Killing Hollywood Will Require Learning Hollywood’s Game
pandodaily.com
pandodaily.com
1. The Hollywood Business Model
The Hollywood business model is based on 2 things:
1. Control of distribution
2. Financing of production
The Internet has solved #1. Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective cost of $0.
The reason they are not dead yet is because no one has solved #2. They still control production of most content.
2. It's like Kickstarter, but for movies
So, the solution is to attack film financing. Make it diffuse, and distributed. Create a platform for film makers to seek financing in small amounts from normal people. You could call it "slushpile.com" or something line that. A film maker posts a 60 second trailer and a budget. People invest small amounts in the film. When the budget is reached the film maker gets the money, and he makes the film.
You then distribute the film through the site, for a fee. Split the revenues 70 / 20 / 10. The film makers get 70%, the "producers" (the funders) get 20%, and the site gets 10%.
3. A key first customer.
The obvious best choice is Kevin Smith. He understands the Internet, he makes entertaining films with small budgets, and he has an avid cult following. He's like the Ron Paul of film makers.
Its a schlep. You have to seduce movie stars. But, pulling it off would kill Hollywood, overnight.
And thereby created a new problem: Any content can be distributed to any one in the world for an effective profit of $0.
This would be illegal unless everyone is a qualified investor. It's the reason Kickstarter requires you to "donate" money and you cannot return any kind of financial compensation.
I can hire a production crew to make a movie.
No such activities constitute investment. They are just works for hire.
There may be liability issues. Potential breach of contract problems. You could get around that with the right contract structures (who hires whom, and what the terms are).
The funders wouldn't have the same rights as investors, but that seems ok.
Am I missing something?
You're left with wages, permits, and stuff I won't try to guess (e.g. catering, etc., etc.).
High level professional abilities will continue to be a minority of interested parties. But, with cost of entry so lowered, the population to draw from will be much larger. And with the lower barrier to entry, people old and particularly young will be able to practice these skills and have the motivation of a distribution channel to fuel them on, without fight for a place and clamor to buy into such an entrenched regime.
Another big, undersung aspect of such a transition is to get the writers, and the artisans, to work for the new model. Really good writing does not come easy. But there is still plenty of talent, and compensation under the new model(s) should not have too much difficulty being competitive for these jobs (maybe I'm wrong, but based one what I hear/read).
Oh, the other 800 lb gorilla: Unions. Movie and TV production is very heavily unionized. If they want to strongarm their members and potential members from participating, this could present a significant problem. A question might be whether beginners/outsiders can build enough momentum if there is little or no support from seasoned professionals.
This is all off the top of my head. I may be wrong.
Hollywood is insanely inefficient. For $2m a shot you could throw away 49 out of every 50 films your young directors make for the price of a $100m Hollywood blockbuster.
Inflexible unions? -> Don't make movies in the US.
Very few people actually have the ability to distribute content on the web at an effective enough level to make money off of the content produced. Currently the majority of these people are people with huge YouTube channels.
It is very hard for anyone to distribute good content even if they have money. The problem of good content getting distribution is not solved.
Nowadays, the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules." Kill that instead.
Indie filmmakers cannot compete on a level monetary footing. So they must disrupt and stay lean, not only in production but ALSO in marketing and distribution. This is where I believe a lot of indie film makers need to focus on: disruptive distribution.
As an example, I directed a movie and treated it as a lean startup from pre production. We are looking to disrupt traditional movie distribution by offering individuals and businesses something tangible and of intrinsic value when they buy our movie: to feature them on a billboard on Times Square. Check out the movie and strategy at: http://bit.ly/n4XQG0
What if Youtube, Netflix, Apple and similar distributors try to provide the same film worldwide on the same day, with a lot of marketing before the event. When they all fund a part of an big budget Christopher Nolan movie, they all get their direct share and a lot of new registered customers.
We need content good enough to replace Hollywood.
It is the biggest Entertainment brand in the world, not an easy task.
This reminds me of how people used to criticize digital cameras when they first came out. A decade later and film cameras are dead.
The article lost me right here. Every year this is less and less true for people in my generation. It doesn't take long for even the blockbusters to show up for rental.
I'm not even sure what the article is trying to say. What is 'good'?
I think Hollywood is doomed, even with draconian laws on their side. Good content has been made online, and it's just getting started. I agree with the GP that simplifying and democratizing the funding would help, but so will new film makers realizing good is absolutely not synonymous with expensive (and is often contradictory).
But my wife likes to go out to the movies. So we go out.
I expect that other forms of entertainment and other ways of producing content will coexist with the "legacy" model for some time.
It's not about quality. It is about building a monster revenue (and profit!) stream.
To quote from the dead trees: "No one in this world, so far as I know_and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me_has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." HL Mencken
To quote from Hollywood itself: "Show me the money!"