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

Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

endcrawl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#61

Post by 6stringmerc »

Keyframe wrote: post #50

It's a multi-tiered problem with each one with its own complexities. I don't want to write a long story now, but I want to emphasise one and one thing only. If you want to disrupt film and/or tv industry then you have to disrupt people, not technology (by much). It's a people problem. It takes a lot of people in a collaborative manner to work on a product like that, with each person being skilled and expensive. You n…

Excellent summation and glad you could share your perspective. Like you point out, it genuinely takes money to create a quality product that meets expectations - you know, feels like a good film. I guess that's why it's kind of funny to watch knock-offs / direct-to-VOD like "Transmorphers" and instantly see why "Transformers" cost something like $100,000 per day during some of their more elaborate scenes (outlier I'm sure but I believe that figure / rumor).

The professionals in industries like yours make things look easy, so to speak, in that understanding behind-the-scenes effort and organization is absolutely staggering to witness first hand. I've done some minor level sound work (boom mic) but also drop in on some sets when filming around town, like Fox's cancelled "The Good Guys" and I can really appreciate the intensity and costs associated with such productions.

The internet is a lot like an open mic night, and in this regard, there are some gems to be found, but it's going to take wading through a whole lot of...ugh...

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#62

Post by euroclydon »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #42
euroclydon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why people are so thrilled to pay money to see a new movie when there are so many great movies in the past few decades For me, it's HD. Old movies look... old.

To me, it goes so much further than just something like the HD. It looks old the same way an old photograph looks old. The colors are all off: The jokes aged. The sound seems weird. The special effects - even if they were amazing at the time - were off. The movies were obviously made for a different time. Granted, there are exceptions - a few movies age well, but the vast majority do not.

Except Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Christmas Vacation, which are perfect.

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#63

Post by ghaff »

6stringmerc wrote: post #59
qznc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Oh absolutely! That's why I don't want to disparage the early works, I mean I had to begin somewhere as well. I think the 'distribution' of film has genuinely been disrupted (I recall the days on dial-up ouch) as Netflix moving from DVDs to streaming revenue indicates. The content creation though? Much bigger picture. It will take a lot of little disruptions to add up to something major, because the current model, we…

>The content creation though? Much bigger picture.

A lot of it is that, YouTube video stars notwithstanding, "we" have long become accustomed to pretty high levels of technical craft in video that takes a fair bit of effort and money to create. Some of the equipment has come down in price a lot. My DSLR, in the right hands, can produce technically stunning footage. But you need a lot of expertise and, often, things like lighting gear to turn that into professional-looking footage.

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#64

Post by ghaff »

ryuker16 wrote: post #58
ghaff wrote: post #20

Earlier 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.

Money & time spent on other forms of entertainment doesnt come out of thin air.

No, but movies are only one of a myriad of entertainment/spare time options. I do suspect that "What's on Netflix?" (or Amazon Prime) is often going to be a default and if a film isn't there, it will lose out.

I do seek out specific films for home viewing--I have a Netflix DVD subscription--but I suspect I'm increasingly in the minority.

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#65

Post by ericjang »

Keyframe wrote: post #50

It's a multi-tiered problem with each one with its own complexities. I don't want to write a long story now, but I want to emphasise one and one thing only. If you want to disrupt film and/or tv industry then you have to disrupt people, not technology (by much). It's a people problem. It takes a lot of people in a collaborative manner to work on a product like that, with each person being skilled and expensive. You n…

How much of this applies if the medium is pure CG/traditional animation?

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#66

Post by rhino369 »

whack wrote: post #36
jasode wrote: post #9

The 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…

>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.

Almost all TV is available from the same sort of places that sell you Beiber songs for a per episode price.

But even the music industry is moving away from that sort of model. Flat fee is more convenient.

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#67

Post by CyberDildonics »

ericjang wrote: post #65
Keyframe wrote: post #50

It's a multi-tiered problem with each one with its own complexities. I don't want to write a long story now, but I want to emphasise one and one thing only. If you want to disrupt film and/or tv industry then you have to disrupt people, not technology (by much). It's a people problem. It takes a lot of people in a collaborative manner to work on a product like that, with each person being skilled and expensive. You n…

How much of this applies if the medium is pure CG/traditional animation?

If anything it is more pronounced.

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#68

Post by enthdegree »

ericjang wrote: post #65
Keyframe wrote: post #50

It's a multi-tiered problem with each one with its own complexities. I don't want to write a long story now, but I want to emphasise one and one thing only. If you want to disrupt film and/or tv industry then you have to disrupt people, not technology (by much). It's a people problem. It takes a lot of people in a collaborative manner to work on a product like that, with each person being skilled and expensive. You n…

How much of this applies if the medium is pure CG/traditional animation?

The same, I imagine. For instance look at how big the Cuphead team [1] is, or the work conditions conspiracy with Sausage Party [2]

[1] http://studiomdhr.com/cuphead-team/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sausage_Party#Controversy

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#69

Post by guard-of-terra »

It was definitely disrupted. By TV shows.

Fifteen years ago, TV shows was what housewives view, and something you can throw in when no blockbusters are on the screen.

Today, movies are laughable. Characters are so unnatural. Plots are so old. FX take so much screen time. On top of that they're so awfully long while lacking enough detail and consideration. TV shows are so much superior these days it's not even funny.

Re: Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5

#70

Post by rebootthesystem »

Keyframe wrote: post #50

It's a multi-tiered problem with each one with its own complexities. I don't want to write a long story now, but I want to emphasise one and one thing only. If you want to disrupt film and/or tv industry then you have to disrupt people, not technology (by much). It's a people problem. It takes a lot of people in a collaborative manner to work on a product like that, with each person being skilled and expensive. You n…

It is also an environment unlike most others. One where investors make hundred million dollar decisions to develop a product in just a few months. A product that could flop within a week of being released.

How many products out there, say hardware products, have that kind of a dynamic. Imagine someone investing a hundred million dollars on an idea for a gadget based on nothing more than a description of the gadget and, maybe, the people who will be involved in the execution of the project.

OK, maybe that scenario had happened a few times. Well, in the movie industry this happens multiple times per year. If you lower the budget from the hundred million mark it probably happens dozens of times a year. I don't think there's a parallel for that almost anywhere.

When all the smoke and bullshit clears out[0] it isn't about the technology but rather about a product consumers will want to buy.

[0] Usurping part of a famous line by legendary race car builder Smokey Yunick. I went something like this: "When all the smoke and bullshit clears out you have to get out to the track and race".

Post reply on HN