4 ms·

>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 technol

by 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.
    - learc83 15y ago
      >You mean like sports stars? Sports is probably the closest thing we have to a true meritocracy. If you're an incredibly talented baseball player you'll have statistics to back it up. Because of this I'd wager that almost all the top tier baseball players are currently engaged by major league teams. However, acting is more subjective. It's much harder to objectively demonstrate that you are a top tier actor, so there are likely many top tier actors available for hire who aren't making millions.

by learc83 15y ago

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.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >You mean like sports stars? Sports is probably the closest thing we have to a true meritocracy. If you're an incredibly talented baseball player you'll have statistics to back it up. Because of this I'd wager that almost all the top tier baseball players are currently engaged by major league teams. However, acting is more subjective. It's much harder to objectively demonstrate that you are a top tier actor, so there are likely many top tier actors available for hire who aren't making millions.