Bad news for Hollywood, not so bad for indie makers
 

Bad news for big celebrities and producers.
 

Probably good news for Hollywood as well.

Once they knock these ridiculous $10m+ paychecks down for everyone, they'll go back to making more manageable sized movies. This was years ago, but I had a friend who worked on Lethal Weapon II and they had 17 camera men on the set. I asked him what the purpose of that was, and he replied that as a producer, you do that to raise the budget to justify the salary that you want to earn.

I don't understand what they're doing in Hollywood these days. Honestly, some movies that have come out recently just should not have been made, it's a waste of time and money. Look at some of these artsy loser pics like "Lady in the Water", though I enjoyed it because I "got" it, not many others will.

The "Superman Returns" movie was handled terribly, nobody wants to see the original Reeves-style movies, they want to see a reinvention of the story a'la "Batman Begins", plus even though they said they didn't, they retold the original Superman story AGAIN! It's not like everyone hasn't heard of Superman's story, we hear it all the time in cartoons, comics, videogames, and the original movies. Had they maybe moved to a more serious tone like the comics have been doing for the past 16 years, then maybe they'd have gotten somewhere with the new film, a new villian wouldn't hurt either, or at least add one in on top of Lex Luthor.

Also, I don't think Hollywood realizes that their money is mostly going down the toilet with a lot of their smaller films. If they saved the $30-$60 million per small experimental film for three or so movies, then they'd be able to make one big film with better chances for success. I don't care if it's "so-and-so's" first new film in years, if it's a suck film about a guy with a midlife crisis then forget it, studios need to tell some people "No." with an emphasis on that period. We don't need more artsy academy award-possible films, we need more fun. The ones I'm tired of seeing are the lame children comedies like this new one "Flicka", who gives a flying whooey about a farm with a horse movies these days? Where's something more fun like a girl with a "magic cell phone" or a guy with a "technologically advanced missile-fortified indestructible scooter" or something like that? We've got the technology, why not use it?

Also, why isn't Hollywood more careful with young talent? If a new director comes up to you as a studio head with only one really sure-fire idea of his own and three or four lousy ones after that, why would you pick him over the guy with eighteen okay ideas? That would be just like adding another name to the list of people doing nothing at the moment. And where is the new generation of screenwriters? Why do we have all of these really sad screenwriters with nothing to write about other than disfunctional families, sad divorcees, kidnappings, and some practically cinematic remakes of A&E biography specials?

Piracy? Just invest some money into and work alongside getting theatres hooked up with cell phone blockers and video jammers and you're all set. To further that, make it so you have to have a professional license to make DVD's, Blurays, or HD-DVDs. Nobody said the Average Joe had to be able to make his own films, look at what CD burners did to music, we've got thieves galore, why give them lockpicks? HDCP the answer? Sure, but make it worse for the thief, make the resolution 160x120, practically unwatchable even on an SD TV. Movies on the net? Go ahead, but release those AFTER the theatrical release, by a week or two compared to the three to six months for the DVD/Bluray/UMD/HD-DVD version. Want to sell more DVD's? Then stop re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-releasing each movie in a new edition that nobody will follow up with fully and release the best version possible, none of this third-party "enhanced"-version stuff. Basically, instead of releasing Lord of the Rings regular, extended, and the new regular+extended with new documentary, make one big package for each and STOP! If new documentaries come out, release them on their own DVD or make it a pay-per-view internet download movie.

So, I guess in conclusion, Hollywood isn't thinking at the moment.

Thankfully, nobody has ever said we don't have that right either.

Well, flicka is a remake, as are alot of hollywood shlock these days. One of the troubles is that people are running the studios don't really know movies, that might be why they have to spend so much on marketing.
Personally i don't care for the fun movies, nuclear protected scooters don't inturestme. But there should be enough room for all type of movies. This summer of movies is el stinko, not only did i not see any movies in thearter, but i didn't want to really see any of them at all. The remote was about a guy woth a remote that controlls reality, I'm already tired of the idea just by writting about it.

But the salary issue does bother me (damn you jimmy stewart, what evil did you unleash). Sometimes i won't see a movie just because i think the star is over paid. But that being said I'm a capatlist, so let the market deside what some one is worth.

Oscar movies, much like the oscars, don't mean anything, the acedamy is made up of people who don't really have much tio do with movies (as i understand it).

Basicly this is hollywoods same sob story, they've been saying how tough it is for years. Maybe this time something will actually happen, but i dout it . This same story happened when they went to sound, whrn tv came out and when the vcr went mainstream. Thoese cry babies!

Wow Jack I don't want to be harsh but I disagree with almost all of your points. I do agree that fun films pay the bills. I just don't believe another teenage misfit with a magic revenge gizmo is fun at all. That genre has been beat to death. So has the hot dog kid with the power to show up his parents. Wooo there's an original plot line for you.

I think those people you seem to want to withold real technology from are the people who can create the new stuff that we will find fun. Hollywood is so mired in their formulas that they wouldn't recognize a new way if it bit them on the proverbial rump.

Music didn't lose money because of technology IMO. They lost money because of payola and crappy music. You just can't hold back progress. Those movies you seem to like about a kid with the ultimate gizmo that can change his world should be about real gizmos because they are out there. I saw a movie that came close to portraying just that plot in "Tapeheads". It could be remade to show a realistic rise to fame of the true outsider. That movie could be fun IMO. But that's just one example.

We don't need to try to hold back the clock. That never works. We need to embrace the new tech and profit from it. When someone comes along with the new business model there will be lots of money to be made by all. iTunes has already done that for the music industry you said suffered so from the new technology.

To be blunt those who want to keep the market cornered so they can cash in really need to get out of the way and let the new show begin. It's out there. Someone will figure it out. Keeping video technology out of the hands of the public is absolutely the wrong thing to do IMO. That's where the new way will come from.

Only reason Hollywood is still in business is because it has the power of marketing and the ownership of the cinema chains.

The bubble is about to burst I think.

I agree with Jeff in disagreeing with almost every point you've made, Jack.

It is funny I've felt the same way this year and for the last couple of years. Really nothing I want to see at all outside a handful of films.

But I'm trying to figure out if it's the films themselves or me who has changed. I mean as far as I remember it there have always been happy meal films. There has always been the "fomula". Of course I'm only 27 so I haven't been around as long as some of you old timers. But I'm starting to think it's just that people have so many other things to these days, like the internet and video games and television. As well as all the real world things that have always been around likes sports, special events and travel.

I find I spend a lot of time on the internet and also enjoy many television shows more then actual movies. Whether episodic television shows or documentaries. Even podcasts are taking up more of my time.

I'm not wasting my time anymore going to see remakes or things like Jackass.

That's a good anecdote, I suppose, but it's a little tongue in cheek. Just FYI:

"Cameramen" in this context likely would have meant all of camera dept. For each camera, on a feature, you would have:

1 Camera operator
1 1st Assistant Cameraman (to pull focus, change lenses, be responsible in general for the camera)
1 2nd Assistant Cameraman (to help get focus marks, handle slate, get camera pieces out of cases)
1 Loader (sometimes there's one loader for multiple cameras)

So on your average big stunt day on a movie like Lethal Weapon, you'd have at least 4 cameras, each with the people listed above. The layperson might wonder why one camera needs 4 people, but if you knew what was involved, you'd likely understand.

By the way, total Camera Dept. costs for your average blockbuster feature (including film stock, processing, prints, etc) would probably be under 15%.

Sorry Lori, not trying to be a jerk, it's just that this is exactly the place to point out exaggerations like that .

No, my friend was one of the producers
 

and was talking about the number of camera men - not camera department. I do know the difference. The point again, is to make decisions that drive the budget up, that allow the producer to collect the paycheck they are looking for.

I don't have a problem if someone like Jim Carrey makes $25 million a picture. Or some CEO making $100 million. It's capitalism. I'd like to make $25 million too, but if they make crappy movies, bad music etc,they will make less. People have more of a choice today and as someone who likes capitalism, it is a good thing. Just because you are J-Lo or Harrsion Ford, doesn't mean we have to go see your bad movie.

If one of these big stars only gets $15 million instead of $20 million I don't feel to sorry for them. Or if they have to sell one of their 5 houses I won't lose any sleep.

Times have changed. Like I said at the start of this thread and in the story it is not bad news for indie filmmakers.

Okay, I'm interested, what do you guys not agree with exactly? I admit, I was a little passionate this morning, so maybe I ranted a bit too much to one side, but hey, what's done is done.

Look, I'm not saying the examples I mentioned were good ideas or anything, I'm just saying that there's been a glut of "merely okay" movies and maybe someone should step back and take a look at what's been happening. We need some better movies out there and not settle for "just okay".

One other thing I forgot to mention that I remembered today as I went to see "Accepted" (which is a great comedy BTW, especially if you're a college student). Studios should stop putting out trailers that show the whole movie, like "Open Season"'s trailers, it shows you everything practically, the squirrels, the fight at the end between the animals and the hunters, and too many funny moments, the first trailer was fine but they went overkill on the second one. I'm sure that whole middle could be great but I really would have liked to have seen the ending for myself during the movie and not the trailer. It's like saying "Hey, the movie 'Troy' shows the Trojan war and it had Achilles fighting in it and he dies in the end!"..... yeah... great. The best trailer was the "Lord of the Rings" trailers, they showed hardly anything and got you excited all at the same time, same with the "Pirates of the Carribean" trailers.

Nothing worse than wasting good money on a ok film. Saying that was good but I wish I would have waited for the DVD. Most are like that anymore. I still like the big blockbusters on the big screen. Just not many anymore. At least not good ones.

lord of the ring was ok, just to long, theres no reason to ever sit through it again. Think of gollum, the peter jackson one was ok, but to me gollum is the gollum of the rankin-bass version (thats the animate doen with singing). I grew up with it, and it's the one I know.
Is it fancy like peter jackson version, no, but it's still good.
so i don't need flashy anything for a good movie.
as for trailers, they show you all the good stuff, because if they showed you the other parts, you wouldn't go to see it. Thats what happens in a lot of movies, and yes there is a guy who's job it is to edit trailors, and yes he probably make 300,000 a year and i htink ther's andoscar for trailers (previews actually).

the reason i don't go to thearters (or is this a differnet thread) is that the movies are all so bad TCM (turner classic movies) plays more then enough to keep me happy.

The majority of good movies was made under the studio system

The same digital technology that allows indie filmmakers to do things visually that a major studio couldnt dream of doing 20 years ago also helped kill the sense of novelty in special effects movies that have fueled the box office since the late 70s.

Superman the movie was a big deal when it came out in 78--but a new Superman or Batman or King Kong isnt. They have been done--CG gorillas were done in Mighty Joe Young(itself a remake). The only thing they could have going for them is strong storytelling--which doesnt happen easily when studio chiefs are business school grads with little knowledge or enthusiasm for storytelling.

George Lucas recently said the blockbuster is dead(which he helped create--and kill). He is now looking at 3d as a way to bring audiences in-another novelty angle--which has been a big part of moviemaking from the start when people paid a nickel to turn a crank on a peep show machine.


I find myself watching a lot of AIP, Hammer and small b movies from the 60s and 70s--they often had bad effects but their storytelling skills were on show. Great fx eventually get dated--and if the storytelling around them isnt that grand there isnt as much reason to rewatch them.

Mostly it was when you implied that the technology to record high quality video is something that shouldn't be sold to consumers. You're among a lot of folks that are trying to use that equipment to get their foot in the door or make a new door or whatever. There's a lot of channels on cable these days and someone gets to provide content for those. If we have access to high quality equipment we have a chance of doing just that.

No it isn't a "right" to make quality video but the people who make the equipment should have the right to sell it to whomever they please. When you suggested limiting the quality of video equipment sold to consumers I think most of us here didn't think that was such a good idea.

Then there was smaller issues like Hollywood making the kind of movies you described. I think Hollywood has already made those movies to death but that's just my opinion. I've seen enough Carrie type movies where a disgruntled outcast has some magic power to reek havoc on the prom queen. I thought you were suggesting more movies like that and I think they have been done to death.

Obviously this is just a matter of taste and really unimportant but the deal with "160x120" resolution movies and having to have a "professional license to make DVD's" seems awfully harsh to me. There are other uses for DVD's besides copying movies. I have very little desire to make pirate copies of movies because I rarely watch a movie more than a few times anyway. But I certainly want the ability to record my own stuff onto DVD whether it's my kids openning Christmas presents or the concert video I produced and sold or a wedding video. The idea that we would not be legally able to do these things is just off the charts to me.

I don't know if you just didn't realize how what you said could be taken but I don't know you so I don't know if you really don't want anyone to have the ability to make DVD's without a license. That is what you said.

can you imagine if the government controlled who made movies and who didn't?

It would be better if movie studio's and music companies found a way to make DVD's and CD's that couldn't be copied.

IMO it would be better if they just sold them at a reasonable rate. They would make more money that way than they ever did. I could see myself buying movies if they only cost $3 and I could download them easily. I'm never going to make a habit of going out and paying $20 for a movie (or more). My guess is there are 10 more just like me. That means they are losing sales money.

It's pretty simple IMO. iTunes did this and they do very well for themselves. They don't share with the artists very well but that's more about Apple than anything else. The business model is there now. Other places are doing it better for all. It's the way of the future.

Jack, I in the first case dissagreed with you ,in that - if I understand you correctly, because English isn't my native tongue - you said Hollywood should make less experimental movies, and more bigger fun movies.
While I think that's the problem with Hollywood: they always play it on 'safe'.
Some great movies come out of that safe side, but the best ones come when filmmakers take a risk (Se7en, Schindler's List, Adaptation, Memento, Fight Club, Dancer in the Dark, Requiem for a Dream, A Clockwork Orange,... I know some of them may be produced independantly and later distributed by a big studio)

Not saying that every movie has to be really original and experimental, but where the early blockbusters (Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Empire Strikes Back,...) had some very good quality - good dialogue, good characters, stories with some twists, great direction,... the new ones only seem to be build on dumber and dumber tales and really trashy direction sometimes. Not all of the new ones of course, and maybe there was so much trash in the early blockbusters too, but they just didn't survive so I don't remember them, but...
Isn't it a bit strange that at the same time this thread is created, at the forums of Spielbergfilms, there is a same kind of thread about it... so more and more filmfans are noticing this. (discussion if of course aimed towards spielberg)
For people who are curious, the link is:

http://www.spielbergfilms.com/forum/...ead.php?t=5017

Best regards,

EDIT: rereading that thread on Spielbergfilms, it actually doesn't have THAT much in common with this thread... Sorry.
Ow, and I have to say: I was delighted that last year, at the oscars, some really good - and many independent produced - movies were nominated, like Brokeback Mountain, Crash - not my favorite, but by an independent studio I believe, no? - , Munich the biggest movie of the nominated and from a large studio, but not a 'Hollywood' movie by all means, ...
It was good to know that for once big awards didn't went to 100 million dollar pictures but to 10 million dollar pictures.

I think this relates to what i was saying. Spielberg and Lucas benefited greatly from tapping into the notion of putting A budget resources towards B movie concepts--something that studios did not do prior to Star Wars(2001 wasnt a b movie subject). Harryhausen films were considered cheap Columbia matinee projects. You would have to go back to the original King Kong to find a case where the studio threw all its resources behind a subject that was escapist fantasy fare(though I would argue that the original Kong was risky on a number of fronts--but the medium was new).

But the novelty has worn a bit thin. When movies like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park came out they were big event pictures because they showed you things you hadnt seen before--you could argue they had their narrative faults(especially JP), but you saw something unique visually. After Jurassic Park, the FX supervisor Dennis Muren, who worked on every major FX film for Lucas and Spielberg, said that it would be a long time before something came along that gave the audience the sense of awe that you had when you saw CG dinosaurs for the first time. Hasnt this been true?

On the Spielberg thread discussion, it is interesting that ET was all over the place in the 80s-rereleased a couple of times-and he didnt even want to release it on video. In 2002 it pretty much bombed in theaters(maybe it was bad timing after 9 11). I think he pretty much abandoned his summer movies after winning an oscar. His last effort at one was War of the Worlds--and it got savage reviews.

Beyond that--I notice that a sense of "fun" in summer movies tends to be missing--this is especially true for comic book themed movies like Batman Begins, Spider-man, the Hulk, where they seem to attempt to be important and serious with a subject matter that should be exciting and escapist(Batman wasnt escapist). Superman the movie was fun. Empire Strikes Back was fun--Attack of the Clones was not.

Good point and I would buy more too if they were cheaper. I go in the store and see some movie for $17.99 I don't buy it. They could sell a lot more at $9.99.

Yeah,but many summer blockbusters rely on CGI, and not that much more on original characters, interesting relations or even just good suspense. Look at Jaws. It's so exiting! Because the direction of suspense is so great...
Compare that to some newer blockbusters...

BTW: I think War of the Worlds was actually pretty good, but I'm a spielbergfan, so not that objective, although I know which things I felt were wrong for the movie, and which things were great.

Hmmm, I see your points too. But I wouldn't put the possibility of licensing too far if piracy is REALLY that big an issue. If it is, then something's got to be done about it and I figure if you're going to film school to learn how to make films then you may as well get some sort of license, though the examples are ridiculous, as a doctor would get a medical license, a lawyer one for law, and a police officer a badge and gun. But then again, maybe piracy is just a scapegoat for the lack of really good movies. If I were designing the plan though, consumers would still be able to make films but they would be restricted to one format (preferably the one that could be jammed in theatres) and the filmmakers would be allowed to purchase the higer end equipment, like say consumers can now buy Bluray's and HD-DVD's to record to, we would be able to buy holographic disc storage recorders for distributing purposes in Ultra HD or something like that. So when a film festival recieves a Bluray or HD-DVD, they'll know it was from a consumer who made a film who would still have all the possibility of getting a distribution deal with some studio to eventually make a lot of money or practice his craft of choice license or not.

But you see, that's just an idea, my perspective is definitely skewed as I'm a student, so I could see the advantages of some plan like this. If there's some way to stop piracy without alienating consumers, I'm all for it because I'm a consumer too at this point and I love technology like this, but if piracy's making people lose jobs over an industry as sensitive as the movie industry then I'd go along with any plan, no matter how harsh, to keep the fun experience of movies a social event and not some late night boredom thing to download off of my, internet, cable, or sattelite service.

Plus, it's better than having metal detectors in theatres don't you think? =)

"Yeah,but many summer blockbusters rely on CGI, and not that much more on original characters, interesting relations or even just good suspense. Look at Jaws. It's so exiting! Because the direction of suspense is so great...
Compare that to some newer blockbusters..."

So I see, Mathieu, and I will plan a remedy accordingly for my films after I get out of school. ;)

I'm planning the same thing, Jack ;-)

I didnt think War of the Worlds was as bad as the reviews I saw for it tended to suggest. He was trying to please fans of the 53 Pal movie, and yet also be more true to the book. The only big negative I felt was the son reappearing at the end. I suspect audiences expected it to have a more epic ID4 type of scale. I really think Spielberg became bored with the summer movie formula after Schindler(even when he was making JP). Or he feels he is slumming unless its based on a Kubrick or respectable science fiction author.

Jaws was much stronger in characterization even though it is itself a very simple story thematically--but he was working with strong producers Richard Zanuck and David Brown and didnt have as much control over the script as he did around JP.


The wow factor is hard to recapture when you are bombarded with FX year round--and that is on top of the fact that film scripts are not as developed as they once were. Even some non-summer movies, like Man on Fire and Flightplan, hinge their existence on major plot hole implausibilities that should have been spotted long before they got to production.

Lazy writing.

Hi Kelly,

I agree completely with you on War of the Worlds.
The only thing I didn't like was the son re-appearing at the end.
For the rest, I actually liked the non-ID4 approach to the subject, but the more raw and dark realistic approach.

Jack i can't just say i disagree with Your POV... it just irritates me. Because i am the man who grew out from regular Joe with understandig that my work belongs to everyone. Thatswhy i've gone through several battles author rights authorities. Because they tried shut down sharing my own creation. I said all those times to them that i don't need any protection from myself, just stay away! I asked why you investigate me? Who are the people whom i harm with my actions. They just answered they act according anonymous complaints. Anonymous complaints - which is ciminal act in itself IMO.
So my conclusions are that such organisations operate just like maffia and they have always enough money to get You on Your knees.

Thatswhy those words:
sound forme like words from Nazi speech.

I really think the model has to change Jack. We can only watch reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies so many times before Jethro really starts to get on our nerves.

Someone is going to fill up all that air time on all those channels. I think we'll see a flood of new material that doesn't have anything to do with the Hollywood movie industry. We already see a lot of things coming from other places that show up on the Discovery Channel etc.. I think it's a great thing myself because it gives us far more choices for entertainment and information.

The new media is here to stay. With the advent of the internet and video blogs and a plethora of other things to come we will see the new technology put to great use. I think there will still be room for Hollywood.

But to limit the public on what technology they can own is borderline fascism IMO. There are good reasons to limit who can have a medical license. There are good reasons to never deny the public the right to express their point of view in whatever form they want.

The internet and the video camera will change the world just like the printing press did. The free flow of information is a very good thing. The more we have gatekeepers over who can say what they want the more chance we have for abuse.

A lot of people would say that the Madison Ave. / Hollywood media culture has stifled debate in the world for a long time. I just don't want to live in a world where some government agency gets control over who can produce media because governments have a VERY bad record of abuse when they have that control. Just look at the many countries around the world where the state controls what gets said by controlling who can have access to the media. It isn't a pretty thing.

We have had our share of bad information in the west coming from our own media culture because they had the control over the media by being the only people who could afford to produce it. Thankfully those days are over because of the new media.

Handing control back to the government because of a perceived piracy problem is not something I could ever support. Piracy is a problem that can be solved by new technology - not by stifling the growth of technology and that is what would happen if the public doesn't have access to the new devices to create media. At this point movie piracy is miniscule compared to music piracy and the music industry has successfully addressed piracy. We don't see that many people downloading movies compared to music by a large factor because of the limits of bandwidth on the internet. I don't think piracy is even making a dent in Hollywood to be honest. It might at some point but by then maybe the new business model will already be in existence.

There's actually a big difference in the way that films are budgeted now than in 1988 when Lethal Weapon II was made. The accountants are running the ship now. The below-the-line (including camera dept.) has been cut down hard, the fat mostly gone and the cuts going to the bone in many places. In all but the biggest movies we have to fight to keep the basic tools to do the job.

What remains the same is that the producers are the ones making the money...they've just figured out how to maximize it for themselves on the front end as well as the back end.

On a huge stunt/effects day that costs probably half a million, having enough cameras to cover the one-time-only big boom is a minor factor (each camera position costing roughly $3500 in personnel and equipment, not counting film).

The anecdote still has some truth, but it's a bit specific in that a show that can schedule 17 cameras is also likely splashing out in other departments as well (miles of cable, emptying LA out of all the rental 18K's, that sort of thing).

It's sort of like when Bruce Willis insisted that it was the union crews that was driving up the costs of making movies, when he knew full well that just one of the 8 producers makes many times more than the total cost of the salaries of the crew on a given movie, not to mention the inflated star salaries.

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)

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....

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.