5 ms·

This idea has been kicking around since the late 90's. The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then. The flip side of tha

This idea has been kicking around since the late 90's. The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then. The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. Either way, it's an inevitability that the market for financing feature films and "television" series will spread horizontally as the costs keep coming down. I wonder how many people realize that Hollywood Studios are basically financed by major banks. It's the talent pooling and fairly consistent ROI that keeps the lenders coming back.

technoslut 15y ago
>The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. This is the only point I disagree with. I don't care how much more accessible the tech gets it's still about te storyline, the acting and cinematography.
- jasonwocky 15y ago
  I assume sunchild called it "harder" to spot talent simply because the increased accessibility of tech means there's now more crap to wade through.
  - technoslut 15y ago
    I can't make that assumption. Any one of these crafts: direction, acting, editing, cinematography and soundtracking is always hard to find. You always had to wade through a mountain of garbage. The way most execs did it previously is through word of mouth. I don't believe that's changed today.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    That's exactly what I meant. It becomes a real problem when you're looking to fill a technical spot. It's really no different than casting actors, though – that's always been a flood of wannabes. My point was just that lowering the barriers to entry on the technical side means more people feel qualified, even if they aren't. Practical issue more than an insurmountable obstacle.
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Im not even that sure acting and cinematography are essential. I know with web based TV type shows, the only thing I have cared about is the plot. An example is Pioneer One. Terrible production values, which is OK because it only cost $10k ish per episode, but the plot was interesting enough to keep watching. OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better, but then there is more cash coming it to cover that. Anyway, my silly little point, is that a good plot and script can carry a hell of a lot of iffy production.
  - technoslut 15y ago
    If you're looking for talent they all matter. You, as a studio exec, go after what you see or feel. For example, one of my favorite films was The Brothers McMullen which was made with $25,000. It was done on a low budget but anyone could see that Edward Burns was the true talent in the film when he was the actor, director and writer. The movie didn't become popular because a ton of execs waded through thousands of movies but rather by word of mouth. This has been the same in the music industry for years. >OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better I'm not sure if that's true. A good portion of that 'experience' of movies is to see it with other people – even with people you don't know. It is just something to do. Some just like to see a bad movie and throw popcorn at the screen. I'm sure that many didn't go to see Transformers 3 because they expected better than an indie flick.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jonnathanson 15y ago
"The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then." What's actually quite interesting is that there's been a bifurcation in production costs. The physical costs of production -- equipment, editing software, distribution, and so forth -- have come down dramatically. But Hollywood's cost structure has increased in this same timeframe, because the costs of big talent have gone up. Top actors, directors, writers, source material, producers, and so forth have commanded steadily higher prices. And the outlays on special effects, locations, and other mainstays of blockbuster filmmaking have increased at a steady pace. We should note that this represents a choice on Hollywood's part. Maybe it's not a monolithic, homogenous, across-the-board choice. Perhaps it's something more like the agglomeration into coherence of a thousand daily choices by a thousand different players in the Hollywood system. Perhaps some of those players -- agents and producers -- have had an outsized impact. Regardless, somehow Hollywood has actively participated in spending more and more each year on production at the same time that it earns less and less each year on distribution and sales. To your point, the banks and hedge funds got into the game because they recognized these inefficiencies on the production side. They've got deep enough pockets to finance some of the production risk, knowing that they'll always be paid back, so hence, it's not actually risky for them. And, since production keeps getting more expensive, Hollywood will always be out looking for more deficit financing each year. At what point the tail started wagging the dog, or whether it actually has, is anyone's guess. But the general observation is that the hedge-fundization of the system kicked into full swing in the early 2000s. To my eye, this entire ecosystem looks to be resting on a very shaky foundation. Perhaps existing mega-talent will price itself out of startup filmmaking, but new talent seems to be headed in that direction at a breakneck pace. And, lest we dismiss "alternative" content as the typical, unsophisticated, flash-in-the-pan UGC we've seen on YouTube for so many years, we should take note that a lot of really high-quality independent filmmaking is hitting the charts on Netflix, iTunes, and other sources -- right alongside Hollywood fare. For the time being, Hollywood is in no danger of being displaced by these upstarts. But the mere fact that small fry can get collaboratively filtered right alongside the big fish portends to an eventual disruption of a lot of common assumptions about necessary costs in the Hollywood model. We live in interesting times.
- roc 15y ago
rdouble 15y ago
Rather than emulating Stanley Kubrik, I think young people armed with 5Ds want to make music videos, comedic shorts and skateboard films... all of which have improved to an amazing degree over the past decade. I'm not so sure startups changing financing for feature films will "kill Hollywood." The preference of the newer generation to watch shorter bits of content that don't require such financing in the first place, might.
- kthakar3 15y ago
  I see a lot of great (spectacular in some cases) videos being posted on vimeo. Most of these are as you said, young people with 5Ds making short films. However, it is still a leap of imagination to think that people will switch to shorter content over films and TV.
  - ericd 15y ago
    Agreed, people's ancient appetite for storytelling isn't going anywhere, and a youtube clip isn't going to satisfy that.

technoslut 15y ago

>The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. This is the only point I disagree with. I don't care how much more accessible the tech gets it's still about te storyline, the acting and cinematography.

jasonwocky 15y ago
I assume sunchild called it "harder" to spot talent simply because the increased accessibility of tech means there's now more crap to wade through.
- technoslut 15y ago
  I can't make that assumption. Any one of these crafts: direction, acting, editing, cinematography and soundtracking is always hard to find. You always had to wade through a mountain of garbage. The way most execs did it previously is through word of mouth. I don't believe that's changed today.
- sunchild 15y ago
  That's exactly what I meant. It becomes a real problem when you're looking to fill a technical spot. It's really no different than casting actors, though – that's always been a flood of wannabes. My point was just that lowering the barriers to entry on the technical side means more people feel qualified, even if they aren't. Practical issue more than an insurmountable obstacle.
alan_cx 15y ago
Im not even that sure acting and cinematography are essential. I know with web based TV type shows, the only thing I have cared about is the plot. An example is Pioneer One. Terrible production values, which is OK because it only cost $10k ish per episode, but the plot was interesting enough to keep watching. OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better, but then there is more cash coming it to cover that. Anyway, my silly little point, is that a good plot and script can carry a hell of a lot of iffy production.
- technoslut 15y ago
  If you're looking for talent they all matter. You, as a studio exec, go after what you see or feel. For example, one of my favorite films was The Brothers McMullen which was made with $25,000. It was done on a low budget but anyone could see that Edward Burns was the true talent in the film when he was the actor, director and writer. The movie didn't become popular because a ton of execs waded through thousands of movies but rather by word of mouth. This has been the same in the music industry for years. >OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better I'm not sure if that's true. A good portion of that 'experience' of movies is to see it with other people – even with people you don't know. It is just something to do. Some just like to see a bad movie and throw popcorn at the screen. I'm sure that many didn't go to see Transformers 3 because they expected better than an indie flick.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jonnathanson 15y ago

"The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then." What's actually quite interesting is that there's been a bifurcation in production costs. The physical costs of production -- equipment, editing software, distribution, and so forth -- have come down dramatically. But Hollywood's cost structure has increased in this same timeframe, because the costs of big talent have gone up. Top actors, directors, writers, source material, producers, and so forth have commanded steadily higher prices. And the outlays on special effects, locations, and other mainstays of blockbuster filmmaking have increased at a steady pace. We should note that this represents a choice on Hollywood's part. Maybe it's not a monolithic, homogenous, across-the-board choice. Perhaps it's something more like the agglomeration into coherence of a thousand daily choices by a thousand different players in the Hollywood system. Perhaps some of those players -- agents and producers -- have had an outsized impact. Regardless, somehow Hollywood has actively participated in spending more and more each year on production at the same time that it earns less and less each year on distribution and sales. To your point, the banks and hedge funds got into the game because they recognized these inefficiencies on the production side. They've got deep enough pockets to finance some of the production risk, knowing that they'll always be paid back, so hence, it's not actually risky for them. And, since production keeps getting more expensive, Hollywood will always be out looking for more deficit financing each year. At what point the tail started wagging the dog, or whether it actually has, is anyone's guess. But the general observation is that the hedge-fundization of the system kicked into full swing in the early 2000s. To my eye, this entire ecosystem looks to be resting on a very shaky foundation. Perhaps existing mega-talent will price itself out of startup filmmaking, but new talent seems to be headed in that direction at a breakneck pace. And, lest we dismiss "alternative" content as the typical, unsophisticated, flash-in-the-pan UGC we've seen on YouTube for so many years, we should take note that a lot of really high-quality independent filmmaking is hitting the charts on Netflix, iTunes, and other sources -- right alongside Hollywood fare. For the time being, Hollywood is in no danger of being displaced by these upstarts. But the mere fact that small fry can get collaboratively filtered right alongside the big fish portends to an eventual disruption of a lot of common assumptions about necessary costs in the Hollywood model. We live in interesting times.

roc 15y ago

rdouble 15y ago

Rather than emulating Stanley Kubrik, I think young people armed with 5Ds want to make music videos, comedic shorts and skateboard films... all of which have improved to an amazing degree over the past decade. I'm not so sure startups changing financing for feature films will "kill Hollywood." The preference of the newer generation to watch shorter bits of content that don't require such financing in the first place, might.

kthakar3 15y ago
I see a lot of great (spectacular in some cases) videos being posted on vimeo. Most of these are as you said, young people with 5Ds making short films. However, it is still a leap of imagination to think that people will switch to shorter content over films and TV.
- ericd 15y ago
  Agreed, people's ancient appetite for storytelling isn't going anywhere, and a youtube clip isn't going to satisfy that.