Interested what the HN community thinks of this one. I believe getting the major players onto a platform allows for mass adoption but once the platform is open for other content producers you can bring the major entities onto the same level as the small content producers leading to a more open market, taking some of the leverage away from the content companies.
This is why Netflix, Hulu and YouTube are making distribution deals but also creating or licensing exclusive content to give them more leverage. If Netflix exclusively owns a couple of hit shows they suddenly have a lot more leverage when licensing content.
If you want to take down Hollywood you have to help them monetize first, they do create great content so instead of taking them down this model puts them in line with other content creators. I think it's the same with the fact Apple is opening iTunes Connect up further.
I don't necessarily agree with some of the sentiments in this article; but upvoted anyway, because it's worth a discussion.
FWIW, I believe that this bit
I have had the privilege to meet hundreds of amazing aspiring actors, actresses and musicians through the production companies I advise. Their dream — their only dream — is to be on that stage and entertain millions. Proposing to destroy Hollywood will also destroy the livelihoods and the dreams of these entertainers and the crews, writers and creatives that support them. That is irresponsible.
begs the question of whether the current Hollywood system is the only way that the entertainers, crews, writers, etc., can profit from their work and achieve their dreams. I see no particular reason to believe that such a thing is true, and - to my notions - this undermines the entire argument that YC's "war" is short-sighted.
This article is also ignoring the fact that one could interpret the YC response as nothing but self-defense. It would be one thing if this call were totally unprovoked, but that's hardly the case here.
Small nitpick that doesn't detract from the overall quality of your post: begging the question doesn't mean "raises in response the question." Begging the question involves circular logic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question (I usually point to http://begthequestion.info but it seems to be down right now)
Right, that's the usage I intended here. The argument that YC's war is "shortsighted" depends on an premise that's implicitly assumed to be true in the argument... that the Hollywood system is required in order for the stars and crew to succeed.
This is a war you'll definitely lose. The "raises in response the question" meaning isn't just the most popular usage, it's the only usage most people are aware of.
I'm aware of both meanings and still intentionally use the "wrong" one occasionally . It's well understood by both the speaker and the listener, so I don't think it hurts much. In fact, pointing out the error seems like more of a distraction.
I think the article is misguided. No matter how creative content is being delivered, actors are going to be acting parts and delivering lines written by writers and directed by directors. And everyone "below the line" stays employed. The problem is with the business entities in Hollywood, not the creative entities.
I didn't read PG's essay as a call to destroy that "stage" so much as rethink, reinvent, and re-imagine it: the stage itself, and the way the stage gets delivered to you.
My take away was: Hollywood studios are damage, we must route creative content around it. Let's create new, direct-to-consumer pipelines that deliver stuff (maybe stuff like today's TV and movies, maybe new stuff we haven't seen yet) without the middleman.
Indie filmmakers, DIY musicians, etc. have been doing this for 50 years. YouTube-based serials have been doing it for a few years now. We have plenty of good (and failed) examples to based ideas on.
You know, I've seen another industry that had droves of aspiring, creative artists clamoring to get into the industry and fulfill their dream. These were creatives who were willing to hand over their rights to the syndicate just to get a shot at getting published.
It's been ten years since the last time I heard of someone who still wanted into the newspaper comic industry. There are still those who dream, but it turned out that the hundred-year newspaper system wasn't really a part of that dream. Maybe we'll discover the same thing about Hollywood.
Apologies in advance - I'm a programmer and not (yet) a businessperson, so outlook may be naive. I would argue that whether or not you take an aggressive approach is not really the point - it all amounts to changing the face of the business whether you are working with them or against them. The important part is that Y Combinator have taken a stand of some sort and indicated that there is money in pursuing this goal. Once the ball gets rolling and some evidence of success starts coming in, other approaches can be taken.
The ideal, for me, would be a massive outpouring of different ideas about what the tech industry can do. Some will fail, but ultimately there will be a better chance of finding a solution that works better than what we have just now.
I would imagine aspiring actors want fame more than fortune.
How does an entertainment world not dominated by Hollywood threaten this?
Answer: It doesn't.
What we have with Hollywood is execs who obsessively control marketing and distribution channels and thereby get to determine who becomes famous and who does not.
For many people it's just impossible to imagine things any other way. But that does not mean it is actually impossible for things to be another way. Hollywood is a very recent development in the history of entertainment.
We could take the execs out of the system, and the audience would still be able to decide who becomes famous and who does not.
I didn't detect any anger in pg's post. To me it seems more like a stock tip. PSST!! Hey! Invest in entertainment via the internet. Sell Hollywood short, etc.
The premise of the article -- and its title -- is fundamentally flawed. The war's already started. Whether or not Y Combinator decides to write that declaration or not. As pg wrote, Hollywood intends on defending its decaying industry by attacking the basic architecture of the Internet. And make no mistake, they will fund another bill. And another. And another.
The only question left is to decide what side you're on.
Destroying Hollywood would not destroy ability for entertainers to entertain. If anything it would probably increase the ability for an entertainer to entertain.
Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute them.
Destroying "hollywood" according to the ideas proposed would likely open up millions MORE opportunities for entertainers to entertain and would likely change the market dynamics from a winner take all market dominated by a few "stars" to a more yeoman farmer type system where everyone does OK.
"Hollywood" makes entertainers sign grossly unfair contracts at the beginning of their careers justified only by the winner take all market they propagate. Hollywood is unnecessary in an age where anyone can put blender on their computer, buy an HD video camera and start making movies. You don't need huge budgets to make decent movies. Hollywood keeps most artists starving in order to gain leverage, if most artists did OK it would dramatically change the landscape at the bargaining table.
The average artist will do better with out hollywood at the expense of the "stars".
After Hollywood is dead there probably won't be any entertainers who have "millions" of fans but likely far more that have tens of thousands of fans.
If Hollywood dies because of the RFS it will be because the people voted with their feet and decided the offerings of the RFS are superior to the offerings of Hollywood. I believe that's called a "free market". It's not up to PG, me, Ben Parr or anyone else to decide what is best for the people, it is up to the people decide what is best for them. Any projected funded by YC will only succeed to the degree that it provides a better experience to consumers.
That being said, the general point is valid - the current business model for generating entertainment is broken, leaving it ripe for disruption, and the OP's fallacy is the assumption that the current business model is the only way for content to be created and distributed.
i loked hard for any arguments in the linked article from your comment,sadly i could not find any. yeah, the long tail is about distribution and about filters. the long tail is not about bocoming a mainstream hit withot effort, its not about the lack of hits in the future.
there is a great book called "he long tail" -it`s a hihly recommended read. p.s. the example about video games is outdated, there is a long long long til of videogames now (please see your iphone or android market for references )
> Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute them.
If that was a complete listing: Then destroying them would be a pretty straightforward matter, because startups do distribution and marketing like the best.
The problem as I see it: I think you missed a function. Hollywood is a specialized VC community. Their investments are movies.
No amount of Y-combinatoring is going to supplant the money machine, without building a brand new money machine.
That's true, but we dont need a VC community that specializes in handing out tens of millions when, thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.
That's true too, but the web hasn't introduced that. The RoR of big budget movies is potentially much greater than low-budget movies. Hollywood invests where any VC would invest, where the potential reward is greatest. I'm not sure that a VC would or could change anything here.
The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies, as well as a higher risk for potentially lower reward.
There are financial very successful (in terms of $100k's/a rather than millions of dollars) movie producers, actors, writers and directors who specifically aim for sub-segments of the market and fulfill niche demand. Christian and African-American movies being two successful segments of the market for low-budget, high-return movies.
> The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies
Sorry, no. The risk is higher, but the reward, should it pay off, is much greater and there is a much more attractive risk:reward. An indie film can indeed be profitable, but the probability of being very profitable is small.
This is the same for games, music, TV, books. As a publisher where do you concentrate your money? Where it's likely to make the most money, of course.
>thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.
I was laughing until I realized you were serious. Of course it's possible to make a movie for a few thousand dollars. But most movies at that budget aren't worth watching. Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
You quoted him saying tens of thousands and then responded to him as if he said "a few thousand."
Further, you have no vision. Today there are few mega rich actors, few moderately rich actors and tons of poor actors. What's wrong with acting becoming more like a normally distributed profession?
Why should talent in movies be paid millions, when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less? The simple reason is that total expenses in movie making and distribution system are so high that these payouts seem reasonable and it makes sense to get popular actors at the prices they (artists) demand.
This system works well for the companies and the top rung artists. Ripe for "disruption".
"when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less?"
You mean like sports stars?
The command higher fees because having their name attached to a project reduces the amount of marketing expenditure of a project and increases the projects chances of success.
Aside from fees for high-paid actors and directors though there are still a LOT of people needed to produce a quality film: screenwriters, cinematographers etc.
Sports is probably the closest thing we have to a true meritocracy. If you're an incredibly talented baseball player you'll have statistics to back it up.
Because of this I'd wager that almost all the top tier baseball players are currently engaged by major league teams.
However, acting is more subjective. It's much harder to objectively demonstrate that you are a top tier actor, so there are likely many top tier actors available for hire who aren't making millions.
I think you are wrong. Maybe a few thousand dollars isn't enough to make a movie with good production values. But there are lots of low budget movies that are amazing works of art. Also, a lot of movies made with massive budgets "aren't worth watching". Clearly the funding isn't directly correlated to the quality of the film.
Tens of thousands was a bit of hyperbole. However cheap special effects are getting very close to good enough to compete with Hollywood movies.
>Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
There are plenty of quality actors that are paid much less than millions of dollars per movie.
In addition, price is a function of what consumers are willing to pay and what sellers are willing to charge. If piracy drives down what consumers are willing to pay (and thus what actors can charge), what do you want to bet actors will still act (for much lower wages).
Much of the expense for 'talent' comes from the artificial scarcity created by marketing. It's a vicious (or virtuous, depending on which side you're on) circle: a company spends marketing money, which attracts theaters, which means big audiences for the movie, which means that newcomer with a minor role gets exposure, which increases their appeal as a lead actor, which means their next movie will make more money. There are only so many actors who can appear in a 'major' release because a) there are only so many screens and b) there are even fewer movies showing on those screens because the blockbusters dominate the limited number of screens. There are always more actors (and directors and screenwriters, etc) that have the capacity be 'stars' than the system can accommodate. That system is built primarily on marketing, not talent.
Movies like Primer are just the beginning, and a Y-combinator for movies/tv could push the change even quicker. I'm thinking of a forum of 1000 movie/tv enthusiasts putting up maybe $100 each and funding 5-10 creators or maybe one larger project, holding open talent calls online.
With the right setting (no fancy costumes, no fancy sets, no tough-to-reach locations), the right setup (digital HD camera and ~$2000 computer to edit and render SFX if any), and unknown actors you can make a film that would be indistinguishable from Hollywood quality (without any famous faces however) for low tens of thousands of dollars.
Also, there is plenty of great talent that hasn't "made it" in Hollywood, and that talent is probably artificially cheap.
Very true. I think the new money machine will be crowd sourcing. Recent statistics for kickstarter say that they funded nearly 100mil for projects in 2011. Out of which nearly half (50% in money) are media related (film/music/comics etc). People ignore crowd sourcing or discount its power, but we have to remember that crowd sourcing involves the whole world - thanks to the internet.
"Destroying Hollywood would not destroy ability for entertainers to entertain. If anything it would probably increase the ability for an entertainer to entertain."
Agreed. If anything, new tech could create a new medium for truly determined entertainers to reach a large audience. Right now it seems like most of the youtube celebrities are, for the most part, jokesters. But perhaps a new sphere of entertainment can be created where the next great actors/directors can make it big without Hollywood.
>Destroying Hollywood would not destroy ability for entertainers to entertain. If anything it would probably increase the ability for an entertainer to entertain.
How does that follow? No one needs to follow Hollywood as it is. Anyone can create and post their product on their personal site or Youtube etc.
What Hollywood gives artists is a great vehicle. No one needs to use that vehicle. People are free to act in local productions, etc. Besides, I think there are at least two kinds of artists, ones who do it for the joy/love and others who do it for fame/recognition. The latter would likely feel out of place in new environment where they were not widely known. I admit, that's my impression, and not based on any study or such.
It feels almost as if people would wish that artists/actors, etc. would return to a time of travelling acts like vaudeville
shows. Those people barely made ends meet. A modern, technologically enhanced version of this, but still.
>It's not up to PG, me, Ben Parr or anyone else to decide what is best for the people, it is up to the people decide what is best for them. Any projected funded by YC will only succeed to the degree that it provides a better experience to consumers.
I think the argument is that the marketing and distribution institution that is Hollywood can be remade more efficiently. This streamlined Hollywood would capture fewer rents, exhibit less social malignancy, and pass on more of the value-added income to the creatives. This would, theoretically, increase the rewards to creativity.
True, but you have to ask why it's such a great vehicle. And the reason is that Hollywood uses marketing to ensure that millions of people all watch the same movie. This audience doesn't come out of nowhere---it represents at least in part the potential audience for other, less rabidly-marketed films. That 'great vehicle' is running over other artists. We create a handful of multi-millionaires at the expense of providing a living wage to thousands of others. Our copyright law doesn't incentivize artists, or even distribution anymore---it subsidizes a marketing machine.
Who will miss Mission Impossible 4, when the alternative is something new? Hollywood killed the art in most of his movies already. Think about this Viacom coolness-metric-optimization-crap and stuff like Zookeeper.
People like Nolan will still make gigantic hits with decent movies.
I didn't interpret the YC piece as "let's kill Hollywood" (despite the provocative headline) - I saw it more as an observation that support for SOPA is evidence that Hollywood is already in decline, so now us a great time to invest in whatever will replace it.
Agree 100%. The actual content of the article is very positive and proactive. Rather than saying "I'll pay you to egg them" (not literally), they're saying "I'll pay you to do better stuff than them". The title should probably be something like "Beat Hollywood (at their own game)" instead of "Kill Hollywood," but w/e.
Maybe the YC article was worded a bit aggressively. But I don't think the OP has sufficiently defended his claim that YC's RFS is short-sighted or irresponsible. The OP doesn't address the RFS' main points:
- that Hollywood is on its way out, because film and TV as forms of entertainment have largely remained the same despite significant technological advances. Movements like SOPA are indicative of the industry's inability to evolve with the times.
- that startups aiming to find better or cheaper forms of entertainment are likely to be extremely big companies in the future, largely by replacing the role in society that Hollywood currently plays.
- and that YC should fund companies it thinks will be big.
If Y Combinator is serious about this they should seriously consider asking John August to speak at Startup School this year. He writes movies for studios, produces his own films, makes iPad apps, and blogs about all of it. He has a better understanding of all of the sides of these issues than almost anybody.
He has had a few posts over the past week that might be enlightening to some. http://johnaugust.com/
I think Ben is confused regarding what the intent of the RFS is. This is not an assault on artists. It is important to separate the talented from the studios that profit from artists work. The studios (and by extension production and distribution) are the ones that Y Combinator has declared 'war' on. Other industries are being disrupted in a similar fashion. This is nothing new. I think many in this community realize the damage that the MPAA and the RIAA can cause now. Why not hasten their demise through a process that is already playing out?
There certainly seems to be confusion about what the RFS advocates "killing." Is it the production and distribution system, or the medium itself? Hollywood can mean many things, and some of the RFS seems to be championing alternative delivery while other parts encourage creating alternatives to the medium itself. Those are two very different goals, and it seems that Ben has interpreted the latter as the RFC's message..
I don't think the RFS is revenge over SOPA. Rather, it notices a great capitalistic opportunity. The point is not that Hollywood is evil but rather that it is vulnerable.
Basically, the aim is not to kill entertainment but to wrest control of it away. This is more akin to Kodak getting "destroyed" by digital cameras than the internet starting a vendetta.
I really don't understand this idea of "come together to try to find common ground" - there is no common ground to be had. Hollywood wants to control content and charge every viewer, which is fundamentally at odds with the Internet. (It's of course not at odds with Google, Facebook, Netflix, and all the other prime-time proprietary services that deliver over the Internet, which is perhaps what allows the misunderstanding to continue). I hope content creators can continue to make a living in the future, but restricting every individual's computing and communications devices is not how it will happen.
First, while the "heart" of Hollywood (whatever that is) may be in its aspiring stars, they have little control over what the executives do. Aspiring actors and directors know that there are many others waiting to take their role - if they don't agree to the terms (however terrible) there are plenty of others waiting to take their place. Hollywood is a monopsony. They are a cartel whose absolute control of the market makes it more difficult for "the heart and soul of Hollywood" to pursue their dreams. Breaking up the Hollywood cartel would make things easier for aspiring actors and directors.
Second, while "war may rarely be the solution", that doesn't mean that there is no place for war. If the other side is willing to do whatever it takes to destroy you, you have to fight back or be destroyed. SOPA/PIPA showed that music and movie industry have absolutely no sympathy for legitimate internet users. If it comes down to a choice between accepting the SOPA/PIPA and fighting the media industry with every tool at my disposal, I'll choose to fight any day of the week.
Finally, Ben Parr brings out the "what about the masterpieces?" argument. He misses the point that masterpieces like Schindler's List and Planet Earth exist despite Hollywood, not because of it. The movie industries are not interested in taking "unnecessary risks" on a movie that may turn into the next Citizen Kane. Remember, "masterpiece" movies are not often popular or profitable. It's much safer for studios to fund yet another proven, moneymaking sequel. Breaking up the Hollywood cartel would allow those with higher tastes for risk to enter the movie funding business, making it easier for future masterpieces to gain funding.
Oh, come on. Seriously? Film and TV are here to stay. Forever. All the non-parasites actually making film and TV are assured of continued employment.
All PG is talking about is taking out the parasitic channels and blocks that impede content from being made and enjoyed if they don't get their pound of flesh. All the arrogance that makes them demand not only that law be rewritten and diplomacy bound to their will, but that anybody daring to speak against them be castigated as enemies of democracy and capitalism and presumably Mom and apple pie.
They deserve to shuffle off into the dustbin - let's get back to having fun and making things. That's what PG is after, and he's right. Everybody knows the emperor's naked - those fat cats do nothing creative, and nothing to improve anything at all except their bank balances; they're rentiers so deeply to the core that they see nothing at all wrong with wanting their money back after buying the President of the United States when he failed to dance to their tune for three minutes this week.
Proposing to destroy Hollywood will also destroy the livelihoods and the dreams of these entertainers and the crews, writers and creatives that support them. That is irresponsible.
I think it's "irresponsible" that in 2012 we still have a "spot" for entertainers and artists to make a living. That's nonsense. By progressing from horse to car, a lot of horse-related jobs declined. But literally an entirely new paradigm of societal structure emerged, arguably, for the better overall (Just an illustration, I know it's rough but bear with me). Maybe if Hollywood collapses many Hollywood folks will suffer, and I understand that pain. But an open Internet acts as a stage beyond any geographical limits and can create, again, an entirely new open frontier for artists and entertainers all over the planet...and the necessary staffs and execs for them individually.
Hollywood doesn't support the Internet. Even the "young execs" who "get it" and "embrace" the thing they supported the censorship of only support it in the sense of trying to build walled gardens to preserve their last chance of money-grabbing. That's it. They support the Internet that helps them, but if something happens to zig where they want to zag, well...we know their reactions by now.
1
Don't be fooled. The article is fair and good, but the arguments inside are empty at best. Fuck Hollywood.
It seems to me that the most effective solutions might well be not very splashy at all.
If people can easily find content they would like (that are controlled by those that are not bent on attacking the people - so like the crazy behavior we see supported by the large hollywood distributors) they will watch it. They will substitute it for content they would watch that funds the anti-society behavior now funded by those watching "Hollywood" and big label music.
I am not so anti-Hollywood that I will not watch some great show (yet). But I would certainly favor content that isn't paying for anti-society efforts.
If there were good ways to discover content I would like and note what is managed by those that respect society instead of those that don't I would use it. I would pretty easily just chose to try out stuff that is not going to support those that will use income to attack society. I doubt I would boycot anything from those anti-society organization (yet). But even if we just carve off a portion and build up those that produce entertainment for society while respecting us that is a good thing. And I believe if it started the power would build upon itself. Those engaging in bad behavior would lose in the marketplace and likely adjust behavior. Maybe they wouldn't - in which case as we build up good alternative entertainment we can just drop dealing with their organizations altogether.
* Actors can act in non-Hollywood movies and TV shows. In fact, they can act in Creative Commons-licensed stuff, too. Why is that a problem?
* Progress? Hulu and Vevo place the same digital content we were once able to own and manipulate into chains. We are no longer even allowed to watch it at our leisure.
* Great works still happen without big industry.
I think this author doesn't understand that YC isn't attacking the idea of movies and TV shows--they're attacking the moronic copyright-related actions of the industry.
This seems like a blog echoing what many say in regards to so many dying industries; "Think about the jobs this will take away!" YC isnt telling people to destroy Hollywood out of spite, they are saying to destroy Hollywood because there is a huge opportunity for disruption in their industry. Innovation will always prevail, and the more you fight change, the faster you will be left behind. Dont destroy Hollywood because they attacked us, destroy Hollywood because their lack of innovation leaves us opportunity.
The way to "destroy" Hollywood is to encourage decentralization, as has been occurring for the past twenty or thirty years. With film & TV production moving outside of southern California to Canada and other US states, the localized production power of Hollywood has been disseminated to other regions. The distribution for high-budget films currently remains in Hollywood, but increasingly the Internet (as distribution, financing & marketing outlets) and in the long-term local demand in China, India, Africa & the Middle East will begin to pull global distribution control away from Hollywood even for big-budget movies.
It is the decentralization of movie making that will destroy Hollywood, not start-ups.
I started to write a comment of my own then saw this one. You are spot on with this. What needs to happen is exactly what you are saying. However, I think humans in general tend to like to see the same actors in movies time and time again so finding a way to decentralize production but still keeping popular actors involved can be a bit of a challenge. From what I understand, the actors unions are probably currently limiting some talented people from becoming well known actors so balancing this out could help as well, however I don't think we can get away anytime soon from the appeal that certain people have to audiences, however the rest of it is all interchangeable, in my opinion, writing and special effects work can be done anywhere as can the actual filming of the movies.
76 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadThis is why Netflix, Hulu and YouTube are making distribution deals but also creating or licensing exclusive content to give them more leverage. If Netflix exclusively owns a couple of hit shows they suddenly have a lot more leverage when licensing content.
If you want to take down Hollywood you have to help them monetize first, they do create great content so instead of taking them down this model puts them in line with other content creators. I think it's the same with the fact Apple is opening iTunes Connect up further.
FWIW, I believe that this bit
I have had the privilege to meet hundreds of amazing aspiring actors, actresses and musicians through the production companies I advise. Their dream — their only dream — is to be on that stage and entertain millions. Proposing to destroy Hollywood will also destroy the livelihoods and the dreams of these entertainers and the crews, writers and creatives that support them. That is irresponsible.
begs the question of whether the current Hollywood system is the only way that the entertainers, crews, writers, etc., can profit from their work and achieve their dreams. I see no particular reason to believe that such a thing is true, and - to my notions - this undermines the entire argument that YC's "war" is short-sighted.
This article is also ignoring the fact that one could interpret the YC response as nothing but self-defense. It would be one thing if this call were totally unprovoked, but that's hardly the case here.
I'm aware of both meanings and still intentionally use the "wrong" one occasionally . It's well understood by both the speaker and the listener, so I don't think it hurts much. In fact, pointing out the error seems like more of a distraction.
I didn't read PG's essay as a call to destroy that "stage" so much as rethink, reinvent, and re-imagine it: the stage itself, and the way the stage gets delivered to you.
My take away was: Hollywood studios are damage, we must route creative content around it. Let's create new, direct-to-consumer pipelines that deliver stuff (maybe stuff like today's TV and movies, maybe new stuff we haven't seen yet) without the middleman.
Indie filmmakers, DIY musicians, etc. have been doing this for 50 years. YouTube-based serials have been doing it for a few years now. We have plenty of good (and failed) examples to based ideas on.
It's been ten years since the last time I heard of someone who still wanted into the newspaper comic industry. There are still those who dream, but it turned out that the hundred-year newspaper system wasn't really a part of that dream. Maybe we'll discover the same thing about Hollywood.
The ideal, for me, would be a massive outpouring of different ideas about what the tech industry can do. Some will fail, but ultimately there will be a better chance of finding a solution that works better than what we have just now.
How does an entertainment world not dominated by Hollywood threaten this?
Answer: It doesn't.
What we have with Hollywood is execs who obsessively control marketing and distribution channels and thereby get to determine who becomes famous and who does not.
For many people it's just impossible to imagine things any other way. But that does not mean it is actually impossible for things to be another way. Hollywood is a very recent development in the history of entertainment.
We could take the execs out of the system, and the audience would still be able to decide who becomes famous and who does not.
The audience is the final arbiter.
Entertainment execs are only middlemen.
The only question left is to decide what side you're on.
Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute them.
Destroying "hollywood" according to the ideas proposed would likely open up millions MORE opportunities for entertainers to entertain and would likely change the market dynamics from a winner take all market dominated by a few "stars" to a more yeoman farmer type system where everyone does OK.
"Hollywood" makes entertainers sign grossly unfair contracts at the beginning of their careers justified only by the winner take all market they propagate. Hollywood is unnecessary in an age where anyone can put blender on their computer, buy an HD video camera and start making movies. You don't need huge budgets to make decent movies. Hollywood keeps most artists starving in order to gain leverage, if most artists did OK it would dramatically change the landscape at the bargaining table.
The average artist will do better with out hollywood at the expense of the "stars".
After Hollywood is dead there probably won't be any entertainers who have "millions" of fans but likely far more that have tens of thousands of fans.
If Hollywood dies because of the RFS it will be because the people voted with their feet and decided the offerings of the RFS are superior to the offerings of Hollywood. I believe that's called a "free market". It's not up to PG, me, Ben Parr or anyone else to decide what is best for the people, it is up to the people decide what is best for them. Any projected funded by YC will only succeed to the degree that it provides a better experience to consumers.
That being said, the general point is valid - the current business model for generating entertainment is broken, leaving it ripe for disruption, and the OP's fallacy is the assumption that the current business model is the only way for content to be created and distributed.
there is a great book called "he long tail" -it`s a hihly recommended read. p.s. the example about video games is outdated, there is a long long long til of videogames now (please see your iphone or android market for references )
If that was a complete listing: Then destroying them would be a pretty straightforward matter, because startups do distribution and marketing like the best.
The problem as I see it: I think you missed a function. Hollywood is a specialized VC community. Their investments are movies.
No amount of Y-combinatoring is going to supplant the money machine, without building a brand new money machine.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3492153
That's true, but we dont need a VC community that specializes in handing out tens of millions when, thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.
There are financial very successful (in terms of $100k's/a rather than millions of dollars) movie producers, actors, writers and directors who specifically aim for sub-segments of the market and fulfill niche demand. Christian and African-American movies being two successful segments of the market for low-budget, high-return movies.
Sorry, no. The risk is higher, but the reward, should it pay off, is much greater and there is a much more attractive risk:reward. An indie film can indeed be profitable, but the probability of being very profitable is small.
This is the same for games, music, TV, books. As a publisher where do you concentrate your money? Where it's likely to make the most money, of course.
I was laughing until I realized you were serious. Of course it's possible to make a movie for a few thousand dollars. But most movies at that budget aren't worth watching. Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
Further, you have no vision. Today there are few mega rich actors, few moderately rich actors and tons of poor actors. What's wrong with acting becoming more like a normally distributed profession?
This system works well for the companies and the top rung artists. Ripe for "disruption".
You mean like sports stars?
The command higher fees because having their name attached to a project reduces the amount of marketing expenditure of a project and increases the projects chances of success.
Aside from fees for high-paid actors and directors though there are still a LOT of people needed to produce a quality film: screenwriters, cinematographers etc.
Sports is probably the closest thing we have to a true meritocracy. If you're an incredibly talented baseball player you'll have statistics to back it up.
Because of this I'd wager that almost all the top tier baseball players are currently engaged by major league teams.
However, acting is more subjective. It's much harder to objectively demonstrate that you are a top tier actor, so there are likely many top tier actors available for hire who aren't making millions.
>Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
There are plenty of quality actors that are paid much less than millions of dollars per movie.
In addition, price is a function of what consumers are willing to pay and what sellers are willing to charge. If piracy drives down what consumers are willing to pay (and thus what actors can charge), what do you want to bet actors will still act (for much lower wages).
With the right setting (no fancy costumes, no fancy sets, no tough-to-reach locations), the right setup (digital HD camera and ~$2000 computer to edit and render SFX if any), and unknown actors you can make a film that would be indistinguishable from Hollywood quality (without any famous faces however) for low tens of thousands of dollars.
Also, there is plenty of great talent that hasn't "made it" in Hollywood, and that talent is probably artificially cheap.
Agreed. If anything, new tech could create a new medium for truly determined entertainers to reach a large audience. Right now it seems like most of the youtube celebrities are, for the most part, jokesters. But perhaps a new sphere of entertainment can be created where the next great actors/directors can make it big without Hollywood.
How does that follow? No one needs to follow Hollywood as it is. Anyone can create and post their product on their personal site or Youtube etc.
What Hollywood gives artists is a great vehicle. No one needs to use that vehicle. People are free to act in local productions, etc. Besides, I think there are at least two kinds of artists, ones who do it for the joy/love and others who do it for fame/recognition. The latter would likely feel out of place in new environment where they were not widely known. I admit, that's my impression, and not based on any study or such.
It feels almost as if people would wish that artists/actors, etc. would return to a time of travelling acts like vaudeville shows. Those people barely made ends meet. A modern, technologically enhanced version of this, but still.
>It's not up to PG, me, Ben Parr or anyone else to decide what is best for the people, it is up to the people decide what is best for them. Any projected funded by YC will only succeed to the degree that it provides a better experience to consumers.
This I agree with.
True, but you have to ask why it's such a great vehicle. And the reason is that Hollywood uses marketing to ensure that millions of people all watch the same movie. This audience doesn't come out of nowhere---it represents at least in part the potential audience for other, less rabidly-marketed films. That 'great vehicle' is running over other artists. We create a handful of multi-millionaires at the expense of providing a living wage to thousands of others. Our copyright law doesn't incentivize artists, or even distribution anymore---it subsidizes a marketing machine.
People like Nolan will still make gigantic hits with decent movies.
- that Hollywood is on its way out, because film and TV as forms of entertainment have largely remained the same despite significant technological advances. Movements like SOPA are indicative of the industry's inability to evolve with the times.
- that startups aiming to find better or cheaper forms of entertainment are likely to be extremely big companies in the future, largely by replacing the role in society that Hollywood currently plays.
- and that YC should fund companies it thinks will be big.
That line of logic seems sound.
He has had a few posts over the past week that might be enlightening to some. http://johnaugust.com/
Basically, the aim is not to kill entertainment but to wrest control of it away. This is more akin to Kodak getting "destroyed" by digital cameras than the internet starting a vendetta.
First, while the "heart" of Hollywood (whatever that is) may be in its aspiring stars, they have little control over what the executives do. Aspiring actors and directors know that there are many others waiting to take their role - if they don't agree to the terms (however terrible) there are plenty of others waiting to take their place. Hollywood is a monopsony. They are a cartel whose absolute control of the market makes it more difficult for "the heart and soul of Hollywood" to pursue their dreams. Breaking up the Hollywood cartel would make things easier for aspiring actors and directors.
Second, while "war may rarely be the solution", that doesn't mean that there is no place for war. If the other side is willing to do whatever it takes to destroy you, you have to fight back or be destroyed. SOPA/PIPA showed that music and movie industry have absolutely no sympathy for legitimate internet users. If it comes down to a choice between accepting the SOPA/PIPA and fighting the media industry with every tool at my disposal, I'll choose to fight any day of the week.
Finally, Ben Parr brings out the "what about the masterpieces?" argument. He misses the point that masterpieces like Schindler's List and Planet Earth exist despite Hollywood, not because of it. The movie industries are not interested in taking "unnecessary risks" on a movie that may turn into the next Citizen Kane. Remember, "masterpiece" movies are not often popular or profitable. It's much safer for studios to fund yet another proven, moneymaking sequel. Breaking up the Hollywood cartel would allow those with higher tastes for risk to enter the movie funding business, making it easier for future masterpieces to gain funding.
All PG is talking about is taking out the parasitic channels and blocks that impede content from being made and enjoyed if they don't get their pound of flesh. All the arrogance that makes them demand not only that law be rewritten and diplomacy bound to their will, but that anybody daring to speak against them be castigated as enemies of democracy and capitalism and presumably Mom and apple pie.
They deserve to shuffle off into the dustbin - let's get back to having fun and making things. That's what PG is after, and he's right. Everybody knows the emperor's naked - those fat cats do nothing creative, and nothing to improve anything at all except their bank balances; they're rentiers so deeply to the core that they see nothing at all wrong with wanting their money back after buying the President of the United States when he failed to dance to their tune for three minutes this week.
Good riddance to the lot of them.
This is like arguing that we have to keep on fighting wars because army bases are valuable to the economy.
> War is rarely the solution.
PG is talking about competition, not war. The word "war" never appears in PG's essay
> Entertainment and art are relative.
Good- Then Hollywood can keep attracting customers, even if there is competition from elsewhere. What are you worried about?
I think it's "irresponsible" that in 2012 we still have a "spot" for entertainers and artists to make a living. That's nonsense. By progressing from horse to car, a lot of horse-related jobs declined. But literally an entirely new paradigm of societal structure emerged, arguably, for the better overall (Just an illustration, I know it's rough but bear with me). Maybe if Hollywood collapses many Hollywood folks will suffer, and I understand that pain. But an open Internet acts as a stage beyond any geographical limits and can create, again, an entirely new open frontier for artists and entertainers all over the planet...and the necessary staffs and execs for them individually.
Hollywood doesn't support the Internet. Even the "young execs" who "get it" and "embrace" the thing they supported the censorship of only support it in the sense of trying to build walled gardens to preserve their last chance of money-grabbing. That's it. They support the Internet that helps them, but if something happens to zig where they want to zag, well...we know their reactions by now. 1 Don't be fooled. The article is fair and good, but the arguments inside are empty at best. Fuck Hollywood.
If people can easily find content they would like (that are controlled by those that are not bent on attacking the people - so like the crazy behavior we see supported by the large hollywood distributors) they will watch it. They will substitute it for content they would watch that funds the anti-society behavior now funded by those watching "Hollywood" and big label music.
I am not so anti-Hollywood that I will not watch some great show (yet). But I would certainly favor content that isn't paying for anti-society efforts.
If there were good ways to discover content I would like and note what is managed by those that respect society instead of those that don't I would use it. I would pretty easily just chose to try out stuff that is not going to support those that will use income to attack society. I doubt I would boycot anything from those anti-society organization (yet). But even if we just carve off a portion and build up those that produce entertainment for society while respecting us that is a good thing. And I believe if it started the power would build upon itself. Those engaging in bad behavior would lose in the marketplace and likely adjust behavior. Maybe they wouldn't - in which case as we build up good alternative entertainment we can just drop dealing with their organizations altogether.
* Progress? Hulu and Vevo place the same digital content we were once able to own and manipulate into chains. We are no longer even allowed to watch it at our leisure.
* Great works still happen without big industry.
I think this author doesn't understand that YC isn't attacking the idea of movies and TV shows--they're attacking the moronic copyright-related actions of the industry.
It is the decentralization of movie making that will destroy Hollywood, not start-ups.