Jimmy Wales Says Irrelevance, Not Piracy, Will Doom Hollywood
from the times-are-changing dept
Jimmy Wales, who has become a bit of a thorn in the side of Hollywood of late, has given a speech in which he predicts that Hollywood is doomed, but not because of any threat from "piracy," but from the fact that technology and innovation means that the old infrastructure that filmmakers used to require is going away. As Ryan Singel at Wired reports, Wales' talk at the Internet Society's recent gathering let him predict that disruption was coming from the bottom up:“Hollywood will be destroyed and no one will notice,” Wales said. But it won’t be Wikipedia (or Encarta) that kills the moviemaking industry: ”Collaborative storytelling and filmmaking will do to Hollywood what Wikipedia did to Encyclopedia Britannica,” he said.Of course, we've been seeing this trend already growing at the lower end of the scale for a while. For example, the power that individuals have to create amazing special effects has been documented for years, and the tools are only getting better and better. Does traditional Hollywood have even better tools? Absolutely, but this is a classic innovator's dilemma situation, where the tools at the low end are getting better at a faster rate, and they're reaching the "good enough" point pretty quickly -- such that the value of spending many many millions extra on special effects doesn't provide any significant benefit.
Wales hedged by saying predictions are easy — and he’s usually wrong. But he looks at a generation of kids growing up in a world of video and mastering editing software at a young age. His own 12-year-old daughter, Wales said, is already adept at iMovie and won a local award for a short film she made.
And just as Wikipedia has show that collaboration on the web is possible (despite the messiness, flame wars and turf battles found on Wikipedia Talk pages), the new generation will find ways to collaborate online to create movies to entertain themselves and their friends.
And, Wales says, they’ll do that with impressive special effects, CGI and even remote actors.
Add to that the growth of Kickstarter as an alternative funding platform, the growth of the internet as an alternative promotion and distribution method... and at some point the benefits of going with a traditional Hollywood studio become more difficult to quantify.
Of course, this isn't something that happens overnight, by any means. And there are some in Hollywood who appear to understand this and are working to get their studios ahead of the curve, though it's unclear if they'll be able to do that successfully. Either way, the point that Wales makes is a pertinent one. Instead of worrying so much about online infringement -- the studios might want to spend a little more time figuring out how they can remain relevant.
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: disruption, hollywood, innovation, internet society, jimmy wales, wikipedia
Companies: kickstarter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Greedywood is its own worst enemy.
Holly what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That is way scarier than anything coming out of Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Seriously, they keep letting Michael Bay make movies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, we will not replace EVERYTHING with amateur collaborative efforts. But we will allow for MORE to be produced by "amateurs". Because as has already been evidenced, some "amateurs" have produced material on par with or surpassing that which was released by Hollywood. The fact that you don't acknowledge it or have yet to experience it is your own fault/problem, not anyone else's. "And one man's trash..." It's quite telling that you quickly write anything not created/presented by Hollywood as an "amateur collaborative effort".
Nor will Jimmy Wales be the final person who decides what is or isn't produced or released. He's just stating a fact, we're reaching a turning point where technology has gotten good enough and easy enough to use that anyone can create something. Some of which rivals what is being released through "official" and "legitimate" channels.
"That is way scarier than anything coming out of Hollywood."
No, what is scarier is the reaction that is coming from Hollywood. The fact that they see everything as a threat, rather than as an opportunity for them to embrace up and coming people or efforts and technology/innovation. It's scarier that they're flat out killing start ups and innovation by abusing the legal system and spending dollars to have laws changed in their favor to make such start ups even more unnecessarily risky.
What's scarier is people like you who applaud and approve of such actions on the part of Hollywood. While lauding those who want nothing to do with Hollywood as "amateurs" and dismissing them at every opportunity.
That is the truly scaring thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh really?
There are two major differences between the wikipedia and a movie. The first is money. Most people in the movies get paid, although we're seeing vanity productions soar with the new distribution mechanisms.
At the wikipedia, only the people at the top get paid. In most movies, money does trickle down, although no one thinks it's anywhere close to being fair.
The second major difference is control. The wikipedia is able to converge on entries about the past, mainly by relying on outside professional sources as tie breakers. But the model has pretty much failed to generate much else when Wales tried to apply it to news. I think he would also fail with a wikimovies.
Just because the movies have a strict hierarchy and some people can be dictatorial, it doesn't mean that they aren't collaborative. Only a wikifool would believe that. People are hired because they have something to contribute and they're largely compensated by the uniqueness of their contribution. It all helps and there are dozens of accountants to make sure the money is spent on something that will improve the final product.
So let's take a look at the average small product made by some kids who just want to take over the barn and put on a show. I bet that they recreate the same social dynamics as a typical movie. There will be people who want to act and they'll take on jobs as actors. The bossy one who organizes everything will be the director. People who like to cook will cook.
And the people who contribute will expect something for their effort. It might just be emotional or social currency, but they'll want something and the group organizing things had better deliver or the people won't show up the second time. It's the same way with the real movies. The actors don't show up again if they're not compensated.
Now look what happens with Kickstarter. Let's imagine that someone raises $N to fund a movie. You better believe that everyone on the crew is going to know about that and you better believe that everyone will take this into account when they negotiate a deal with the organizer. It's just like the notices in the Daily Variety. If some studio announces they're green lighting a film for $N, the agents will ask for what they think is a fair share.
I really don't see anything different about this than the scale. I don't see some kind of wikimovies getting very far because it's just hard to herd cats and that's what a movie director needs to do.
But that's typical for the people around this site. They think that they're rediscovering what everyone else discovered long ago. Read about how Charlie Chaplin and the others created United Artists in 1919. It's pretty much what's happening today with Kickstarter and the small video cameras. People with artistic ability have a story to tell and they're looking at the most efficient way to get that story on the screen. It's not surprising that the old studios figured this out long ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
What did you add to the discussion?
Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does this carp ever get old?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really? - People who like to cook will cook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hollywood still owns Big Media.
It's great to have all these Kickstarted films out there, but how do you get the really good ones in front of people that might enjoy them? Is Netflix enough? Do we need some specific review sites and/or even some award shows for non-MPAA productions? (Indie music seems to have this problem as well. How does the good stuff break through in a marketplace designed to promote major label music above all?)
I get the sense that these are still very real problems, and that lots of people are still trying to find solutions, but no models have really broken through just yet. Unless I missed something along the way...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What Wales predicts will happen, but it won't replace Hollywood films or films created with a single vision. It will be in addition to such films. There's plenty of room for both.
The real danger for Hollywood is that films themselves will cease to be the most relevant artform in the same way books long ago ceased to be the relevant artform. In the future, if anything really important is going to happen culturally, it'll happen on the internet. We're probably already at that point.
There was a time that every kid wanted to write the next great novel. Then they wanted to make the next great movie. Now they want create the next great website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm impressed, bob. This seems like a well thought out and somewhat logical argument. Mind you, "it's been done before" and "people will get paid more because they know how much money was raised" aren't particularly strong arguments, but I'm very impresse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
Or is the old saying, "In with the new, out with the old" just another closed minded modus operandi that Techdirt supports.
..bah, nevermind, you never respond to any questions or critiques.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All of these will kill Hollywood, and there's nothing Hollywood can do about it. They will just try to move as far away from this and try to make $1 billion funded movies with "better effects" and more expensive actors, but it won't last for long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Collaborative what?
But - million monkeys won't produce Hamlet, and billion idiots won't replace Michael Bay. And couple of pals with Blender won't replace Pixar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Indie productions are no longer the realm dominated by self absorbed art students with no grasp on reality. There are level headed young businessmen making more with less out there.
When money begins to lose it's meaning and you can produce high quality shows or short movies on a shoe string budget talent and determined focused individuals will filter to the top.
Hollywood could compete... but they need to get the bean counters out of the way of their creative teams and stop making the same damn "safe" movie every damn time... And stop handing the camera to cameramen that can't hold the damn thing still. That'd be a good way to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, come on. You knew someone was going to do it. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An obvious question
We hear all the time how they are supposed to be for the artists, how they care about the lighting instructor and the entire 9 yards of fertilizer about how they care about the copyright holders. But what have they done to alleviate the problem of piracy other than bad statistics, ruinous relationships with other countries, and more enforcement that does not do a damn thing to prevent piracy? People tried to stop pirating books with a moral argument. Didn't work. Prevent fair use in the US? Hasn't stopped.
Stop artists from taking back their copyright? Ain't gonna happen. Extend the life of copyright so people die before they share new work? Ain't stopped a damn thing.
What has copyright given us but the express problems that the Founding Fathers did not want? It doles out censorship and hides behind unneeded laws that do nothing but profit a few over the needs of the many.
It's time to just do away with IP laws and allow people to decide the best way to use creative works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My issue with Hollywood has it's always been about tailoring movies to increase sales, and then they whine about if a specific movie gets bad reviews due to their cuts.
For example, Edward Norton went through hell trying to get his version of the Incredible Hulk made, one that supposedly envisioned a more humane look at Banner's personal issues.
However, Hollywood thought it needed more "action" and re-edited, destroying the consistency int he process.
It made money, but got bad reviews, but that's all Hollywood is for nowadays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The issue here is that a lot of these tablets have built in DRM. My android phone every time I moved files to it would do a scan to see if I had any unlicensed music or movies and would flag anything that it did not like. So basically as we move forward in technology if we are not careful then Hollywood will indeed win by affecting the way the new systems are built. They will work DRM into the OS and as things go forward probably work it directly into the hardware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Do you think Lucas will sue me for saying that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm impressed, bob. This seems like a well thought out and somewhat logical argument. Mind you, "it's been done before" and "people will get paid more because they know how much money was raised" aren't particularly strong arguments, but I'm very impr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh really?
That's an old saying. We need to find a new one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
Also, note that many compelling stories don't need a lot of people. The old "Twilight Zone" series often had only one or two actors, and maybe 3 camera shots. Recall feature-length movies such as "My Dinner With Andre" or "The Cube" didn't require elaborate sets.
What's different nowadays, and what I believe Wales was talking about, is that distribution models are changing such that creatives won't need the big studios in the near future for every project.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Run this phrase by me again, please.
I'm deeply puzzled by the word remain. My family and I get better and more diverse films from around the world via Netflix. Hollywood hasn't been relevant to us for a long (several years) time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Collaborative what?
> as FOSS didn't destroyed Microsoft/Oracle/Adobe/Autodesk
> and so on. How Ubisoft/EA/etc is doing - fine last time
> I checked.
Part of Oracle is the corpse of Sun Microsystems.
Microsoft's latest market penetration attempt is being blunted by Android (which is derived from Linux) and a version of MacOS (which is partially derived from BSD).
Adobe and Autodesk provide expensive speciality tools to niche markets. Oracle provides expensive tools to niche markets and it's mindshare is being eroded by Free Software.
Microsoft thrives on legacy support and "being compatible".
None of those really map well to products that are cheap, general purpose, and don't impose any long term compatibility barriers on customers. I can switch TV networks as easily as I can switch web browsers or search engines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dixon Hill, et al.
I can ignore the big budget remake and just buy the original instead.
Current tech puts us on the bridge of the Enterprise D when it comes to creative content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Touched a nerve has it?
Like it or not the cost of doing high end production in film/video is falling dramatically as it has for still photography. This goes from low end anything to high end animation for whatever kind of project someone might want to take on. OK, there will be a few more "Attack of The Killer Tomatos" released to the world though Hollywood's most expensive mega failures are often as unintentedly funny as that film is. Adding effects is easier and far less expensive than it's ever been and in the right hands is incredibly effective. From your post and others decrying amateur production I have the impression that you have no idea at all what tools are available out there and for how little cost.
Crowdsourcing a movie is far easier than you think. And has been almost endlessly pointed out here professionals within that industry are rarely working full time (as in TV series) but on contract work, casuals (in any other industry) or part time. Despite what you seem to think professionals in camera work, effect, stunts, sets and any other aspect of production are wonderfully helpful to so-called amateurs and should the "indie" provide excitment to them will often pitch in.
Does that mean all the Hollywood studios are going to self-destruct, in spite of their apparent effort to do just that, one or two may actually adapt and survive. Most of them will go down if they don't.
Does this mean the end of the summer blockbuster? Given what we've seen recently for the majority of them I sure hope so. But they will survive. Just fewer of them and maybe we'll get more consitent quailty.
Distribution costs have already gone down to about zero in that most movies are distributed to theatres across the Internet now, as it is, to theatres. As so-called "piracy" has shown it's very efficent.
I doubt Wales is all that interested in getting involved in the editing process though if I was doing said editing I'd boot him or his minions out the the room I do my editing in. That's a creative process just as much or more than anything that came before it.
Too bad the world isn't changing in ways you disapprove of. You can always stand on the seashore and scream at the tide to stop coming in, if you like. You'll not stop the changes.
Me? I don't want to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dixon Hill, et al.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dixon Hill, et al.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Collaborative what?
Hmm. Have you seen some of the stuff coming out of fractalforums.com lately? Here's something someone posted there a year or so ago:
http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/6/511_08_04_11_9_46_13.jpeg
Bring on the alien invasion. Alien planets? Check:
http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/6/511_21_04_11_1_44_58.jpeg
Alien jellyfish?
http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/9/511_17_01_12_4_26_58.jpeg
Futuri stic city?
http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/10/511_12_02_12_4_35_03.jpeg
Other alien environments?
http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/10/511_28_02_12_11_22_18.jpeg
h ttp://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/11/511_19_04_12_4_29_56.jpeg
As I understand it, all of that was produced with free software and commodity computer technology. And yes, there are videos posted there from time to time as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh really?
The next thing you know you'll belittling the folks who correct typos at the Wikipedia or simply add extra citations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Greedywood is its own worst enemy.
Boycott All MAFIAA
Stop Feeding the Pig !
Buy INDIE Art,Films,Music,and Literature
Support the INDIE Artists !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm impressed, bob. This seems like a well thought out and somewhat logical argument. Mind you, "it's been done before" and "people will get paid more because they know how much money was raised" aren't particularly strong arguments, but I'm very impr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
On an Android phone you're in luck, because it's not hard to stop this. If you don't want to remove the offending software or install something like Cyanogenmod, you can install a firewall and just block that communications from the phone entirely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
It's too bad that you didn't carry on with the UA story and point out that after UA became successful and inertia settled back in again with what they'd have called the old studios continued on much as they had before.
I'm actually almost amazed at the clarity and accuracy of your post, bob. Congratulatons! Still, judging the number of people involved in a production by the length of the credits isn't the world's best way of doing thing.
The original "Sleuth" had two actors in front of the camera, a set consisting of an English cottage they'd rented for the purpose and not much else. The credits listed actors who never appeared and were made up by the screenplay and production. Though they rolled by as endlessly as other movie credits do.
It's still one of the best movies I've ever seen and the acting and directing were both incredible.
The attitude you reflect that what Wales proposes can't be done, though Wales himself says he's terrible at prediction, and derogatory term Wikimovies to indicate that it can't be done indicates a closed mindedness that because the studios figured something out a long time ao means that there's no other and, perhaps, more efficent way. The world of the Internet and Web didn't exist when the studios were first setting up shop in Hollywood, breaking patents willy nilly as they did, and setting up an industry that now claims to be attached at the hip to IP.
What's missing here is that the Net and Web change everything. It's possible now to do what couldn't be done even 10 years ago at a reasonable cost with tools that only existed, where they existed at all, in Hollywood.
Oh, and Chaplain and company wanted was to get paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hollywood still owns Big Media.
I stopped buying major label music about 10 years ago (and no, I don't pirate), and have never missed it because there is an incredible amount of very high-quality music available independently.
I find new music from a handful of music blogs and an app that monitors my taste in music and seeks out similar (legitimate, non-pirated) music culled from, basically, websearches. There are a number of player add-ons and apps that will do this.
Personally, this combo has completely met my needs in terms of locating new music that I probably like and filtering out the junk. In fact, it does this better than any of the traditional "gatekeeper" entities such as radio play or label affiliation.
I could see this naturally working for other types of entertainment as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Collaborative what?
This is a really interesting analogy, actually. No, FOSS didn't destroy those companies. However, Microsoft is struggling to remain relevant, and part of its strategy is to embrace FOSS in a stronger way. Oracle/Adobe/Autodesk have ceased or nearly ceased to be relevant and continue to survive (very well!) by confining themselves to a narrow market segment, businesses, and addressing their particular political needs better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Collaborative what?
However, there is a great deal of tremendous artistic talent out there that would never be developed or seen by anybody under the old system and now has a realistic chance of being productive under the new system.
This is what I find so exciting. A billion idiots won't produce genius, but a billion random people will have a few thousand geniuses in the group.
The signal-to-noise ration is unfavorable, true, but that's not a new problem. Under the traditional system, most of the stuff being produced is utter crap, too. From what I can see, the great-to-crap ratio isn't much different in the amateur community vs the professional one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
And who says we'll need actors in the future? In general, 90% of the time directors hate working with actors. With advances in graphics and human CGI models, who knows how long before human actors are fighting for their jobs?
You have no imagination, and seemingly no ability to accept paradigm shifts in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Announcer: Round 2: FIGHT!!
*The Internet pummels the MAFIAA with thousands upon thousands of pieces of independently created content and leaves them swaying on their feet.*
Announcer: FINISH THEM!!
*The Internet summons a pillar of light which engulfs the MAFIAA and disintegrates it into billions of 1's and 0's which the Internet then absorbs into itself.*
Announcer: The Internet wins! Flawless victory! FATALITY!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: An obvious question
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/04020718540/hollywood-s till-trying-to-kill-golden-netflix-goose.shtml#c394
Per these previous posts, I think they have done a lot in conjunction with other legacy players.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
Wow, same here! I collaborate all the time and love it. I fell in love with computer generated imagery in the 70's and all of the tools available nowadays are mind blowing by comparison. Many are even free and improving rapidly (Blender is a good example). Everything I've ever done in this field has been done completely for free.
I do it because I love it and because it's my passion. Taking money would turn it from a hobby into a job, and I already have one of those. I also spare some time when I can to help others learn CG and solve any problems they might be having (modeling, UV mapping, texturing, lighting, rigging, animating, etc) and love doing that as well. It's very soul satisfying. It also helps that I learned first hand that material wealth truly can't buy happiness.
I honestly don't think I would have been able to stick with it had it been a job lol, and I'm positive there are tons of folks out there just like me in all of the creative fields. Even if only 1% of them are gifted and turn out great things, that is still a lot of good media. 1% of a lot is still a lot after all. Hollywood should be afraid.
Things will always advance and change no matter how much you don't want it to, and everyone has something in their life they wish wouldn't change (your health being the most obvious). Fighting it by changing laws in your favor so you don't have to change is hilarious and always doomed to fail, kind of like legislating heart attacks are no longer allowed to take lives.
By the time you figure out you have no choice and are forced to adapt simply to survive, the world will have moved on to something better and you'll still end up floundering like a fool. Just compare each decade and how radically different they are from one another and you should be able to see what I mean. Those whom adapt, and adapt quickly, survive. Those who don't take their chances. There are zillions of products and businesses that no longer exist today for the simple fact they're no longer relevant or needed. Middle men are now one of those. Welcome to reality 101.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
1)Please list what large movie has thousands of people working it
2)I didn't realize the food service people, personnel assistants, payroll, makeup & hair,etc all had a say in what final product would be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
this is the story of and then came lola, an indie film:
http://popuppirates.com/
why do guys believe that the only valuable internet is the one that does not compensate the creators themselves? if hollywood is irrelevant no one should need to pirate hollywood movies then, huh? Oh how I love the paradox of pirate logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Not entirely true. While some technology is cheaper, the technology is often the cheapest part of making a movie. You know, locations, actors, crew, transportation, and all those pesky people who actually work on making movies still need to get paid.
Further, the technology that is "coming down in price" is often stuff that was paid for in making an expensive blockbuster to start with. It's a bit of a chicken and the egg thing, it costs money to develop technology, but not so much to knock it off later.
"
I doubt Wales is all that interested in getting involved in the editing process though if I was doing said editing I'd boot him or his minions out the the room I do my editing in. That's a creative process just as much or more than anything that came before it."
The thing is, if they are in charge of the money, if they are in charge of getting you exposed... those sorts of people end up sticking their fingers in and messing things up. I think it way worse to be making movies for someone with a political agenda rather than someone who just wants to make an ass load of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm impressed, bob. This seems like a well thought out and somewhat logical argument. Mind you, "it's been done before" and "people will get paid more because they know how much money was raised" aren't particularly strong arguments, but I'm very impr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh really?
And now we can quite easily create virtual sets. George Lucas made extensive use of them in Star Wars, and it eventually trickled down to television (Sanctuary for example). There are lot's of gifted folks out there creating software and amazing stuff with that software, much of it for free. Not just video, but audio as well. Right now much of it is limited to animated shorts (many of which can be found on Youtube), but that is slowly changing. Technology inevitably advances with time, making things ever easier to accomplish. This in turn translates into less people and a smaller budget being required to create something really good. And isn't creating what it's all about? Just wait until we get to a point where it's possible to do virtual actors believably with CG, something that's been improving by leaps and bounds lately. That's when the sh!t will really hit the fan. All those spoiled, big income actors will have to work hard to justify why they deserve multi-million dollar contracts (sometimes for only a few days worth of work). It will be interesting to see what kinds of crazy laws they'll demand be passed by government lol.
PS: There are people commenting whom are trying to belittle and play down indie productions. They're trying to convince people that only big budget Hollywood productions can be good, but anyone with half a brain know this is far from the truth. Hollywood's hit to miss ratio isn't all that great and it's doubtful indie will be any different. Certainly A percentage will always be good, and of course a percentage won't be. That's just a fact of life. It's important to remember though that what one person enjoys, another person hates. It's all subjective, which is why I don't care about any review but my own. Anyways posts trying to shoot down the idea that indie productions can actually be good (and get even better with time) are proving only one thing... that they're positively scared sh!tless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We don't. The more interesting question is why do you think we do?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hollywood still owns Big Media.
Wiki-Indie - Your definitive guide to all things indie!
Anyone want to give this idea a go? Make it a one stop shop for everything indie, with detailed information like Wikipedia has (credits, where donations/purchases can be made, where it can be found, etc), a voting system like IMDB has (number of likes and dislikes) and Gamespot (individual scores out of 10 along with written user reviews). Then instead of trying to get a lot of different indie films/albums/etc seen by the public, you only have to get one website seen by everyone. If you can make it synonymous with all things indie, the way torrents have become synonymous with The Pirate Bay, you've won half the battle. The other half is getting the public to participate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Um yeah, Go Hollywood
"This film was in the Guinness Book Of World Records for "Top Budget:Box Office Ratio" (for a mainstream feature film). The film cost $22,000 to make and made back $240.5 million, a ratio of $1 spent for every $10,931 made."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185937/trivia
John Carter
John Carter' Will Cost Disney $200 Million in Operating Losses
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-carter-cost-disney-millions-301704
You were saying Bob??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another open movie being produce, meaning all digital assets will be free to be copied, distributed and modified to anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The Toxic Avenger (1984)
Jekyll (2007) Director: Scott Zakarin
The Seamstress (2009)
The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption (2012), I just cannot believe they had $5,000,000 dollars to make this one.
I think the amateurs deserve their chance, they actually may make better movies than today massive crop of crap coming out of Hollywood, where a tiny little itsy bitty fraction actually is any good.
It is where talent is born, in the flames of experimentation and hardship not in lavish sets, those are actually destroyers of creativity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Collaborative what?
[UPDATED .bend]19 Billions of Polygons, not a ridiculous number anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1331941187/the-tube-open-movie/posts/212344
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Here is a fine example of another open movie being born, where people are free to copy, modify and distribute.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1331941187/the-tube-open-movie/posts/212344
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Um yeah, Go Hollywood
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait a second......isn't that just an alternate text box for commenters who prefer type on one scrolling line? It isn't? Well damn, I guess I'm doing it wrong.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oops!
Oh well. It's still a neat browser, just maybe not for TD. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Does it make life happier for her to know that Megaupload has been extrajudicially and illegally kneecapped, not because of "dirty money", but because Hollywood didn't like him experimenting with new legitimate content distribution and payment models, some of which could have benefit her directly?
I have Netflix, and I could watch her film there, but frankly I think after a self-entitled whine like that maybe I should just torrent it instead. It's been a while since I've seen _Lola Rennt_ anyway (yeah, about those ever-shoddier remakes and worn-out devices, Ms. Seidler...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Um yeah, Go Hollywood
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
Good for you! Nothing wrong with deciding to make it a hobby instead of a job...plenty of people DO have it as a job though. Some people here seem to think that amateurs working for free will replace professionals, which is is a laughable statement. People can fix their own cars or cook their own food, yet mechanics and restaurants are still in business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
And they manage to do so without complaining about unfairness (i.e. people being able to compete by doing the same thing themselves), without limiting innovation (i.e. preventing others from creating technology to make diagnosing of repairing cars easier), without abusing the legal system (i.e. suing anyone who even really offers a similar product or who finds new ways to enter the market or meet consumer needs) and so on and so forth.
And no one here is saying amateurs will replace professionals. If you paid attention and took off those biased/moronic glasses you'd see what people are saying is that now those "amateurs" have the ability to utilize technology that would let them create content on par with the professionals (as far as the techniques and technology used in it's creation goes). And sorry to say, a surprising number of professionals were first seen as (and made themselves known) by doing "amateur" work and creating/releasing "amateur" products. Tarantino anyone?
The only thing laughable here are your statements and your attitude in general.
Honestly, if you feel threatened just say so. No shame in it. "Dinosaurs will die." - NOFX Just accept that your position in life is one that will eventually be done away with or replaced and move on. I know when I'm completely secure in my position and belief I openly mock anything that says to the contrary. /s (I don't actually. I ignore it entirely, because I don't feel threatened. But when I do feel insecure about something I try and play it off by making jokes and dismissing things outright and by twisting things people say and then calling them fools over it. Hey! That's exactly what you seem to be doing. Regularly!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
making home movies in 2012
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
The statement "Some people here seem to think that amateurs working for free will replace professionals, which is is a laughable statement" really made me laugh because the only true difference between a pro and an amateur is that one is getting paid. Remember too that all pros were amateurs at one point. It's an oft used label that has absolutely nothing to do with ones artistic skill, as foolishly delusional people wish to believe. Kind of like how people with lots of money believe they're better than everyone else and thus more important. People assign way too much importance to stamped metal and cotton paper with ink on it. Everyone may need it, but it's not the end all be all of human existence and there are lots of things far more valuable, things money can't buy.
When it comes to being hired, an employer tends not to look at experience as being the most important, but rather your portfolio of work. When you hire a photographer, do you do so based on what camera he uses (which strangely suffers under the amateur/pro dichotomy as well) or his technical knowledge of how it works? No! You hire based on his or her body of previous work. That's just the way it is with art and why an amateur can easily offer something better than a pro; skill. All you have to do is look at Hollywood to know this is true. We've witnessed time and again that there are plenty of clueless "pros" there.
If I ever needed someone to do artistic work, it would be more sensible to ask the amateur with 30 years of experience, no diploma, and a fantastic portfolio over someone whose been getting paid for it during the past year or two, their job obtained right out of college (well done getting into massive debt for a piece of paper that says your special by the way lol) and whose body of work is mediocre at best.
Another thing about amateurs versus pros is the motivational factor. One does it out of passionate enthusiasm, the other for the money. There is certainly some crossover between those two, but given a choice between one or the other, I'd say passion is the more desirable trait. One seeks perfection, the other a paycheck. So yes, I'm an amateur, but not because I suck at it. At the risk of repeating myself, it's a personal choice with a sound reason behind it. I believe a hobby should be enjoyable fun, not stressful work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsGyueVLvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE7VzlLtp-4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
I never said being an amateur means one sucks at what they do...lol. I just said that people who have told me that amateurs will replace professionals, are really dreaming. But are aspiring professionals REALLY amateurs when they are doing everything they do with the intent to enter a job market and make money off their talent?
"If I ever needed someone to do artistic work, it would be more sensible to ask the amateur with 30 years of experience, no diploma, and a fantastic portfolio over someone whose been getting paid for it during the past year or two, their job obtained right out of college"
Of course you would, since the other person only has a year or two of experience. Would you still choose the amateur if your other choice was a professional with more experience and a better portfolio? I think not.
"Another thing about amateurs versus pros is the motivational factor. One does it out of passionate enthusiasm, the other for the money...One seeks perfection, the other a paycheck."
Don't insult every artist trying to earn a living with those statements. Just because one asks for fair payment to create a piece of art doesn't mean they aren't passionate about it, nor does it mean they will deliver a half assed product just to get money. In fact, the pro has MORE reason to seek perfection since it increases the chances that their client will hire them in the future or recommend them to friends/family. Just because you get paid for doing something doesn't mean you can't be passionate about it or strive to produce the best damn result you can.
"I believe a hobby should be enjoyable fun, not stressful work."
I do not disagree with that. But just because YOU might do art as a amateur for fun in your spare time, doesn't mean a professional artist can't enjoy it the same way just because they decided to turn their passion into a career.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
I never said you did. It did feel implied though which is why I pointed it out. I think you're laboring under the false impression that I'm against professionals and for amateurs. To be honest I don't really see a difference between the two, other than their reason for doing it. What I do dislike are labels. Why some people feel they need to classify others and put them into some kind of order has always befuddled me. Free or paid, it doesn't matter so long as the work being produced is good. Both are equally capable. The fact that one is being paid cash doesn't automatically make them better somehow though. That's putting way too much emphasis on money, which is meaningless so far as art is concerned IMHO. Thats not to say I don't profit from my own work. I do and it's a currency more valuable that just dollars.
Nobody is replacing anyone. In fact I'm not sure I've ever read anyone state explicitly that free was going to replace paid (what it boils down to). Both can coexist quite happily if they really want to. Unfortunately that tends not to happen due to the fact that one feels threatened by the other and is hell bent on destroying anything that makes free easier and more efficient (which is impossible, though they're welcome to try). Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to draconian laws which trample on civil liberties and stifle innovation. ;)
"Just because one asks for fair payment to create a piece of art doesn't mean they aren't passionate about it, nor does it mean they will deliver a half assed product just to get money."
I did say there was some crossover, didn't I? I'm not so sure about the second half of your statement though. We've all witnessed plenty of half assed products being sold explicitly for the money and no other reason. We wouldn't need consumer protection laws if that weren't true. Video games are a prime example of how a media companies often take advantage of fans. Buggy sequels to a hit are often pumped out quickly to capitalize on the success of the first title, and usually they suck (though not always). This happens with movies too. There is a reason the amsses have learned to treat sequels with skepticism.
"Would you still choose the amateur if your other choice was a professional with more experience and a better portfolio? I think not."
Obviously lol. I'm surprised you even said that considering the point I was trying to make, which was that skill is what matters most, not whether someone is being paid for the work or not. Being paid is one of the definitions of a professional (look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me) and is why I scoff at the idea a professional is somehow better than an amateur. This is not to say I'm scoffing at professionals, just at those who believe such a falsehood and repeat it (I'm not accusing you of this btw).
"But just because YOU might do art as a amateur for fun in your spare time, doesn't mean a professional artist can't enjoy it the same way just because they decided to turn their passion into a career."
I totally agree with you. Likewise just because an amateur isn't doing their craft as a career doesn't mean they can't be paid for their own quality work from time to time (the best payment being in the form of contest winnings lol). There is a third label for that; freelancer (as if the world needs more labels /s). :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Collaborative what?
Check out the credits on Sintel. It's more than a "couple of pals". They even list the people who donated. It was all done with free software. Big Buck Bunny is worth watching too. The tools are getting both less expensive and more powerful, while the human population is constantly growing with old idiots being constantly replaced by ever smarter ones (I hope). It's impossible to say with 100% certainty that [insert name here] won't ever be replaced by someone/something better.
Blender is notable for another reason. The speed at which it's developing is significant, far faster than a lot of the big established businesses selling very expensive applications, such as Autodesk (the 3ds Max 2013 announcement was such a letdown). Eventually Blender (and others) will surpass the old guard in terms of ability, performance, and usefulness.
FOSS isn't the only thing worth keeping an eye on. I've noticed that there are developers who really get it and treat customers well. Some don't charge at all for upgrades, others offer an educational version on the cheap that barely qualifies as feature limited. Some listen very closely to their customers feedback and actually take time to respond/implement/bugfix desired features. The big companies, again like Autodesk and Adobe, just don't seem to be capable of doing this. If anything they tend to appear anti-consumer in a lot of ways.
And lets not forget the internet in all of this. People don't need to go sit in a physical school anymore. Anyone is free to take up the various performance arts. The limitations of the past are mostly gone. Even tech support is free for just about anything you can think of. I just fixed my Xbox 360 for example and I don't know anything about electronics. The world is changing and the old dinosaurs, even if they're keeping up right now, may not be able to down the road if they refuse to change or simply can't (being beholden to stock holders doesn't help matters at all IMHO).
A cross section of free:
Scultpris
Blender
GIMP
Inkscape
MyPaint
Alchemy
TopMod
Jenn3d
xNormal
Wings 3d
Picturenaut
Apophysis
Deep Paint
Paint.NET
Honorable mentions based on price and/or support:
3D Coat
Artrage
Gertrudis Pro
Marmoset Toolbag
Silo
Topogun
Project Dogwaffle
TwistedBrush
If you think sculpting with digital clay might be fun, give Sculptris a try. I guarantee you'll have fun with it. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]