> Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute them.
If that was a complete listing: Then destroying them would be a pretty straightforward matter, because startups do distribution and marketing like the best.
The problem as I see it: I think you missed a function. Hollywood is a specialized VC community. Their investments are movies.
No amount of Y-combinatoring is going to supplant the money machine, without building a brand new money machine.
That's true, but we dont need a VC community that specializes in handing out tens of millions when, thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.
That's true too, but the web hasn't introduced that. The RoR of big budget movies is potentially much greater than low-budget movies. Hollywood invests where any VC would invest, where the potential reward is greatest. I'm not sure that a VC would or could change anything here.
The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies, as well as a higher risk for potentially lower reward.
There are financial very successful (in terms of $100k's/a rather than millions of dollars) movie producers, actors, writers and directors who specifically aim for sub-segments of the market and fulfill niche demand. Christian and African-American movies being two successful segments of the market for low-budget, high-return movies.
> The average RoR of big-budget movies is less than the average RoR of low-budget movies
Sorry, no. The risk is higher, but the reward, should it pay off, is much greater and there is a much more attractive risk:reward. An indie film can indeed be profitable, but the probability of being very profitable is small.
This is the same for games, music, TV, books. As a publisher where do you concentrate your money? Where it's likely to make the most money, of course.
>thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.
I was laughing until I realized you were serious. Of course it's possible to make a movie for a few thousand dollars. But most movies at that budget aren't worth watching. Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
Why should talent in movies be paid millions, when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less? The simple reason is that total expenses in movie making and distribution system are so high that these payouts seem reasonable and it makes sense to get popular actors at the prices they (artists) demand.
This system works well for the companies and the top rung artists. Ripe for "disruption".
"when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less?"
You mean like sports stars?
The command higher fees because having their name attached to a project reduces the amount of marketing expenditure of a project and increases the projects chances of success.
Aside from fees for high-paid actors and directors though there are still a LOT of people needed to produce a quality film: screenwriters, cinematographers etc.
Sports is probably the closest thing we have to a true meritocracy. If you're an incredibly talented baseball player you'll have statistics to back it up.
Because of this I'd wager that almost all the top tier baseball players are currently engaged by major league teams.
However, acting is more subjective. It's much harder to objectively demonstrate that you are a top tier actor, so there are likely many top tier actors available for hire who aren't making millions.
Much of the expense for 'talent' comes from the artificial scarcity created by marketing. It's a vicious (or virtuous, depending on which side you're on) circle: a company spends marketing money, which attracts theaters, which means big audiences for the movie, which means that newcomer with a minor role gets exposure, which increases their appeal as a lead actor, which means their next movie will make more money. There are only so many actors who can appear in a 'major' release because a) there are only so many screens and b) there are even fewer movies showing on those screens because the blockbusters dominate the limited number of screens. There are always more actors (and directors and screenwriters, etc) that have the capacity be 'stars' than the system can accommodate. That system is built primarily on marketing, not talent.
I think you are wrong. Maybe a few thousand dollars isn't enough to make a movie with good production values. But there are lots of low budget movies that are amazing works of art. Also, a lot of movies made with massive budgets "aren't worth watching". Clearly the funding isn't directly correlated to the quality of the film.
Movies like Primer are just the beginning, and a Y-combinator for movies/tv could push the change even quicker. I'm thinking of a forum of 1000 movie/tv enthusiasts putting up maybe $100 each and funding 5-10 creators or maybe one larger project, holding open talent calls online.
With the right setting (no fancy costumes, no fancy sets, no tough-to-reach locations), the right setup (digital HD camera and ~$2000 computer to edit and render SFX if any), and unknown actors you can make a film that would be indistinguishable from Hollywood quality (without any famous faces however) for low tens of thousands of dollars.
Also, there is plenty of great talent that hasn't "made it" in Hollywood, and that talent is probably artificially cheap.
Tens of thousands was a bit of hyperbole. However cheap special effects are getting very close to good enough to compete with Hollywood movies.
>Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact in every field.
There are plenty of quality actors that are paid much less than millions of dollars per movie.
In addition, price is a function of what consumers are willing to pay and what sellers are willing to charge. If piracy drives down what consumers are willing to pay (and thus what actors can charge), what do you want to bet actors will still act (for much lower wages).
Very true. I think the new money machine will be crowd sourcing. Recent statistics for kickstarter say that they funded nearly 100mil for projects in 2011. Out of which nearly half (50% in money) are media related (film/music/comics etc). People ignore crowd sourcing or discount its power, but we have to remember that crowd sourcing involves the whole world - thanks to the internet.
If that was a complete listing: Then destroying them would be a pretty straightforward matter, because startups do distribution and marketing like the best.
The problem as I see it: I think you missed a function. Hollywood is a specialized VC community. Their investments are movies.
No amount of Y-combinatoring is going to supplant the money machine, without building a brand new money machine.