Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the film industry needs disrupting

filmschoolrejects.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#21

Post by _delirium »

Cushman wrote: post #19
jackfoxy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real title "6 Things the Film Industry Doesn't Want You to Know About". IMO there are few legit reasons for changing an article name for a HN posting. This lowers the quality of HN.

"6 Things the Film Industry Doesn't Want You to Know About" sounds like I'm accidentally reading Gawker. "6 places for disruption" sounds like people are talking about startups.

Yeah, but I think that's what makes it a bait-and-switch. It's a Gawker-type article that was retitled with a more appealing-to-HN branding.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#22

Post by [deleted] »

_delirium wrote: post #21
Cushman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"6 Things the Film Industry Doesn't Want You to Know About" sounds like I'm accidentally reading Gawker. "6 places for disruption" sounds like people are talking about startups.

Yeah, but I think that's what makes it a bait-and-switch. It's a Gawker-type article that was retitled with a more appealing-to-HN branding.

[deleted]

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#23

Post by burgerbrain »

Cushman wrote: post #19
jackfoxy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real title "6 Things the Film Industry Doesn't Want You to Know About". IMO there are few legit reasons for changing an article name for a HN posting. This lowers the quality of HN.

"6 Things the Film Industry Doesn't Want You to Know About" sounds like I'm accidentally reading Gawker. "6 places for disruption" sounds like people are talking about startups.

That's exactly why the title shouldn't have been changed. It's the same shit, but disguised so that it won't be (correctly) flagged.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#24

Post by Jun8 »

Cushman wrote: post #18
Jun8 wrote: post #14

Well, the most important item is not on this list: Hollywood doeant have a frigging clue about what makes a film successfull (except some obvious metrics, like big names, that anyone can think about), they're completely divorced from the audxience reality. There are many movies that become blockbusters to the great suprise of producers and vice versa, despite the many preview audience screenings, market research, etc…

I think you're underestimating-- making a movie is really, really hard. It barely matters how much the camera costs. Producing video of the quality audiences now expect takes dozens of people who all know exactly what they're doing. That's the major expense. Anyone with a PC and a HD camcorder can easily produce good video for, say, the early 90s. But people now don't want to watch video from the early 90s, so it sti…

I wholeheartedly disagree. Slickness of the film is important, I.e. editing, sound quality, etc., but thisis but one dimension. When I sit on a Friday evening browsing page after page of crap movies on Netflix, this dimensiona is less important than the actual content and originality. I can't believe that film school students, armed with a decent camera (not a camcorder) and audio equipment cannot produce watcahble and interesting content. Well-known examples do exist, most recently Paranormal Activity.

Your arguments (it's hard, costs millions) were labeled to some other industries, that are now trickling down to DIYers, e.g. 3D print, self publishing. You can now rent a professional studio to record your own CD and some groups have done so.

However all solutions about creation are moot if the created content has no way of reaching the buyers. I still think this is the main problem. Putting your movie on YouTube is not a viable solution.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#25

Post by Keyframe »

Jun8 wrote: post #14

Well, the most important item is not on this list: Hollywood doeant have a frigging clue about what makes a film successfull (except some obvious metrics, like big names, that anyone can think about), they're completely divorced from the audxience reality. There are many movies that become blockbusters to the great suprise of producers and vice versa, despite the many preview audience screenings, market research, etc…

Camera pricing is a small fraction of the cost. For example I was on a set today where we had a cheap RED camera (~$18k) and it was among the cheapest pieces of equipment we had on the set. Set wasn't even a movie set, but an interview set. Imagine that.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#26

Post by Jun8 »

jws wrote: post #16
Jun8 wrote: post #14

Well, the most important item is not on this list: Hollywood doeant have a frigging clue about what makes a film successfull (except some obvious metrics, like big names, that anyone can think about), they're completely divorced from the audxience reality. There are many movies that become blockbusters to the great suprise of producers and vice versa, despite the many preview audience screenings, market research, etc…

Popular music has a similar dynamic. The studio model is to grab a bunch of likely artists, get them in front of the public and see which ones get traction. Restaurants are similar. Only about 50% will get traction and survive. That is a well studied business with a replicable model and still it's a crap shoot. You might even extend it to HN style startups. Lots of expertise in choosing, funding, and guiding, but you…

The scale of your examples are dwarfed by the costs of a movie, a low-end one would be, say $10-15M. What restaurant, startup can boast such an upfront investment. Even a CD costs not nearly as much.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#28

Post by Jun8 »

Keyframe wrote: post #25
Jun8 wrote: post #14

Well, the most important item is not on this list: Hollywood doeant have a frigging clue about what makes a film successfull (except some obvious metrics, like big names, that anyone can think about), they're completely divorced from the audxience reality. There are many movies that become blockbusters to the great suprise of producers and vice versa, despite the many preview audience screenings, market research, etc…

Camera pricing is a small fraction of the cost. For example I was on a set today where we had a cheap RED camera (~$18k) and it was among the cheapest pieces of equipment we had on the set. Set wasn't even a movie set, but an interview set. Imagine that.

Of course, true for professional production. But for a perosn who is starting out, e.g. a film school student, camera and Final Cut is what'll get you started.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#29

Post by kia »

In addition to #4.

I don't know about IMDB's relations with releasing companies but the ratings for many movies behave strangely. When a movie is released the rating is very often around 8 fading to 6 in several weeks when more people vote. It's odd that the first batch of people usually likes the film and the rest don't.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#30

Post by Keyframe »

Jun8 wrote: post #28
Keyframe wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Camera pricing is a small fraction of the cost. For example I was on a set today where we had a cheap RED camera (~$18k) and it was among the cheapest pieces of equipment we had on the set. Set wasn't even a movie set, but an interview set. Imagine that.

Of course, true for professional production. But for a perosn who is starting out, e.g. a film school student, camera and Final Cut is what'll get you started.

I agree. But, FCP7 :) Also, good lens and light is better to have than a good camera. People often forget that. I'd rather have a good, rock solid tripod, good light and lens than a great camera.
Post reply on HN