YouTube Is Changing How We Think About Video
from the it's-not-just-for-presenting-a-story dept
Whenever we talk about changes impacting the movie industry or the television industry, there's always someone who chimes in with claims about "how will we be able to make $200 million movies any more?" Of course, that question has a few false premises hidden in there -- such as the idea that movies have to cost $200 million to make. But perhaps an even bigger question is why movies need to exist at all. A few months back we were discussing how popular artforms change over time. Epic poems, stained glass, mosaics, book illumination, fresco painting, tapestry and plenty of other forms of culture were quite popular at one time or another, but eventually times changed and they went out of fashion.I'm reminded of that discussion in reading Clive Thompson's latest piece about how the rise of the ability for anyone to create and distribute videos on YouTube and other video sites is leading to the creation of video content that just can't be classified in the traditional manner. He talks about a video collage of thousands of people making videos of themselves holding up their hands with short sayings written on their palms. Is it a movie? Is it a documentary? Does it matter?
The people who believe that TV shows and movies and such forms of broadcast content are the be-all, end-all of creative cultural content still don't recognize the true power of the internet as a communications platform, that allows individuals to interact and communicate in ways that simply weren't possible before. The official sites like Hulu may get lots of attention, but they're just about taking content from the TV and movie world and moving it to the web. The power of YouTube is that it enables something entirely new and different to emerge and to thrive. In the history of disruptive innovations, merely taking a product from one medium and moving it to another usually doesn't get very far. It's the projects that really embrace the new possibilities that are only possible via that new medium that really make an impact.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: communication, content, movies, video
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I like movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I like movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology should eventually drive movie production costs down, but that's still far in the future.
The problem is most people love the Dark Knight or Iron Man and won't support revising copyright if this sort of movie is going to disappear.
Remember, youtube still isn't profitable. At some point, moviemaking will be forced to change too, but I think that music will have to abandon copyright first, explore some business models before movies can risk it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Totally untrue. Just because you can't think of one doesn't mean one doesn't exist. In fact, we've discussed plenty of models that don't rely on copyright.
Hell, the entire movie industry itself never *really* depended on copyright. It's never been about selling content, it's been about selling *seats*.
Technology should eventually drive movie production costs down, but that's still far in the future.
Also, totally untrue. As we've discussed, movie makers have been able to make much cheaper movies these days. The only thing keeping blockbuster movies expensive have been star contracts. Even worse, studies have shown that those star names do little to help a movie succeed.
The problem is most people love the Dark Knight or Iron Man and won't support revising copyright if this sort of movie is going to disappear.
Again, there is nothing to suggest what you say is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Higher Thoughts
Why can I not create at the same time and date another is ? Why do they win the race ? After all, I've created ? Why can't I observe Life in full motion and record it without regard ? If we regard ourselves as so holy as to cherish Free Speech. Why not Free Thought? We are all capturing moments on memory are we not ? Why should one capture be regarded as different than another ? Share and share alike. If we are to be so social with our monetary assets, why not our thoughts ? Our Memories ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The very fact that YouTube is so popular, meant that it filled a void that people were waiting for, even if they didn't realize it.
For the great majority, hundreds of millions, it wasn't a big change in thought - it was the easy embrace of a format that was finally more accessible to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to #3
I disagree. Movie production has gone on for over a century now. The "cost" to make a film has risen over the years, not because of technology, but because of the price of technology. Movies made in the 1920's and 30's were big budget at the time, yet even in today's money, it would have been an almost indie budget. In some situations, the technology really isn't all that different now as it was then. Far into the future? no, because far into the future there will be new technology applied, with new technological costs, that will make movie budgets of today pale in comparison.
Youtube gives an avenue of distribution where there was very little before. Theatrical movies like "Cloverfield" is a good example of a "youtube-esque" movie branching off into the old mainstream, while giving hope to a new model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see the point we are trying to make here and that everything changes and with that, why shouldnt $200 million movies, but there is a reason those movies cost that much and that millions watch and rewatch them. Many videos on youtube are 3min entertaining, but none are Epic/Scary/Comedy Genius etc.
That to is like saying comic strips would eventually outtake books because anybody can make them for a low cost. Yea, their funny for little bits and time, but they will never give you what a book gives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Genres of movies also changed with the times - "kitchen sink" dramas were popular during the post war years, but were replaced by TV soap operas, while blockbusters have tended to be the big, loud movies that are best experienced in a theater.
For all the whining, there's a market for a lot of movies right now. Those that are best experienced in a theater will continue to do well there. The only question is quality - and budget is no guarantee of quality. If the studios make a bunch of $250 million movies that completely suck while $2 million internet premieres are the most entertaining 90 minutes you can have, the theatrical market will suffer. If the crop of blockbusters for the next few years are as good as this year's, there's no need for them to worry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Different Topics
I think movies tend to be bigger (epic?) stories. They tend to be social activities, and they tend to be an event or activity. Or you plan to rent a DVD for the night, or watch one you have. Movies are more evolved from plays and operas.
TV tends to have shorter stories, less social, and done to fill time. Sure, you can watch a TV broadcast with others, and you can run home to catch your favorite show, but in general TV is time filler when you might not have anything else to do. I think TV evolves from radio and talking with people who live near you on a casual basis.
With this in mind, I think the internet poses a more immediate threat to television. I hardly watch TV anymore, only if it's something I know I can't find on the internet. I'm more likely to watch YouTube, podcasts, or even TV shows over the internet. I prefer this because I can do it on my schedule, and select what I want to see. And I can do it in short spurts, stop when I want to, and restart again.
However, movies tend to be different. It still takes a while to download, I don't like to be interrupted while watching them, and the presentation on a laptop or iPod still lacks the kick of a movie theater.
This may not stay this way, technology is evolving. In my opinion that seems to be the current state of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Production Values
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally different markets
And boy, if youtube is our century's epic poems, stained glass, mosaics, etc. then I can only pity our cultural bankruptcy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2sp for youtube
1. P2P Accelerating：With P2SP (peer-to-server-and-peer), it speeds up downloading of video streaming. Its better algorithms have accelerated video downloading by more than 3--5 times.
2. Downloading: With automatically flash stream detection, video contents on many websites can be downloaded easily and free.
3. Transcoding: Videos can be transcoded into many formats supporting any mobile phones and PDAs, such as Nokia, iPhone, SamSung, iPad, iPod, and PSP.
Would you please try it and recommend it in your blog?
Thanks,
Rose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]