Live data from Hacker News

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

endcrawl.com

71–80 of 92 posts

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

#71

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?

A LOT more pronounced. Pre-production has to be done to a minute level and production takes A LOT of time with A LOT of people.

Let me give you a little back of the envelope type of breakdown for a feature film (not animated). Average feature length is 90 minutes. Let's say you have all the expensive gear for free (including cameras, grip, lights). Let's also say you have all the locations and sets for free. 'Natural' locations for example - those are the ones that you use locations as-is, like friend's apartment that looks nice, local coffee shop, that kind of stuff. Locations where you can't get the lights exact as you want, but at least they don't need much of, if any set dressing.

Let's also say you are writing your own script (90 minutes / ~90 pages), and you will be doing your own editing, sound design, mixing and mastering, as well as color grading and a few cheap, but semi good-looking vfx shots that you've found tutorials on how to make them from videocopilot or whatever. You can do only a few since they take a lot of time to make. Your friend of a friend will take up distribution and marketing, and your mom will pay the bills and prep food for you during the first few months while you write your script and do location scouting, script lining/breakdown/storyboard and the other stuff needed for pre-production.

Now, you have everything for free - you 'just need to shoot the movie'. What does that entail?

Most optimistic projections for a 90 minute feature-length movies are around 30 days worth of shooting. That's three minutes per day, which might sound little, but is actually a lot. Between each setup (changing camera location), you have to move/change lights, get actors ready and shoot. That takes time.

Here's an optimistic skeleton crew for something decent. On the set you will have yourself as a director, cameraman/director of photography and his assistant (at least one for focus at least, since you're shooting with prime lenses). You will also have a sound mixer and a boom guy (the one with the fishing rod). You will also have two friends who move the lights around and two that will help with grip and set (one will move dolly around, one will arrange apple boxes and help decorate the set. He's a wonderful guy, he can do all of that by himself). You will also have your assistant that will take care of notes for your editing later (a script supervisor) and she will occasionally hit the slate and help the actors with their lines. One other friend will help with make-up and her friend with hair and wardrobe that you borrowed from somewhere too. You will also need your three actors. That's all your innovative script needs. Except those two scenes where you need people sitting near-by them in the coffee shop and that scene where extras are in the public transportation bus around them,, but we won't talk about that.

That's: 1 you, 1 your assistant/scriptie, 1 DP and 1 his assistant, 1 sound guy and 1 boom guy, 2 light guys that also run around with their cars if something needs to be fetched, 2 grip guys that have keen decorating sense to double for set design, 1 make-up girl/guy and 1 hairdresser / wardrobe, 3 actors. That's 15 people.

15 people that will work for 15+ hours for 30 days straight. Of those 15 people, 8 people will need to work two weeks ahead of shoot, also long hours. They will need to prep. Actors will need to read lines, learn them, you will need to block action with them, block action on set, rehearsals, rehearsals... DP and assistant will need to design lighting around locations you've found, scriptie will prep for her notes, make-up and wardrobe will need to prep what will be look of actors.

That's 15 people for 30 days straight, 8 people for 2 weeks straight. For 15+ hour days. You will need to move them around and feed them like babies. Because empty-stomached set is not a good set. And no, you can't eat pizza for 30 days straight. Crafty table also doesn't count as a full meal, which you need if you work for 15+ hours, mostly standing and/or pushing heavy objects.

That's the skeleton indie movie. On the borderline of possible.

Now, take animation. It's kind of the same, but your friends can't help because they can't draw / 3d model, and those that can can't animate. I'm helping a friend finish his ~5 minute animation just these days. With my help and a few others (not full-time, I took few shots from him as well as other's have.), his full-time, 10+ hour days accumulate to about three and a half years. That's on a whole other level of people bottleneck. I actually started out as an animator, then layout artist, then switched to VFX TD (I programmed for a long time, still do for fun) then from there to editing, script and then direction and creative. That's where I'm at today.

edit: you'll also have squabbles after the first week or two, when people are over-worked. You'll hear something like 'Fuck you and your stupid-ass movies. I'm out. Deduct from my pay. That's right, you're not paying, buddy!' and then you will make peace, and you will end the shoot for the day. And after a month+ of emotional rollercoaster you will be alone for a couple of more months in your mother's bedroom editing the movie. While at it, you will look at the shots and then you will have thoughts along the following: 'This scene looks like shit. Look at that damn acting. I shouldn't have listened to what people were suggesting to me on the set'. And you would be right. Along with all of the stress, you will be, due to in-experience, gullible to all of the advices on the set. Everyone has them, from dolly operator to actors. And you will, in your insecurity, listen to them and depart from your vision and settle for a compromise. One that will compromise your original vision and you can't go back once you're in the editing with crappy shots. All of the advisors will be doing other stuff by then, and you will have to take those shots and put your name first on that shit pie. Not theirs, yours. Yet, you weren't calling the shots, you were compromising because you thought you can't make people listen to your vision because you didn't pay them.

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

#72
post #32
post #22

It 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.

Looked up "Hollywood accounting". Basically an accounting trick to screw people out of their cut of movie profits.

Also familiar with DRM.

Still have GP's original question. What is disrupting hollywood mean?

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

#73

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 an…

To be honest, and I can't find sources now (trust me, ha!), average idea-to-release cycle around the world for anything moderate and above budget is 7 years. Not only those few months of production. That's plenty of time to prep and release a product. There's also other thing which other industries rarely have. Longevity. Movies generate money looooooong time after their release. They live on TV stations and cables, and somewhat on rentals as well. That's, IMO, primary reason why you see distribution not disrupted. It, kind of, works. And I mean no disruption in global distribution. It works, because TV/cable stations buy rights for certain amount of time and geographic distribution. Multiply that around the globe and you have a constant steady stream, for all practical purposes, forever. If that were to be disrupted, that flow would be gone into the unknown direction. And we can't have that, right? (says the $100mil investor)

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

#74
John Waters, in my opinion, has done way more for "disruption" of the film industry than anyone else I can think of. Maybe Herschell Gordon Lewis, but John Waters was basically using the same tools but didn't have nearly the commercial slant that the H.G. Lewis movies did (since Lewis was, by trade, an advertising executive...he basically made movies on the side for fun).

You can make films, and release them to the public, without involving Hollywood (called "the film industry" in this article, which is just as incorrect as calling the 5 major record labels "the music industry", though not 100% inaccurate) right now. I don't understand where the "disruption" part comes in. As far as I can tell, it's already been disrupted...

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

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A LOT more pronounced. Pre-production has to be done to a minute level and production takes A LOT of time with A LOT of people. Let me give you a little back of the envelope type of breakdown for a feature film (not animated). Average feature length is 90 minutes. Let's say you have all the expensive gear for free (including cameras, grip, lights). Let's also say you have all the locations and sets for free. 'Natural…

As somebody who has written and produced a feature-length film for $10k, and turned out nothing close to Christopher Nolan's Following, I have to say that this comment is spot on.

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

#76
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A LOT more pronounced. Pre-production has to be done to a minute level and production takes A LOT of time with A LOT of people. Let me give you a little back of the envelope type of breakdown for a feature film (not animated). Average feature length is 90 minutes. Let's say you have all the expensive gear for free (including cameras, grip, lights). Let's also say you have all the locations and sets for free. 'Natural…

As somebody who has written and produced a feature-length film for $10k, and turned out nothing close to Christopher Nolan's Following, I have to say that this comment is spot on.

I congratulate you on going through that from start to finish. People have no idea what a mountain that is. Yet, you've climbed it. If nothing else, the height of your climb is an achievement worth congratulating.

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

#77

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…

I've long heard people talk about Spielberg's $150k+ average per shooting day, for 45-60+ days, plus second unit (and more even), plus set construction, plus actors. So, it's not far-fetched for big movies.

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

#78
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up "Hollywood accounting". Not to mention DRM too.

Looked up "Hollywood accounting". Basically an accounting trick to screw people out of their cut of movie profits. Also familiar with DRM. Still have GP's original question. What is disrupting hollywood mean?

Who do you think is responsible for these?

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

#79

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.

I agree with your last sentence but there usually is a reason a classic is a classic. Same applies to literature.

However if there is one thing I have learned is that everyone has different tastes. My wife cannot watch any film made before she was born while my golden age of film is about 1940 to 1970. I will take All About Eve, Double Indemnity, the Thin Man, and anything with Humphrey Bogart over anything released these days. That is not even getting into classic foreign films.

A key component of classic films is that they weren't able to distract special effects, or even colors for some, so plot was that much more important. I can't imagine that mumblecore will survive the test of time but I could be wrong.

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

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

To be honest, and I can't find sources now (trust me, ha!), average idea-to-release cycle around the world for anything moderate and above budget is 7 years. Not only those few months of production. That's plenty of time to prep and release a product. There's also other thing which other industries rarely have. Longevity. Movies generate money looooooong time after their release. They live on TV stations and cables,…

Yeah, you are right. It's easy to forget what happens before someone writes a $100M check, funny as that may sound.

Distribution is/was it's own mafia. Back around the turn of the century (how cool does that sound?) I was CTO of a startup in Holly-weird that, among other things, back then, aimed to be a combination of what today might be Youtube and Netflix mashed together in a strange way. The CEO had been CEO of one of the major film studios for over a decade before coming on-board the startup.

Side note: I was in awe of how easily he could raise money with what amounted to total bullshit.

We had many, many conversations over coffee about the industry and how it worked. I remember thinking that distribution was a particularly disgusting, dirty, mafia-like sounding affair. I don't know how it is now, back then this "mafia" had a lot to do with the difficulty in opening theaters up for digital distribution.

To this day I remember the surreal board meetings where I'd explain on the whiteboard that the financials for what they wanted to build simply did not make any sense (connectivity and streaming were outrageously expensive back then) and the need to pivot. Nobody listened. Total echo chamber effect due to the other high-flyers who were involved. They believed their own bullshit. Damn the numbers. Ultimately they burned through an obscene amount of money before they realized I was right.

Post reply on HN