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

71–80 of 115 posts

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

#71

Post by jiggy2011 »

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'm not sure there's an entire market out there wanting to pay to watch "charlie bit my finger" and if there are I don't want anything to do with them!

Having said that there are a load of genuinely quite funny and well put together pieces of content on youtube that come from amateurs. Problem is most of them distribute the content for free because they want to use it as a stepping stone to a job with BigMediaCo who can pay them $$$.

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

#72

Post by rockarage »

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.

Long before youtube, there was a show called American funniest home videos. You should check it out.

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

#73

Post by eftpotrm »

nextparadigms wrote: post #65
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…

Significantly, tech already has. How often do we hear numbers quoted that the gaming industry now grosses more than films?

Displacing the influence of the old leader in the community mindset is certainly a known problem and one that we've seen in other sectors. But, there's no disputing it - the kids are spending their time playing games rather more than watching films, and Hollywood isn't set up to produce interactive, dynamic content.

The rules of the game have been changed, and tech has won. Gaming beats films, and sooner or later people will realise it.

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

#74

Post by darklajid »

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…

At which point in the past did we establish that these wages are in _any_ way reasonable. We talk about a 'bubble' in our sector every other day. And you seem to imply (please, correct me if I missed the point) that these are 'market rates' and need to be payed by someone to get a decent end result. Which then kind of defends the existence of Hollywood as the one to make it happen.

I'd argue that this is turning the thing on its head. The Hollywood crowd overcharges from the position of a quasi monopoly that is protected by IP and copyright laws in most places of the world. They dictate the prices and are therefor able to sustain the costs of having to pay ridiculous (you can argue, but there's no way in hell I change my pov on this one) amounts of money to single persons for 'a project'.

Take away the quasi monopoly and yes, dear god: 200million+ might be a tad too much. But the market will adapt and we'll find awesome actors that are happy to do that job for 300.000 USD per year. Or less. No idea - let's find out.

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

#76

Post by wazoox »

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…

Christopher Nolan doesn't deserve, or need 200 millions. The fact that Hollywood celebrities receive so much money is a symptom that something isn't right.

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

#77

Post by teamonkey »

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??

No, but it might be over 10 times more profitable than a $20 million movie, or over 100 times more profitable than a $2 million movie. Big budget movies have a greater potential RoR.

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

#78

Post by o1iver »

wazoox wrote: post #76
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…

Christopher Nolan doesn't deserve, or need 200 millions. The fact that Hollywood celebrities receive so much money is a symptom that something isn't right.

I never get arguments like this. In a perfect market every entity tries to get as much money as the market is willing to pay. There are some pretty extreme example such as this one, but in the whole that is a good thing!

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

#79

Post by Iv »

peterhunt wrote: post #55
alxp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just try to pass laws to make interoperability (format shifting) a criminal offence.

You're setting up a false argument here -- they don't do anything to restrict indie filmmakers from distributing their content.

By forbidding to use old art for music or even movie extracts, they set the bar higher for independent movie filmmakers.

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

#80

Post by jonhohle »

wazoox wrote: post #76
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…

Christopher Nolan doesn't deserve, or need 200 millions. The fact that Hollywood celebrities receive so much money is a symptom that something isn't right.

Christopher Nolan is given command of a 200 million budget, that's not his compensation for directing, writing, and producing. He probably earns a few million per movie - for creating something that brings his employer over a billion in revenue. That means he is only making a thousandth of what he generated. That seems like a fair return to me.
Post reply on HN