
Killing Hollywood Will Require Learning Hollywood’s Game - FredBrach
http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/20/killing-hollywood-will-require-learning-hollywoods-game/
======
scottdw2
Here is the recipe for killing Hollywood:

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.

~~~
pasbesoin
Taking your argument as a premise, for cinema 2) is well in progress. Canon
EOS SLR's, stuff to hang them on, and digital editing are knocking down a big
part of equipment costs. (You still have lights and all that, but there are
ways to keep that manageable.)

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.

~~~
willyt
Go to film festivals; Sundance, Cannes, Venice, etc talk to young
directors/producers making shorts. They know lots about how to run a
production.

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.

------
ior3k
I still don't understand why anyone would want to kill Hollywood. The American
politicians allowed themselves to be bought. When Hollywood is dead someone
else will take their place. If anything should die is Washington's corrupt
political system. Hollywood (or anyone else with deep pockets) goes as far as
Washington lets it.

Nowadays, the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules." Kill that
instead.

~~~
Estragon
You're absolutely correct. Wall Street makes Hollywood look like complete
pikers in this respect.

------
incub8or
Movie studios' sole focus is money. Money allows them to hire movie stars, to
use the best equipment, to buy ad space and to rent movie theatres. In short,
money (and how much they are prepared to spend) is what separates anyone with
a video camera and an idea, and the major movie studios.

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>

------
sek
The core of big movie revenues is the hype, it's marketing that gets millions
of people in theaters on the first weeks.

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.

~~~
nextparadigms
Distribution is probably the easier part of the problem once you have a
quality movie that was funded. Y Combinator could just partner with Youtube
and release it worldwide. The hard part is funding the right movies and with
as much as they need initially.

~~~
sek
So let's bring it down: "We need high quality content".

We need content good enough to replace Hollywood.

It is the biggest Entertainment brand in the world, not an easy task.

~~~
felipemnoa
Have you watched The Guild? Some of the best content I have seen in a long
time. I think this is just getting started.

This reminds me of how people used to criticize digital cameras when they
first came out. A decade later and film cameras are dead.

------
chaostheory
> But Hollywood shouldn’t care (if the MPAA had a clue) because it offers
> something YouTube can’t: An experience that you will get in a car, drive to,
> and pay $12 for.

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'?

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Given how inexpensive reasonably-good home theaters have become, how expensive
theaters have become, and how one has no control over the theater experience
(bad projection, too loud, talking, etc), this is only going to happen more.

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).

~~~
kbutler
I'm totally in this camp - I prefer to watch something on my home theater
system. More comfy seats, fills more of my field of vision, better schedule,
better treats, watch in my jammies...

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.

------
jpdoctor
> _For the Valley to do that, it’s going to have to get out of the mindset
> that eyeballs equal quality._

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!"

------
colinm
At least when I watch a movie in the cinema, I don't have 'contextual' ads
popping up on the screen. Do we really want a 'YouTube future'?

