As a minority, I'm fine with this. Hollywood constantly casts minorities as stereotypes and almost always casts a white lead with the occasional African American.
Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
171–180 of 697 posts
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#172I see the line between television and commercial blurring so much [more than it already is] that everything is grey. Shows wont exist anymore, there will just be "characters" with shows, movies, music albums, etc orbiting around them.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is insightful. Along the line of discussing what art is really about (not money), I would say that it is about sex. Art will not go away if it's no longer possible to become a millionaire doing it. Some evolutionary psychologists propose that art is a never ending game of creative one-upmanship. Women find creative men sexy, men find creative women sexy (the reasons for this are complex and have to do with the m…
By that line of thinking ( warning: i would punch an evolutionary psychologist anytime ), Porn should be considered the highest and most effective form of art (or simply, like monkeys we could jiggle our junk instead).
It seems like this line of reasoning perhaps conflates sexual arousal with attractiveness?
To illustrate, if you're looking to marry (and have kids), and you had a choice between a physically attractive but dull porno actress, and an attractive and intelligent writer (you know because she's fun to talk to and wrote a very popular book), you'd go with the porno actress?
Most porn I've seen isn't very creative, and being in a porno is not something I have on my checklist for attractive mates. I think that's true for most people. I would wager to say that the most effective form of art is the most creative, not the most sexually stimulating.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#174The 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. The theory would have it that the re-introduction of 3D is part of this phenomena, with mainstream commercial cinema slowly morphing into the kind of superficial novelty thrill that was once the preserve of IMAX theatres.
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.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#175Earlier 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…
None of these people are locked into anything.
They're all essentially freelance workers, moving from one startup to the next. Each project is its own world, and doesn't lock anyone into anything. Well, with the exception of franchises locking in some actors.
I've known both above the line and below the line people to move from the biggest blockbusters to projects with a very-low-five-figure budget and back again. They like working on the gritty no-budget projects where they can exercise a lot more creative freedom. Heck, I've known top crew to show up and work for literally nothing more than a sandwich.
And if you showed up with $100 million tomorrow, they all could and would work on your huge blockbuster. That's pretty much how the system works now. You just need the money if the blockbuster is your goal.
The important thing here is that none of them are locked into anything. The talent is free to go where it will. There's union rules for minimums and such, and if you played long term at something you'd have to comply, but that's not an onerous burden.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#176Earlier 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).
Why not? It gives social status, popularity... all good for attracting a mate, especially for men.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#177[deleted]
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Passionate artists will still pursue art for the joy of creating and sharing their art with others. This is how it has always been. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of the popular artists from the last 20 years began their entertainment careers to get "rich and famous". These people didn't do it for the love of the art, and looking at the decline in quality of the music industry since the 70s I think we can all see…
They also wouldn't have to compete with the noise produced by lots of money spent on marketing crap. It's difficult for talent to get noticed when crap can succeed by simply yelling louder. Reducing the ability for Hollywood to yell would make things easier for talented artists.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#179Independent film companies are to L.A. what startups are to Silicon Valley. An independent film company is essentially a startup with all of the uncertainty, hard work, late nights, bootstrapping, cash crunches, etc. The odds are stacked against them. (I closed my film company down as of the end of the year.)
So when I hear "Kill Hollywood" I don't think you really mean what you say. The independent film companies are going to be the ones that will produce the content for all the new digital distribution channels that have sprung up in the past ten years.
A lot of hard working people are employed by the industry and they understand that the game is changing. They realize things are going to be different for them in the new economic models. (One other thing most people don't know is almost 99% of "Hollywood" are contract workers who work for three to nine months and then have no guarantee of another job.)
Silicon Valley isn't defined by Oracle and Intel. Don't define Hollywood by the actions of a few large companies. There already are a bunch of opportunities for the entertainment industry and the Valley to work together and we're still in the early stages of collaboration.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#180Movies 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?
Exactly. And honestly, the answer to your question is not "youtube."
Not youtube today. Though it might come out of youtube one day.