Future of Movies

Reader beware: I know very little about the film industry. I make a lot of assumptions here, but hopefully my ideas will be of inspiration to those who know more.

A good friend of mine, Josh Sugarman, is an up and coming movie writer/director. In the past, I’ve posted some of his work on my blog, and, over the past year and a half, he and I have engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the role the web has on the movie making industry.

So far, a few things have become of interest to me:

For one, the art of making movies — rather than the art of making web sites and web videos — has had little benefit thus far from the likes of Moore’s and Metcalfe’s laws.

Still today, all major blockbusters are built, distributed and sold like Web 1.0 websites; they cost huge sums of money to create, and then millions are pumped into marketing them so they can be “consumed” at a high price offline.

There have been a few exceptions, most notably The Blair Witch Project, but much of the medium’s costs are locked up in capital wholly unrelated to the advance of technology. Humans (actors and crew) still cost a lot. The movie experience — a big screen in a theater — still costs a lot, too. While viral marketing has replaced traditional marketing for online products and experience, converting to offline activity still costs a lot of money.

So, while startups grow out of the need for large, speculative investments, if any, movie making still costs large sums of money, making the process anything but flat. If you want to make movies, it’s not what you know as much as who you know.

But this must eventually change, right?

If it does, here are a few trends which may lead the way:

Distribution 2.0

The advent of open source and social media systems, like Boxee, coupled with the cheapening of LCD and plasma screens, will do two huge things: 1) bring the “theater experience” in home; 2) enable the viral distribution of independent films. Combine this with cheapening bandwidth and “hello cheap distribution!” Other products, like MeDeploy, are also enabling new distribution models which allow independent artists to sell their films across platforms.
Boxee Movies

Photo: Avner Ronen, Boxee CEO, and family, in front of a 103 inch plasma TV, running Boxee and showing a film in 1080p.

Pre-Production 2.0

The talent sourcing process is one way making movies will change. We’ve seen it happen in music, and soon we’ll see it in film: someone gets signed straight from their MySpace profile.

While union rules may currently hinder this from happening for dramatic films, documentaries are already going this route. My friend Aaron Cohen is producing a film called The Aaron Cohens — a very funny film about different people with his name — and is sourcing all of his participants from Facebook and other social networks.

Collaborative platforms could also effect the pre-production process, as producers outsource everything from location research to wardrobe decisions to the public. Thanks to technology like Google Street View, a location scout could probably glance at dozens of additional locations before settling on where to shoot. Mash that up with government information data on permit costs and down goes another major cost center.

Other Trends

What are other trends in the movie-making industry. Human cost still remains the highest for a movie. How will technology feed actors? Will actors, like developers, band together, eat ramen noodles, and produce worldclass movies together? If there becomes a point where major motion pictures are produced without large investments, I imagine some of the ideas above will be incorporated.

What other factors will come into play for the film industry? Comment below.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
This entry was posted in Blogging and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • All true enough. But this is also 100% true of the music business: Tech advances have now made it possible for someone to record and distribute really good music worldwide for almost zero cost, without leaving their bedroom. But has the pool of people making really good music increased significantly since these tech advances (ProTools, P2P, etc)? Nah. Making good music is a hard thing, and there are a finite number of people capable of doing it. And if you've ever listened to someone's lousy self-recorded music (or a "professional"'s lousy music, for that matter), you know that advances in tech/distribution don't make a bad song any better.
    Same rules apply to movies, only more so -- by their nature, they're a collaborative work, and require many talented people working together. It will become cheaper to fund that work, and easier to distribute it, but it wil always remain difficult to make a good movie.
  • One of the *big* costs to distributing a film is buying the prints (the actual film reels that get sent to each movie theater). If they switched to digital projectors in theaters, a huge chunk of the distribution costs would go away.

    You'd think theaters would have digital projectors but they don't because the theaters refuse to pay for them (since all the benefit goes to the studios). So, you'd think the studios would get their act together but they hilariously can't agree on how much each studio will pay to install these digital projectors in theaters even though the overall industry would save a bundle on distribution costs.

    Once digital projectors finally make it to theaters, an indy film can afford to get distributed across america without having to pay serious money to make film prints for each theater.
  • I don't know much about the film industry either...but adding to your list of exceptions are some of Robert Rodriguez's early films. His first cost him 7k (prequel to Desperado). He talks about how wasteful film making has become in this book - http://tinyurl.com/5qq42o
  • Nate my sense is there will be lots of different markets for movies but that things will grow very, very niche.

    My idea is take a look into Global Jewish Culture using one name Aaron Cohen. The film will also be a revealing look at how people form communities using Ning, FB, twitter etc. So my targets are Jews (small niche) and media/internet professionals (even smaller). Therefor the budget will be small and I might even use tipjoy to help finance it. The world is changing.

    Aaron
  • The movie industry is more similar to the tech industry than you think. Both are hit based businesses which require significant bets on multiple options to produce hits. Most of the true blockbuster startups have taken considerable investment from investors. There are always examples like Craigslists and Hot or Not and in the movie business there are examples like Blairwitch project and Clerks.

    If you want to go the independent route it is very similar to building a website. Come up with an idea, then get some people to believe in the idea and help you make it. Go shoot your movie with a skeleton crew and post it to all the video sites out there. Use social media and viral marketing techniques to get people to see it. Submit it to festivals like Sundance, Toronto, Tribeca.

    Lets say you get into a festival and a Studio likes your film. They buy your movie in exchange for distribution rights. You sell for a smaller amount early to secure your financial stability but give up the bigger yet riskier exit. (Sounds like some recent web exits we have seen?)

    Now you are a successful moviemaker (entrepreneur). You have established yourself with the studio (vc's) and are ready for your next project. But this time you want a blockbuster movie (IPO exit). So you go out with your idea and raise money from investors. Now that you are an established talent things are a little easier and you can push for big things.

    Both making a movie and building a website are hard. But both can be done cheaply. The creation of a blockbuster requires significant investment in both industries (usually).
  • more and more US studios will try to identify very popular non-movie content, ie books or comics or graphic novels or foreign films to create or translate for the US audiences. Books will prove to be the most cost effective to produce for the big screen, as most rely on less special effects and big budget production than comics or graphic novels. Summit Entertainment hit the jackpot in developing Twilight for the big screens, as the $37MM production budget yielded a blockbuster franchise that netted over $70MM in the first weekend.
  • So the benefits on this are:

    1. Existing audience (limited downside)
    2. Existing story, ready for screenplay
    3. Cheaper stories to execute

    What else?

    That gets you somewhere... but still, $35 is a huge production budget.
  • Improvements in Computer Graphics are also becoming more accessible. You hook up the recorder to your PS3 or XBOX and can act out a scene with your favorite character in Halo.
  • Ahh, yes. Toy Story (first Tron?) broke new ground here. Good call.
blog comments powered by Disqus