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

You have to beat the man to be the man

charliecurran.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#41

Post by guard-of-terra »

KaiserPro wrote: post #37
betterunix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Once you've spent three years of your life doing that, you then need to get your movie seen. That means persuading people who think you are worse than dogshit to watch a movie that they really couldn't care about, much less actually pay you for." Which is exactly why Hollywood is due for replacement. When you can't say, "People want to see this movie because it is a good movie ," or, "People want to see this movie b…

Ahh, but therein lies the rub. The movie-making business is fine, its the disties that are the problem. The problem is this, a good movie is subjective. Go to your local movie festival, 90% of the entries will be clichéd lumbering trite. 7% will be good by comparison, but you wouldn't recommend them to your friends, much less bet money on them. This leaves 3% that are quality. Of that 3% 20% might be profitable. Peop…

If there is a need for a gate keepers, why do they pass bad movies? And most movies on the screen are mediocre at best. And they also lose money.

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#42

Post by lists »

I don't think the author is responding to Graham appropriately. Graham's argument is against the power structure of Big Media, not the enduring value of narrative. Hence Graham's post beginning by pointing to the industries' push for SOPA signaling that they're running out of ideas, not on how to entertain people, but to constrict people to being entertained on Big Media's terms. This has a negative effect on quality of narrative, as many have noted.

I think the nature of the confusion is that Graham hints at his personal preferences on how people should spend time ("It would be great if what people did instead of watching shows was exercise more and spend more time with their friends and families" [0]) right besides endorsements for products that shift demand for screen narratives ("new media", "things... that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention" [0]).

But even with that said, Graham's view is ultimately inclusive of Curran's. Graham:

>"There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows..." [0]

Curran:

>"The internet has paved the way once again for a vertically integrated system of production and distribution, and we know that today’s youth is hungry for stories that matter to them. Whomever is the first to put that together will win." [1]

Screen narrative was never in question.

Edit: Forgot to add links

[0]: http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html

[1]: http://charliecurran.com/you-have-to-beat-the-man-to-be-the-...

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#43

Post by r00fus »

KaiserPro wrote: post #39
greenyoda wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Killing Hollywood doesn't necessarily mean beating them at their own game. Killing Hollywood means that some competitor (or perhaps several competitors) will take away enough share of the entertainment market to make Hollywood's business collapse. For example, TV shows have taken a large chunk of business away from the motion picture industry since TV was invented, but they're not feature films. A similar ex…

http://screenville.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/attendance-history... cinema attendance has been growing for a while. Not even netflix is killing hollywood at the moment.

And Microsoft's revenues and profits have been growing in the past decade as well... I don't think anyone can reasonably conclude they're nearly as relevant as they used to be.

Large institutions don't get "killed", they slowly become irrelevant (and the perhaps die), or change to suit the new market in a much diminished role.

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#44

Post by dylandrop »

betterunix wrote: post #32

"At the very heart of the film industry’s longevity is the art of narrative storytelling which has been refined continuously" The overwhelming majority of Hollywood movies are terrible, shallow stories with formulaic development that are designed to grab money from specific demographics. There is hardly anything artistic left. It may be what people want, but let's not pretend that great works of art are what keep Hol…

People always enjoy escapes from reality. This is what makes Hollywood so successful. And while artistic movies might not be the biggest money makers, there are still plenty of respectable titles that earn a large amount of money and are tasteful/fascinating to watch.

In regards to your second point, I think you didn't read the full article. The point is that Hollywood historically HAS been a VERY successful industry at rebounding, most specifically in the era of the TV (which is probably most applicable here).

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#45

Post by guard-of-terra »

sliverstorm wrote: post #19
guard-of-terra wrote: post #9

"the basic formula of pairing known stars with compelling stories has not and will not change" Didn't it change with the advent of the modern TV Shows? How big were Schwimmer, Laurie or Cranston as stars before their show made a hit? Laurie was locally known but not that much. With modern show, you have select good actors for their role, not stars from an universal pool, and that's what changed. And I fail to name te…

What applies to TV shows doesn't necessarily apply to movies. The thing TV has going for it? A pilot is twenty minutes long, instead of a hundred and sixty. To me, as far as actor career trajectory, TV seems to be like a minor league that some actors use to help launch their overall career.

We no longer have to care about actor career. We care about whether the show is good as a whole.

Movies are subpar compared to TV shows with a tiny number of exceptions.

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#46

Post by dylandrop »

lisper wrote: post #6

When I clicked on this link the anchor text was "Why Silicon Valley will never beat Hollywood" (or something like that). When I came back, it had changed to "You have to beat the man to be the man," which is the title of the piece. But IMHO the original title (presumably the one written by the submitter) was much better and more descriptive. I don't think I would have clicked on this link with the current title. Ther…

"Why Silicon Valley will never beat Hollywood" inaccurately summarized the piece (see the bottom of the article, where the author says the industry could go either way).

Also, IMO, having inflammatory titles beginning with "Why..." is way too common on HN and is way more of an annoyance than headline-rewriting.

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#47

Post by lisper »

dylandrop wrote: post #46
lisper wrote: post #6

When I clicked on this link the anchor text was "Why Silicon Valley will never beat Hollywood" (or something like that). When I came back, it had changed to "You have to beat the man to be the man," which is the title of the piece. But IMHO the original title (presumably the one written by the submitter) was much better and more descriptive. I don't think I would have clicked on this link with the current title. Ther…

"Why Silicon Valley will never beat Hollywood" inaccurately summarized the piece (see the bottom of the article, where the author says the industry could go either way). Also, IMO, having inflammatory titles beginning with "Why..." is way too common on HN and is way more of an annoyance than headline-rewriting.

So change it to "Why Silicon Valley may have a hard time beating Hollywood" or something like that if you really want to be that anal about accurate summarization. But the current title tells me absolutely nothing about what the article is actually about.

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#48

Post by jmduke »

betterunix wrote: post #32

"At the very heart of the film industry’s longevity is the art of narrative storytelling which has been refined continuously" The overwhelming majority of Hollywood movies are terrible, shallow stories with formulaic development that are designed to grab money from specific demographics. There is hardly anything artistic left. It may be what people want, but let's not pretend that great works of art are what keep Hol…

The overwhelming majority of Hollywood movies are terrible, shallow stories with formulaic development that are designed to grab money from specific demographics. There is hardly anything artistic left.

This argument is not necessarily in conflict with what you quoted.

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#49

Post by araes »

KaiserPro wrote: post #37
betterunix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Once you've spent three years of your life doing that, you then need to get your movie seen. That means persuading people who think you are worse than dogshit to watch a movie that they really couldn't care about, much less actually pay you for." Which is exactly why Hollywood is due for replacement. When you can't say, "People want to see this movie because it is a good movie ," or, "People want to see this movie b…

Ahh, but therein lies the rub. The movie-making business is fine, its the disties that are the problem. The problem is this, a good movie is subjective. Go to your local movie festival, 90% of the entries will be clichéd lumbering trite. 7% will be good by comparison, but you wouldn't recommend them to your friends, much less bet money on them. This leaves 3% that are quality. Of that 3% 20% might be profitable. Peop…

Jumping off of the HBO love, it seems they are often an example for what works in this new era, and I don't disagree that they've got a good strategy. However, another that seems often discounted, but which has proven extremely resilient is the path of Disney.

As TFA noted, where many studios are often prey to the talent agencies, Disney has done a remarkably good job of investing in and building their own roster of exclusive star power (not only actors [Gomez, Cyrus, Swift, Jonas, the list goes on and on and on http://www.imdb.com/list/20w9iZGsCI0/ ], but writers and directors too). This has allowed them to develop a vast array of content for relatively low cost as they lock in talent early and then build them over time through cross exposure in a variety of mediums and cameos.

In addition, this is good for the talent itself. There's a lot of nature to who becomes a star, but there's also a hefty dose of nurture. Disney grabs these folks when they're nothing and then helps them to get the often quoted 10k hrs to become "masters" of their craft. At any one time, Disney has probably 50-100 (I may be low-balling this) exclusive actors across a range of ages, that live within the ecosystem of Disney channel, Internet vids, Disney movies, park attractions, animated voice work, Disney concerts, and subsidiary tv.

Furthermore, they're constantly working to buy or build compelling new stories for these actors to exist in and connect with their audience. What were Marvel, Lucasfilm, even Pixar, if not purchases of compelling story properties? Marvel alone has given them so much to work with that they'll be cranking them out for years.

Folks like Netflix or aspiring competitors would be wise to look at their model. It gives you: low costs (talent early in their careers), low risk (wide pool of cheap folks gives you more chance to fail), high end pull (after 10k, people like Cyrus are talented and have draw), and lock-in exclusives (nearly every person at Disney is Only Disney). As I think about it, there's actually a lot of parallels between this and the Nintendo strategy as well - another company that's been around Forever. You just refuse to play the same game everyone else is pushing for. Movies may be 65 billion, but Disney has become 10 billion all by itself.

Re: You have to beat the man to be the man

#50

Post by hayesdaniel »

This article seems to ignore one of the biggest, most basic issues facing hollywood right now - the demise of innovation in the VFX industry. Studios have carefully orchestrated an incredibly hostile working environment for people creating the biggest cash-cow it has left. For profit colleges are pumping out scores of young people every year with just enough training to get a low-paying job in whatever tax-incentive location is paying the most at any given time. Then you work 80-100+ hour weeks for a few months and are kicked back out on the street to start over in a new city (or country) at a new company, probably for even less money. It's a HUGE crisis and causing a massive exodus of mid and senior-level talent, myself included. Check out www.vfxsoldier.com or effectscorner.blogspot.com for more info.

All the while, film budgets go up, ticket prices go up, profits go up.

My point is that there IS a huge potential for disruptive influences in filmmaking, television and VOD, but it will likely come from the people that have been straddling the line between innovative technology and entertainment for longer than anyone - the VFX people. It's happening already.

Now if only I could find some time to work to work on that side project...

Post reply on HN