Live data from Hacker News

Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

ycombinator.com

681–690 of 697 posts

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#681
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Please don't preface your comment with a statement about people downmoding you. All that does is make me think, "well, the following opinion will probably be poorly thought out flamebait". It's also against the site guidelines. 2) There's a large gap between funding a company which sells something to a company which has a political point of view you disagree with, and actively sponsoring bad legislation. In fact,…

Not to rehash the entire Cloudant thread again, but if you honestly think Monsanto's way of doing things is just a "different political point of view" then you're disturbingly out of touch with reality. And as I said in another comment: "..it does sound hypocritical (not sure how many times I can use that word) when you're supposedly fighting for "civil liberties and the world economy" when you have a financial inter…

So anyone who owns a whole-market stock index is prohibited from making political comment of any kind, because they "have a financial interest in a company benefiting from the likes of Monsanto"?

Think about what you're saying. No one has defended Monsanto, because the point is that whether Monsanto is good or bad is completely irrelevant to point being made about intellectual property rights.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#682
post #644
post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post nails it. You're talking about disrupting two things, neither of which are entertainment: distribution of finished goods (external), and the system within that's been in place since the fall of the studio system in the '60s (internal). Neither of these things have that much to do with entertainment. Technology has made being a filmmaker far, far cheaper than it used to be even in the heyday of indie film in…

I have two general ideas. Steal them. I don't have time to implement. 1) Find innovative ways to reduce production costs. Production is expensive. Unimaginably so. This can be things like: a) Redesign physical set equipment. Ex: Set lights are expensive; a single light can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Design a new light that takes advantage of modern LEDs or something, or that can be deconstructed to serve mult…

I can cut 40% of a film's budget just going outside of the studio system. Plus more with technology you reference.

Studios want the films to appear to lose money so they can keep all the profit. They control distribution and inflate production costs >35%, move money from one pocket to another etc all to limit the net profit participation of equity holders.

My full comment explaining it- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3498112

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oddly enough, soccer isn't on a level playing field worldwide. I dont see why you would think anything should naturally be on a "level playing field worldwide." Obviously soccer is not since there are certain places where there are huge cash flow in and out and naturally that's where the talents gravitates towards. Both because of massive contracts, prestige, sponsorship, and because of much better training systems…

You've never heard of 'soccer is the great equalizer' as a phrase? And drafts are actually very tightly regulated. It's essentially the only entry point in both leagues. Not so with soccer.

'soccer is the great equalizer' might apply when you have kids playing. But at a pro level, I'm sure you can agree it's clearly not the case.

You misread my last sentence there. I should have made it more clear. My point is soccer is NOT regulated, unlike NBA/NFL which is regulated.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#684
post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For God's sakes if you're going to use a phrase at least know what it means. Ad Hominem means "an argument appealing to emotion" or "attacking an opponents motives rather than the content of their points". I did neither of those things. Ironically you did both of those things in this comment. But for the record I did not, in any way, mean to suggest that natep was lesser in any way. But I do think there's an arroganc…

My dictionary says, "attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain". Your first line to pg: You’re an ass. I would say that's an attack on his character. You continue: My point is you're acting out of hate. Seems to me like an attack on his motives. Then, you attack olozano instead of his points: For God's sakes if you're going to use a phrase at least know what it mean…

Just to be pedantic:

Calling someone an ass is not itself an ad-hominem argument -- unless he was being literal, as in "pg is a donkey; as we all know, donkeys are dumb, so pg's arguments are dumb".

In this context, the name-calling was a simple insult, and provides more information about the name-caller than the name-callee.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so some ruminations: To create a film/television show you are generally going to need these things: Script Time Reliably Available Crew No matter what you do, you will always need money to accommodate these three needs to produce a project in any kind of time frame that could allow such productions to ever turn a profit and allow you to keep making films. Even if everything is going to be CG and you don't need…

I totally get why this rfs was posted. SOPA is pretty egregious, and the YCombinator folks went beyond complaining and decided to do something about it. There's nothing more positive than funding startups to create the better world you envision. I certainly appreciate that they didn't gloss over the fact that SOPA's potential damage to civil liberties and the world economy was what raised their awareness of the viabi…

Well said, crewtide. There's a positive paradigm shift taking place, and you seem to be facilitating it.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#686
post #491
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you guys consider video games? I think that's already a viable alternative form of entertainment. I would argue video games already killed Hollywood, they just never pulled the sword out. $50 for 100+ hours of content vs $10 for roughly 2 hours? No contest.

Does anyone have figures for pokemon red / green (during the first few years of release) vs the whole of hollywood? But I suspect that game production has been Hollywoodised; you have big publishers and big studios and whole teams of people. It's getting better with the rise of indie gaming, but that's still a tiny fraction of the market.

Do Angry Birds and Cut The Rope and Plants Vs Zombies count as "Indie" games?

I don't think that fraction is all that tiny any more.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#687
post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two general ideas. Steal them. I don't have time to implement. 1) Find innovative ways to reduce production costs. Production is expensive. Unimaginably so. This can be things like: a) Redesign physical set equipment. Ex: Set lights are expensive; a single light can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Design a new light that takes advantage of modern LEDs or something, or that can be deconstructed to serve mult…

On the set lights/LED issue - designing a new light that uses LEDs would probably INCREASE the cost, not decrease it, since LED lights are currently more expensive to produce than the alternatives. That said, if instead you had a company that provided the rental of these lights at a lower cost that normally paid to purchase them outright, perhaps you could offer lower cost lighting with modern, less-breakable technol…

I interpreted his LED idea to mean that a lighting system could use multiple types of LEDs, providing video data in specific frequency bands. Software filtering could be used to isolate these, then recombine them in different proportions to get the right 'feel' in color.

If different types of LEDs were positioned far enough apart, you could possibly achieve different lighting angles from one scene-shot. Compare this with shooting a scene multiple times while having the crew reposition lighting. Such a system would indeed be more costly, but could reduce human repetition.

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#688
I haven't read all 655 (current) comments so correct me if I've missed something. It seems like there are two threads: 1) "how do we reinvent the screen entertainment and distribution business" and 2) "how do we make something that currently exists more popular".

I read the RFS differently. Semantics aside, it seems like the point is to find something better to do with ourselves. It's not to streamline Hollywood, or redistribute the wealth in Hollywood. And it's not to figure out how to make current gaming technology or social networks more popular.

I think a key question to ask is, what did we do for fun 300 years ago? What did we do for fun 700 years ago? How about 5,000? If there was no Hollywood, what would we do for fun 20 years from now? Don't assume the internet or video games will play a part, even though they may. Don't box yourself into that corner yet. Don't assume it means replacing movies with more movies.

Here are just some examples from the sports world that take us out of our element and, for many fans, create mania: FIFA World Cup. The Tour de France. The Superbowl. The Indy 500. Formula One. The Kentucky Derby. Dakar Rally. Cricket World Cup. Wimbledon. French Open. The Masters Tournament. The PGA Championship.

And please don't look at it from the ticketing perspective. I know that sports ticketing is as much of a scam as Hollywood. The point is, how would you create something that excites that mania in people?

Don't limit yourself to something YC would fund, either. Perhaps the internet startup will be dead in 20 years. Think about it.

* Use semiconductor technology to create real-life quidditch. * Invent hover shoes and create a sport around it. * Invent the successor to the book (the entertainment/information wise, not medium wise) * Invent the successor to the skateboard * Be the next Tim Berners-Lee and invent whatever comes after the web * Invent a way to make friends with every person on the planet * Invent a near-instantaneous means of artistic self-expression that doesn't involve more than $50 up front cost and doesn't require a laptop, tablet, or smartphone * Invent whatever comes after NASCAR * "Kill (your pet peeve)" * Invent a game that involves moving your money away from investment banks * Invent a team sport that a person in any physical condition could excel at and potentially become a highly recruited, highly paid, international star. * Invent a game that kills internet piracy AND Hollywood. * Create a movie that creates a game that creates a movie. * Write a bestselling novel that is optioned by Hollywood and that, by the very creation and production of the film, signals the end of Hollywood, such that Hollywood has no choice but to eat itself. * Create a race of robots whose mission is to kill Hollywood. * Convince everyone in Hollywood that they never wanted to be in the movie business: they've always wanted to be lumberjacks.

Or none of those. But just, let's get away from the meme of "Hey, now we're going to do Hollywood internet startup style."

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there is a solution in making the financial situation about a creator more transparent. Then I would pay if their minimum is being threatened; or only consume if they are wealthy enough.

Exactly my thoughts... Everyone still loves series and movies!!! A new proposed entertainment would go parallel and not kill hollywood... There has to be a proper, cheap/free "itunes for series and movies". NOW! Who's up for it? :) roberto.cr

Like this? http://www.getmiro.com/

Re: Request for Startups: Kill Hollywood.

#690

It's an interesting proposition to kill Hollywood, but I don't exactly think it's going to be killed so easily, or that it's anywhere remotely resembling close to being "dead". Just examining the profit margins from this year alone paints a picture of a vibrant and healthy industry and overall employment in the industry is actually doing quite well considering the state of the economy. Although, full disclosure, I do…

You say that conflict is artificially generated by lawyers and that the war that it starts is in fact unnecessarily, but I disagree. Yes, we may blame lawyers for the most of the current situation, but this is not the only reason that is causing it, nor it will in the future. I see two main reasons.

First, it is the "creative distruction" that comes into equation. Hollywood is big, things change to much around and... I am sorry. It's not pretty sight, but like a lot of other legends of the "good old days", Hollywood ought to understand it's time and place ...in the history! You see, it's not only the technology that is changing (which also happened before, and with some hops and trepidation the classic media industry managed to cope with), but an entire paradigm around it. People are not satisfied with the old ways anymore, and the old ways is what I'm afraid that Hollywood can't and won't get over.

Second, it's a power game. When you get so much money to afford paying millions per year to lobbyists, to afford to change the rules of the entire game in your advantage, well... What we see is not coincidence. It's what was expected to happen. It's what happens in other industries also - just rise you head and look around. When you have power, you use it. You must be a fool not to use it. Even if you had some altruism somewhere inside, power corrupts people and when you are so disconnected like you described, it's just a matter of time till you forget things that would otherwise matter. So, when it comes to make judgments and take decisions, honestly - what is there left for you to consider?

Post reply on HN