16 ms·

Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

signalsignal 15y ago
Bookmark this article and remember this date, as YCombinator has altered its focus and embarked on this political venture. Once it had worked hard to stay clear of political entanglements, now it dives wholeheartedly into the grift of politics. No one play politics and plays clean, not even angel investors.
frankydp 15y ago
It is so very true that financing is the real issue here. http://rootstrikers.org/ http://rootstrikers.org/
- Aloisius 15y ago
  Definitely. Either fix financing or join in. The reason why Hollywood is so powerful is because they actually donate to campaigns and have lobbyists. That seems far more productive than trying to destroy an industry because you're tired of their political power.
  - gfodor 15y ago
    It's important to remember you can do both at the same time. Work hard towards financial reform, but in the mean time flex your financial muscles to get there otherwise you will be defenseless and the reform you seek will never happen.
ajhit406 15y ago
What hollywood has going for it, is a track-record of executing on the operations behind producing movies that make money. People who invest in movies invest for the same reasons all of us invest in anything-- to make money. Hollywood is a business, albeit one rooted in entertainment, but let's face it-- many artists are also just in it for the money. I don't think our world view of "entertainment" is going to shift the way that YC suggested in it's call for action. I think most of us (unfortunately) are still going to want to watch movies like Transformers 3 at a $200 million budget than a $1million dollar indie flick. So, once we've recognized that uprooting involves figuring out how to finance movie production instead of shifting the realm of entertainment (at least, for our generation, perhaps future generations will just want to watch WOW and starcraft online), then we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, figuring out a way to finance a film that costs tens or hundreds of millions to produce is a pretty tricky endeavor. Still, it will be pretty awesome when Brad Pitt signs onto his first crowd-sourced flick =)
- parka 15y ago
  It may not be necessary to compete as directly as that. Filesharing sites compete against Hollywood in a different way (even though it's illegal) and they manage to grab their attention. What we need is something to give us the same amount of leverage.
  - inkaudio 15y ago
    You missed the point. File sharing sites don't create content, they exploit Hollywood's archaic and stubborn method of distributing content.
    - parka 15y ago
      What you're saying is common knowledge. What I'm trying to say is: Don't compete directly. Apple didn't compete directly with the music/tv/movie industries but yet they too manage to have a huge leverage over them. And they managed that legally. There will be a certain metric that matters in competition. We just need to know what that metric is.
- softbuilder 15y ago
  You have to ponder the inefficiencies of an ecosystem that supports a $200 million movie. I'm reminded of Firefly. Such a great show, with lots of loyal fans. I guess it just wasn't a big enough fan base for Fox. I thought at the time that the producers should go independent and distribute straight to the consumer. Maybe that was too risky in 2002. I don't think it would be today.
  - inkaudio 15y ago
    Not risky, it's just that back in 2002 there were less people watching videos online, many people still had dialup.
    - softbuilder 15y ago
      I was thinking DVD distribution at the time. I had used Netflix for a while by that point and could imagine subscribing to get a DVD in the mail from Joss Whedon every week.
jezclaremurugan 15y ago
Or how about a way to fix the congress and the election process? A startup to provide information on the promises kept/broken, campaign financing, how much someone is influenced by lobbyists etc, so that only people who can be trusted get to vote on these issues. I think having politicians who can be trusted, who are informed, is more important. The recent blackouts swayed so many of them, but we can't do this every time. Some dashboard kind of thing, to let them know what their constituents want would be very useful for them, since I'm afraid they dont read opinion polls...
eck 15y ago
I am sort of surprised that pg chose movies rather than music. Movies are hard. You need a lot of things to make a movie. I liked Avatar. You can't do that kind of thing on the cheap. Actors, sites, makeup, lighting, special effects, etc. For music, you need the band, which are essentially founders from an equity standpoint, and own their own instruments already since they know how to play them. You need like $1000 of recording gear and some dude to hit the "record" button. Eventually movies will be democratized, but killing the RIAA/iTunes cabal seems like the obvious first step.
- philwelch 15y ago
  iTunes isn't in a cabal with RIAA, Apple just needs to use the RIAA to make iTunes usable. Actually it's partly because of iTunes that RIAA is so vulnerable; iTunes cuts out the marketing and distribution part of the business.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- secoif 15y ago
  This is true for some music genres, but not all. Same way you can just press record on your camera phone, you are unlikely to film the next blockbuster on that. Commercial quality polish (generally) takes expensive engineers and expensive equipment, and a lot of time, and this is true of most multimedia fields, with exception of Indy sub genres.
- inkaudio 15y ago
  A $1000 recording won't give you great sound quality, not 24/96 K. It easy to marginalize a recording engineer until you try to record an album yourself. To get the the sound you want there are number of things you want to get right, the right equipment, the right space, mic placement, recording levels. Still not as expensive or hard as making movie, but not so easy either.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    This is true, I know some indie musicians and they usually own a minimum of $10,000 worth of equipment themselves and on top of that hire other stuff when they record or play live. A lot of things that people think are "done in someone's garage" are either done by someone with very rich parents or produced by a relatively well funded company.
ajb 15y ago
I think what we need to work on is improving the political clout of engineers, not destroying hollywood. We've won this one (I hope) but it took rather extreme measures. Blacking out wikipedia isn't something which can be done every time congress threatens to do something stupid. It's a bit like going on strike - a negative act which can turn people against us if overused. We need mechanisms which can influence politics on a day-to-day level, so we don't need to do these last-ditch operations. Nevertheless, defeating SOPA is hugely significant, because it shows that we CAN be politically effective. Politics can operate as a kind of nonviolent intimidation: if our opponents have the reputation of being politically effective, and our group has the reputation of being politically ineffective, individuals think it's not worth their time trying to influence politics. Take software patents. Whenever this comes up, there are always gloomy posts saying that we will never defeat the patent lobby. This perception deters everyone from trying to. EFF does a good job. But I think more of us need to be active as individuals, on a day to day basis rather than just when the trumpet sounds like this. Suppose there was a website where you could sign a pledge which said: "I will spend 1/2 hour a week working against internet censorship". and then provided stack-overflow-like facilities whereby activists could suggest useful actions and vote on which are the best; and collect data on which arguments seemed most effective. Not only would this make us more effective, it would declare that we were a force to be reckoned with. Anyone up for making such a website?
- molmalo 15y ago
  The reason this worked out right (still crossing fingers) in my opinion, was because much of the tech community were on the same side in this one. But there are other occasions where this would have been a mess. So, the message would not have been clear. The congress and media would have thought "some people say yes, some people say no... nothing new".
  - ajb 15y ago
    No, I think congress and the media don't normally think about the tech community's opinion at all. [editted to add] You are right that division makes the message harder to put across. But it's not as simple as that. Take software patents: some people think software patents should be banned altogether, some people think they should be limited to five years, some people think 'obvious' patents are the problem. But most people think that the system is broken. As engineers, our automatic response is to start figuring out what the solution would look like. But the roadblock is not a lack of a solution, but lack of political influence. We can't agree on a solution to the software patent problem, because we won't find out which one works until we get to try one of them out. And the roadblock to doing that is lack of political influence.
jcampbell1 15y ago
In the risk of being down voted to hell, this whole thing seems completely misguided to me. I love the product that hollywood produces. I love great movies and great TV. I frankly think "The Wire" is the best example of story telling I know of. I can think of nothing that silicon valley has produced that even comes close. If Zynga disappeared tomorrow, I could care less, and Hollywood and Zynga are both selling entertainment. Zynga's entertainment value is less than worthless to me. I hope hollywood continues to be a massively successful industry in the hope that the next David Simon is created.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- rlm 15y ago
  I guess you meant "couldn't" care less? :) http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html But I'm in total agreement with you. I too like the productions of Hollywood. I just don't like their political power.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  you're missing the point completely. any replacement has to succeed because it's better than hollywood. something even more awesome will come along and replace it. the argument is not "lets all share files until they go bankrupt"; it's "there is change afoot; whoever can make the awesomest, most loved art / entertainment of the next wave will win big". you're not a special flower. the stuff you like is mass market. you will like even more whatever comes next - if you didn't, then it wouldn't be the next big thing. the argument is self-fulfilling; yc simply wants to be the one that makes money on it. don't be mislead by the macho "killing" rhetoric.
  - jamesgatz 15y ago
    "there is change afoot; whoever can make the awesomest, most loved art / entertainment of the next wave will win big" I think the reason this ycomb call to action is going to fizzle out is because all you excited engineers keep using this language - "art" or "entertainment." Hollywood doesn't produce entertainment. It tells stories. It's an industry of stories. Stories are deep and primal. Entertainment is distraction. Despite having terrible profit margins (4-9%), six companies have had a lock-down on narrative film production for nearly 100 years. It's one of the most stable industries in the country. The initial ycomb call to action is probably the most misguided thing I've seen them release. Trying to beat back the most efficient and long lasting storytelling machine of all time with "entertainment" is like trying to dam the colorado river with a cheese cloth.
mekoka 15y ago
The project has an objective find an alternative to Hollywood. But like everything else, baby steps are in order. I don't know why it is assumed that a beta solution should ship with the ability to produce "Avatar" caliber productions. When it comes to technology, I'm optimistic that it has almost limitless potential to revolutionize. My instinct tells me though that a startup aimed at competing against Hollywood doesn't have to be about inventing alternate forms of entertainment, but rather to work at optimizing on alternate means of production and distribution of the already successful form of entertainment. Recent efforts with other media have shown that most optimizations are about cutting out as much unnecessary intermediary layers as possible. I'm convinced that a number of people currently working within the Hollywoodian system are unhappy with the present arrangements and I would not be surprised if a few were to come out the woodwork because of this YC invitation. Their expertise will be essential, because if my guess is correct, I think that a large majority of people on HN are complete ignorami when it comes to making a movie or a tv show. We're more consumers and critics than we are creators or producers of such material. Another thing would be to look at what currently exist that tries to spearhead such alternate efforts. Is it successful? What are the problems? What has been tried? Where's the data? First, let's ask the people who currently work on the fringe of Hollywood how they're doing it.
- MrScruff 15y ago
  Do you know what's involved in making high end mass-market entertainment as produced by Hollywood or the games industry? A massive amount of work by large groups of very talented, highly qualified, incredibly hard working people. You see, unlike most tech startups, making movies is a really big collaborative endeavour. As an example, let's consider post production/VFX. VFX companies are external contractors to the studios and compete to bid on upcoming projects. Competition is tough and the studios are more than willing to go wherever they can to achieve the best price/quality ratio. Yet still VFX can amount to a significant fraction of the production budget for a modern blockbuster. The studios are happy to pay for this though since they know that VFX driven films generally do better than the alternative. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ So if the VFX companies aren't making massive profits, what are their costs? The costs are employing hundreds of artists and developers to create content. And content is what people are ultimately paying money to see. It's exactly the same in the games industry. So to create an alternative to Hollywood, you'd need to generate content that's as good as Hollywood. And you're not going to do that without lots of highly paid content creators. Doesn't seem like particularly low hanging fruit to me.
chaostheory 15y ago
How much money do indy film makers need for a minimum viable product? How can we help them bring it to an audience and make money?
- wahnfrieden 15y ago
  Generally much more than YC hands out. Keep in mind that filmmaking has lots of equipment and other costs, whereas you can do a software startup just with a computer, lots of time, and some place to park yourself.
- justincormack 15y ago
  There is already lots of Indy product. Distribution and audience seem to be the hard bits. If you can make money, the product will come, people want to make this stuff...
pentae 15y ago
Am I the only one who believes that this notion of 'piracy stealing jobs' is simply a catalyst for Rupert Murdoch and his billionaire friends who collectively own this industry to personally control the Internet? This is absolutely a power struggle. They want to control our information, like they always have--look at Fox news. As more and more people switch to online sources of entertainment, their industry is simply being diluted by Youtube's, Hulu's, Reddit, HackerNews and the Apple App Store. So in their dying breaths, they are spending $100 million a year trying to take control of the very industry that is diluting their power over our information and their control of our minds. It sounds very George Orwellian, but I mean really.. have you seen Fox news? It's a parody of itself. Rupert Murdoch tried his best to have a go at the online industry with Myspace and we all know how well that turned out for him, so I guess the self-professed billionaire tyrant figures if he can't beat them, why not just try and own them?
ck2 15y ago
It's ironic Hollywood itself WAS a group of rogue startups, just over 100 years ago. But here's the thing - you can probably make a dent but "killing it" ? Wouldn't that be like making professional sports obsolete? There is just too much money and organization and you are never going to get all the fans to try something else instead and stay with it.
vellum 15y ago
Does getting rid of our Old Entertainment Overlords really matter, if our New Entertainment Overlords are going to be doing the same thing? As long as one group of people is getting rich in an industry, the temptation is always there to start rigging the rules in your favor by working the refs. Look at the current mess we have with patents. Disrupting Hollywood is great, but we should also innovate by coming up with new ways to discourage and punish companies from attempting things like SOPA.
- oflannabhra 15y ago
  Yes, it does matter, because whatever replaces Hollywood will 1) let me consume better entertainment products in ways I prefer, and 2) not require legislation to remain viable. I have no problem with whatever and whomever eventually disrupts Hollywood getting rich off me buying their stuff. I agree that lobbying power for industries like Hollywood is a problem that needs to be fixed, but that is a much larger context than entertainment. We can both replace Hollywood with a more consumer oriented industry and reform lobbying, but they are two separate goals.
phzbOx 15y ago
Woa, that went huge fast. I mean, every startups is an offensive against something already existing, no? Yes, you can have an original idea but more often than not, it's based on something existing and enhancing it in some ways.
powertower 15y ago
If you want to get rid of Hollywood, there is only one way to do it... Start funding shows, movies, and productions. Or figure out how to get 100MM people (or more) subscribed at $10/month (or more) to check-mark which shows and movies they want created. Then use the revenue from that to make the production. Maybe even make the process completely democratic, where actors (known, and unknown) can send in their auditions and you get to vote on it. Then use YouTube or NetFlix for distribution, and provide downloads. There is more to it than the above, but that pretty much cuts the studios off, and Hollywood in general, at the knees, and gives control to the consumers.
- maigret 15y ago
  So back to the beginning of the loop... One has to pay for content.
  - powertower 15y ago
    How's that a problem?
    - maigret 15y ago
      I don't think it is. I guess the problem that should be tackled is not how the movies & music are actually done, but rather the way they are sold. The problem in my view - without pointing at anyone - is that not enough people are willing to pay for the products.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Relevant- Hollywood tries new online network for connecting established filmmakers with investors. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/sundance-2012-slated-online-hub-283760 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/sundance-201...
omarchowdhury 15y ago
When all is said and done, more is said than done.
jasonabelli 15y ago
I don't believe we can blame the politicians for campaign finance corruption. It is our own complacency that has allowed this system to take a firm root in our government. How can you blame or get mad at one of our representatives for playing the game we make/allow them to play. I guess what I am saying is if you can't get elected unless you use the corrupt campaign financing system that we allow to be in place how can we be upset when our elected officials are a pawn to the system?
- stfu 15y ago
  Same here. Campaign finance reform is a great idea but is not going to happen overnight. As long as it is not abolished the existing system has to be used to one's advantage. And as long Hollywood lobbyists outnumber Tech lobbyists it is going to be an uphill battle. I hope this recent conflict motivated big tech companies to increase their involvement in the policy process.
bane 15y ago
Engineers love to solve problems. Hollywood has become a problem.
thret 15y ago
“Such ridiculous, destructive bills should never even pass committee review,” Mr. Arment wrote. The real problem, he added, is “the MPAA’s buying power in Congress,” The real problem is that money has buying power in Congress. Money shouldn't buy votes. I don't know what the solution is but I'm fairly sure that's the problem.

Bookmark this article and remember this date, as YCombinator has altered its focus and embarked on this political venture. Once it had worked hard to stay clear of political entanglements, now it dives wholeheartedly into the grift of politics. No one play politics and plays clean, not even angel investors.

frankydp 15y ago

It is so very true that financing is the real issue here. http://rootstrikers.org/ http://rootstrikers.org/

Aloisius 15y ago
Definitely. Either fix financing or join in. The reason why Hollywood is so powerful is because they actually donate to campaigns and have lobbyists. That seems far more productive than trying to destroy an industry because you're tired of their political power.
- gfodor 15y ago
  It's important to remember you can do both at the same time. Work hard towards financial reform, but in the mean time flex your financial muscles to get there otherwise you will be defenseless and the reform you seek will never happen.

ajhit406 15y ago

What hollywood has going for it, is a track-record of executing on the operations behind producing movies that make money. People who invest in movies invest for the same reasons all of us invest in anything-- to make money. Hollywood is a business, albeit one rooted in entertainment, but let's face it-- many artists are also just in it for the money. I don't think our world view of "entertainment" is going to shift the way that YC suggested in it's call for action. I think most of us (unfortunately) are still going to want to watch movies like Transformers 3 at a $200 million budget than a $1million dollar indie flick. So, once we've recognized that uprooting involves figuring out how to finance movie production instead of shifting the realm of entertainment (at least, for our generation, perhaps future generations will just want to watch WOW and starcraft online), then we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, figuring out a way to finance a film that costs tens or hundreds of millions to produce is a pretty tricky endeavor. Still, it will be pretty awesome when Brad Pitt signs onto his first crowd-sourced flick =)

parka 15y ago
It may not be necessary to compete as directly as that. Filesharing sites compete against Hollywood in a different way (even though it's illegal) and they manage to grab their attention. What we need is something to give us the same amount of leverage.
- inkaudio 15y ago
  You missed the point. File sharing sites don't create content, they exploit Hollywood's archaic and stubborn method of distributing content.
  - parka 15y ago
    What you're saying is common knowledge. What I'm trying to say is: Don't compete directly. Apple didn't compete directly with the music/tv/movie industries but yet they too manage to have a huge leverage over them. And they managed that legally. There will be a certain metric that matters in competition. We just need to know what that metric is.
softbuilder 15y ago
You have to ponder the inefficiencies of an ecosystem that supports a $200 million movie. I'm reminded of Firefly. Such a great show, with lots of loyal fans. I guess it just wasn't a big enough fan base for Fox. I thought at the time that the producers should go independent and distribute straight to the consumer. Maybe that was too risky in 2002. I don't think it would be today.
- inkaudio 15y ago
  Not risky, it's just that back in 2002 there were less people watching videos online, many people still had dialup.
  - softbuilder 15y ago
    I was thinking DVD distribution at the time. I had used Netflix for a while by that point and could imagine subscribing to get a DVD in the mail from Joss Whedon every week.

jezclaremurugan 15y ago

Or how about a way to fix the congress and the election process? A startup to provide information on the promises kept/broken, campaign financing, how much someone is influenced by lobbyists etc, so that only people who can be trusted get to vote on these issues. I think having politicians who can be trusted, who are informed, is more important. The recent blackouts swayed so many of them, but we can't do this every time. Some dashboard kind of thing, to let them know what their constituents want would be very useful for them, since I'm afraid they dont read opinion polls...

eck 15y ago

I am sort of surprised that pg chose movies rather than music. Movies are hard. You need a lot of things to make a movie. I liked Avatar. You can't do that kind of thing on the cheap. Actors, sites, makeup, lighting, special effects, etc. For music, you need the band, which are essentially founders from an equity standpoint, and own their own instruments already since they know how to play them. You need like $1000 of recording gear and some dude to hit the "record" button. Eventually movies will be democratized, but killing the RIAA/iTunes cabal seems like the obvious first step.

philwelch 15y ago
iTunes isn't in a cabal with RIAA, Apple just needs to use the RIAA to make iTunes usable. Actually it's partly because of iTunes that RIAA is so vulnerable; iTunes cuts out the marketing and distribution part of the business.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
secoif 15y ago
This is true for some music genres, but not all. Same way you can just press record on your camera phone, you are unlikely to film the next blockbuster on that. Commercial quality polish (generally) takes expensive engineers and expensive equipment, and a lot of time, and this is true of most multimedia fields, with exception of Indy sub genres.
inkaudio 15y ago
A $1000 recording won't give you great sound quality, not 24/96 K. It easy to marginalize a recording engineer until you try to record an album yourself. To get the the sound you want there are number of things you want to get right, the right equipment, the right space, mic placement, recording levels. Still not as expensive or hard as making movie, but not so easy either.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  This is true, I know some indie musicians and they usually own a minimum of $10,000 worth of equipment themselves and on top of that hire other stuff when they record or play live. A lot of things that people think are "done in someone's garage" are either done by someone with very rich parents or produced by a relatively well funded company.

ajb 15y ago

I think what we need to work on is improving the political clout of engineers, not destroying hollywood. We've won this one (I hope) but it took rather extreme measures. Blacking out wikipedia isn't something which can be done every time congress threatens to do something stupid. It's a bit like going on strike - a negative act which can turn people against us if overused. We need mechanisms which can influence politics on a day-to-day level, so we don't need to do these last-ditch operations. Nevertheless, defeating SOPA is hugely significant, because it shows that we CAN be politically effective. Politics can operate as a kind of nonviolent intimidation: if our opponents have the reputation of being politically effective, and our group has the reputation of being politically ineffective, individuals think it's not worth their time trying to influence politics. Take software patents. Whenever this comes up, there are always gloomy posts saying that we will never defeat the patent lobby. This perception deters everyone from trying to. EFF does a good job. But I think more of us need to be active as individuals, on a day to day basis rather than just when the trumpet sounds like this. Suppose there was a website where you could sign a pledge which said: "I will spend 1/2 hour a week working against internet censorship". and then provided stack-overflow-like facilities whereby activists could suggest useful actions and vote on which are the best; and collect data on which arguments seemed most effective. Not only would this make us more effective, it would declare that we were a force to be reckoned with. Anyone up for making such a website?

molmalo 15y ago
The reason this worked out right (still crossing fingers) in my opinion, was because much of the tech community were on the same side in this one. But there are other occasions where this would have been a mess. So, the message would not have been clear. The congress and media would have thought "some people say yes, some people say no... nothing new".
- ajb 15y ago
  No, I think congress and the media don't normally think about the tech community's opinion at all. [editted to add] You are right that division makes the message harder to put across. But it's not as simple as that. Take software patents: some people think software patents should be banned altogether, some people think they should be limited to five years, some people think 'obvious' patents are the problem. But most people think that the system is broken. As engineers, our automatic response is to start figuring out what the solution would look like. But the roadblock is not a lack of a solution, but lack of political influence. We can't agree on a solution to the software patent problem, because we won't find out which one works until we get to try one of them out. And the roadblock to doing that is lack of political influence.

jcampbell1 15y ago

In the risk of being down voted to hell, this whole thing seems completely misguided to me. I love the product that hollywood produces. I love great movies and great TV. I frankly think "The Wire" is the best example of story telling I know of. I can think of nothing that silicon valley has produced that even comes close. If Zynga disappeared tomorrow, I could care less, and Hollywood and Zynga are both selling entertainment. Zynga's entertainment value is less than worthless to me. I hope hollywood continues to be a massively successful industry in the hope that the next David Simon is created.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rlm 15y ago
I guess you meant "couldn't" care less? :) http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html But I'm in total agreement with you. I too like the productions of Hollywood. I just don't like their political power.
andrewcooke 15y ago
you're missing the point completely. any replacement has to succeed because it's better than hollywood. something even more awesome will come along and replace it. the argument is not "lets all share files until they go bankrupt"; it's "there is change afoot; whoever can make the awesomest, most loved art / entertainment of the next wave will win big". you're not a special flower. the stuff you like is mass market. you will like even more whatever comes next - if you didn't, then it wouldn't be the next big thing. the argument is self-fulfilling; yc simply wants to be the one that makes money on it. don't be mislead by the macho "killing" rhetoric.
- jamesgatz 15y ago
  "there is change afoot; whoever can make the awesomest, most loved art / entertainment of the next wave will win big" I think the reason this ycomb call to action is going to fizzle out is because all you excited engineers keep using this language - "art" or "entertainment." Hollywood doesn't produce entertainment. It tells stories. It's an industry of stories. Stories are deep and primal. Entertainment is distraction. Despite having terrible profit margins (4-9%), six companies have had a lock-down on narrative film production for nearly 100 years. It's one of the most stable industries in the country. The initial ycomb call to action is probably the most misguided thing I've seen them release. Trying to beat back the most efficient and long lasting storytelling machine of all time with "entertainment" is like trying to dam the colorado river with a cheese cloth.

mekoka 15y ago

The project has an objective find an alternative to Hollywood. But like everything else, baby steps are in order. I don't know why it is assumed that a beta solution should ship with the ability to produce "Avatar" caliber productions. When it comes to technology, I'm optimistic that it has almost limitless potential to revolutionize. My instinct tells me though that a startup aimed at competing against Hollywood doesn't have to be about inventing alternate forms of entertainment, but rather to work at optimizing on alternate means of production and distribution of the already successful form of entertainment. Recent efforts with other media have shown that most optimizations are about cutting out as much unnecessary intermediary layers as possible. I'm convinced that a number of people currently working within the Hollywoodian system are unhappy with the present arrangements and I would not be surprised if a few were to come out the woodwork because of this YC invitation. Their expertise will be essential, because if my guess is correct, I think that a large majority of people on HN are complete ignorami when it comes to making a movie or a tv show. We're more consumers and critics than we are creators or producers of such material. Another thing would be to look at what currently exist that tries to spearhead such alternate efforts. Is it successful? What are the problems? What has been tried? Where's the data? First, let's ask the people who currently work on the fringe of Hollywood how they're doing it.

MrScruff 15y ago
Do you know what's involved in making high end mass-market entertainment as produced by Hollywood or the games industry? A massive amount of work by large groups of very talented, highly qualified, incredibly hard working people. You see, unlike most tech startups, making movies is a really big collaborative endeavour. As an example, let's consider post production/VFX. VFX companies are external contractors to the studios and compete to bid on upcoming projects. Competition is tough and the studios are more than willing to go wherever they can to achieve the best price/quality ratio. Yet still VFX can amount to a significant fraction of the production budget for a modern blockbuster. The studios are happy to pay for this though since they know that VFX driven films generally do better than the alternative. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ So if the VFX companies aren't making massive profits, what are their costs? The costs are employing hundreds of artists and developers to create content. And content is what people are ultimately paying money to see. It's exactly the same in the games industry. So to create an alternative to Hollywood, you'd need to generate content that's as good as Hollywood. And you're not going to do that without lots of highly paid content creators. Doesn't seem like particularly low hanging fruit to me.

chaostheory 15y ago

How much money do indy film makers need for a minimum viable product? How can we help them bring it to an audience and make money?

wahnfrieden 15y ago
Generally much more than YC hands out. Keep in mind that filmmaking has lots of equipment and other costs, whereas you can do a software startup just with a computer, lots of time, and some place to park yourself.
justincormack 15y ago
There is already lots of Indy product. Distribution and audience seem to be the hard bits. If you can make money, the product will come, people want to make this stuff...

pentae 15y ago

Am I the only one who believes that this notion of 'piracy stealing jobs' is simply a catalyst for Rupert Murdoch and his billionaire friends who collectively own this industry to personally control the Internet? This is absolutely a power struggle. They want to control our information, like they always have--look at Fox news. As more and more people switch to online sources of entertainment, their industry is simply being diluted by Youtube's, Hulu's, Reddit, HackerNews and the Apple App Store. So in their dying breaths, they are spending $100 million a year trying to take control of the very industry that is diluting their power over our information and their control of our minds. It sounds very George Orwellian, but I mean really.. have you seen Fox news? It's a parody of itself. Rupert Murdoch tried his best to have a go at the online industry with Myspace and we all know how well that turned out for him, so I guess the self-professed billionaire tyrant figures if he can't beat them, why not just try and own them?

ck2 15y ago

It's ironic Hollywood itself WAS a group of rogue startups, just over 100 years ago. But here's the thing - you can probably make a dent but "killing it" ? Wouldn't that be like making professional sports obsolete? There is just too much money and organization and you are never going to get all the fans to try something else instead and stay with it.

vellum 15y ago

Does getting rid of our Old Entertainment Overlords really matter, if our New Entertainment Overlords are going to be doing the same thing? As long as one group of people is getting rich in an industry, the temptation is always there to start rigging the rules in your favor by working the refs. Look at the current mess we have with patents. Disrupting Hollywood is great, but we should also innovate by coming up with new ways to discourage and punish companies from attempting things like SOPA.

oflannabhra 15y ago
Yes, it does matter, because whatever replaces Hollywood will 1) let me consume better entertainment products in ways I prefer, and 2) not require legislation to remain viable. I have no problem with whatever and whomever eventually disrupts Hollywood getting rich off me buying their stuff. I agree that lobbying power for industries like Hollywood is a problem that needs to be fixed, but that is a much larger context than entertainment. We can both replace Hollywood with a more consumer oriented industry and reform lobbying, but they are two separate goals.

phzbOx 15y ago

Woa, that went huge fast. I mean, every startups is an offensive against something already existing, no? Yes, you can have an original idea but more often than not, it's based on something existing and enhancing it in some ways.

powertower 15y ago

If you want to get rid of Hollywood, there is only one way to do it... Start funding shows, movies, and productions. Or figure out how to get 100MM people (or more) subscribed at $10/month (or more) to check-mark which shows and movies they want created. Then use the revenue from that to make the production. Maybe even make the process completely democratic, where actors (known, and unknown) can send in their auditions and you get to vote on it. Then use YouTube or NetFlix for distribution, and provide downloads. There is more to it than the above, but that pretty much cuts the studios off, and Hollywood in general, at the knees, and gives control to the consumers.

maigret 15y ago
So back to the beginning of the loop... One has to pay for content.
- powertower 15y ago
  How's that a problem?
  - maigret 15y ago
    I don't think it is. I guess the problem that should be tackled is not how the movies & music are actually done, but rather the way they are sold. The problem in my view - without pointing at anyone - is that not enough people are willing to pay for the products.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

waterlesscloud 15y ago

Relevant- Hollywood tries new online network for connecting established filmmakers with investors. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/sundance-2012-slated-online-hub-283760 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/sundance-201...

omarchowdhury 15y ago

When all is said and done, more is said than done.

jasonabelli 15y ago

I don't believe we can blame the politicians for campaign finance corruption. It is our own complacency that has allowed this system to take a firm root in our government. How can you blame or get mad at one of our representatives for playing the game we make/allow them to play. I guess what I am saying is if you can't get elected unless you use the corrupt campaign financing system that we allow to be in place how can we be upset when our elected officials are a pawn to the system?

stfu 15y ago
Same here. Campaign finance reform is a great idea but is not going to happen overnight. As long as it is not abolished the existing system has to be used to one's advantage. And as long Hollywood lobbyists outnumber Tech lobbyists it is going to be an uphill battle. I hope this recent conflict motivated big tech companies to increase their involvement in the policy process.

bane 15y ago

Engineers love to solve problems. Hollywood has become a problem.

thret 15y ago

“Such ridiculous, destructive bills should never even pass committee review,” Mr. Arment wrote. The real problem, he added, is “the MPAA’s buying power in Congress,” The real problem is that money has buying power in Congress. Money shouldn't buy votes. I don't know what the solution is but I'm fairly sure that's the problem.