31–40 of 697 posts
I know this is completely off-topic, but pg: reading that football analogy from an American makes me love you. On topic, is there not space for (if there was enough funding put into it) a new studio, one that understands the internet and modern culture? I'm not sure it's the content that's wrong, it's the business models around it.
Here is an idea for the taking: bypass big-studio production, theaters, cable & physical media sales/rental, and go direct to streaming video rentals, e.g. to Amazon or Netflix, or set up your own streaming infrastructure. This business model is disruptive by capping allowed production budgets and greatly reducing distribution expenses. Produce content digitally. Have subscribers pay a recurring fee to genre-oriented…
You would be better off going straight to the physical distributors like RedBox and selling the rights to Netflix once you can show some demand for the product.
Or, you could set up your own streaming site that lets users view the pilot for free. If they like it that can preorder the first season. With enough demand you can afford to sign that show.
I hope whatever kills hollywood also kills distribution by regions. In the third world we are people too.
It's obvious that many new forms of entertainment will use the web as a medium which, barring dictatorships, is worldwide, so you don't have to worry about it, insofar as you have enough bandwidth.
http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O...
"We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.
This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?
In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, “Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it."
I hope whatever kills hollywood also kills distribution by regions. In the third world we are people too.
Here is an idea for the taking: bypass big-studio production, theaters, cable & physical media sales/rental, and go direct to streaming video rentals, e.g. to Amazon or Netflix, or set up your own streaming infrastructure. This business model is disruptive by capping allowed production budgets and greatly reducing distribution expenses. Produce content digitally. Have subscribers pay a recurring fee to genre-oriented…
As pg stated the goal, while easier said than done, is coming up with a model that is more entertaining than what's currently out there that people don't mind spending money on.
Incidentally, Paul Buchheit deserves all the credit for this idea. The YC partners were having lunch yesterday and he suggested posting this RFS. Whereupon we all turned to Jessica, who is usually the one who talks us out of doing crazy things. I was kind of surprised she didn't try to talk us out of it.
It wasn't until I read that that I realised how obvious it is that Hollywood is going down the drains.
What's all this about 'predetermined' ?