←back to thread

641 points shortformblog | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. yurishimo ◴[] No.42960414[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.