HN Books @HNBooksMonth

In [1] Arthur De Vany showed rather convincingly that the split between distribution and production for movie production made things worse for the consumers. The problem is that the profit of the whole industry is dominated by very few titles and that split lead to a few non-trivial consequences like lack of diversity in Hollywood.

[1] - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0415312612?psc=1&ref=ppx_po...

EDIT: one of the Amazon reviews gave a very good summary of the above point:

One of the more interesting conclusions is that the old movie studio system understood implicitly that this business was unpredictable. Until the antitrust laws were used to break them up, the studios contracted stars, script writers, directors, distribution networks and movie theaters in order to own the entire stream of revenues all their movies would generate.

This way the old studio bosses could diversify their risk in what was essentially a portfolio of movies. They knew that they could not predict which of their films would be a hit so they insisted on owning them all and on managing costs so that the hits would pay for the turkeys, while leaving shareholders with a healthy return.

⬐ ajmurmann

> Until the antitrust laws were used to break them up, the studios contracted stars, script writers, directors, distribution networks and movie theaters in order to own the entire stream of revenues all their movies would generate.

Interesting. I was entirely unaware of that history. I was always impressed by Michael Ovitz's bundling play at CAA. Seems like he in fact "just" rebundled what he could at the agency level.

⬐ scyzoryk_xyz

This depends on what you think makes a great movie and a great system and there really is no right answer. I'm not sure the above 'proves' that things were made worse for consumers. Fact is, weird independent 'auteur' filmmakers and foreign films entered the market in the 1960's and were able to distribute without being locked out. The producers taking those risks perhaps didn't feel they were taking a risk at all. Maybe they knew they had a winning hand and had better know-how than the studio bosses and their risk avoidance BS. That's how you get those Easy Riders and Raging Bulls.

At the same time, movie theatres ceased to be these lavish 'palaces'. So what 'going to the movies' meant shifted in consumers' minds. Film productions also shrunk in size and scale so there is that. I would assume the business side actually deteriorated while cultural relevance rose. Probably not everyone on the consumer side was happy with all of that.

If we're talking about that studio era though, these portfolios of movies being managed from the top definitely made films bland and predictable. But then on the other hand they also forced the talent to hone skill through repetition. So you had some specific aspects of the films being executed on a high polished level like the noir cinematography. I'm feeling/seeing something similar going on right now with the VOD offering. Even though it's all really well produced and shot and put together, I just sense everyone is following the same seemingly risque but safe playbook optimized for social media marketing.

Seen in another way, the internet aspect of these distribution systems really can make all of the above completely irrelevant too. I find my satisfaction with MUBI and weird niche shit on YouTube. A piece of my money still goes toward partially paying for the very same infrastructure. As someone else mentioned here already - I'm not physically limited from seeking what I want to find online, and it's all there side by side for me to view. This was not at all the case in the 1950's.

In my mind one thing is certain, and this is just my take - I don't really want to watch a James Bond that has been developed by a goofy logistics e-commerce corporate giant. I just really don't see it.

>Think of it as "Moneyball for movies" -- that is, what types of successful film productions does Hollywood tend to undervalue in favor of large, expensive (and tremendously risky) blockbuster attempts?

Thing is, this has been done, and the results probably aren't what you want to hear. Hollywood actually produces fewer family and broad-appeal genre films than the market can handle. (Check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economics-Uncertainty-Routle... )

The reason for this mismatch between what the market can handle vs. what actually gets made is that Hollywood insiders actually do want to make dramas aimed at adults, which have a much smaller market than, say, animated kids' movies.