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

What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

aaronklein.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 115 posts

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#31

Post by naner »

rockarage wrote: post #16

This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar. When Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Yahoo decides to give a Christopher Nolan or James Cameron $200million+ to make a movie, things will be dif…

it would be interesting to see a counterpoint.

Sure.

1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work.

Or

2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#32

Post by InclinedPlane »

rockarage wrote: post #25
InclinedPlane wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they would. Hollywood budgets are partly due to Hollywood accounting. If movies were set up along startup lines (where only some folks get a guaranteed salary and the vast majority of earnings by everyone comes in the form of profit sharing) then I think you'd still see very big, expensive to make movies.

Hollywood losses are partly due to Hollywood accounting. The budgets for production are real cost. In these high budget movies, there are major expenses apart from just salary. In the Dark knight, the batmobile and other machines are real vehicles, the sets are made with real materials, live effects are not cheap, permits are not free, not everything is done on a computer. This only scratch the surface of the expense…

Production budgets are inflated because the only way to get a share of the profit is to get a share of the gross. But that is not nearly as scalable so it is necessarily limited. This forces the remainder of returns to contributors to be in the form of direct payments. Thus, actors earn 10s of millions up front, for example. But that also extends to everyone down the line. Effects houses need to charge a lot for their services because they rarely get a cut. There are indeed very real major costs to making a movie but those costs are low compared to the effects I've outlined.

More so, the limits of independently funding a movie are not necassarily any lower than what Hollywood can provide. It's just that Hollywood has historically proven to be the easiest route so it has been popular, but who's to say what the limits of competition are? VCs have pumped more money into tech startups for less return than some hollywood big budget movies, for example.

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#33

Post by nyellin »

aaronklein wrote: post #10
joejohnson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't recreate this in Chrome or Safari on OSX Lion. Are my corner actions preventing me from seeing it?

I killed it. Only added it because some readers were having a hard time finding the "share" buttons. I'll find a better solution.

That looks exactly like the OKTrends sharing bar. Did you implement it, or is there js library for that?

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#34

Post by peterhunt »

naner wrote: post #31
rockarage wrote: post #16

This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar. When Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Yahoo decides to give a Christopher Nolan or James Cameron $200million+ to make a movie, things will be dif…

it would be interesting to see a counterpoint. Sure. 1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work. Or 2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.

But I, and many other people, am willing to pay for these big budget movies even if I have to sit through ads. I like big-budget flicks.

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#35

Post by rockarage »

naner wrote: post #31
rockarage wrote: post #16

This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar. When Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Yahoo decides to give a Christopher Nolan or James Cameron $200million+ to make a movie, things will be dif…

it would be interesting to see a counterpoint. Sure. 1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work. Or 2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.

"Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work"

That is true, but the current reality is: these are the current cost to make big budget films, just like I would like buy a brand new Mac Book Pro for $500.00 but that's not going to happen any time soon.

And yes we are not entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars, we did not always have big budget films. Big budget films are the only advantage Hollywood has, if it were not for these big budget films we would not be talking about Hollywood.

The reality is people want to watch some of these big budget films, that's why there is piracy, that's why we writing about it.

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#36

Post by philwelch »

peterhunt wrote: post #34
naner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it would be interesting to see a counterpoint. Sure. 1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work. Or 2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.

But I, and many other people, am willing to pay for these big budget movies even if I have to sit through ads. I like big-budget flicks.

I like Bell Labs and indestructible black Western Electric telephones, but did they justify the Bell monopoly?

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#37

Post by Aqua_Geek »

rockarage wrote: post #25
InclinedPlane wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they would. Hollywood budgets are partly due to Hollywood accounting. If movies were set up along startup lines (where only some folks get a guaranteed salary and the vast majority of earnings by everyone comes in the form of profit sharing) then I think you'd still see very big, expensive to make movies.

Hollywood losses are partly due to Hollywood accounting. The budgets for production are real cost. In these high budget movies, there are major expenses apart from just salary. In the Dark knight, the batmobile and other machines are real vehicles, the sets are made with real materials, live effects are not cheap, permits are not free, not everything is done on a computer. This only scratch the surface of the expense…

> permits are not free

The permit process is absolutely ridiculous in some cities. Also, unless you're shooting on your backlot, location fees are getting astronomical. Everybody and their dog thinks that their property is worth thousands of dollars a day to film.

I think we'll start seeing more and more stuff being shot outside of the greater LA area.

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#38

Post by mishmash »

fleitz wrote: post #29

I think this is great, we should add a licensing clause for this, if you work for a subsidiary of an MPAA member you have to check a box to get the Hollywood edition else you are not entitled to use the software, perhaps even a Hollywood IP database for internet companies. If Hollywood execs had to sit through 5 minutes of ads to use Google they'd soon get the message. Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP block…

> Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies?

It's been tried before. Maintaining the list is very difficult for the exact same reasons that would have made PIPA/SOPA technically inept.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#39

Post by cookiecaper »

mishmash wrote: post #38
fleitz wrote: post #29

I think this is great, we should add a licensing clause for this, if you work for a subsidiary of an MPAA member you have to check a box to get the Hollywood edition else you are not entitled to use the software, perhaps even a Hollywood IP database for internet companies. If Hollywood execs had to sit through 5 minutes of ads to use Google they'd soon get the message. Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP block…

> Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? It's been tried before. Maintaining the list is very difficult for the exact same reasons that would have made PIPA/SOPA technically inept. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian

Such lists continue in wide use. Of course they are not foolproof, but it does help.

Re: What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

#40

Post by cookiecaper »

rockarage wrote: post #16

This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar. When Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Yahoo decides to give a Christopher Nolan or James Cameron $200million+ to make a movie, things will be dif…

I for one think it'd be really interesting if a tech conglomerate paid for a bunch of moderate-budget movies and distributed them exclusively through YouTube or other online sources, or distributed them to cinemas but did something Google-y with admissions and tickets. If Google just took 50% of opening revenues I am sure the cinemas would be thrilled to accommodate. Hollywood would seriously wig out. That is the kind of business we need to kill off the wickedness of the MPAA.
Post reply on HN