Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterlesscloud | Hacker News Reader

Distribution is a solved problem. It's open. Even theatrical is more open than it was 5 years ago. NATO wants competitors to Hollywood. In fact, NATO members are beginning to openly compete with Hollywood (see Open Road Films, a joint venture between AMC and Regal).

Production is a solved problem. The tools have been democratized.

Even financing is open these days. There's a huge range of film financing sources, and as sites like Kickstarter grow, crowdfunding will become more and more viable.

What is locked up is marketing. Hollywood is just better at it than their competitors. It's what the studios do that no one else seems to be able to do.

To some extent this is an issue of discovery. You can make a film, you can get it in front of people, but how do you get them to know it exists? To me, this is the most productive area to focus on.

View on HN

This is true, but you have to understand that there is a phenomenal amount of talent locked up in Hollywood. I'm not necessarily talking about directors or actors, but camera men, DPs, best boys, set dressers...the list goes on and on. These people have skills that require many, many years of on-site training.

(Don't forget about producers, line producers, production managers, site scouts, and all of the logistics people who find a way to make a huge movie happen)

Making a small, Blair Witch Project/Little Miss Sunshine/indie whatever doesn't require an army of people with these skills. You can get away with some rough edges and end up looking good.

But making the next Avatar? That's not a problem that will be solved solely with technology. You have to find some way to extract these guys from an industry that already pays them pretty well.

Question: Mega-productions like avatar rely mostly on special effects than storytelling. Are people still impressed by special effects and stunts? Aren't video games becoming more impressive to look at than movies? As a result, are these technical skills becoming less important?

A movie has something like 3x3 times the resolution of a video game.

Which is why the state of the art in Machinima is only a couple of years behind the state of the art in cinematic CGI.

(What you're pointing to is a problem that can be solved by adding cpu cores. Because movies aren't shown in real time during rendering. Yet.)

Don't forget: Video Games face the same problems that Hollywood does. And games like Skyrim are starting to have pretty massive development budgets.

"special effects" is kind of a misnomer when what you are really talking about is mostly the creation of a richly detailed virtual world - it's less about clever tricks and more about art, animation, etc.

admittedly, this sort of thing (immersing you in a virtual world) is indeed something video games have already proven themselves rather good at (unlike storytelling imo)

None of these people are locked into anything.

They're all essentially freelance workers, moving from one startup to the next. Each project is its own world, and doesn't lock anyone into anything. Well, with the exception of franchises locking in some actors.

I've known both above the line and below the line people to move from the biggest blockbusters to projects with a very-low-five-figure budget and back again. They like working on the gritty no-budget projects where they can exercise a lot more creative freedom. Heck, I've known top crew to show up and work for literally nothing more than a sandwich.

And if you showed up with $100 million tomorrow, they all could and would work on your huge blockbuster. That's pretty much how the system works now. You just need the money if the blockbuster is your goal.

The important thing here is that none of them are locked into anything. The talent is free to go where it will. There's union rules for minimums and such, and if you played long term at something you'd have to comply, but that's not an onerous burden.

I feel like you guys are right on the edge of a solid idea. If the Hollywood advantage is not the technical tools, or the raw funding capability, then it's the rich understanding of the talent pool that can properly wield those things.

They are a highly advanced network of HR organizations.

Does IMDBPro have listings for crew?

You don't even need to play by union rules. The unions are broken in Vancouver, Toronto, the Czech Republic and other non-Hollywood film centers. You get the exact same people showing up to work on the latest TCF or GEP productions as you do the non-union indies in these places. The same is possibly true of Hollywood and New York, but it's been years since I've worked in either of those places.

If Open Source software provides any clues, marketing is indeed a problem.

Consider 'Blair Witch Project' which cost US$ 35.000 to make, was sold for US$ 1.1 Mil., and then the company spend US$ 20-25 Mil. for marketing. And this was an awesome campaign.

"Open Water" cost US$ 500.000, was bought for US$ 2.5 Mil, and the company spend additional US$ 8 Mil. on distribution and advertising.

Box Office revenue is more closely correlated to advertising dollars spend than production dollars spend, accorindg to the presentation here: http://abovethelineproducer.blogspot.com/2011/12/hollywood-p...

I wonder how much of that "marketing expense" went to other subsidiaries of the parent corporations but was deducted from the net profits that went to the actual creative people.

Agreed. Although discovery isn't just an issue in the film industry; I think it's going to happen everywhere as small scale producers attain the ability to produce great content/products/whatever and the market becomes more flooded with choices than ever before.

Here's a article that goes into this: http://bindle.me/blog/index.php/170/chances-of-discovery-one...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com