Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 14th Mar 2012 07:06 UTC
Multimedia, AV By reading various media news in the last year or so, a very disturbing pattern appeared. When media providers like Amazon, Apple, Google, Netfix, Microsoft tried to license content off of Hollywood, they were either given extremely high prices, or they were being rejected altogether. Microsoft even canceled a finished XBoX360-related video product recently because they couldn't license content easily, Netflix is given harder and harder time as time goes by (notice how only a few good movies were added to their streaming service in the last few months), and even the almighty Apple had the door shut on its face numerous times.
Order by: Score:
Again..
by Brunis on Wed 14th Mar 2012 08:31 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

Making it hard for paying customers .. easy as pie to download, to watch it how i want and when i want!

Reply Score: 5

just buy them!
by puenktchen on Wed 14th Mar 2012 10:12 UTC
puenktchen
Member since:
2007-07-27

Why don't they just buy the major studios? Apple alone is worth more than all major studios and their parent companies combined:

market cap:

Time Warner 35.4B
Viacom 29.3B
Walt Disney 80.9B
News Corp 49.3B
Sony 21.2B
NBCU ca 30B (not public, owners 49% GE 207.3B, 51% Comcast 81.3B)

Apple 529.7B
Microsoft 274.1B
Google 200.9B
Amazon 80B
Netflix 5.9B

Reply Score: 6

RE: just buy them!
by arpan on Wed 14th Mar 2012 10:22 UTC in reply to "just buy them!"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Why would they? Do you really expect them to spend billions to buy the media companies and then make a few meager millions out of them?

It makes a lot more sense to spend a little money sponsoring/buying independent studios.

Reply Score: 8

RE: just buy them!
by lucas_maximus on Wed 14th Mar 2012 10:24 UTC in reply to "just buy them!"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because Apple, Google etc are the middle men, that is where the money is.

Reply Score: 5

RE: just buy them!
by Soulbender on Wed 14th Mar 2012 10:26 UTC in reply to "just buy them!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Because making movies and music is not their core business competence.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: just buy them!
by Vanders on Wed 14th Mar 2012 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: just buy them!"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Running a music store wasn't one of Apples core competences until they opened iTMS.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: just buy them!
by Soulbender on Wed 14th Mar 2012 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: just buy them!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

A music store is quite different from producing movies and music but ok, I see your point. You can own a studio without actually knowing how to make movies. Sony wasn't a motion picture company before but it is now.
One might wonder who the tech companies would put in charge of these new ventures though. Their own folks who has zero industry experience and contacts or the same old folks who are at the reigns now?
In many cases I bet it would be the latter in which the actual improvements for the customer might not be all that great.

Edited 2012-03-14 11:58 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: just buy them!
by tanishaj on Thu 15th Mar 2012 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: just buy them!"
tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22

One might wonder who the tech companies would put in charge of these new ventures though. Their own folks who has zero industry experience and contacts or the same old folks who are at the reigns now?
In many cases I bet it would be the latter in which the actual improvements for the customer might not be all that great.


SoulBender, I often agree with you but we see things differently here. Follow the money.

Why would companies like Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, or even Google produce original content. They would do it to enhance the profitability of their digital streaming subscription services.

If, instead of building their own content creation houses from scratch, they simply bought existing studios it would not matter if new or old management was in charge. The marching orders would be to make the subscription services successful.

The biggest problem is getting the tech giants to see cooperation as the proper path to content creation and licensing. I would expect them to see "differentiation" amongst themselves as the key to competition with each other and to miss the big picture of collectively competing with Hollywood entirely.

Imagine a world where it was the theater distribution networks scrambling to license awesome movies off of a united collectively of the tech companies. That would be much better, at least for a while. If it was only a single industry entity we would soon have other monopoly problems to worry about. Perhaps that is what you are saying.

That said, having the distribution networks competing with each other for consumer dollars (and having content seen as just a cost of doing business) would be a great benefit for consumers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: just buy them!
by Adam S on Wed 14th Mar 2012 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: just buy them!"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Apple doesn't make music.

There's a big difference between brokering content and creating it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: just buy them!
by Vanders on Wed 14th Mar 2012 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: just buy them!"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

There's a big difference between brokering content and creating it.


There is. There's also a big difference between selling computers and selling music, yet Apple managed to move into selling music quite easily.

If they can expand their core competency to include "Selling music", why should we think that they couldn't expand even further to include "Making music"?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: just buy them!
by Adam S on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: just buy them!"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I appreciate the argument, I just find the logic flawed.

I don't think learning to sell digital files is the same as becoming a music writer. I don't think the same creatives who make Apple products would naturally be good at making movies or music.

It's possible, but I don't see it as natural progression at all.

By this logic, shouldn't Apple start writing books too, given the success of the iBookstore?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: just buy them!
by Vanders on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: just buy them!"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think learning to sell digital files is the same as becoming a music writer. I don't think the same creatives who make Apple products would naturally be good at making movies or music.


No, they'd probably be terrible at it. Just as the average Sony executive is probably piss poor at playing the drums. That's why they hire in the talent that they require. There's nothing stopping Apple or Google or anyone else from doing the same thing.

By this logic, shouldn't Apple start writing books too, given the success of the iBookstore?


I'm not suggesting that Tim Cook should start knocking out novels in between keynotes, but why couldn't Apple sign authors directly?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: just buy them!
by fran on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: just buy them!"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Because making movies and music is not their core business competence.


Should not be a problem. Just hire competence.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: just buy them!
by Soulbender on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: just buy them!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And I said i another response, that competence will most likely be made up of the exact same people who are running things now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: just buy them!
by fran on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: just buy them!"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Most of those people are free agents anyhow.
The more players the more movies!
Find it hard to find the movies I like nowadays.
For every Sci Fi and Horror movie maybe 10 romantic comedies are made.
This is not acceptable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: just buy them!
by shotsman on Thu 15th Mar 2012 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: just buy them!"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

This,
For every Sci Fi and Horror movie maybe 10 romantic comedies are made.

Should (IMHO) really be

For every Decent Sci Fi and Horror movie maybe 100 romantic comedies with increasingly silly or repetitive plots are made.

When that the last decent Sci-Fi file that had a romance in it made?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: just buy them!
by MrWeeble on Fri 16th Mar 2012 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: just buy them!"
MrWeeble Member since:
2007-04-18

Wall-E?

Of course as that was made by a studio owned by the founder of Apple, it perhaps just adds credence to the idea that the Tech companies can do movies better than the movie companies

Reply Score: 2

RE: just buy them!
by westlake on Wed 14th Mar 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "just buy them!"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

Why don't they just buy the major studios? Apple alone is worth more than all major studios and their parent companies combined[/q

In its prime MGM was owned by the Loews theater chain.

Each makor studio had its own fully integrated production and distrubution system. All that ended with the 1948 anti-trust decision in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Why the geek would choose to slit his own throat by surrendering professional content production to the developers of mass market hardware and software I will never know.
















market cap:

Time Warner 35.4B
Viacom 29.3B
Walt Disney 80.9B
News Corp 49.3B
Sony 21.2B
NBCU ca 30B (not public, owners 49% GE 207.3B, 51% Comcast 81.3B)

Apple 529.7B
Microsoft 274.1B
Google 200.9B
Amazon 80B
Netflix 5.9B

Reply Score: 1

RE: just buy them!
by MOS6510 on Wed 14th Mar 2012 11:48 UTC in reply to "just buy them!"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Why don't they just buy the major studios? Apple alone is worth more than all major studios and their parent companies combined:


It's just how much their stock is worth, it's not like they have this amount of money in the bank because that's what they are worth.

For this same reason Bill Gates' fortune goes up and down, because a lot of his wealth is made up by stock and stock options.

Reply Score: 7

RE: just buy them!
by BluenoseJake on Wed 14th Mar 2012 12:40 UTC in reply to "just buy them!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Sony used to be a tech company, and then they bought a media company, and now they are a media company. If MS or Apple were to buy a media company, they would become a media company, and the world would be no better off.

It's much better to rebuild the industry from the ground up, I think

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Change the Game (WAS: just buy them!)
by shawnhcorey on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE: just buy them!"
shawnhcorey Member since:
2009-11-05

The industry is being rebuilt...in India. Bollywood produces more movies and makes more money than Hollywood. Hollywood has too many vested interests trying to protect their dying business rather than exploiting the new world of the internet. When they offer a movie on the internet, they do so at the same price as a DVD, despite the fact that they don't have to pay for any material or for distribution. If they changed their pricing so that the made the same profit, they won't be a dying industry.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The industry is being rebuilt...in India.


I can't decide if that's a glimmer of hope or a harbinger of doom ;)

Reply Score: 2

fran Member since:
2010-08-06

I can't decide if that's a glimmer of hope or a harbinger of doom ;)

99% musicals. Doom

Edited 2012-03-14 13:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I meant rebuild the industry without the RIAA/MPAA, they are just middlemen, forcibly inserted between content creators and content consumers. We don't need them to distribute content anymore.

Only fools fight in a burning house. (Old Klingon Proverb)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: just buy them!
by orestes on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE: just buy them!"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

That'd work, for a while, then collective profit motives would get in the way of delivering content efficiently again and we'd be right back where we started with new faces on the same old beast.

The best hope would most likely be for the artists and producers themselves to find a way to connect directly with the consumer to secure funding, similar to the path Kickstart is exploring for the video game world.

Reply Score: 4

RE: just buy them!
by Laurence on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:15 UTC in reply to "just buy them!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Why don't they just buy the major studios? Apple alone is worth more than all major studios and their parent companies combined:

Owning the studios doesn't mean you have control over regional distribution.

Sony have recently raised complaints against the German equivalent of RIAA for blocking youtube videos and thus costing Sony millions in lost sales:
http://torrentfreak.com/sony-music-boss-censored-youtube-videos-cos...

Reply Score: 2

zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

You know there's something very wrong with ~Hollywood when the production goes - presumably also to lower the costs of content acquisition - to Norway, of all places...

Edited 2012-03-14 11:05 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Dude, they made Norwegian Ninja. Do not dare to mock that.

Reply Score: 2

Zer0C001 Member since:
2011-12-22

Have you seen Conan the Barbarian ?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816462/ :
Details => Filming Locations: Bistriza, Bulgaria

Also look at the details for other hollywood movies

Reply Score: 1

werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

Don't need to go that far to find a new Hollywood. Montreal has been home to a lot of major production lately. Studios loan cost are low, outdoor film permits are easy to have and there's a high quantity of qualified staff available.

Reply Score: 2

It's so obvious it makes you wonder
by Vanders on Wed 14th Mar 2012 11:35 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

A few weeks ago I wrote on my personal blog that the only way to go over this licensing nightmare is for these companies to shoot their own movies/shows.

I've been saying the same thing for months. Google is an obvious example of where this strategy could work wonders: they've got the money, they have a worldwide distribution network (YouTube), they have the web technology (WebM streaming) and they have a revenue stream (targeting advertising). They could even provide on-demand language sub-titles (Google Translate)!

I'm not talking about 5 minute "webisodes" here either. Google could quite easily afford to fund and develop multiple hour-long, full-season shows if they wanted to. Think of all those shows that are cancelled by the US networks due to poor ratings but that could easily be popular and profitable with a worldwide audience.

Reply Score: 4

clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

You hit the magic word there: worldwide. This "Product X is not available in this store but is available only in the US store" nonsense must die.

Reply Score: 9

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They could even provide on-demand language sub-titles (Google Translate)!

I'm sorry, have you ever experienced the results of that? They are hilariously bad ;)

And what I mean by this... say, like we have here this notion of "Czech film" which comes (also, apart from "nobody knows anything") from Czech movies being always funny for Polish speakers - you basically can't help the urge to burst into laughter now and then, no matter the topic of the movie (...so Czechs don't want to take us to the cinema on some more "serious" ones ;/ )

Yeah, by some peculiarities of the relative genesis and word formation of those two languages, it seems to relatively rarely go the other way around (for that, there's always Slovene language, I hear; supposedly Polish sounds to them very much like Czech does to us, like some distorted baby talk of our language & often with "absurdly" pieced together words, terms - while in the other direction, Poles hearing Slovene, it's mostly "oh well just some random Slavic language" ...even much more distant one, much less mutually intelligible than Czech & Polish).
Still, it sometimes does go also the other way; like, for example, if I'd say that I'm looking for something - hilarity ensues, because to Czechs it kinda sounds like I... "very vulgarly copulate" with that smth...

...and that is often the level of Youtube Translate, what it routinely gives. Actually, not a bad drinking game or entertainment, of sorts. ;)


Hm, though perhaps it would even fit - ~comedy stuff, generally something short & light, seems to have most uptake on Youtube, anyway (to the point I'm not even so sure if it is, in its present form, a venue conductive to "hour-long, full-season shows")

Reply Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

DISCLAIMER: I'm a human translator.

They could even provide on-demand language sub-titles (Google Translate)!

Don't get me started on the machine translation heresy. Anyone who knows more than one language somehow correctly knows that Google Translate would deliver a mix of shit and vomit pretending to be subtitles.

The point of subtitles is to get a message through to a wider audience. You don't want that audience to poke fun at your film or at your cluelessness. But more importantly, you don't want the foreign audience of your film to be distracted by text that is not actually in their language. Subtitles should be unobtrusive.

I feel belittled and insulted when I read badly written French text posing as text that I'm expected to understand.

For people who read French:
The subject has been discussed at http://lespilesintermediaires.blogspot.fr/2012/03/on-fait-quoi.html and was labeled "ravages apocalyptiques". You may not know that (the French) "ravages" means (the English – and also French) "devastation" in addition to (the English) "ravages". "Apocalyptiques" is… well, "apocalyptic".

The Polish makers of Dom Zly have gone – and at first happily treaded – that route and the outcome is worse than mediocre. Their experience is talked about at http://www.ataa.fr/blog/deflegmateurs/ (also in French but "translations" were into English so it should be obvious to all that Google Translate-for-subtitles shouldn't be an option).


I'm not talking about 5 minute "webisodes" here either. Google could quite easily afford to fund and develop multiple hour-long, full-season shows if they wanted to.

They could also just as easily contract professional translators in lieu of the despicable translation agencies they usually work with as these agencies are only concerned with one thing: price.

Google have their terms and conditions and UIs translated by real people, not machines+software. If Google Translate were up to the task, they would use it but they don't. Or do they?

[END OF RANT - this was just to help people stop drinking the machine translation Kool-Aid]

Edited 2012-03-19 15:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by bolomkxxviii
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 14th Mar 2012 12:10 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

They would not have to buy them all, only one or two. Once they start releasing everything worldwide and on the net the other studios will have no option but to do likewise.

Reply Score: 5

Where can i get this content?
by maccouch on Wed 14th Mar 2012 12:34 UTC
maccouch
Member since:
2012-03-14

a quick off topic regarding the videos you posted. I know there are a lot of great content out there, apart from the hollywood (lately) nonsense.

But where can i get it? i'm not going to spend hours around vimeo or youtube watching every possible video. Is there any curated sources out there that i can rely on to point me to these kind of films? (if they can come as a Plex plugin/video channel even better.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Where can i get this content?
by Eugenia on Wed 14th Mar 2012 18:04 UTC in reply to "Where can i get this content?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yes, you can follow the "Cinematheque!" channel on Redux.com. They curate great short films, and other kinds of videos found in other channels. http://redux.com I personally watch Redux on my GoogleTV (they have an app for that).

Reply Score: 1

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

And how does redux.com work?

I find the unusual interface pretty confusing, I don't know what to do with it. Am I supposed to literally "lean back and watch"? Is it not interactive?

Reply Score: 2

Sue ALL the tech companies!
by AnythingButVista on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:10 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

I think the author is underestimating how business is done in the US. If Apple, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft were to produce their own content, the moment MPAA's wallets begin to hurt, the Hollywood cartel will begin suing the tech companies left and right. They'll scrutinize every line of dialog, every chord being played, every concept and every design and every video file format looking for ways they can sue the tech companies for "stealing their ideas".

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sue ALL the tech companies!
by Soulbender on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:35 UTC in reply to "Sue ALL the tech companies!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think the author is underestimating how business is done in the US


Well, they don't have to produce them in the U.S at all since there's plenty of high-quality production and editing facilities outside the U.S. In fact, many Hollywood movies are not really being made in the U.S at all.

Reply Score: 5

starting
by fran on Wed 14th Mar 2012 13:30 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

The tech icons see the potential of starting media companies.
http://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-company-starts-music-pros-08314422...

Sign of things to come

Reply Score: 2

What I don't get..
by bowkota on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:22 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Great article Eugenia, sadly I don't think things are changing any time soon.

What I don't understand is why these movie studios keep on insisting on doing it their own way. Wasn't the music industry a good enough example?
The music retail business was going downhill at a fast pace before iTunes and all the other recent digital stores. Heck they even had an increase in 2011 after Seven years.
The movie and TV industry would be doing so much better were it not for the 60 year old, backwards-thinking executives. Get rid of them already.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What I don't get..
by vodoomoth on Mon 19th Mar 2012 15:40 UTC in reply to "What I don't get.."
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

What I don't understand is why these movie studios keep on insisting on doing it their own way. Wasn't the music industry a good enough example?

I guess you can say people never learn?

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

There are some really good indipendant films out there that were made on an insanely small budget. But, that small, small budget didn't include marketing or distribution.

The successful indi films start at festivals, then they get picked up by a major distributor who then invests in marketing the film so people can go to movie theaters and watch it. Or pirate it, if they prefer. But not nearly as many people would just watch it if it were one of 200 indi films listed on some website.

If this is going to work for Google, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, ect, they have to invest in marketing the films and changing user behaviour and expectations. Part of the experience of movie watching is talking about it with friends. You can do that with a movie that's been advertised. Even if the other person hasn't seen the movie, they've usually heard about it and are receptive to getting the review from the one who has. That won't fly with an Amazon movie that's only listed on the website.

Its not impossible, just difficult. If I understood how to do all of that, I'd be a much richer man.

Reply Score: 3

Why???
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:47 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

This is like advocating that a shipping company starts building the same products they deliver for their customers.

WHY?

Sure the licensing is hosed, but there has to be a better way to change it then start taking wild risks in outside markets!

Reply Score: 2

In their eyes
by Wafflez on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:49 UTC
Wafflez
Member since:
2011-06-26

It's better to complain about piracy. qq

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Wed 14th Mar 2012 15:26 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Hey, we still have Bolliwood.

Reply Score: 2

phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

At the very least, including the titles of the videos in the article would be nice.

Reply Score: 4

I don't get it?
by jefro on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:51 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

So you are mad at Hollywood for trying to protect their jobs. Hollywood has been in the Media business for almost 100 years. They have tried all sorts of half baked ideas. The one that works is make a good movie and hope people watch it. Your suggestion of making crummy tv shows so that it will be cheaper is kind of silly. Like saying, no, I don't want good beef. Gimme some that is going bad. Like saying no, I don't want my power to be on all the time and at the right frequency.

Sure, Apple could buy a few studios. That doesn't mean they would get access to content. Every artist has a different contract. Each one may be voided if the ownership changes or deals have to be renegotiated. The only thing keeping Sony in the game is they can use the stupid tax laws to hide other profits.

No, I want quality works. Saying that Hollywood is stopping innovation is not right either. Anyone on the planet has the ability to put a production together. They can hire a studio, actors, equipment and negotiate distribution rights in order to recover their money.

I have been in a movie before and I know there is a lot of waste going on. I do know that it is not like a normal corporation. Childish acting adults make it difficult to produce a movie. Everyone wants an opinion and a piece of the pie but no one wants to fork over $30 Million dollars.

Lemme know who wants to produce a movie or short movie or TV series.

Edited 2012-03-14 19:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't get it?
by Eugenia on Wed 14th Mar 2012 20:08 UTC in reply to "I don't get it?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Nobody said that the suggested cheaper shows/movies would be "crummy". What I said was that talented filmmakers can do the same job as Hollywood can, for less money. In other words, quality won't go down, if anything filmmakers would be freer to provide more radical ideas in their work.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't get it?
by bolomkxxviii on Thu 15th Mar 2012 11:41 UTC in reply to "I don't get it?"
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

The MPAA is just plain evil. I stopped watching the stuff they push.

Edited 2012-03-15 11:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Foreign Films
by ozonehole on Wed 14th Mar 2012 22:48 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

There is no real need to produce a lot of new content, because there is already plenty of great stuff being produced outside the USA. Not all of in English, of course, but dialog could be dubbed or subtitled.

Whether or not Americans would want to watch foreign films and TV shows is another question. I personally get pretty sick of the steady diet of violent police action/superhero junk that comes out of Hollywood. Or over-the-top special effects. But the American public is used to watching that kind of garbage, and foreign films/shows are not very accessible. Perusing the video rental stores in the USA, you don't see many foreign films on offer.

Some real competition would force Hollywood to change (hopefully for the better) or go broke.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Foreign Films
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Mar 2012 04:14 UTC in reply to "Foreign Films"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I personally get pretty sick of the steady diet of violent police action/superhero junk that comes out of Hollywood.


As a fan of violent police movies (and action movies in general) I must say I am disappointed in Hollywoods failure to create any.
Hollywood seems to have come to the point where only 2 types of movies are made:
(Unneeded) remakes of previously successful movies
Boring superhero movies

Thank God we have the French to make great action movies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Foreign Films
by michaeljackson on Fri 16th Mar 2012 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Foreign Films"
michaeljackson Member since:
2012-03-15

"I personally get pretty sick of the steady diet of violent police action/superhero junk that comes out of Hollywood.


As a fan of violent police movies (and action movies in general) I must say I am disappointed in Hollywoods failure to create any.
Hollywood seems to have come to the point where only 2 types of movies are made:
(Unneeded) remakes of previously successful movies
Boring superhero movies
"
You are forgetting a third type of Hollywood movies:

Movies about the Holocaust. Why does Hollywood always produce movies about the Holocaust and nazis?

You can mock the president, the pope, and anyone else. But if you mock the Holocaust, then God may have mercy on your soul. That is the worst thing you can do today. The holiest thing in the West today, is not God or anything. It is the Holocaust.

Have you heard about Megan Fox? She was fired from the new Transformers 3 movie, because she jokingly compared Spielberg to a nazi.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-21/entertainment/300175...

Or film director Lars Von Trier that recently joked about Nazis, and became Persona Non Grata! And was denied access to the Cannes festival where his own movie was awarded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_von_Trier#Controversy_at_2011_Can...

Or John Galliano who said anti semitic things when he was drunk. Or Mel Gibson. Their careers are ruined.

If you say you deny the Holocaust, then you go into jail in 17 countries. There is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaus...
There was a draft legislation to make it illegal in 28 countries in Europe, you go to jail for saying that.

You better say you are a child rapist or God hater or whatever. But dont say you deny the Holocaust. Maybe you should be able to say or joke about anything without getting punished?

Actress Whoopi Goldberg said she changed her name to something German sounding, or she would not get any work in Hollywood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#Early_life
"She adopted the traditionally German/Jewish surname Goldberg as a stage name because her mother felt the original surname of Johnson was not "Jewish enough" to make her a star"
Well, it worked. She is not good looking some say, but still gets to do big movies.

Director Roman Polanski was charged of rape of a 13 year old girl. Now, entire Hollywood supports Roman, and wants the charges to be dropped.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html
Why is that? I wondered about this, until I read more about Roman on wikipedia.

What does Whoopi Goldberg say about Roman?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-go...
'We're a different kind of society, we see things differently,' actor [Whoopi] says in defence of Roman Polanski. Hollywood has rallied behind Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland over the weekend, with the actor Whoopi Goldberg suggesting that whatever he was guilty of it wasn't "rape-rape".

It is VERY dumb to fight this. Don't do that. Especially if you are in Finance or Media, every higher boss have german names, just check on wikipedia. Dont joke about nazis or Holocaust. Better joke about child molesting or killing the pope, that won't get you fired. Always support Israel.

When a small group of people that are very tight and have extreme wealth and power, and also see others as inferior, you dont fight them. For your own good. If they rape your daughter, dont fight them. You will fight against very powerful people, and there is no way you can win.

Just look at Strauss-Kahn, who was released for raping a woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#New_York_v._Str...

With all the power from Hollywood backing Roman Polanski, there is no chance in hell Roman will go to jail.

There is no chance in hell someone will be able to seize control of Hollywood. Weird thought. Just read about Aipac, and see what enormous power Israel has. Israel citizens gets three times as much money as a US citizen - from America. US gives enormous amount of aid to Israel, much more than to any other country. No US president can go against Israel.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Foreign Films
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Mar 2012 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Foreign Films"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wth? How did we get from lack of Hollywood action moves to Israeli conspiracy theories?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Foreign Films
by ViktorRabe on Fri 16th Mar 2012 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Foreign Films"
ViktorRabe Member since:
2011-12-30

Pal, you are really frakked up. But I think you know that quite well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Foreign Films
by zima on Sun 18th Mar 2012 17:11 UTC in reply to "Foreign Films"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

there is already plenty of great stuff being produced outside the USA. Not all of in English, of course, but dialog could be dubbed or subtitled.
Whether or not Americans would want to watch foreign films and TV shows is another question

And what's with the US "remakes" of very good films or TV series which are often not even a year old?... (typically the remake gets announced, with great fanfare, while the original still very much makes the rounds in the cinemas, WTH?)
...but are just in a "wrong" language or even just the place (say, British productions); something most of the world doesn't seem to have much problem with.

Reply Score: 2

Hollywood is untouchable. Why?
by michaeljackson on Thu 15th Mar 2012 12:44 UTC
michaeljackson
Member since:
2012-03-15

It is outright silly to believe that someone can seize control over Hollywood. The media companies in Hollywood are extremely powerful and no one can touch them. Let me explain why.

MPAA, RIA, etc, and other Hollywood lobby organisations, have extreme power, they even command the White House. The White House threatened Russia with trade embargo and trade war, if Russia did not close an illegal MP3 site. There are many other examples of governments in countries doing weird things to aid the powerful media companies in Hollywood. There are leaked emails from wikileaks, showing that governments are "asked" to help to stop illegal downloads of media. The countries are going to be treated favorably in trade agreements, or punished. But notice that it is ONLY illegal media downloads that everything revolves around. Nothing else. Only media. Hollywood. In court, it is always media downloads.

How can media companies influence White House's foreign politics, drag USA into a trade war with a superpower as Russia if Russia does not stop illegal MP3 sites? Clearly, the media industry has very strong ties to the White House. Why? Let me explain. I will split this text into several parts.

Reply Score: 2

michaeljackson Member since:
2012-03-15

Background - why is Hollywood untouchable
-----------------------------------------
Brand new research shows that very few companies do control the world economy today. Some 50 companies, own every other company, in many layers. The researchers scanned vast databases with financial information of 37 million companies. Again and again, the same names popped up. Yes, you recognize their names: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc - and several other investment banks.

These few companies operate very closely together, and affect the world economy. For instance, JP Morgan and a few other investment banks recently shorted (sold) more silver than is available on the market. When you short that many Futures / Forwards, what happens to the silver price? What happens if they choose to go long (buy) instead? They dictate what will happen to the global economy. They have speculated in food price, which increases the food price and hits the poor countries.

What happens if they choose to bet on Google? Or Facebook? I will get back to this.

Here is the ground breaking research. The capitalist network runs the world:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-ca...

The question is, who controls these few 50 companies?

Reply Score: 2

michaeljackson Member since:
2012-03-15

More Background
--------------------------
Everybody says that a few rich people control everything else. 1% control 99%. Is it true? Does the gap widen between poor and rich? Do they have absolute power?

Bill Gates was the richest man in the world, $50 billion at his peak. Wow, that is lot of money. Instead, let us look at richest FAMILIES. These super rich families does not want attention so everything revolves around the "richest man" in media. Never "richest family".

The Rotschilds today, controls $600.000 billion (no typo). Rotschilds has saved England from bankruptcy. Rotschilds has financed wars and countries, and financed Napoleon Bonaparte. Rotschild mainly operates from London. Why do you think London is finance city no 1, before New York? Because of Rotschilds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

http://www.infowars.com/rothschilds-rockefellers-trillionaires-of-t...
Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838:
“Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”.

The director of the Prussian Treasury wrote on a visit to London that Nathan Rothschild had as early as 1817: “.., incredible influence upon all financial affairs here in London. It is widely stated.., that he entirely regulates the rate of exchange in the City. His power as a banker is enormous”.

Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836): “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.”

--------

Then we have the Rockefellers (originally Rockenfeller), they have almost as much money as Rotschilds. Rockefeller had a large company that was forced to split into 24 smaller pieces by the government. One of these small pieces, is called Exxon. The worlds largest company.

Then we have Guggenheim. They own some small investment banks, that control over 150 billion USD (wikipedia article). etc. etc.

(These few super rich families have all German names.)

Incidentally, the federal reserve is owned by large investment banks. It is privately owned, yes. Here it says that these banks own stock in Federal Reserve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Federal_Reserve...
These banks elect 6 of the 9 board members in Federal Reserve. Thus, these investment banks always chooses their own people. Thus, the american government does not run the federal reserve. Actually, the government wanted to see protocols from the meetings, but were denied to see them!

Thus, we have established that super rich families exist, and they are much wealthier than poor Bill Gates.

Where to put all money? In the bank? They ARE the bank. It is said by experts, that these few families own 75% of everything in the world. Some say they own even more.

Incidentally, there were articles in media that the founders of Google met Rotschilds. And also the founder of Facebook, Zuckerberg (german name), met Rotschilds. If Rotschilds choose to bet on Yahoo or Google, they will have lot of customers. Let us assume he chooses to bet on Google but not on Yahoo. Or choose to bet on Microsoft. Or Facebook. What will happen to these companies?

Edited 2012-03-15 13:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

michaeljackson Member since:
2012-03-15

More Background
-----------------------
In 13th century Jews were almost extinct. They succeeded in converting a warrior tribe in East Germany to Judaism. They were called Khazar Jews, or Ashkenazi. From there, the Ashkenazi spread to the world.

For instance, in 1931 in fact 92% of all Jews were Ashkenazi, meaning they had German heritage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

A few years later Israel were born. Israel was inhabitated by Jews. But the original Jews from Middle East were all extinct. If you look at the demography of Israel today, everybody is Ashkenazi (germany), Sephardim (Spain), Mizrahim (africa, morocco, and only some from what is called Israel today):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews

Thus, the Jews in Israel has not lived in Israel for 1000s of years. The original Jews are almost all extinct.

The Israeli researcher Arthur Koestler agrees on this, and has written a book on the heritage from Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe

Reply Score: 1

michaeljackson Member since:
2012-03-15

Just read on wikipedia about these super rich families Rotschild, Rockenfeller, Guggenheim, etc. They have all german names. Which origin do you think they have? Same as Goldman, Sachs, Lehman, Spielberg, Rubinstein, Letterman, Beckham, etc. Read about the CEOs for these large investment banks.

If you study the media companies in Hollywood, for instance Warner Bros. What does it say? Who founded the media company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_bros#1903.E2.80.9325:_Founding

What does the famous actor Marlon Brando say about Hollywood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlon_brando#Comments_on_Jews.2C_Holl...
"Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews"

If you control media and finance, then you control the most important. Then it is easy to control the government too. Aipac is the Israel lobby in USA. Aipac control all the politicians and all presidents are pro Aipac. Always. Otherwise they will be black listed and not receive funding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac#Steiner_resignation

Aipac runs the entire senate and the congresse. The congresse man Paul Findley has written a book after 22 years, and he tells about the power of Aipac. Read the shocked reviewers:
http://www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/155652482...

Thus, there is no chance in hell you can fight Hollywood. There is no chance in hell you can become a US president if you are against Israel. There is no chance in hell you can fight against these stealthy super rich families.

QED. Any questions?

Reply Score: 0

Amazon is already doing this
by pwjazz on Thu 15th Mar 2012 12:47 UTC
pwjazz
Member since:
2006-07-29

They're calling it Amazon Studios

http://studios.amazon.com/

Reply Score: 2

Just wait
by Dasher42 on Thu 15th Mar 2012 15:34 UTC
Dasher42
Member since:
2007-04-05

Just wait until the next writer's strike. By then Apple and Google will most likely be making better offers.

Reply Score: 1

Huh?
by jefro on Thu 15th Mar 2012 20:38 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

Did I just to to NaZiville?

Reply Score: 3

cdnklvnklvnnnnzklvkl
Member since:
2012-03-16

YYAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNN.....boooooooooooooorring

Reply Score: 1

Excellent short films
by vodoomoth on Mon 19th Mar 2012 17:23 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

People, you owe it to yourself to watch the films embedded in the article.

I had a blast with all of them. I admit I didn't fully understand the film about the guy and the girl though. Seems like the storytelling recounts their history together backwards.

I'm astounded by the number of people involved in making the film with the little girl and the fairies.

Of course, Flash spoiled my watching of Laforet's film with stupid freezes. How can a video player whose buffer is full freeze just because the download several minutes ahead hiccups?

Eugenia, many thanks!

Reply Score: 2