6 ms·

> Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute them. If that was a complete listing: Then destroying them would be a pretty straigh

> Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute them. If that was a complete listing: Then destroying them would be a pretty straightforward matter, because startups do distribution and marketing like the best. The problem as I see it: I think you missed a function. Hollywood is a specialized VC community. Their investments are movies. No amount of Y-combinatoring is going to supplant the money machine, without building a brand new money machine.

sambeau 15y ago
So let's build a brand-new money machine! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3492153 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3492153
learc83 15y ago
>Hollywood is a specialized VC community. That's true, but we dont need a VC community that specializes in handing out tens of millions when, thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.
- teamonkey 15y ago
  That's true too, but the web hasn't introduced that. The RoR of big budget movies is potentially much greater than low-budget movies. Hollywood invests where any VC would invest, where the potential reward is greatest. I'm not sure that a VC would or could change anything here.
  - nekojima 15y ago
    The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies, as well as a higher risk for potentially lower reward. There are financial very successful (in terms of $100k's/a rather than millions of dollars) movie producers, actors, writers and directors who specifically aim for sub-segments of the market and fulfill niche demand. Christian and African-American movies being two successful segments of the market for low-budget, high-return movies.
    - teamonkey 15y ago
      > The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies Sorry, no. The risk is higher, but the reward, should it pay off, is much greater and there is a much more attractive risk:reward. An indie film can indeed be profitable, but the probability of being very profitable is small. This is the same for games, music, TV, books. As a publisher where do you concentrate your money? Where it's likely to make the most money, of course.
- rprasad 15y ago
  >thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands. I was laughing until I realized you were serious. Of course it's possible to make a movie for a few thousand dollars. But most movies at that budget aren't worth watching. Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
  - jvrossb 15y ago
    Don't laugh. He's right. With the right setting (no fancy costumes, no fancy sets, no tough-to-reach locations), the right setup (digital HD camera and ~$2000 computer to edit and render SFX if any), and unknown actors you can make a film that would be indistinguishable from Hollywood quality (without any famous faces however) for low tens of thousands of dollars. Also, there is plenty of great talent that hasn't "made it" in Hollywood, and that talent is probably artificially cheap.
  - spqr 15y ago
    You quoted him saying tens of thousands and then responded to him as if he said "a few thousand." Further, you have no vision. Today there are few mega rich actors, few moderately rich actors and tons of poor actors. What's wrong with acting becoming more like a normally distributed profession?
  - jeswin 15y ago
    Why should talent in movies be paid millions, when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less? The simple reason is that total expenses in movie making and distribution system are so high that these payouts seem reasonable and it makes sense to get popular actors at the prices they (artists) demand. This system works well for the companies and the top rung artists. Ripe for "disruption".
    - nedwin 15y ago
      "when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less?" You mean like sports stars? The command higher fees because having their name attached to a project reduces the amount of marketing expenditure of a project and increases the projects chances of success. Aside from fees for high-paid actors and directors though there are still a LOT of people needed to produce a quality film: screenwriters, cinematographers etc.
meow 15y ago
Very true. I think the new money machine will be crowd sourcing. Recent statistics for kickstarter say that they funded nearly 100mil for projects in 2011. Out of which nearly half (50% in money) are media related (film/music/comics etc). People ignore crowd sourcing or discount its power, but we have to remember that crowd sourcing involves the whole world - thanks to the internet.

sambeau 15y ago

So let's build a brand-new money machine! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3492153 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3492153

learc83 15y ago

>Hollywood is a specialized VC community. That's true, but we dont need a VC community that specializes in handing out tens of millions when, thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.

teamonkey 15y ago
That's true too, but the web hasn't introduced that. The RoR of big budget movies is potentially much greater than low-budget movies. Hollywood invests where any VC would invest, where the potential reward is greatest. I'm not sure that a VC would or could change anything here.
- nekojima 15y ago
  The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies, as well as a higher risk for potentially lower reward. There are financial very successful (in terms of $100k's/a rather than millions of dollars) movie producers, actors, writers and directors who specifically aim for sub-segments of the market and fulfill niche demand. Christian and African-American movies being two successful segments of the market for low-budget, high-return movies.
  - teamonkey 15y ago
    > The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies Sorry, no. The risk is higher, but the reward, should it pay off, is much greater and there is a much more attractive risk:reward. An indie film can indeed be profitable, but the probability of being very profitable is small. This is the same for games, music, TV, books. As a publisher where do you concentrate your money? Where it's likely to make the most money, of course.
rprasad 15y ago
>thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands. I was laughing until I realized you were serious. Of course it's possible to make a movie for a few thousand dollars. But most movies at that budget aren't worth watching. Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
- jvrossb 15y ago
  Don't laugh. He's right. With the right setting (no fancy costumes, no fancy sets, no tough-to-reach locations), the right setup (digital HD camera and ~$2000 computer to edit and render SFX if any), and unknown actors you can make a film that would be indistinguishable from Hollywood quality (without any famous faces however) for low tens of thousands of dollars. Also, there is plenty of great talent that hasn't "made it" in Hollywood, and that talent is probably artificially cheap.
- spqr 15y ago
  You quoted him saying tens of thousands and then responded to him as if he said "a few thousand." Further, you have no vision. Today there are few mega rich actors, few moderately rich actors and tons of poor actors. What's wrong with acting becoming more like a normally distributed profession?
- jeswin 15y ago
  Why should talent in movies be paid millions, when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less? The simple reason is that total expenses in movie making and distribution system are so high that these payouts seem reasonable and it makes sense to get popular actors at the prices they (artists) demand. This system works well for the companies and the top rung artists. Ripe for "disruption".
  - nedwin 15y ago
    "when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less?" You mean like sports stars? The command higher fees because having their name attached to a project reduces the amount of marketing expenditure of a project and increases the projects chances of success. Aside from fees for high-paid actors and directors though there are still a LOT of people needed to produce a quality film: screenwriters, cinematographers etc.

meow 15y ago

Very true. I think the new money machine will be crowd sourcing. Recent statistics for kickstarter say that they funded nearly 100mil for projects in 2011. Out of which nearly half (50% in money) are media related (film/music/comics etc). People ignore crowd sourcing or discount its power, but we have to remember that crowd sourcing involves the whole world - thanks to the internet.