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

61–70 of 115 posts

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

#61

Post by tomjen3 »

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 is properly downvoted because it is wrong.

Until Bieber came along, the most watched clip ever (Charlie bit my finger), having been seen 100 of millions of times cost a few cents of electricity to produce.

This indicates that there is an entire market out there which Hollywood is incapable of satisfying but which could easily be filled by a start up.

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

#62

Post by alextingle »

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…

Do you seriously believe that a $200 million movie is ten times better than a $20 million movie? Or a hundred times better than a $2 million movie??

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

#63

Post by alextingle »

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.

If you have to pay the same to see Avatar & The Blair Witch Project, then sure, the big budget movies seem like better value. But only a vast price fixing monopoly, supported by ever more draconian legislation, enables that equivalence.

The price of movie distribution is fast approaching zero. If big budget movies had to compete on a level playing field, I suspect they would rapidly become unprofitable.

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

#64

Post by MarkTraceur »

I love this article for its irony, intentional or no.

The author cites perfect examples of why the software industry is exactly like Hollywood with its products. Word? Need a license key. Can't open or save ODT files without annoying popups. Apple? Don't even try to partition the system or it will break, and don't use the software on non-Apple hardware. Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?

Of course, the biggest problem is that none of those instances of software are even accessible (fully) by their users. The user can't change the software, they can't even use the software in every capacity.

So I guess the real question is, why are we still acting like Hollywood?

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

#65

Post by nextparadigms »

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…

Silicon Valley doesn't have to take on Hollywood head-on. That's almost always the wrong strategy to try to beat an incumbent.

The way you beat an incumbent leader is by changing the rules of the games so it's very hard for that company to play that new game, whether it's because they lack the competency or because the have internal conflicts of interest for doing that (think of the TV networks not really wanting to go full-web because it would eat into their much larger profits from traditional advertising).

Of course you don't just change the rules for the sake of changing the. This new game must also feel like the "future" of that market, and you need to be able to attract not only Hollywood "non-consumption", but also be able to transition Hollywood's "consumers" over time to your company (or companies - I still think that what would kill Hollywood is an entire different ecosystem for creating, distributing and watching movie, and not just a movie juggernaut like Hollywood).

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

#66

Post by nextparadigms »

rockarage wrote: post #28
saulrh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, Apple gives Steve Jobs $200million+ to make an iPad, and Microsoft certainly gives someone 200 million dollars to make Windows.next. Google gave someone $200 million to develop Android. We just don't see it as much because software doesn't depend on personalities as much.

Yes, and Microsoft is spending billions on Bing, if Google pulled a so called Hollywood move, by making Google search a pain to use, people will start using Bing more. We don't have that with big budget films. DRM died in the music industry, in part, because a number of popular artist, like Trent of NIN were not afraid to go direct to fans without DRM.

Oh come on. Bing is not a serious alternative to Google. Nobody likes sloppy seconds. If anything people would start switching to duckduckgo or something, which does things much more differently.

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

#67

Post by bigiain »

wanorris wrote: post #49
bigiain wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I can't think of anywhere I could go to buy DRMed music right now if I tried... iTMS watermarks music files, but they're not sold DRMed music files for years. Magnatune has _never_ sold DRMed files. ihearmusic.com - no drm. All the direct from artist music I've bought in the last few years - no drm. Soundcloud or artist "Pay what you want" deals - no drm. I can't recall having purchased any "big four" owned m…

Doesn't Spotify use DRM? Which is not to say that it's wrong for them to use DRM on music you didn't buy -- that's a different question. But "only used for music you don't own" isn't the same the same thing as "dead".

Ahhh yeah - all those streaming services, they seem to think Australia doesn't have the internet, or maybe just that we dont have credit cards to pay for stuff. I'd have to jump through proxied ip addresses and fiddled US billing address credit cards to even find out they're selling DRMed files...

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

#68

Post by Fargren »

alextingle wrote: post #62
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…

Do you seriously believe that a $200 million movie is ten times better than a $20 million movie? Or a hundred times better than a $2 million movie??

It surely takes less time to see than on hundred $2 million movies. I'd much rather watch one good movie than 10 decent ones. Not that movie budget has anything to do with quality, but still.

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

#69

Post by cageface »

tomjen3 wrote: post #61
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 is properly downvoted because it is wrong. Until Bieber came along, the most watched clip ever (Charlie bit my finger), having been seen 100 of millions of times cost a few cents of electricity to produce. This indicates that there is an entire market out there which Hollywood is incapable of satisfying but which could easily be filled by a start up.

I shudder to think of a future in which gimmick YouTube videos make up the bulk of commercially available entertainment.
Post reply on HN