Hacker News Reader

Comment by naner | Hacker News Reader

it would be interesting to see a counterpoint.

Sure.

1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work.

2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.

View on HN

"Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work"

That is true, but the current reality is: these are the current cost to make big budget films, just like I would like buy a brand new Mac Book Pro for $500.00 but that's not going to happen any time soon.

And yes we are not entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars, we did not always have big budget films. Big budget films are the only advantage Hollywood has, if it were not for these big budget films we would not be talking about Hollywood.

The reality is people want to watch some of these big budget films, that's why there is piracy, that's why we writing about it.

I think these films can be made with smaller budgets If there were smaller budgets across the industry. Sure there are fixed costs (which are ever falling) to produce but wages are held high because of the big budgets. I think the majority of big movie stars would still be acting on movies for a much smaller amount if that was the best they could get.

But I, and many other people, am willing to pay for these big budget movies even if I have to sit through ads. I like big-budget flicks.

If you have to pay the same to see Avatar & The Blair Witch Project, then sure, the big budget movies seem like better value. But only a vast price fixing monopoly, supported by ever more draconian legislation, enables that equivalence.

The price of movie distribution is fast approaching zero. If big budget movies had to compete on a level playing field, I suspect they would rapidly become unprofitable.

I like Bell Labs and indestructible black Western Electric telephones, but did they justify the Bell monopoly?

Hollywood movies (mostly) don't have interoperability issues or network effects.

They just try to pass laws to make interoperability (format shifting) a criminal offence.

You're setting up a false argument here -- they don't do anything to restrict indie filmmakers from distributing their content.

Actually, a number of people have complained that they do. Very few indie movies are in the same theaters as Hollywood movies, though whether that's effected by the latter depends on who you ask.

By forbidding to use old art for music or even movie extracts, they set the bar higher for independent movie filmmakers.

No, they just raise money for colluding plutocrats to bribe corrupt politicians into trying to break the Internet.

Agreed. I'd take one Dark Knight over a hundred low-budget decent flicks any day.

If you believe low-budget is the way of the future, nothing is stopping you. If you believe big-budget needs to be killed by regulation et al before your superior low-budget future can compete, I wonder if you have things mixed up in your head.

Have I lost track of the plot here somehow? Aren't we talking about regulation to ensure big budget flicks can compete? This may be me failing at irony or something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com