Live data from Hacker News

How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

statsignificant.com

231–240 of 264 posts

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this article about 1/3rd as many movies are made in LA since the 90s. They were only making 30% of films in LA in the 90s so your experience still matches with the data but having 2/3rds of the local film production move elsewhere is significant.

Before the 1990s CGI did not exist yet. You really had to film stuff outside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_shooting

  The failure of Camelot (1967) caused American filmmakers to shift exterior shots from studio backlots to authentic locations.[4] The film was widely criticized for its cheap look because it was obviously filmed on an architecturally ambiguous set against the chaparral-covered hills of Burbank.[4]

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#232
post #221
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actions matter more than words. Sure, they're complaining about AI, but consuming AI content more and more. It's a bit like people who complain that everything on the news is always bad. Everyone hates it, yet it's what everyone consumes.

I think you're wrong. A lot of people who dislike AI in art are putting their money (and their actions) where their mouth is. They don't buy stuff done with AI, ask authors whether they use it, and ban it/kick it from their communities. I've seen it and done it. I can't tell you whether this will be sustained in the future, but it's disingenuous to claim it doesn't happen.

> a lot

The data disagrees.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#233
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, this is so misguided.... 1. Stagecraft/virtual production is a thing, yes, but the backgrounds are not "AI rendered," they're 3D scenes built in Unreal. They have to be, because they need to dynamically react to the camera moving to create parallax. 2. Yes, some people are using AI to plan scenes. With respect to your relative, those people are not the ones getting hired on large projects. When someone is hired…

The future is probably not 100% generated, but probably a mix of generation + animation + motion capture. AI is not going to be able to replicate the deep and affecting performances you get from humans—I fully believe it can recreate some aspects of the visual arts, but no way is it going to get to the point where it will be the best of the best. It may become good enough, which is a thing and will make an impact, bu…

The problem isnt that the future is going to be 100% AI driven, its that the cheap shit is going to be 100% AI driven and that's where new talent has to go to learn the ropes.

Like you mention James Cameron, and he is just one of hundreds of filmmakers who got their start with Roger Corman.

If the Roger Corman of tomorrow is budgeting 50 bucks + 1000000 AI tokens, you aren't going to get another James Cameron. The guy wont get a chance to make practical effects for a bunch of low budget practical films. We are already seeing this with CGI being so common.

>And when we see the edges of that control, people will be interested in seeing things that make it "the old way," part of the reason you see a lot more practical effects these days, and I would include the background-in-unreal backdrops there, because they read as more real than actors in front of a green screen—for reasons that are totally unconscious unless you are highly trained in the differences.

Yep, and we are already at the low end of people who can implement these techniques.

>has not studied the history of multimedia

Look at the animation quality of childrens media over the last 20 years. They have grabbed low quality CGI with both hands.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#234
post #27

An interesting read but also feels like the rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic given the forthcoming disruption from generative AI in this industry. I spent some time last month with a relative in the industry (camera operator and producer) and he already uses some very sophisticated AI to map out scenes and shots in gen ai full video before they shoot IRL. It's mostly a cost saving exercise as well as occa…

Man, this is so misguided.... 1. Stagecraft/virtual production is a thing, yes, but the backgrounds are not "AI rendered," they're 3D scenes built in Unreal. They have to be, because they need to dynamically react to the camera moving to create parallax. 2. Yes, some people are using AI to plan scenes. With respect to your relative, those people are not the ones getting hired on large projects. When someone is hired…

AI can make the scene in 3D. If I can't today it can tomorrow

https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2081100592689324502?s=20

https://x.com/karpathy/status/2083749667410727319

even without AI you can see the progression of procedural geneartion which shows one path (of many) the AI can take

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4qpjZ2SkJQ

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#235
Corporations want a reproducible formula that can scale. Creating movies (and TV) is an inherently creative process. The people who end up running these businesses hate that but creativity doesn't scale. This is why reputation and track record is so important in getting any project greenlit. So the likes of Steven Spielberg, James Cameron or Christopher Nolan have a lot of freedom. They can't quite make what they want. A studio still has to bankroll the project and they may not like it. This is how Francis Ford Coppola ended up self-funding Megalopolis and, well, the studios were right to pass, let's be reeal.

This is also why we get so many sequeals, remarks and reboots. It's a property with a proven track record. That's so much easier to get greenlit.

The other thing that happens is that corporations (including studios) can only increase profits by cutting costs and raising prices. And this last one has basically killed the ecosystem upon which movies (and TV) depend. Let me explain.

Once upon a time, LA was relativvely cheap to live in. This allowed people to live there and work on getting their break while working flexible, often service jobs. Waittressing, hosting, that sort of thing. It could be anything, really. But it has to be flexible enough to take time off to go to auditions and jobs and whatnot. It is very difficult to make a full-time career out of working in this industry. If you're an actor and you, say, get a principal guest role on a TV series you might make $1000-2000/day but you only end up working 1-2 days on that every 3 months. You can't live on that. Recently there was a piece on the actor who played Sam in Lord of the Rings having to sell his house even though he made $250k for the 3 movies. That was over several years.

This isn't just for acting. Lighting, camera work, production, direction, editing, writing, special effects, costumes, etc etc etc.

What sustained people were residuals and the relatively low cost of living. Residuals for TV basically got killed by streaming. A lot of movie projects became unsustainable when the VHS/DVD/Blu-ray revenue pipeline dried up. Matt Damon spoke about this.

But the other thing streaming killed was the network TV pipeline. A bunch of screenplays would be written (and sold). I'm talking hundreds. A handful of those would be made into pilots. These days that's maybe 10-15 per year. Previously it was 50-100+. A certain number of those went to a half then full series order of 22+ episodes. Getting one job could sustain you for the year.

Streaming came along. The residuals went away. Those 22 episode seasons became 8-12 episode seasons every 2-3 years if you're lucky. There was no syndication money anymore. Working people in the industry relied upon residuals in dry spells to make a living. And suddenly you needed 2-3 jobs a year instead of 1 and that's really difficult to get and, even if you get it, to schedule so they don't conflict.

And then obviously ticket sales in movie theaters were in decline and fell off a cliff with the pandemic. Starting in the 2000s you had the shift to save costs to places like Atlanta, Vancouver and Toronto. Productions started chasing tax credits all over the world and would immediatley leave when they ended.

Let me elaborate on just one example: writing. To get into this field you generally would start as a production assistant ("PA"). This would generally be an unpaid position initially (an "internship"). At some point if you didn't screw up, you might start getting paid. Then you'd be the assistant to a writer. This would give you experience in a writers room. Hopefully whoever you worked for would give you feedback and teach you things. The next step would be to get a staff writer job. Back in the day you'd get paid for 22 episodes. You'd be on set for filming and you'd learn production. Most producers came from a writing background. Eventually, this career would lead you to being a showrunner. Think Shonda Rhimes or Vince Gilligan or Matthew Weiner. Weiner in particular learned his craft and earned street cred as a staff writer on The Sopranos and he tried to sell Mad Men to HBO.

Now what happens if you get hired to write 8 episodes instead of 22 so you'd getting one-third of the pay. Your job is over before shooting starts so none of these young writers are getting experience to become producers and ultimately showrunners.

It's a bit like how some companies stop hiring juniors and just overwork seniors with the threat of layoffs. Well, those seniors used to be juniors. Don't hire and train juniors and eventually there won't be any seniors. Same thing.

I guess the short version is: streaming killed Hollywood.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these things have awful plots. As yet, the AI systems used are not very good at plotting. If given a screenplay and character sheets, they can do reasonably well. But the "generate a 60 episode drama from one prompt" jobs are not very good. This is more of a problem with the Asian drama industry than the technology. There are not that many different plots. The visuals are consistently good now. If you put in…

Here's a half-decent example.[1] The visuals are good, the plot is adequate, and the audio is poor. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5w1jiTYrTw

abominable

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#237
post #23

The cost of housing is probably the #1 reason and, in my opinion, California’s biggest problem. California as a whole is still doing pretty well but high housing cost is slowly pulling out the rug from under the state. But the California legislature does know that and has forced many cities to start building housing but there is still a lot work still in flight.

I'd say it is the size of the population, far far too many people try to make it in Los Angeles without any specialized educations, so the car washers have 40 people that dry your windows, and the wait staff jobs are exponentially Orwellian. When I finally moved away, I was living over an hour away from Santa Monica, paying $4K a month for rent, and the entire neighborhood lights up every night like a gangsters' para…

Is that really how LA central is these days, the mexicans and the hood taking over?

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#238
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don’t like subsidizing sports teams. To me it doesn’t make too much sense. Yes I know fans can be pretty loyal and sometimes that team is sort of like a pet dog. They love it through highs and lows. It’s something that can provide some identity to some as well as live vicariously through them. I get it but I feel sometimes you gotta let boyhood ideas and dreams go. But hey sometimes people vote for their teams…

What is weird to me as a European is that sports teams in the US can move. Can you imagine FC Barcelona moving to Madrid?

Wimbledon FC moved from Wimbledon to Milton Keynes in the early 00's and quickly changed names to Milton Keynes Dons and AFC Wimbledon was created in it's place back in Wimbledon at their old stadium.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#239
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don’t like subsidizing sports teams. To me it doesn’t make too much sense. Yes I know fans can be pretty loyal and sometimes that team is sort of like a pet dog. They love it through highs and lows. It’s something that can provide some identity to some as well as live vicariously through them. I get it but I feel sometimes you gotta let boyhood ideas and dreams go. But hey sometimes people vote for their teams…

What is weird to me as a European is that sports teams in the US can move. Can you imagine FC Barcelona moving to Madrid?

Happened once in English football: Wimbledon moved from south west london to the soulless new town of Milton Keynes.

It was radioactively controversial at the time, most fans never made the switch.

Eventually Wimbledon fans created a new club AFC Wimbledon who have since got promoted all the way to League One (the same league as MK Dons).

So the MK Dons owners ended up with nothing for all the trouble and they may as well have just made a new team. Nobody else has been stupid enough to try it since

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, this is so misguided.... 1. Stagecraft/virtual production is a thing, yes, but the backgrounds are not "AI rendered," they're 3D scenes built in Unreal. They have to be, because they need to dynamically react to the camera moving to create parallax. 2. Yes, some people are using AI to plan scenes. With respect to your relative, those people are not the ones getting hired on large projects. When someone is hired…

Who cares about Oscars? It's about sales and mind-share. Ticket sales still have not recovered to pre-COVID levels, and they were already in a severe downward trend before the pandemic. The trend is that increasingly, the entertainment people consume comes from small-time creators. And these small creators have thus far had very little capacity to create truly visually appealing content and take on more ambitious wor…

The reason behind what you say is that Hollywood is effectively out of ideas and does not usually make risks with original stories (and/or wills to pay good writers), with Neflix churning out movies since years which felt like AI generated before it was a thing.

If they fully embrace AI and turn tha already existing slop production to hypersonic speed, the audiences will even be less interested. At least the audiences in my bubble.

Visual sophistication is not the top reason to visit movies since CGI got so good. In the 2000s nice SFX was also a key reason t visit a theater. Nowadays the less SFX the more likely I will like a film. AI is just SFX.

Post reply on HN