lol

+

@driftwood

It is not filmmakers specific only, it is spread all across.
Take software development, products manufacturing, milk manufacturing.
Parasite driven economics forcing everyone who still works to work harder each day.

Where can I get one of those stabilizers? I have to have one!

Never mind, when the nukes start flying your rolling shutter and moire problems will seem insignificant.

The "business" is only good for the people already rich and just getting richer. For everyone else, if you're not filmmaking because you love it and can't imagine doing anything else (or don't know how to do anything else) then you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Well, you can think I'm crazy, or think I'm being too optimistic... but I think some new paradigm shift IS coming. And it's going to happen almost overnight. Similar to what happened in the 70's with George Lucas and friends.

The way I see it going down, is once all these new online-distribution services get set and general people become more familiar with them, we'll probably see something like a "viral-blockbuster" come almost out of nowhere. Something with VERY CLOSE production value to what people are use to seeing in theaters. (not too hard to imagine with the falling of technology prices and the lack of jobs for VFX artists right out of school). Something with a great script, great new actors, and great visuals/audio. Something that might have been a breakout "career-starting" film at a festival like Sundance in the past, but would never get in now (since they only seem to accept "white-guilt" films and hipster mumble-core BS). It will only take ONE film like this to change peoples minds. After that, they probably won't hesitate to shell out a few dollars for some of these online films "that everyone is posting about on Facebook" or "tweeting about". And after one group of people shows that it's possible to do a great online film for an unheard of budget, others will fallow. It's the same idea that happened with climbing Mt. Everest. People couldn't do it because they were putting up mental road-blocks. But, once one person does it, more realize it possible, and they do it as well. And no, this won't just be a "race to the bottom" as the nay-sayers will say... because without all of the bloat that is forced on the film-making process right now, plus advertizing costs, the actual film creators will make a TON of profit. Even with charging WAY less. No agents, no execs., no "door-holders", no throwing wrenches into the machine just so somebody can get paid to pull it out, no BS. Just making something for what it is, and then taking it directly to the consumer. Creators get more control and more profit and the consumer gets more options and only has to pay $5 instead of $20 at the theater. The only people who loose out are the middle-men, who never did anything but hold doors closed... so they could charge a fee for opening them.

Studios will start shutting down as they just can't compete anymore and LA will probably become the new Detroit.

Might just be wishful thinking, but there are allot of signs that point to it becoming reality. :)

It will happen, as soon as I'm done shooting and cutting it. :) Fuck the suits, we don't them.

It won't happen.

You never know... people in the 70's never knew the idea of a "blockbuster" even existed.

Plus it is same old fucked idea. How to work harder and get smaller reward.

It's not necessarily harder work. It's just different. The margins for the creators to profit are still there because of the inefficiency of the current production model. Less people will work on films in the future, yes, but they will still make the same amount, or more.

Too many jobs on set aren't really needed right now, too many middle men, hollywood unions raise the cost of everything (and keep unnecessary jobs around) so there are more "fees" for them, executives do the same, the systems needs to be cleaned up. Every side of the coin is corrupt. They can all get away with it now because there is no real alternative competition for feature-film entertainment... but it will change.

One example I always use, is that the Director, DP, and Editor will most likely become one job. Sure, they might only make as much as they would if they were only the "director", but they also won't think of "cinematography" and "editing" as separate jobs. They will just think of them as "things you have to do to make the movie work". There are more of these kind of film-makers every year... and we'll continue to see more. Once you learn to work this way, it actually makes each job easier... as you can keep it all in your head and not waste time/money delegating. Any newer generation of filmmaker has most likely been shooting and editing their own "student" films and personal projects for their whole lives anyways, and on cell-phones to boot. Plus, with how easy it is to learn outside of film-school (with the internet and cheap gear) one person can easily master multiple areas. Newer generations, in general, are much more familiar with multitasking. All computer-age generations are better at it. It's the natural adaption of humans in the digital age. The idea of "one person, one job" is ancient. It really complicates the process as well. It use to only be necessary because it took so long to learn each individual job. For example, when film was the only option... the expense and rarity of the equipment alone would prevent and individual from learning the craft of cinematography in less than... 10-20 years? Now it takes about 6 months to learn, if you have the "eye" for it (which you arguable need anyway) and a few years to "master" it. Same with editing. People just weren't familiar with the idea of editing at all 30 years ago. Rarely saw it out side of theaters. Use to take what? Another 10-20 years to master? The current and newer generations only needs months again to learn the basics (if that)... few years to master. They're just more use to the concepts. It's not "harder work"... It's the natural consolidation of jobs/areas the SHOULD be happening, due to newer more adapt generations, but ISN'T because the current generations (controlling the industry) don't think that way, or don't want to lose their jobs. It's inevitable though. 70% of all film-related jobs will probably go away in 20 years. An individual film (of this hypothetical future) might only make 1/5 of what a modern-blockbuster makes, BUT, since the over-head is 70% lower, the creators will still make gobs of profit... and retain more artistic/creative control.

Here's a quote from some other source:

The New Decade for Film-Makers: Although the 1970s opened with Hollywood experiencing a financial and artistic depression, the decade became a creative high point in the US film industry. Restrictions on language, adult content and sexuality, and violence had loosened up, and these elements became more widespread. The hippie movement, the civil rights movement, free love, the growth of rock and roll, changing gender roles and drug use certainly had an impact. And Hollywood was renewed and reborn with the earlier collapse of the studio system, and the works of many new and experimental film-makers (nicknamed "Movie Brats") during a Hollywood New Wave.

Sounds kind of familiar right? Could easily read something like this in 40years...

The New Decade for Film-Makers: Although the 2010s opened with a financial and cultural depression, the decade became a creative high point in the WORLD film industry. Restrictions on the process, limited job-entry, and equipment-monopolies had loosened up, and these elements became more widespread. The internet, free-information, and mass-communication certainly had an impact. Film-making was renewed and reborn with the earlier collapse of Hollywood, and the works of many new and experimental film-makers during this New Wave.

I shot my first short with a crew of two.

I shot this without a crew, it was just me and the actor- https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzJ3L6nv6Fn0ZGd5dG9mTDFSaXc/edit

I'm shooting my first feature with a crew of no more than four, it can be done because the technology makes it possible and I know a bunch of "techno brats" who are doing it. There's a tsunami coming.

Why wouldn't I be proud of it? I created it and it's not terrible. It's only a rough cut and not even graded yet but I wanted to demonstrate that it can be done. You can ride the tsunami or get washed away.

Did you see the cruise ship that broke down recently with human excrement running through the corridors? That's Hollywood, churn and burn.

And again, I am just tired of all this "let's cut people on set, cut salary of remaining ones and it'll be new approach to filming". Fucking shit. It is not new approach to filming.

But what is the alternative? Put more people on set and pay them more? Then what... pass the cost on to the consumer? Without the consumer (the audience) there is no reason for anyone to work in the first place.

What if films really do only require 1/5 of the people now? If the future of film requires less, but more specialized, people to create cost effective and compelling products, then it has to be done. If the price of production stays to high because people want to get paid $2000 a day to move cables around, then it's just not going to be sustainable for much longer. Too many options these day for other entertainment. Nobody is going to want to pay $45 dollars for a single ticket. If the current workers want to keep unnecessary jobs around, at the expense of raising the cost for everyone... is that not just as greedy as the executives on the other end?

I've been on sets where someone was fired for not call a fucking clothes pin a C47. I've seen gaffers refuse to plug in a cable and then tell the Director or DP they can't touch it or the production will be fined. Is this what people really want? How is this a sustainable model for the future?

I'm not saying I'm right. It's just my take on it all. If anyone else has a better model/improvement, it would bee interesting to hear it. Throw all the ideas on the table.

I know quite a few. It's the opposite that's foreign to me.

Same here. I work with great musicians all the time... who are also great actors... and great writers. Indie Composers are now dialog and recording artists. DPs are now cinematographers, colorists, and DIT. And most all aspiring Directors I know all shoot and edit their own material. They just have to. If they want their work to be competitive and to get hired, they have learn as much as they can themselves. And once they learn, and can do the jobs without thinking about them anymore, there is no reason to ever hire anybody else to fill the roles. Creative people are just creative. It can be applied to everything... you just need to pick the technical area(s) you want to apply it to. And it's getting easier all the time to do this as technology brings down the barriers that kept people from only physically being able to learn 1 or 2 skills in a lifetime.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -Robert A. Heinlein

You want money, go trawl the pavements of Wall Street. My cousin is the same age as me, but is already a retired banker who owns no less than five houses. Many times, i have asked myself what am I doing in this trade? Is it the satisfaction of masturbating to my own ideas, or the pleasure of stroking my clients' ego? Neither has made me as rich as my cousin.