4 ms·

>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

by 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.
  - SudarshanP 15y ago
    like programmers/doctors/teachers?
joejohnson 15y ago
I think you are wrong. Maybe a few thousand dollars isn't enough to make a movie with good production values. But there are lots of low budget movies that are amazing works of art. Also, a lot of movies made with massive budgets "aren't worth watching". Clearly the funding isn't directly correlated to the quality of the film.
learc83 15y ago
Tens of thousands was a bit of hyperbole. However cheap special effects are getting very close to good enough to compete with Hollywood movies. >Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field. There are plenty of quality actors that are paid much less than millions of dollars per movie. In addition, price is a function of what consumers are willing to pay and what sellers are willing to charge. If piracy drives down what consumers are willing to pay (and thus what actors can charge), what do you want to bet actors will still act (for much lower wages).
armandososa 15y ago
Most movies in the tens of millions aren't worth watching either.
vannevar 15y ago
Much of the expense for 'talent' comes from the artificial scarcity created by marketing. It's a vicious (or virtuous, depending on which side you're on) circle: a company spends marketing money, which attracts theaters, which means big audiences for the movie, which means that newcomer with a minor role gets exposure, which increases their appeal as a lead actor, which means their next movie will make more money. There are only so many actors who can appear in a 'major' release because a) there are only so many screens and b) there are even fewer movies showing on those screens because the blockbusters dominate the limited number of screens. There are always more actors (and directors and screenwriters, etc) that have the capacity be 'stars' than the system can accommodate. That system is built primarily on marketing, not talent.
- signalsignal 15y ago
  Their is no scarcity of people who want to become stars on Youtube.
unabridged 15y ago
Movies like Primer are just the beginning, and a Y-combinator for movies/tv could push the change even quicker. I'm thinking of a forum of 1000 movie/tv enthusiasts putting up maybe $100 each and funding 5-10 creators or maybe one larger project, holding open talent calls online.
- mortenjorck 15y ago
  Movies like Primer are a great rarity. There are many, many, low-budget movies out there; very few of them are created by bona fide visionaries.

by rprasad 15y ago

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.
- SudarshanP 15y ago
  like programmers/doctors/teachers?

joejohnson 15y ago

I think you are wrong. Maybe a few thousand dollars isn't enough to make a movie with good production values. But there are lots of low budget movies that are amazing works of art. Also, a lot of movies made with massive budgets "aren't worth watching". Clearly the funding isn't directly correlated to the quality of the film.

learc83 15y ago

Tens of thousands was a bit of hyperbole. However cheap special effects are getting very close to good enough to compete with Hollywood movies. >Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field. There are plenty of quality actors that are paid much less than millions of dollars per movie. In addition, price is a function of what consumers are willing to pay and what sellers are willing to charge. If piracy drives down what consumers are willing to pay (and thus what actors can charge), what do you want to bet actors will still act (for much lower wages).

armandososa 15y ago

Most movies in the tens of millions aren't worth watching either.

vannevar 15y ago

Much of the expense for 'talent' comes from the artificial scarcity created by marketing. It's a vicious (or virtuous, depending on which side you're on) circle: a company spends marketing money, which attracts theaters, which means big audiences for the movie, which means that newcomer with a minor role gets exposure, which increases their appeal as a lead actor, which means their next movie will make more money. There are only so many actors who can appear in a 'major' release because a) there are only so many screens and b) there are even fewer movies showing on those screens because the blockbusters dominate the limited number of screens. There are always more actors (and directors and screenwriters, etc) that have the capacity be 'stars' than the system can accommodate. That system is built primarily on marketing, not talent.

signalsignal 15y ago
Their is no scarcity of people who want to become stars on Youtube.

unabridged 15y ago

Movies like Primer are just the beginning, and a Y-combinator for movies/tv could push the change even quicker. I'm thinking of a forum of 1000 movie/tv enthusiasts putting up maybe $100 each and funding 5-10 creators or maybe one larger project, holding open talent calls online.

mortenjorck 15y ago
Movies like Primer are a great rarity. There are many, many, low-budget movies out there; very few of them are created by bona fide visionaries.