Killing Hollywood Will Require Learning Hollywood’s Game

http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/20/killing-hollywood-will-require-learning-hollywoods-game/

by FredBrach • 15 years ago

59 24 15 years ago

jpdoctor• 15 years ago

> For the Valley to do that, it’s going to have to get out of the mindset that eyeballs equal quality.

It's not about quality. It is about building a monster revenue (and profit!) stream.

To quote from the dead trees: "No one in this world, so far as I know_and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me_has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." HL Mencken

To quote from Hollywood itself: "Show me the money!"

sek3• 15 years ago

The core of big movie revenues is the hype, it's marketing that gets millions of people in theaters on the first weeks.

What if Youtube, Netflix, Apple and similar distributors try to provide the same film worldwide on the same day, with a lot of marketing before the event. When they all fund a part of an big budget Christopher Nolan movie, they all get their direct share and a lot of new registered customers.

nextparadigms• 15 years ago

Distribution is probably the easier part of the problem once you have a quality movie that was funded. Y Combinator could just partner with Youtube and release it worldwide. The hard part is funding the right movies and with as much as they need initially.

sek3• 15 years ago

So let's bring it down: "We need high quality content".

We need content good enough to replace Hollywood.

It is the biggest Entertainment brand in the world, not an easy task.

incub8or• 15 years ago

Movie studios' sole focus is money. Money allows them to hire movie stars, to use the best equipment, to buy ad space and to rent movie theatres. In short, money (and how much they are prepared to spend) is what separates anyone with a video camera and an idea, and the major movie studios.

Indie filmmakers cannot compete on a level monetary footing. So they must disrupt and stay lean, not only in production but ALSO in marketing and distribution. This is where I believe a lot of indie film makers need to focus on: disruptive distribution.

As an example, I directed a movie and treated it as a lean startup from pre production. We are looking to disrupt traditional movie distribution by offering individuals and businesses something tangible and of intrinsic value when they buy our movie: to feature them on a billboard on Times Square. Check out the movie and strategy at: http://bit.ly/n4XQG0

scottdw22• 15 years ago

Here is the recipe for killing Hollywood:

1. The Hollywood Business Model

The Hollywood business model is based on 2 things:

1. Control of distribution

2. Financing of production

The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0.

The reason they are not dead yet is because no one has solved #2. They still control production of most content.

2. It's like Kickstarter, but for movies

So, the solution is to attack film financing. Make it diffuse, and distributed. Create a platform for film makers to seek financing in small amounts from normal people. You could call it "slushpile.com" or something line that. A film maker posts a 60 second trailer and a budget. People invest small amounts in the film. When the budget is reached the film maker gets the money, and he makes the film.

You then distribute the film through the site, for a fee. Split the revenues 70 / 20 / 10. The film makers get 70%, the "producers" (the funders) get 20%, and the site gets 10%.

3. A key first customer.

The obvious best choice is Kevin Smith. He understands the Internet, he makes entertaining films with small budgets, and he has an avid cult following. He's like the Ron Paul of film makers.

Its a schlep. You have to seduce movie stars. But, pulling it off would kill Hollywood, overnight.

burgerbrain• 15 years ago

I'm not quite sure how they work, but one example of a better way to do movies might be the "Wreck a Movie" people. That Iron Sky movie they've been working on for a while is coming out early this year apparently.

sek3• 15 years ago

4. Controlling print media for unlimited marketing. There is a reason why News Corp has so many newspapers and magazines.

felipemnoa2• 15 years ago

Print media is dead.

VMG• 15 years ago

> The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0.

And thereby created a new problem: Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective profit of $0.

sjtgraham• 15 years ago

It's a nice idea, but I'm very unsure even this democratic model will be enough to convince enough consumers to actually _pay_ for content. If there is to be a future for commercial cinema of any sort, income will probably not be generated from sales, it will be be something like royalties from subscription (Netflix, Amazon, etc) revenues, which for the majority of inhabitants of the long tail will be woefully small, or we see the trend of films being glorified commercials continue with ever more egregious product placement.

tansey• 15 years ago

> You then distribute the film through the site, for a fee. Split the revenues 70 / 20 / 10. The film makers get 70%, the "producers" (the funders) get 20%, and the site gets 10%.

This would be illegal unless everyone is a qualified investor. It's the reason Kickstarter requires you to "donate" money and you cannot return any kind of financial compensation.

scottdw22• 15 years ago

Kick starter can't be used to start a corporation. That doesn't mean it couldn't be used to fund R&D. 20000 people can pay me $100 to make a movie, in exchange for a percentage of its sales. That's called a contract.

I can hire a production crew to make a movie.

No such activities constitute investment. They are just works for hire.

There may be liability issues. Potential breach of contract problems. You could get around that with the right contract structures (who hires whom, and what the terms are).

The funders wouldn't have the same rights as investors, but that seems ok.

Am I missing something?

pasbesoin• 15 years ago

Taking your argument as a premise, for cinema 2) is well in progress. Canon EOS SLR's, stuff to hang them on, and digital editing are knocking down a big part of equipment costs. (You still have lights and all that, but there are ways to keep that manageable.)

You're left with wages, permits, and stuff I won't try to guess (e.g. catering, etc., etc.).

High level professional abilities will continue to be a minority of interested parties. But, with cost of entry so lowered, the population to draw from will be much larger. And with the lower barrier to entry, people old and particularly young will be able to practice these skills and have the motivation of a distribution channel to fuel them on, without fight for a place and clamor to buy into such an entrenched regime.

Another big, undersung aspect of such a transition is to get the writers, and the artisans, to work for the new model. Really good writing does not come easy. But there is still plenty of talent, and compensation under the new model(s) should not have too much difficulty being competitive for these jobs (maybe I'm wrong, but based one what I hear/read).

Oh, the other 800 lb gorilla: Unions. Movie and TV production is very heavily unionized. If they want to strongarm their members and potential members from participating, this could present a significant problem. A question might be whether beginners/outsiders can build enough momentum if there is little or no support from seasoned professionals.

This is all off the top of my head. I may be wrong.

willyt• 15 years ago

Go to film festivals; Sundance, Cannes, Venice, etc talk to young directors/producers making shorts. They know lots about how to run a production.

Hollywood is insanely inefficient. For $2m a shot you could throw away 49 out of every 50 films your young directors make for the price of a $100m Hollywood blockbuster.

Inflexible unions? -> Don't make movies in the US.

ryanjmo• 15 years ago

>> The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0.

Very few people actually have the ability to distribute content on the web at an effective enough level to make money off of the content produced. Currently the majority of these people are people with huge YouTube channels.

It is very hard for anyone to distribute good content even if they have money. The problem of good content getting distribution is not solved.

johnl• 15 years ago

Hollywood controls the distribution pipeline (Theater,TV,DVD,etc) and the timing of each (the release). Hollywood advertises each to build up demand. So you can also beat Hollywood by solving the "advertising to build up demand" over the internet part of the equation. Right now it's Facebook?

chaostheory• 15 years ago

> But Hollywood shouldn’t care (if the MPAA had a clue) because it offers something YouTube can’t: An experience that you will get in a car, drive to, and pay $12 for.

The article lost me right here. Every year this is less and less true for people in my generation. It doesn't take long for even the blockbusters to show up for rental.

I'm not even sure what the article is trying to say. What is 'good'?

SoftwareMaven• 15 years ago

Given how inexpensive reasonably-good home theaters have become, how expensive theaters have become, and how one has no control over the theater experience (bad projection, too loud, talking, etc), this is only going to happen more.

I think Hollywood is doomed, even with draconian laws on their side. Good content has been made online, and it's just getting started. I agree with the GP that simplifying and democratizing the funding would help, but so will new film makers realizing good is absolutely not synonymous with expensive (and is often contradictory).

kbutler• 15 years ago

I'm totally in this camp - I prefer to watch something on my home theater system. More comfy seats, fills more of my field of vision, better schedule, better treats, watch in my jammies...

But my wife likes to go out to the movies. So we go out.

I expect that other forms of entertainment and other ways of producing content will coexist with the "legacy" model for some time.

ior3k• 15 years ago

I still don't understand why anyone would want to kill Hollywood. The American politicians allowed themselves to be bought. When Hollywood is dead someone else will take their place. If anything should die is Washington's corrupt political system. Hollywood (or anyone else with deep pockets) goes as far as Washington lets it.

Nowadays, the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules." Kill that instead.

Estragon• 15 years ago

You're absolutely correct. Wall Street makes Hollywood look like complete pikers in this respect.

colinm• 15 years ago

At least when I watch a movie in the cinema, I don't have 'contextual' ads popping up on the screen. Do we really want a 'YouTube future'?

Killing Hollywood Will Require Learning Hollywood’s Game

Related Stories