
Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5 - iampliny
http://endcrawl.com/blog/film-not-disrupted-yet-part-5/
======
Keyframe
It's a multi-tiered problem with each one with its own complexities. I don't
want to write a long story now, but I want to emphasise one and one thing
only.

If you want to disrupt film and/or tv industry then you have to disrupt
people, not technology (by much). It's a people problem.

It takes a lot of people in a collaborative manner to work on a product like
that, with each person being skilled and expensive. You need a lot of people
like that for a long time. You also need wood, nails, paint, cars, space,
energy... lots of those in order to build sets. And someone to imagine them
and someone to design them.

Having a fancy camera, grip, lenses is a tiny tiny proportion of any
reasonable-sized budget. Most of the money goes to people and towards
materials, rentals and space for sets.

It's a lot of money too, if you want to make something reasonable. Not
everything can be made on a small budget with innovative story. Some products
can, but not majority.

What it means is that you need a lot of cash, and for that you need investors
(or deep pockets and then you don't care, maybe). With investors there are
expectations of return on investment. And with that you're in the realm of
distribution.. and then real complexities come forward.

You can't expect to raise anything moderate in crowd-funding for these types
of products. It's too much for the level where that is now.

Note: I work in this industry. I have or have access to free state-of-the-art
cameras, grip, lenses, even studio facilities and more, yet I can't make a
movie just like that. I still need to pay lots of people to do their job and
pay the materials for (at least some) sets or set dressing.

It's a people problem. They need to eat and pay bills and they don't care
(much) about your grand vision if you're not paying.

~~~
ericjang
How much of this applies if the medium is pure CG/traditional animation?

~~~
Keyframe
A LOT more pronounced. Pre-production has to be done to a minute level and
production takes A LOT of time with A LOT of people.

Let me give you a little back of the envelope type of breakdown for a feature
film (not animated). Average feature length is 90 minutes. Let's say you have
all the expensive gear for free (including cameras, grip, lights). Let's also
say you have all the locations and sets for free. 'Natural' locations for
example - those are the ones that you use locations as-is, like friend's
apartment that looks nice, local coffee shop, that kind of stuff. Locations
where you can't get the lights exact as you want, but at least they don't need
much of, if any set dressing.

Let's also say you are writing your own script (90 minutes / ~90 pages), and
you will be doing your own editing, sound design, mixing and mastering, as
well as color grading and a few cheap, but semi good-looking vfx shots that
you've found tutorials on how to make them from videocopilot or whatever. You
can do only a few since they take a lot of time to make. Your friend of a
friend will take up distribution and marketing, and your mom will pay the
bills and prep food for you during the first few months while you write your
script and do location scouting, script lining/breakdown/storyboard and the
other stuff needed for pre-production.

Now, you have everything for free - you 'just need to shoot the movie'. What
does that entail?

Most optimistic projections for a 90 minute feature-length movies are around
30 days worth of shooting. That's three minutes per day, which might sound
little, but is actually a lot. Between each setup (changing camera location),
you have to move/change lights, get actors ready and shoot. That takes time.

Here's an optimistic skeleton crew for something decent. On the set you will
have yourself as a director, cameraman/director of photography and his
assistant (at least one for focus at least, since you're shooting with prime
lenses). You will also have a sound mixer and a boom guy (the one with the
fishing rod). You will also have two friends who move the lights around and
two that will help with grip and set (one will move dolly around, one will
arrange apple boxes and help decorate the set. He's a wonderful guy, he can do
all of that by himself). You will also have your assistant that will take care
of notes for your editing later (a script supervisor) and she will
occasionally hit the slate and help the actors with their lines. One other
friend will help with make-up and her friend with hair and wardrobe that you
borrowed from somewhere too. You will also need your three actors. That's all
your innovative script needs. Except those two scenes where you need people
sitting near-by them in the coffee shop and that scene where extras are in the
public transportation bus around them,, but we won't talk about that.

That's: 1 you, 1 your assistant/scriptie, 1 DP and 1 his assistant, 1 sound
guy and 1 boom guy, 2 light guys that also run around with their cars if
something needs to be fetched, 2 grip guys that have keen decorating sense to
double for set design, 1 make-up girl/guy and 1 hairdresser / wardrobe, 3
actors. That's 15 people.

15 people that will work for 15+ hours for 30 days straight. Of those 15
people, 8 people will need to work two weeks ahead of shoot, also long hours.
They will need to prep. Actors will need to read lines, learn them, you will
need to block action with them, block action on set, rehearsals, rehearsals...
DP and assistant will need to design lighting around locations you've found,
scriptie will prep for her notes, make-up and wardrobe will need to prep what
will be look of actors.

That's 15 people for 30 days straight, 8 people for 2 weeks straight. For 15+
hour days. You will need to move them around and feed them like babies.
Because empty-stomached set is not a good set. And no, you can't eat pizza for
30 days straight. Crafty table also doesn't count as a full meal, which you
need if you work for 15+ hours, mostly standing and/or pushing heavy objects.

That's the skeleton indie movie. On the borderline of possible.

Now, take animation. It's kind of the same, but your friends can't help
because they can't draw / 3d model, and those that can can't animate. I'm
helping a friend finish his ~5 minute animation just these days. With my help
and a few others (not full-time, I took few shots from him as well as other's
have.), his full-time, 10+ hour days accumulate to about three and a half
years. That's on a whole other level of people bottleneck. I actually started
out as an animator, then layout artist, then switched to VFX TD (I programmed
for a long time, still do for fun) then from there to editing, script and then
direction and creative. That's where I'm at today.

edit: you'll also have squabbles after the first week or two, when people are
over-worked. You'll hear something like 'Fuck you and your stupid-ass movies.
I'm out. Deduct from my pay. That's right, you're not paying, buddy!' and then
you will make peace, and you will end the shoot for the day. And after a
month+ of emotional rollercoaster you will be alone for a couple of more
months in your mother's bedroom editing the movie. While at it, you will look
at the shots and then you will have thoughts along the following: 'This scene
looks like shit. Look at that damn acting. I shouldn't have listened to what
people were suggesting to me on the set'. And you would be right. Along with
all of the stress, you will be, due to in-experience, gullible to all of the
advices on the set. Everyone has them, from dolly operator to actors. And you
will, in your insecurity, listen to them and depart from your vision and
settle for a compromise. One that will compromise your original vision and you
can't go back once you're in the editing with crappy shots. All of the
advisors will be doing other stuff by then, and you will have to take those
shots and put your name first on that shit pie. Not theirs, yours. Yet, you
weren't calling the shots, you were compromising because you thought you can't
make people listen to your vision because you didn't pay them.

~~~
wj
As somebody who has written and produced a feature-length film for $10k, and
turned out nothing close to Christopher Nolan's Following, I have to say that
this comment is spot on.

~~~
Keyframe
I congratulate you on going through that from start to finish. People have no
idea what a mountain that is. Yet, you've climbed it. If nothing else, the
height of your climb is an achievement worth congratulating.

------
jasode
The article's Part 1 refers to an old HN thread and buried in there is a good
comment from anactofgod about "disrupting Hollywood":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491584)

His analysis has similar to themes to the misunderstanding of "gatekeepers"
like Netflix / Amazon Video / HBO and why they exist.

Gatekeepers are an _emergent property_ of artists not having money to self-
finance their projects -- and -- also not wanting to mess around with tasks
that are unrelated to creativity such as managing a web server farm to
distribute their videos to their fans.

There was a recent HN thread where people were frustrated that they had to pay
for multiple streaming services (Netflix/Hulu/Amazon) to get _all_ the shows
they wanted. Several suggested that we need to move towards a decentralized
P2P distribution platform. Unfortunately, as techies and programmers, we don't
consider the underlying economic forces that created the centralized
gatekeepers in the first place. For example... if director/producer David
Fincher wants the highest payment for his project, he can go to Netflix execs
and convince them give him $100 million[1]. How would he get that kind of
payday from decentralized systems such as IPFS / Sandstorm / DECENT[2]?

[1][http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-outbids-hbo-
da...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-outbids-hbo-david-
fincher-167882)

[2][https://decent.ch/](https://decent.ch/)

~~~
whack
_> Gatekeepers are an emergent property of artists ... not wanting to mess
around with tasks that are unrelated to creativity such as managing a web
server farm to distribute their videos to their fans._

This exact same argument can also be made wrt Musicians. Justin Bieber has no
interest in managing a web server farm to distribute his music to fans. And
yet, I'm able to go online and purchase specific Justin Bieber songs/albums
that I'm interested in, without having to pay monthly fees to some Netflix-
type aggregator.

 _> Gatekeepers are an emergent property of artists not having money to self-
finance their projects_

This seems like a much stronger argument, and I agree that making a TV show is
vastly more expensive than making songs. But the vast majority of new
musicians do not self-finance their first few albums either. They sign up with
a record label, and the record label finances the
production/marketing/distribution costs. And ultimately, when consumers pay
money to buy the songs/albums, a cut of that money goes back to the record
company in order for them to recoup their investment.

The exact same model can work for television shows as well. HBO bankrolls
David Fincher $100M to produce Utopia. Customers who want to watch Utopia can
pay money just to watch Utopia, without having to sign up for HBO. And as
"equity holders", a percentage of that customer money goes back to HBO.

I'm sure there are many other niggling issues that need to be worked out, but
at a fundamental level, I don't see why this revised model can't work.
Allowing consumers to pay only for the shows that they want to watch, instead
of forcing them to pay for an entire monthly bundle, seems like it should be
much more economically efficient.

~~~
jasode
_> songs/albums that I'm interested in, without having to pay monthly fees to
some Netflix-type aggregator._

Many music lovers subscribe to Spotify which has 30+ million tracks to choose
from. However, it doesn't have the Taylor Swift albums because she pulled
them. If those customers want to hear Taylor Swift, they have to buy them from
Apple Itunes or Amazon Music.

T Swift made a voluntary choice to net her the best paying deal which means
digital music customers have to pay for more than one service. Add up
thousands of different musicians each looking after their self-interests for
the best deal and it ends up _creating_ several intermediaries.

 _> Customers who want to watch Utopia can pay money just to watch Utopia,
without having to sign up for HBO._

It's not about being a monthly subscriber or an on-demand occasional payer --
it's about the mystery of HBO even _existing_ as an intermediary that often
puzzles techies.

~~~
whack
_> Many music lovers subscribe to Spotify which as 30+ million tracks to
choose from_

I'm not opposed to bundle-options being available, as long as I can choose to
avoid them and pay ala carte. I don't even mind having to use 5 different
sites in order to buy all my favorite content, as long as I'm only paying for
the specific content I want on each of those sites.

That's my biggest complaint with television. For most popular TV shows, if I
want to watch the latest episodes, I have to sign up and pay for an entire
bundle that I'm not interested in. That strikes me as being both consumer-
unfriendly, and economically-inefficient.

~~~
TeMPOraL
You paying for the entire bundle is what makes me, a person who likes less-
than-most-popular TV shows, to be able to watch those shows - they probably
would _never exist_ without that economic inefficiency in the first place! So
that's why I'm probably biased, but I do believe economic efficiency leads to
lowest-common-denominator products, which I find to be a bad thing in arts.

------
danso
One factor that I didn't see mentioned in this post or the author's previous
post is the strength and influence of the union. I lived with an actress who
had moderate enough success to do acting full time, have an agent, and be in
the Screen Actors Guild. I was amazed at how much money she could pull in for
just having a split-second role in a nationally broadcast ad, when it seems
likely a company could finds hundreds of attractive, willing people to show up
in an ad for a few hundred bucks. My impression from her was that doing non-
union work as SAG member could easily kill your career, considering how most
studios do not work with non union folks, as SAG would push back hard on them.

That said, the film industry is very much built on sentiment and brand. I'm a
fan of movies from all eras, so I don't understand why people are so thrilled
to pay money to see a new movie when there are so many great movies in the
past few decades, nevermind the past year. But people today really want to see
Jennifer Lawrence's new work, no matter how many other equally great actresses
have had great roles in years past.

Same deal with franchises, in movies and in games. A fan-remake could remove
Nintendo characters and assets and still have the exact same game mechanics
and quality, but very few people would give a shit. We want to see the
characters and worlds we grew up with and loved, regardless of whether the
actual vehicle (movie, game, etc) isn't particularly noteworthy.

Edit: Contrast film with other industries that have been disrupted. I like
Seymour Hersh, but I don't care if a great investigative reporting scoop comes
from him or from a blogger, I just care about its veracity and impact. Same
with software; John Resig seems like a great human being but that's not the
main reason for jquery's dominance. Meanwhile, if Star Wars Force Awakens
refused Harrison Ford's demands and put someone else in as Han Solo, people
would not be so accepting.

Note: I'm not saying the union is bad. It's probably more useful to see the
strength of the union as a reflection of the inherent strength and value that
actors wield in moviemaking.

~~~
fezz
Related: Peter Coyote's Open Letter To Lead Actors
[http://deadline.com/2008/07/peter-coyotes-open-letter-to-
lea...](http://deadline.com/2008/07/peter-coyotes-open-letter-to-lead-
actors-6415/)

"Since 1990 the earnings of the top leading actors have increased
exponentially while the salaries of nearly all other actors have been
systematically driven down. In many cases, the earnings of established
character actors have been rolled back by 60-70 percent. This occurs, in large
part, because the working professional (as opposed to the star) is at a
disadvantage when negotiating in the new corporatized production environment.
We do not possess a unique, marketable (and often media exploited) brand, and
consequently lack the power to make or break the existence or profitability of
a film. Consequently, respected, veteran actors with numerous credits and
hard-earned “quotes” now routinely receive “take-it-or-leave it” offers, often
at “scale”—a beginners wage."

~~~
danso
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the major studios aren't actively trying to
improve their bottom line even if it means screwing over their employees and
actors. Just that from the perspective of a working journalist, the influence
and ubiquity of union work in film was very surprising, because I could not
imagine such a situation in journalism. When my roommate had a drought of
work, she looked for blogging gigs, which she did a decade ago and was
compensated for as a freelancer. She was genuinely shocked when outlets who
paid her in the past said she should be happy to now blog for free for the
exposure.

------
hondo77
It might help if "disrupt the film industry" would be defined. Seriously, what
does that even mean? Disrupt it so "the little guy" can make movies? You can
put together a feature-length movie with an iPhone, a good microphone, and
free editing software. Actors might help, too. Want some snazzy vfx? You can
do your own. Want your product to be seen all over the world? Thanks to the
magical internet, you can have it up for sale on numerous sites. So what do we
mean by "disruption"? Oh, you want people to actually _see_ your masterpiece?
That doesn't require disruption; what you're talking about is old-fashioned
marketing. You need a "Paranormal Activity"-style marketing campaign (a movie,
BTW, which cost $10K to make).

Chances are, though, your movie is crap (as 95% of anything is) so nobody is
going to want to see it anyway.

~~~
yuhong
Look up "Hollywood accounting". Not to mention DRM too.

~~~
JamesBarney
Looked up "Hollywood accounting". Basically an accounting trick to screw
people out of their cut of movie profits.

Also familiar with DRM.

Still have GP's original question. What is disrupting hollywood mean?

~~~
yuhong
Who do you think is responsible for these?

~~~
JamesBarney
Does disrupting Hollywood mean that Steven Spielberg gets his fair share of
the profits?

------
6stringmerc
Always troublesome trying to balance art and commercial value in a discussion
- film, music, whatever.

Want to see what disruption of a formerly 'high barrier' artistic industry
looks like? Photography. I'm pretty sure the ubiquity of cameras and the
assists and tricks and filters that are available now have had a significant
impact on the income of professional photographers.

The last elephant in the room is that a large swath of people who attempt
creative endeavors drastically over estimate their talent and under estimate
the amount of work a polished product takes. Everybody has to start somewhere,
sure. I've just noticed the modern mindset a little more expecting praise
rather than understanding it needs to be earned sometimes and then crying
about bullying when valid criticism comes rolling in (see: either Corey
Feldman performance on the Today Show this year).

~~~
qznc
> under estimate the amount of work a polished product takes

I agree in general. On the other hand, Youtube shows that less polished can be
enjoyable as well. This provides more and smoother ways for amateurs to level
up in skill and/or professionalism. Those who survive Youtube criticism
probably have a thick skin.

~~~
6stringmerc
Oh absolutely! That's why I don't want to disparage the early works, I mean I
had to begin somewhere as well.

I think the 'distribution' of film has genuinely been disrupted (I recall the
days on dial-up ouch) as Netflix moving from DVDs to streaming revenue
indicates. The content creation though? Much bigger picture. It will take a
lot of little disruptions to add up to something major, because the current
model, well, just works for now.

At the end of the day though the "industry" part of film or music or whatever
really doesn't give a shit _what_ they are selling as long as they are making
a handsome profit on whatever it is.

~~~
ghaff
>The content creation though? Much bigger picture.

A lot of it is that, YouTube video stars notwithstanding, "we" have long
become accustomed to pretty high levels of technical craft in video that takes
a fair bit of effort and money to create. Some of the equipment has come down
in price a lot. My DSLR, in the right hands, can produce technically stunning
footage. But you need a lot of expertise and, often, things like lighting gear
to turn that into professional-looking footage.

------
btown
It's worth reading the entire series, beginning with
[http://endcrawl.com/blog/film-not-disrupted-yet-
part-1/](http://endcrawl.com/blog/film-not-disrupted-yet-part-1/) .

While large tech companies are great at attracting talent, that doesn't create
a dearth of talent going into smaller startups. The driver here is Part 1: the
capital requirements for any high-quality project are huge and up-front. And
as entertainment is getting increasingly saturated, there's no real way for a
"unicorn" franchise to be born out of an indie flick. No upstart VC will take
a bet on you making the next Star Wars, even if you're already an industry
insider... and in that case, per the OP, it's much more reliable for you to
work within the current system. And on top of that, industry fundamentals
don't look good: from one of the links in Part 4,
[https://redef.com/original/the-future-of-film-part-i-us-
film...](https://redef.com/original/the-future-of-film-part-i-us-film-is-not-
a-growth-business) .

Perhaps film is truly an industry in decline, and the disruption is already
happening - not from Netflix and other content producers, but in the form of
interactivity and mainstream gaming. Perhaps the monetization model there is
simply better. Time will tell.

------
bbctol
It seems more that the film industry _has_ been disrupted, it's just that
small studios have been hurt and large conglomerates were the ones to seize
power. Technology changed the economics of the film industry in a disruptive
way, and "disruption" shouldn't be a term reserved for small startups taking
advantage of those shifts as opposed to large companies.

------
WillPostForFood
Film isn't being disrupted by new ways to make the same old film product, it
is being disrupted because they time and money that used to be spent watching
movies is now being spent in other ways, like watching game streams on Twitch,
or YouTube personalities.

~~~
ghaff
I seriously doubt Twitch and YouTube personalities have had a significant
impact on movie watching. What I could believe but don't have numbers to prove
is that subscription streaming TV--much of which is in serial form--is pulling
audiences away from film especially given that subscription streaming movie
catalogs are pretty thin.

~~~
WillPostForFood
I agree, and that matches my own behavior, but I was looking more at what kids
are doing as a sign of the disruption. This is just anecdotal observation as a
parent, but I see my kids and their friends spend hours a day watching YouTube
and Twitch, rarely Netflix, and never broadcast/cable TV. They'll watch a
movie once every couple weeks, and go to a theater a few times a year. To them
Rosanna Pansino is a HUGE star, and they don't know who Steven Spielberg is.

~~~
ghaff
Fair enough. I was thinking about adults. Though, as a kid, I watched few
movies--but, then, I didn't have anything like the opportunities to do so that
one does today.

------
anindha
The reason why two people can start a world changing technology company is
because tools have evolved to reduce the cost of production.

The same thing has to happen in the movie industry. This is happening, but
slowly.

Final Draft costs $249 for a text editor, and Amazon is creating a cloud
version for free. You can take a lot of interesting shots with drones that
would have costs lots of money to shoot with a helicopter in the past.

There will come a day when someone can create an MVP of their movie using
animation software on there iPad. Use this to spark imagination in investors
and produce a full movie at much lower cost because all the shots have been
fully planned.

------
Joeboy
Megan Ellison's had a pretty good stab at breaking into film financing. I
don't think it's impossible as long as you have, say, a hundred million
dollars at your disposal. If you don't, that's basically game over as that's
what you need to finance a handful of decent indie films.

~~~
apalmer
your point is valid... however i think its going to get into the same feedback
loop as regular movie studios. fundamentally even if you have 100 million to
make 5 films, you really cant afford a 20 million dollar flop. As long as your
a rational actor your going to start chasing hits and trying to minimize flops
by 'standardizing' your films.

The fundamental problem is in my opinion we want folks with millions on the
line to not act like rational actors but instead do it 'for the art'... this
will happen from time to time but will not really be the norm i think.

~~~
Joeboy
Yeah, really the point I was trying to make (obliquely) was that the reason
there aren't many new entrants to the business side of film is that it's
incredibly expensive and risky, even to make a single film. Occasionally you
hear of an ultra-low budget horror that earned millions despite being made for
less than the cost of a house, but those are a rarity. If you're a new entrant
and you can actually get a film financed, you're going to make friends in the
industry very easily.

------
tomphoolery
John Waters, in my opinion, has done way more for "disruption" of the film
industry than anyone else I can think of. Maybe Herschell Gordon Lewis, but
John Waters was basically using the same tools but didn't have nearly the
commercial slant that the H.G. Lewis movies did (since Lewis was, by trade, an
advertising executive...he basically made movies on the side for fun).

You can make films, and release them to the public, without involving
Hollywood (called "the film industry" in this article, which is just as
incorrect as calling the 5 major record labels "the music industry", though
not 100% inaccurate) right now. I don't understand where the "disruption" part
comes in. As far as I can tell, it's already been disrupted...

------
ryuker16
The film industry has been disrupted.

Youtube? Piracy? Online streaming? Digital cameras?

Bigger tent pole movies are still traditional becuase theyre less art and more
so investment sschemes. Nobody wants disruption there: thats for quirky indie
mmmovis

------
shams93
Movies are not being disrupted because like recorded music they are being
displaced by the game industry. Just take a gander at Sony's income breakdown
and games are as big as music and film put together. You don't want to disrupt
an industry that's being displaced you want to get into the new industry
that's displacing it.

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/297533/sony-sales-
worldw...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/297533/sony-sales-worldwide-by-
business-segment/)

------
eva1984
Isn't the first question to ask is ... why? Why certain industry will need to
be disrupted and why it is considered a good thing? I didn't see any content
creation industry has been disrupted, only the funnels/media are. There are
just that many people on this planet can produce high quality
music/movies/stories and even proven figures could lead to high profile
failures. The risk is HIGH, and there isn't too much technology could do to
improve that.

------
SixSigma
Film was disrupted with the release of DV cams.

I have a full-length feature on DVD on Amazon recorded on DV.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
If they looked at stats like "hours of YouTube watched by under 18s", they'd
need a change of underwear.

Walking dead. Putting out comic books in film is just a symptom.

------
anotherarray
What about bootstrapped, self-funded, youtube channels that became huge?

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
There was a really good article about this (wish I could find it) about how
the majority of these aren't making much, if any money. From the outside it
appeared that the artists are rolling in cash; from the inside, they were
still working waiter/waitress jobs to make ends meet.

~~~
sndean
Yeah I heard from one YouTuber (over email) that only ~1000 worldwide are
currently making a living solely from their YouTube career. And that includes
certain successful channels that employ 20+ people.

------
neom
-

~~~
steveklabnik
> most people get into cinema for love, not money

Isn't that part 4? [http://endcrawl.com/blog/film-not-disrupted-yet-
part-4/](http://endcrawl.com/blog/film-not-disrupted-yet-part-4/)

------
guard-of-terra
It was definitely disrupted. By TV shows.

Fifteen years ago, TV shows was what housewives view, and something you can
throw in when no blockbusters are on the screen.

Today, movies are laughable. Characters are so unnatural. Plots are so old. FX
take so much screen time. On top of that they're so awfully long while lacking
enough detail and consideration. TV shows are so much superior these days it's
not even funny.

------
kingmanaz
While slapstick, check out Kung Fury for an example of successful
collaborative filmmaking:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg)

~~~
Joeboy
It's great, Stranger Things definitely seemed less fun as a result of having
watched this first.

On the other hand, it's an _extremely_ successful crowdfunding effort, and
still probably didn't make anybody any real money. In fact some people paid to
be in it. And being a pastiche of bad movies allows a lot of latitude in
production value. It's incredibly impressive for the budget, but no serious
film would work with those production values. It's also a third of the length
of a feature film.

------
DigitalJack
Bad title, should say film industry.

~~~
4ad
I agree, I clicked thinking its about silver halides.

------
hossbeast
"Where would the tech industry be if every engineer’s highest aspiration was
landing a gig with Verizon?"

Lol irl

