Bad news for Hollywood, not so bad for indie makers

Ash Greyson · August 22nd, 2006, 02:24 PM

DING DING DING DING! Producers are 99% of the problem in Hollywood, they are not risk-takers, they are money grubbers. It used to be they had to "PRODUCE" in order to earn money on the back-end, now they are getting SILLY money up front.

The plain truth is that you will always have to go thru Hollywood. They will find a way. The idea that someday you will make a movie in your backyard and it wind up in theaters will not be more viable in 10 years than it is now. Without MARKETABLE talent or MARKETABLE stories, it is all lightning in a bottle whether you shot it in VHS or Super35mm. I know it is the pipe dream in forums like these but it simply unrealistic and I will puke if I read another comment about how some new camera will bring Hollywood down... no... it will make some producer more money, period endstop.

ash =o)

Michael Struthers · August 25th, 2006, 02:52 PM

It's not the "producers" who are the problem specifically. Above the line talent (director, producer, star) are simply used to taking a large pct of a pictures investment money.

Secondly, he who owns the distribution methods controls the media. So low low budget filmmakers (who are "producers" as well) will try to run an end-run around this by web viewership. But your budget has to remain rock bottom, because your expected profits will be as well.

Though it will be interesting to see the first "web-only" film starring Bruce Willis....

Jeff Phelps · August 26th, 2006, 12:07 AM

All it takes is one Drudge Report size phenomenon on the net to make net movies the real deal. Someone will make a hit movie and everything will change overnight though it really took a long time for the tech to emerge to make it possible. It's going to be just another overnight sensation that took 20 years to produce.

There's life in the back channel these days. Look at the huge success of the file sharing sites. They had people by the tens of millions flooding their zone. The potential is there for a lot of net production and payoff. Even on a small scale I'd like to be making money producing video for a living. I'm talking small compared to Hollywood but that's the beauty of it. There will be a huge rush of material to consume each producer making a small chunk of the entertainment dollar pie so those late night reruns of 1930's movies will finally not be the best choice for entertainment. It's going to be a real example of spreading the wealth around IMO. Sure some sites will cash in big but others will make it on a smaller scale. Heck I just interviewed for a net tv production crew a couple of days ago. I'm also producing my own documentary. There are other avenues to pursue besides just big movies.

And who knows - some day we will all look back at the time people went out to watch new movies with nostalgia and say "why did they ever do that" because watching new material on the net will be the norm instead of the exception.

I'm putting a lot of effort and money into this reality. I expect it to pay off pretty well in the near future. I'm already making some money. I hope to make more but mainly I just want to do what I like for a living. I don't count on getting rich. But I hope to make a comfortable living at it. I think that's the way it will be and really should be. It's like bringing back the local storyteller who spun yarns around the campfire instead of making blockbusters in a far off city called Hollywood. I believe people will get a better quality product because there will be real competition. I believe ordinary folks will be able to make their living telling stories and teaching. I'm working on that goal right now. I've got some distribution lined up already. It's small scale now but hopefully it will become bigger.

Simon Wyndham · August 26th, 2006, 02:53 AM

Quote:

And who knows - some day we will all look back at the time people went out to watch new movies with nostalgia and say "why did they ever do that" because watching new material on the net will be the norm instead of the exception.

That will only happen when the main television set in your house is net compatible and the quality of streaming video is exceptionally high quality. There's no way that I would watch a movie for free on my PC, let alone pay for it. I know a lot of people who feel the same.

Once televisions can get high quality HD footage steamed from the net, it will be no different than watching television or movies now. No different at all, other than the technology behind how it is delivered.

I will always prefer a physical disc or medium of some kind though.

Mathieu Ghekiere · August 26th, 2006, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

That will only happen when the main television set in your house is net compatible and the quality of streaming video is exceptionally high quality. There's no way that I would watch a movie for free on my PC, let alone pay for it. I know a lot of people who feel the same.

Once televisions can get high quality HD footage steamed from the net, it will be no different than watching television or movies now. No different at all, other than the technology behind how it is delivered.

I will always prefer a physical disc or medium of some kind though.

I agree with that. I don't like watching a movie on computer, I always prefer home cinema and television screen. And I also like the feeling of wandering around in video stores...

Jeff Phelps · August 26th, 2006, 10:13 PM

If they can stream HD video through the air we can get that streamed HD video to the computer just the same as we can for broadcast tv. The technology just has to be developed. There's no difference in getting it for a tv and getting it for the computer.

I think video will drive the next generation of broadband. I also think that the steady stream of new tv channels including HD channels will create a huge market for new material that it will take many new producers to produce.

I can download HD tv now. I just can't stream it. People do this for all sorts of video right now. For example there are lots of folks downloading tv programs in usenet now. It isn't the same sort of flood that we saw with music but it can be some day.

I'd be willing to set my broadband connected computer to download a movie over night and watch it the next day. I can watch it on my tv if I choose too. Or I can watch it on my computer monitor which is essentially a HD viewing device. Monitors get far better pictures than SD tv's. And LCD monitors are getting bigger all the time. At some point it will be hard to distinguish a LCD monitor from a tv IMO.

It takes me a while to download a movie right now if I would happen to choose to do so. A couple of years ago I was getting a 5mbps connection which meant I could download a HD movie at about half the speed it would take for streaming. But my connection speed was cut back after a period of time making it hard to download a movie. About 4 years ago I had a continuous connection at about 3 mbps.

The technology for streaming HD isn't that far off. It will just take some time but it will become available. Meantime people are already downloading video for various purposes. Video blogs are becoming quite popular.

The time is coming soon when the web will become a video sourse for the average consumer. Again I see the great number of tv channels as a place to sell video too. I don't think we are so far away from the average person being able to become a video producer and make money at it.

Jeff Phelps · August 26th, 2006, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

I agree with that. I don't like watching a movie on computer, I always prefer home cinema and television screen. And I also like the feeling of wandering around in video stores...

My computer monitor produces a much better picture than my SD tv. My monitor is essentially a HD viewing device. It isn't out of the question that tv's and monitors will be interchangeable at some point soon. LCD tv's can easily be computer monitors and vice versa. They are essentially the same already. Sharp sells a 65 inch LCD monitor right now. Sure it's expensive but it won't be in a few years. It's just a matter of hanging your monitor where you can sit back comfortably at this point. People could love thin, flat screen giant LCD monitors as viewing devices.

Think back at how far technology has come in the past two decades and think again about how soon it could be that we will watch tv over the net.

Simon Wyndham · August 27th, 2006, 02:44 AM

Quote:

I'd be willing to set my broadband connected computer to download a movie over night and watch it the next day.

I live about 2 mins away from a DVD shop. Much more convenient to just go there, buy the DVD, and then watch it immediately! A lot of this new technology is technology for the sake of it. Going to the DVD shop has the added advantage of me getting some exercise due to having to get off my backside and go somewhere.

Jarrod Whaley · August 27th, 2006, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Phelps

I don't think we are so far away from the average person being able to become a video producer and make money at it.

You guys seem to be forgetting that even if independent production catches on as a mainstream phenomenon, and even if the available content is stuff that people actually want to watch (two massive ifs, by the way), the market will be flooded with so much content that profitability will be all but impossible for 99.99999999% of producers. If 35,652,067 people are making movies for the internet and 70,567,092 are watching those movies, well... do the math. This is pretty much already the reality, even before things really get started.

That's why Hollywood producers make so much money shovelling crap at us. A few hundred people control a massive industry. It's the only game in town, and if you want to play, you've got to pay.

I just get really tired of all this pie-in-the-sky stuff about "media democratization" and whatnot. Sure, everybody and their brother can afford to make a movie now. But can everybody make a good movie that people actually want to see? Nope.

Video blogs and YouTube and so on are always touted as evidence of The Arrival of The Great Democratized Cinema we've heard so much babbling about for the last ten years. But do you ever watch this stuff? It's fratboys putting fireworks in their butts and boring people with drab lives talking to webcams. Hooray for democracy.

If that's where the cinema and the moving image in general are going, then for cripes sakes, please let Hollywood have it all back (as much as I loathe their product).

Simon Wyndham · August 27th, 2006, 03:23 AM

Exactly. When every person and their dog is a filmmaker things will become extremely oversaturated. People will have to become VERY good at marketing, and be able to produce some EXTREMELY good stuff in order to stand out from the crowd.

Richard Alvarez · August 27th, 2006, 07:49 AM

Had a long talk with my brother the other day. He works for A large TelecommunicaTions industry. We talked about their new "Internet Television Protocol" that they've already developed. Yeah, HD TV on demand to your home television... OVER PHONE LINES.

It's comming. No question.

Microsoft is working to develop a 'box' to connect with... so you don't have to tie your computer up. But basically, it's a computer reciever that takes the content and sends it to your television.

The cable companies are fighting this really really hard. The reason is this. IF you can turn on your set, look at a 'tv guide' listing for content you want... pick it out and see it INSTANTLY... who is going to watch all the junk channels you are forced to buy? The cable companies DEPEND on you flipping up and down the channells, looking for something... essentially window shopping. On the off chance that you will stop and watch some cooking/travel/lifestyle/religious programming that you wouldn't normally seek out. If/When the 'surfing' element is removed, and it really is pick and choose ON DEMAND... then cable as we know it will cease to exist.

The technology IS here... the political legislation/regulation/jockeying is whats holding it up.

When you think about it... this development is bad news for INDIES... not Hollywood. Most of your average population will choose a known commodity (Name star/director/film) over an unkown... just a fact.

Simon Wyndham · August 27th, 2006, 08:02 AM

Oh, there is no doubt that we will get television via the net at some point. With that sort of smart choice selection it will make things a lot easier for sure.

The problem I have is that some industry types are liking to predict the end of having a big square box in your living room and instead seem to think that people will prefer to watch their movies on their PC or on a 1" mobile telephone screen. That just aint going to happen.

Mobile video will take off in a huge way at some point, but it will be in addition to existing entertainment, not instead of it.

Same goes for internet delivered television. It may change the way things are delivered, but it will not stop us sitting in front of a big box watching TV just like before. We'll just have more choice.

But even still, there will still be a lot of rubbish out there making it difficult for indies to get a foot hold.

Have you ever tried to make a video popular on Youtube? Like you say, people will seek out what and who they know. indie stuff will have to be very good indeed to get noticed. But I suppose at least a ready made distribution medium will be there for us.

Richard Alvarez · August 27th, 2006, 08:17 AM

Exactly my point. The delivery will be to the set in your living room. The advantage will be content ON DEMAND without having to surf through other channels, or kill time watching something else untill your movie comes on. As I said, the cable companies are fighting this tooth and nail.

And yes, I don't see this as a particularly great development for indies. "The Cream Will Rise to the Top" has always been AN element of success... not THE element mind you. Connections, knowing the right people, inside deals, all of these are also important in getting your product out there and successfull.

Sure, assume for a moment that somehwere in this VAST guide to content, your short film is listed. Perhaps its under the subheading of 'indy films under thirty minutes' or such. People who are interested in seeing it, WILL be able to see it. And they'll see it on the television set, while sitting on their comfortable couches. But you're still 'preaching to the choir'. We filmmakers are often the main buyers of other indy films...'art flicks' and such. Again, it will depend on how the stuff is marketed. Maybe the guide will allow for searches like 'google'. Then you could scan for particular content such as "Videos with fart jokes and beer guzzling" or "Videos with D and D as a theme"., "Stupid stunts".. that should take up thirty percent of the indy short content.

Now, as a distribution model, how will an indy filmmaker MAKE MONEY of his content. That's the real question.

Jarrod Whaley · August 27th, 2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

Now, as a distribution model, how will an indy filmmaker MAKE MONEY of his content. That's the real question.

Answer: for the most part, he or she won't. Instead, he or she will make money shooting weddings, corporate videos, commercials, etc.

Just like now.

Peter Ferling · August 27th, 2006, 11:29 AM

Bah! Once these money grubbers learn that the internet is the new watering hole, they'll take over and it'll be the same s***, going down a different pipe.

August 25th, 2006, 02:52 PM	#32
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	It's not the "producers" who are the problem specifically. Above the line talent (director, producer, star) are simply used to taking a large pct of a pictures investment money. Secondly, he who owns the distribution methods controls the media. So low low budget filmmakers (who are "producers" as well) will try to run an end-run around this by web viewership. But your budget has to remain rock bottom, because your expected profits will be as well. Though it will be interesting to see the first "web-only" film starring Bruce Willis.... __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

August 22nd, 2006, 02:24 PM	#31
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	DING DING DING DING! Producers are 99% of the problem in Hollywood, they are not risk-takers, they are money grubbers. It used to be they had to "PRODUCE" in order to earn money on the back-end, now they are getting SILLY money up front. The plain truth is that you will always have to go thru Hollywood. They will find a way. The idea that someday you will make a movie in your backyard and it wind up in theaters will not be more viable in 10 years than it is now. Without MARKETABLE talent or MARKETABLE stories, it is all lightning in a bottle whether you shot it in VHS or Super35mm. I know it is the pipe dream in forums like these but it simply unrealistic and I will puke if I read another comment about how some new camera will bring Hollywood down... no... it will make some producer more money, period endstop. ash =o)

August 26th, 2006, 12:07 AM	#33
Jeff Phelps Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Franklin Furnace, Ohio Posts: 74	All it takes is one Drudge Report size phenomenon on the net to make net movies the real deal. Someone will make a hit movie and everything will change overnight though it really took a long time for the tech to emerge to make it possible. It's going to be just another overnight sensation that took 20 years to produce. There's life in the back channel these days. Look at the huge success of the file sharing sites. They had people by the tens of millions flooding their zone. The potential is there for a lot of net production and payoff. Even on a small scale I'd like to be making money producing video for a living. I'm talking small compared to Hollywood but that's the beauty of it. There will be a huge rush of material to consume each producer making a small chunk of the entertainment dollar pie so those late night reruns of 1930's movies will finally not be the best choice for entertainment. It's going to be a real example of spreading the wealth around IMO. Sure some sites will cash in big but others will make it on a smaller scale. Heck I just interviewed for a net tv production crew a couple of days ago. I'm also producing my own documentary. There are other avenues to pursue besides just big movies. And who knows - some day we will all look back at the time people went out to watch new movies with nostalgia and say "why did they ever do that" because watching new material on the net will be the norm instead of the exception. I'm putting a lot of effort and money into this reality. I expect it to pay off pretty well in the near future. I'm already making some money. I hope to make more but mainly I just want to do what I like for a living. I don't count on getting rich. But I hope to make a comfortable living at it. I think that's the way it will be and really should be. It's like bringing back the local storyteller who spun yarns around the campfire instead of making blockbusters in a far off city called Hollywood. I believe people will get a better quality product because there will be real competition. I believe ordinary folks will be able to make their living telling stories and teaching. I'm working on that goal right now. I've got some distribution lined up already. It's small scale now but hopefully it will become bigger.

August 26th, 2006, 10:13 PM	#36
Jeff Phelps Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Franklin Furnace, Ohio Posts: 74	If they can stream HD video through the air we can get that streamed HD video to the computer just the same as we can for broadcast tv. The technology just has to be developed. There's no difference in getting it for a tv and getting it for the computer. I think video will drive the next generation of broadband. I also think that the steady stream of new tv channels including HD channels will create a huge market for new material that it will take many new producers to produce. I can download HD tv now. I just can't stream it. People do this for all sorts of video right now. For example there are lots of folks downloading tv programs in usenet now. It isn't the same sort of flood that we saw with music but it can be some day. I'd be willing to set my broadband connected computer to download a movie over night and watch it the next day. I can watch it on my tv if I choose too. Or I can watch it on my computer monitor which is essentially a HD viewing device. Monitors get far better pictures than SD tv's. And LCD monitors are getting bigger all the time. At some point it will be hard to distinguish a LCD monitor from a tv IMO. It takes me a while to download a movie right now if I would happen to choose to do so. A couple of years ago I was getting a 5mbps connection which meant I could download a HD movie at about half the speed it would take for streaming. But my connection speed was cut back after a period of time making it hard to download a movie. About 4 years ago I had a continuous connection at about 3 mbps. The technology for streaming HD isn't that far off. It will just take some time but it will become available. Meantime people are already downloading video for various purposes. Video blogs are becoming quite popular. The time is coming soon when the web will become a video sourse for the average consumer. Again I see the great number of tv channels as a place to sell video too. I don't think we are so far away from the average person being able to become a video producer and make money at it.

August 27th, 2006, 03:23 AM	#40
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Exactly. When every person and their dog is a filmmaker things will become extremely oversaturated. People will have to become VERY good at marketing, and be able to produce some EXTREMELY good stuff in order to stand out from the crowd.

August 27th, 2006, 07:49 AM	#41
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Had a long talk with my brother the other day. He works for A large TelecommunicaTions industry. We talked about their new "Internet Television Protocol" that they've already developed. Yeah, HD TV on demand to your home television... OVER PHONE LINES. It's comming. No question. Microsoft is working to develop a 'box' to connect with... so you don't have to tie your computer up. But basically, it's a computer reciever that takes the content and sends it to your television. The cable companies are fighting this really really hard. The reason is this. IF you can turn on your set, look at a 'tv guide' listing for content you want... pick it out and see it INSTANTLY... who is going to watch all the junk channels you are forced to buy? The cable companies DEPEND on you flipping up and down the channells, looking for something... essentially window shopping. On the off chance that you will stop and watch some cooking/travel/lifestyle/religious programming that you wouldn't normally seek out. If/When the 'surfing' element is removed, and it really is pick and choose ON DEMAND... then cable as we know it will cease to exist. The technology IS here... the political legislation/regulation/jockeying is whats holding it up. When you think about it... this development is bad news for INDIES... not Hollywood. Most of your average population will choose a known commodity (Name star/director/film) over an unkown... just a fact.

August 27th, 2006, 08:02 AM	#42
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Oh, there is no doubt that we will get television via the net at some point. With that sort of smart choice selection it will make things a lot easier for sure. The problem I have is that some industry types are liking to predict the end of having a big square box in your living room and instead seem to think that people will prefer to watch their movies on their PC or on a 1" mobile telephone screen. That just aint going to happen. Mobile video will take off in a huge way at some point, but it will be in addition to existing entertainment, not instead of it. Same goes for internet delivered television. It may change the way things are delivered, but it will not stop us sitting in front of a big box watching TV just like before. We'll just have more choice. But even still, there will still be a lot of rubbish out there making it difficult for indies to get a foot hold. Have you ever tried to make a video popular on Youtube? Like you say, people will seek out what and who they know. indie stuff will have to be very good indeed to get noticed. But I suppose at least a ready made distribution medium will be there for us.

August 27th, 2006, 08:17 AM	#43
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Exactly my point. The delivery will be to the set in your living room. The advantage will be content ON DEMAND without having to surf through other channels, or kill time watching something else untill your movie comes on. As I said, the cable companies are fighting this tooth and nail. And yes, I don't see this as a particularly great development for indies. "The Cream Will Rise to the Top" has always been AN element of success... not THE element mind you. Connections, knowing the right people, inside deals, all of these are also important in getting your product out there and successfull. Sure, assume for a moment that somehwere in this VAST guide to content, your short film is listed. Perhaps its under the subheading of 'indy films under thirty minutes' or such. People who are interested in seeing it, WILL be able to see it. And they'll see it on the television set, while sitting on their comfortable couches. But you're still 'preaching to the choir'. We filmmakers are often the main buyers of other indy films...'art flicks' and such. Again, it will depend on how the stuff is marketed. Maybe the guide will allow for searches like 'google'. Then you could scan for particular content such as "Videos with fart jokes and beer guzzling" or "Videos with D and D as a theme"., "Stupid stunts".. that should take up thirty percent of the indy short content. Now, as a distribution model, how will an indy filmmaker MAKE MONEY of his content. That's the real question.

August 27th, 2006, 11:29 AM	#45
Peter Ferling Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wyomissing, PA Posts: 1,141 Images: 57	Bah! Once these money grubbers learn that the internet is the new watering hole, they'll take over and it'll be the same s***, going down a different pipe.