←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 #
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 #
1. al_borland ◴[] No.42963451{3}[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 #
2. eptcyka ◴[] No.42964944[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?.