Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#2It is so very true that financing is the real issue here.
http://rootstrikers.org/
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#3What 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 the way that YC suggested in it's call for action. I think most of us (unfortunately) are still going to want to watch movies like Transformers 3 at a $200 million budget than a $1million dollar indie flick.
So, once we've recognized that uprooting involves figuring out how to finance movie production instead of shifting the realm of entertainment (at least, for our generation, perhaps future generations will just want to watch WOW and starcraft online), then we're getting somewhere.
Unfortunately, figuring out a way to finance a film that costs tens or hundreds of millions to produce is a pretty tricky endeavor.
Still, it will be pretty awesome when Brad Pitt signs onto his first crowd-sourced flick =)
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#4It is so very true that financing is the real issue here. http://rootstrikers.org/
Definitely. Either fix financing or join in. The reason why Hollywood is so powerful is because they actually donate to campaigns and have lobbyists.
That seems far more productive than trying to destroy an industry because you're tired of their political power.
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#5Or how about a way to fix the congress and the election process? A startup to provide information on the promises kept/broken, campaign financing, how much someone is influenced by lobbyists etc, so that only people who can be trusted get to vote on these issues. I think having politicians who can be trusted, who are informed, is more important. The recent blackouts swayed so many of them, but we can't do this every time. Some dashboard kind of thing, to let them know what their constituents want would be very useful for them, since I'm afraid they dont read opinion polls...
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#6What 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…
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.
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#7It is so very true that financing is the real issue here. http://rootstrikers.org/
Definitely. Either fix financing or join in. The reason why Hollywood is so powerful is because they actually donate to campaigns and have lobbyists. That seems far more productive than trying to destroy an industry because you're tired of their political power.
It's important to remember you can do both at the same time. Work hard towards financial reform, but in the mean time flex your financial muscles to get there otherwise you will be defenseless and the reform you seek will never happen.
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#8What 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…
You have to ponder the inefficiencies of an ecosystem that supports a $200 million movie.
I'm reminded of Firefly. Such a great show, with lots of loyal fans. I guess it just wasn't a big enough fan base for Fox. I thought at the time that the producers should go independent and distribute straight to the consumer. Maybe that was too risky in 2002. I don't think it would be today.
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#9What 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…
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.
Re: Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood
#10What 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…
You have to ponder the inefficiencies of an ecosystem that supports a $200 million movie. I'm reminded of Firefly. Such a great show, with lots of loyal fans. I guess it just wasn't a big enough fan base for Fox. I thought at the time that the producers should go independent and distribute straight to the consumer. Maybe that was too risky in 2002. I don't think it would be today.
Not risky, it's just that back in 2002 there were less people watching videos online, many people still had dialup.