6 ms·

Only Way to Save the Movie Industry is to Give Up On Your Dreams

23 points by whitef0x 13y ago

stormbrew 13y ago
The prior state of affairs and the new state of affairs don't really strike me as being as different as this article suggests. There have probably always been a much higher number of people making amateur film than the number you'd see coming out in an art house theatre or limited chain theatre run. The difference is that the gate is crumbling and the price floor is being removed. A lot more people now stand to make very little doing something they love, where before they stood to make absolutely nothing. Some of the sales of the top-tier indie market will undoubtedly go down, but demand for great work from outside the studio system will never disappear entirely. But they need to compete on an even playing field with the newer generation and not try to hide behind the old system until it falls down completely. If the developing products are reaching everyone and the quality products continue to reach only the privileged few (seriously, try watching an indie movie in a small town), the people who cling to the limited distribution model will stand to lose the most.
protomyth 13y ago
I think the problem is not too many, it is the same problem app developers have these days: attention. Surfacing good content in any medium is a pain and trusted critics have been disappearing (dying newspapers and fake hype).
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  You're right, it's entirely about discovery these days. Marketing is how studios cope with that. Indies are also marketing, but in somewhat different ways. There's curation via critics and festivals, but even that's not enough. My theory is that there's some audience for any half-competent film. The world is a big place, with a lot of variety and a lot of different tastes. If your film isn't truly awful, then there's some subset of people out there who want to see it. Long tail audiences for long tail filmmaking. The trick is they don't even know it exists. It's the same with apps and with music and with self-published novels. Matching audience to creative work for the million niches is the real trick that needs to be figured out. The systems we have now (app store, amazon, netflix, spotify, etc) all fail at it in general. Machine learning (as currently applied any way) doesn't really do it.
  - thenomad 13y ago
    Speaking as a working filmmaker - yes, you have hit the nail on the head here (and it's a real pity your comment's currently at the bottom of the thread). Self-published novels are doing a bit better than the other media at matching output to demand. That's partially because of a faster feedback loop, partially because Amazon are smart cookies, and partially just because they need to earn back a lot less to be profitable. I'd be interested in talking more about this issue, actually - my email address is in my HN user info.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    "My theory is that there's some audience for any half-competent film." I had high hopes that social media sites would make it easier to find new stuff, but it seems their business model of selling advertising is actually in direct conflict with building tools to discover new media. Apple might have had a chance with Ping, but they bungled it so badly. I would imagine that someone will either make their money from linking media to audience or find a revenue source that doesn't conflict.
- ZenoArrow 13y ago
  Exactly right, attention is the prime issue. We could really do with a few more prominent content hubs that help people connect with promising new content. However, there is a secondary issue, and that is of appetite. Appetite for novelty. We seem to often crave more of the same, rather than taking a chance on something unfamiliar. I do this too, for example I only go on Crunchyroll to watch Naruto-related shows, despite there being a large selection of other shows I could watch. What can be done to help open people up to new experiences? As much as I dislike people banging on about how great things were in the 1960s, the one factor that does seem to be markedly different about that time was an openness to novelty within the masses. Logically there's no reason that can't happen again, but I don't know how it'll emerge.
  - thenomad 13y ago
    Interesting point. In fiction, it's often easy to identify what people want to read / watch / consume - a Joss Whedon fan wants "stuff like Buffy", a 24 fan wants "more 24". You're in the Naruto niche. This is niche identification, just like in non-fiction - where as I mention in a comment above, you can target down to tiny niches. The difference in fiction is that it's illegal to target those niches because of copyright-created monopolies. I can't say "OK, ZenoArrow wants more Naruto" and make some without getting extremely sued. I'm not sure what to do about that, but it's an interesting identification of the problem. This also explains why new fiction is so hard to launch - you're creating a new niche, something that's traditionally randomly successful and very difficult. (The traditional solution, of course, is either to license popular IP - not really doable for indies - or to base your fiction on a niche that's not copyright-protected. Hence the number of Sherlock Holmes-based films, TV shows, and books, for example - the Sherlock Holmes niche is actually available.)
    - ZenoArrow 13y ago
      Glad you found the appetite angle interesting thenomad. Whilst licensing popular IPs is one way to reliably bring in an audience, I wouldn't say it's a long term solution for healthy, diverse culture. Reusing older source material is certainly popular right now though, Sherlock Holmes is a strong example of that. Furthermore, older material can be reused in creative ways (e.g. Sample-based music, reimaginings of universes such as Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, etc...). I also think you make a good point about 'a Joss Whedon fan wants "stuff like Buffy"'. I think this can go beyond what someone is used to when people begin to build their identity around what they consume. There is an unwritten but obvious way that a group latches onto certain media, even in scenes that supposedly promote individualism such as geek culture. Even if culture should be identity agnostic, it frequently is not. I should point out that although I don't always find time for the new, I know that I'd be better off if I did. Perhaps 'find time' is the key phrase, I feel so busy with/addicted to my current cultural consumption that I don't make room for finding something new. The one exception for me is YouTube, I'll happily take time browsing YouTube seeing where it takes me. Perhaps that's the one exception due to the habits ingrained in me throughout the 90s through copious TV consumption, I'm at ease that I'll not always hit the jackpot of an interesting video. What I really would like to see is greater cultural diversity, despite my actions to the contrary. As a film maker I apologise that you'll have to deal with these issues! Perhaps short, ambitious content could help? When I was a kid I had a Transformers video I used to watch a lot, one of the episodes was 'Call Of The Primitives'. I really enjoyed that episode, the story seemed to flow really well. When I was older I read a complaint about that episode that they had tried to fit in too much, that it was a film-like storyline in a single 20 minute episode, it struck me that maybe that's part of what I liked about the story flow, it had the ambition to throw in quite a few memorable moments in a short time frame. I don't know if there's a lesson in that, but perhaps there is. What else do you think might help?
frik 13y ago
Some create intentionally bad films and some are coding intentionally bad apps to app stores ...both flood the market. For movies we have IMDB.com that works well for consumer to filter out the good ones. The current app store implementations are not good enough, an independent app database with information, rating, pictures, videos and comments like IMDB would be great. (IMDB already features video games where actors were part of the development process)
lutusp 13y ago
I hope the originator of this idea realizes it would be illegal if put into practice. It would be like Wal-Mart arguing against all those indie drugstores and mom & pop groceries that make bigger businesses like theirs unprofitable.
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  >it would be illegal if put into practice I checked my think-like-the-MPAA magic 8-ball. (1) Limit, by law, the films cinemas can show to those rated G, PG, PG-13, or R. (2) Inflate the cost of applying for a rating (with a "scholarship" available to qualifying applicants).
  - throwaway2048 13y ago
    Movie theaters are in no way limited by law to certain MPAA rated films. That would be a gross violation of the 1st amendment. The industry has more subtle ways of controlling theater owners.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      I normally argue the opposite position, but I have to respond to this -- what a movie theater shows is its own business, because it's not a public forum. The First Amendment doesn't apply. If government tried to prevent a movie theater from showing certain content (as with obscenity rulings) that would be different.
      - throwaway2048 13y ago
        hence "by law"
  - lutusp 13y ago
    >> it would be illegal if put into practice > I checked my think-like-the-MPAA magic 8-ball. (1) Limit, by law, the films cinemas can show to those rated G, PG, PG-13, or R. (2) Inflate the cost of applying for a rating (with a "scholarship" available to qualifying applicants). Yes, and this would be a clear example of industry protectionism, probably actionable in civil court. As an example, remember that many Silicon Valley companies are now the subject of a federal lawsuit for agreeing among themselves not to "poach" each other's engineers. The feds argue that this prevented fair wage bargaining and the seeking of professional opportunities, and they're likely to prevail in court.
beloch 13y ago
DSLR's are only the latest in a long string of technologies that have made shooting and editing film both cheaper and far more user-friendly. Compare the expense, labor, and expertise required to shoot and chop 35mm versus shooting digital on a DSLR and editing on your laptop! Costs have undeniably gone down for all films, but more so for indies. These costs are a higher percentage of an indie film's total cost than they are for a AAA title, which must pay significantly more for special effects, AAA actors, AAA directors, etc.. Theater ticket prices continue to go up regardless of the type of film. Indie flicks also cost no less than AAA titles in home video. Traditionally, low-cost inferior alternatives compete against the more expensive well-established products on the basis of price. Why aren't indies trying to undercut AAA titles on price to increase their volume?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  It may be that AAA titles are actually pretty competitive on price, through volume! Even if your budget is bigger, you can accept lower margins if you have a bigger audience.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Indie films don't cost less because observed elasticity of price is not such that doing so would increase volume enough to increase total profit.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wisty 13y ago
  Films are sort of a natural monopoly. The winners will have huge budgets thus "better" films. Instead, indies compete for a niche. Niche customers (at least, the ones you want) aren't bargain hunters, but people who pay for their idea of quality.
JumpCrisscross 13y ago
>The problem here stems from the fact that many of the independent films that are picked up for distribution are guaranteed a limited theater run (mostly for the press that it generates) This sounds like a more likely source of the problem than too much supply. Filmmakers need their economics to work. They also have limited access to credit. In short, it is a market that should work. Limit subsidies like guaranteed theatre runs to let the market self-correct.
joe_the_user 13y ago
My sister has taught media studies and film production for a number of years (first as professor, then as adjunct - Yea! America). One thing she notes is that the number of film schools in the US is approximately equal to the number of individuals employed full time in Hollywood (the "real" movies industry). That's right, each school, on average, contributes one person total to the industry (course, it's not a matter of averages with a very few school contributing a reasonable if small number and most adding ... none, still this average shows the aggregate brutality). Anyway, I don't know why anyone would bother with anything like an altruistic gesture towards these people, this industry etc.
- jedrek 13y ago
  What does full time mean? SAG-AFTRA has 160,000 members who make enough from acting that ponying up 3k/year makes financial sense. That's just the talent, on any movie support staff and behind the camera talent will be at least 5x the number of on screen talent, sometimes even 100x more.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >What does full time mean? SAG-AFTRA has 160,000 members who make enough from acting that ponying up 3k/year makes financial sense. Or it doesn't, and they make it out of vanity reasons, or because "soon, I'll have my big chance...".
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  I don't think that's even close to being true. There's tens of thousands of people employed in Hollywood at studio level production alone, much less indie level. There aren't tens of thousands of film schools in the US. Sure, a lot of it is contract work, with lulls between jobs, but they're making income equivalent to a very solid middle class income.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  What full-time means is very important here, as the concept of full-time work doesn't necessarily fit well with the movie industry. It seems most common in the movie industry to be employed on a short, fixed-term contract (for the duration of one film, say) before moving on to the next thing. Does that count as full-time employment for the purposes of this stat? I'm guessing not. Is this a bad thing? Probably not (although reasonable to argue). In any case, it's different than traditional employment: so employment can't be measured using traditional figures.
summerdown2 13y ago
It's the same with fiction writing - there are far too many people doing it, and the quality is ever more variable. I don't think this is a bad thing, just a sign of an industry in transition. I really like the fact that large numbers of people are encouraged to become creators. But there really does need to be some way for a consumer to find what they're interested in, and for an artist to reach those who might be interested in their work. At the moment the old mechanisms seem to be vanishing, and it's not clear what will take their place. I've seen people try forming communities with shared worlds to spark interest, new approaches using Patreon and Kickstarter, the ever unreliable flooding of social media. But the truth is that as a reader I'm finding it harder to search for things I like and as a beginning writer, I'm seeing my more advanced friends drop out of the midlist.
- thenomad 13y ago
  I do think that Netflix may be on to something with its curation /discovery of new sub-sub niches. One of the issues with creating fiction compared to non-fiction right now, in any medium, is that it's much harder to niche down in fiction. In non-fiction I can perfectly happily make a viable living from writing to a niche of, say, "owners of cats with behavioural issues", or "Finance-focused startups in need of lead generation knowledge". In fiction, niches are much less granular - at best, you can target, say, "werewolf-based romance", and for many projects, you'll be targeting "fantasy", "hard SF" or similar huge niches with very vague requirements and significant saturation problems.
Pxtl 13y ago
Welcome to every other artistic endeavor ever. First it was painters, then writers, then photographers, then music and comics, etc. Today cheap ad-hoc manufacturing is also doing it to the indie boardgame world. Every other art-form goes through this process when its materials become cheap enough for anybody to get involved. Well, except maybe gaming, and that's just because the actual paying market for videogames keeps growing.
acconrad 13y ago
This problem with film is the same thing with music - now anyone can have a professional recording studio in the comforts of their own home. With more people making music / film, the more the quality suffers as everyone believes they are a film/music maker. It just means that in order to get noticed through the exponential increase in volume, you have to work that much harder to demonstrate your talent and craft.

23 points by whitef0x 13y ago

The prior state of affairs and the new state of affairs don't really strike me as being as different as this article suggests. There have probably always been a much higher number of people making amateur film than the number you'd see coming out in an art house theatre or limited chain theatre run. The difference is that the gate is crumbling and the price floor is being removed. A lot more people now stand to make very little doing something they love, where before they stood to make absolutely nothing. Some of the sales of the top-tier indie market will undoubtedly go down, but demand for great work from outside the studio system will never disappear entirely. But they need to compete on an even playing field with the newer generation and not try to hide behind the old system until it falls down completely. If the developing products are reaching everyone and the quality products continue to reach only the privileged few (seriously, try watching an indie movie in a small town), the people who cling to the limited distribution model will stand to lose the most.

protomyth 13y ago

I think the problem is not too many, it is the same problem app developers have these days: attention. Surfacing good content in any medium is a pain and trusted critics have been disappearing (dying newspapers and fake hype).

waterlesscloud 13y ago
You're right, it's entirely about discovery these days. Marketing is how studios cope with that. Indies are also marketing, but in somewhat different ways. There's curation via critics and festivals, but even that's not enough. My theory is that there's some audience for any half-competent film. The world is a big place, with a lot of variety and a lot of different tastes. If your film isn't truly awful, then there's some subset of people out there who want to see it. Long tail audiences for long tail filmmaking. The trick is they don't even know it exists. It's the same with apps and with music and with self-published novels. Matching audience to creative work for the million niches is the real trick that needs to be figured out. The systems we have now (app store, amazon, netflix, spotify, etc) all fail at it in general. Machine learning (as currently applied any way) doesn't really do it.
- thenomad 13y ago
  Speaking as a working filmmaker - yes, you have hit the nail on the head here (and it's a real pity your comment's currently at the bottom of the thread). Self-published novels are doing a bit better than the other media at matching output to demand. That's partially because of a faster feedback loop, partially because Amazon are smart cookies, and partially just because they need to earn back a lot less to be profitable. I'd be interested in talking more about this issue, actually - my email address is in my HN user info.
- protomyth 13y ago
  "My theory is that there's some audience for any half-competent film." I had high hopes that social media sites would make it easier to find new stuff, but it seems their business model of selling advertising is actually in direct conflict with building tools to discover new media. Apple might have had a chance with Ping, but they bungled it so badly. I would imagine that someone will either make their money from linking media to audience or find a revenue source that doesn't conflict.
ZenoArrow 13y ago
Exactly right, attention is the prime issue. We could really do with a few more prominent content hubs that help people connect with promising new content. However, there is a secondary issue, and that is of appetite. Appetite for novelty. We seem to often crave more of the same, rather than taking a chance on something unfamiliar. I do this too, for example I only go on Crunchyroll to watch Naruto-related shows, despite there being a large selection of other shows I could watch. What can be done to help open people up to new experiences? As much as I dislike people banging on about how great things were in the 1960s, the one factor that does seem to be markedly different about that time was an openness to novelty within the masses. Logically there's no reason that can't happen again, but I don't know how it'll emerge.
- thenomad 13y ago
  Interesting point. In fiction, it's often easy to identify what people want to read / watch / consume - a Joss Whedon fan wants "stuff like Buffy", a 24 fan wants "more 24". You're in the Naruto niche. This is niche identification, just like in non-fiction - where as I mention in a comment above, you can target down to tiny niches. The difference in fiction is that it's illegal to target those niches because of copyright-created monopolies. I can't say "OK, ZenoArrow wants more Naruto" and make some without getting extremely sued. I'm not sure what to do about that, but it's an interesting identification of the problem. This also explains why new fiction is so hard to launch - you're creating a new niche, something that's traditionally randomly successful and very difficult. (The traditional solution, of course, is either to license popular IP - not really doable for indies - or to base your fiction on a niche that's not copyright-protected. Hence the number of Sherlock Holmes-based films, TV shows, and books, for example - the Sherlock Holmes niche is actually available.)
  - ZenoArrow 13y ago
    Glad you found the appetite angle interesting thenomad. Whilst licensing popular IPs is one way to reliably bring in an audience, I wouldn't say it's a long term solution for healthy, diverse culture. Reusing older source material is certainly popular right now though, Sherlock Holmes is a strong example of that. Furthermore, older material can be reused in creative ways (e.g. Sample-based music, reimaginings of universes such as Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, etc...). I also think you make a good point about 'a Joss Whedon fan wants "stuff like Buffy"'. I think this can go beyond what someone is used to when people begin to build their identity around what they consume. There is an unwritten but obvious way that a group latches onto certain media, even in scenes that supposedly promote individualism such as geek culture. Even if culture should be identity agnostic, it frequently is not. I should point out that although I don't always find time for the new, I know that I'd be better off if I did. Perhaps 'find time' is the key phrase, I feel so busy with/addicted to my current cultural consumption that I don't make room for finding something new. The one exception for me is YouTube, I'll happily take time browsing YouTube seeing where it takes me. Perhaps that's the one exception due to the habits ingrained in me throughout the 90s through copious TV consumption, I'm at ease that I'll not always hit the jackpot of an interesting video. What I really would like to see is greater cultural diversity, despite my actions to the contrary. As a film maker I apologise that you'll have to deal with these issues! Perhaps short, ambitious content could help? When I was a kid I had a Transformers video I used to watch a lot, one of the episodes was 'Call Of The Primitives'. I really enjoyed that episode, the story seemed to flow really well. When I was older I read a complaint about that episode that they had tried to fit in too much, that it was a film-like storyline in a single 20 minute episode, it struck me that maybe that's part of what I liked about the story flow, it had the ambition to throw in quite a few memorable moments in a short time frame. I don't know if there's a lesson in that, but perhaps there is. What else do you think might help?

frik 13y ago

Some create intentionally bad films and some are coding intentionally bad apps to app stores ...both flood the market. For movies we have IMDB.com that works well for consumer to filter out the good ones. The current app store implementations are not good enough, an independent app database with information, rating, pictures, videos and comments like IMDB would be great. (IMDB already features video games where actors were part of the development process)

lutusp 13y ago

I hope the originator of this idea realizes it would be illegal if put into practice. It would be like Wal-Mart arguing against all those indie drugstores and mom & pop groceries that make bigger businesses like theirs unprofitable.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
>it would be illegal if put into practice I checked my think-like-the-MPAA magic 8-ball. (1) Limit, by law, the films cinemas can show to those rated G, PG, PG-13, or R. (2) Inflate the cost of applying for a rating (with a "scholarship" available to qualifying applicants).
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  Movie theaters are in no way limited by law to certain MPAA rated films. That would be a gross violation of the 1st amendment. The industry has more subtle ways of controlling theater owners.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    I normally argue the opposite position, but I have to respond to this -- what a movie theater shows is its own business, because it's not a public forum. The First Amendment doesn't apply. If government tried to prevent a movie theater from showing certain content (as with obscenity rulings) that would be different.
    - throwaway2048 13y ago
      hence "by law"
- lutusp 13y ago
  >> it would be illegal if put into practice > I checked my think-like-the-MPAA magic 8-ball. (1) Limit, by law, the films cinemas can show to those rated G, PG, PG-13, or R. (2) Inflate the cost of applying for a rating (with a "scholarship" available to qualifying applicants). Yes, and this would be a clear example of industry protectionism, probably actionable in civil court. As an example, remember that many Silicon Valley companies are now the subject of a federal lawsuit for agreeing among themselves not to "poach" each other's engineers. The feds argue that this prevented fair wage bargaining and the seeking of professional opportunities, and they're likely to prevail in court.

beloch 13y ago

DSLR's are only the latest in a long string of technologies that have made shooting and editing film both cheaper and far more user-friendly. Compare the expense, labor, and expertise required to shoot and chop 35mm versus shooting digital on a DSLR and editing on your laptop! Costs have undeniably gone down for all films, but more so for indies. These costs are a higher percentage of an indie film's total cost than they are for a AAA title, which must pay significantly more for special effects, AAA actors, AAA directors, etc.. Theater ticket prices continue to go up regardless of the type of film. Indie flicks also cost no less than AAA titles in home video. Traditionally, low-cost inferior alternatives compete against the more expensive well-established products on the basis of price. Why aren't indies trying to undercut AAA titles on price to increase their volume?

sliverstorm 13y ago
It may be that AAA titles are actually pretty competitive on price, through volume! Even if your budget is bigger, you can accept lower margins if you have a bigger audience.
dragonwriter 13y ago
Indie films don't cost less because observed elasticity of price is not such that doing so would increase volume enough to increase total profit.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wisty 13y ago
Films are sort of a natural monopoly. The winners will have huge budgets thus "better" films. Instead, indies compete for a niche. Niche customers (at least, the ones you want) aren't bargain hunters, but people who pay for their idea of quality.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

>The problem here stems from the fact that many of the independent films that are picked up for distribution are guaranteed a limited theater run (mostly for the press that it generates) This sounds like a more likely source of the problem than too much supply. Filmmakers need their economics to work. They also have limited access to credit. In short, it is a market that should work. Limit subsidies like guaranteed theatre runs to let the market self-correct.

joe_the_user 13y ago

My sister has taught media studies and film production for a number of years (first as professor, then as adjunct - Yea! America). One thing she notes is that the number of film schools in the US is approximately equal to the number of individuals employed full time in Hollywood (the "real" movies industry). That's right, each school, on average, contributes one person total to the industry (course, it's not a matter of averages with a very few school contributing a reasonable if small number and most adding ... none, still this average shows the aggregate brutality). Anyway, I don't know why anyone would bother with anything like an altruistic gesture towards these people, this industry etc.

jedrek 13y ago
What does full time mean? SAG-AFTRA has 160,000 members who make enough from acting that ponying up 3k/year makes financial sense. That's just the talent, on any movie support staff and behind the camera talent will be at least 5x the number of on screen talent, sometimes even 100x more.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >What does full time mean? SAG-AFTRA has 160,000 members who make enough from acting that ponying up 3k/year makes financial sense. Or it doesn't, and they make it out of vanity reasons, or because "soon, I'll have my big chance...".
waterlesscloud 13y ago
I don't think that's even close to being true. There's tens of thousands of people employed in Hollywood at studio level production alone, much less indie level. There aren't tens of thousands of film schools in the US. Sure, a lot of it is contract work, with lulls between jobs, but they're making income equivalent to a very solid middle class income.
ronaldx 13y ago
What full-time means is very important here, as the concept of full-time work doesn't necessarily fit well with the movie industry. It seems most common in the movie industry to be employed on a short, fixed-term contract (for the duration of one film, say) before moving on to the next thing. Does that count as full-time employment for the purposes of this stat? I'm guessing not. Is this a bad thing? Probably not (although reasonable to argue). In any case, it's different than traditional employment: so employment can't be measured using traditional figures.

summerdown2 13y ago

It's the same with fiction writing - there are far too many people doing it, and the quality is ever more variable. I don't think this is a bad thing, just a sign of an industry in transition. I really like the fact that large numbers of people are encouraged to become creators. But there really does need to be some way for a consumer to find what they're interested in, and for an artist to reach those who might be interested in their work. At the moment the old mechanisms seem to be vanishing, and it's not clear what will take their place. I've seen people try forming communities with shared worlds to spark interest, new approaches using Patreon and Kickstarter, the ever unreliable flooding of social media. But the truth is that as a reader I'm finding it harder to search for things I like and as a beginning writer, I'm seeing my more advanced friends drop out of the midlist.

thenomad 13y ago
I do think that Netflix may be on to something with its curation /discovery of new sub-sub niches. One of the issues with creating fiction compared to non-fiction right now, in any medium, is that it's much harder to niche down in fiction. In non-fiction I can perfectly happily make a viable living from writing to a niche of, say, "owners of cats with behavioural issues", or "Finance-focused startups in need of lead generation knowledge". In fiction, niches are much less granular - at best, you can target, say, "werewolf-based romance", and for many projects, you'll be targeting "fantasy", "hard SF" or similar huge niches with very vague requirements and significant saturation problems.

Pxtl 13y ago

Welcome to every other artistic endeavor ever. First it was painters, then writers, then photographers, then music and comics, etc. Today cheap ad-hoc manufacturing is also doing it to the indie boardgame world. Every other art-form goes through this process when its materials become cheap enough for anybody to get involved. Well, except maybe gaming, and that's just because the actual paying market for videogames keeps growing.

acconrad 13y ago

This problem with film is the same thing with music - now anyone can have a professional recording studio in the comforts of their own home. With more people making music / film, the more the quality suffers as everyone believes they are a film/music maker. It just means that in order to get noticed through the exponential increase in volume, you have to work that much harder to demonstrate your talent and craft.