Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#11

Post by jasonwocky »

technoslut wrote: post #4
sunchild wrote: post #2

This idea has been kicking around since the late 90's. The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then. The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. Either way, it's an inevitability that the market for financing feature films and "television" series will spread horizontally as the costs keep coming down.…

>The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. This is the only point I disagree with. I don't care how much more accessible the tech gets it's still about te storyline, the acting and cinematography.

I assume sunchild called it "harder" to spot talent simply because the increased accessibility of tech means there's now more crap to wade through.

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#13

Post by drumdance »

I've thought about doing something similar in the past. While researching it I noticed that there are not a lot of "insider" blogs like we see in the tech/VC world. In fact, I briefly thought about getting into film production and using blogging as a way to document the process and create a brand. (I ultimately decided I like my current career better.)

I think someone will eventually do this and build a huge name for themselves. I asked this question on Quora but didn't get any response: http://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-more-movie-TV-finance-a...

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#14

Post by brown9-2 »

The article, and idea behind the startup, seems to be that the studios are screwing over the backers and the funding corporation.

But if this is so, why do people continue to invest in these vehicles? Don't the backers of these movies, especially a blockbuster like Harry Potter, know that this accounting is going to happen?

It seems to me like there must be another explanation at work here - such as the funding corporations being set up as losers purposefully for the purposes of taxes. Otherwise, if the studios were screwing their funders so much, wouldn't they have run out of suckers by now?

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#15

Post by untog »

brown9-2 wrote: post #14

The article, and idea behind the startup, seems to be that the studios are screwing over the backers and the funding corporation. But if this is so, why do people continue to invest in these vehicles? Don't the backers of these movies, especially a blockbuster like Harry Potter, know that this accounting is going to happen? It seems to me like there must be another explanation at work here - such as the funding corpo…

I don't have a citation for this because it's from memory, but I believe that a lot of the companies that go under in debt are actually subsidiaries of the studios themselves. It works out as a tax/debt write-off.

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#16

Post by alan_cx »

nextparadigms wrote: post #10
rockarage wrote: post #7

"A good example of “Hollywood accounting” would be “Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix”, which took in $938 million in revenue, yet still produced a $167 million loss. In cases like this the distributor, Warner Bros., still makes a bundle, but the film and its backers, set up as a independent corporation, wind up in debt. How is this possible? You can get a more detailed picture in this episode of Planet Money…

This kind of reminds me of Yahoo when they didn't want a more efficient ad system because they wouldn't be able to charge the media buyers as much. I don't really care they are doing this. They will eventually be replaced because of this. I just want the Government to stop protecting them from getting replaced. It's not the Government's job to stop disruptions from happening.

So, if the government were to put money in to troubled businesses to prop them up or even create jobs, it gets heavily criticised. Its seen as socialist and evil. However, if the government criminalises its citizens to support a dying business, well, that's OK and all American, patriotic even. Protecting American jobs by criminalising Americans.

Have I missed something? I must have.

Surely, the government should be merely supporting the market forces of capitalism, and if the current form of Hollywood dies, well, isn't that exactly as it should be? All that will happen is that new business models will emerge.

Oh, I dunno. Too much interference, if you ask me. If "we" truly believe in capitalism, then why not sit back and let it do its thing? OK, so Warners or who ever goes bust. Well, wont all those people simply go out and start again, but in a different way? In fact, while the government supports the antiquated Hollywood, its is in fact holding back the natural progress.

Imagine if the government made moves to protect valves, and transistor possession was made illegal. Would we have still gotten the microchip? Well, it amuses me!!!

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#17

Post by technoslut »

jasonwocky wrote: post #11
technoslut wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. This is the only point I disagree with. I don't care how much more accessible the tech gets it's still about te storyline, the acting and cinematography.

I assume sunchild called it "harder" to spot talent simply because the increased accessibility of tech means there's now more crap to wade through.

I can't make that assumption. Any one of these crafts: direction, acting, editing, cinematography and soundtracking is always hard to find. You always had to wade through a mountain of garbage. The way most execs did it previously is through word of mouth. I don't believe that's changed today.

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#18

Post by alan_cx »

technoslut wrote: post #4
sunchild wrote: post #2

This idea has been kicking around since the late 90's. The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then. The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. Either way, it's an inevitability that the market for financing feature films and "television" series will spread horizontally as the costs keep coming down.…

>The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. This is the only point I disagree with. I don't care how much more accessible the tech gets it's still about te storyline, the acting and cinematography.

Im not even that sure acting and cinematography are essential. I know with web based TV type shows, the only thing I have cared about is the plot. An example is Pioneer One. Terrible production values, which is OK because it only cost $10k ish per episode, but the plot was interesting enough to keep watching.

OK, if I pay to go to the cinema to see a film I expect something a lot better, but then there is more cash coming it to cover that.

Anyway, my silly little point, is that a good plot and script can carry a hell of a lot of iffy production.

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#19

Post by rdouble »

sunchild wrote: post #2

This idea has been kicking around since the late 90's. The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then. The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. Either way, it's an inevitability that the market for financing feature films and "television" series will spread horizontally as the costs keep coming down.…

Rather than emulating Stanley Kubrik, I think young people armed with 5Ds want to make music videos, comedic shorts and skateboard films... all of which have improved to an amazing degree over the past decade. I'm not so sure startups changing financing for feature films will "kill Hollywood." The preference of the newer generation to watch shorter bits of content that don't require such financing in the first place, might.

Re: Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding

#20

Post by DevX101 »

rockarage wrote: post #7

"A good example of “Hollywood accounting” would be “Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix”, which took in $938 million in revenue, yet still produced a $167 million loss. In cases like this the distributor, Warner Bros., still makes a bundle, but the film and its backers, set up as a independent corporation, wind up in debt. How is this possible? You can get a more detailed picture in this episode of Planet Money…

If by 'film backers' you're referring to the executive producers that pay money for the movie, I highly doubt they're stupid enough to fall for hollywood accounting and actually lose money. Their fee is in that $938 million somewhere.

More likely, the losses are probably for tax reasons or to screw over anyone involved in the film that signed a 'percent of net' rather than a 'percent of gross' deal.

EDIT: See link below for how wealthy individuals finance films because they WANT the film to lose money on paper. This gives them large tax deductions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_finance#Tax_schemes

Post reply on HN