3 ms·

> Imagine that I worked for them and you were about to torrent this film, exactly what is it you would want me to do for you that would change your mind? Alrig

> Imagine that I worked for them and you were about to torrent this film, exactly what is it you would want me to do for you that would change your mind? Alright, let's brainstorm. How about movie companies put up several movie ideas, we vote on which ones we want to watch by paying ahead so they can produce it, much like a kickstarter project, and then once it's done it's already paid for and they can release it for free online? Oh that's right, it wouldn't work because there's no litigation involved and so it's no fun! (What I'm trying to say is they're not interested in solving this problem, even though several solutions exist, despite sibling comments here saying that no solution exists).

innguest 12y ago
Please downvote the solution above as it incentivizes transparency, public scrutiny and more choice, while creating a more targeted product with guaranteed success (since it's been paid for and returned profits in advance of its making). Please go on with your other solutions involving more lawyers and copyright protection schemes. I didn't mean to distract you.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I can't downvote replies to my own comment you know.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  You can't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.) Also, the moderation is extremely weird in this particular HN story. I wouldn't take it personally.
  - mingmecca 12y ago
    You can't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.) I'm curious as to why you think that? There are a lot of really great projects on Kickstarter that would fall under the umbrella of "good art" (games, films, etc). Unless you're speaking subjectively, of course, and you don't like what is on offer.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      If you look at film video projects on Kickstarter, it's mostly documentaries - for which this model works OK because documentaries are often about something that has an interest group already attached, as well as much lower production costs and quality expectations - short films, which are raising small amounts and generally just using Kickstarter to funnel donations from friends & family, or instructionals, which aim to produce educational content. It's not at all good for feature films. There are some crowdfunding sites that are a bit better but the more friendly they are to features the more likely they are to be targeted within the industry. I laid out some reasons in another post above, I should have mentioned that those are all narrative feature-specific things.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > You can't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.) There's a group of people called Commercial Artists that would disagree with you and laugh at your ad hominem.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Well, Amazon does something like this for their original content (competing ideas that members of one of their subsites vote on), but with the difference being that Amazon puts up the money. Also, some existing production companies/distributors have been willing to handle pictures financed this way. Contrary to what you might imagine, nobody likes litigation except a subset of the many lawyers that work in Hollywood, and on most projects no litigation ever takes place. The crowdfunding model can work to some degree but it suffers from three limitations. 1. It's not good for really big sums, like millions of dollars - not least because of SEC rules, but let's face it, that's a hard amount of money to raise more than a year in advance of release from the general public. For the same reaosn that many people would rather torrent than wait to buy or rent or stream a new film, asking them to pay up front and then wait around for the film to get made is not going to be easy either. 2. Besides the large sum, another reason it's difficult is that many of the jobs involved in film production are highly specialized and it's not obvious to a potential kickstarter buyer how the money is going to be spent. You probably don't want to throw down $15,000 for a 'Honeywagon driver,' for example, without the honeywagon there won't be much exterior shooting because that's the unglamorous line item for the delivery, maintenance, and removal of portable toilet facilities, the cost of which really adds up when you have 40 or 50 people who need to use them. Each othe sub-categories on this page generates further pages of accounting stuff and legal documents: http://www.indieproduction.com/sample-budget-top-sheet.php http://www.indieproduction.com/sample-budget-top-sheet.php 3. It's especially not good for films that don't tap into an existing franchise, like a sequel or continuation of an existing series, or with the involvement of famous actors/directors. Few people are eager to invest in someone's first project or a film about subject matter that they're not familiar with, not least because few people know how to evaluate the quality of a script or estimate the credibility of a film proposal. So while you could probably find people willing to crowdfund, I dunno, Jaws in Space, you're going to have a harder time with anything original. 4. It's going to be a lot trickier to get it into theaters if you are also going to be giving it away, because theater owners won't want to take the risk of playing to empty seats. You'd still be able to do a limited release or make advance ownership of the tickets part of the crowdfunding reward, but then you need to include the theater's overhead costs and effectively rent the screen from them which is going to drive up the costs.
jonmrodriguez 12y ago
I'm not innguest, but I'm curious, why is this downvoted so much? I get that the idea is somewhat impractical, but at least it's original and creative, surely the kind of idea we want to encourage.

innguest 12y ago

Please downvote the solution above as it incentivizes transparency, public scrutiny and more choice, while creating a more targeted product with guaranteed success (since it's been paid for and returned profits in advance of its making). Please go on with your other solutions involving more lawyers and copyright protection schemes. I didn't mean to distract you.

anigbrowl 12y ago
I can't downvote replies to my own comment you know.
CamperBob2 12y ago
You can't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.) Also, the moderation is extremely weird in this particular HN story. I wouldn't take it personally.
- mingmecca 12y ago
  You can't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.) I'm curious as to why you think that? There are a lot of really great projects on Kickstarter that would fall under the umbrella of "good art" (games, films, etc). Unless you're speaking subjectively, of course, and you don't like what is on offer.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    If you look at film video projects on Kickstarter, it's mostly documentaries - for which this model works OK because documentaries are often about something that has an interest group already attached, as well as much lower production costs and quality expectations - short films, which are raising small amounts and generally just using Kickstarter to funnel donations from friends & family, or instructionals, which aim to produce educational content. It's not at all good for feature films. There are some crowdfunding sites that are a bit better but the more friendly they are to features the more likely they are to be targeted within the industry. I laid out some reasons in another post above, I should have mentioned that those are all narrative feature-specific things.
- innguest 12y ago
  > You can't create art that way. (Well, you can, but it will be bad art.) There's a group of people called Commercial Artists that would disagree with you and laugh at your ad hominem.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Well, Amazon does something like this for their original content (competing ideas that members of one of their subsites vote on), but with the difference being that Amazon puts up the money. Also, some existing production companies/distributors have been willing to handle pictures financed this way. Contrary to what you might imagine, nobody likes litigation except a subset of the many lawyers that work in Hollywood, and on most projects no litigation ever takes place. The crowdfunding model can work to some degree but it suffers from three limitations. 1. It's not good for really big sums, like millions of dollars - not least because of SEC rules, but let's face it, that's a hard amount of money to raise more than a year in advance of release from the general public. For the same reaosn that many people would rather torrent than wait to buy or rent or stream a new film, asking them to pay up front and then wait around for the film to get made is not going to be easy either. 2. Besides the large sum, another reason it's difficult is that many of the jobs involved in film production are highly specialized and it's not obvious to a potential kickstarter buyer how the money is going to be spent. You probably don't want to throw down $15,000 for a 'Honeywagon driver,' for example, without the honeywagon there won't be much exterior shooting because that's the unglamorous line item for the delivery, maintenance, and removal of portable toilet facilities, the cost of which really adds up when you have 40 or 50 people who need to use them. Each othe sub-categories on this page generates further pages of accounting stuff and legal documents: http://www.indieproduction.com/sample-budget-top-sheet.php http://www.indieproduction.com/sample-budget-top-sheet.php 3. It's especially not good for films that don't tap into an existing franchise, like a sequel or continuation of an existing series, or with the involvement of famous actors/directors. Few people are eager to invest in someone's first project or a film about subject matter that they're not familiar with, not least because few people know how to evaluate the quality of a script or estimate the credibility of a film proposal. So while you could probably find people willing to crowdfund, I dunno, Jaws in Space, you're going to have a harder time with anything original. 4. It's going to be a lot trickier to get it into theaters if you are also going to be giving it away, because theater owners won't want to take the risk of playing to empty seats. You'd still be able to do a limited release or make advance ownership of the tickets part of the crowdfunding reward, but then you need to include the theater's overhead costs and effectively rent the screen from them which is going to drive up the costs.

jonmrodriguez 12y ago

I'm not innguest, but I'm curious, why is this downvoted so much? I get that the idea is somewhat impractical, but at least it's original and creative, surely the kind of idea we want to encourage.