alaskacameradude
Veteran
Replace the word 'YouTube' with 'Vimeo' and I might agree.
Steven Spielberg Predicts 'Implosion' of Film Industry
- Thread starter David G. Smith
- Start date
Replace the word 'YouTube' with 'Vimeo' and I might agree.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Amazing how fast A list actors become B and C these days.
The examples are endless, other than a + +
The examples are endless, other than a + +
adkimery
Veteran
Andrew,
I feel like you are mixing two different but related things. Content creation and content distribution. People want the professional content. They want 'hollywood' movies and 'broadcast quality' TV shows. They basically just want more flexibility in terms how and when they view said content. Is that the only type of content anymore? No, but it's still the most sought after by viewers. People pay for access to Netflix. People pay for access to Hulu+. How many people would pay for access if YouTube went behind a pay wall?
There are certainly dramatic shifts going on with content distribution but for content creation I see more lateral moves happening. For the cast and crew were there really big changes involved when House of Cards ended up on Netflix instead of AMC? Would Spielberg's creative process have been radically altred if Lincoln had ended up an HBO Original movie instead of getting a theatrical release?
So amateur DSLR footage (on the high end, webcam quality on the low end) on YouTube looks better than professionally shot s16 and 35mm footage? Seriously?
-Andrew
I feel like you are mixing two different but related things. Content creation and content distribution. People want the professional content. They want 'hollywood' movies and 'broadcast quality' TV shows. They basically just want more flexibility in terms how and when they view said content. Is that the only type of content anymore? No, but it's still the most sought after by viewers. People pay for access to Netflix. People pay for access to Hulu+. How many people would pay for access if YouTube went behind a pay wall?
There are certainly dramatic shifts going on with content distribution but for content creation I see more lateral moves happening. For the cast and crew were there really big changes involved when House of Cards ended up on Netflix instead of AMC? Would Spielberg's creative process have been radically altred if Lincoln had ended up an HBO Original movie instead of getting a theatrical release?
So amateur DSLR footage (on the high end, webcam quality on the low end) on YouTube looks better than professionally shot s16 and 35mm footage? Seriously?
-Andrew
Andrew Gupta
Active member
Regarding your opening points -- respectfully, you're assuming that people of the future will want exactly what you believe people currently want -- that they'll be buying exactly the same kind of products. I disagree.
I'll attempt to illustrate "specialized content for targeted audiences" that is a result of an entirely different distribution model...
Let's imagine that tomorrow I walk into the most irrelevant television network on the planet -- and I pitch what we currently call a "reality style" series on taxidermy or librarians. A college dropout TV executive who sits behind his desk because his uncle owns the network is going to look back at me and kindly explain that there's no marketing study on earth that remotely implies a broad enough appeal for these topics -- hence sponsorship can't be sold to levels that justify any risk.
Now let's imagine a more evolved online on-demand distribution system (note my first sentence in my first comment, today we're in an infancy state, like AOL in 1996) where purchases are made by consumers in some form. So -- in the United States -- a nation of about 320 million people (or, imagine a connected global market of 1 or 2 billion) -- that means there may be between twenty and fifty thousand people interested in taxidermy programming, and one or two hundred thousand fiercely interested in librarian programming. Marketing to targeted audiences based "on demand" by consumers means the librarian groupies aren't waiting until 8pm to watch "Dancing With The Stars," but instead are watching library science in action in their free time. And, because the audience is targeted using an on-demand distribution system -- it's not only financially feasible -- but entirely profitable for smaller independent production companies.
I can build out the above over paragraphs or use a movie example instead or play with different distribution models -- but it illustrates the larger point and explains why I disagree with your point that people in the years ahead will want exactly what you think people now want.
You wrote: " They want 'hollywood' movies and 'broadcast quality' TV shows."
Respectfully, I disagree with this on multiple levels. "Broadcast quality" is relative and changes every few years. "Hollywood movies" -- nonsense. They want entertainment. The consumer doesn't care where it's from, and even the meaning that I expect that you intended is relative and changes from year to year based on whatever style is in vogue. Even if we were to debate the definition of "Hollywood style" on any college campus -- the traditional definition of the "Hollywood style" is cinematography that the viewer doesn't notice (as opposed to various in-your-face European styles) -- and that is also entirely relative to technologies employed at the time.
People "want" to view stuff they're interested in. An on-demand distribution model entirely changes what people watch. The current profit by volume system drives an entirely different content production model.
You wrote: "So amateur DSLR footage (on the high end, webcam quality on the low end) on YouTube looks better than professionally shot s16 and 35mm footage? Seriously?"
Respectfully, the only people that care about "s16" are gear-heads (like me) on DVXuser. Will content of the future look like content of the past? Heck no. Using your town as an example -- the entire history of movie production is dominated by people complaining about stuff not looking like it looked in the past -- that the previous system was better than the current system. Silent era stars spent fifty years complaining about the "talkie" studio system. Studio system veterans spent forty years complaining about the post-studio Lew Wasserman era. In TV, network types complained about the explosion of "crap" that resulted from the breakdown of the "big three" network era. And, as whatever online on-demand model evolves in the decade ahead -- people will complain about more violent, more raunchy, lower standard content produced for specialized markets -- like teen boys, teen girls, twenty somethings, thirty somethings, taxidermy, and library science.
So -- my response to your post is that you can't assume people eight years from now will want exactly what they want now -- especially when distribution (that dictates current content production, by the way, they are related) has undergone the biggest revolution in the history of distribution. And, as far as how things look -- yes -- things will look different -- some worse, some better.
Regards.
Yes, people will always want entertainment and that will always include feature films (made on digital cameras), and those will be made with a pretty decent size crew that costs a lot of money.
The other stuff? It's here now. FreddieW and others already make a good living distributing content on youtube with advertising, and now there's Vimeo On Demand, and Paid Youtube Channels like the recently announced Roger Corman Channel. You don't have to wait 10 years. You can do it now if you have compelling content, but even FreddieW has a pretty nice size crew that he pays.
adkimery
Veteran
I did a quick google search and there's at least three taxidermy reality shows on the air.
I'll respond to most of rest of your post by saying, we'll have both. Content creation and distribution will expand. X won't replace Y because they are two different things. They overlap, but they aren't the same. Just because people watch Annoying Orange doesn't mean they no longer watch Star Trek movies or Game of Thrones. FWIW, I've been involved in the fledging 'new media' space for the better part of the last 7 years. For example, the doc in my sig went out on streaming and VOD last year and probably would be collecting dust on a shelf if traditional networks and cable channels were our only options. Another doc I worked on, called American Winter, was picked up by HBO but w/o a successful Kickstater campaign we wouldn't have had money to finish the doc. I agree that there are more options now than ever for independently produced content to get funded and distributed but those won't replace the large, expensive movie and TV shows that people like. Fancy restaurants still exist even though there is a fast food place on every corner and people can also cook at home.
Yes, hence my use of the quotation marks.
Yeah, and Hollywood movies are entertainment. Again, don't read so much into the words "broadcast" and "hollywood". People still want things that are crafted by talented professionals whether they are from France, Los Angeles, or Australia. If people did not want this then people would not pay and/or pirate the content so they could watch it. The season 3 premiere of Game of Thrones set a record for the most movie or tv show ever, FWIW.
Do tastes change over time? Sure, but I doubt we'll see a day when people prefer audio that's record via an on camera mic 20ft away from the person talking to audio that was properly recorded w/a lav and/or boom.
Last edited:
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
well, maybe if they stop remaking movies from the 80's and 90's and actually film something new, people like me will want to watch it. The story lines are weak, dialogues are crap, acting so-so. No technical trickery 3D, and all the CG bs can't make up for it. you can only watch so many things blow up, before it's boring.
Well, whoever thought there would be a reality program about exterminating bugs. Of course there are many nights when that show was better than what the major networks were airing.
With the movies, I have to wonder how long the buzz of special effects will last. We see a lot of technology, but in the last Iron Man movie, at least they had some dialog and some thought. The genre of action films anymore seems more intent upon continuous action and few words, little character development, and even less interest.
When Star Wars came out, the story was compelling and the effects were pretty neat, but the effects and action did not seem to overpower the core of the movie: the relationships of all of the characters. I think Spielberg may be right in terms of a meltdown in the industry. It will be more interesting to see the effect of more and more media being pumped out at all levels and then being distributed to homes via you tube or other services.
The price of having a large (60+ inches) screen has dropped. You go to a theater, and while it can be a great experience, it can be a pain in the rump when you have some rude characters talking, grunting, laughing inappropriately, or acting out. Does it make sense to sink 250 million into a project that may do poorly?
With the movies, I have to wonder how long the buzz of special effects will last. We see a lot of technology, but in the last Iron Man movie, at least they had some dialog and some thought. The genre of action films anymore seems more intent upon continuous action and few words, little character development, and even less interest.
When Star Wars came out, the story was compelling and the effects were pretty neat, but the effects and action did not seem to overpower the core of the movie: the relationships of all of the characters. I think Spielberg may be right in terms of a meltdown in the industry. It will be more interesting to see the effect of more and more media being pumped out at all levels and then being distributed to homes via you tube or other services.
The price of having a large (60+ inches) screen has dropped. You go to a theater, and while it can be a great experience, it can be a pain in the rump when you have some rude characters talking, grunting, laughing inappropriately, or acting out. Does it make sense to sink 250 million into a project that may do poorly?
Yeah. Atleast stuff from -94. I was just watching some Babylon 5 and OH MY GOD! The visual work is so boring. Same with all the Star Trek variants. Everything in the 90's just looks the same. Atleast on tv.
Nicholas Natteau
Veteran
Just to chime in here. I remember seeing a fascinating documentary about groundbreaking independent films of the 1970s. It might have been "Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession" but I'm not sure.
The film discussed how the picturesque but financially disastrous "Heaven's Gate" (1980) caused a paradigm shift in Hollywood. From that moment the big studios decided to never again allow indie directors total freedom of action. Rather than backing edgy, risky, and unique independent films, they would instead focus mainly on churning out sequels with predictable storylines…from Superman II, III, IV…to the present day Transformers II, III, IV. I know there are a lot of indie films being made nowadays. But when I look at the latest trailers, it seems that the film industry is still dominated by sequels (The Hang Over, Fast & Furious, Star Trek, Superman, Transformers).
But to add to what BillinSC just said, my family and I go to the cinema less than 3 times a year. Why waste more time (and fuel driving), pay for multiple tickets, be inconvenienced by cell phones going off, talkers, etc, when you get nearly the same blockbuster cinema experience with a home projector, a 10 foot screen and good surround sound. If I rent a movie I end up hating, at least I've lost only $8 as opposed to more than $20 + the gas to get there.
My mother who used to go to the cinema so often in the past, likes the home theater experience so much that she only wants to see blockbuster movies in the comfort of our living room. She sees no advantage to paying more money just to watch the same film on a bigger screen. And my wife and I feel exactly the same way. A 10 foot screen is more than we'll ever need. These days I now only go to the cinema to see IMAX films.
The film discussed how the picturesque but financially disastrous "Heaven's Gate" (1980) caused a paradigm shift in Hollywood. From that moment the big studios decided to never again allow indie directors total freedom of action. Rather than backing edgy, risky, and unique independent films, they would instead focus mainly on churning out sequels with predictable storylines…from Superman II, III, IV…to the present day Transformers II, III, IV. I know there are a lot of indie films being made nowadays. But when I look at the latest trailers, it seems that the film industry is still dominated by sequels (The Hang Over, Fast & Furious, Star Trek, Superman, Transformers).
But to add to what BillinSC just said, my family and I go to the cinema less than 3 times a year. Why waste more time (and fuel driving), pay for multiple tickets, be inconvenienced by cell phones going off, talkers, etc, when you get nearly the same blockbuster cinema experience with a home projector, a 10 foot screen and good surround sound. If I rent a movie I end up hating, at least I've lost only $8 as opposed to more than $20 + the gas to get there.
My mother who used to go to the cinema so often in the past, likes the home theater experience so much that she only wants to see blockbuster movies in the comfort of our living room. She sees no advantage to paying more money just to watch the same film on a bigger screen. And my wife and I feel exactly the same way. A 10 foot screen is more than we'll ever need. These days I now only go to the cinema to see IMAX films.
Last edited:
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Well, it looks like it has started. From Business Insider:
"Steven Spielberg's Nightmare Scenario For Hollywood Is Already Coming True"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/world-war-z-tickets-cost-50-dollars-2013-6#ixzz2WEXwIdla
"Steven Spielberg's Nightmare Scenario For Hollywood Is Already Coming True"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/world-war-z-tickets-cost-50-dollars-2013-6#ixzz2WEXwIdla
Jimmy Pierce
Well-known member
What's depressing is that the movies, when it was still in it's infant stages, was marketed as cheap entertainment, a way to go out and have a good time without the price tag of the stage. It was regarded as that for decades and the entire idea was for it to work as an approachable form of of entertainment for the common man. It was never regarded as a luxury.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
I beg to differ. Just writing a good, engaging script for a movie takes a year, full-time. it's hard to spend a whole year on script, full-time, if the whole budget is $1000. Name me one feature-length, watchable fictional film posted for free on youtube or Vimeo. Timelapses, documentary and stuff, fine - some are very cool, but 99% of the good stuff on Vimeo has no actors, no fictional story - in other words is what you can do with just a camera. That makes sense because it was done by guys who had just a camera, and they did what they could. If you want to tell a fictional story, things get complex and expensive in a hurry. Long form is even harder - then you have more issues with continuity and consistent tone - that gets even more complex and expensive. It was 1985 when Coppola famously said that now that video cameras are cheap, anyone can produce a Hollywood quality movie. 30 years later, almost no one has without money or support.
As a digital film major on my last year of a bachelor of science dregree, I would have to agree with the above statement. Well said.
Lots of pre production, script, shot list, story boards, color pallet, mood boards, costumes, makeup, set design etc..
Good story
Good actors
Good crew that's well trained
Good locations for the shoot
Good equipment to get the job done right
Insurance
Time to shoot that works for everyone
Etc...
Etc...
Etc...
What about films with both explosions and more than two pages of dialogue?
Article by Producer Lynda Obst, excerpt from her book " Sleepless in Hollywood"
Hollywood’s completely broken
When you stopped buying DVDs and started streaming on Netflix, Hollywood's economics changed. So did the movies
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/
Hollywood’s completely broken
When you stopped buying DVDs and started streaming on Netflix, Hollywood's economics changed. So did the movies
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/
maranfilms
Veteran
+10
I really don't quite understand this. Mostly how any big industry be so short sighted. If you look over the last 100 years of film the game changes every decade or two. Talkies, TV, home entertainment (VHS, BetaMax, LaserDisc, then DVD). The audience is still there. The money is still there. You just have to change when things change.
And in my mind I think people want to rent more than own. So VOD, RedBox, etc. Cheap & easy one time viewing (or 24 hour period) of current media. You deliver that & you get your profits.