The advent of motion pictures was thrown into upheaval by the creation of youtube and smart devices. Film, often shot on clunk claustrophobic sets, filled with unpaid interns and shots of stasis being micro managed by a group of studio executives was washed under by the floodgates of this now called digital revolution. Films were no longer limited to 90 minute plus talkies featuring big name actors and a limited distribution model to recoup costs. For a country that hates monopolies, it certainly allowed its entertainment to be served one way, and one way only. Youtube allowed anyone with a device to record anything, regardless of length, and mostly content in order to have other users review and share. The amount of information and choice exploded almost instantly, allowing a plethora of otherwise experimental narratives to be insulated into the market place, at extremely low costs allowing the filmmaker to finally break through the mythical gates of hollywood. But as the results show, this is not the case. While anything can be uploaded, finding it is ending up being scarce. The trillions of videos shot, still bring up approximately the same thirty things we’ve watched before. The filmmaker, fresh faced and full of new content, much like the film school revolution advertised by Paul Thomas Anderson has not proceeded. And while some have gained notoriety, there hasn’t been new and exciting names to add, like when Independent films brought Soderbergh, and a host of others, In fact, it may have done more to damage films than help. The altruistic amount of content has only allowed the market to be flooded by content, chasing niche audiences to support a movie, since most independent movies are losing audiences. Don’t believe me? Sundance has had their theatrical films gross a third less in the last three years compared to the years before that, leading to more…catch me if you’ve heard this already, digital release online. When television came, it gave a proper secondary option to movies, allowing both the co exist in a world with rapidly evolving tastes. When the computer arrived, all it’s brought was more content for less dollars. For all the money the internet supposedly brings, no one has found out a way to make it truly complement movies, or even utilize movies effectively. The argument that people choose the narrative which they want to see is not without merit, but five minutes of Angry orange is not a healthy alternative to watching There Will be Blood. In order for movies to survive, people need this digital revolution to enforce how special movies are to the population. Having shorter experimental narratives is important, and the market can support it, but if we really feel it can replace Features, then we’re in for a rough awakening when less and less money go into them, leaving us to wonder why this digital revolution lead us down the road of no return.