Kill the Blockbuster

"the bottom line is that it’s never been more difficult for filmmakers to get an original story made"<p>On the contrary. With affordable HD gear and computer editing, it's never been easier for a filmmaker to make their movie themselves. Compare to 20 years ago, where Kevin Smith could barely afford to buy and develop grainy black-and-white film on a $30 grand budget.

There is a serious flaw in this analogy. It costs tens of millions of dollars to make a Hollywood blockbuster, and you don't find out if it was money well spent until opening weekend. But a couple of unemployed software developers can test out a startup idea for a few thousand dollars, and very plausibly get to millions of users or ramen profitability in a few months if the idea is good.<p>The incentives are totally different. So even if we agree that consumer media internet startups are becoming formulaic (I sure don't), this isn't the reason why.

"It’s too risky. It doesn’t test well in focus groups. It’s not made for everyone."<p>Oh how I want to see movies that are not made for everyone.

Well said. Silicon Valley has created this perception that everyone should be trying to go for the next big blockbuster... of course, that what the VC community would like everyone to do. Because they can only make money on blockbusters - they can't make money on the scale or time horizons of a more modest growth business.<p>Don't believe the hype.

Silicon Valley to Hollywood is a good analogy.<p>Can non-blockbusters in Hollywood make money like they can in the valley?