Film was disrupted with the release of DV cams.
I have a full-length feature on DVD on Amazon recorded on DV.
Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
31–40 of 92 posts
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#32It might help if "disrupt the film industry" would be defined. Seriously, what does that even mean? Disrupt it so "the little guy" can make movies? You can put together a feature-length movie with an iPhone, a good microphone, and free editing software. Actors might help, too. Want some snazzy vfx? You can do your own. Want your product to be seen all over the world? Thanks to the magical internet, you can have it up…
Look up "Hollywood accounting". Not to mention DRM too.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#33What about bootstrapped, self-funded, youtube channels that became huge?
There was a really good article about this (wish I could find it) about how the majority of these aren't making much, if any money. From the outside it appeared that the artists are rolling in cash; from the inside, they were still working waiter/waitress jobs to make ends meet.
Yeah I heard from one YouTuber (over email) that only ~1000 worldwide are currently making a living solely from their YouTube career. And that includes certain successful channels that employ 20+ people.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#34Always troublesome trying to balance art and commercial value in a discussion - film, music, whatever. Want to see what disruption of a formerly 'high barrier' artistic industry looks like? Photography. I'm pretty sure the ubiquity of cameras and the assists and tricks and filters that are available now have had a significant impact on the income of professional photographers. The last elephant in the room is that a…
> under estimate the amount of work a polished product takes
I agree in general. On the other hand, Youtube shows that less polished can be enjoyable as well. This provides more and smoother ways for amateurs to level up in skill and/or professionalism. Those who survive Youtube criticism probably have a thick skin.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seriously doubt Twitch and YouTube personalities have had a significant impact on movie watching. What I could believe but don't have numbers to prove is that subscription streaming TV--much of which is in serial form--is pulling audiences away from film especially given that subscription streaming movie catalogs are pretty thin.
I agree, and that matches my own behavior, but I was looking more at what kids are doing as a sign of the disruption. This is just anecdotal observation as a parent, but I see my kids and their friends spend hours a day watching YouTube and Twitch, rarely Netflix, and never broadcast/cable TV. They'll watch a movie once every couple weeks, and go to a theater a few times a year. To them Rosanna Pansino is a HUGE star…
Fair enough. I was thinking about adults. Though, as a kid, I watched few movies--but, then, I didn't have anything like the opportunities to do so that one does today.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#36The article's Part 1 refers to an old HN thread and buried in there is a good comment from anactofgod about "disrupting Hollywood": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491584 His analysis has similar to themes to the misunderstanding of "gatekeepers" like Netflix / Amazon Video / HBO and why they exist. Gatekeepers are an emergent property of artists not having money to self-finance their projects -- and -- also no…
> Gatekeepers are an emergent property of artists ... not wanting to mess around with tasks that are unrelated to creativity such as managing a web server farm to distribute their videos to their fans.
This exact same argument can also be made wrt Musicians. Justin Bieber has no interest in managing a web server farm to distribute his music to fans. And yet, I'm able to go online and purchase specific Justin Bieber songs/albums that I'm interested in, without having to pay monthly fees to some Netflix-type aggregator.
> Gatekeepers are an emergent property of artists not having money to self-finance their projects
This seems like a much stronger argument, and I agree that making a TV show is vastly more expensive than making songs. But the vast majority of new musicians do not self-finance their first few albums either. They sign up with a record label, and the record label finances the production/marketing/distribution costs. And ultimately, when consumers pay money to buy the songs/albums, a cut of that money goes back to the record company in order for them to recoup their investment.
The exact same model can work for television shows as well. HBO bankrolls David Fincher $100M to produce Utopia. Customers who want to watch Utopia can pay money just to watch Utopia, without having to sign up for HBO. And as "equity holders", a percentage of that customer money goes back to HBO.
I'm sure there are many other niggling issues that need to be worked out, but at a fundamental level, I don't see why this revised model can't work. Allowing consumers to pay only for the shows that they want to watch, instead of forcing them to pay for an entire monthly bundle, seems like it should be much more economically efficient.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#37One factor that I didn't see mentioned in this post or the author's previous post is the strength and influence of the union. I lived with an actress who had moderate enough success to do acting full time, have an agent, and be in the Screen Actors Guild. I was amazed at how much money she could pull in for just having a split-second role in a nationally broadcast ad, when it seems likely a company could finds hundre…
I'd say it's about social objects. One of the important thing about culture in general is the feeling of sharing it, which in particular means knowing that you'll have someone to talk with about what you jut experienced. That's why I believe culture tends to gravitate towards the same small set of works (with additional "notable works" in ever expanding amount of genres), and it doesn't matter whether or not it's a good work - it has just to be decent enough and get popular fast enough to stick.
As for old vs. new movies, I guess I go to cinemas because a) good, big screen and loud audio gives an experience that I can't reproduce at home, and b) cinemas generally don't play old movies! And even if they did, then c) old movies I can stream/Torrent on-demand, it's the new movies that are difficult to get. As for the reason to go see them vs. wait until they're streamable on-line, it's social objects again - when I go and watch the new Avengers movie while it's still in cinemas, I can join the conversation with my friends who just watched it too.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> John Resig seems like a great human being but that's not the main reason for jquery's dominance But if John Resig released something new that isn't jquery, and does a useful thing, it would immediately be a lot more popular than if Random Joe Programmer releases the same useful thing. Celebrity does work in the programming world as well. It's a type of distribution channel. The more eyes are on you, the more audien…
True. And in the movie industry, it's not unheard of for nobodies to become superstars (JLaw was apparently spotted by a talent scout during a NYC family vacation). But I think film has inherently bigger barriers to entry, from top to bottom. At the blockbuster level, which is where some disruptive action would have to happen before the mass media starts declaring the disruption of film, I don't see any films while s…
Blumhouse[1] is interesting. Lots of small productions with incredible ROIs and no ambitions to make bigger films.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#39The article's Part 1 refers to an old HN thread and buried in there is a good comment from anactofgod about "disrupting Hollywood": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491584 His analysis has similar to themes to the misunderstanding of "gatekeepers" like Netflix / Amazon Video / HBO and why they exist. Gatekeepers are an emergent property of artists not having money to self-finance their projects -- and -- also no…
> Gatekeepers are an emergent property of artists ... not wanting to mess around with tasks that are unrelated to creativity such as managing a web server farm to distribute their videos to their fans. This exact same argument can also be made wrt Musicians. Justin Bieber has no interest in managing a web server farm to distribute his music to fans. And yet, I'm able to go online and purchase specific Justin Bieber s…
> songs/albums that I'm interested in, without having to pay monthly fees to some Netflix-type aggregator.
Many music lovers subscribe to Spotify which has 30+ million tracks to choose from. However, it doesn't have the Taylor Swift albums because she pulled them. If those customers want to hear Taylor Swift, they have to buy them from Apple Itunes or Amazon Music.
T Swift made a voluntary choice to net her the best paying deal which means digital music customers have to pay for more than one service. Add up thousands of different musicians each looking after their self-interests for the best deal and it ends up creating several intermediaries.
> Customers who want to watch Utopia can pay money just to watch Utopia, without having to sign up for HBO.
It's not about being a monthly subscriber or an on-demand occasional payer -- it's about the mystery of HBO even existing as an intermediary that often puzzles techies.
Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. And in the movie industry, it's not unheard of for nobodies to become superstars (JLaw was apparently spotted by a talent scout during a NYC family vacation). But I think film has inherently bigger barriers to entry, from top to bottom. At the blockbuster level, which is where some disruptive action would have to happen before the mass media starts declaring the disruption of film, I don't see any films while s…
Here's a counter example: Casey Neistat. He might not be a blockbuster movie superstar, but he does have the most subscribed YouTube channel (5mio subs) and he won GQ man of the year. For doing 10min vlogs.
He kind of moved from the inside to the outside. Before he was on youtube he was shooting movies and had his HBO series. Even now he's still shooting commercials and appearing in them. Youtube brought him a lot of recognition but he wasn't doing too bad before it either.