3 ms·

As I read through the article, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between making a good film and building a successful startup venture. Both are highly c

As I read through the article, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between making a good film and building a successful startup venture. Both are highly creative and technical processes. Getting a motley crew of crazies together, (almost) irreverent belief in your vision, passionate director/founder(s), willingness to work long and hard, working creatively within budget, and zealously promoting your wares. It matters not how many movies you watch, or how many business books, or blogs you read. Learning comes from doing. Except, with a movie, you don't get a do-over. With startups, you can iterate, pivot, evolve, and march on.

fluxcapacitor 16y ago
EXACTLY! As a big movie fan, I also have that same theory. In fact I have read Robert Rodriguez's "Rebel Without a Crew" (from where the "10-minute Film School" comes from), and I see so many parallels between indie film-making and bootstrapping a company. http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-without-Crew-23-Year-Old-Filmmaker/dp/0452271878/ http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-without-Crew-23-Year-Old-Filmmak... I would argue that with a movie you actually do iterate and evolve: That's during the editing process. I believe Scorcese once said that his key job as a director was not during filming per se, but during editing. Also, a curiosity: Rodriguez is a major geek. He does his own special effects on his own studio in San Antonio.
- blizkreeg 16y ago
  You correctly point out, between indie film-making and bootstrapping. While I'm no film-maker, I can see how a film actually gets made and re-made during editing.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Editing is filmmaking. Writing, acting, photography, recording, those are all arts in themselves, and if you're good at just one of them you don't need a film to be successful. Add editing, and you've turned it into filmmaking.
phunel 16y ago
I like the parallels - I'm managing a tech company at the moment but have previously worked at production companies. The overlaps are ample but I'm curious if anyone sees the negative aspect of such low barriers of entry. I first noticed this as I started losing interest in photography following the shift to digital. Previously it required such a large degree of craft and investment of time. Interestingly enough this is what made it rewarding. Exposing celluloid, developing it by hand, and printing in darkrooms was something of a meditative and powerful process. And in turn the results were more highly valued. After the barriers were removed via digital photography the space got more crowded, and the craft was, if not eliminated, then replaced by something altogether different. I understand nothing is stopping anyone from still developing by hand, but the value has been destroyed as you can't compete with the low cost or, more importantly, the low barriers for creating a satisfying image - and in turn, the value of photographers as a profession (and the work they create) has become saturated. I balance this reality with the undeniable ease of shooting now, and there is room for innovation yet in that field. And the social benefits of being able to easily share imagery is still in its infancy. But in my heart I'm doubtful if we'll see another Cartier-Bresson or Adams as the climate has been saturated, and therefore simply commoditized. And so that's the question - do low barriers of entry inherently lead to saturation/commodification of a craft (as much as you can label startups/entrepreneurship a craft)? And is that, in reality, the point? The inevitability?
- anto1ne 16y ago
  barriers for the craft may have been removed, but a lot of good technicians won't make a good movie, a geek with the best gear you can buy, won't make good photo (as Art, not as technically good). And it's the same for programming, the best programmer doesn't necessarily comes with the killer idea, or the skills to bring this killer idea to an accomplished project. To me it's the difference between craft and art. If you have the idea, craft and skills shouldn't be a barrier.

fluxcapacitor 16y ago

EXACTLY! As a big movie fan, I also have that same theory. In fact I have read Robert Rodriguez's "Rebel Without a Crew" (from where the "10-minute Film School" comes from), and I see so many parallels between indie film-making and bootstrapping a company. http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-without-Crew-23-Year-Old-Filmmaker/dp/0452271878/ http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-without-Crew-23-Year-Old-Filmmak... I would argue that with a movie you actually do iterate and evolve: That's during the editing process. I believe Scorcese once said that his key job as a director was not during filming per se, but during editing. Also, a curiosity: Rodriguez is a major geek. He does his own special effects on his own studio in San Antonio.

blizkreeg 16y ago
You correctly point out, between indie film-making and bootstrapping. While I'm no film-maker, I can see how a film actually gets made and re-made during editing.
philwelch 16y ago
Editing is filmmaking. Writing, acting, photography, recording, those are all arts in themselves, and if you're good at just one of them you don't need a film to be successful. Add editing, and you've turned it into filmmaking.

phunel 16y ago

I like the parallels - I'm managing a tech company at the moment but have previously worked at production companies. The overlaps are ample but I'm curious if anyone sees the negative aspect of such low barriers of entry. I first noticed this as I started losing interest in photography following the shift to digital. Previously it required such a large degree of craft and investment of time. Interestingly enough this is what made it rewarding. Exposing celluloid, developing it by hand, and printing in darkrooms was something of a meditative and powerful process. And in turn the results were more highly valued. After the barriers were removed via digital photography the space got more crowded, and the craft was, if not eliminated, then replaced by something altogether different. I understand nothing is stopping anyone from still developing by hand, but the value has been destroyed as you can't compete with the low cost or, more importantly, the low barriers for creating a satisfying image - and in turn, the value of photographers as a profession (and the work they create) has become saturated. I balance this reality with the undeniable ease of shooting now, and there is room for innovation yet in that field. And the social benefits of being able to easily share imagery is still in its infancy. But in my heart I'm doubtful if we'll see another Cartier-Bresson or Adams as the climate has been saturated, and therefore simply commoditized. And so that's the question - do low barriers of entry inherently lead to saturation/commodification of a craft (as much as you can label startups/entrepreneurship a craft)? And is that, in reality, the point? The inevitability?

anto1ne 16y ago
barriers for the craft may have been removed, but a lot of good technicians won't make a good movie, a geek with the best gear you can buy, won't make good photo (as Art, not as technically good). And it's the same for programming, the best programmer doesn't necessarily comes with the killer idea, or the skills to bring this killer idea to an accomplished project. To me it's the difference between craft and art. If you have the idea, craft and skills shouldn't be a barrier.