One of my fellow Samizdatistas recently told me that whatever business model the porn industry is following now is what Hollywood is about to follow. To see the future of Hollywood, look at porn now. Porn, so I was told, now, already, distributes itself by being given away, and then if you like something you see for free you go to the originating porn site and pay a bit, either in cash or in advertising attention or for individual products, because that turns out to be an even better deal, and worth paying a bit for. Hollywood is slowly learning this lesson.
But is it actually too late for them to learn? Look what is apparently now happening to the porn industry:
DVD sales are in free fall. Audiences are flocking to pornographic knockoffs of YouTube, especially a secretive site called YouPorn. And the amateurs are taking over. What’s happening to the adult-entertainment industry is exactly what’s happening to its Hollywood counterpart – only worse.
So, is that what is about to happen to Hollywood also? Will movie and TV entertainment of the clothes-mostly-on sort also be overrun soon by amateurs?
WIth thanks to Instapundit for the link.
It’s not YouPorn; It’s RedTube. No, I am not kidding.
While I think that pron lends itself especially well to the amateur uh…filmmaker, professionally made movies will always have a market. Amateurs didn’t make Star Wars, Raiders, Ghostbusters, Blade Runner, Damage, The Longest Day, Saving Private Ryan, etc. There will always be a market for this sort of escapism and realism in film making. The budgets needed to make any of these movies (and to get the star power needed to carry them) can only come from megacorps like Miramax, Universal and Warner.
Whether or those megacorps evolve and embrace the new medium is yet to be seen, however.
WIth thanks to Instapundit for the link
Um, yeh… If you say so! 😉
Concur – movies and TV shows are, for the most part, made by large organisations because they are labour and capital intensive and will remain that way because of the expectations of the viewer. Arguably you could make films of a more classical nature (I’m thinking the dialogue-intensive productions along the lines of The Maltese Falcon) for a smaller budget.
Pornography as an artform/entertainment can be viewed as about parallel with novels in terms of production requirements – you need a guy, a girl, a computer, a location and some time. Okay. you don’t need a video camera to make novels but those things are about $400 these days for something that will chuck out broadcast-quality.
The market has already changed – podcasts and youtube _are_ the change. I don’t imagine that hollywood cares – they serve a different market and produce a different product.
The productions that may be affected are comedy and lightweight shows – southpark, sealab, stuff like that – and standup comedy – in that arena the ‘garage’ producer can compete on an equal basis.
hmmm,
The future is already nearly here. A small selection of what is out there already, just confining myself to Star Trek.
http://www.starwreck.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wreck:_In_the_Pirkinning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_New_Voyages
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/
The productin values may be a little off, but, especially in _In_the_Perkinning, the effects leave nothing to be desired. Tron may have required Cray Supercomputers to render each still, but now? A couple of decent Macs handled by talented people and you are away.
Doing this sort of thing today is CHEAP people, and it will only get cheaper.
Or this, for non Star Trek –
http://www.ironsky.net/story.php
Hollywood is not under threat today, or even tomorrow, but next week? For sure.
Damn and blast it – smitten.
I don’t believe it is the future of all Hollywood either – and I agree that it may only be for the more lightweight productions. I believe it could be the future of European movies as they are lightweight in production.
But the big blockbusters are safe for the moment, but as computer animation matures they too are at risk and so are actors.
It is probably the future of IT – who want to pay programmers massive amounts of money for custom programs when they are basically free on the web and alterations to the free software if from 4 $ an hour.
I some ways we are all domed, except for service providers, we will all be hairdressers in the future.
My job ain’t gonna be sent to Bangalore. And I’m not really a service provider. More of a disservice provider, actually.
YADATROT: let Hollyweird go. We’ll live without them. The real Tom Cruise isn’t nearly the actor as that guy from Napoleon Dynamite and barely matches up with the construction-paper-animation fake Tom Cruise.
Having a friend who works in the filth-peddling industry has given me a few insights into the recent trends and its safe to say that Hollywood has little to worry about this time.
The major element is time. Porn movies are watched for an average of about 4-7 minutes. This makes them an easy target for similar material on youtube. A two-hour film is not.
The film-industry itself is remarkably resilient, given that its death has been predicted several times since the early 20th century. I think that’s down to it being a USP in itself. No matter how big your plasma screen at home, nothing really compares to the experience of sitting in a darkened theatre staring at a screen the size of a house.
I am with Eamon on this. Mind you, Sunfish, Mr. Cruise not withstanding (he had a potential, only he got too full of venhimself, ditto Harrison Ford), there are some very good actors in Hollywood, and some very entertaining movies, too. These movies lose much of their entertainment value in a smaller venue.
Don’t worry about Hollywood.
They said TV will kill it, but it only thrives and makes more money off of TV. Same with YouTube.
Porn is watched for an average of 4-7 minutes. Then what happens? Why do they suddenly turn off?
Alisa hints at a very major point. Regardless of the cost of a camcorder etc have you seen amateur dramatics? Good actors do and always shall command good money. Even good porn actors command good money. Hell, even Jude Law commands good money! Is that a new fragrance for the Christmas market, Tom Cruise’s “Potential”? Is it going to challenge Morgan Freeman’s “Nobility”.
Which reminds me. One of the best pieces of recent low-budget film-making I’ve seen is this – The Shawshank Redemption in a Minute. It’s brilliantly funny but not exactly work safe. I think it illustrates a point. It’s a skit on a Hollywood movie. Without the original it makes no sense whatsoever.
Sunfish, “disservive provider” – I almost fell out of the chair. If the coppering don’t work out I’ll make ya famous baby! You’ll be an even dirtier Harry.
An important difference between the porn industry and Hollywood is that the porn industry does not lobby the government for special protection: it cannot because it doesn’t have the “moral majority” on its side; it has to come up with business models that stand on their own.
E.g. the porn industry could never lobby for a DMCA.
Hey, Jude Law is a very good actor. The fact that he is, um, pretty, is merely a bonus, and the fact that he is a spoiled brat is irrelevant – neither you nor I have to marry him. Speaking of new careers: copyrighting?
I knew you had a soft-spot for Jude Law. I can’t stick him myself. I don’t think he looks pretty. I think he looks sleazy. He’s just one of those people who are generally regarded as lookers who I just don’t understand the attraction of. Tom Cruise is another, so is Robbie Williams. I can’t think of any women right now off the top of my head who are similarly over-rated but there are some.
Well there’s Madonna for one.
There will always be a market for this sort of escapism and realism in film making.
One has to wonder what the next 10-20 years will bring. People used to read a lot more books than they do today. People used to devote hours to reading a book, now most don’t bother. Two hour movies was about as long as most attention spans lasted. Also, are people going to care about fictional characters pounding out abstract themes when real humans doing just about anything can be dialed up at the push of a few keys? Fiction exists within the space of the separation of people, but when people are connected (voluntarily) by computers and cameras, and either live, or relatively current recorded content, is available quickly and to exact taste, I wonder if the two hour movie examining a fictional character’s fate is going to be of much interest twenty years from now.
Ironically referring to a fictional movie, but I am reminded of Logan’s Run when the then technology allowed people to dial up willing partners to teleport to their chambers for a little horizontal mambo. One can only speculate what the internet will be like in the near future, of course without teleportation, but with any sort of interaction (from philosophical discussions to porn) readily available, I have my doubts that taking the time for the likes of Saving Private Ryan is going to be high on people’s list.
The way I see it is that the younger generation are already on line, both as themselves and in role playing form. Inhibitions are already eroding, give it another twenty years. Suffice it to say online content is going to be vastly more interesting than a movie.
RAB,
Any woman who can put her legs behind her head at the age of 46 must have something going for them even if it’s just excellent orthopaedic insurance.
Brad,
I can tell you all about my day in excructiating detail. Somehow I suspect you’d rather hear about war heros and cops, kings and pirates. They always have much more interesting days, at least in the movies. I suspect your final point is about online gaming? Now that is interesting and the future there is going to be very curious.
Oh yeah?
How about a 55 yr old man who is doing it right now!
Woops trying to type I’ve rolled off the chair!
Hang on a sec while I look for … Ah there they are! Cant lose those two little suckers!
Madge is a mediocre singer and even worse actress.
I must tell you the story of my mate Grantley changing rooms every night in her Bel Air Mansion (there were quite a few) because she was “after him” sometime.
She would be happier being a Woolworth or a Getty.
Marketing is her talent not the other way round.
“YouPorn”? Surely it should be “YouPube”?
What was Dennis Miller’s line about tech and sex? Something like…when some loser can sit on his couch and virtually f*** Claudia Schiffer, it’ll make crack look like Sanka.
Brian beat me to the punch on this one. I also read the article Glenn pointed to, and then looked around YouPorn to see what they were talking about.
The Porn industry has a particular problem. If they go upscale in production values they move into a market ‘Hollywood’ can handle better than they. If you want high production values, a compelling story line, real characters… and a bit of hardcore thrown in, you can just about get it already. If the current Porn market leaders try moving too far upscale and develop a market, Hollywood will simply add more hard sex to an already well funded and superior product.
So they have a ceiling on the market.
The second problem is the bottom end where they used to feed. With the internet they have been dis-intermediated. People can trade their own sex lives back and forth and deliver a low quality but more ‘real’ product because it is real people like your next door neighbor having a jolly good time and showing it, rather than muscle-bound giants and bored former beauty queens showing off their athletic capabilities and ability to pretend to enjoy weird positions.
So there is a bottom on the market. That leaves them a very narrow range of mid-quality sexual fantasies. I don’t know if they can make a go of it there.
The thing I found surprising and perhaps far more interesting was simply the huge and growing number of people who are willing to post their sex lives for the world. To me that means we may not be very far off from where sex in ‘public’ areas is normal instead of something that happens in strange clubs in Manhattan, London, Paris and Amsterdam.
As to the Hollywood… they will have a niche at least for a long time, but large areas of their market will be carved away by the coming capabilities. There will be more niche market films. I would like to imagine we’d see talented young libertarian artists doing movies and series that view the world through our color of tined glasses. Like in all things, 80% will be crap… but some will get wide coverage.
I look forward to the future with glee.
Nick, the spot is not all that soft. Of course he is sleazy – that’s what makes him interesting, unlike other good actors (and he is a good actor, however much you might dislike his personality), that are interesting for other reasons. The same goes for Cruise, but as I pointed out, he is beyond acting now, he just shows up and performs a very serious caricature of himself (although it could be at least partly the directors’ fault). Law is not big enough of a star for that yet.
Porn is watched for an average of 4-7 minutes. Then what happens? Why do they suddenly turn off?
Much porn is produced for a male audience as a masturbatory aid. After their magic 4-7 minutes, they’re reaching for the Kleenex.
Arthouse porn is a different story, but it accounts for a small fraction of the porn produced and sold. Production costs and values are higher, and returns lower unless they’re hooked into a niche audience that’s into a particular fetish.
The biggest trend I see – and it has no signs of moving on – is low-budget down ‘n dirty gonzo porn, which is the most common genre on YouPorn, unsurprisingly. Long may it continue.
Alisa,
The Tom Cruise thing was a literary reference, to a profound question: why won’t Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and R. Kelly come out of the closet?
Nick,
I suspect that, in reality, you would find your own life more interesting than mine.
Because they are trapped?
Alisa,
I was actually talking about an episode of South Park. One of the kids, Stan, takes a Scientology “audit” and accidentalyl convinces the cult recruiter that he’s the Second Coming of L Ron Hubbard, and he tells Tom Cruise that Cruise is a mediocre actor and not as good as “the guy from Napoleon Dynamite.” Cruise sulks by locking himself in Stan’s bedroom closet where he’s joined by fellow cult member John Travolta and R. Kelly.[1]
South Park’s cast member Isaac Hayes[2], who voiced Chef, quit over that episode. Evidently, the way that South Park treated religion was deeply offensive to him, even though he never had a problem with the way the creators savaged Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or anyone else.
[1] I don’t know what R. Kelly had to do with it. I think he mostly was included because the writers include random celebrities in the scripts.
[2] Hayes is a Scientologist himself. Funny how they seem to be the only Western pseudoreligion to throw MoToons-style hissy fits.
I know.
I do. But I did not know this whole story of Hayes’ quitting. Yep, these people tend to be very touchy, but at least they don’t blow themselves up, in public or otherwise.
The link is wrong – here is the right one.
Hollywood production values have been slipping for a long time.
Even silly mistakes are made – such as people talking without the camera having their face in view, or just actors not saying the words clearly. And if I am deaf without knowing it, how come I can understand every word in films made before the last few decades?
Also plot is neglected:
For example, the anti businessmen films of decades ago might (in fact do) anger me with their politics – but the films themselves are good bits of work. But modern films like “Michael Clayton” are just so boring that evening the leftist film reviewers from the newspapers can not stay till the end.
To be fair this is partly because the stories have been done so many times before (and done better). The serious drama style has been done again and again, and so have the various comedy styles.
However, that can not be the whole story. After the basic plots in all fields have been “done” (just as all musical notes have been used) it is a question of HOW they are “done”.
Politically Hollywood makes two types of film:
The standard death-to-America film (disguised as “we love America, apart from the nasty big business people and……”) and the over-the-top “patriotic” film – which are so absurdly false (partly because they are made by people who feel no patrotism at all) that they just turn people off.
There are exceptions to this rule – but they are rare.
It is not so much the politics of these films that are killing them (although I do not think it helps – it is boring to always know what the view-of-the-world is going to be in advance), it is the way it is presented – the films are just badly made. Poor plots, badly acted (and so on).
In short Hollywood will not be destroyed by new technology – because it is already destroying itself.
“But people could turn things around”.
Sure – but will they?
Paul, you are greatly exaggerating. of course most Hollywood productions are crap, but there are a couple of good movies at least every year. By “good” I mean entertaining, with an interesting plot, good acting, etc. Politics? I tend to ignore them in movies, unless the movie is explicitly political, in which case I would probably avoid it all together (such as the recent couple of movies about the war in Iraq). “Michael Clayton” was not boring at all. I agree that the Big Mean Chem Corporation angle was a bit annoying (as was the ending), but it was not the main theme of the movie.
Alisa
I can not argue with you about “Michael Clarton” – as you are the only person I know who has watched it.
Even the leftist newspaper reviewer (the Daily Telegraph one – but the other newspapers have much the same sort of film reviewer) gave me the impression that he had not watched the whole film – although he made the ritual praise noises to Mr G.C.s “liberal politics”.
Non political films – and good non political films:
Yes I would agree that there must be a least two such films each year – after all Hollywood makes so many films that if at least two per year (indeed more than this) were not good then Hollywood would not be dying, it would be dead.
I am told that “Enchanted” is one such film on at the moment.
However, the very political (indeed standard death-to-America – oh sorry we love America we only mean death to certain elements at the C.I.A. and….) film the “Bourne …” also made a lot of money this year.
Although as Bill O’Reilly said “the film was great – as long as you just thought of it as goodies versus badies and left it at that” just forget that the lead actor regards us as the badies and enjoy the film.
I do not go to see it – but then I can not turn off my political sense with ease (I admit that I am like the left in that respect).
And giving money to an actor who wants me dead grates.
“You are exaggerating again” – I do not think so.
Still there is no reason that I should not go and see Enchanted – but I doubt I will.
“There is no pleasing you, you do not like Hollywood politics and yet when they make a nonpolitical film you still will not go”.
Normally I must confess my guilt to this charge.
Paul, I understand where you are coming from. Thing is, Bill O’Reilly is right. you are simply missing on some good entertainment. BTW, you and I have already discussed Bourne, at least the last one, and it is not what you think.
New website… xxxTuebLive.com
Spoof sites are popping up everywhere, YouPorn, XTube to name a few, I really don’t see this taking off or becoming a popular trend once the top sites are established no-one else can really compete.
. Thing is, Bill O’Reilly is right. you are simply missing on some good entertainment. BTW, you and I have already discussed Bourne, at least the last one, and it is not what you think.