Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#41

Post by ajb »

molmalo wrote: post #37
ajb wrote: post #24

I think what we need to work on is improving the political clout of engineers, not destroying hollywood. We've won this one (I hope) but it took rather extreme measures. Blacking out wikipedia isn't something which can be done every time congress threatens to do something stupid. It's a bit like going on strike - a negative act which can turn people against us if overused. We need mechanisms which can influence polit…

The reason this worked out right (still crossing fingers) in my opinion, was because much of the tech community were on the same side in this one. But there are other occasions where this would have been a mess. So, the message would not have been clear. The congress and media would have thought "some people say yes, some people say no... nothing new".

No, I think congress and the media don't normally think about the tech community's opinion at all.

[editted to add] You are right that division makes the message harder to put across. But it's not as simple as that. Take software patents: some people think software patents should be banned altogether, some people think they should be limited to five years, some people think 'obvious' patents are the problem. But most people think that the system is broken. As engineers, our automatic response is to start figuring out what the solution would look like. But the roadblock is not a lack of a solution, but lack of political influence. We can't agree on a solution to the software patent problem, because we won't find out which one works until we get to try one of them out. And the roadblock to doing that is lack of political influence.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#42

Post by parka »

inkaudio wrote: post #9
parka wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not be necessary to compete as directly as that. Filesharing sites compete against Hollywood in a different way (even though it's illegal) and they manage to grab their attention. What we need is something to give us the same amount of leverage.

You missed the point. File sharing sites don't create content, they exploit Hollywood's archaic and stubborn method of distributing content.

What you're saying is common knowledge.

What I'm trying to say is: Don't compete directly.

Apple didn't compete directly with the music/tv/movie industries but yet they too manage to have a huge leverage over them. And they managed that legally.

There will be a certain metric that matters in competition. We just need to know what that metric is.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#43

Post by pentae »

Am I the only one who believes that this notion of 'piracy stealing jobs' is simply a catalyst for Rupert Murdoch and his billionaire friends who collectively own this industry to personally control the Internet? This is absolutely a power struggle. They want to control our information, like they always have--look at Fox news.

As more and more people switch to online sources of entertainment, their industry is simply being diluted by Youtube's, Hulu's, Reddit, HackerNews and the Apple App Store.

So in their dying breaths, they are spending $100 million a year trying to take control of the very industry that is diluting their power over our information and their control of our minds. It sounds very George Orwellian, but I mean really.. have you seen Fox news? It's a parody of itself.

Rupert Murdoch tried his best to have a go at the online industry with Myspace and we all know how well that turned out for him, so I guess the self-professed billionaire tyrant figures if he can't beat them, why not just try and own them?

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#44

Post by waterlesscloud »

nextparadigms wrote: post #26
ajhit406 wrote: post #3

What hollywood has going for it, is a track-record of executing on the operations behind producing movies that make money. People who invest in movies invest for the same reasons all of us invest in anything-- to make money. Hollywood is a business, albeit one rooted in entertainment, but let's face it-- many artists are also just in it for the money. I don't think our world view of "entertainment" is going to shift…

Think in a disruptive way. Actors don't have to be paid $10 million. Special effects don't have to cost tens of millions. Equipment doesn't have to cost millions either. Make the movies the way you would build a lean start-up. And bank on innovation in the movies and scripts, rather than recycling popular content and make it very flashy. But as I mentioned in another comment, I think to kill Hollywood you need incuba…

What you describe is largely how things work right now.

Independent production companies, which represent the origin of most non-blockbuster films, work just like incubators now.

They have a development budget which they use to find and develop scripts in what might as well be an early seed round. They then shop this developed project around to financing sources, of which there are a great number that are not tied to studios. These financing sources may require additional development or even "pivoting" of the project.

Once financing is secured and the people providing the funding are happy, production can proceed. At this point, you're still wholly outside the studio system. You can completely finish your film outside the studios. This happens now, all the time, and it happens not just with Sundance style films, but with mainstream films with pretty substantial budgets.

Sundance, as an aside, is not just a festival, but also a market for these independent productions. Festivals such as Cannes and Toronto are much the same. You'll see a number of stories over the next week about films acquired at Sundance. What this means is that distribution deals were signed for films that were produced using means independent of the studios. The distributors are often, but not always, arms of the studios.

Someone mentioned Brad Pitt. He stars in independently financed projects all the time. In fact, he himself is often the indie producer, via his company Plan B which arranges for the financing through other entities.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#45

Post by learc83 »

mooki wrote: post #39
learc83 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all true for now. But eventually you'll be able to throw some actors in front of a green screen and do everything--makeup, wardrobe, special effects in post production, with one guy. Hell, when computers can generate photo real actors, actors will just be people in mocap suits (except that we won't need mocap suits by then), and they won't even need to be attractive. Eventually one person will be able to creat…

Video games are there today -- computers and mocap rigs all the way down. Still they are approaching hollywood movies in terms of budget. Tangled and Avatar are some of the most expensive movies of all time. There are no shortcuts to that level of polish. Doesn't matter how advanced your rendering is, you still need an army of 3D artists. Makeup isn't going to be much cheaper just because you do it in Maya.

Avatar and Tangled were both pioneers of new technology of course they were expensive, but there are amateur fan effects better than those from multi-million dollar movies and TV shows 15-20 years ago. And the games of 10-15 years ago can be made a couple of people on a shoestring budget. I expect that trend to continue.

>Makeup isn't going to be much cheaper just because you do it in Maya.

They won't use Maya. Technology progresses, and tools become easier to use. At some point in the future you'll be able to select an actor, click makeup and adjust some sliders.

>you still need an army of 3D artists

For original creations you do need artists (the tools will continue to improve and make each artist more efficient), but there will come a time when all you'll need to do is take a few photos of tree, or a building to make an ultra high quality 3d model of it.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#46

Post by learc83 »

weekendlogic wrote: post #40
learc83 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all true for now. But eventually you'll be able to throw some actors in front of a green screen and do everything--makeup, wardrobe, special effects in post production, with one guy. Hell, when computers can generate photo real actors, actors will just be people in mocap suits (except that we won't need mocap suits by then), and they won't even need to be attractive. Eventually one person will be able to creat…

Does voice acting not require talent?

It does, but an actor can come in for a week and bang out an entire script if he's just voice acting.

Also there are computer generated singing voices good enough to fool Japanese audiences.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#47

Post by waterlesscloud »

learc83 wrote: post #20
inkaudio wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have tech, cost of tech is going down. But you still need talent to operate the tech, and the best talent are not cheap. The workers have unions and the ones that are not part of union do this full time and want to support at the very least a middle class lifestyle. For a hollywood movie, you don't want to use just any crew. You want the best film crew, the best makeup, wardrobe, casting, post & pre production. Al…

That's all true for now. But eventually you'll be able to throw some actors in front of a green screen and do everything--makeup, wardrobe, special effects in post production, with one guy. Hell, when computers can generate photo real actors, actors will just be people in mocap suits (except that we won't need mocap suits by then), and they won't even need to be attractive. Eventually one person will be able to creat…

One guy will never have the talent to do it all at a top level. Even if there's incredible automation, there will still be choices to be made. The choices are of a diverse enough nature that specialization will still trump a jack of all trades.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#48

Post by learc83 »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #47
learc83 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all true for now. But eventually you'll be able to throw some actors in front of a green screen and do everything--makeup, wardrobe, special effects in post production, with one guy. Hell, when computers can generate photo real actors, actors will just be people in mocap suits (except that we won't need mocap suits by then), and they won't even need to be attractive. Eventually one person will be able to creat…

One guy will never have the talent to do it all at a top level. Even if there's incredible automation, there will still be choices to be made. The choices are of a diverse enough nature that specialization will still trump a jack of all trades.

I'm sure that most of the time it will require a small team instead of one guy.

But, I think you overestimate the quality of a Hollywood blockbuster.

Imagine if you put Steven Spielburg in front of a hypothetical movie machine. A machine that could automate everything down to the actors and voices, so all the director had to do was write the script, place everything, and direct all the action (yes I realize something like this is years away). I'd bet that he could produce a movie at least as good as the average summer blockbuster.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#49

Post by ck2 »

It's ironic Hollywood itself WAS a group of rogue startups, just over 100 years ago.

But here's the thing - you can probably make a dent but "killing it" ?

Wouldn't that be like making professional sports obsolete?

There is just too much money and organization and you are never going to get all the fans to try something else instead and stay with it.

Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

#50

Post by andrewcooke »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #31

In the risk of being down voted to hell, this whole thing seems completely misguided to me. I love the product that hollywood produces. I love great movies and great TV. I frankly think "The Wire" is the best example of story telling I know of. I can think of nothing that silicon valley has produced that even comes close. If Zynga disappeared tomorrow, I could care less, and Hollywood and Zynga are both selling enter…

you're missing the point completely. any replacement has to succeed because it's better than hollywood. something even more awesome will come along and replace it.

the argument is not "lets all share files until they go bankrupt"; it's "there is change afoot; whoever can make the awesomest, most loved art / entertainment of the next wave will win big".

you're not a special flower. the stuff you like is mass market. you will like even more whatever comes next - if you didn't, then it wouldn't be the next big thing. the argument is self-fulfilling; yc simply wants to be the one that makes money on it. don't be mislead by the macho "killing" rhetoric.

Post reply on HN