Most active commenters
  • browningstreet(5)
  • illwrks(3)

←back to thread

641 points shortformblog | 48 comments | | HN request time: 1.151s | source | bottom
Show context
timmg ◴[] No.42949719[source]
I assume they get "monetization" from Youtube and they don't need to worry about hosting or discovery. Probably better than doing nothing with these films.
replies(5): >>42949781 #>>42949826 #>>42950060 #>>42957115 #>>42963845 #
1. browningstreet ◴[] No.42949826[source]
I'm a little surprised there isn't more of this. Building a streaming service is pretty expensive.. a lot of the platforms lost money doing so and really only made it back when they merged into an umbrella of other services.

I'm also a little surprised no one has yet (AFAIK) done the "viral indie release to Youtube" path. I feel like it's sitting there waiting to be exploited.

replies(14): >>42949920 #>>42949930 #>>42949946 #>>42949960 #>>42949992 #>>42950028 #>>42950040 #>>42950138 #>>42950363 #>>42950811 #>>42950881 #>>42951000 #>>42952373 #>>42963396 #
2. wslh ◴[] No.42949920[source]
Could you please expand on your "viral indie release to Youtube" idea? I am just a YT basic user and don't know what is there and what is not beyond HN, random videos, and my relatively simple use cases (e.g. music videos, and movie trailers).
replies(1): >>42949993 #
3. duxup ◴[] No.42949930[source]
I'm surprised a lot of things aren't more accessible.

So much content not making money / available ANYWHERE.

I assume, that maybe the amount of difficulty in terms of getting permission is too high to bother so nobody does?

replies(4): >>42950026 #>>42950876 #>>42950954 #>>42951576 #
4. ANighRaisin ◴[] No.42949946[source]
There have been more niche shows that became quite popular after a YouTube release.
5. eptcyka ◴[] No.42949960[source]
Movies are capital intensive, a movie is less likely to go viral than a video that is made to be viral. Thus, doing this is risky. Also, people wanting to create viral movies probably do not want to make viral videos.
replies(1): >>42963451 #
6. dehugger ◴[] No.42949992[source]
Kung Fury would be my go-to example of "viral indie release".
7. ryanmcbride ◴[] No.42949993[source]
Indie film makers release a lot of their work on youtube.
replies(1): >>42950036 #
8. browningstreet ◴[] No.42950026[source]
I have a list of movies you can't find anywhere, not even for pay, not even on on obscure services. I check every once in a while to see if they pop up (JustWatch.us is great for this, IMDB is copying). Example: "Amateur" by Hal Hartley, though it's easy enough to buy copies on DVD.

The problem is once the rights for a title end up in a library, the accessibility considerations operate at the library level, not the title level. So if some company owns the rights to "n" titles en masse, they're negotiating for the distribution rights to that library.

You can't really pull a Taylor Swift or Def Leppard "re-record for rights" move with movies.

UPDATE: Happy to be wrong about my cited example.. Thanks @andsoitis !

replies(2): >>42950669 #>>42950865 #
9. illwrks ◴[] No.42950028[source]
Movie rights will be a big factor also. Events like TIFF, Cannes etc, while being a platform to show films is also where deals are done, distribution rights are signed always for different territories etc. YouTube is essentially international which may invalidate some pre-existing licence and distribution agreements.
replies(2): >>42950632 #>>42950664 #
10. browningstreet ◴[] No.42950036{3}[source]
There hasn't really been a Blair Witch Project movie happening on Youtube yet...
replies(3): >>42950898 #>>42952016 #>>42953927 #
11. fsflover ◴[] No.42950040[source]
> Building a streaming service is pretty expensive..

It's not. At least not for companies of that size. There is PeerTube for that: https://joinpeertube.org/. It can even decrease the load to your servers by spreading the trafic over peers.

replies(1): >>42950907 #
12. jerf ◴[] No.42950138[source]
"I'm also a little surprised no one has yet (AFAIK) done the "viral indie release to Youtube" path. I feel like it's sitting there waiting to be exploited."

There's a lot of "indies releasing things to YouTube directly". However, they're limited both by the algorithm and by the amount of money they can generate by that, so you get a fairly restricted set of genres that this can work with, like sketch comedy or (perhaps a bit surprisingly to me) science documentaries, like Veritasium or Practical Engineering.

These are basically indie filmmakers doing a very indie thing that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Movies are, after all, as affected by their release technology as anything else. There's a reason they're all 80-130 minutes, and they have their own genre restrictions as a result of it, especially if you think of it in terms not just of binary possibility but how popular things are. It isn't reasonable to expect a very different distribution method to result in "movies" you'd recognize from the cinema any more than it is reasonable to expect that television would only ever have run "movies" and never developed its own genres that don't work in cinema. Taking into account the need for the content to match its distribution there's a ton of indie stuff on YouTube. What I would say you are really seeing is the restrictiveness of "The Algorithm", and that is an interesting question to ponder on its own.

replies(5): >>42950160 #>>42951109 #>>42951838 #>>42952343 #>>42953169 #
13. browningstreet ◴[] No.42950160[source]
Got some recommendations?
replies(1): >>42950316 #
14. cons0le ◴[] No.42950316{3}[source]
On youtube , watch Space King
15. korse ◴[] No.42950363[source]
I think you missed a decade or two. This was already a thing and the mainstream didn't exactly have the appetite for it. Check out 'web series' on Wikipedia.

I don't know what you're into but "The Guild" is pretty excellent example of the form.

16. delecti ◴[] No.42950632[source]
Youtube has the ability to limit videos to certain markets. One example is that the entirety of Mythbusters was uploaded in the past couple years, but isn't available to view in the US.
replies(1): >>42953636 #
17. crashingintoyou ◴[] No.42950664[source]
Have you never gotten an error about something being unavailable in your region on Youtube?
replies(2): >>42953627 #>>42957784 #
18. a_imho ◴[] No.42950669{3}[source]
Not sure how obscure you are willing to go, but a quick look on private trackers do list the movie.
19. nemomarx ◴[] No.42950811[source]
I've seen a few things go that route - Hazbin Hotel was a YouTube pilot ish thing and got picked up on Amazon, I think amazing digital circus got grabbed by someone too.

No one seems to stay on YouTube when it happens though.

20. andsoitis ◴[] No.42950865{3}[source]
> browningstreet 43 minutes ago | root | parent | next [–]

I have a list of movies you can't find anywhere, not even for pay, not even on on obscure services. I check every once in a while to see if they pop up (JustWatch.us is great for this, IMDB is copying). Example: "Amateur" by Hal Hartley, though it's easy enough to buy copies on DVD.

It IS available to stream! See https://www.halhartley.com/amateur

replies(1): >>42951318 #
21. mason55 ◴[] No.42950876[source]
Yeah there are just a lot of titles with weird rights situations that no one cares about resolving. Maybe you lost clearance on a song in the movie, or one of the actors has a clause in their contract, or some company bought the distribution rights for a certain territory and then went out of business.

Lots of situations where resolving the rights issues is going to cost more than you expect the movie to bring in, especially once you start talking about splitting the revenue with online storefronts.

22. derektank ◴[] No.42950881[source]
I would argue KanePixels (Kane Parsons) is doing the Indie filmmaker thing very successfully on YouTube. He went from creating a viral hit with his interpretation of The Backrooms, signed a deal with A24, and has continued releasing his own horror short films in the interim. The format isn't the standard 90-120 minutes of most studio movies but his longest videos are nearly an hour long and with each narrative spread across several videos, stitching the whole thing together would look something like a conventional film

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm10735410/

23. wslh ◴[] No.42950898{4}[source]
I get that the real issue isn't just YouTube, but that no other horror film, or otherwise, has really matched Blair Witch Project's combination of impact, marketing success, micro-budget, and cultural phenomenon.

I just speculate that if Blair Witch Project were made today, it would likely debut on a platform like YouTube before gaining wider recognition.

24. andsoitis ◴[] No.42950907[source]
Creating and running a (direct to consumer) profitable streaming service takes a lot more than just “infrastructure”.
replies(2): >>42951264 #>>42951308 #
25. InitialLastName ◴[] No.42950954[source]
At a finer grain than general "permission", a lot of the issue is with the music. For many pre-streaming movies, the original soundtrack will have been licensed in a way that supported resale but didn't foresee streaming. Making those movies available for streaming would involve tracking down the copyright holders for every piece of music (often the estates or successors of the original composer, but often non-determinate) and renegotiating a licensing deal.
26. wongarsu ◴[] No.42951000[source]
Rooster Teeth (of "Red vs Blue" and "RWBY" fame) did the "indie filmmaker on youtube" thing pretty successfully. Eventually they moved to their own site, then fell apart after a lot of drama and internal differences.

Also vaguely guestures at all of youtube. Most youtube creators are independent, and a lot of them have higher production value than indie movies. You just don't recognize them because of how the algorithm and monetization favor regular installments of ~10 minute episodes, causing most content to take that form. A documentary simply works better on youtube as a Tom Scott video than as a 45 minute piece (though there are plenty of those too)

replies(1): >>42951608 #
27. tart-lemonade ◴[] No.42951109[source]
In a similar vein, I remember reading somewhere that creating shows for direct-to-streaming is liberating because, although it is quite similar to TV in that it's telling a story in chunks (usually 30 to 60 minutes) without a guarantee of continuation (renewal), you don't have the primary constraints of traditional television: fitting into a specific time slot, saving time for commercials, and creating hooks that lead neatly into each ad break to get the audience to stick around.
replies(1): >>42960414 #
28. ◴[] No.42951264{3}[source]
29. fsflover ◴[] No.42951308{3}[source]
Which problems are you expecting if you already have the content, the servers and the software? It's a famous company; people would definitely watch their movies for a small payment or with ads.
30. browningstreet ◴[] No.42951318{4}[source]
Tou-freakin'-che
31. JKCalhoun ◴[] No.42951576[source]
Abandonmedia. They've been posting abandoned software for decades now — without a peep as far as I know.
32. bombcar ◴[] No.42951608[source]
Apparently one of the original Rooster Teeth guys bought the rights back and is going to do something ...
33. glompers ◴[] No.42951838[source]
Vimeo has tried to prioritize indie feature discovery from what I can tell. Not sure what its ownership or business is. Also not sure how it compares to (in music) soundcloud's or bandcamp's approaches.
replies(1): >>42964888 #
34. mindcrime ◴[] No.42952016{4}[source]
The best example I can think of is already mentioned up-thread, but just to drill down on that. Kung Fury[1] was initially released on Youtube (and a few other services, mostly in other countries I think) and became a pretty big viral hit. Enough so that the filmmaker eventually signed a deal to make a sequel[2] with distribution by a traditional film company and some big-name stars. Unfortunately the release of the sequel has been held up for "legal reasons" and FSM only knows when or if it will see the light of day. :-(

Anyway, not as big as BWP, but still a decent example of the concept under discussion, I think.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fury_2

35. btown ◴[] No.42952343[source]
Part of this is that YouTube makes this viable only for creators whose inbound viewers are likely to stay to watch a majority of the content; otherwise, the algorithm penalizes your content for every "bounce." A comedy short that'll attract people who like comedy shorts, and will be over before many people bounce? A long-form science documentary that's likely only going to be clicked by someone who wants to watch a long-form science documentary? Both meet this criterion. But any kind of traditional filmmaking with longer character arcs will be penalized, and that's a really hard thing to see for your creation's primary distribution channel.
36. nabeards ◴[] No.42952373[source]
As someone who has built a streaming service, I’m always amazed how much money the studios throw at it and don’t have something good or profitable. The infra cost for my service was then 10% of revenue. I just wish the huge consolidation hadn’t happened, now all of the studios are too protective of their content.

If anyone has ideas for re-purposing or re-targeting a streaming service, I’m all ears.

replies(1): >>42964720 #
37. pests ◴[] No.42953169[source]
This has sorta happened with the backrooms? The creator started via viral YouTube and meme growth, now he’s making a movie with A24.
replies(1): >>42955617 #
38. illwrks ◴[] No.42953627{3}[source]
Not that I'm aware of, but perhaps the things I've watched have been more vanilla and not required that by the content owner.
39. illwrks ◴[] No.42953636{3}[source]
I wasn't really aware of this, I guess using a VPN would get around the issue though?
40. ryanmcbride ◴[] No.42953927{4}[source]
Just because the quality of the things people upload there isn't up to the arbitrary standards of "as good as the Blair Witch Project" doesn't mean its less valuable
41. Wojtkie ◴[] No.42955617{3}[source]
Sort of happened with the guy who made Astartes. He was a storyboard animator for the Secret Level 40k episode.
42. xsmasher ◴[] No.42957784{3}[source]
An American here: no, never.
43. yurishimo ◴[] No.42960414{3}[source]
You see this often with Apple TV+ shows. Some episodes are only 40~ minutes while the very next one might be 70. They can scope the episode to only include the content that is required for that story and extend the runtime when they need to include extra details or scenes to make everything flow nicely.

For most viewers, the discretion is worthwhile for better storytelling.

44. al_borland ◴[] No.42963396[source]
There is a price to pay for the control they’re trying to maintain. That price is called profit, in most cases.
45. al_borland ◴[] No.42963451[source]
These old movies have already made their money. Anything they can get now is just gravy.

It’s a Wonderful Life is popular because the copyright expired and TV stations could play it for free. Playing it so much got people to watch, and now it’s a classic. It bombed originally.

Putting old movies on YouTube gives them a chance at a second life, and the studio doing it, means they can still earn some money on something that would otherwise just sit in a vault somewhere.

replies(1): >>42964944 #
46. philistine ◴[] No.42964720[source]
Go for international movies. A lot of them have incredibly convoluted rights, so the biggest expense is going to be negociations, but if you can become a destination to find obscure films from varied countries, it might be possible to eke out a slice of the pie.
47. glompers ◴[] No.42964888{3}[source]
I would think this is creating discovery effects specific to indie filmmakers who are doing "a very indie thing that doesn't fit anywhere else" like GP comment said
48. eptcyka ◴[] No.42964944{3}[source]
I don’t disagree with you, but the original commentor posed the qeustion Why don’t indie film producers choose to premier on YouTube?.