what happens if SOPA passes?

On the one hand, it's awfully entitled to expect access to everything that has ever been released. On the other hand, if that expectation is not fed it leads directly to piracy. They can moan all they like but it's a fact.

Copyright owners need to look at how things have changed, understand that people will get what they want, and ask themselves whether or not they want to be paid for their work.

Oh god. Last sentence of first paragraph belongs at end of second paragraph.

it's not really fair to say that with DYI electronics people could make avatar or even j. edgar. in fact it's wrong. you can make a reasonably nice-looking movie for cheaper than ever before. but not one with big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI, etc. hollywood still makes movies that nobody else can afford. and to a considerable extent those are the movies a lot of people around the globe still wants to see.

well do we really *need* avatar? is the pleasure that avatar brought to the world so great that it can't be replaced by other things?

it's not really fair to say that with DYI electronics people could make avatar or even j. edgar. in fact it's wrong. you can make a reasonably nice-looking movie for cheaper than ever before. but not one with big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI, etc. hollywood still makes movies that nobody else can afford. and to a considerable extent those are the movies a lot of people around the globe still wants to see.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:09 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was going to include the obvious avatar caveat, but since you brought it up: big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI are all really nice, but not at all necessary for film production. like, not even one of those. and to say that hollywood movies are the movies that people around the globe want to see is a little tautological: they're the only movies they can see!

big sets can be replaced by shooting on location---it's easier than ever to find already built structures/"scenes" within striking distance of population centers. obv that involves permits, travel, w/e, but i'd hazard that that is still markedly cheaper than building an exact duplicate of the 14th century manor (or dingy tokyo apartment or factory catwalk)that exists in the filmmaker's mind's eye. and cameras are tiny now, and can be variably lensed, so the constraints of maneuvering a dolly or a crane or w/e are becoming less important.

big stars are big by the same tautology as before---they're big because they're common currency all over the world...because they're the only people in films that get seen all over the world. who cares. they only command the prices they do (and therefore important to a film as it is an investment) because someone else stands to make ~even more money~ than what they're paid. after that someone has piled in a bunch of money. if you're making a cheap film, with cheap actors, then global recognition (ie - literal hundreds of millions of ppl giving a shit) is a pretty tertiary concern

extras---if you want a shitload of ppl to do exactly what you want them to (battle!) then yeah, maybe that's an issue. then again, you could probably get a bunch of college kids to do it free if you tell them they'll be in a movie. if you just want to simulate a busy place, shoot in a busy place (nb i have no idea if there are legal concerns here w/r/t waivers or something).

fancy CGI---thing is, not even that fancy CGI can address both the big set and extras problems. not as well as the real thing, but its not like a film needs great SFX (or even SFX equivalent to its contemporaries) to be worthwhile.

now, i'm not saying that non-hollywood films could make movies ~like~ hollywood movies. you can't make avatar ii with tom cruise and a thousand living breathing na'vi in front of a giant green screen on a sub-millions budget. i'm saying that, with digital reproduction/distribution, it's not a big deal.

we should make that the official way to test the general availability of pirated music. "i deem it... the l.a. light album test."

lol, this might not be a bad idea! Honestly it just came to mind because I've never heard it and I've been reading Catch A Wave this week.

well do we really *need* avatar? is the pleasure that avatar brought to the world so great that it can't be replaced by other things?

Yeah, that's commerce innit. If there's a way to pull in US$500m from a film that costs US$150m to make, such films will always be bankrolled. If people stop caring about lavish special effects and no longer shell out US$10–20 or whatever a cinema ticket costs now, they won't be made and few people will care.

Anyway, technology is advancing so quickly that the exact film Avatar would cost far, far less if it were made all over again in 2020.

also 'making a $100+ million film' is not some universal art form that's going away - it's something that was really possible for very few people, in very few circumstances.

I mean god, people only ever got excited about Avatar because it was made. The studios set a high expectation by promising the hugely expensive movies in the first place.

Also, looking at the artistry side of it: while Cameron and his band of merry designers were making Avatar, 99.999% of the world's creative minds were living on packet mi goreng.

xp YES SNAP

another way of looking at it is: if hollywood wants to make their hella pricey movies hella pricey, then they can make them more expensive to see (download on itunes or w/e). i'm sounding like a ron paul supporter here, but the "content market" ought to be as laissez faire as possible. make a $200M movie with big name actors? price it accordingly.

the fact that we've spent the last few decades spending the same to see terminator 2 as we did prime has some pretty weird implications for how movies have been made and distributed. the maker of a $20k film doesn't need to recoup that much to have made it worth their while---but if the basement for ticket prices is like $8, then they're going to have a tough time getting ppl to choose their thing over the latest, familiar hollywood vehicle. if they can sell it on some website where they can choose their sale price, then they have a better chance of getting bums in seats. imo Steam is a good example of this working, sorta (nb - i am not a gamer nerd, so maybe they are so bad and hated, but it seems like big deal games have big deal prices, and one guy in sweatpants games are more closely tied to the burger index).

that there will be losses due to pirating in any case seems like a reality to be faced, rather than one legislated away. most businesses already plan for this (eg a store knowing that employees steal shit), and extract a bit from the consumer---but not a lot. if it's easy to buy a movie (in the format i want to buy it in), and even just a bit harder to pirate it, i'm going to buy it. as will really, really a lot of other people.

what's funny is that hollywood was predicated on the lived experience of seeing a movie---go to the pictures! but they are somehow unable to adapt to the fact that most people watch and experience movies, most of the time, on things that are not movie screens. that ought to be their problem, not mine.

All true. I hardly ever see new films these days, because the films I want to see are not being made (or if they are, not released in Australia). They all just look like $100M+ abortions. Would not be sad to see that aspect of cinema collapse. Some of my favourite films, the 40s-50s noirs, are so great in part because their creators made a virtue of their budgetary constraints.

Basically, a system that conceives, funds and makes 'Battleship' can go and get fucked

i'm not saying a movie needs any of those things to be good (have you ever read anything i've posted here?). i'm just saying there's a certain type of movie that requires giant cash infusions that isn't likely to be made by the guy down the street. and i don't just mean avatar or mission impossible or whatever.

and i honestly don't think this type of movie would be doomed to irrelevance if the current regime of manufactured scarcity and anti-piracy were to hold back. no doubt there are essential industrial factors here, like the crowding out of distribution channels of other types of films, etc. but i do think that stars are a big part of the attraction of filmgoing, as are the kinds of manufactured worlds or idealized representations that, yes, require outlays (tell me one movie made for less than $30 million that looks convincingly like a big hollywood picture).

i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.

that ought to be their problem, not mine.

This is utterly utterly otm, and sums up the entire situation imo.

Also I genuinely think that in 50 years' time people will look back on this era as hilariously lavish and over the top. 'They used to spend WHAT on making movies??'

i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.

new tech won't, $ will

I hate most new films as much as anyone, but can anyone honestly name even 10 truly DIY films that are any good?

people who watch diy films probably can

i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.

I think it will if they resist for long enough.

bwt gbx's suggestion of price tiering for movies with expensive budgets is not unlike the price tiering iTunes uses for music right now, e.g. singles and popular songs cost ~25% more than standard album tracks. It seems to be working for music, so I see no reason it couldn't work for movies. People already spend a fortune on home cinemas and Blu-ray special 48-disc editions of Things Exploding II; it's certainly within the means of those people to pay US$30 to see it in a cinema.

xpost and WHO ARE THOSE PEOPLE

I dunno. people who make them? morbs maybe?

This is just one example, but I dug 'Monsters' more than almost any SFX-heavy film from the last couple of years, and it was made for half a million dollars. And so now the director's been hired to do the latest attempt to remake Godzilla, which will probably cost 200x as much and be less good.

Thinking needs to change completely. If you take a linear collection of movies made to increasingly large budgets (I dunno, Paranormal Activity on one side and Avatar on the other) and try to work out where the future will fit, you're still thinking in terms of what a movie is today and how it's made today. Without getting wanky I think a new format will emerge that sits somewhere between today's cinema and Breaking Bad-style television. Maybe episodic films, I dunno, but a format that makes sense for internet distribution.

yeah I agree w/ dis ^

the best way to get people to pay for something / want to watch live is tense episodic viewing

i.e. soap operas <--

I hate most new films as much as anyone, but can anyone honestly name even 10 truly DIY films that are any good?

wellll what are you defining as DIY?

i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.

i agree with this! kinda

basically, what i've said itt (some of it above the fold i think) is that
a) piracy does not affect, in a moral or financial sense, the livelihood of hollywood in a way that merits the legislation imposed, or even currently in place.
b) to say that it does requires some pretty enthusiastic ontological contortions about what it means to buy or own something, and i think SOPA forced a discussion of how ridiculous those really look
c) the literally fantastic claims made by big content (<--useful but annoying euphemism) about the value of the stuff they make are based on an archaic production and distribution model that is not in any way necessary for people to be able to make and watch stuff they like on a glowing square
d) SOPA would give the US gov't an internet kill switch based entirely on the hypothetical grievances and warped reality of some really rich dudes that want to stay that way

many xps

imposed = proposed

d) SOPA would give the US gov't an internet kill switch based entirely on the hypothetical grievances and warped reality of some really rich dudes that want to stay that way

It REALLY pissed me off when the SOPA/PIPA sponsors were claiming it was all to protect the artists, when the vast majority of artists were absolutely not backing them up. The only artists I'm aware of who see piracy as a genuine threat are essentially just more really rich dudes (e.g. Bono, Prince, the Lars dude out of Metallica) who are terrified that their massive cash piles will diminish. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I think it's time that artistic endeavours weren't locked into a structure run by the least artistic people on the planet.

Regarding budgets of films, look at Let the Right One in and Girl with a Dragon Tattoo.

The original Swedish films cost 4.5 and 13 million $US to make.
The US remakes cost 20 and 90 million $US to do--incredibly inflated budgets in order to make something that already existed.

A piece of shit like The Happening, with no decent effects, and not much in the way of star power, cost $60 million.

Above and beyond DIY films, you can make decent movies for a few million dollars or less. Hollywood has ridiculously inflated the costs of everything, and now can't see their way to making good films for sensible money.

Sorry, hit submit too early.

My point is that if you can put together a decent film for around $10 million, piracy as much less of a threat in the first place, because there is just not the vast budget that needs recouping in the first place.

Yeah, and they use those huge budgets to calculate the 'losses' incurred by piracy. That's awfully like building a 65-lane highway from Brussels to Antwerp and hoping that 65 lanes' worth of Belgians will use it.

otm

but scratch 'hoping' and sub 'expecting'

yeah

btw I'm eternally grateful that you guys are happy to discuss these points without assuming that every SOPA opponent hearts piracy.

That's just it. I would be thrilled to pay money to see films I like. I spend a fortune on books when I could be pirating the e-versions. I download music to see if I like it, and if I do I buy the CD.

Between Spotify and YouTube there is no reason for me to download illicit/non-sanctioned leaks.

^

How many of those Youtube leaks are unsanctioned, though? It is one of the largest holders of illegally distributed music in the world. The labels have just been slack in getting them to stop. If the album issue is dealt with, I can't see a reason why they would not target unofficial video streams properly next.

Things Exploding II

it's a shame they had to piss all over things exploding by making such an unworthy sequel.

looking for The Beach Boys' L.A. Light Album

found this on rapidshare via a filestube search, fwiw

Also worth bearing in mind, if i'm the CEO of Sony or Universal, i'd be thinking "a vast percentage of my revenue is reliant on two services (iTunes and Spotify) that pay me next to nothing and are, ultimately, looking to replace me in the future:". If they think the adele.rar problem has been solved, i'm sure they're going to look into the feasibility of taking all their music off those services and providing their own, in-house replacements.

they did try that more than a few times about 10 years ago as i recall, and it got them nowhere.

Yeah, something is still there but afaik not enough people have been using it.

Hopefully even they understand that a common shopfront/cloud/whatever is the only way to make it work.

The one they had before was dreadful, though. They'll have learned lessons. The technology has developed as well. At the very least, they're in a much stronger position to negotiate on price - driving up costs to the end user.

Book publishers are terrified of Apple / Amazon and the idea of direct-to-consumer sales. It's not such a huge issue with music at the moment but it might be in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwjy6IUaqUc

All I can say is that your typical 30-second commercial in the year 2012 tends to be more impressive visually than the bulk of movies that were made even 20 years ago. Costs have to go down.

found this on rapidshare via a filestube search, fwiw

Hmmm, I'll look again tonight, but I found some rapidshare links in the same way, but they were all dead.