Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood. • Hacker News Board

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#221

Post by molmalo » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:22 AM UTC

aninteger wrote: post #190

I think if you really want to fight Hollywood it would be best to boycott them at the movie theaters and try to support their competitors (Does Netflix count as a competitor?) as much as possible. That means not going to see Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises". Wait for the DVD/Blu-ray release and don't purchase it. Rent it, or borrow it from someone who has purchased it. Spend as little money as possible on Hollywood. R…

But sadly, that would be used as an argument of why they need to pass new laws to protect them. And anyway, they would simply make the physical discs disappear earlier, so there's no borrowing anymore, replaced by something like Ultraviolet.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#222

Post by waterlesscloud » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:24 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.

They're also domestic box office only, which is an increasingly small slice of the pie.

A blockbuster today typically makes at least twice as much overseas as it does in the US & Canada (domestic totals include Canada).

The market in China is huge, and growing rapidly. Even Russia, which had traditionally be a small market, is quickly growing in size.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#223

Post by twainer » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:26 AM UTC

I'm sorry but this kind of thread from the initial post on down to the echo chamber of opinions smacks more of Jonestown than Silicon Valley. I personally find it disturbing. The vast majority of this country enjoys some part of what comes out of Hollywood - whether they pay for it or not. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of HNers do as well. Is there some reason suddenly why a tyranny of the minority should be such a beautiful concept?

It's as senseless as requesting people should 'kill creativity' or 'kill talent' - not because Hollywood is their equal but because lots of talented and creative people work there. There is scant support around here for creative people having any right to their work as it is - so I am beyond curious as to the foundations of business models that find 'better ways to entertain people'.

People entertain people; with how badly the content industry is being savaged and prejudged - this thread as a glowing example - in 20 years a pub might be the best business model to capture that 'unique value proposition'.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#224

Post by Drbble » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:26 AM UTC

tkl wrote: post #153

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.

This brings up an interesting topic: can a rational person do anything that's not for the purposes of ego, or to be more polemic, sex? Hypothetically, if one were to be completely ego-free and also rational, they would have to reconcile that their work and their productions here on earth, are infinitesimal and perhaps negligible on the scale of galaxies. Surely, all human motivations break down at that level, and for…

Somethings are beautiful. Some people want to see those things. Someone the things don't exist yet, and so the people create them.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#225

Post by marshray » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:27 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #154

I think this is the sort of thing that history will record as the true result of SOPA. Not the mobilization of the public, which despite how thrilling it may feel even today is still something that will not be easily replicated, but the fact that significant chunks of the Internet industry now realize they are in unavoidable, open warfare with the content industry. The Internet industry can no longer pretend to itsel…

That's insightful, but your term "Internet industry" sounds like an anachronism like "recording industry". RIAA members are a big system that now encompasses a wide range of activities oriented around entertaining via audio and clearly they think a lot more about lawsuits and marketing than literal recording.

So who is the "Internet industry"? Literally it would be vendors of networking gear and ISPs.

But I think what you mean is all the businesses that recognized their business depended on a vibrant, free, and open Internet. Do we have a good name for them?

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#226

Post by boyzo » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:27 AM UTC

I am co-founder of Nuflick.com, we've been working since June in a model that challenges the traditional distribution of entertainment.

We have a model where users can browse a catalog of films to stream on demand by unlocking them through social interactions like inviting a facebook friend and we encourage to support creators. Like a reversed kickstarter where contributions give access to rewards related to the movies.

The day of the blackout we published a blogpost on our take on SOPA and new models of distribution: http://blog.nuflick.com/?p=129

Quote The right answer is coming from bold people that dare to challenge the status-quo creating flexible models that allow distribution, availability and safety to consumers and creators. In the end it all comes down to “supply and demand”; the future requires copyright holders to understand that supply of entertainment will never cease and the success will be measured in relation to their understanding of what the consumers demand.>

On the end, we believe that hollywood, as a whole, have been damaging consumers in order to protect a business that would be nothing without them and their money.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#227

Post by Drbble » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:29 AM UTC

zerostar07 wrote: post #197

awt wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perce…

People with non-mainstream careers are less likely to conceal their sexuality, and also the converse.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#228

Post by waterlesscloud » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:30 AM UTC

akg wrote: post #63

Has anyone tried out Amazon Studios: http://studios.amazon.com/ ? That seems to be a big step in this direction. Amazon.com has already created a big threat in the publishing industry with e-books and self-publishing. I think hollywood is next with the democratization of content and technological tools. It used to be that to create "Hollywood grade" movies would require tons of expensive equipment and capital. I don'…

I've got three different friends who won $20,000 each through Amazon Studio's script contests. One guy won 20k twice and has a producer with a very respectable track record attached to one of his projects there now. My friends are all very happy with their experiences thus far, though everyone is curious what the next steps will be like.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#229

Post by brianstorms » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:31 AM UTC

YC: take a look at Nettle. Backed by Google Ventures, 500 Startups, Advancit Capital, etc. Our product is MovieGoer (http://moviegoer.com).

"Kill Hollywood" is a kneejerk, negative way to go about it. I prefer a more positive approach that makes for a better world. In our case, it's all about EMPOWERING MOVIEGOERS. If you empower moviegoers, who are after all the heart of the $31B movie ecosystem worldwide, then you wind up improving the entire ecosystem -- movie theatre chains and studios do whatever moviegoers want. So give moviegoers more power, more choice, the ability to set the pace, direction, and the industry will be happy to comply.

Historically moviegoers have historically never had much if any power. As a result, we have the theatres we have, and the studios put out the content they think movieogers want. A lot of it is, shall we say, not great.

If anyone at YC wants to talk to me (and if they're serious about this issue, why aren't they!?), ping me: brian@nettle.com. I will be in the Bay Area all next week. Happy to meet with folks and talk about this more.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#230

Post by marshray » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:34 AM UTC

cschwarm wrote: post #215

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…

If Open Source software provides any clues, marketing is indeed a problem. Consider 'Blair Witch Project' which cost US$ 35.000 to make, was sold for US$ 1.1 Mil., and then the company spend US$ 20-25 Mil. for marketing. And this was an awesome campaign. "Open Water" cost US$ 500.000, was bought for US$ 2.5 Mil, and the company spend additional US$ 8 Mil. on distribution and advertising. Box Office revenue is more cl…

I wonder how much of that "marketing expense" went to other subsidiaries of the parent corporations but was deducted from the net profits that went to the actual creative people.