
Amazon studios - garrydanger
http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started
======
FreakLegion
I'm disappointed in the shallow look people are giving this. You can't just
read the marketing copy and take it at face value. Amazon Studios is actually
pretty terrible for creatives, as many successful screenwriters et al. have
been pointing out for over a year now:

<http://artfulwriter.com/?p=1103>

[http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/the-
mornin...](http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/the-morning-read-
why-amazon-studios-is-a-very-bad-idea-for-writers)

Since those were written things have improved slightly, but anyone thinking
about participating should still have serious reservations:

[http://johnaugust.com/2011/amazon-studios-now-slightly-
less-...](http://johnaugust.com/2011/amazon-studios-now-slightly-less-
terrible)

~~~
Firebrand
I'm not sure how I feel about all this spec work that is appearing in writing
communities. It's one thing in fields like design or development where the IP
could potentially be reused. With work like this that takes months to create,
you risk never being able to use this work again once you post it up.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Spec work has been part and parcel of the screenwriting world forever.

As have free options. Something everyone tells you not to do and most people
end up doing anyway.

------
ashleyw
So they'll pay you $200,000 for a theatrical release (but regardless of if
your movie is chosen, you can't sell your work anywhere else for 18 months
because they've got exclusive rights to buy it… _all without giving you a
penny_ ), and you only get an extra $400,000 if it makes $60,000,000 at the
box office?

It sounds like a cool concept, but sounds like a very lousy deal. Or am I
missing something?

~~~
zacharycohn
No, it's a pretty lousy deal. The upside is there's at least a chance your
script will get picked, versus Hollywood where there is virtually no chance.
So it's a "shitty deal vs no deal" situation.

~~~
jonnathanson
It's basically a tradeoff. You have a higher chance of getting picked, but a
much lousier payday if you do. Nevertheless, it might actually be a decent bet
for newbies to the screenwriting trade.

As you've mentioned, and as I concur, your odds of getting discovered in
Hollywood are somewhere just shy of your odds of getting beamed aboard the
Enterprise. So Amazon's system represents a slightly better way to get a
calling-card film made out of your script. Nevertheless, it's a much shittier
deal for anyone who's had a script sold or made. So this seems like a one-and-
done sort of deal. Get discovered on Amazon, then go get an agent in
Hollywood, and eventually, make lots more money than through this system.

Amazon's system needs some way to scale up as the writer's career does. Or
else it's always going to be stuck as a AAA farm team for Hollywood. That
might not be a bad thing; at least it's a toehold in the business. But it's
not going to bring down the system anytime soon.

Unless, of course, the entire cost structure of the film industry changes, and
Hollywood stops being able to afford higher-end writers' paydays. Which may
indeed happen, sooner or later. Hollywood has a cost-side crash on its hands
eventually. It's anyone's guess as to when, but it will happen. Revenues can't
keep declining, year over year, while talent costs and budgets keep climbing.

~~~
FreakLegion
Your odds are astronomically worse with Amazon, actually, because by
submitting to them you grant them an exclusive option on your work. Hollywood
works in the opposite way, with studios competing (and, thus, cutting bigger
checks) for good scripts. There are hundreds of ways to sell a script in
Hollywood. There's only one way to sell a script on Amazon.

So, if your script's been floating around for a year or two and hasn't gotten
any traction -- no agent, no options, hasn't made The Black List, hasn't
placed in any notable competitions, etc. -- then sure, submit it to Amazon.
But the hard truth in that case is that the script is likely just crap.

On a side note: the point of writing a spec isn't necessarily to sell it.
Specs are to screenwriters as GitHub is to coders. That said, 2011 was
actually a banner year for specs, with at least 109 sold.

~~~
danssig
Well, Hollywood also has a reputation for simply stealing a script if they
like it.

~~~
FreakLegion
It's true that this is a common belief among outsiders, but it's not true that
it's actually...true.

~~~
onemoreact
Do you have a better expiation for how often multiple studio's put out near
identical movies at the same time?

~~~
FreakLegion
By near identical do you mean, say, _Armageddon_ and _Deep Impact_? Because
there's a world of difference between two movies having the same high concept
and actually being near identical. Parallel development of premises is bound
to happen, particularly with ones as obvious as catastrophic events and casual
sex.

It's not even that there are ethical reasons people in Hollywood don't steal
scripts. The reasons are practical: if your script is good, it's going to cost
me a lot less to pay you for it than it would cost to pay some other more
established writer's quote to develop a new script from the same premise.

~~~
onemoreact
That's a reasonable first approximation. But let's say two studio's both like
the script and only one wins the bidding war. What stops the other studio from
farming out the 'high concept' to someone else to write an also ran. As far as
I can see nothing, so the value of a script is basically limited by what it
costs someone else to create the same basic concept. Toss in the fact that
scripts tend to mutate after production anyway and the 'we can always steal
it' must be at the back of all negotiations.

Which is oddly similar to the buy vs. pirate internal debate I have seen
several people go though on hard to find content.

EX: Underworld did not use any of white wolf's IP. There was a negotiation,
but in the end the studio 'went in another direction' that just happened to
look the same as if they had used their IP.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"the 'we can always steal it' must be at the back of all negotiations."_

With all due respect, this is a big and mostly incorrect leap. If intellectual
theft happens in Hollywood, it's typically an exception and not, as you're
implying, a general rule. It certainly isn't something studio execs keep in
the back of their minds as part of the development process. That's outlandish.

Most studios are extremely frightened of litigation over this very topic. So
much so, that when I worked at a TV studio buying scripts, I was not even
allowed to _open_ any unsolicited material sent my way. If someone sent me a
package, and I didn't recognize the return address, I sent it off to legal, to
be returned unopened. About 99% of the scripts and ideas I was pitched came
about in meetings with agencies and/or producers, who were also bringing the
same material to all of my competitors.

The behaviors you're ascribing to studios seem to be occurring at the producer
level. There's a high variance of ethical and professional conduct among
production companies and producers, in as much as they're not public companies
like the big studios and networks are. They don't have a set rulebook. Most of
the more established producers are unlikely to steal material, because it's a
terrible long-term business strategy (a producer's reputation is his meal
ticket). That said, are there some shady folks on the fringes of the business?
Yes. Anyone who says otherwise is being willfully naive. But the idea that
people at studios actually calculate theft into their buying or development
strategies is patently absurd.

 _"What stops the other studio from farming out the 'high concept' to someone
else to write an also ran."_

Three things stopped me from doing that, and stopped my peers from doing that:

1) Personal and professional integrity.

2) Relationships and reputation. (Hollywood is an extremely relationship-
driven business. As a development executive, _I_ was worth approximately
nothing; what made me relevant to my employers was my network of writers,
agents, and producers I could bring to bear for projects. Burning any of these
people would have been career suicide).

3) Fear of litigation.

In that order.

------
DrJokepu
I am a little concerned that such a democratic creative process will lead to
the redditification of motion picture; only kumbaya-style movies that make you
warm inside, approved by the hive mind will ever be made, while controversial
pieces of works that ask questions or raise issues most people are not
prepared to listen to yet will never be realised. Which would be a shame
because that's one of the important roles of contemporary art in our society.

~~~
firefoxman1
Well, I'm not a Redditor, but I've seen some of the most controversial topics
make it to the top page. Heck, even the whole SOPA debate, which hardly got
any traditional media coverage, was king of HN and Reddit these past few
weeks. And yesterday I read a great AMA from a former prostitute. Let's see
that subject get any traditional media time.

~~~
GuiA
The SOPA debate was hardly a controversial topic for HN/Reddit.

Websites like Reddit definitely have great content, but as parent commenter
pointed out, this content is necessarily the kind of content that appeals to
the average user, and there is no room for outliers.

~~~
firefoxman1
I suppose that's true, but they have liberated topics that would have
otherwise been ignored by larger media companies.

I think the Amazon model for deciding is still a better sample of an audience
than a bunch of grey-haired men sitting around a board-room table whose first
question is "will this be profitable?"

------
pdenya
Crazy timing. Could be a first step towards the things mentioned in
<http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html>

~~~
inconditus
Amazon Studios has been out for at least 4 months previous to the writing.

~~~
absconditus
It was launched in the fall of 2010.

~~~
inconditus
Thanks for correcting me. Also, we have similar usernames. ;)

------
EGF
Creation (via this studios play) and distribution (via Prime) are making
Amazon well positioned in the content wars.

------
easp
This is an interesting experiement.

It's been a long time since I really paid close attention to the movie
industry, but I remember that one way money was raised, and risks shared, was
in the divvying up of distribution rights (and or options on those rights)
between domestic theatrical release, DVD sales, cable TV rights, and rights
for same in overseas markets.

Amazon is in an interesting position in this regard, they are positioned to
make money on physical and digital distribution to consumers through both
individual sales and amazon prime subscriptions. They also make money on the
home theater systems people use to consume this stuff. And, of course, they
are getting into the eBook publishing business. Controlling the film rights to
books gives them even more leverage over holywood.

It wasn't until now that I made the connection between the squeeze Amazon is
putting on book publishers, and how much leverage that gives them over
Hollywood. Good for amazon, but good for Apple too.

I also note that IMDB is an Amazon property, and that IMDB is both a way for
consumers to discover media, but also it has made some headway in
helpingsource the skills needed to make movies.

------
trobertson

        > What is a test movie?
        > An Amazon Studios test movie should be an inexpensive, full-length movie
        > that tells the whole story of the script in a compelling way, with very
        > good acting and sound.
    

Somehow, I don't think this will work. "Make a movie, to make a movie" doesn't
seem like an attractive offer.

I'm not a filmmaker, but from what I understand, it is much more convenient to
send out a script than it is to produce and edit a movie, and then send that
out. Going by what's presented in Jordan Mechner's "The Making of Prince of
Persia" [1], sending out a script sounds very easy, and very common, and it
sounds like the people who receive scripts will actually read them to
determine if they're good. It sounds like there is a lot of professional
feedback.

I don't see how Amazon Studios is going to improve on that, or even match it.
Getting feedback from professionals is very different from getting feedback
from Youtube junkies.

[1] <http://jordanmechner.com/category/prince-of-persia/>

~~~
easp
There is a lot of romance surrounding the movie business. That romance is a
lot of the reason there are so many good looking and or talented waiters and
waitresses in LA. It may be less visible, but you can be damn sure there are
lots of aspiring writers and directors who are attracted by the same romantic
notions.

With such a vast oversupply, I would not be surprised if there are plenty of
people who are willing to make a movie for the chance to make a Hollywood
movie (indeed, a lot of indie shorts and full-length flicks are already
attempts at just that).

Or, just look at it through the lens of the tech startup industry. You think
people aren't doing small projects on the side, for free, with friends, in the
hopes of scoring something bigger?

------
paul9290
I've always wanted to write the following exposition and climax story.

Two strangers separately receive a note in the mail detailing how the other
will die. The notes details the day and date of the strangers' deaths, an
approximate location and a vague notion how it will happen. The notes provides
small clues of their identities and thus both set out to id each other and
prevent their deaths.

Ultimately, though, their quests to save one another ends in tragedy, as they
mistakenly kill each other. Sorta you can't fight "Fate," type story.

Well if that sounds like a good idea for a movie or short-film I'd love to see
it made

Edit: Offering script ideas (crowd-sourcing scripts) could possibly be a good
"kill Hollywood," idea. Where the most popular crowd-sourced scripts get
funded thru either KickStarter or Amazon Studios.

~~~
gee_totes
You might be interested in this book: <http://machineofdeath.net/>

------
nicklovescode
Amazon's product introductions are like a mixture of Apple's product videos
and Sesame Street

------
robertp
Does anyone in the comments actually have experience in working with agencies
like CAA & William Morris besides watching Entourage? It is hard to tell the
full details & long term prospectives with Amazon studios but Hollywood is
about 100x harder to work into compared to any online app or service. An
online service you can build & market anywhere and it doesn't matter who you
know. Hollywood is exact opposite, you can write it from anywhere but you need
to be working in LA and be friends with plenty connected people and work with
good agents, lawyers, management, etc.

------
oron
Amazon has got it's fingers in so many pies ... and they all taste so good,

~~~
milkmiruku
Amazon's monopsony in the e-book market scares me.

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2011/11/cutting-...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2011/11/cutting-their-own-throats.html)

~~~
techgeek42
What? After the price fixing conspiracy from Apple and the Big Six, publishers
set eBook prices (via the agency model). That is why eBooks can cost more than
paper backs:
[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/20/amended_class_...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/20/amended_class_action_complaint_alleges_apple_publishers_engaged_in_price_fixing_conspiracy.html)

------
jenius
I can't believe there hasn't been a single comment on how ridiculously
horrible the introduction video is. I honest to god cannot figure out if this
is some absurd conspiracy or joke, but that video looks like it was produced
by a middle schooler with an istockphoto account using imovie.

Am I retarded? Is this really a joke? I don't get it...

------
aditya
I'm not sure if Amazon Studios represents real democratization of movie-
making, or if Primer: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)> does. Of
course cult classics like Primer are few and far between, just like successful
startups.

~~~
marquis
How was Primer democratic? It was made the same way every other great low-
budget film was made: a talented, single-minded and dedicated director.

------
geuis
Interesting until one reads to this part:

"To that end, we have established a first-look development deal with Warner
Bros., the biggest movie studio in Hollywood."

I'll pass. No one should be making _any_ deals with Hollywood anymore.

If this was Amazon's attempt to fund movies for its own distribution, that
would be awesome. But it's not.

------
slig
> Get your movie made. The goal of Amazon Studios is to work with Hollywood to
> turn the best projects into major feature films.

~~~
jjb123
"Work with".. then render unnecessary?

~~~
vibrunazo
We don't need to kill _Hollywood_ necessarily. But more broadly, the Hollywood
model. Instead of fighting new models, Hollywood could adapt. In a way "kill"
itself. We only talk about killing Hollywood because they have historically
refused to change. But if they embrace change, then startups should help them
change instead of killing it.

------
colinm
Hmm, concentrate power into a single company? And you thought Holywood was
bad?

------
richcollins
Sounds like its designed to feed into the existing system

