I have posted a rejoinder on Ben Parr's rants at my blog http://manku.thimma.org/2012/01/in-defence-of-y-combinators-...
Essentially I believe the time is ripe for disruption to happen at Hollywood.
Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
371–380 of 697 posts
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#372Independent 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…
One difference I would point out - every film an indie production co makes is equivalent to a new start-up, i.e. every film is its own business. And these aren't businesses that scale well. Or at all. Therefore, film producers are essentially serial entrepreneurs ... but by no means will a successful indie film grant the same kind of ROI that a successful tech startup would, e.g. Twitter or Dropbox.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#373The main point is not to kill Hollywood but to force them to compete and evolve.
Hollywood sell entertainment services that demand the time of people.
The ultimate goal of winning would be to compete and win the time of people. E.g. Newspaper industry is dying because the Internet won the time of people.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#374[deleted]
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't think video games are a full substitute for TV or movies. They are completely different experiences - one is purely passive, and the other is active and participatory. There are lots of game fans that would claim that this distinction is what makes games superior , but for a lot of people I think that's what turns them off . The passivity is a virtue in many places.
There's no reason you can't mix the two, though. At my startup, we're building narrative driven games (like the old-school graphic adventures), reworked to feel more TV-like. So we're really trying to be careful about the whole passive vs active issue.
Our take is - let the viewer be as passive as they want. We're making a narrative-heavy experience, just like films and TV. But we're adding an interactive twist so the viewer can change how the story unfolds. And there's no reason we can't let the viewer just hit play and watch the story unfold as-is. We encourage them to jump in, of course, but that's it - otherwise, the story goes along it's glide path till the end of the episode. And when they're done, maybe they'd like to watch it again, but make a decision part way in to see how it effects the story.
A more mainstream example would be some on Nintendo's most recent work. They've done a great job embracing the casual audience, and really pushed it in the most recent Super Mario Bros for the Wii - it actually included the ability for the game to play itself when players get stuck:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/994/994640p1.html
Passive vs Active is tricky balancing act, and we're probably going to need to iterate on this a few times before we get it just right. But we definitely think the balance can be struck in a way that'll resound with a casual audience more apt at consuming TV then video games.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#376Incidentally, 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.
I mentioned games explicitly in the RFS.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think video games are a full substitute for TV or movies. They are completely different experiences - one is purely passive, and the other is active and participatory. There are lots of game fans that would claim that this distinction is what makes games superior , but for a lot of people I think that's what turns them off . The passivity is a virtue in many places.
I'm really not optimistic on getting people to stop watching TV or movies. Maybe there's some way of producing and financing them that's smarter but I wouldn't bet on changing behavior that drastically. People have been consuming stories about other people forever, and they're going to keep doing that.
It sounds like you're pushing for for the webseries model.
There's some great work going on there - the big difficulty isn't the producing or financing, though. I'm part of the Seattle webseries community, and the big difficulty I keep seeing is - how do you get your series in front of people?
So in a sense - I think marketing is the killer if you're going to compete head-to-head with Hollywood.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think video games are a full substitute for TV or movies. They are completely different experiences - one is purely passive, and the other is active and participatory. There are lots of game fans that would claim that this distinction is what makes games superior , but for a lot of people I think that's what turns them off . The passivity is a virtue in many places.
It also gets boring to watch my wife play her 20th hour of Assasin's Creed Revelations. Video games aren't good entertainment for those not holding the controller.
It depends on the game. The e-sports community is making headways, with things such as the "starcraft bars" and stuff. It's not the same, but there is effort being made in the field.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think video games are a full substitute for TV or movies. They are completely different experiences - one is purely passive, and the other is active and participatory. There are lots of game fans that would claim that this distinction is what makes games superior , but for a lot of people I think that's what turns them off . The passivity is a virtue in many places.
It also gets boring to watch my wife play her 20th hour of Assasin's Creed Revelations. Video games aren't good entertainment for those not holding the controller.
It depends on the game. The e-sports community is making headways, with things such as the "starcraft bars" and stuff. It's not the same, but there is effort being made in the field.
Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, find a way to make video games more passive. People like to watch other people play video games. Maybe live streaming of hardcore gamers playing.
Good idea! ( http://twitch.tv )
OnLive does a great job of this, too. Since the entire system is built around streaming out media, They get this pretty much for free. And they've done a good job of embracing it, too. I know a number of gamers that "veg" by watching other games playing on OnLive.