4 ms·

I'm glad there are other film/tv people on the board sharing their perspective. Before I started writing code for a living, I used to work in post production in

I'm glad there are other film/tv people on the board sharing their perspective. Before I started writing code for a living, I used to work in post production in NYC on reality tv shows and also in the past on films, docs, and also at more artistic-minded places like Sundance (which is a great place but very much tied to Hollywood, btw, if it wasn't already obvious). A lot of my friends (and myself) are hustling to get their films made here in the city so I must agree that the amount of money required to get a film made is a lot less than it once was. The real difficulty, and what needs to change, in my opinion, is creating an avenue for independent producers to show their content and STILL have it be considered worth watching. In a way YouTube and Vimeo lets you put your work online which immediately makes it available to a billion people. The problem, though, is that having your work shown on youtube means nothing. Having your work screened on TV means something. Being screen in a theatre means something. Getting into Cannes means something. Having Ebert review your film means something. You can argue that Eberts opinion doesn't mean much, but the fact that he is reviewing your work is meaningful in and of itself. Hollywood has this huge system to help itself legitimize the work that comes out of it, regardless of the actual quality. There's no real system that helps individuals who want to cut out the middle man effectively convince strangers to watch their content (afaik). There has been an insane amount of growth in the number of film festivals that exist in the last 5 years, but all that does is lessen the value of screening your film in a festival. (Wanna see? Just check out withoutabox.com). Also it's just growth that in my opinion tries to emulate and validate the current system. So what I think is needed is something like Netflix, or a bunch Netflix-type sites, that serve curated and independently produced shows and films. Each site would serve a specific audience, and each site must be careful in what it chooses to show. It must legitimize itself to "normals" as a valid mode of entertainment, and also to artists and filmmakers as a valid mode of distribution. This, I believe, would allow for more diversity and more democracy in content creation, and is a viable way to legitimize quality content that would otherwise get lost in a sea of Internet junk. Edit: grammar and some messed up sentences that didn't make sense :)

mcartyem 15y ago
Films want users, not legitimacy. I'll watch anything a recommendation engine tells me looks like another film I know.
metropolis 15y ago
It's an interesting perspective. In a way, I think that it may result in a revamping of the current content distribution system as we know it. Think of it this way - right now, we've got production companies who funnel their stuff to network conglomerates who, in turn, market, negotiate and distribute their content over their portals - cable or otherwise. The biggest barrier to entry here is the market penetration of these networks and strength of buck behind them. I think, though, with a lot of different operators in a marketplace, your message becomes a bit watered down. What if the development here was more of a marketplace for these sites to funnel their content towards - which would in turn do the groundwork, the lobbying, the push and pull of negotiating deals with your digital distribution platforms (set top box manufacturers and the like)? I worked in digital licensing for a major television network in NY. It was my dream to get back there. Now it's my dream to turn it on it's head.
- kenamarit 15y ago
  I think I understand what you're saying...The site (say of a bunch of indie web series, for example) acts as a production company that deals with all the logistics of getting the work distributed to venues where one would actually watch them? I think there might be something there (if I understand it correctly), but I also think that it would almost be moving backwards because one of the goals should be to completely cut out digital distribution platforms as we know it. Not that I have any personal or strong emotional issue with them. But with smartphones and iPads and God only knows what other engaging new technologies that will come out, the distribution infrastructure doesn't need to rely on top box manufacturers, or cable, or movie theatres. And similarly the content doesn't need to be made in the traditional way or even resemble traditional forms. I love going to the movies, but more and more it's becoming the exception instead of the norm. I'm a little old fashioned in that I think you can't replace the experience of seeing a movie in the theatre. There's something there that makes it absolutely worth it. Similarly, you can't replace the experience of seeing live opera at the Met, if that's your thing. For me, the hope is that kids growing up today will think that cable TV is dumb and going to a theatre to see a movie is old fashioned, something reserved for their parents' generation.
alain94040 15y ago
Agreed. Where is the TechCrunch of independent YouTube videos? A place equivalent to Ebert that would tell me what content is worth watching online. If you can do it and build a following of millions, that would be amazing.
- cdcarter 15y ago
  There are many of these "content curators" out there. Perhaps none that has gained as big a following as Ebert, but there are people out there like the Smithian, Christine Friar, Bobby Finger, even Sasha Frere Jones running very popular blogs curating internet content.
balsam 15y ago
>There's no real system that helps individuals who want to cut out the middle man effectively convince strangers to watch their content (afaik). Reddit. Ok, I understand, you meant: long form content =P That one is not afraid to cuddle up to, with a date.

mcartyem 15y ago

Films want users, not legitimacy. I'll watch anything a recommendation engine tells me looks like another film I know.

metropolis 15y ago

It's an interesting perspective. In a way, I think that it may result in a revamping of the current content distribution system as we know it. Think of it this way - right now, we've got production companies who funnel their stuff to network conglomerates who, in turn, market, negotiate and distribute their content over their portals - cable or otherwise. The biggest barrier to entry here is the market penetration of these networks and strength of buck behind them. I think, though, with a lot of different operators in a marketplace, your message becomes a bit watered down. What if the development here was more of a marketplace for these sites to funnel their content towards - which would in turn do the groundwork, the lobbying, the push and pull of negotiating deals with your digital distribution platforms (set top box manufacturers and the like)? I worked in digital licensing for a major television network in NY. It was my dream to get back there. Now it's my dream to turn it on it's head.

kenamarit 15y ago
I think I understand what you're saying...The site (say of a bunch of indie web series, for example) acts as a production company that deals with all the logistics of getting the work distributed to venues where one would actually watch them? I think there might be something there (if I understand it correctly), but I also think that it would almost be moving backwards because one of the goals should be to completely cut out digital distribution platforms as we know it. Not that I have any personal or strong emotional issue with them. But with smartphones and iPads and God only knows what other engaging new technologies that will come out, the distribution infrastructure doesn't need to rely on top box manufacturers, or cable, or movie theatres. And similarly the content doesn't need to be made in the traditional way or even resemble traditional forms. I love going to the movies, but more and more it's becoming the exception instead of the norm. I'm a little old fashioned in that I think you can't replace the experience of seeing a movie in the theatre. There's something there that makes it absolutely worth it. Similarly, you can't replace the experience of seeing live opera at the Met, if that's your thing. For me, the hope is that kids growing up today will think that cable TV is dumb and going to a theatre to see a movie is old fashioned, something reserved for their parents' generation.

alain94040 15y ago

Agreed. Where is the TechCrunch of independent YouTube videos? A place equivalent to Ebert that would tell me what content is worth watching online. If you can do it and build a following of millions, that would be amazing.

cdcarter 15y ago
There are many of these "content curators" out there. Perhaps none that has gained as big a following as Ebert, but there are people out there like the Smithian, Christine Friar, Bobby Finger, even Sasha Frere Jones running very popular blogs curating internet content.

balsam 15y ago

>There's no real system that helps individuals who want to cut out the middle man effectively convince strangers to watch their content (afaik). Reddit. Ok, I understand, you meant: long form content =P That one is not afraid to cuddle up to, with a date.