[Keyframe]

It's a multi-tiered problem with each one with its own complexities. I don't want to write a long story now, but I want to emphasise one and one thing only.

If you want to disrupt film and/or tv industry then you have to disrupt people, not technology (by much). It's a people problem.

It takes a lot of people in a collaborative manner to work on a product like that, with each person being skilled and expensive. You need a lot of people like that for a long time. You also need wood, nails, paint, cars, space, energy... lots of those in order to build sets. And someone to imagine them and someone to design them.

Having a fancy camera, grip, lenses is a tiny tiny proportion of any reasonable-sized budget. Most of the money goes to people and towards materials, rentals and space for sets.

It's a lot of money too, if you want to make something reasonable. Not everything can be made on a small budget with innovative story. Some products can, but not majority.

What it means is that you need a lot of cash, and for that you need investors (or deep pockets and then you don't care, maybe). With investors there are expectations of return on investment. And with that you're in the realm of distribution.. and then real complexities come forward.

You can't expect to raise anything moderate in crowd-funding for these types of products. It's too much for the level where that is now.

Note: I work in this industry. I have or have access to free state-of-the-art cameras, grip, lenses, even studio facilities and more, yet I can't make a movie just like that. I still need to pay lots of people to do their job and pay the materials for (at least some) sets or set dressing.

It's a people problem. They need to eat and pay bills and they don't care (much) about your grand vision if you're not paying.

[6stringmerc]

Excellent summation and glad you could share your perspective. Like you point out, it genuinely takes money to create a quality product that meets expectations - you know, feels like a good film. I guess that's why it's kind of funny to watch knock-offs / direct-to-VOD like "Transmorphers" and instantly see why "Transformers" cost something like $100,000 per day during some of their more elaborate scenes (outlier I'm sure but I believe that figure / rumor).

The professionals in industries like yours make things look easy, so to speak, in that understanding behind-the-scenes effort and organization is absolutely staggering to witness first hand. I've done some minor level sound work (boom mic) but also drop in on some sets when filming around town, like Fox's cancelled "The Good Guys" and I can really appreciate the intensity and costs associated with such productions.

The internet is a lot like an open mic night, and in this regard, there are some gems to be found, but it's going to take wading through a whole lot of...ugh...

[Keyframe]

I've long heard people talk about Spielberg's $150k+ average per shooting day, for 45-60+ days, plus second unit (and more even), plus set construction, plus actors. So, it's not far-fetched for big movies.

[shermanyo]

I don't want to spend 30 bucks stroking Speilberg's ego just to show my (hypothetical) kids giant robots fighting for two hours.

They'll get several seasons of Power Rangers, a quality production that required the work of many professionals in the same industry. A lot of whom were probably new to the industry, building experience required to land jobs under people like Spielberg in the future.

[shermanyo]

> Not everything can be made on a small budget with innovative story. Some products can, but not majority.

Honest question, have there ever been any attempts to vary the price of content based on cost to produce?

If a studio wants to pump out high quality, low budget teen slasher flicks, why cant they sell at half the price of a CGI blockbuster?

Would those straight-to-dvd or midday movies do better if their value wasn't directly compared to AAA titles? Sure, it may not have been The Godfather, but it was a quarter of the price to see, so I don't feel ripped off.

If a movie uses unknown actors (which to me always feels more immersive than trying to imagine a star as yet another persona...), why does it have to cost me the same as a movie with individual actors paid an order of magnitude more than the previous film's entire budget?

Why do foreign films have to compete with American films at an equal price point (for local tickets)? Would more people choose a random Bollywood flick over the generic rom-com on date night if tickets were half the price at the same theater?

Maybe that's what we're seeing with original programming on things like Netflix?

[Keyframe]

Low budget made-for-tv films look better than 30 years ago.

With those budgets you can't hire top crew talent, and without A list cast you can't attract audience. So you will have a film that doesn't look like A budget film and you won't sell tickets. A list cast costs that much because they have brand value. With a product like that you're destined for TV and rental market. It exists and it works, but it can't fight in the same arena for viewer tickets.

There's also a feedback loop. New actors are introduced along established ones. That's how they become established themselves. And the cycle repeats. Doing a movie with whole unknown cast is extremely risky. Because you lose any brand value coming from actors. Two questions when considering watching a movie are: What is it about? Who's in it?

[tajen]

True. They say producing movies is extremely expensive, but only because they force blockbusters upon us and because they use stars from an extremely reduced pool of actors. Example: There are thousands of muscular guys worldwide who beg to act in better movies, why always require the same few US actors? Example: The French movie industry makes money, although they focus on a romantic/comedy market with much lower production costs and much reduced (French) market. Movies don't necessarily have to be worldwide-reaching to be pleasant. I'm confident it's possible to build action movies or thrillers without 3D, with much fewer battle scenes, with a much better scenario (Jason Bourne I'm looking at you), with younger actors and in other countries than USA without harming the audience's pleasure too much. But that requires not having the existing marketing-pumped blockbusters as competitors.

[iampliny]

Hi, I'm the guy who wrote this article. Good comments. Some thoughts:

* It takes a lot of people to write software, too. Those SoMoLo SaaS world-changers don't design and code themselves.

* But, the tech industry has found ways to bootstrap ideas that do not involve eight- or nine-figure up-front bets. The only difference between "high end" movies and "indie film" is that indies merely require six- or seven-figure up-front bets.

* Every industry that is disrupted goes through two revolutions: (1) it is digitized, i.e. it joins the "World Of Bits" (VGR) or the "IT Era" (Stratechery's phrasing); and (2) it is networked, i.e. the Internet enables new business models and production modes.

* That first revolution usually benefits incumbents. It lets them do the same exact things, more efficiently.

* Further, that first revolution is commonly confused with "disruption". But if it's not unseating incumbents -- it ain't.

* Filmed entertainment is still at the tail end of this first revolution. (I had the first two RED cameras, so I've had a front row seat to this.) But many pieces of the supply chain are still mired in Paper Belt mentality.

I mainly wrote this to stimulate discussion and thought among my film industry peers. Ironically, there's been far more engagement from y'all hackers instead. Probably because hackers, like rappers, tend to think of themselves as entrepreneurs by default. Filmmakers: you need to catch up.

[rebootthesystem]

It is also an environment unlike most others. One where investors make hundred million dollar decisions to develop a product in just a few months. A product that could flop within a week of being released.

How many products out there, say hardware products, have that kind of a dynamic. Imagine someone investing a hundred million dollars on an idea for a gadget based on nothing more than a description of the gadget and, maybe, the people who will be involved in the execution of the project.

OK, maybe that scenario had happened a few times. Well, in the movie industry this happens multiple times per year. If you lower the budget from the hundred million mark it probably happens dozens of times a year. I don't think there's a parallel for that almost anywhere.

When all the smoke and bullshit clears out[0] it isn't about the technology but rather about a product consumers will want to buy.

[0] Usurping part of a famous line by legendary race car builder Smokey Yunick. I went something like this: "When all the smoke and bullshit clears out you have to get out to the track and race".

[Keyframe]

To be honest, and I can't find sources now (trust me, ha!), average idea-to-release cycle around the world for anything moderate and above budget is 7 years. Not only those few months of production. That's plenty of time to prep and release a product. There's also other thing which other industries rarely have. Longevity. Movies generate money looooooong time after their release. They live on TV stations and cables, and somewhat on rentals as well. That's, IMO, primary reason why you see distribution not disrupted. It, kind of, works. And I mean no disruption in global distribution. It works, because TV/cable stations buy rights for certain amount of time and geographic distribution. Multiply that around the globe and you have a constant steady stream, for all practical purposes, forever. If that were to be disrupted, that flow would be gone into the unknown direction. And we can't have that, right? (says the $100mil investor)

[rebootthesystem]

Yeah, you are right. It's easy to forget what happens before someone writes a $100M check, funny as that may sound.

Distribution is/was it's own mafia. Back around the turn of the century (how cool does that sound?) I was CTO of a startup in Holly-weird that, among other things, back then, aimed to be a combination of what today might be Youtube and Netflix mashed together in a strange way. The CEO had been CEO of one of the major film studios for over a decade before coming on-board the startup.

Side note: I was in awe of how easily he could raise money with what amounted to total bullshit.

We had many, many conversations over coffee about the industry and how it worked. I remember thinking that distribution was a particularly disgusting, dirty, mafia-like sounding affair. I don't know how it is now, back then this "mafia" had a lot to do with the difficulty in opening theaters up for digital distribution.

To this day I remember the surreal board meetings where I'd explain on the whiteboard that the financials for what they wanted to build simply did not make any sense (connectivity and streaming were outrageously expensive back then) and the need to pivot. Nobody listened. Total echo chamber effect due to the other high-flyers who were involved. They believed their own bullshit. Damn the numbers. Ultimately they burned through an obscene amount of money before they realized I was right.

[Keyframe]

Oh, man. You've described exactly how it works in this business on all and every level! It's a constant stream of smoke and mirrors. You can't fight that, and if you can't join-in on that it's just best to nod in situations like that. Parlour tricks, fancy and fake bling, and lots of cash moving around.

Problem arises when, on the operating level, you have to 'keep it real'. BS echoes still and people need time in order to snap back to the real world, stop believing their lies, and get something done. It's a wonderful chaos, but that's how it works. It's not any different in 'normal' business, this is jus amplified because people are well-versed in agitprop.

Distribution is still kind of like that, it got M&A over the years so the octopus is bigger, less fragmented.

If anyone is thinking of disrupting this and is reading this. Here's a thought you need to solve. It's simple to understand. Let's say I'm holding rights to 100 movies. Average, Hallmark type of movies, nothing special. Each distributor (who sells to TV and cable stations) or TV stations themselves out there are willing to pay me $10,000 (ballpark, but not far out) for a right to show that movie for three years (also ballpark) in one or up to several small countries. That's $10k for three years, per movie, per country (or several smaller). That's a $1m potential to fully unload my library to one area over three years. Let's say there are 20 areas in the world where I can unload my full library and more (lots) which will take a partial library (I and them deal with multiple titles only, it's easier that way for both and one title gets out only if it's special). That's, roughly, $20m over three years for my library. Every three years. Forever. Each station for each (unlimited, but it varies) showing sells advertising and recuperates my cost and they earn something back.

For you to disrupt that, if you go global, you would need to offer the same amount (at least) on your shaky non-established platform for my library (and others). TV/cable/distributors won't touch my library anymore because now it's global and they lost exclusivity. Why so? That makes it harder for them to sell advertising for some reason, that's what they say at least.

For you to offer a platform where you offer me a share of revenue will not work. Why? Because those TV/cable/distro give me cash, secure cash, predictable cash, each and every cycle. With your offering I would have to take care of marketing (or you would) in order to push my old library of movies to viewers.

That's what you need to solve. Secure stream of cash for library holders which is at least equal to their realised potential and upwards. How you secure that stream? That's what you need to solve.

[rebootthesystem]

And that's why one of my favorite quotes, by Mark Twain, is:

"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way"

As is often the case, technology is a minuscule part of the real business. It's an enabler, not the whole business. The mistake engineers without business experience make time and time again is to start with technology.

[ericjang]

How much of this applies if the medium is pure CG/traditional animation?

[Keyframe]

A LOT more pronounced. Pre-production has to be done to a minute level and production takes A LOT of time with A LOT of people.

Let me give you a little back of the envelope type of breakdown for a feature film (not animated). Average feature length is 90 minutes. Let's say you have all the expensive gear for free (including cameras, grip, lights). Let's also say you have all the locations and sets for free. 'Natural' locations for example - those are the ones that you use locations as-is, like friend's apartment that looks nice, local coffee shop, that kind of stuff. Locations where you can't get the lights exact as you want, but at least they don't need much of, if any set dressing.

Let's also say you are writing your own script (90 minutes / ~90 pages), and you will be doing your own editing, sound design, mixing and mastering, as well as color grading and a few cheap, but semi good-looking vfx shots that you've found tutorials on how to make them from videocopilot or whatever. You can do only a few since they take a lot of time to make. Your friend of a friend will take up distribution and marketing, and your mom will pay the bills and prep food for you during the first few months while you write your script and do location scouting, script lining/breakdown/storyboard and the other stuff needed for pre-production.

Now, you have everything for free - you 'just need to shoot the movie'. What does that entail?

Most optimistic projections for a 90 minute feature-length movies are around 30 days worth of shooting. That's three minutes per day, which might sound little, but is actually a lot. Between each setup (changing camera location), you have to move/change lights, get actors ready and shoot. That takes time.

Here's an optimistic skeleton crew for something decent. On the set you will have yourself as a director, cameraman/director of photography and his assistant (at least one for focus at least, since you're shooting with prime lenses). You will also have a sound mixer and a boom guy (the one with the fishing rod). You will also have two friends who move the lights around and two that will help with grip and set (one will move dolly around, one will arrange apple boxes and help decorate the set. He's a wonderful guy, he can do all of that by himself). You will also have your assistant that will take care of notes for your editing later (a script supervisor) and she will occasionally hit the slate and help the actors with their lines. One other friend will help with make-up and her friend with hair and wardrobe that you borrowed from somewhere too. You will also need your three actors. That's all your innovative script needs. Except those two scenes where you need people sitting near-by them in the coffee shop and that scene where extras are in the public transportation bus around them,, but we won't talk about that.

That's: 1 you, 1 your assistant/scriptie, 1 DP and 1 his assistant, 1 sound guy and 1 boom guy, 2 light guys that also run around with their cars if something needs to be fetched, 2 grip guys that have keen decorating sense to double for set design, 1 make-up girl/guy and 1 hairdresser / wardrobe, 3 actors. That's 15 people.

15 people that will work for 15+ hours for 30 days straight. Of those 15 people, 8 people will need to work two weeks ahead of shoot, also long hours. They will need to prep. Actors will need to read lines, learn them, you will need to block action with them, block action on set, rehearsals, rehearsals... DP and assistant will need to design lighting around locations you've found, scriptie will prep for her notes, make-up and wardrobe will need to prep what will be look of actors.

That's 15 people for 30 days straight, 8 people for 2 weeks straight. For 15+ hour days. You will need to move them around and feed them like babies. Because empty-stomached set is not a good set. And no, you can't eat pizza for 30 days straight. Crafty table also doesn't count as a full meal, which you need if you work for 15+ hours, mostly standing and/or pushing heavy objects.

That's the skeleton indie movie. On the borderline of possible.

Now, take animation. It's kind of the same, but your friends can't help because they can't draw / 3d model, and those that can can't animate. I'm helping a friend finish his ~5 minute animation just these days. With my help and a few others (not full-time, I took few shots from him as well as other's have.), his full-time, 10+ hour days accumulate to about three and a half years. That's on a whole other level of people bottleneck. I actually started out as an animator, then layout artist, then switched to VFX TD (I programmed for a long time, still do for fun) then from there to editing, script and then direction and creative. That's where I'm at today.

edit: you'll also have squabbles after the first week or two, when people are over-worked. You'll hear something like 'Fuck you and your stupid-ass movies. I'm out. Deduct from my pay. That's right, you're not paying, buddy!' and then you will make peace, and you will end the shoot for the day. And after a month+ of emotional rollercoaster you will be alone for a couple of more months in your mother's bedroom editing the movie. While at it, you will look at the shots and then you will have thoughts along the following: 'This scene looks like shit. Look at that damn acting. I shouldn't have listened to what people were suggesting to me on the set'. And you would be right. Along with all of the stress, you will be, due to in-experience, gullible to all of the advices on the set. Everyone has them, from dolly operator to actors. And you will, in your insecurity, listen to them and depart from your vision and settle for a compromise. One that will compromise your original vision and you can't go back once you're in the editing with crappy shots. All of the advisors will be doing other stuff by then, and you will have to take those shots and put your name first on that shit pie. Not theirs, yours. Yet, you weren't calling the shots, you were compromising because you thought you can't make people listen to your vision because you didn't pay them.

[wj]

As somebody who has written and produced a feature-length film for $10k, and turned out nothing close to Christopher Nolan's Following, I have to say that this comment is spot on.

[Keyframe]

I congratulate you on going through that from start to finish. People have no idea what a mountain that is. Yet, you've climbed it. If nothing else, the height of your climb is an achievement worth congratulating.

[enthdegree]

The same, I imagine. For instance look at how big the Cuphead team [1] is, or the work conditions conspiracy with Sausage Party [2]

[1] http://studiomdhr.com/cuphead-team/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sausage_Party#Controversy

[CyberDildonics]

If anything it is more pronounced.