Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood. • Hacker News Board

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#161

Post by teyc » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:32 AM UTC

sambeau wrote: post #151

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…

Here's Mick Jagger saying basically the same thing last July: "Before recorded music, incomes depended largely on the whim of patrons - meaning even Mozart and Schubert died destitute." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10581280

I thought Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave in accordance with the tradition of the day.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#162

Post by adnam » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:33 AM UTC

I sense real anger in this RFS, which is uncharacteristic for pg.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#163

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:34 AM UTC

reinhardt wrote: post #115

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…

I find this opinion more honest and convincing than the "it's not stealing if you both get to keep a copy" argument. The latter fails to account for the time, money, effort, inspiration, talent required to create the original work that is subsequently copied millions of times. When the issue of how are artists supposed to make a living in an copyright-less, free-filesharing world is brought up, proponents come up wit…

[deleted]

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#164

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:35 AM UTC

sopooneo wrote: post #148

InclinedPlane wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adjusted for inflation, the top 5 highest grossing films in history were made in 1956, 1982, 1965, 1977, and 1939. Super blockbusters like Avatar are not new phenomena, they're merely par for the course. Meanwhile, people are spending more time using computers or playing games, and that necessarily takes away from time and money spent watching tv or movies. More so, Hollywood no longer has a lock on the video enterta…

Those top grossing numbers are deeply affected by the entertainment landscapes of their eras. Movies played for much longer in the past and there were fewer other entertainment options. So it is not apples to apples.

And? Population and demographics have changed as well of course. What does it matter? We're not comparing movies based on which had the biggest impact on the people of their time, we're talking about business. Of course competition in the landscape of entertainment is going to affect that, that's the whole point.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#165

Post by eru » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:36 AM UTC

pearle wrote: post #104

natesm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why put aside multiplayer? I think I've paid $0.50/hour for my copy of Battlefield 3.

I do not argue against the fact that multiplayer games have a longer potential playtime, however not all games have multiplayer so you just can't say that a $50 or $60 game will definitely have 100+ hours of entertainment value.

You are probably looking at the wrong games. Most people who aren't already into games, won't buy the 60 USD games. Casual games will catch them. Think Solitaire or Tetris, which lots of people have sunk more than 100 hours over the years into. Or even evil Farmville.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#166

Post by mdda » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:37 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #137

awt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about Freud? In any case, you need to ask yourself why it feels good to make an imprint on another human being's mind and soul. There is a reason. It's not random or unexplainable.

If your original proposal were strictly true, then artists would never perform for the same gender (unless that was who they wanted to attract).

It may be aimed at establishing oneself within the hierarchy - which happens all over the animal kingdom.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#167

Post by zerostar07 » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:39 AM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #156

waterlesscloud wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is true, but you have to understand that there is a phenomenal amount of talent locked up in Hollywood. I'm not necessarily talking about directors or actors, but camera men, DPs, best boys, set dressers...the list goes on and on. These people have skills that require many, many years of on-site training. (Don't forget about producers, line producers, production managers, site scouts, and all of the logistics pe…

Question: Mega-productions like avatar rely mostly on special effects than storytelling. Are people still impressed by special effects and stunts? Aren't video games becoming more impressive to look at than movies? As a result, are these technical skills becoming less important?

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#168

Post by jay_kyburz » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:41 AM UTC

Is there a social network / kickstarter like site for making movies. A LinkedIn for Actors, Writers, Directors and everybody else you need to make film and television.

I'd be interested in building a site that helps people find each other, review projects and scrape together whatever funding they need to make indie films happen.

There have got to be hundreds of people floating around Hollywood trying to get into the mainstream industry.

How hard is it for these people to find each other right now?

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#169

Post by eru » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:41 AM UTC

jamesgatz wrote: post #117

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…

I love FFC. I'm a current UCLA film student - Coppola's alma mater. One thing to think about: UCLA has always been the "indy, intellectual" film school. It's our rep, internally and (to an extent) externally. When Coppola left UCLA to work in Hollywood, he was branded a sell-out by his fellow students. One thing to think about w/ this whole "crush Hollywood" thing is this: most of your favorite movies (assuming you'v…

> There would be no Godfather without Hollywood. No Apocalypse Now. (also no Taxi Driver, no Star Wars, no Indiana Jones, no MASH or Nashville) In the absence of Hollywood, you get movies like Youth Without Youth and Tetro - two wonderful oddities, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case for them against Coppola's early masterpieces.

Those movies you mentioned were a result of being within/outside Hollywood, not a function of Hollywood's existence.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#170

Post by jdietrich » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:42 AM UTC

The leading British film critic Mark Kermode hypothesises that Michael Bay style blockbusters are hits solely because they were expensive to make.

He likens these films to a PT Barnum sideshow - people aren't expecting anything of artistic merit, but are instead driven by curiosity as to what the producers spent $140m on. Media attention is inevitable, in the same way that a restaurant announcing a $1000 hamburger is easy fodder for a slow news day.

The logic is persuasive in light of the fact that critics and moviegoers alike don't enjoy these films much, nor expect to enjoy them. There's a culture of "movie events", a self-fulfilling prophecy of huge budgets and massive opening weekends.

If the theory is valid, I have no idea how you'd beat Hollywood; I'm fairly certain that the answer won't involve making anything with cultural or artistic worth.