Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood. • Hacker News Board

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#191

Post by eru » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:55 AM UTC

re_format wrote: post #82

Give me the programmers, UI geeks, the money to pay them to do as they are told, and I will build it. I have the idea, and it's actually a proven winner, among a smaller segment of users. Like most other internet phenomena, it's something that was once only done amongst computer nerds only to be later done by the general public as if it was just another usual day-to-day practice. And it actually involves more friends…

Pitches don't work like that. If you want other people's time or other people's money, you better throw some more skin into the game. The most simple thing to imagine is creating a small prototype. But there are other ways.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#192

Post by underwater » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:55 AM UTC

nkassis wrote: post #93

marquis wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that the way gaming is headed too, though? You have massive companies like EA publishing blockbuster hits built by huge development teams.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#193

Post by mckilljoy » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:56 AM UTC

If the killing the movie industry is anything like the dead software industry, I predict another 10 years of billions in profits before they.. keep making billions in profits?..

http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#194

Post by kreek » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:56 AM UTC

sjtgraham wrote: post #52

The soccer analogy is interesting because when a player is fouled in the penalty area, the player is strongly incentivised to take a dive. A foul on a player with a clear goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area is a mandatory red card for the fouling player, and a penalty kick for the attacking team. This gives the attacking team a clear advantage by having one more player than the opposition, for the remainder o…

Speaking of soccer in terms of entertainment it is almost as bad as Hollywood and in some areas worse. Like Hollywood all online deals are careful not on step on established players toes (DirectTV, TimeWarner, et al). You can pay $15/month to watch games live online, but any game involving marquee teams is delayed.

The FA in England takes it a step further and doesn't even allow unauthorized publication of fixtures and statistics. Fan blogs can't post upcoming matches unless they pay a annual fee. A license to display statistics in any media starts at 5,000 pounds ($7,770).

A few years back they sued every blog that listed upcoming matches. Suing your biggest fans! It's madness.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#195

Post by malandrew » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:56 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #174

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…

You first fragment the audience so that earning a return on $140mm becomes less and less likely. The goal is to bankrupt the incumbents by keeping them on the same spending path, while reducing the likelihood of big returns. Amazon is doing this with publishers: http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/17/confessions-of-a-publisher-...

IMHO, movies will be the last to go, but attacking the TV industry is doable now.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#196

Post by capkutay » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 12:58 AM UTC

I think the best way to kill Hollywood would be a large amount of independently funded/produced tv series that are solely broadcast on youtube or some other website. Once entertainers figure out that they don't need to go to Hollywood to become famous, more will follow. Perhaps services that could help web-based entertainment shows reach a larger audience would be a step in the right direction.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#197

Post by zerostar07 » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:00 AM UTC

awt wrote: post #173

zerostar07 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bei…

I will refrain from commenting on theories that resolve all moral decisions through reasoning about natural selection (as i said i am biased, and this is already off topic). Just this:

One study of the biographies of 1004 eminent people found homosexual and bisexual people overrepresented (11 percent of the sample), especially among poets (24 percent), fiction writers (21 percent), and artists and musicians (15 percent) (Ludwig, 1995)[1]

Surely if artistic creativity was evolutionarily so advantageous it wouldn't hide itself in the least-reproducing subpopulations

[1] http://www.davidmyers.org/davidmyers/assets/Sex-Orient-9e.pd...

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#198

Post by wtvanhest » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:00 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #186

wtvanhest wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was exactly what I was going to ask. PG, would you mind explaining the predetermined wording? It seems counter intuitive for someone who funds disruptive companies to say so I have a sense that there is more to it.

Look back a hundred years (or so). Even if you shot the people who invented colour film or sound in films, somebody else would have developed those.

I cannot think of a good counter argument to that. This could be a totally different way of thinking about investing than the way I previously thought.

Assuming the investor can figure out what the next big thing is, their only goal is to find the team with the highest likelihood of success.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#199

Post by marshray » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:02 AM UTC

DocSavage wrote: post #157

"Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries." Somehow, I think it'll be difficult for your startups to partner with or serve movie and TV industries if they've been funded under a "Kill Hollywood" RFS :-) Although leadership in Hollywood may be cruel and tech-stupid from our standpoint, they have a tremendous amount of talent at their disposal. Seems like a production s…

They may have a tremendous amount of talent, but they aren't able to employ it effectively. If they were, they would be developing new popular online stuff instead of buying their way into "online properties".

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#200

Post by a3dfx » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:03 AM UTC

wj wrote: post #179

Independent 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 ar…

I think the problem is in the distribution of entertainment. There's no motive to stop the actual production of entertainment.