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

Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 697 posts

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#91

Post by aamar »

cstross wrote: post #7

Hollywood and the MPAA isn't about making movies. Rather, it's about maintaining a distribution chokehold on mass produced popular entertainment. This in turn means controlling what goes into the pipeline, and how the output from the pipeline is delivered to the consumers, and how the MPPE is marketed -- for example, the whole star system, Oscars night hype, and so on. What is needed is a better distribution channel,…

...it's about maintaining a distribution chokehold on mass produced popular entertainment.

I don't think "mass produced" is right, since that term tends to refer to literal assembly lines and to exclude things produced merely in volume via artisan processes.

Your broader point is a bit confusing because it seems like you're saying studios don't make movies, they only do X. Actually, I think you're saying that making movies is not the defensible core of Hollywood's power. I basically agree, since there are many producers of quality "content" outside of Hollywood or who could leave Hollywood in an instant.

Separately, I don't think they have locked down distribution (in the narrow sense) channels very tightly; there are many non-Hollywood distributors, and it's not that difficult to self-distribute online or in theaters.

Sales and marketing--reaching consumers--is difficult. Hollywood may have legitimate skill here and the studios benefit from strong network effects, quantity discounts, etc.

Also, Hollywood seems to have decent VCs, as strange as it is to say that. They're able to invest large amounts of money in risky projects and come out ahead more often than not, despite the small average return. This might be a big part of their defensible core.

So aside from learning how to market, any solution that seeks to displace the Hollywood system needs to do one or more of the following: find something which will eliminate the public's appetite for shared/"public" art experiences, reduce the capital requirements for mass media, or cultivate a set of sophisticated-enough investors to put $100M down on projects at the prototype stage.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#92

Post by Detrus »

lazerwalker wrote: post #19
runevault wrote: post #10

At least to me, the most important part of trying to make a current media killer is remembering that storytelling is still a fundamental part of society, and not all forms of entertainment (including a subset of video games) do not scratch that itch. To truly replace Hollywood I think you need to come up with new ways of filling that need. Since books obviously don't quite do it (need for visual/audio component for s…

I think you're confusing the medium with the distribution method. If you accept that modern-day Hollywood is in trouble, it does not necessarily follow that a solution needs to replace video as a multimedia narrative medium. While that very well might happen, the root of the problem is the distribution channel, not the content.

Yes but it's expensive to mass produce the type of content that Hollywood does. You may need a cheaper form of entertainment, where the content can be crowdsourced, where the production is quick, cheap, etc.

Making custom crap for MMORPGs, short youtube clips, vblogs, podcasts, rage comics etc. are cheap and quick, but not entertaining enough.

http://www.xtranormal.com style tech isn't there yet.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#93

Post by nkassis »

marquis wrote: post #83
skb_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you guys consider video games? I think that's already a viable alternative form of entertainment. I would argue video games already killed Hollywood, they just never pulled the sword out. $50 for 100+ hours of content vs $10 for roughly 2 hours? No contest.

If movies disappeared (which I don't believe they will as the barrier to entry has lowered so much) I would probably just read books and go out more. Games are great and I fully support them but it's not a form of entertainment for everyone.

I don't think movies have to dye for this RFS to work just that the business model that Hollywood uses isn't working. Putting a ton of money in a few blockbusters and trying to squeeze every last penny from DVD/BR sells isn't the way to go.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#94

Post by waterlesscloud »

cstross wrote: post #7

Hollywood and the MPAA isn't about making movies. Rather, it's about maintaining a distribution chokehold on mass produced popular entertainment. This in turn means controlling what goes into the pipeline, and how the output from the pipeline is delivered to the consumers, and how the MPPE is marketed -- for example, the whole star system, Oscars night hype, and so on. What is needed is a better distribution channel,…

Distribution is a solved problem. It's open. Even theatrical is more open than it was 5 years ago. NATO wants competitors to Hollywood. In fact, NATO members are beginning to openly compete with Hollywood (see Open Road Films, a joint venture between AMC and Regal).

Production is a solved problem. The tools have been democratized.

Even financing is open these days. There's a huge range of film financing sources, and as sites like Kickstarter grow, crowdfunding will become more and more viable.

What is locked up is marketing. Hollywood is just better at it than their competitors. It's what the studios do that no one else seems to be able to do.

To some extent this is an issue of discovery. You can make a film, you can get it in front of people, but how do you get them to know it exists? To me, this is the most productive area to focus on.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#95

Post by sriramk »

Movies aren't the latest evolution in entertainment, they're the latest evolution in storytelling, something which is as old as humanity itself. Hollwyood is the descendant of ancient man telling stories of adventure around a fire at night.

So the more accurate question - what is a better way to tell stories?

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#96

Post by WesleyJohnson »

jasonabelli wrote: post #56

EdTV. But interactive also with multiple Ed’s (channels). Free to watch. With adds on the parameter or occasionally a commercial during slow moments. How would it be interactive? There can be options for what your Ed might due. People could “donate” a micro-purchase towards making that option happen. Options, get a new car, go on a trip, get jewelry. Friends could chat while watching a particular Ed and get momentum…

I came here to post something similar to this. With all the adoration over so-called "Reality TV", I'm surprised there isn't more of a movement towards true reality TV. JenniCam and other sites from days gone by come to mind. That sort of thing's entertainment value is questionable, but then so is watching the Kardashian sisters.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#97

Post by oldstrangers »

emmett wrote: post #15
oldstrangers wrote: post #6

"The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise." This seems hypocritical considering YC's funding of companies like Cloudant that go on to work with companies (Monsanto) actively engaged in the worst kind of subversive geopolitical work.…

1) Please don't preface your comment with a statement about people downmoding you. All that does is make me think, "well, the following opinion will probably be poorly thought out flamebait". It's also against the site guidelines. 2) There's a large gap between funding a company which sells something to a company which has a political point of view you disagree with, and actively sponsoring bad legislation. In fact,…

Not to rehash the entire Cloudant thread again, but if you honestly think Monsanto's way of doing things is just a "different political point of view" then you're disturbingly out of touch with reality.

And as I said in another comment: "..it does sound hypocritical (not sure how many times I can use that word) when you're supposedly fighting for "civil liberties and the world economy" when you have a financial interest in a company benefiting from the likes of Monsanto."

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#98

Post by InclinedPlane »

pearle wrote: post #80
skb_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you guys consider video games? I think that's already a viable alternative form of entertainment. I would argue video games already killed Hollywood, they just never pulled the sword out. $50 for 100+ hours of content vs $10 for roughly 2 hours? No contest.

I understand your point but, multi-player aside, how many $60 games (that's the standard pricing these days for AAA titles) provide 100+ hours? They are very rare. Skyrim is the only recent qualifying game that jumps to mind.

That's changing the playing field. We're talking about money and time, why exclude multiplayer? Especially considering how much time gets spent on multiplayer games, how popular primarily multiplayer games are (Halo, CoD, WoW), and how much money gets spent on them.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#99

Post by zerostar07 »

marquis wrote: post #90
malkia wrote: post #35

Here is what Francis Ford Coppola has to say on the matter: 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…

While I agree in part, the issue is that good art, really really good art, is a full-time job that can take years and years of practice. Much like writing good software. Saying art should be free is saying all software should be free - the same amount of work and risk goes into it. There is a balance to be had here and in many countries it is solved with artist grants, recognizing the value to be had from a rich cult…

Yes but invariably they were not rich. In fact too many died in poverty. The commercial, popular art era started when copies became available to the market, and it ends when copies become zero cost.

Hollywood's obsession with mega-productions tends to be an attempt to force-feed mediocre movies rather than advancing the arts anymore

BTW, Coppola suggests 3 rules

1) Write and direct original screenplays,

2) Make them with the most modern technology available, and

3) Self-finance them

Technology has made it trivial for almost everyone to have (2) and (3). Now technology should create avenues for artists to receive a fair compensation for their work, but they should know that it will be nothing like the exorbitant commissions of the past.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#100

Post by pjscott »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #24
Typhon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[ This comment is unavailable in your region. ]

You know what's available in all regions? BitTorrent.

And then Hollywood complains about people in unusual regions torrenting things.

Post reply on HN