

Rebuilding Hollywood in Silicon Valley's image - shayan
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/11/rebuilding-holl.html

======
geebee
This is an interesting post. There are a couple of points that I'm hesitant
on, though. I wouldn't necessarily say I disagree with his position - just
that I think there are some points that might need a bit more elaboration (ok,
a bit more defending).

First is that the Hollywood model for talent may be an improvement over
Silicon Valley in some ways. Kathy Sierra wrote a great post on this a while
back:

[http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0...](http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/02/dont_ask_employ.html)

In short - the Hollywood model where everyone comes together to complete a
project and goes off looking for a new gig after it is completed may be a
better model for tech work than the employer/employee model. This model
heavily rewards talent that gets things done, and has no place for seat
warmers. I do agree with Marc that it's good for the creators to be
stakeholders with a share in the output - so that would improve things. Maybe
this explains so much of the job hopping that goes on in Silicon Valley.
Perhaps developers should vest at the completion of a product? After all, top
talent at Google may be sitting around with golden handcuffs when they could
be working on the next great release...

Another factor is the extreme expense of producing a truly professional film.
Yes, technology is getting cheaper and more available, but tens of millions is
still a small budget for a feature film. I'm not a big fan of special effects
for their own sake, but I thought "Jurassic Park" was pretty much awesome,
took trememdous technical expertise and innovation, and was ultra-expensive. I
suppose this capital could now be raised from VCs rather than studio heads.

Think VC's in the film industry would be willing to give the same kind of
creative freedom we (only sometimes) see in tech startups? It's a tempting
idea, no doubt about it...

------
shayan
I am sick of happy endings.

From entertainment point of view, this is great news, as I believe this will
let everyone to be a lot more creative. Unfortunately, studios have too much
power and control, and not that many directors get the final cut on their
movies. As a result, there are many unhappy artists, as their works are
greatly influenced, and changed by those in power. Most studios have no
respect for the art work and merely look at it as a business opportunity and
will change the creative work to whatever that will potentially sell more and
make them more money. Therefore, this transition could be the end of all those
"Hollywood endings." (Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, Once Upon a Time in
America, American History X, are just a few examples).

I have to mention though that this problem will not be even completely solved
with Mark's proposition either. Rebuilding Hollywood in Silicon Valley's image
will have its disadvantaged too. I believe doing so will not build Hollywood
as today's image of Silicon Valley but rather an image of the Valley in the
mid 90's, and the dot-com era. (I am not suggesting there will be a bubble,
but its possible, and I don't think it'll ever be as bad as the tech one,
since the industry is already mature and the players are very experienced, so
the chances of failure are a lot less.) But in terms of the structure of the
companies and the process there will be similarities. As we have seen over and
over, startups that end up doing whats to the best interest of the VCs (or at
least what the VCs believe is to their best interest) instead of doing what
the founders would like to do (there are thousands of these stories but my
favorites are Jim Clark and Silicon Graphics, and to some extend Steve Jobs
and Apple, which proves this could have happened to anyone at any level!). But
as there will be a lot more producers compared to the few currently available
studios there will be better chances to find investors that think like you, so
there will still be improvements.

Hollywood 2.0 But this transition will be a lot faster. As the technology
improves and all costs of production, marketing, distribution go down,
eventually a lot less capital would be needed to put together a movie, which
will lessen the power of the producers and set the creative minds free.
(similar to what we are experiencing in Silicon Valley today!).

I can't wait to see three different versions of the same story and movie
coming out during the same year. Or the redone of older movies with similar
plots but different themes and endings. I can't wait to see the personal touch
of many creative people that never had a chance to offer their talents before.
And maybe one day in the future I'll be sharing movies with my friends that
they have previously seen or know about, but can now see it with my touch on
top of it, and from my point of view. Maybe one day critics instead of
pointing out what they like or don't like, they can modify the movies
themselves and offer their own versions to their viewers (I might be getting
really ahead of myself but I get excited when I think like this.) And instead
of movie guide you'll check digg.com to see what you should watch today.

But last time anything close to this happened (but not even close to the
potentials here) some great talents came out of Hollywood. We saw movies like
Easy Rider, and great directors like Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas
changing the way we think about movies.

Side Notes: What I mention above does not apply to all categories of movies,
as many of them (such as most of TV shows, and reality shows) can be produced
today for very little capital. But for the feature length movies, and mostly
those that are produced for theaters, you will still need a huge capital for
production.

------
sammyo
Andreessen forgets the PT Barnum effect. Movies are not like a business, they
are a carny show. People go shows that grab them, not for something useful
that they'll use day to day. H'wood sells vapor, really, literally vapor.
That's the principle behind the summer blockbuster, get folks excited, pay $11
and into seats for a wild ride. They are often disappointed in the product,
but can't return it and will continue to hope for better from the next
preview.

It will change when the Charlie Chaplin of youtube arrives. Chaplin made a lot
of movies, he eventually started Universal studios with the thought that the
creators of the films should get the beneficiary. Two things matter in H'wood,
owning the distribution channels and skill at hype. A youtube 'show' gets a
certain amount of word of mouth hype but that 'youtube-house' has not seen a
true impresario. One thing the impresario/producers need is the lure of the
big payoff, that exists for VC's but not for producers. What will trigger
massive change in the studio structure is when an investment in a youtube
production can trigger a huge payoff to the frontman. Then he can dangle the
costs of producing a single show in front of the gamblers. Right now the only
big winner for a youtube 'show' is google and they will not front production
costs.

Shows (movies, TV, Broadway, youtube) are structured very different than a
business. They are big for a month, a day, or a few years, then on to the next
big thing. Few want version 2.0 of say 'Rainman' (with rare exceptions). But
even exceptions are really 'new companies' as opposed to an ongoing offering.
There seems to be overlap with the spike of new ventures, but when the venture
is sold, all the principals don't leave and go to the next show. After the
wrap party, everyone is looking for work. There are support companies with
continuation (prop rental, render farms) but the core business is show
business.

------
iamelgringo
I first got into programming, because I wanted to be a VFX artist in "The
Industry". I moved to LA for 1-1/2 years to give it a shot.

Problem is, the TV/film industry is big, fat bloated and filled with nepotism.
Junior Studio Execs in charge of nothing drive around in Mercedes 7 series,
because their uncle got them a job.

At the same time, there are literally tens of thousands of talented artists
who are broke and underemployed. If someone can figure out how to let the
artist sell straight to the consumer, the industry is _over_. It's ripe and
ready to be plucked from the tree.

Viva la revolucion digital!

------
wschroter
I think Marc's head is certainly in the right place, but in all fairness, what
you can do on a Mac and a HD cam and writing/shooting LOST and Heroes ain't
the same thing whatsoever.

~~~
iamelgringo
Yeah, but you don't have to write Hero's or Lost to get an audience of a
couple million any more.

I saw this guys short animation in 2000 and it blew me away at the time. He
got 1 million views in 6 months on iFilm.com

Now he's finishing a full 85 minute feature. 1 animator + 3 to 4 years =
animated feature film. The trailer looks pretty impressive for a one man
project.

<http://www.killerbeanforever.com/videos.html>

I'm sure he'll do just fine if he can do a little merchandising. If he can
sell 50,000 t-shirts via Cafe Press, he's just made $250,000. If he can sell
20,000 DVD's at a $4 per DVD profit, he's made $800,000.

He doesn't have to make a $100 million at the box office or $6 million per
episode in advertising/licensing because his costs are orders of magnitude
lower than Hollywood's. He's probably put in $100,000 - 200,000 of his own in
living expenses, and if he's smart, he'll make his money back in a heartbeat.

