9 ms·

My idea to "Kill Hollywood"

239 points by rsbrown 15y ago

aysar 15y ago
Pretty cool idea, but i'm not so sure about the $0.99 pricing, seems pretty undervalued/cheap.
- Kadrith 15y ago
  Agreed; perhaps a tiered approach where people who buy early get a lower price but with limited quantities of the discounted tickets available.
- nekojima 15y ago
  Except at two shows a day, that's $60 in a month. Already more than my current cable bill with 200+ channels. If you count what you watch, or more likely an average US TV viewer watches, per day, that could be ten or fifteen half hour or hour shows. Over the course of a month that's considerably far more than what they are currently paying for cable. A more viable plan might be for the return of 'soap operas' with advertisers specifically sponsoring TV shows. * I know soap operas aren't totally dead, but their original funding model is.
ElliotH 15y ago
The big problem here is choosing the good films based only on the concepts. Otherwise I really hope someone can do this. You could possibly set the price point higher though? I'm not even sure that heavy advertising would be needed for the individual films, so long as you managed to attract a user base who expected high quality films they wanted to watch on the home page.
Tichy 15y ago
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he just described the current state of Hollywood (except for the "straight to stream for 0.99$" part). Hollywood is a business after all. And they clearly have some silly algorithms at work picking potential blockbusters. I've heard rumors that even part of the scripting is algorithmic these days (component based). Of course "we" could improve on the algorithms, but such a thing is not a startup idea in my opinion. A startup idea would be a specific way to improve upon the algorithms.
- rgbrgb 15y ago
  I'd be pretty interested in what properties are used as attributes for modeling a potential movie. I'm guessing they don't work.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "And they clearly have some silly algorithms at work picking potential blockbusters. I've heard rumors that even part of the scripting is algorithmic these days (component based)." There's nothing that sophisticated at work, I assure you. Hollywood has "creative executives" who read the scripts agents send them, and then evaluate those scripts by hand. Some are better at this job than others. Some are legitimately good at it. (Full disclosure: I held this job for 5 or so years of my career; I'd say that I was ok at it). Scripting is done the old-fashioned way, as well, by humans using specialized word processing software (Final Draft for screenplays and teleplays, Scrivener for novels). This software helps writers sort through some of the elements they've been using, i.e., by saving character names and locations, and returning those names when called. And the programs have templates and auto-formatting. But nothing that actually does the writing for you. Not yet, at any rate. (Full disclosure: my brother is a screenwriter, and he's pretty good at it). The challenge is that Hollywood does not have a halfway decent way of predicting or forecasting what will succeed and what won't. It is possible to judge good work from bad work, and to coach writers in improving their work. And there are "rules" of story structure, plotting, and so forth. But these are just structural. Very few people have any sort of gift for making calls about what will, or will not, succeed at the box office or on TV. Sometimes legitimately great material fails, and often legitimately atrocious garbage succeeds wildly. It tends to be a crapshoot. I would suggest that, if we're interested in disrupting Hollywood, we stop focusing on a hypothetical, universal audience, and start focusing on niches. We have the technology now to deliver content to those most interested in seeing it. Netflix, Amazon, etc., do a very good job with collaborative filtering. The future of the content distribution business starts with interest-based segmentation, IMO. The sooner we move away from people's best guesses as to what will work for whom, the more readily we can adapt to the delivery methods already at our fingertips.
  - gruseom 15y ago
msutherl 15y ago
I think that very few directors would want to forego the possibility of their film appearing in theaters. Films are designed for theaters and to those who make films, the home-theater experience, which increasingly consists of a laptop on a bed, is a paltry imitation.
- patrickod 15y ago
  While yes a theatre experience is more "grand" I think I'm not alone in saying that I've watched more movies at home in the last year alone than I have spent on theatre tickets. What they'll lose in "quality" they will most definitely make in quantity. Ease of access to the content will lead to higher viewership.
  - rgbrgb 15y ago
    That makes sense when it comes to the business end but essentially you have to convince good artists to work with a far lesser medium for the sake of "higher viewership".
- noodle 15y ago
  Why would something like this necessarily forego theaters? I suspect that a studio built like this could work out licensing agreements with theaters, and that theaters might even become more profitable and affordable because of it.
ktrgardiner 15y ago
I think this idea has a lot of strong elements to it. However, the issue that sticks out the most to me is the pricing model. $.99 per viewing? That would make making a profit incredibly difficult. It just isn't realistic. Instead, I think a price closer to renting a movie on demand would work better with a bargain price for each view after that. Perhaps $2.99 or $3.99 for the first view and $.99 for each view after that. And then maybe when the viewer gets up to a certain view count, each view after that is free. This way, you can gain a profit with less viewers while also instilling loyalty in repeat viewers who are most likely to spread the word.
ankeshk 15y ago
Its a good idea because it brings in a level of transparency. But I'm not sure if it'll make a big dent on Hollywood. Why do some movies do well and others don't? There are a lot of reasons. But if we were to simplify, there are 2 things that matter more than the rest. 1. The buzz factor. Reason why studios pay $20 million to a well known celebrity is because they know it will generate the buzz and create expectations. 2. The story and the experience. Once the movie is released, and the first wave of viewers go and watch it, then it all depends on how good their experience was - for the buzz to sustain. To beat Hollywood, you have to become better than them at telling good stories well, and creating buzz that lasts to make money out of it. You absolutely have to become good at monetizing the buzz. Only selling the movies for 99 cents is a bad monetization plan. You will never be able to fund a movie like Avatar. And if you can't do that, you'll never be able to take on Hollywood. If I were to develop a plan to beat Hollywood, it would center around creating buzz. How to use the new media to generate buzz. Maybe create a new incentivized market... a whacky idea like: the first hundred thousand people who watch a movie can share in its profits.
- rsbrown 15y ago
  "You will never be able to fund a movie like Avatar. And if you can't do that, you'll never be able to take on Hollywood." I don't have to make an Avatar to beat Hollywood. That's fighting fire with fire. We can fight fire with water. If a consumer watches one of my studio's productions instead of watching Avatar, we didn't just earn $0.99 -- we also stole a $10.50 purchase from 20th Century Fox. I'm betting that when given a cleaner, more enjoyable alternative to the mandatory commercials, overpriced fatty junk food, and general awfulness that the current moviegoing experience has degraded into, we can steal a fair amount of business.
  - white_devil 15y ago
    > If a consumer watches one of my studio's productions instead of watching Avatar, we didn't just earn $0.99 -- we also stole a $10.50 purchase from 20th Century Fox Why would the consumer not just watch movies from Fox too? Especially since if he only pays you $0.99, he'll still have plenty of money left to give to Fox.
SteveJS 15y ago
Why not just browse successful kickstarter film projects and do this with stuff that people have already made? Wouldn't that be faster way to see whether it can work?
citricsquid 15y ago
This would never work. If anyone is going to "kill hollywood" they need to address the massive costs associated with producing a movie not the money raising. If movie production could be taken down from $100m to $500k then that would be the game changer, but even that ignores huge barriers and reasons Hollywood exists. To "kill" Hollywood people need to address the costs, not the money raising. Crowd sourcing $1m is close to impossible, crowd sourcing $1m on a regular basis is even harder and crowd sourcing $10m+ on a regular basis? never going to happen. Even if it was achieved once or twice, as soon as a movie doesn't meet expectations the idea will fall apart, if costs are reduced to much lower levels, losing a crowd sourced $500k because the movie sucked is much more palatable than $10m.
- j45 15y ago
  Other film industries around the world routinely put out more movies with less production costs than hollywood. Might not be the exact quality but many have been getting better to the eye the last 10 years alone.
  - Keyframe 15y ago
    Foreign productions are still in multimillion budget ranges, even the cheapest ones that are somewhat at hollywood standards.
  - citricsquid 15y ago
    I took a look at my recently watched movies (specifically the low publicity / small names) and they all have budgets (when listed) of at least a few million dollars. Hell, this movie called "Rise of the foot soldier" had a budget of $4m and only did a couple of hundred thousand income: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901507/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901507/ and it had no big names, or maybe this is just "Hollywood accounting"?
- Keyframe 15y ago
  Two major budget components are people (lots of highly skilled professionals) and set construction. Props and wardrobe could be revolutionized with cheaper CNCs and apparel machines and better and cheaper creative content design software - which is being currently done (Zbrush + DIY CNCs), but someone still has to design the stuff.
dkhenry 15y ago
This will not work. The problem has and will continue to be distribution and marketing, not content production. Any disruption to Hollywoods market space must center on finding a new distribution and marketing model that can attract the current content producers. Only by separating those two entities can you really disrupt the space. Right now the people who distribute the content are also the ones who own the rights to it. That is why you have seen such a move towards limiting the rights given to consumers of the media. There was a time when a movie house bought the reel of film and played it as much as their hearts desired. they actually made money off the tickets. That was then shifted to have the theaters pay a portion of each ticket sold to view the movie , removing the ownership right of the theater. Now the theaters don't own the movies, make no money off tickets, and are dependent on the studios for all the marketing. If you as a theater owner tried to buck the trend they would just stop giving you the privilege of screening their films and your out of buisness. There is a great symbiotic relationship between theaters and studios that just making new content won't disrupt. If you want to "kill hollywood" you need to focus on that problem first, once content delivery and distribution are separated you will open the market for a new generation of content companies.
gburt 15y ago
Consistent pricing is a very bad idea. It eliminates a lot of important market signalling forces.
sunchild 15y ago
Aren't people overthinking this problem? The studios have shown their hand; they're wearing their weakness on their sleeve. The thing they're most worried about is piracy. If you stop paying for their product, they believe they will fail. Either you stop consuming what they put out, or you find a way to get it without paying. That's what will "kill Hollywood".
- adpowers 15y ago
  A believe many people enjoy movies and don't want to pirate them (I am one of them). They won't pirate and don't want to abstain from movies, so the only option is to provide a credible alternative entertainment that doesn't involve sending money to those who lobby against us.
tazzy531 15y ago
There really isn't anything revolutionary or innovative in this. It's basically the same exact model as Hollywood with different players. In addition, if the only distribution model is online streaming at 0.99, you'd need to sell 10M views to just break even. Yes, this can be achieved for a single hit, but for every single one to break even is similar to the current model. One of the key things with the internet and technology is that: 1) Technology has enabled talented artists, filmmakers, and musicians to produce high quality content at a reasonable costs. Take a look at all the quality production that is around on the internet. 2) The internet has enable low cost distribution and discovery service. This means that we can increase the number of distribution channels for much lower cost than the existing model. Because of these two facts, this enables smaller productions (you don't need $10M revenue if your cost is $30k) and more niche audience. Think of all the long-tail movies that do not get made because the target audience is too small; these would become economically feasible with internet distribution. The indie film industry follows this similar model. A lot of indie films are low budget films made by students and budding stars. These films and talent are then discovered by the big budget studios and brought into that fold. (Think of the indie film community similar to the open source community in tech.) They are often looked down upon by the big budget studios and the community is looking for that one opportunity to break big. They have as much distaste for the Hollywood model as the tech industry does. There is a huge opportunity in bringing them into the fold of the startup industry to counter Hollywood. Provide them a clear path of success without giving up much of their rights or stake and they'll surely jump at the new approach. Lastly, the internet is a great talent discovery. Look at the number of mega stars that have been found on YouTube and other websites. The problem is that once someone becomes "Internet Famous", how do you turn them into "Real Life Famous". People like Justin Bieber have no choice but to fall into the hands of the existing production model. Provide your consumers (in this case the movie production and the movie consumers) with a better product and all else will follow. tl;dr - 1) Embrace the Indie Film industry -- they are desperately looking for a partner in taking on big studios. They have already been in this fight for years, that we have only recently just joined. 2) Use technology to assist in discovery.
- fossuser 15y ago
  I think this is it, technology can help to bring smaller indie players out (as it already has been doing). I think the way the OP wants to monetize it wouldn't work well either (and with their method file sharing remains a problem rather than a benefit). If indie films were also able to partner up with theater systems (like Regal) they could charge less for public performance and also lower ticket price. Having theaters as a main source of income also allows file sharing after release to benefit the performers and directors for their next films.
freejack 15y ago
I agree - there are strong points here. I'm not sure if this was intended or not, but I think you are describing YCombinator for Movies + a distribution platform to support it. At least as I read it, these are the two strong thoughts that come to mind. The biggest issue with Hollywood is its lock on distribution chan nels - this is where the biggest opportunity for disruption lies IMO. Perhaps YCombinator + OpenHulu(API) is the magic you are looking for? Keep thinking, I think this is in the right direction.
Keyframe 15y ago
hmmm, production budgeting and scheduling pretty much works already like what was described here, even producers (executive ones, not line) and directors have a performance stake. Maybe there is a perception that productions are lavishly spending in drunken stupor (probably because of showbiz associated glitz), but almost every ship is run really tight in productions - real tight. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Each movie or TV show is a startup, even if all are within a single studio/production company. You can't magically run out of budget and simply ask for more money. When that happens, you might get money to finish up, but you'll also be out of work and you get managed until project is finished. Every single item gets budgeted. Most money drains happen when deadlines are slipped, since when freight train of principal photography starts it costs serious money to operate and can't be stopped. Sometimes it can really be out of producers control (special weather needed, permits suddenly in trouble, actor dies...), but it rarely happens and every major production has insurance coverage for situations like that... but when it happens you get managed. And nobody likes that, it can tailspin the situation towards evil and gets your rep tarnished. Also, $0.99. While it would be nice, simple arithmetic calculations on average budgets and viewings sing a different song.
tdicola 15y ago
I can't help but imagine this easily devolves to funding porn. The films are cheap to produce, can return a great deal on their investment, and have a large audience ready to pay money to watch from the web already.
hjkl 15y ago
>Think of it as "Moneyball for movies" -- that is, what types of successful film productions does Hollywood tend to undervalue in favor of large, expensive (and tremendously risky) blockbuster attempts? Thing is, this has been done, and the results probably aren't what you want to hear. Hollywood actually produces fewer family and broad-appeal genre films than the market can handle. (Check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economics-Uncertainty-Routledge-Contemporary/dp/0415312612 http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economics-Uncertainty-Routle... ) The reason for this mismatch between what the market can handle vs. what actually gets made is that Hollywood insiders actually do want to make dramas aimed at adults, which have a much smaller market than, say, animated kids' movies.
Maakuth 15y ago
This kind of reminds me of the Wreck a Movie service (http://www.wreckamovie.com/ http://www.wreckamovie.com/) from creators of the Star Wreck movies. They say it best themselves: "Based on the experience of creating the Star Wreck phenomenon, Star Wreck Studios has developed a Web platform that is designed to harness the power of passionate Internet communities for creating short films, documentaries, music videos, Internet flicks, full length features, mobile films and more. www.wreckamovie.com is a social community, simple workflow and marketplace that builds communities around film productions. It helps get films done faster and at a considerably lower cost through crowd-sourced work on production tasks and online resourcing of expertise and corporate funding. The communities developed in production will also create a viral social marketing force that will get films seen through the hundreds of existing online and standard channels."
newhouseb 15y ago
The only way we can get hollywood to innovate is to make a convincing case that by innovating they can make more money. At 99c a pop, you would need _billions_ of views to compete with the income of a blockbuster [not to mention innovative] film like Avatar, which according to Wikipedia made nearly $2.8 billion. If you look at the most popular YouTube videos, you'll find things like Justin Bieber's songs with about 700 million views. Making the generous estimate that about a tenth of those viewers would pay for that content, you would make about $70 million, which is orders of magnitude less than what they do now.
- banjomonster 15y ago
  You could however make quite a lot of 3min music videos for the cost of an Avatar (237m according to Wikipedia). If it cost 2m per video, you could make 100 for less than the cost of an avatar, and even if only half of these made the 70m you mention, you'd still have grossed 3.5 billion.
  - notahacker 15y ago
    Sure, but you're not going to get 70 million people paying 99 cents for a one time stream of a 3 minute music video in the foreseeable future. A better comparison point would be YouTube's HD video list, which perhaps more closely approximates the production values an independent filmmaker might aspire to. The top HD videos on YouTube mostly have <10 million views. And they're short, and free.
jamesgatz 15y ago
What you're proposing is no different than most independent production companies. LA is flush with such businesses already; I've worked for a few of them. Another indy production house is not the solution. I said it in the previous thread, and I'll say it again: What's needed is a contemporary Roger Corman. http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/cormansworld/ http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/cormansworld/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Corman#.22The_Corman_Film_School.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Corman#.22The_Corman_Film... Hollywood has backed itself into a corner using the exact same methodology that you outline in your new studio: both assume that films are widgets, and great ones can be reliably produced with high frequency if the secret formula is discovered. No such formula exists. Every film is a one off, and many of the biggest hits were perceived as certain flops before their release (Star Wars), just as many sure things have tanked (Cowboys & Aliens). As I've said before, the solution isn't to become more cautious, but more bold. You studio should be based around locating new, young talent (writers, directors, actors and producers), giving them steady work in exchange for reasonable salaries (kids right out of film school are thrilled w/ $30K a year) and creating an environment where said talent can work on a high volume of projects over a short time period with limited commercial risk. No one should ever feel that failure on any particular project will result in a ruined career - the omnipresence of that fear is what has given rise to timid film-making in the mainstream. Projects should be shot in under two weeks, and should have budgets ranging from $10 - 100K. You should be designing your studio to accommodate modest returns, while accounting for inevitable flops. Never presume you know what will sell, and you might make it. Film-making isn't a business. Film-making is an art. The best art is achieved via iteration: practice, release, refine, practice, release, refine. Build a studio designed to lose money for two years. In the first year, plan to attract at least 50 young directors, 100 young actors, and 100 young writers. There's no shortage of talent in LA (300 hungry young artists step off the bus in LA every day) but sifting the wheat from the chaff will be exhausting. Do the work, it will be worth it. Build a production schedule geared around low budget genre films, produced in 12 days and costing an average of $35,000 a piece. Ideally you'd be releasing 50 - 75 films a year. Over the first two years of your studio's existence, you'll have released 100 - 150 films. With each film, you'll be able to try new and different release and marketing strategies. You'll be able to gather detailed audience feedback on each film, and at the end of that two years, with a mountain of data behind you, you'll start to have a very strong idea of what sells and what doesn't. What kinds of films your audience is interested in, what kinds of actors, plots and situations they enjoy, and how you can produce films with those elements in the cheapest, quickest way possible. In the third year of your studio's existence, you might start to break even. In the fourth year, every major studio will be begging to work with the radical young talent that your studio has done such an amazing job at cultivating. In other words: Step One, collect underpants.
kurtvarner 15y ago
A lot of negative comments here. This should be expected. Revolutionary and disruptive ideas never start with much buy in. That's what makes them innovative. Remember when people thought it was impossible to put a computer in every household?
- MrScruff 15y ago
  The key difference here is you're talking about commoditizing human creativity, which is what a large fraction of a typical film budget is paying for.
teyc 15y ago
I'm sorry but this just describes a list of wants without providing any insights into how Hollywood already works, and then prices things from a consumers perspective. Hollywood started off as studios where actors are essentially employees. They own vertically integrated enterprises which included distributorship as well as cinemas. (Read up on the Studio System). This started to break down as studios gave certain actors a "star" billing and some actors become independently recognizable and started working as free agents. The trend persisted with now entire teams are assembled virtually on a project by project basis. On the distribution side of things, secondary markets became increasingly vital. Cable, DVD rental, PPV, DVD sales and international distribution have overtaken box office takings. The free-wheeling internet has proven to be a problem because some people who are watching movies at home are no longer accessing these through the monetizable channels like rentals, but instead are doing this through the free/unauthorized channels. I don't really know the size of this problem, as I personally don't like the idea of being shaken down by the MPAA or RIAA. Besides, I don't have the time. Therefore to solve this problem for Hollywood, one working theory is that people don't mind paying a certain amount for the convenience of watching movies where they want it, as long as the price is "reasonable". This is Apple's model. However, in general, the current way of negotiating individual distributor agreements represent a high degree of friction, and that locks out potentially creative ways for studios to earn back their investment. If movie makers were to securitize its prices, alternate channels will flourish. I envision it more or less like a mechanical license. One formulae may be based on days since first released and the size of the screen, and whether it is PPV or multiple viewing. Then it is up to repackagers like DVD-makers, movie theatres, and online channels to reach the viewers. Repackaging may involve adding ads before and after the movie (brings down the cost of viewing), or even during the movie (as in TV). If such a pricing evolves, I can see devices such as Roku offer a "legal" way to view a movie even if the user has downloaded it from a torrent. For instance, a user may be prompted whether they wish to deduct the price of the movie from their account in exchange for indemnity if they were prosecuted for illegal downloading. In the big picture of things though, movies are a huge time drain on society. I, for one, would rather see people having to pay to watch movies. My relatives in Asia who regularly buy pirated DVDs from street stalls watch way too much movies and fritter their lives away.
vibrunazo 15y ago
I believe this idea makes the same mistakes as many others trying to solve this problem. You're trying to fix a broken model by adapting a few of its pieces. But you're not looking at the big picture and trying to see how the pieces play together, or if you even need them. Simply taking a Hollywood movie and trying to finance it with $0.99 per view will be just a Hollywood movie financed with much less money. Of course I'll have no hard data, but my hunch would be that this is far from viable. The problem is deeper than that. The truth is that the Hollywood model carries with it many years of overhead that could be avoided today. Instead of doing slight changes we should be reviewing the the whole production pipeline and get rid of unnecessary dumb pipes. Technology can improve or even remove some of the steps. We need to make content creation cheaper, make it accessible to more creators. Look at the startups at youtube.com/create such as xtranormal or GoAnimate. "If you can type you can create an animation". Just like wordpress brought journalism and written publishing to the masses. Technology can make the same for other mediums of communication. * If we build easier and cheaper tools, that anyone can use. Then we can turn more people into content creators, which reduces costs. * If we get rid of the whole silly copyright fundamentalism, then we can share content pieces between different productions. So creators don't need to reinvent the wheel each time. Short version: instead of trying to come up with innovative revenue models to support over-expensive outdated production models. Let's keep building better tools that keep cutting costs down to the point that sane revenue models can support. I believe that in the future. Millionaire budget production content won't exist anymore, but it will be better than current ones, because we'll be using better tools. So stop trying to bandage what's broken, we're supposed to be killing that by building something better :)
alabut 15y ago
I was nodding along until I hit #5 - pricing films at 99 cents, without any variation for the length of the work. That'd be like if both songs and albums cost 99 cents each. All you get is a race to the bottom with a lot of short derivative work. $5 strikes me as a more reasonable price, as demonstrated by Louis C.K.'s successful experiment.
hoodq19 15y ago
The path to killing Hollywood has to start from an understanding of how/where they make their real money. The post does a good job with a third of that answer-- Hollywood contracts are notoriously one sided so adding consistency and transparency to the process might create the appropriate incentives for creative talent to leave that model. In theory, that approach is already in full swing (see the independent film movement). The other two thirds of the story are the international market and merchandising. Even the worst film end up making money abroad. And those markets don't necessarily have access to the web. So addressing the how of international distribution (the non-web answer) will be a must. And then to be genuinely disruptive, the last third of the solution needs to address merchandising. There needs to be a clear path for everything from action figures to cereal boxes. This one can't be done in isolation of other markets so an alternative ecosystem needs to be created.
rdouble 15y ago
Aside from the API/streaming stuff, this is how crap is already made. Troma, Olson Twins straight to DVD, Tyler Perry, etc.
cturner 15y ago
To challenge the model, you need to find a way to reduce distance between story-telling and the audience. In the late 90s, television became a good place for creative people to work, because the industry gave writers freedom to break moulds that had contained them before. e.g. Buffy finished high school and went on to a next stage of life. I'd focus on finding a way to deploy compelling stories so that they could be consumed for portables, browsers or airline screens on long-haul flights.
nl 15y ago
I've suggested that statuary licensing for video streaming[1] would be something that all tech companies could agree to support, and that Hollywood would hate. I think it fits well with the "0.99c/view" model proposed here. [1] http://nicklothian.com/blog/2012/01/18/why-the-tech-industry-cant-go-on-the-offensive-against-ip-laws/ http://nicklothian.com/blog/2012/01/18/why-the-tech-industry...
Terretta 15y ago
What goes around comes around. We delivered streams for DEN [1] over a decade ago, and any number of new "studios" since. The problem we see is wrong headed thinking around distribution. Everyone wants to be an event, to drive TV or blockbuster sized audiences for a quick big win. The Internet isn't about that. The Internet (see amazon.com and books) is about breadth and depth of choice, made available to a wide enough audience that the quality of choice makes financial sense. Monetize that, and you've defeated Hollywood. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network
earle 15y ago
This idea clearly presents a lack of understanding of how the film industry actually works, and in turn, is presenting nothing new. Making movies isn't part that needs disruption. Regardless of what your thoughts are about Hollywood, it's filled with a bunch of very intelligent, and very well connected people, with very deep pockets. Iterative improvements here and there is not going to cut. Posts like these are obtuse show a general lack of understanding.
wturner 15y ago
The reason movies get shown in movie theaters is because they help sell popcorn.Helping (local non"AMC" or "Regal" ) theaters make more money via a different film funnel could probably contribute. Maybe finding a mechanism where average people make money by showing movies might help as well.
WingedTurtle 15y ago
People have talked about indie movies and how they have no choice but to go to Hollywood to help them get exposure. My impression is that film-makers depend on Hollywood not only for the distribution but also for the funding to make the movie. If indie movies go to Hollywood not for the funding (because they're already good at making quality movies for cheap) but for distribution, then I think we have an opportunity. We should offer an online way to distribute these indie movies. Say I built a website that offered to host indie movies online for pay-per-view. The distribution system would be transparent. Say you've made an indie movie. You let me host it online and charge viewers to watch it, and I give you 80% of the revenue (or whatever is necessary for me to cover costs and make a small profit) I'd probably screen movies for quality and hand-pick the movies I allow for viewing on my site (like literary magazines or existing film festivals). It doesn't matter if I have relatively few movies on my site if they're all good (and I keep releasing more of them). The site will market itself: people will constantly check back for good movies and tell their friends about this site. This won't stop Hollywood from churning out blockbusters, but we can keep indie movies from falling into their hands. One problem is bootstrapping the site but we might be able to convince good indie film-makers who don't want to be part of Hollywood to allow us to distribute their movies (and thus establish the site). It turns out a website like this already exists (possibly others): http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/ http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/ There are several problems with their site which I think can be improved. They don't provide enough "buzz" for their movies. No trailers. No big pretty posters. It looks kinda like Youtube. They also give out the movies for free. Summary: I think with proper execution it's possible to create an online pay-per-view indie-movie website without too much effort (except you need to contact filmmakers). Such a site would provide an alternative to Hollywood for certain niches.
Kroem3r 15y ago
This idea to kill Hollywood is ridiculously misguided. There's nothing terribly wrong with Hollywood; I mean, it has a somewhat facile outlook that goes along with championing the individual over the enterprise - but this isn't the worst bias in the world. The reason it's misguided is that Hollywood isn't the problem. The problem is the system of lobbying the government and the way the government operates to respond to this lobbying. Killing off Hollywood and replacing the dumbass IP protection fanatics with Hacker News will look like the same old problem of replacing one form of tyranny with another. As a footnote, given what one assumes to be an audience including a lot of system analysts, the near-complete lack of this point of view is making me doubt my sanity. ;)
emempi 15y ago
I had an idea of my own, but it actually outgrew size of single comment, so I made a blogpost; it can be found here: http://emempi.blogspot.com/2012/01/better-world-for-movies.html http://emempi.blogspot.com/2012/01/better-world-for-movies.h...
smoody 15y ago
To paraphrase Nelson Muntz of The Simpsons universe... "Stealing movies is a victimless crime... like punching someone in the dark!" - Let's imagine this plan was executed and turned out to be successful. And let's imagine the studio generates some very big hits. - Now, imagine that, even though the movies only costs 99 cents to stream, people pirate them anyway (the same way people pirate 99 cent iPhone apps, but, unlike pirated apps, anyone can watch the pirated movies -- not just people with jailbroken devices). - Suddenly you'll have millions of people using torrents to get bootleg copies of your movies... enough people to where you can't get investors and others their needed financial returns unless you try to put a stop to it. My question: How do you put a stop to it without becoming Hollywood allover again? That, to me, is the big issue here. So either you come-up with a theft-proof way of distributing movies or you try to stop it. Or shut down your business. And adding interactivity to them is not the answer IMHO. I need my passive entertainment and so does everyone else who chooses watching a movie or tv show over playing a game at any point during a day.
- thret 15y ago
  The issue with paying 99c is not cost, but convenience. What I really want is for movies & music to be tacked onto my existing internet/phone bill like extra call charges.
diggum 15y ago
I think this suggestion kind of misses the point: the evolution of mass culture, at least over the 20th century, has moved from radio, to movies, to TV. The biggest growth in recent new media has been video games, and now, online social services and games. Coming up with a new way of making Hollywoods product isn't going to kill Hollywood - a NEW product that eventually replaces Hollywoods products will, or at least relegate "films" and "tv shows" to the status of radio and newspapers. What series of incremental improvements (an inevitable wrong-turns) will bring us to that next paradigm of entertainment and culture? Will screens necessarily be part of the equation for that next leap? Will we accept passively soaking in this media, or will our participation be required? We can think of experiences like ST:TNG's Holodeck or Neuromancer/Snow Crash's plugged-in immersive metaverse as science fiction, but so was the idea of full-color screens that respond to your gestures or verbal commands not so long ago. The YC challenge to all of us dreamers is what intermediary steps are needed to make a Holodeck a reality? Then, how do we start building the first of those?
keke_ta 15y ago
Awesome timing. Amazon studios. http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started
tlb 15y ago
You have 7 ideas here, all plausible but untested. If you want to make progress you should write down why you think each idea is essential. Or what would go wrong if you didn't do each idea. What would go wrong if you charged iTunes prices instead of 99 cents?
ryanjmo 15y ago
The most innovation and the largest growth in distribution for video in the modern world has been in the many professional YouTube channels that exist. EpicMealTime, FreddieW, RealAnnoyingOrange, have literally millions or fans that watch every single one of their videos and they are currently making millions of dollars. In fact FreddieW has raised over $270K on kick-starter for to create a movie, all donated from his fans. Now, beyond just the individual YouTube channel owners, there are currently (start-up) studios that professionally manage and assist YouTube channels (for a cut of course). Some of these start-ups are http://machinima.com/ http://machinima.com/, http://makerstudios.com/ http://makerstudios.com/, cloudmedia, http://fullscreen.net/ http://fullscreen.net/ http://www.thecollective-la.com/ http://www.thecollective-la.com/ http://break.com/ http://break.com/ All of these companies, either have millions of dollars or have raised millions of dollars. Now they are currently in a land grab for all the top YouTube channels, because if you control the top YouTube channels you control distribution. And currently top YouTubers are some of the only people on the web, that can effectively and consistently distribute to millions of fans. My point is this, innovative people are already challenging hollywood and are off to a great start. In my opinion, if someone is serious about killing Hollywood they need to first study whats already out there and figure out how to work with the people who have already made some serious progress!
narrator 15y ago
Here's my idea for making crowdsourced movies that might actually be good: How about doing movies with a Richard Linklater's "Slacker" like script? In the movie, characters are followed for a few minutes and then someone in the last scene of that segment will continue that movie interacting with a completely separate set of people and so on and so forth. Rent it on Netflix to see what I mean. This kind of movie could be crowdsourced. Someone writes the script. Many want to be actors shoot segments. The winning entrants film short scenes where they call each other on the phone to move the movie along. It's like Redditt the movie. Would somebody please do this idea? Please :).
steve8918 15y ago
The two ideas that come to mind to "Kill Hollywood" are 1) Louis CK and 2) HSX.com. The best example of how to "Kill Hollywood" is Louis CK. What used to go to middlemen like distributors instead went directly into his pockets, and it decreased the price for his fans. The content providers, like Louis CK, need to come up with their own money, and then they get all the money. Take the distribution networks out of it. Charge fans a minimum amount of money, ie. $5. The only difficulty with a movie is that the "content provider" is very distributed. There's the writer, and then there's the actor, etc. With Louis CK, it was all the same person. With a movie, it's a lot different. Not sure how exactly that would be split up, but only because I lack any familiarty with movies. However, funding movies could use the concept from HSX.com where you can buy shares in a film before it comes out. The value of the box office receipts ultimately is split up amongst all the shareholders, etc. This would create incentive for people to get a prospectus for a movie, ie. the script, the actors, etc, and then make informed decisions and buy shares of a movie. This would give funding to the movie, and also create a good secondary market for people to gauge how well a movie will do.
- dagw 15y ago
  Louis CK can only "Kill Hollywood" because he's already a product of the system. He had a popular TV show on a popular TV channel before starting his experiment. The problem that "Hollywood" solves isn't simply financing and distribution, it's letting lots and lots of people know that your product exists and convincing them that they really really want to pay lots of money to see it.
jeromeparadis 15y ago
Why streaming only? I should be able to download it to any device. Also, don't forget to ban region locking: if you want to change or beat Hollywood, have the movie available as soon as possible to conveniently purchase and play from every country when you want on any platform from. Then you're really changing the game and are a viable alternative to torrents.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  Because a key part of the plan is that you aren't buying it for 99c. To buy the content and watch it many times, you'd have to pay more, but he doesn't address that. (He should, though.)
dmragone 15y ago
I wonder if you can truly approach movies like start-ups. What would it look like to build an MVP for a movie? Is that the script? How do you get enough people to look at it to truly evaluate the concept? Perhaps this is why books that sell well are made into movies - proven customers.
mayanksinghal 15y ago
I am probably wrong, but aren't we risking a lot by using such a strong language as Killing an industry? Sure there are hundreds of mean studio executives who want to do nothing but maximize their own profits, at times at the expense of newer and in many ways better industries, but there also are thousands of others whose livelihood depends on the industry. Thousands, who might have been otherwise neutral or supportive of our cause, but not if we visibly and purposefully strive to kill their source of income. Propaganda is something we aren't the best at, but Hollywood most definitely is. They might be aiming at destroying the tech/internet industry but they have been very cautious in choosing the right wordings so as to avoid any direct attacks (except a few who patronized 'nerds'). Even if they are using old school cliches that mean nothing if careful deductions are used, but most people would not care taking the effort. Most people would see that there are two groups fight - one that says they will save American jobs and livelihood while preventing them from illegal drugs and their children from pornography while the other group is trying to kill and entire industry. Sympathy can be a very strong tool, especially in elections (I am just saying this based on movies/popular culture - I have zero first hand experience about US elections/political atmosphere). We should probably be careful that we do not end up just winning battles and lose the war - and there is no way that this is going to be a short one.
foenix 15y ago
My counter-proposal: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3455037 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3455037
intended 15y ago
Hollywood is going to die not because we make a better studio (which would be a cool achievement anyway). They will die if you just make better games and story telling systems. Heck if someone just took dwarf fortress and got it to a stage where peoples fortress histories were converted into fantasy novels, you would have an endless fantasy novel generator/plot system, which would be worth the time to read. Beat hollywood by competing on time. I don't know what the correct term is, but thats the leading edge/the place where the real battle is being won. Whatever starts taking over the spare time people have, will displace all the other entertainment media out there. I'd vote on video games, as one of the better attack vectors to approach this. And not the Micro transaction system (which is basically a casino/skinner box and now completely evil) but rather a system like EC2 which allows people to punch beyond their striking capacity.
HNer 15y ago
Hollywood, megavideo and lessons I learned about charging for content online! I have a popular documentary site which has been around for many years, streaming full length docs for small beer, it pays the hosting costs basically. But what I learned over the years that in order to survive (i.e pay the bills as hosting / streaming content is relatively expensive) is that you have to adopt the Megavideo model, i.e charge for content only after people are addicted to it. They used to force payment after 60 free minutes. I struggled to make any cash with a paywall system and only when I switched to pay in video system did it start making money. Clearly the megavideo model worked as they had 6 million in assets ceased apparently (poor sods). I built the concept out into a standalone system in Flash and its at karsa.co.uk but for these days it would need to work in html not flash.
jmaxcpr 15y ago
Interesting discussion. Most of the ideas in this forum have been suggested in one way or another - including the idea from the original post. I posted some thoughts on the original YC 'kill hollywood' manifesto on my blog as well - which debate whether or not Hollywood can really be killed. (Spoiler - I don't think it can be, although I agree with what YC is saying). http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2012/01/kill-hollywood-not-so-fast/ http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2012/01/kill-hollywood-not-so-fas... I've also come up with a pretty compelling way for Hollywood (the TV business in particular) to embrace the new opportunities of fragmented communities and distribution. It's called micro-cable, and it's something that I think bridges the strengths of both the new digital world and the established Hollywood infrastructure. http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2011/12/micro-cable/ http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2011/12/micro-cable/
zumda 15y ago
I think he has some good ideas, but still contains the major flaw that the movie industry still has: A publisher. The publisher/producer maybe was a good idea when spreading an idea was still hard, and we had a lot of mass markets. Even computer software was distributed through a publisher at the beginning (for example VisiCalc), but it just doesn't work. Game developers for example seem to slowly get that they don't need a publisher but a distribution platform. Steam is a good start in that direction (but I think still too selective). If there was a platform that would handle distribution, payment and awareness, we could get a lot more movies that won't be big hits, but instead cater to the minorities. Because this is where we are heading. The music industry a really feeling that hard. There probably won't be any "Beatles" or "Rolling Stones" anymore, because distributing and spreading the word about some niche music in that niche circle is getting easier and easier. And I think this will, in the end, be what will kill Hollywood, because there won't be a movie anymore that grosses multiple million dollars.

239 points by rsbrown 15y ago

aysar 15y ago

Pretty cool idea, but i'm not so sure about the $0.99 pricing, seems pretty undervalued/cheap.

Kadrith 15y ago
Agreed; perhaps a tiered approach where people who buy early get a lower price but with limited quantities of the discounted tickets available.
nekojima 15y ago
Except at two shows a day, that's $60 in a month. Already more than my current cable bill with 200+ channels. If you count what you watch, or more likely an average US TV viewer watches, per day, that could be ten or fifteen half hour or hour shows. Over the course of a month that's considerably far more than what they are currently paying for cable. A more viable plan might be for the return of 'soap operas' with advertisers specifically sponsoring TV shows. * I know soap operas aren't totally dead, but their original funding model is.

ElliotH 15y ago

The big problem here is choosing the good films based only on the concepts. Otherwise I really hope someone can do this. You could possibly set the price point higher though? I'm not even sure that heavy advertising would be needed for the individual films, so long as you managed to attract a user base who expected high quality films they wanted to watch on the home page.

Tichy 15y ago

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he just described the current state of Hollywood (except for the "straight to stream for 0.99$" part). Hollywood is a business after all. And they clearly have some silly algorithms at work picking potential blockbusters. I've heard rumors that even part of the scripting is algorithmic these days (component based). Of course "we" could improve on the algorithms, but such a thing is not a startup idea in my opinion. A startup idea would be a specific way to improve upon the algorithms.

rgbrgb 15y ago
I'd be pretty interested in what properties are used as attributes for modeling a potential movie. I'm guessing they don't work.
jonnathanson 15y ago
"And they clearly have some silly algorithms at work picking potential blockbusters. I've heard rumors that even part of the scripting is algorithmic these days (component based)." There's nothing that sophisticated at work, I assure you. Hollywood has "creative executives" who read the scripts agents send them, and then evaluate those scripts by hand. Some are better at this job than others. Some are legitimately good at it. (Full disclosure: I held this job for 5 or so years of my career; I'd say that I was ok at it). Scripting is done the old-fashioned way, as well, by humans using specialized word processing software (Final Draft for screenplays and teleplays, Scrivener for novels). This software helps writers sort through some of the elements they've been using, i.e., by saving character names and locations, and returning those names when called. And the programs have templates and auto-formatting. But nothing that actually does the writing for you. Not yet, at any rate. (Full disclosure: my brother is a screenwriter, and he's pretty good at it). The challenge is that Hollywood does not have a halfway decent way of predicting or forecasting what will succeed and what won't. It is possible to judge good work from bad work, and to coach writers in improving their work. And there are "rules" of story structure, plotting, and so forth. But these are just structural. Very few people have any sort of gift for making calls about what will, or will not, succeed at the box office or on TV. Sometimes legitimately great material fails, and often legitimately atrocious garbage succeeds wildly. It tends to be a crapshoot. I would suggest that, if we're interested in disrupting Hollywood, we stop focusing on a hypothetical, universal audience, and start focusing on niches. We have the technology now to deliver content to those most interested in seeing it. Netflix, Amazon, etc., do a very good job with collaborative filtering. The future of the content distribution business starts with interest-based segmentation, IMO. The sooner we move away from people's best guesses as to what will work for whom, the more readily we can adapt to the delivery methods already at our fingertips.
- gruseom 15y ago

msutherl 15y ago

I think that very few directors would want to forego the possibility of their film appearing in theaters. Films are designed for theaters and to those who make films, the home-theater experience, which increasingly consists of a laptop on a bed, is a paltry imitation.

patrickod 15y ago
While yes a theatre experience is more "grand" I think I'm not alone in saying that I've watched more movies at home in the last year alone than I have spent on theatre tickets. What they'll lose in "quality" they will most definitely make in quantity. Ease of access to the content will lead to higher viewership.
- rgbrgb 15y ago
  That makes sense when it comes to the business end but essentially you have to convince good artists to work with a far lesser medium for the sake of "higher viewership".
noodle 15y ago
Why would something like this necessarily forego theaters? I suspect that a studio built like this could work out licensing agreements with theaters, and that theaters might even become more profitable and affordable because of it.

ktrgardiner 15y ago

I think this idea has a lot of strong elements to it. However, the issue that sticks out the most to me is the pricing model. $.99 per viewing? That would make making a profit incredibly difficult. It just isn't realistic. Instead, I think a price closer to renting a movie on demand would work better with a bargain price for each view after that. Perhaps $2.99 or $3.99 for the first view and $.99 for each view after that. And then maybe when the viewer gets up to a certain view count, each view after that is free. This way, you can gain a profit with less viewers while also instilling loyalty in repeat viewers who are most likely to spread the word.

ankeshk 15y ago

Its a good idea because it brings in a level of transparency. But I'm not sure if it'll make a big dent on Hollywood. Why do some movies do well and others don't? There are a lot of reasons. But if we were to simplify, there are 2 things that matter more than the rest. 1. The buzz factor. Reason why studios pay $20 million to a well known celebrity is because they know it will generate the buzz and create expectations. 2. The story and the experience. Once the movie is released, and the first wave of viewers go and watch it, then it all depends on how good their experience was - for the buzz to sustain. To beat Hollywood, you have to become better than them at telling good stories well, and creating buzz that lasts to make money out of it. You absolutely have to become good at monetizing the buzz. Only selling the movies for 99 cents is a bad monetization plan. You will never be able to fund a movie like Avatar. And if you can't do that, you'll never be able to take on Hollywood. If I were to develop a plan to beat Hollywood, it would center around creating buzz. How to use the new media to generate buzz. Maybe create a new incentivized market... a whacky idea like: the first hundred thousand people who watch a movie can share in its profits.

rsbrown 15y ago
"You will never be able to fund a movie like Avatar. And if you can't do that, you'll never be able to take on Hollywood." I don't have to make an Avatar to beat Hollywood. That's fighting fire with fire. We can fight fire with water. If a consumer watches one of my studio's productions instead of watching Avatar, we didn't just earn $0.99 -- we also stole a $10.50 purchase from 20th Century Fox. I'm betting that when given a cleaner, more enjoyable alternative to the mandatory commercials, overpriced fatty junk food, and general awfulness that the current moviegoing experience has degraded into, we can steal a fair amount of business.
- white_devil 15y ago
  > If a consumer watches one of my studio's productions instead of watching Avatar, we didn't just earn $0.99 -- we also stole a $10.50 purchase from 20th Century Fox Why would the consumer not just watch movies from Fox too? Especially since if he only pays you $0.99, he'll still have plenty of money left to give to Fox.

SteveJS 15y ago

Why not just browse successful kickstarter film projects and do this with stuff that people have already made? Wouldn't that be faster way to see whether it can work?

citricsquid 15y ago

This would never work. If anyone is going to "kill hollywood" they need to address the massive costs associated with producing a movie not the money raising. If movie production could be taken down from $100m to $500k then that would be the game changer, but even that ignores huge barriers and reasons Hollywood exists. To "kill" Hollywood people need to address the costs, not the money raising. Crowd sourcing $1m is close to impossible, crowd sourcing $1m on a regular basis is even harder and crowd sourcing $10m+ on a regular basis? never going to happen. Even if it was achieved once or twice, as soon as a movie doesn't meet expectations the idea will fall apart, if costs are reduced to much lower levels, losing a crowd sourced $500k because the movie sucked is much more palatable than $10m.

j45 15y ago
Other film industries around the world routinely put out more movies with less production costs than hollywood. Might not be the exact quality but many have been getting better to the eye the last 10 years alone.
- Keyframe 15y ago
  Foreign productions are still in multimillion budget ranges, even the cheapest ones that are somewhat at hollywood standards.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  I took a look at my recently watched movies (specifically the low publicity / small names) and they all have budgets (when listed) of at least a few million dollars. Hell, this movie called "Rise of the foot soldier" had a budget of $4m and only did a couple of hundred thousand income: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901507/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901507/ and it had no big names, or maybe this is just "Hollywood accounting"?
Keyframe 15y ago
Two major budget components are people (lots of highly skilled professionals) and set construction. Props and wardrobe could be revolutionized with cheaper CNCs and apparel machines and better and cheaper creative content design software - which is being currently done (Zbrush + DIY CNCs), but someone still has to design the stuff.

dkhenry 15y ago

This will not work. The problem has and will continue to be distribution and marketing, not content production. Any disruption to Hollywoods market space must center on finding a new distribution and marketing model that can attract the current content producers. Only by separating those two entities can you really disrupt the space. Right now the people who distribute the content are also the ones who own the rights to it. That is why you have seen such a move towards limiting the rights given to consumers of the media. There was a time when a movie house bought the reel of film and played it as much as their hearts desired. they actually made money off the tickets. That was then shifted to have the theaters pay a portion of each ticket sold to view the movie , removing the ownership right of the theater. Now the theaters don't own the movies, make no money off tickets, and are dependent on the studios for all the marketing. If you as a theater owner tried to buck the trend they would just stop giving you the privilege of screening their films and your out of buisness. There is a great symbiotic relationship between theaters and studios that just making new content won't disrupt. If you want to "kill hollywood" you need to focus on that problem first, once content delivery and distribution are separated you will open the market for a new generation of content companies.

gburt 15y ago

Consistent pricing is a very bad idea. It eliminates a lot of important market signalling forces.

sunchild 15y ago

Aren't people overthinking this problem? The studios have shown their hand; they're wearing their weakness on their sleeve. The thing they're most worried about is piracy. If you stop paying for their product, they believe they will fail. Either you stop consuming what they put out, or you find a way to get it without paying. That's what will "kill Hollywood".

adpowers 15y ago
A believe many people enjoy movies and don't want to pirate them (I am one of them). They won't pirate and don't want to abstain from movies, so the only option is to provide a credible alternative entertainment that doesn't involve sending money to those who lobby against us.

tazzy531 15y ago

There really isn't anything revolutionary or innovative in this. It's basically the same exact model as Hollywood with different players. In addition, if the only distribution model is online streaming at 0.99, you'd need to sell 10M views to just break even. Yes, this can be achieved for a single hit, but for every single one to break even is similar to the current model. One of the key things with the internet and technology is that: 1) Technology has enabled talented artists, filmmakers, and musicians to produce high quality content at a reasonable costs. Take a look at all the quality production that is around on the internet. 2) The internet has enable low cost distribution and discovery service. This means that we can increase the number of distribution channels for much lower cost than the existing model. Because of these two facts, this enables smaller productions (you don't need $10M revenue if your cost is $30k) and more niche audience. Think of all the long-tail movies that do not get made because the target audience is too small; these would become economically feasible with internet distribution. The indie film industry follows this similar model. A lot of indie films are low budget films made by students and budding stars. These films and talent are then discovered by the big budget studios and brought into that fold. (Think of the indie film community similar to the open source community in tech.) They are often looked down upon by the big budget studios and the community is looking for that one opportunity to break big. They have as much distaste for the Hollywood model as the tech industry does. There is a huge opportunity in bringing them into the fold of the startup industry to counter Hollywood. Provide them a clear path of success without giving up much of their rights or stake and they'll surely jump at the new approach. Lastly, the internet is a great talent discovery. Look at the number of mega stars that have been found on YouTube and other websites. The problem is that once someone becomes "Internet Famous", how do you turn them into "Real Life Famous". People like Justin Bieber have no choice but to fall into the hands of the existing production model. Provide your consumers (in this case the movie production and the movie consumers) with a better product and all else will follow. tl;dr - 1) Embrace the Indie Film industry -- they are desperately looking for a partner in taking on big studios. They have already been in this fight for years, that we have only recently just joined. 2) Use technology to assist in discovery.

fossuser 15y ago
I think this is it, technology can help to bring smaller indie players out (as it already has been doing). I think the way the OP wants to monetize it wouldn't work well either (and with their method file sharing remains a problem rather than a benefit). If indie films were also able to partner up with theater systems (like Regal) they could charge less for public performance and also lower ticket price. Having theaters as a main source of income also allows file sharing after release to benefit the performers and directors for their next films.

freejack 15y ago

I agree - there are strong points here. I'm not sure if this was intended or not, but I think you are describing YCombinator for Movies + a distribution platform to support it. At least as I read it, these are the two strong thoughts that come to mind. The biggest issue with Hollywood is its lock on distribution chan nels - this is where the biggest opportunity for disruption lies IMO. Perhaps YCombinator + OpenHulu(API) is the magic you are looking for? Keep thinking, I think this is in the right direction.

Keyframe 15y ago

hmmm, production budgeting and scheduling pretty much works already like what was described here, even producers (executive ones, not line) and directors have a performance stake. Maybe there is a perception that productions are lavishly spending in drunken stupor (probably because of showbiz associated glitz), but almost every ship is run really tight in productions - real tight. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Each movie or TV show is a startup, even if all are within a single studio/production company. You can't magically run out of budget and simply ask for more money. When that happens, you might get money to finish up, but you'll also be out of work and you get managed until project is finished. Every single item gets budgeted. Most money drains happen when deadlines are slipped, since when freight train of principal photography starts it costs serious money to operate and can't be stopped. Sometimes it can really be out of producers control (special weather needed, permits suddenly in trouble, actor dies...), but it rarely happens and every major production has insurance coverage for situations like that... but when it happens you get managed. And nobody likes that, it can tailspin the situation towards evil and gets your rep tarnished. Also, $0.99. While it would be nice, simple arithmetic calculations on average budgets and viewings sing a different song.

tdicola 15y ago

I can't help but imagine this easily devolves to funding porn. The films are cheap to produce, can return a great deal on their investment, and have a large audience ready to pay money to watch from the web already.

hjkl 15y ago

>Think of it as "Moneyball for movies" -- that is, what types of successful film productions does Hollywood tend to undervalue in favor of large, expensive (and tremendously risky) blockbuster attempts? Thing is, this has been done, and the results probably aren't what you want to hear. Hollywood actually produces fewer family and broad-appeal genre films than the market can handle. (Check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economics-Uncertainty-Routledge-Contemporary/dp/0415312612 http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economics-Uncertainty-Routle... ) The reason for this mismatch between what the market can handle vs. what actually gets made is that Hollywood insiders actually do want to make dramas aimed at adults, which have a much smaller market than, say, animated kids' movies.

Maakuth 15y ago

This kind of reminds me of the Wreck a Movie service (http://www.wreckamovie.com/ http://www.wreckamovie.com/) from creators of the Star Wreck movies. They say it best themselves: "Based on the experience of creating the Star Wreck phenomenon, Star Wreck Studios has developed a Web platform that is designed to harness the power of passionate Internet communities for creating short films, documentaries, music videos, Internet flicks, full length features, mobile films and more. www.wreckamovie.com is a social community, simple workflow and marketplace that builds communities around film productions. It helps get films done faster and at a considerably lower cost through crowd-sourced work on production tasks and online resourcing of expertise and corporate funding. The communities developed in production will also create a viral social marketing force that will get films seen through the hundreds of existing online and standard channels."

newhouseb 15y ago

The only way we can get hollywood to innovate is to make a convincing case that by innovating they can make more money. At 99c a pop, you would need _billions_ of views to compete with the income of a blockbuster [not to mention innovative] film like Avatar, which according to Wikipedia made nearly $2.8 billion. If you look at the most popular YouTube videos, you'll find things like Justin Bieber's songs with about 700 million views. Making the generous estimate that about a tenth of those viewers would pay for that content, you would make about $70 million, which is orders of magnitude less than what they do now.

banjomonster 15y ago
You could however make quite a lot of 3min music videos for the cost of an Avatar (237m according to Wikipedia). If it cost 2m per video, you could make 100 for less than the cost of an avatar, and even if only half of these made the 70m you mention, you'd still have grossed 3.5 billion.
- notahacker 15y ago
  Sure, but you're not going to get 70 million people paying 99 cents for a one time stream of a 3 minute music video in the foreseeable future. A better comparison point would be YouTube's HD video list, which perhaps more closely approximates the production values an independent filmmaker might aspire to. The top HD videos on YouTube mostly have <10 million views. And they're short, and free.

jamesgatz 15y ago

What you're proposing is no different than most independent production companies. LA is flush with such businesses already; I've worked for a few of them. Another indy production house is not the solution. I said it in the previous thread, and I'll say it again: What's needed is a contemporary Roger Corman. http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/cormansworld/ http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/cormansworld/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Corman#.22The_Corman_Film_School.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Corman#.22The_Corman_Film... Hollywood has backed itself into a corner using the exact same methodology that you outline in your new studio: both assume that films are widgets, and great ones can be reliably produced with high frequency if the secret formula is discovered. No such formula exists. Every film is a one off, and many of the biggest hits were perceived as certain flops before their release (Star Wars), just as many sure things have tanked (Cowboys & Aliens). As I've said before, the solution isn't to become more cautious, but more bold. You studio should be based around locating new, young talent (writers, directors, actors and producers), giving them steady work in exchange for reasonable salaries (kids right out of film school are thrilled w/ $30K a year) and creating an environment where said talent can work on a high volume of projects over a short time period with limited commercial risk. No one should ever feel that failure on any particular project will result in a ruined career - the omnipresence of that fear is what has given rise to timid film-making in the mainstream. Projects should be shot in under two weeks, and should have budgets ranging from $10 - 100K. You should be designing your studio to accommodate modest returns, while accounting for inevitable flops. Never presume you know what will sell, and you might make it. Film-making isn't a business. Film-making is an art. The best art is achieved via iteration: practice, release, refine, practice, release, refine. Build a studio designed to lose money for two years. In the first year, plan to attract at least 50 young directors, 100 young actors, and 100 young writers. There's no shortage of talent in LA (300 hungry young artists step off the bus in LA every day) but sifting the wheat from the chaff will be exhausting. Do the work, it will be worth it. Build a production schedule geared around low budget genre films, produced in 12 days and costing an average of $35,000 a piece. Ideally you'd be releasing 50 - 75 films a year. Over the first two years of your studio's existence, you'll have released 100 - 150 films. With each film, you'll be able to try new and different release and marketing strategies. You'll be able to gather detailed audience feedback on each film, and at the end of that two years, with a mountain of data behind you, you'll start to have a very strong idea of what sells and what doesn't. What kinds of films your audience is interested in, what kinds of actors, plots and situations they enjoy, and how you can produce films with those elements in the cheapest, quickest way possible. In the third year of your studio's existence, you might start to break even. In the fourth year, every major studio will be begging to work with the radical young talent that your studio has done such an amazing job at cultivating. In other words: Step One, collect underpants.

kurtvarner 15y ago

A lot of negative comments here. This should be expected. Revolutionary and disruptive ideas never start with much buy in. That's what makes them innovative. Remember when people thought it was impossible to put a computer in every household?

MrScruff 15y ago
The key difference here is you're talking about commoditizing human creativity, which is what a large fraction of a typical film budget is paying for.

teyc 15y ago

I'm sorry but this just describes a list of wants without providing any insights into how Hollywood already works, and then prices things from a consumers perspective. Hollywood started off as studios where actors are essentially employees. They own vertically integrated enterprises which included distributorship as well as cinemas. (Read up on the Studio System). This started to break down as studios gave certain actors a "star" billing and some actors become independently recognizable and started working as free agents. The trend persisted with now entire teams are assembled virtually on a project by project basis. On the distribution side of things, secondary markets became increasingly vital. Cable, DVD rental, PPV, DVD sales and international distribution have overtaken box office takings. The free-wheeling internet has proven to be a problem because some people who are watching movies at home are no longer accessing these through the monetizable channels like rentals, but instead are doing this through the free/unauthorized channels. I don't really know the size of this problem, as I personally don't like the idea of being shaken down by the MPAA or RIAA. Besides, I don't have the time. Therefore to solve this problem for Hollywood, one working theory is that people don't mind paying a certain amount for the convenience of watching movies where they want it, as long as the price is "reasonable". This is Apple's model. However, in general, the current way of negotiating individual distributor agreements represent a high degree of friction, and that locks out potentially creative ways for studios to earn back their investment. If movie makers were to securitize its prices, alternate channels will flourish. I envision it more or less like a mechanical license. One formulae may be based on days since first released and the size of the screen, and whether it is PPV or multiple viewing. Then it is up to repackagers like DVD-makers, movie theatres, and online channels to reach the viewers. Repackaging may involve adding ads before and after the movie (brings down the cost of viewing), or even during the movie (as in TV). If such a pricing evolves, I can see devices such as Roku offer a "legal" way to view a movie even if the user has downloaded it from a torrent. For instance, a user may be prompted whether they wish to deduct the price of the movie from their account in exchange for indemnity if they were prosecuted for illegal downloading. In the big picture of things though, movies are a huge time drain on society. I, for one, would rather see people having to pay to watch movies. My relatives in Asia who regularly buy pirated DVDs from street stalls watch way too much movies and fritter their lives away.

vibrunazo 15y ago

I believe this idea makes the same mistakes as many others trying to solve this problem. You're trying to fix a broken model by adapting a few of its pieces. But you're not looking at the big picture and trying to see how the pieces play together, or if you even need them. Simply taking a Hollywood movie and trying to finance it with $0.99 per view will be just a Hollywood movie financed with much less money. Of course I'll have no hard data, but my hunch would be that this is far from viable. The problem is deeper than that. The truth is that the Hollywood model carries with it many years of overhead that could be avoided today. Instead of doing slight changes we should be reviewing the the whole production pipeline and get rid of unnecessary dumb pipes. Technology can improve or even remove some of the steps. We need to make content creation cheaper, make it accessible to more creators. Look at the startups at youtube.com/create such as xtranormal or GoAnimate. "If you can type you can create an animation". Just like wordpress brought journalism and written publishing to the masses. Technology can make the same for other mediums of communication. * If we build easier and cheaper tools, that anyone can use. Then we can turn more people into content creators, which reduces costs. * If we get rid of the whole silly copyright fundamentalism, then we can share content pieces between different productions. So creators don't need to reinvent the wheel each time. Short version: instead of trying to come up with innovative revenue models to support over-expensive outdated production models. Let's keep building better tools that keep cutting costs down to the point that sane revenue models can support. I believe that in the future. Millionaire budget production content won't exist anymore, but it will be better than current ones, because we'll be using better tools. So stop trying to bandage what's broken, we're supposed to be killing that by building something better :)

alabut 15y ago

I was nodding along until I hit #5 - pricing films at 99 cents, without any variation for the length of the work. That'd be like if both songs and albums cost 99 cents each. All you get is a race to the bottom with a lot of short derivative work. $5 strikes me as a more reasonable price, as demonstrated by Louis C.K.'s successful experiment.

hoodq19 15y ago

The path to killing Hollywood has to start from an understanding of how/where they make their real money. The post does a good job with a third of that answer-- Hollywood contracts are notoriously one sided so adding consistency and transparency to the process might create the appropriate incentives for creative talent to leave that model. In theory, that approach is already in full swing (see the independent film movement). The other two thirds of the story are the international market and merchandising. Even the worst film end up making money abroad. And those markets don't necessarily have access to the web. So addressing the how of international distribution (the non-web answer) will be a must. And then to be genuinely disruptive, the last third of the solution needs to address merchandising. There needs to be a clear path for everything from action figures to cereal boxes. This one can't be done in isolation of other markets so an alternative ecosystem needs to be created.

rdouble 15y ago

Aside from the API/streaming stuff, this is how crap is already made. Troma, Olson Twins straight to DVD, Tyler Perry, etc.

cturner 15y ago

To challenge the model, you need to find a way to reduce distance between story-telling and the audience. In the late 90s, television became a good place for creative people to work, because the industry gave writers freedom to break moulds that had contained them before. e.g. Buffy finished high school and went on to a next stage of life. I'd focus on finding a way to deploy compelling stories so that they could be consumed for portables, browsers or airline screens on long-haul flights.

nl 15y ago

I've suggested that statuary licensing for video streaming[1] would be something that all tech companies could agree to support, and that Hollywood would hate. I think it fits well with the "0.99c/view" model proposed here. [1] http://nicklothian.com/blog/2012/01/18/why-the-tech-industry-cant-go-on-the-offensive-against-ip-laws/ http://nicklothian.com/blog/2012/01/18/why-the-tech-industry...

Terretta 15y ago

What goes around comes around. We delivered streams for DEN [1] over a decade ago, and any number of new "studios" since. The problem we see is wrong headed thinking around distribution. Everyone wants to be an event, to drive TV or blockbuster sized audiences for a quick big win. The Internet isn't about that. The Internet (see amazon.com and books) is about breadth and depth of choice, made available to a wide enough audience that the quality of choice makes financial sense. Monetize that, and you've defeated Hollywood. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network

earle 15y ago

This idea clearly presents a lack of understanding of how the film industry actually works, and in turn, is presenting nothing new. Making movies isn't part that needs disruption. Regardless of what your thoughts are about Hollywood, it's filled with a bunch of very intelligent, and very well connected people, with very deep pockets. Iterative improvements here and there is not going to cut. Posts like these are obtuse show a general lack of understanding.

wturner 15y ago

The reason movies get shown in movie theaters is because they help sell popcorn.Helping (local non"AMC" or "Regal" ) theaters make more money via a different film funnel could probably contribute. Maybe finding a mechanism where average people make money by showing movies might help as well.

WingedTurtle 15y ago

People have talked about indie movies and how they have no choice but to go to Hollywood to help them get exposure. My impression is that film-makers depend on Hollywood not only for the distribution but also for the funding to make the movie. If indie movies go to Hollywood not for the funding (because they're already good at making quality movies for cheap) but for distribution, then I think we have an opportunity. We should offer an online way to distribute these indie movies. Say I built a website that offered to host indie movies online for pay-per-view. The distribution system would be transparent. Say you've made an indie movie. You let me host it online and charge viewers to watch it, and I give you 80% of the revenue (or whatever is necessary for me to cover costs and make a small profit) I'd probably screen movies for quality and hand-pick the movies I allow for viewing on my site (like literary magazines or existing film festivals). It doesn't matter if I have relatively few movies on my site if they're all good (and I keep releasing more of them). The site will market itself: people will constantly check back for good movies and tell their friends about this site. This won't stop Hollywood from churning out blockbusters, but we can keep indie movies from falling into their hands. One problem is bootstrapping the site but we might be able to convince good indie film-makers who don't want to be part of Hollywood to allow us to distribute their movies (and thus establish the site). It turns out a website like this already exists (possibly others): http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/ http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/ There are several problems with their site which I think can be improved. They don't provide enough "buzz" for their movies. No trailers. No big pretty posters. It looks kinda like Youtube. They also give out the movies for free. Summary: I think with proper execution it's possible to create an online pay-per-view indie-movie website without too much effort (except you need to contact filmmakers). Such a site would provide an alternative to Hollywood for certain niches.

Kroem3r 15y ago

This idea to kill Hollywood is ridiculously misguided. There's nothing terribly wrong with Hollywood; I mean, it has a somewhat facile outlook that goes along with championing the individual over the enterprise - but this isn't the worst bias in the world. The reason it's misguided is that Hollywood isn't the problem. The problem is the system of lobbying the government and the way the government operates to respond to this lobbying. Killing off Hollywood and replacing the dumbass IP protection fanatics with Hacker News will look like the same old problem of replacing one form of tyranny with another. As a footnote, given what one assumes to be an audience including a lot of system analysts, the near-complete lack of this point of view is making me doubt my sanity. ;)

emempi 15y ago

I had an idea of my own, but it actually outgrew size of single comment, so I made a blogpost; it can be found here: http://emempi.blogspot.com/2012/01/better-world-for-movies.html http://emempi.blogspot.com/2012/01/better-world-for-movies.h...

smoody 15y ago

To paraphrase Nelson Muntz of The Simpsons universe... "Stealing movies is a victimless crime... like punching someone in the dark!" - Let's imagine this plan was executed and turned out to be successful. And let's imagine the studio generates some very big hits. - Now, imagine that, even though the movies only costs 99 cents to stream, people pirate them anyway (the same way people pirate 99 cent iPhone apps, but, unlike pirated apps, anyone can watch the pirated movies -- not just people with jailbroken devices). - Suddenly you'll have millions of people using torrents to get bootleg copies of your movies... enough people to where you can't get investors and others their needed financial returns unless you try to put a stop to it. My question: How do you put a stop to it without becoming Hollywood allover again? That, to me, is the big issue here. So either you come-up with a theft-proof way of distributing movies or you try to stop it. Or shut down your business. And adding interactivity to them is not the answer IMHO. I need my passive entertainment and so does everyone else who chooses watching a movie or tv show over playing a game at any point during a day.

thret 15y ago
The issue with paying 99c is not cost, but convenience. What I really want is for movies & music to be tacked onto my existing internet/phone bill like extra call charges.

diggum 15y ago

I think this suggestion kind of misses the point: the evolution of mass culture, at least over the 20th century, has moved from radio, to movies, to TV. The biggest growth in recent new media has been video games, and now, online social services and games. Coming up with a new way of making Hollywoods product isn't going to kill Hollywood - a NEW product that eventually replaces Hollywoods products will, or at least relegate "films" and "tv shows" to the status of radio and newspapers. What series of incremental improvements (an inevitable wrong-turns) will bring us to that next paradigm of entertainment and culture? Will screens necessarily be part of the equation for that next leap? Will we accept passively soaking in this media, or will our participation be required? We can think of experiences like ST:TNG's Holodeck or Neuromancer/Snow Crash's plugged-in immersive metaverse as science fiction, but so was the idea of full-color screens that respond to your gestures or verbal commands not so long ago. The YC challenge to all of us dreamers is what intermediary steps are needed to make a Holodeck a reality? Then, how do we start building the first of those?

keke_ta 15y ago

Awesome timing. Amazon studios. http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started

tlb 15y ago

You have 7 ideas here, all plausible but untested. If you want to make progress you should write down why you think each idea is essential. Or what would go wrong if you didn't do each idea. What would go wrong if you charged iTunes prices instead of 99 cents?

ryanjmo 15y ago

The most innovation and the largest growth in distribution for video in the modern world has been in the many professional YouTube channels that exist. EpicMealTime, FreddieW, RealAnnoyingOrange, have literally millions or fans that watch every single one of their videos and they are currently making millions of dollars. In fact FreddieW has raised over $270K on kick-starter for to create a movie, all donated from his fans. Now, beyond just the individual YouTube channel owners, there are currently (start-up) studios that professionally manage and assist YouTube channels (for a cut of course). Some of these start-ups are http://machinima.com/ http://machinima.com/, http://makerstudios.com/ http://makerstudios.com/, cloudmedia, http://fullscreen.net/ http://fullscreen.net/ http://www.thecollective-la.com/ http://www.thecollective-la.com/ http://break.com/ http://break.com/ All of these companies, either have millions of dollars or have raised millions of dollars. Now they are currently in a land grab for all the top YouTube channels, because if you control the top YouTube channels you control distribution. And currently top YouTubers are some of the only people on the web, that can effectively and consistently distribute to millions of fans. My point is this, innovative people are already challenging hollywood and are off to a great start. In my opinion, if someone is serious about killing Hollywood they need to first study whats already out there and figure out how to work with the people who have already made some serious progress!

narrator 15y ago

Here's my idea for making crowdsourced movies that might actually be good: How about doing movies with a Richard Linklater's "Slacker" like script? In the movie, characters are followed for a few minutes and then someone in the last scene of that segment will continue that movie interacting with a completely separate set of people and so on and so forth. Rent it on Netflix to see what I mean. This kind of movie could be crowdsourced. Someone writes the script. Many want to be actors shoot segments. The winning entrants film short scenes where they call each other on the phone to move the movie along. It's like Redditt the movie. Would somebody please do this idea? Please :).

steve8918 15y ago

The two ideas that come to mind to "Kill Hollywood" are 1) Louis CK and 2) HSX.com. The best example of how to "Kill Hollywood" is Louis CK. What used to go to middlemen like distributors instead went directly into his pockets, and it decreased the price for his fans. The content providers, like Louis CK, need to come up with their own money, and then they get all the money. Take the distribution networks out of it. Charge fans a minimum amount of money, ie. $5. The only difficulty with a movie is that the "content provider" is very distributed. There's the writer, and then there's the actor, etc. With Louis CK, it was all the same person. With a movie, it's a lot different. Not sure how exactly that would be split up, but only because I lack any familiarty with movies. However, funding movies could use the concept from HSX.com where you can buy shares in a film before it comes out. The value of the box office receipts ultimately is split up amongst all the shareholders, etc. This would create incentive for people to get a prospectus for a movie, ie. the script, the actors, etc, and then make informed decisions and buy shares of a movie. This would give funding to the movie, and also create a good secondary market for people to gauge how well a movie will do.

dagw 15y ago
Louis CK can only "Kill Hollywood" because he's already a product of the system. He had a popular TV show on a popular TV channel before starting his experiment. The problem that "Hollywood" solves isn't simply financing and distribution, it's letting lots and lots of people know that your product exists and convincing them that they really really want to pay lots of money to see it.

jeromeparadis 15y ago

Why streaming only? I should be able to download it to any device. Also, don't forget to ban region locking: if you want to change or beat Hollywood, have the movie available as soon as possible to conveniently purchase and play from every country when you want on any platform from. Then you're really changing the game and are a viable alternative to torrents.

wccrawford 15y ago
Because a key part of the plan is that you aren't buying it for 99c. To buy the content and watch it many times, you'd have to pay more, but he doesn't address that. (He should, though.)

dmragone 15y ago

I wonder if you can truly approach movies like start-ups. What would it look like to build an MVP for a movie? Is that the script? How do you get enough people to look at it to truly evaluate the concept? Perhaps this is why books that sell well are made into movies - proven customers.

mayanksinghal 15y ago

I am probably wrong, but aren't we risking a lot by using such a strong language as Killing an industry? Sure there are hundreds of mean studio executives who want to do nothing but maximize their own profits, at times at the expense of newer and in many ways better industries, but there also are thousands of others whose livelihood depends on the industry. Thousands, who might have been otherwise neutral or supportive of our cause, but not if we visibly and purposefully strive to kill their source of income. Propaganda is something we aren't the best at, but Hollywood most definitely is. They might be aiming at destroying the tech/internet industry but they have been very cautious in choosing the right wordings so as to avoid any direct attacks (except a few who patronized 'nerds'). Even if they are using old school cliches that mean nothing if careful deductions are used, but most people would not care taking the effort. Most people would see that there are two groups fight - one that says they will save American jobs and livelihood while preventing them from illegal drugs and their children from pornography while the other group is trying to kill and entire industry. Sympathy can be a very strong tool, especially in elections (I am just saying this based on movies/popular culture - I have zero first hand experience about US elections/political atmosphere). We should probably be careful that we do not end up just winning battles and lose the war - and there is no way that this is going to be a short one.

foenix 15y ago

My counter-proposal: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3455037 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3455037

intended 15y ago

Hollywood is going to die not because we make a better studio (which would be a cool achievement anyway). They will die if you just make better games and story telling systems. Heck if someone just took dwarf fortress and got it to a stage where peoples fortress histories were converted into fantasy novels, you would have an endless fantasy novel generator/plot system, which would be worth the time to read. Beat hollywood by competing on time. I don't know what the correct term is, but thats the leading edge/the place where the real battle is being won. Whatever starts taking over the spare time people have, will displace all the other entertainment media out there. I'd vote on video games, as one of the better attack vectors to approach this. And not the Micro transaction system (which is basically a casino/skinner box and now completely evil) but rather a system like EC2 which allows people to punch beyond their striking capacity.

HNer 15y ago

Hollywood, megavideo and lessons I learned about charging for content online! I have a popular documentary site which has been around for many years, streaming full length docs for small beer, it pays the hosting costs basically. But what I learned over the years that in order to survive (i.e pay the bills as hosting / streaming content is relatively expensive) is that you have to adopt the Megavideo model, i.e charge for content only after people are addicted to it. They used to force payment after 60 free minutes. I struggled to make any cash with a paywall system and only when I switched to pay in video system did it start making money. Clearly the megavideo model worked as they had 6 million in assets ceased apparently (poor sods). I built the concept out into a standalone system in Flash and its at karsa.co.uk but for these days it would need to work in html not flash.

jmaxcpr 15y ago

Interesting discussion. Most of the ideas in this forum have been suggested in one way or another - including the idea from the original post. I posted some thoughts on the original YC 'kill hollywood' manifesto on my blog as well - which debate whether or not Hollywood can really be killed. (Spoiler - I don't think it can be, although I agree with what YC is saying). http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2012/01/kill-hollywood-not-so-fast/ http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2012/01/kill-hollywood-not-so-fas... I've also come up with a pretty compelling way for Hollywood (the TV business in particular) to embrace the new opportunities of fragmented communities and distribution. It's called micro-cable, and it's something that I think bridges the strengths of both the new digital world and the established Hollywood infrastructure. http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2011/12/micro-cable/ http://blog.kingtoledo.com/2011/12/micro-cable/

zumda 15y ago

I think he has some good ideas, but still contains the major flaw that the movie industry still has: A publisher. The publisher/producer maybe was a good idea when spreading an idea was still hard, and we had a lot of mass markets. Even computer software was distributed through a publisher at the beginning (for example VisiCalc), but it just doesn't work. Game developers for example seem to slowly get that they don't need a publisher but a distribution platform. Steam is a good start in that direction (but I think still too selective). If there was a platform that would handle distribution, payment and awareness, we could get a lot more movies that won't be big hits, but instead cater to the minorities. Because this is where we are heading. The music industry a really feeling that hard. There probably won't be any "Beatles" or "Rolling Stones" anymore, because distributing and spreading the word about some niche music in that niche circle is getting easier and easier. And I think this will, in the end, be what will kill Hollywood, because there won't be a movie anymore that grosses multiple million dollars.