Rebuilding Hollywood in Silicon Valley's image

This is an interesting post. There are a couple of points that I'm hesitant on, though. I wouldn't necessarily say I disagree with his position - just that I think there are some points that might need a bit more elaboration (ok, a bit more defending).<p>First is that the Hollywood model for talent may be an improvement over Silicon Valley in some ways. Kathy Sierra wrote a great post on this a while back:<p><a href="http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/02/dont_ask_employ.html" rel="nofollow">http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0...</a><p>In short - the Hollywood model where everyone comes together to complete a project and goes off looking for a new gig after it is completed may be a better model for tech work than the employer/employee model. This model heavily rewards talent that gets things done, and has no place for seat warmers. I do agree with Marc that it's good for the creators to be stakeholders with a share in the output - so that would improve things. Maybe this explains so much of the job hopping that goes on in Silicon Valley. Perhaps developers should vest at the completion of a product? After all, top talent at Google may be sitting around with golden handcuffs when they could be working on the next great release...<p>Another factor is the extreme expense of producing a truly professional film. Yes, technology is getting cheaper and more available, but tens of millions is still a small budget for a feature film. I'm not a big fan of special effects for their own sake, but I thought "Jurassic Park" was pretty much awesome, took trememdous technical expertise and innovation, and was ultra-expensive. I suppose this capital could now be raised from VCs rather than studio heads.<p>Think VC's in the film industry would be willing to give the same kind of creative freedom we (only sometimes) see in tech startups? It's a tempting idea, no doubt about it...

I am sick of happy endings.<p>From entertainment point of view, this is great news, as I believe this will let everyone to be a lot more creative. Unfortunately, studios have too much power and control, and not that many directors get the final cut on their movies. As a result, there are many unhappy artists, as their works are greatly influenced, and changed by those in power. Most studios have no respect for the art work and merely look at it as a business opportunity and will change the creative work to whatever that will potentially sell more and make them more money. Therefore, this transition could be the end of all those "Hollywood endings." (Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, Once Upon a Time in America, American History X, are just a few examples). <p>I have to mention though that this problem will not be even completely solved with Mark's proposition either. Rebuilding Hollywood in Silicon Valley's image will have its disadvantaged too. I believe doing so will not build Hollywood as today's image of Silicon Valley but rather an image of the Valley in the mid 90's, and the dot-com era. (I am not suggesting there will be a bubble, but its possible, and I don't think it'll ever be as bad as the tech one, since the industry is already mature and the players are very experienced, so the chances of failure are a lot less.) But in terms of the structure of the companies and the process there will be similarities. As we have seen over and over, startups that end up doing whats to the best interest of the VCs (or at least what the VCs believe is to their best interest) instead of doing what the founders would like to do (there are thousands of these stories but my favorites are Jim Clark and Silicon Graphics, and to some extend Steve Jobs and Apple, which proves this could have happened to anyone at any level!). But as there will be a lot more producers compared to the few currently available studios there will be better chances to find investors that think like you, so there will still be improvements. <p>Hollywood 2.0 But this transition will be a lot faster. As the technology improves and all costs of production, marketing, distribution go down, eventually a lot less capital would be needed to put together a movie, which will lessen the power of the producers and set the creative minds free. (similar to what we are experiencing in Silicon Valley today!). <p>I can't wait to see three different versions of the same story and movie coming out during the same year. Or the redone of older movies with similar plots but different themes and endings. I can't wait to see the personal touch of many creative people that never had a chance to offer their talents before. And maybe one day in the future I'll be sharing movies with my friends that they have previously seen or know about, but can now see it with my touch on top of it, and from my point of view. Maybe one day critics instead of pointing out what they like or don't like, they can modify the movies themselves and offer their own versions to their viewers (I might be getting really ahead of myself but I get excited when I think like this.) And instead of movie guide you'll check digg.com to see what you should watch today.<p>But last time anything close to this happened (but not even close to the potentials here) some great talents came out of Hollywood. We saw movies like Easy Rider, and great directors like Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas changing the way we think about movies.<p>Side Notes: What I mention above does not apply to all categories of movies, as many of them (such as most of TV shows, and reality shows) can be produced today for very little capital. But for the feature length movies, and mostly those that are produced for theaters, you will still need a huge capital for production.

Andreessen forgets the PT Barnum effect. Movies are not like a business, they are a carny show. People go shows that grab them, not for something useful that they'll use day to day. H'wood sells vapor, really, literally vapor. That's the principle behind the summer blockbuster, get folks excited, pay $11 and into seats for a wild ride. They are often disappointed in the product, but can't return it and will continue to hope for better from the next preview.<p>It will change when the Charlie Chaplin of youtube arrives. Chaplin made a lot of movies, he eventually started Universal studios with the thought that the creators of the films should get the beneficiary. Two things matter in H'wood, owning the distribution channels and skill at hype. A youtube 'show' gets a certain amount of word of mouth hype but that 'youtube-house' has not seen a true impresario. One thing the impresario/producers need is the lure of the big payoff, that exists for VC's but not for producers. What will trigger massive change in the studio structure is when an investment in a youtube production can trigger a huge payoff to the frontman. Then he can dangle the costs of producing a single show in front of the gamblers. Right now the only big winner for a youtube 'show' is google and they will not front production costs.<p>Shows (movies, TV, Broadway, youtube) are structured very different than a business. They are big for a month, a day, or a few years, then on to the next big thing. Few want version 2.0 of say 'Rainman' (with rare exceptions). But even exceptions are really 'new companies' as opposed to an ongoing offering. There seems to be overlap with the spike of new ventures, but when the venture is sold, all the principals don't leave and go to the next show. After the wrap party, everyone is looking for work. There are support companies with continuation (prop rental, render farms) but the core business is show business.

I first got into programming, because I wanted to be a VFX artist in "The Industry". I moved to LA for 1-1/2 years to give it a shot. <p>Problem is, the TV/film industry is big, fat bloated and filled with nepotism. Junior Studio Execs in charge of nothing drive around in Mercedes 7 series, because their uncle got them a job. <p>At the same time, there are literally tens of thousands of talented artists who are broke and underemployed. If someone can figure out how to let the artist sell straight to the consumer, the industry is <i>over</i>. It's ripe and ready to be plucked from the tree. <p>Viva la revolucion digital!

I think Marc's head is certainly in the right place, but in all fairness, what you can do on a Mac and a HD cam and writing/shooting LOST and Heroes ain't the same thing whatsoever.