Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood. • Hacker News Board

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#231

Post by Drbble » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:37 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…

It would look like free software looks as compared to Microsoft: edgy, unpolished, more engaging with the audience as a collaborator and not just an consumer, in more niches, non-monolithic, with a more visible connection to the author's humanity.

    :help uganda
    :wq

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#232

Post by gabaix » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:38 AM UTC

skb_ wrote: post #58

pg wrote: post #9

Incidentally, Paul Buchheit deserves all the credit for this idea. The YC partners were having lunch yesterday and he suggested posting this RFS. Whereupon we all turned to Jessica, who is usually the one who talks us out of doing crazy things. I was kind of surprised she didn't try to talk us out of it.

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.

Facebook is a good replacement too. Watch the idealized movie of your friends' lives.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#233

Post by awt » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:38 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…

I'm not talking about natural selection, I'm talking about sexual selection, which is a completely different animal. Sexual selection leads to really bizarre adaptations, like male peacock tails and mating dances that seem maladaptive in the context of natural selection. Natural selection is about finding enough food to live long enough to mate. Sexual selection is about competing within the same species for mates.

Because slightly more highly creative people are homosexual doesn't necessarily mean creativity isn't attractive. It could just be that homosexuals have more time to devote creative tasks due lack of childcare responsibilities.

I would say that people often aren't consciously aware of why they are exhibiting creativity. On top of that, I would guess that homosexuals value finding mates just as highly as heterosexuals, which would be at least one reason why they would exhibit creativity, consciously or unconsciously.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#234

Post by marshray » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:40 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #145

sriramk wrote: post #95

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?

Very interesting. A lot of people who suggest games as a replacement for video seem to be missing this point. Games require active interaction. Not everyone always wants to entertain themselves in a way that requires active interaction. Sometimes we just want to sit back, relax, and let the storyteller tell their story. Watching Bruce Willis blow shit up on a screen is a completely different kind of entertainment tha…

So, give me a way to have my cake and eat it too.

Give me a medium that adjusts the interactivity demands of the entertainment according to the recline of my chair or the open width of my eyelids. Metaphorically speaking (or not).

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#235

Post by feralchimp » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:41 AM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #175

ender7 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

I feel like you guys are right on the edge of a solid idea. If the Hollywood advantage is not the technical tools, or the raw funding capability, then it's the rich understanding of the talent pool that can properly wield those things.

They are a highly advanced network of HR organizations.

Does IMDBPro have listings for crew?

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#236

Post by pearle » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:42 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #165

pearle wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I was responding to the comment that $50 games provide 100+ hours of entertainment. I was just claiming that this is not necessarily true.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#237

Post by Drbble » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:43 AM UTC

zerostar07 wrote: post #167

ender7 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A movie has something like 3x3 times the resolution of a video game.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#238

Post by msg » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:43 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…

To even claim altruism is to use the adjective to positively light one's ego, no?

No.

This reductionism has no explanatory power. You might as well say "all egoism boils down to the benefit of the other because personal benefit benefits humanity/the universe at large. Therefore all reduces to altruism." You can pick any explanation and say "in the heart this boils down to X". If you have no special reason for choosing X (which is evident if you can explain just as much with Not-X), all such explanations are equally worthless.

There are many options other than believing that a human life divided by infinite space approaches zero.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#239

Post by rdl » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:45 AM UTC

ericflo wrote: post #220

rdl wrote: post #207

Sometime over the past year I went from thinking YouTube content was insignificant compared to Hollywood, to the point where I'd happily give up all broadcast/cable/DVD/Netflix content for YouTube type user generated content. I suspect this will be more widespread in a year or two more.

And it appears it will come full circle, as late last year YouTube announced that it was going to start producing original content: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/29/idUS38163096092011...

The content I like is pretty much cat videos (yeah) and semi professional/prosumer content, like firearms, diving, etc training and product reviews. There is generally inbuilt revenue models for doing reviews or instructional video, so it justifies spending up to a few hundred per hour of finished footage.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#240

Post by eru » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 1:46 AM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #198

eru wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends. Some industry get big in terms of revenue, but not in terms of profit. The eternal example is airlines. Flat screen makers are a more recent variation. (The Economist runs on article on them this week.)

Sometimes selling shovels is more lucrative than digging for gold. Or ignore those industries altogether, like Warren Buffet did with technology.