5 ms·

Killing Hollywood Will Require Learning Hollywood’s Game

59 points by FredBrach 15y ago

colinm 15y ago
At least when I watch a movie in the cinema, I don't have 'contextual' ads popping up on the screen. Do we really want a 'YouTube future'?
jpdoctor 15y ago
> For the Valley to do that, it’s going to have to get out of the mindset that eyeballs equal quality. It's not about quality. It is about building a monster revenue (and profit!) stream. To quote from the dead trees: "No one in this world, so far as I know_and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me_has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." HL Mencken To quote from Hollywood itself: "Show me the money!"
sek 15y ago
The core of big movie revenues is the hype, it's marketing that gets millions of people in theaters on the first weeks. What if Youtube, Netflix, Apple and similar distributors try to provide the same film worldwide on the same day, with a lot of marketing before the event. When they all fund a part of an big budget Christopher Nolan movie, they all get their direct share and a lot of new registered customers.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Distribution is probably the easier part of the problem once you have a quality movie that was funded. Y Combinator could just partner with Youtube and release it worldwide. The hard part is funding the right movies and with as much as they need initially.
  - sek 15y ago
    So let's bring it down: "We need high quality content". We need content good enough to replace Hollywood. It is the biggest Entertainment brand in the world, not an easy task.
    - felipemnoa 15y ago
      Have you watched The Guild? Some of the best content I have seen in a long time. I think this is just getting started. This reminds me of how people used to criticize digital cameras when they first came out. A decade later and film cameras are dead.
incub8or 15y ago
Movie studios' sole focus is money. Money allows them to hire movie stars, to use the best equipment, to buy ad space and to rent movie theatres. In short, money (and how much they are prepared to spend) is what separates anyone with a video camera and an idea, and the major movie studios. Indie filmmakers cannot compete on a level monetary footing. So they must disrupt and stay lean, not only in production but ALSO in marketing and distribution. This is where I believe a lot of indie film makers need to focus on: disruptive distribution. As an example, I directed a movie and treated it as a lean startup from pre production. We are looking to disrupt traditional movie distribution by offering individuals and businesses something tangible and of intrinsic value when they buy our movie: to feature them on a billboard on Times Square. Check out the movie and strategy at: http://bit.ly/n4XQG0 http://bit.ly/n4XQG0
scottdw2 15y ago
Here is the recipe for killing Hollywood: 1. The Hollywood Business Model The Hollywood business model is based on 2 things: 1. Control of distribution 2. Financing of production The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0. The reason they are not dead yet is because no one has solved #2. They still control production of most content. 2. It's like Kickstarter, but for movies So, the solution is to attack film financing. Make it diffuse, and distributed. Create a platform for film makers to seek financing in small amounts from normal people. You could call it "slushpile.com" or something line that. A film maker posts a 60 second trailer and a budget. People invest small amounts in the film. When the budget is reached the film maker gets the money, and he makes the film. You then distribute the film through the site, for a fee. Split the revenues 70 / 20 / 10. The film makers get 70%, the "producers" (the funders) get 20%, and the site gets 10%. 3. A key first customer. The obvious best choice is Kevin Smith. He understands the Internet, he makes entertaining films with small budgets, and he has an avid cult following. He's like the Ron Paul of film makers. Its a schlep. You have to seduce movie stars. But, pulling it off would kill Hollywood, overnight.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  I'm not quite sure how they work, but one example of a better way to do movies might be the "Wreck a Movie" people. That Iron Sky movie they've been working on for a while is coming out early this year apparently.
- sek 15y ago
  4. Controlling print media for unlimited marketing. There is a reason why News Corp has so many newspapers and magazines.
  - felipemnoa 15y ago
    Print media is dead.
- VMG 15y ago
  > The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0. And thereby created a new problem: Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective profit of $0.
joeycfan 15y ago
Well good luck with that because it entails you out-weaseling the worlds best weasels.
chaostheory 15y ago
> But Hollywood shouldn’t care (if the MPAA had a clue) because it offers something YouTube can’t: An experience that you will get in a car, drive to, and pay $12 for. The article lost me right here. Every year this is less and less true for people in my generation. It doesn't take long for even the blockbusters to show up for rental. I'm not even sure what the article is trying to say. What is 'good'?
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  Given how inexpensive reasonably-good home theaters have become, how expensive theaters have become, and how one has no control over the theater experience (bad projection, too loud, talking, etc), this is only going to happen more. I think Hollywood is doomed, even with draconian laws on their side. Good content has been made online, and it's just getting started. I agree with the GP that simplifying and democratizing the funding would help, but so will new film makers realizing good is absolutely not synonymous with expensive (and is often contradictory).
  - kbutler 15y ago
    I'm totally in this camp - I prefer to watch something on my home theater system. More comfy seats, fills more of my field of vision, better schedule, better treats, watch in my jammies... But my wife likes to go out to the movies. So we go out. I expect that other forms of entertainment and other ways of producing content will coexist with the "legacy" model for some time.
ior3k 15y ago
I still don't understand why anyone would want to kill Hollywood. The American politicians allowed themselves to be bought. When Hollywood is dead someone else will take their place. If anything should die is Washington's corrupt political system. Hollywood (or anyone else with deep pockets) goes as far as Washington lets it. Nowadays, the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules." Kill that instead.
- Estragon 15y ago
  You're absolutely correct. Wall Street makes Hollywood look like complete pikers in this respect.

59 points by FredBrach 15y ago

At least when I watch a movie in the cinema, I don't have 'contextual' ads popping up on the screen. Do we really want a 'YouTube future'?

jpdoctor 15y ago

> For the Valley to do that, it’s going to have to get out of the mindset that eyeballs equal quality. It's not about quality. It is about building a monster revenue (and profit!) stream. To quote from the dead trees: "No one in this world, so far as I know_and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me_has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." HL Mencken To quote from Hollywood itself: "Show me the money!"

sek 15y ago

The core of big movie revenues is the hype, it's marketing that gets millions of people in theaters on the first weeks. What if Youtube, Netflix, Apple and similar distributors try to provide the same film worldwide on the same day, with a lot of marketing before the event. When they all fund a part of an big budget Christopher Nolan movie, they all get their direct share and a lot of new registered customers.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Distribution is probably the easier part of the problem once you have a quality movie that was funded. Y Combinator could just partner with Youtube and release it worldwide. The hard part is funding the right movies and with as much as they need initially.
- sek 15y ago
  So let's bring it down: "We need high quality content". We need content good enough to replace Hollywood. It is the biggest Entertainment brand in the world, not an easy task.
  - felipemnoa 15y ago
    Have you watched The Guild? Some of the best content I have seen in a long time. I think this is just getting started. This reminds me of how people used to criticize digital cameras when they first came out. A decade later and film cameras are dead.

incub8or 15y ago

Movie studios' sole focus is money. Money allows them to hire movie stars, to use the best equipment, to buy ad space and to rent movie theatres. In short, money (and how much they are prepared to spend) is what separates anyone with a video camera and an idea, and the major movie studios. Indie filmmakers cannot compete on a level monetary footing. So they must disrupt and stay lean, not only in production but ALSO in marketing and distribution. This is where I believe a lot of indie film makers need to focus on: disruptive distribution. As an example, I directed a movie and treated it as a lean startup from pre production. We are looking to disrupt traditional movie distribution by offering individuals and businesses something tangible and of intrinsic value when they buy our movie: to feature them on a billboard on Times Square. Check out the movie and strategy at: http://bit.ly/n4XQG0 http://bit.ly/n4XQG0

scottdw2 15y ago

Here is the recipe for killing Hollywood: 1. The Hollywood Business Model The Hollywood business model is based on 2 things: 1. Control of distribution 2. Financing of production The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0. The reason they are not dead yet is because no one has solved #2. They still control production of most content. 2. It's like Kickstarter, but for movies So, the solution is to attack film financing. Make it diffuse, and distributed. Create a platform for film makers to seek financing in small amounts from normal people. You could call it "slushpile.com" or something line that. A film maker posts a 60 second trailer and a budget. People invest small amounts in the film. When the budget is reached the film maker gets the money, and he makes the film. You then distribute the film through the site, for a fee. Split the revenues 70 / 20 / 10. The film makers get 70%, the "producers" (the funders) get 20%, and the site gets 10%. 3. A key first customer. The obvious best choice is Kevin Smith. He understands the Internet, he makes entertaining films with small budgets, and he has an avid cult following. He's like the Ron Paul of film makers. Its a schlep. You have to seduce movie stars. But, pulling it off would kill Hollywood, overnight.

burgerbrain 15y ago
I'm not quite sure how they work, but one example of a better way to do movies might be the "Wreck a Movie" people. That Iron Sky movie they've been working on for a while is coming out early this year apparently.
sek 15y ago
4. Controlling print media for unlimited marketing. There is a reason why News Corp has so many newspapers and magazines.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  Print media is dead.
VMG 15y ago
> The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0. And thereby created a new problem: Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective profit of $0.

joeycfan 15y ago

Well good luck with that because it entails you out-weaseling the worlds best weasels.

chaostheory 15y ago

> But Hollywood shouldn’t care (if the MPAA had a clue) because it offers something YouTube can’t: An experience that you will get in a car, drive to, and pay $12 for. The article lost me right here. Every year this is less and less true for people in my generation. It doesn't take long for even the blockbusters to show up for rental. I'm not even sure what the article is trying to say. What is 'good'?

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
Given how inexpensive reasonably-good home theaters have become, how expensive theaters have become, and how one has no control over the theater experience (bad projection, too loud, talking, etc), this is only going to happen more. I think Hollywood is doomed, even with draconian laws on their side. Good content has been made online, and it's just getting started. I agree with the GP that simplifying and democratizing the funding would help, but so will new film makers realizing good is absolutely not synonymous with expensive (and is often contradictory).
- kbutler 15y ago
  I'm totally in this camp - I prefer to watch something on my home theater system. More comfy seats, fills more of my field of vision, better schedule, better treats, watch in my jammies... But my wife likes to go out to the movies. So we go out. I expect that other forms of entertainment and other ways of producing content will coexist with the "legacy" model for some time.

ior3k 15y ago

I still don't understand why anyone would want to kill Hollywood. The American politicians allowed themselves to be bought. When Hollywood is dead someone else will take their place. If anything should die is Washington's corrupt political system. Hollywood (or anyone else with deep pockets) goes as far as Washington lets it. Nowadays, the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules." Kill that instead.

Estragon 15y ago
You're absolutely correct. Wall Street makes Hollywood look like complete pikers in this respect.