to choose from (expressed in percentage form). I'd like you to note that the amounts mentioned below are calculations based on the cost of ownership.

1. 15%
2. 20%
3. 30%
4. 40%

To help you choose, here are a few factors to consider in an example that I will use to illustrate my point: Let's take fountain pens and fountain pen inks. With fountain pens ranging from the most affordable that university students are included to purchase to the most expensive pens money can get its hands on. Fountain pens like the Pilot Kakuno or the Metropolitan, or the recently introduced Sailor TUZU with its adjustable grip feature and compare that to something like the Pilot Elite 95S (E95S), and something like the Fulgor Nocturnus by Tibaldi, which apparently, at an auction sold for a whopping USD8 Million.

It is crazy how much money is spent on something as simple as a writing instrument. I am including this fact just to put it out there. The average Joe on the other side of the nib doesn't have the kind of disposable income required to lavishly shell out such a huge amount on a luxurious fountain that costs at least an arm and a leg. IMO, the most reasonable price range that people would be able to afford without breaking the bank is around USD400 max. Anything above this price range can be viewed or written down as a luxurious spend on any writing instrument, don't you think?

Now that I've given you some idea or an outline of the prices for fountain pens, I would be more likely to choose option 2 from the above list of options presented. Once I've taken into account the quality and the characteristics of the fountain pen ink that I will be using from bottled sources, which is touted as the most economical way of purchasing and refilling the fountain pen in question. I am not taking into account the basic maintenance of fountain pens as these cost next to nothing. Keep in mind that this is to be used as a guide and not as a gospel of any sort. And simply by adding the cost of operation or maintenance to the cost of ownership and complaining about it won't magically make these costs disappear or take the pressure off the ink bottle.

Having said this, there is nothing stopping you from shopping for the cheapest fountain pen bottled ink available for your fountain pen and start using it - so long as it still offers the best performance and writing experience for your fountain pen and it doesn't do anything that either a) disrupts the flow of ink and,  b) does anything to your fountain pen to cause any major malfunction to your fountain pen.

Good writing techniques and the techniques of holding a fountain pen will also refute the notion that a more expensive fountain pen writes better than a more reasonably priced one. It is usually the person or the writer using the fountain pen, combined with the techniques of writing is what will make for a smoother or a better experience in using a fountain pen.

Is this the doomsday of the next digital version of cable TV?

I'm no expert, but given the recent trajectory or trend that has taken place, I'm seeing streaming services that compete for our entertainment dollars are either getting worse or at risk of becoming the next cable TV. When streaming was at its infancy, the few benefits that appealed to subscribers like no late fees, no ads, playing content on demand instantly at the click of a button or a tap on the tablet screen seem to have crossfaded into the ether. The same attractive proposition that allowed streaming services like Netflix discontinue their mail order DVD/BLU-RAY rental division and started this whole streaming explosion seems to have left a static malfunction on our screens lately.

Popularized by Netflix itself, streaming services have disrupted DVD and physical media sales for sure, but there were no annoying ads interrupting your viewing experience like every few minutes or so. That has all changed these days - unlike cable TV. I could understand that the channels and or your cable TV provider needed to make money and would have had agreements with companies where they get to advertise their products or services on cable so we viewers can buy said advertised product or service. At least with cable TV, the ads were timed into slots of every five minutes or so of the movie or TV show playing. You at least had the option to get up and walk away during the commercial break and do something else before returning to your regularly scheduled program. Albeit, you may or may not have noticed that the movies or episodic TV shows themselves were edited specifically to allow for commercial breaks.

Now a days, you have subscriptions plans that are cheaper for sure, but they have limited ads but it also limits the quality to Standard Definition (SD). If you needed to streaming in Full High Definition (FHD) or 4K, you needed to select a plan that costs even more. This practice seems to be on the rise and not as simple as it was once before. And I do believe it will be getting worse.

We are currently seeing this with YouTube with monetized channels on the platform. It started out with one ad at the beginning of the video when you clicked on it, but it then morphed into every 30 seconds to a minute per video. I get that content creators on YouTube need to make money somehow to keep their channel and content growing for us viewers to enjoy them, but having ads randomly play every bleedin' 30 seconds to a minute is a bit too much.

Plus, to add to the frustration, streaming providers can, and at little to no notice, pull that favorite movie or TV show that we love and cherish off their streaming library at anytime and we still have to pay a monthly fee to access their library. They can claim licensing issues from the suppler or the production company of the movie or TV show or space constraints all they like, but they will remove them nonetheless. The ever popular saying in the comment section on a handful of YouTube videos: "You will own nothing and you will be happy" comes to mind, which by the way is being trending around a lot lately.

So, the best solution I believe given the circumstances is to either go back to owing content on physical media or producing content on physical media for as long as it is still available and or source able.  This way, we can avoid the annoying ads, the monthly fee we have to pay regardless or our favorite TV show or movie being deleted from the library regardless of the excuses given by streaming services. I know this is something that is inconvenient to a lot of you, but would you rather contend with annoying ads every 30 seconds to a minute, making the content less enjoyable, or would you invest a little bit extra and own a physical media copy of said content.