
Amazon Studios - michael_nielsen
http://studios.amazon.com/
======
whosKen
This is great! I for one have always been writing scripts as a hobby. Film-
making business has always been a closed circle, even in foreign and indie
markets. An additional channel into the circle for people outside of Hollywood
couldn't hurt.

~~~
warrenwilkinson
That's what I thought too. I stumbled across this yesterday, while searching
for a market for my script.

The deal sounds great, I'm too busy to market my script properly, but I can
just upload it to them, get feedback, exposure, possibly win some money, and
maybe make $200,000 if they buy it.

Worst case scenario is I leave in 18 months with just my script again -- but I
figure that's the expected case for self promotion anyway.

~~~
whosKen
Agree. Even though I haven't tried to publish anything in print media format,
but I suspect that, at worst case scenario, this is no different from a writer
submitting his work and getting turned down with some comments.

------
draycox
I am constantly amazed at just how many things Amazon is involved in. Though I
do not work for them, I am pretty intimately involved with them, and have some
insider knowledge, and it blows my mind how many different, random, and
seemingly pointless things they work with.

I kinda have hard feeling against them because I feel like they go out of
their way to stifle (external) innovation. However they certainly do their
best to innovate within their own company. I literally can't think of any
other company that throws their money around on experiments to such a degree
as Amazon.

As for this project, It is an unique idea, and all it really takes is on home
run for the world to take notice, and for them to disrupt the current system.
Unfortunately I believe it is the writers' that are the most taken advantage
of in Hollywood, and it doesn't seem like this does anything to remedy that. I
think it would be better if they gave them $100k on the front end, and 10% on
the back end. That way they still get the guaranteed money for their work, but
they are compensated if it is a home run hit. That is a better deal than a lot
of studios give writers, and so it would actually attract high quality
scripts.

------
mortenjorck
Could this be considered a "seed-stage film fund?"

~~~
dbfclark
My answer would be "no," since rather than buying just a small piece of your
movie idea, Amazon studios options the entire thing immediately. Their
arrangement is "if we decide we want to make your movie, we will pay you $200k
and that's all."

In some sense $200k is actually quite a lot for a no-name script, but since
Amazon gets all the equity I don't think we can call it a seed fund. This may
be how the movie industry works (all the upside for a new writer is in
reputation), but since you don't get to make the movie and earn the profit it
doesn't seem comparable.

~~~
kenjackson
But do you get to keep your name on the script? There was that other project
for writers where apparently they could (and did) remove your name from the
list of authors. So you didn't even build a reputation.

As you say, $200k for a no-name script is actually not bad. And if it has some
decent success (gets made into a movie at all), that byline probably has some
value.

------
jcampbell1
Can anyone explain why amazon is doing this? Of all the industries they could
move into, why financing indie scripts?

~~~
MicahNance
Possibly as an avenue to creating original content for Amazon Instant Video.

------
6ren
Will today's cheaper, more accessible technology for making movies end up
disrupting the big studios?

It does bring movie-creation within reach of a great many more people; and
disruptive distribution channels are also growing (amazon; netflix; even
appleTV/iTunes; plus the growing "home theater"), as alternatives to movie
theaters.

The question is consumers: they have access to movies made with the highest
level of technical expertise, screenplays, character actors, stars,
franchises, marketing - and movies are _cheap_ to rent already (plus, piracy
drops their price to zero). Why would consumers select one of these indie
movies over the major studio movies? In a head-on comparison for the
mainstream, these indie movies would seem to have everything stacked against
them.

But indie movies aren't new, and there has always been a niche for them - just
not the mainstream. What is changing is their quality is increasing. What they
really need is slightly bigger niches, where their non-big-studio qualities
offset their not having all those other advantages. Do these bigger-niches
exist?

I'm not sure that they do. Even foreign language fims - made to very high
standards, with huge niches - are regularly remade by hollywood, and with much
greater commercial success in the mainstream. When people pirate movies, they
seem to pirate mainstream movies, not indie ones...

Here's what I think will happen: as soon as any film-maker gets a foothold of
some success, he will be co-opted by the big studios - as they have done with
the idea of an indie film (notice how "indie" films often have big name actors
in them these days?) They are still masters of the value networks for making
mainstream movies: theaters, stars, marketing.

Technology isn't the main commercial barrier to making movies, so reducing it
doesn't undermine their business.

What could change it is:

(1) if there were customers who prefer the indie films, because they are more
accessible or cheaper. But everyone can access films, and privacy makes them
free - denying indie entry.

(2) or if, even without a nurturing niche, indie films could become of such
high quality (according to the mainstream) that they could take business away
from the big studios. This would provoke a fierce competitive response from
the studios, and they have so much non-technical power that it seems unlikely.

What can happen is disruption of the traditional distribution channels of
video rentals (there's bankruptcies there already I think).

But probably not theaters (people like the theater partly because it is _not_
home - they are going out - there's the energy of a mass of people; a
different environment/atmosphere etc). Maybe cheaper projection equipment will
change the way it's done (e.g. there are now complexes that show many more
films, in smaller theaters), and that may disrupt traditional chains to some
extent, as discount stores disrupted department store. But I don't think so:
theaters have always been priced so that everyone can afford them; I guess
what might change is accessibility, with small theaters opening up locally.
But this niche is already filled; those small theaters can just upgrade their
equipment and keep making money in the same way - the cheaper technology is a
sustaining innovation for them. Unless someone works out a way to use it
disruptively... (maybe showing more films, more recently, at cheaper prices,
by using smaller theaters).

~~~
roc
I think what we'll continue to see, is the physical-distribution-based middle-
men fall away. They'll be awfully nice to have for quite a while. But the
production companies won't _need_ them for very long.

I expect an increase in digital middle-men in dealmaking (ala Netflix/HOUSE OF
CARDS). Followed by the digital middle-men striking exhibition deals with the
theatre chains. Then it's pretty much free-fall for traditional studios unless
they adjust their model.

The theatre chains actually stand to get a shot in the arm with digital and
physical middle-men competing on deals in the near-term. And with digital
distribution/projection bringing overhead down, they'll pick up an incredible
amount of flexibility in theatre-sizing/scheduling/etc. Exhibition is poised
to get pretty interesting.

And if the big chains won't do it, I'm sure the digital distributors would be
keen to prop up a smaller-theatre model in the interim.

------
jawngee
_cough_ <http://massify.com/> _cough_

~~~
jcampbell1
Massify is a "connect, collaborate, create" place, and amazon is running
contests for funding. It seems completely different to me.

~~~
jawngee
Massify is mostly competitions.

