←back to thread

641 points shortformblog | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lxgr ◴[] No.42950057[source]
Old movies have been available on various "free ad-supported streaming television" for a while now, so I'm actually more surprised it took copyright holders that long to realize that Youtube also shows ads and doesn't require people to install some wonky app that might or might not be available for their platform.

Of course, region-specific copyright deals are incredibly complex etc. etc., so I could imagine it was just a matter of waiting out until the last person putting up a veto retired or moved on to other things.

replies(12): >>42950694 #>>42950872 #>>42950880 #>>42951141 #>>42951145 #>>42951447 #>>42951871 #>>42952649 #>>42956486 #>>42956621 #>>42960083 #>>42962040 #
SteveNuts ◴[] No.42950694[source]
I assume that bandwidth is by far the biggest cost for running your own streaming service, so letting Google take that hit makes a lot of sense.
replies(12): >>42950809 #>>42950826 #>>42950879 #>>42951020 #>>42951166 #>>42952128 #>>42953063 #>>42953304 #>>42954303 #>>42957205 #>>42964930 #>>42965743 #
SllX ◴[] No.42951166[source]
Ah, FAST services as referenced by the parent are an entire genre of streaming services that might have slipped under the radar for most Hacker News readers.[1] They’d be off my radar too since I’m not interested in them per se, but for Jason Snell’s excellent Downstream[2] podcast (earlier episodes co-hosted by Julia Alexander) covering basically the business of Hollywood with an emphasis on streaming services and rights.

So this is basically just using YouTube as a FAST service.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_ad-supported_streaming_te...

[2]: https://www.relay.fm/downstream

replies(2): >>42951498 #>>42952028 #
echelon ◴[] No.42952028[source]
With AI, this entire vast content library is about to be worthless anyway.

We'll be making more long-form, quality content per month than entire Hollywood production years.

And if you include short form content and slop, it'll be more content per second than entire years.

When faced with infinite content, people will reach for content currently popular in the zeitgeist or content that addresses niche interests. Hollywood never made Steampunk Vampire Hunters of Ganymede, but in the future there will be creators filling every void. There won't be much reason to revisit old catalogues that don't cater to modern audiences unless it's to satisfy curiosity or watch one of the shining diamonds in the rough.

There will be a few legacy titles that endure (Friends, Star Wars), but most of it will be washed away in a sea of infinite attention sinks.

We're about to hit post-scarcity, infinite attention satisfiability. We've already looked over the inflection point, so it doesn't take much imagination to reason what's next.

---

Edit: copying my buried comments from below to expand on this.

---

I have direct experience with this field.

I've written, directed, and acted in independent films. I've worked on everything from three person crews all the way up to 200 person shots. Even mocap and virtual production.

We're now developing film and VFX tools for individual artists, and the world is full of artists. It's been starved for films, however. The studio production system only had so much annual capacity per year, and most creators never get the opportunity to helm a project of their own.

You're not crying over the accessibility of digital art, digital music, indie games, or writing.

Film production and distribution has been bottlenecked at the studio level for far too long due to capital, logistics, and (previously) distribution barriers. That's all changing now.

Films are going to look more like fanfiction.net, Bandcamp, ArtStation, and Steam. That's a good thing.

I have friends in IATSE (film crew union) and AI is going to hurt their work. The nature of work changes, and new opportunities arise. But what's hurting them right now is that film productions are being offshored to Europe and Asia to break up their unions and bank on cheaper local labor. Production in Atlanta is one sixth of what it was just a few years ago.

I also have friends who write and direct that are looking at this as their big chance to build their own audience.

replies(10): >>42952124 #>>42952210 #>>42952237 #>>42952298 #>>42952389 #>>42952407 #>>42952483 #>>42953055 #>>42953367 #>>42957907 #
almostdeadguy ◴[] No.42952237[source]
Yeah I can't wait for "Forest Gump 2", The Simpsons Live Action starring John C. Reilly as Barney, and "Lord of the Rings But It's A Wes Anderson Movie". AI distilling the absolutely worst and most cynical Hollywood trends into full length motion pictures. I've yet to see anything remotely approaching non-slop from AI-generated video.
replies(2): >>42953631 #>>42953645 #
1. echelon ◴[] No.42953645[source]
This already happens without AI, it's just that studios can only produce so many films given the budget, labor, and time constraints.

Tell me that any of the "Jurassic Park" films beyond the first were necessary. Or the "Lord of the Rings" films and shows beyond the original trilogy. These are products of the classical studio system. They keep trying to remake "Back to the Future" and as soon as Zemeckis dies, they'll have their way.

There will be amazing art made using AI, and AI will enable extremely talented creators that could have never made it in the classical studio system.

Don't be so pessimistic.

We're going to have "Obra Dinn" and "Undertale" equivalents in film soon. Small scale auteurs sharing their mind's eye with you.

replies(1): >>42953933 #
2. almostdeadguy ◴[] No.42953933[source]
Seems like we should have seen these groundbreaking creative works that have been totally inaccessible to create without AI by now rather than a million "X as a Wes Anderson Movie" trailers. Filmmaking has not been an inaccessible creative endeavor since like the 1910s. Budget price cameras have been with us for a long time. It's a weird AI company invention to suggest there are people who've been shut out of this pursuit for some reason. Creators don't need to wait around for AI to generate slop out of prompts, they can make movies.
replies(1): >>42955137 #
3. echelon ◴[] No.42955137[source]
You've got the cart before the horse.

The technology has to exist first. The technology is first picked up by early adopters: hustlers, marketers, hypsters. Not by practicing professionals.

It takes time for the new tools to work their way into the creative field. It first gets pushback, then it happens a little, and then all at once.

We're still super early days into this tech. Give it more time and it'll be all-capable and everywhere.

The canary in the coal mine is all the young people playing with it.

replies(1): >>42957197 #
4. card_zero ◴[] No.42957197{3}[source]
I suppose the point here is that although the tech may become ubiquitous, it can't make people creative. Previous young people had access to cheap digital video cameras, and the best they could do was Blair Witch. The bottleneck when it comes to good movies is not the technology, it's creatives being any good. There's not a bottled-up reservoir of creative juice waiting to surge forth as soon as friction is reduced, any more than in previous decades.

Which, to be fair ... considering the past, we always have one or two notable indie films inspired by access to tech, so we'll probably see one or two more in years to come, amid a sea of slop.

replies(1): >>42981205 #
5. hakfoo ◴[] No.42981205{4}[source]
I'd argue there is a lot of cost-scale issue.

Blair Witch was achievable not just because it was low-tech but because the premise can be done cheaply.

If I want to make (for example), a globe-trotting spy film, locations and travel are expensive. If there's going to be car crashes, props are expensive. If I do it on a hobbyist budget, it will look the part.

To be honest, I expected to rise of the "all CGI" film more than the AI-gen film. You still have full artistic control rather than wrestling the gacha on specifics, but now you can afford to level Paris and rebuild it in the next scene, and you don't have to worry about the lead actor gaining 10kg before the sequel.