Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood. • Hacker News Board

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#421

Post by TomOfTTB » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 8:56 AM UTC

marcamillion wrote: post #415

TomOfTTB wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Hollywood funds artists. My issue with pg's post is it's a clarion call to kill an industry without considering what that industry does and who that industry supports. If someone can think up a better system I'm all for it. There's no shortage of startups creating media for online dissemination. But as of right now none of them manage to support artists like the traditional system. So I don't disagree with you. I…

It's not a clarion call to kill an industry, it's a clarion call to accelerate creative destruction on an industry. All that does is puts the bad entities out of business and creates new entities. Sure, there will be some labor displacement, but that's the nature of capitalism. The fact of the matter is that it is inevitable. You can't stop it. The fact that hollywood feels that they have to sue and legislate to prot…

I get pissed because of the rhetoric. Not just from this side. I have many friends in the entertainment industry and from there it's all about "thieves". So you have "hate" and "kill" on this side and "theft" and "arrest" on that side and I'm sick of all of it.

The most effective solution to problems with the media industry has always been the same: Collaboration.

Look at allthestepisodes.com. This is a site that allowed people to watch every Star Trek episode for free and I personally know an actor who lost residuals because of it. But that problem is gone now. Their traffic has been in a freefall (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/allstepisodes.com/)

Why?

Because Netflix offers all those episodes now. Neflix, a company that engaged the industry rather than trying to kill it, solved that problem and everyone's happy. No one's killed or arrested or anything of the sort.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#422

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 8:57 AM UTC

Irfaan wrote: post #377

jim-greer wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree - it is distribution. You have a device in your room that is a push channel for Hollywood to stream its (and only its) content to you. It's the cable box. Ditto for cinemas.

You don't need to out-market Hollywood (though achieving parity may be part of the equation). You need to create a more efficient production cycle, from artist to costumer.

I'm thinking lean start-up. How can we reduce cycle time between artist conception of an entertainment pitch and consumers evaluating it?

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#423

Post by ctwk » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 8:58 AM UTC

alanfalcon wrote: post #216

potatolicious wrote: post #128

Earlier 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.

Agreed. Even if there are some people who prefer watching others play a game, it doesn't mean that this applies to most movies/content.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#424

Post by TomOfTTB » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 8:59 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #419

TomOfTTB wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Hollywood funds artists. My issue with pg's post is it's a clarion call to kill an industry without considering what that industry does and who that industry supports. If someone can think up a better system I'm all for it. There's no shortage of startups creating media for online dissemination. But as of right now none of them manage to support artists like the traditional system. So I don't disagree with you. I…

> But pg should be encouraging people to build a better system not focusing them on tearing down the current one. It appears as though you let the title of the piece distract you from the content of it.

Not the title but this paragraph...

"Hollywood appears to have peaked. If it were an ordinary industry (film cameras, say, or typewriters), it could look forward to a couple decades of peaceful decline. But this is not an ordinary industry. The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise."

I have no problem with healthy contributions from startups. I do have a problem with demonizing people especially when I know some of those people are working towards the same goals as technology enthusiasts.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#425

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 8:59 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #419

TomOfTTB wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Hollywood funds artists. My issue with pg's post is it's a clarion call to kill an industry without considering what that industry does and who that industry supports. If someone can think up a better system I'm all for it. There's no shortage of startups creating media for online dissemination. But as of right now none of them manage to support artists like the traditional system. So I don't disagree with you. I…

> But pg should be encouraging people to build a better system not focusing them on tearing down the current one. It appears as though you let the title of the piece distract you from the content of it.

Ditto. Creative destruction involves tearing down the legacy institutions.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#426

Post by joelrunyon » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 9:00 AM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #398

natep wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove the first 3 sentences and the last, and your post will be in line with the guidelines [1] and you shouldn't get downvoted. You still make a number of claims I don't see evidence for, including some that you can't possibly back up. The most egregious to me is that you say most of these companies are run by 60 year old men (not that it matters, but are they?) with good intentions (and this matters, do they?). Ha…

First Mr. 278 Karma I think my 7000+ karma has earned me the right to call pg an ass when he's making an ass out of himself guidelines be damned. Second, plenty of people are wrong every day. That doesn't mean they and their industry deserve to be destroyed. it means you TALK TO THEM. Try to convince them of the error or their ways. That's why Steve Jobs formed a friendship with Rupert Murdoch. Not because they're su…

The idea that your Karma count means you're better than anyone else here is laughable.

Ideas should stand on their own merit and karma, money, or any other arbitrary metric doesn't give you the right to devolve into name-calling when you disagree with someone (but I only have 580+ Karma, so what do I know?).

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#427

Post by TomOfTTB » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 9:01 AM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #420

TomOfTTB wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First Mr. 278 Karma I think my 7000+ karma has earned me the right to call pg an ass when he's making an ass out of himself guidelines be damned. Second, plenty of people are wrong every day. That doesn't mean they and their industry deserve to be destroyed. it means you TALK TO THEM. Try to convince them of the error or their ways. That's why Steve Jobs formed a friendship with Rupert Murdoch. Not because they're su…

Hollywood is killing themselves, pg is merely observing it and analyzing what he thinks it will mean for his own industry. And also, it's really childish to even bring up karma like that. You were better off citing your 4 years on HN if you needed to validate yourself.

Karma is a (imperfect) measure of contribution. Time is just time.

As far as Hollywood killing themselves that's not what he was doing. I quote from his post...

"The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down"

That's calling them names and assigning motive. Not observing their behavior and pointing out what the probably consequences will be.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#428

Post by olozano » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 9:02 AM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #410

mustpax wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever gave you the idea that 7000+ karma entitles you to anything on HN?

Point count is the equivalent of contribution. It means you perhaps said something that opened someone else's eyes or led the conversation in a positive direction. Guidelines are to prevent people who don't contribute valuable ideas (e.g. trolls) from bringing the conversation down. So, if someone has proven them self not to be a troll, I think they're entitled to lose their temper every once in a while provided they…

Sorry to burst your bubble but no. Karma gives you no entitlement to ad hominem attacks and means absolutely nothing. It's quite pathetic you looked up that guy's karma and used it as an argument. Stick to arguing the points made on the original post, please.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#429

Post by sterling312 » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 9:02 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #128

skb_ wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

Although video game is not meant to be created as a passive entertainment, I think it is going that direction. With the combination of plot and amazing graphics, I don't see why a video game cannot be watched. Take for example Onlive, which allows you to stream game play of other total strangers. Or streamed Starcraft2 games. I know for a fact that a lot of my hard core gamer friends watch live stream from South Korea all the time.

From my personal experience, I used to actually play all the video games I thought was fun. However, ever since college ended, and when I have to use my time more wisely, playing a demanding video game counter intuitive as a stress relief. However, watching my roommate play video game is both entertaining and lacks the necessary attention I would need to attribute if I were playing the game. Of course, after watching my roommate play Skyrim twice might get a bit old. But then again, who watches the same TV show for over 30 hrs straight? I don't care how good mad men is, if I were to do two or three consecutive marathon of it, I would get tired of it too.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#430

Post by mooism2 » Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 9:03 AM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #203

kreek wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

How is that even legal? The UK is a common law system like the US. Doesn't it have a court case similar to Feist v. Rural in the US that establishes jurisprudence that data cannot be copyrighted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

The EU invented the Database Right, which is like copyright but for collections of facts.

Not their finest hour.