What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies? • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by MrScruff » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 1:59 PM UTC

darklajid wrote: post #74

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…

Great, but how are you planning on paying the rest of the production, which after all makes up the majority of that $200 million.

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

#112

Post by MarkTraceur » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 2:02 PM UTC

aaronklein wrote: post #101

MarkTraceur wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the Google privacy policies have been consolidated, which means less piecewise freedom for people who use one or two Google products. I, for example, use Mail and (barely) use Search. I don't need to agree to things about Google+! And jailbreaking Apple devices, while possible and, in some cases, easy, has never been encouraged by or even considered by Apple. In order to jailbreak, you have to find exploits in…

There are certainly ways that tech companies operate in a Hollywoodesque manner. Apple trying to assert DMCA against jailbreaking phones is a great example. It's YOUR phone. You paid $600 for it (either over time, or up front). You should be able to do whatever you want with it. You've made a very poor case with Google privacy policies, though. If you don't use Google+, there's no way for any of its privacy policies…

I suppose I jumped into an example I didn't fully understand--sorry about that :)

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

#113

Post by gaius » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 12:49 PM UTC

technoslut wrote: post #89

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…

>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. Your comment is somewhat ridiculous because these examples are not risks. Christopher Nolan was well known before Batman Begins in writing Memento. J…

Counterpoint: Kevin Costner

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

#114

Post by cookiecaper » Wed, Feb 01, 2012, 1:31 AM UTC

darklajid wrote: post #74

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…

Directors get huge payouts for the same reason athletes or other performers get huge payouts: simply because they generate a TON of money AND because the pool of potential candidates is so small that there is no one to undercut the rate. That $xx million ($200 mil was the budget for the whole film fyi) that the director got paid is a fraction of the total revenue generated by a major blockbuster like The Dark Knight, just as the 10-30 million an athlete receives is a fraction of the revenue he generates for the owners. You simply can't get around the fact that many people will spend a lot of money on entertainment, and even if we don't think actors and directors deserve all of that money in terms of social contributions and the long-term redeeming value of their work, the numbers don't lie: they get big payouts simply because they generate lots of money.

The same principle applies in other jobs, the values are just much smaller.

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

#115

Post by alexgemmell » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #90

cookiecaper wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

peerguardian and it's ilk don't help at all. they make uninformed people feel safer.

Is that true? Could you let me know where you got that info from so I can check for myself? Thanks!