Judgement Trumps Experience
Unless you've made a commercially successful film, you have no place in the debate over movie piracy.This isn't the first time this argument has come up in debates over movie piracy. Truthfully, it must be one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. Do you have to be designer to spot bad design? Do you have to be a writer to recognize bad writing? Do you have to spend time making and selling horse whips to realize that the horse whip business model is becoming obsolete with the invention of the automobile?
There is no school for presidents, yet new presidents seem to do just fine. You can have tons of experience and still make poor judgement calls, as we have seen with the record industry's gradual nose dive over the last decade.
The whole reason I haven't made a commercially successful feature film is mostly because of circumstance—I have two daughters who monopolize most of my time. But even then, I have had the chance to produce feature movies numerous times and on each occasion, I've chosen not to because all my research pointed at one ugly conclusion: the current business model for making films is intrinsically flawed. A shift has happened in the last five years that has radically changed how films are getting their money recouped, or not. Piracy plays an increasingly larger role in that landscape, and that scares the shit out of me. I absolutely am not going to look an investor in the eye and tell him he's going to make his money back if I haven't done my own due diligence to prove it.
So I vowed to myself that I should make it my life's mission to completely master how film distribution worked before making my own movie. After all, doesn't it make sense that you must know how much your product will sell for before you draw up your budget? If the product doesn't sell for what you expect, then you're saving yourself a whole lot of anguish by not gathering money to create that product. Right?
After two years of research, I finally figured out what was going in the film business. At the root of problem were two key factors:
- there was a complete misunderstanding of the new economics in play;
- there was an industry-wide denial from anyone with skin in the game.
As for #2, I can't say I blame people in the film industry for being in denial about how things are changing. Nobody with $15 million riding on the line is seriously willing to contemplate that their business model is becoming, or has become, obsolete. What they want or don't to be true is moot—the car replaced horse & buggy drivers, the printing press replaced manuscript illuminators, and the internet will have similar effects on legacy delivery systems like records, CDs, DVDs, and books. Deny that change if you wish, but it doesn't stop the wave from destroying your sand castle.
The changes in the market are now so clear to me that it would be suicide to enter the marketplace in the traditional way to make a commercially successful movie. And if that is the only price of admission I must pay to get my message through to those in denial, then I pray for their survival as I watch their car tragically head for the cliff.
1 comment:
"Unless you've made a commercially successful film, you have no place in the debate over movie piracy."
LOL. That statement really highlights the main problem with the extreme 'anti-piracy' lobby - they are not even pretending to listen to their consumers.
If a loaf of bread jumped in price to $15, you know there'd be a huge outcry from the public, and with good reason.
'Pirating' (in terms of individuals file-sharing rather than mass production operations) is the market response to a range of industry created issues.
File-sharers raise many good points. And some bad ones too.
That is precisely why there is debate, and as consumers are half the equation, then too right we all have a say in it.
Take heart Ross: if someone decides to attack you personally rather than your argument (saying you have no right to an opinion), you know it's because they simply can't beat your argument.
Post a Comment