31–40 of 58 posts
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.
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 agree with you to an extent. You can always find young, talented actors who are willing to do a film but the main problem is the script and finding a talented director who hasn't been signed by a major studio.
Another factor are the viewers themselves. They have been so conditioned to expect that only a major studio picture is worth watching (similar to the music industry) that they're not willing to give anything else a chance. How else do you explain the success of Transformers or the moderate success of the Green Lantern when most people have heard of neither unless you were a comic book fan or grew up on 80s cartoons?
While I do believe the film industry needs "disrupting", I do not believe this was the point of the article, nor does it make any good arguments to back up a thesis of "disruption". "6. Tricky Hollywood Accounting" - this is purely a contract negotiation issue, and it is is no way a hollywood-specific problem - in all lines of businesses you will find companies which try to setup "royalty fee" or similar buyer-contro…
That was a lovely piece of spin-doctoring, breaking down the argument into small atomic parts to neatly excise the 'whole is greater than the sum of the parts' essence. Also, "everybody does it" is not a defence for shady ethics or illegal activity.
While I do believe the film industry needs "disrupting", I do not believe this was the point of the article, nor does it make any good arguments to back up a thesis of "disruption". "6. Tricky Hollywood Accounting" - this is purely a contract negotiation issue, and it is is no way a hollywood-specific problem - in all lines of businesses you will find companies which try to setup "royalty fee" or similar buyer-contro…
>1. Stealing Scripts" - This is just not a film business problem. People steal ideas everywhere, all the time. Stealing ideas is easy, creating a good product is hard. It sounds as if you're trying to justify this approach as well as the others listed. We all know this but the reason it happens is because the writer needs a studio to finance the film. This the most reprehensible of all those listed because it punishe…
An idea for a movie is a very different thing from a finished script, similar to an idea for a new business is very different than the execution of the new business.
If we applied the "you owe me money because I had the movie idea first" logic to the tech world, facebook owes friendster money because they stole friendster's idea.
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…
This has been changing in recent years and is becoming less and less true as more companies start to import the Japanese pop music model.
In Japan, for the past 30 or so years, they've churned out cookie-cutter idols in a machine-like fashion. They don't pick a person who'd make a good idol -- they design an idol that would appeal to their target demographic, and then they find a person to, effectively, act out the role. Musical talent is largely irrelevant: if they can't sing, just pile on the Autotune and vocal filters, or even use a vocal double. And after a few years, when their idol isn't cool anymore, ditch the old idol and find a new one.
The idols are so fake and inhuman that when AKB48, as a publicity stunt, announced an "idol" that was later revealed to be a computer-rendering instead of a "real" person, it didn't really seem any less real than the current idols, and surprised hardly anyone.
The companies that do this have very high success rates: when they put millions of dollars into marketing an idol, their idol becomes popular. And then they make billions. Why have a guessing game of whether your band will match the demographic when you can design a band to do so?
This model has already existed in the West with boy/girl bands and such. Disney is probably the biggest company trying to pull this model off today, with machine-created "stars" like Miley Cyrus.
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…
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/ , especially their bigger stuff
http://www.youtube.com/user/freddiew
Some good stuff is being produced by "amateurs", but it takes time to build up the skill and knowledge base. Work is mostly in the 10-20 minute range and a lot of bootstrapping off of other content ("reviews" of "real media" are a common format), but slowly-but-surely the confidence is increasing and more original large-scale work is being done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>1. Stealing Scripts" - This is just not a film business problem. People steal ideas everywhere, all the time. Stealing ideas is easy, creating a good product is hard. It sounds as if you're trying to justify this approach as well as the others listed. We all know this but the reason it happens is because the writer needs a studio to finance the film. This the most reprehensible of all those listed because it punishe…
Not trying to justify anything, but rather suggesting pretty much all the issues outlined are issues in every major industry, and hence highlighting them as being specific and unusual to the film business is incorrect and unhelpful. An idea for a movie is a very different thing from a finished script, similar to an idea for a new business is very different than the execution of the new business. If we applied the "yo…
There are differences between Facebook and Friendster and I've always felt uncomfortable with the way Zuckerberg behaved in the early days of Facebook. I will argue that Zuckerberg's vision was greater that than just the Winklevoss' original idea.
And this is not exclusive to the film industry in any way.