And yet, even the traditional PBXs are going towards SIP and/or other VOIP based phones...where all the challenges that Skype addresses abound, and may not have found a solution nearly as elegant. Would you rather have a call that's a bit cruddy in quality, or have your employee, who knows jack about networking, working in an office that may or may not have an IT staff, try to debug the problems with his PBX based IP phone? (And probably still run into call quality issues.)

Joking or not, many ISPs restrict "business" ports like port 25 with their residential accounts.

I think most artists have a bit of the Don Quixote in them, but probably also listen to the mighty $$. If art X makes money, and art Y doesn't...well, they're probably doing less of Y because they want to continue to pay their bills, or continue enjoying a successful career.

I think that having a counter specifically for the counter's sake can be bad. The evils of Greed are one of the hallmarks of Greek tragedies. I agree that an artist should be looking to his art first, rather than what will simply earn the most money, damn the quality of work.

I don't think it's bad for an artist to have expectations of where they want their art to take them, the same as the rest of us. From "I want to make enough on my art so I can scrape by." to "I want to be acknowledged as one of the BEST ACTORS/SCULPTORS/What Have Yous."

I don't think it's unreasonable to want the monetary success as well as the critical accolades success brings one, and even the Shakespeares of old were aware of where their bread was buttered.

'Course, it's not just artistic skill that gets one there. An artist has all the challenges of an entrepreneur, and a much higher quotient of luck to become successful than most professionals. I don't think it's unreasonable to want the monetary rewards if one "makes it." I think most successful people, artists included, are driven personalities, wanting everything that success offers. I know some artists who are happy to create just for creations sake, but most of the more successful I've been exposed to are very aware of the monetary potential of various undertakings. They'll do other things because they care about them, but they'll tend to do more of what makes money. If what makes money is also what they want to do, even better!

The exception to this rule that I can think of is the artist who make so much money that they can from that moment on "write their own bill". Clint Eastwood, for instance, is in a position to put out whatever movies he wants now, where I doubt he'd be able to interest most studios in "Million Dollar Baby" back when he was doing spaghetti westerns.

When I say even in Greek and Roman times, the implication is this was one of the first "golden ages" for western society. The dark ages that followed were much harder on the general citizenry than the relative luxury the Greeks and Romans enjoyed.

Actually, the western world has traditionally rewarded skilled artists and craftsmen quite well - assuming they at least entertained. Both small and large scale undertakings could see an artist at least making his way, if not being raised to importance almost as great as their leaders. There were plenty who didn't and barely skimped by. I'd wager even back then there were many more artists who were barely worth feeding than there were who created the great works we know about today. If an artist was good enough, often somebody rich, or a noble, would take him on as a patron so he could do nothing but create art, the equivalent of a professional artist today, and often recompense him quite well for his efforts.

Of course, the original musicians, sculptors, painters, bards, and what have you worked under different constraints. They couldn't record their works for one. For another, there were many more people who were working just to earn their daily bread than had extra to spend on entertainments of any sort, even in Greek and Roman times.

Even their philosophers, who were often looked upon as subversives, managed a living from their students, even putting up Academies.

Art was not looked upon as a waste of time, even going that far back. Theaters to host 14 thousand or more people were raised, at great expense, allowing most citizens to enjoy plays. Civic leaders paid sculptors and craftsmen to raise temples, statues, and other impressive works both for themselves and their populace.

Sure the Greeks and Romans both employed slaves. I don't know what % of the general population of Greeks were made up of slaves - I believe it was higher for the Romans - but citizens were expected to participate in art by at least going to the theater, if not creating some of the art themselves. In fact, the Greeks and Romans expected more of their "good" citizens then we typically do. They expected them to manage at least a household, to participate in politics, if a man to be a warrior at need, and to broaden ones mind with theater and the arts.

Or a bit of a Don Quixote?

These shorts are to improve blender at least as much as they are to generate interest in it.

As far as full movies in Blender? Well, there's Plumiferos, even though it's not a Hollywood movie.

Blender has some challenges in Hollywood. The main one is that Hollywood studios already have 3D packages they use and many YEARS of time devoted to those tools, making plugins for those tools, etc.

I'd expect it to get more traction in independent films, or even T.V., before there's a big enough critical mass of professional artists to do a large scale Hollywood CG movie with Blender, even if the tool is capable of producing such a movie today. There's Project London that seems to be making decent use of it. Some scenes are better, some are worse, but it's certainly an ambitious project.

The Blender team seems to be happy with the people who are using it, and I think the Blender project is one of the more successful projects that moved from proprietary to open source. Just because the project is smaller scale than a Hollywood movie doesn't mean that Blender isn't finding a lot of niches.

I would gladly watch this in preference to yet another commercial, or preview that has nothing to do with the movie I came to watch.

I like the idea of a theater running a few shorts either in place of previews or as works in their own rights. Contact them and see if you can get a copy of the 35mm print.

How about the guys who do both? The person who just wants to create for the fun of it, and has a clear goal of what to do with the power - "money units" - his creations give him, allowing him to create more things for the fun of it, maybe even, gasp, exclusive of finding some other way to get "money units". And, heck, with more money units, create even bigger, more impressive things because the money units free him up to do so?

Bah, I'm done ranting. I've posted a similar response in several places. I just don't understand why a "real" artist shouldn't want to be able to make money making art. Some artists who aren't good enough - not just with art, but with managing time, contacts, luck, networking, marketing, and everything else that has to be done to be a successful artist - may continue to create art in his free time. Others will find life overtaking them and have very constrained bits of time to devote to their art if they can't make it as an artist.

And the twain shall never meet? GREAT art can't also be entertaining? One can't be passionate about creating a work for entertainment?

Doctors, police, and even vile capitalist manufacturers can't be passionate about what they're doing? And an artist, being the passionate sort that he is, cannot want to receive some money, or even great bushels of it, both so that he can spend as much of his time creating that which he's impassioned, and so that he can enjoy the fruits of success the same as any other professional? I'm sorry, but most great artists will only be greater if they're making money at their chosen undertaking, rather then diluting their energy having to do "something else", and treating their art as a hobby, to be done only after the bills are paid by some other job that takes up most of their day and energy. And not every form of art lends itself well to "performances". Should those who have to sell recordings, or books, or anything else that can easily be copied not get some return on the time and risk they took to produce the work?

There are some artists, probably even some good or great artists, that may have to do just this to support their work. Some will continue to do it regardless, and some, even some who may be great, may give up their art because the day to day demands of their money grubbing life take up too much of their time. Or relegate their art to a very low priority. I think great artists, artists who take themselves seriously, also want to be recompensed for their art. Man writers, for instance, don't consider themselves "real" writers until they're published. Many don't consider themselves real writers until they can support themselves while writing.

Yes it is, and I think there are even hooks into databases to manage it, it just didn't seem to be the point of this project - and I don't know how good it is at handling mobs.

Ah. I'll have to re watch as I missed it at the beginning. I need to download a lower quality version as my player chokes a lot on the high quality one giving me big gaps in the action. :-( Though there's a good chance I still would've missed it at the beginning of the fight thinking it's the "bad" big dragon.

A few differences: 1 - It's produced on Blender, using Blender as the tool to make the movie. Which means that any feedback from the team goes straight to the devs making Blender better. A lot of Blender's improvements happen because of these shorts.

2 - Many independent films are using "closed" and expensive tools like Maya. Even if you don't like the plot, characters, or general theme of this movie, if you thought the graphics were as good as even a relatively recent in-game movie that was rendered rather than using the game's engine, then I'd say they've done their job, and they've made Blender better while doing it. (In game movies can take quite a team of artists and a but-ton of money to create.) Further, the movie can be shared, and a lot of the techniques for making the movie are shared, which isn't true about most films of any sort.

-- Off topic --

3 - Most of EVERYTHING is bad in some way or other, and yet the people who say everything that Hollywood produces is crap, or everything that this or the other group produces is crap seem to ignore the genuine gems. They don't come along all that often. This isn't one of them, but it entertained me for the length of the film. It was a decent tragedy. Many critics also ignore the value in "this movie was decent and entertaining." It wasn't great. It didn't change my life. It was cliched - the Greeks in their day were saying that every plot and character device out there had already been used - but there's a fair amount of value to being entertained for a little bit, even if it isn't "great".

4 - I'm not saying that this is you, but many who illegally download movies use the "The movie wasn't great" excuse to download and watch them. Or games. Or music. This attitude disturbs me. If you're so concerned about the quality of the entertainments you consume, rather than downloading and not paying for it, let some critic you trust watch it first - be said critic your friend, a paid critic, or what have you, then make the decision to watch the movie or listen to the music. (Or find some cheap/free way legally getting the content, even if it involves a commercial or two.) I think most of the torrent freaks out there actually enjoy the content they consume - I realize that some are collectors and never watch their whole library, but they certainly get to a fair chunk of it - even if the piece wasn't ground breaking in some fashion. They use the tired argument that if it isn't the best thing ever, why should they pay for it? And maybe they shouldn't, but does that mean they should have carte blanch to get the content for free? I don't like Hollywood's tactics, copyright terms, or a lot of the IP bullying that happens, but most don't seem to be downloading copies of the first Mickey Mouse movies, most seem to be downloading the latest and greatest "shovelware", implying that they like said shovelware. Many of the people who seem to criticize everybody also

I don't get the attitude that certain people excelling in their professions should be happy about excelling and that that satisfaction should be enough. That expecting monetary recompense is somehow a gross dereliction of the duty of the starving artist. Why should artists or musicians not get compensated if they create a great recording or movie?

How is saying that artists aren't willing to give up their work for free any different than saying "Most doctors aren't willing to perform surgery without being getting a salary." and then replying "Then they're not really doctors are they?"

Now, if you were being clever with the word illusory, then you can paint a big whoosh above my head. The attitude that certain professionals should simply do what they do for the love of it and not expect some sort of monetary recompense, or worse, should get said money from some other career bugs me. How is an artist going to be a great artist if their most productive hours are spent doing something else? (To a lesser extent teachers and a few other professions have the same "low pay" stigma attached to them.)

That's not to say every artist is great. If one can't make one's way making recordings, doing paintings, or whatever creative endeavor they're undertaking, they may have to work as something else to make ends meet, but for those who are great musicians, artists, or what have you, and can find people willing to pay them for their work, why shouldn't they expect to get paid be that pay an up front lump, royalties, or whatever other method they've come up with?

Without the scar, there's nothing to differentiate this dragon from any other. If you didn't expect the results by the time the fight paused we get a big hint it's her dragon when he sniffs her. Even then we might not be sure it's her dragon until you see the scar. *shrug* I think they pulled this one off really well. Maybe it wasn't a GREAT tragedy, but it was certainly decent, especially given the time frame. My props to the team. I liked this movie a lot better than Big Buck Bunny or Elephant's Dream - that one would've been a lot better had one of the characters not been named Emo.