4 ms·

I think another big difference (apart from all those already stated) is that there was a realisation among musicians very early on (like mid 90s) that the inter

I think another big difference (apart from all those already stated) is that there was a realisation among musicians very early on (like mid 90s) that the internet was going to give them the ability to cut record labels out of the deal altogether and distribute directly to fans. Most of what a label does/did for musicians is marketing and distribution of physical copies. Sometimes a label organises a producer/engineer, but often bands do this themselves, or bring one along. With physical copies dying and the ability to self-promote on the rise the labels were looking less and less relevant. Movie studios on the other hand coordinate an insane amount of people (some credits sequences run for at least 5 minutes now) and legals, something that is out of the realms of possibility for indie film makers - if you want to make a "big" movie you pretty much need a studio, even to this day. So my understanding is that the record labels saw the writing on the wall, tried to fight the tide with the whole napster thing and ended up accepting reality and looking around for another way to remain relevant, which ended up being negotiating deals with legal music streaming services. Movie studios never felt that pinch. The other difference, at least for the artists, is that musicians don't make much money off recordings - many are happy to break even - where the real money is for them is in live performance and (in some markets) merch sales. The recordings almost act as ads for the "real" product. With movies, the movie is the product (although admittedly merch, theme park rides, etc can provide an even bigger revenue stream but those cases should be treated as outliers).

Ericson2314 7y ago
Great comment. One thing though is sometimes indie movies are made and then sold for release. Maybe they should be able to go direct?
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  They can absolutely go direct. I've watched numerous movies on filmmakers' websites or youtube that I assume never got a cinematic release. I guess the difference is that the Hollywood studio model is still so entrenched with the massive PR/media industry built up around it and reliant on its survival that indie releases get drowned out in the noise. Another thing to consider is that niche content is just that - if a filmmaker decides to distribute direct to fans (or along some other indie avenue) it's likely you'll never hear about it unless you are one of those fans and regardless of what your definition of "success" is.
  - paranoidrobot 7y ago
    Going direct with movies is harder (atm) than music. The model for selling music is pretty solid, and there are services like Bandcamp that will do the hosting & Transaction processing for you at minimal overhead. Even platforms like Patreon will let you do this directly attaching the file to a post. People have little issue getting the downloaded music onto whatever device they want to play it on. Video is harder: filesize and codecs are one issue, convenient playback is another. You can't just use YouTube unless you want to give it away for free. Vimeo is an option, but the overheads are higher and could easily eat any potential revenue. Playback is a problem - lower device support. It doesn't allow users to download and play offline either, and that would be harder for casual users.
    - CamelCaseName 7y ago
      >You can't just use YouTube unless you want to give it away for free. I believe you can actually. YouTube has a section where you can pay for movies here: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClgRkhTL3_hImCAmdLfDE4g https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClgRkhTL3_hImCAmdLfDE4g And here is a discussion on how indie filmmakers can get into it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/c01kyd/how_to_rent_or_sell_your_movie_on_youtube https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/c01kyd/how_to_r... There's definitely a higher barrier for movies, but it does seem possible.
      - paranoidrobot 7y ago
        I knew about their paid services, my point is that you can't just go to youtube.com, sign up and sell a movie. The links you provide show that it's still a huge barrier. The requirements for getting onto youtube arn't something you can just do if you have a movie you want to sell. Even with the unknown ($1500? according to that comment, but no links to back it up) payment to a distributor, there's still almost certainly more hurdles and time/etc. Compare that to the experience with, say, Bandcamp - their [pricing is transparent and up-front](https://bandcamp.com/pricing https://bandcamp.com/pricing), and you can go ahead and sign up with minimal fuss. From a customer perspective, it's equally as pain and hassle free.

Ericson2314 7y ago

Great comment. One thing though is sometimes indie movies are made and then sold for release. Maybe they should be able to go direct?

cookie_monsta 7y ago
They can absolutely go direct. I've watched numerous movies on filmmakers' websites or youtube that I assume never got a cinematic release. I guess the difference is that the Hollywood studio model is still so entrenched with the massive PR/media industry built up around it and reliant on its survival that indie releases get drowned out in the noise. Another thing to consider is that niche content is just that - if a filmmaker decides to distribute direct to fans (or along some other indie avenue) it's likely you'll never hear about it unless you are one of those fans and regardless of what your definition of "success" is.
- paranoidrobot 7y ago
  Going direct with movies is harder (atm) than music. The model for selling music is pretty solid, and there are services like Bandcamp that will do the hosting & Transaction processing for you at minimal overhead. Even platforms like Patreon will let you do this directly attaching the file to a post. People have little issue getting the downloaded music onto whatever device they want to play it on. Video is harder: filesize and codecs are one issue, convenient playback is another. You can't just use YouTube unless you want to give it away for free. Vimeo is an option, but the overheads are higher and could easily eat any potential revenue. Playback is a problem - lower device support. It doesn't allow users to download and play offline either, and that would be harder for casual users.
  - CamelCaseName 7y ago
    >You can't just use YouTube unless you want to give it away for free. I believe you can actually. YouTube has a section where you can pay for movies here: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClgRkhTL3_hImCAmdLfDE4g https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClgRkhTL3_hImCAmdLfDE4g And here is a discussion on how indie filmmakers can get into it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/c01kyd/how_to_rent_or_sell_your_movie_on_youtube https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/c01kyd/how_to_r... There's definitely a higher barrier for movies, but it does seem possible.
    - paranoidrobot 7y ago
      I knew about their paid services, my point is that you can't just go to youtube.com, sign up and sell a movie. The links you provide show that it's still a huge barrier. The requirements for getting onto youtube arn't something you can just do if you have a movie you want to sell. Even with the unknown ($1500? according to that comment, but no links to back it up) payment to a distributor, there's still almost certainly more hurdles and time/etc. Compare that to the experience with, say, Bandcamp - their [pricing is transparent and up-front](https://bandcamp.com/pricing https://bandcamp.com/pricing), and you can go ahead and sign up with minimal fuss. From a customer perspective, it's equally as pain and hassle free.