Could Hollywood just dissapear in the next 5-10 years?

[Karha of Honor]

Could streamers take over the studio system and just decide to move somewhere cheaper?

[Steve]

I think too much of the industry is entrenched in Hollywood to make it "disappear" in the next decade. Maybe in a few decades, if the model for shows and movies changes enough. But whatever the pricing of unionized film crew labor, the concentration of infrastructure for TV show and movie production in that area is going to be a draw.

[rickgriffin]

Yeah, 5-10 years is way too short. The thing about a lot of industries is that they're not self-sustaining systems barely propped up by people with money, just waiting for the scaffolding to rot. Newspapers are STILL around despite dying a slow death, but most prominent ones have taken to publishing online. And while a lot of online blogs eventually morphed into real competitors, the old industry is still around--journalism wasn't completely supplanted just because the original source of income was undercut.

As it is currently, while webshows are still *cheap*--several orders of magnitude cheaper than even low-budget films--they rely almost entirely on the distribution provided by YouTube, Twitch and a handful of other services. If Hollywood suddenly started hemorrhaging money and needed to change their platform, they still have TONS of other distribution channels unavailable to streamers. And that's just *one* of the many advantages entrenched industries have.

[Rocketboy1313]

Keep in mind, Broadway has remained the most prestigious and iconic location for theater for a 100 years.

Now, you can't stream theater, but the idea that it would have moved elsewhere for expense reasons but didn't make sense to me that the movies and TV have too many roots in Hollywood to leave.

[Karha of Honor]

Yeah, 5-10 years is way too short. The thing about a lot of industries is that they're not self-sustaining systems barely propped up by people with money, just waiting for the scaffolding to rot. Newspapers are STILL around despite dying a slow death, but most prominent ones have taken to publishing online. And while a lot of online blogs eventually morphed into real competitors, the old industry is still around--journalism wasn't completely supplanted just because the original source of income was undercut.

As it is currently, while webshows are still *cheap*--several orders of magnitude cheaper than even low-budget films--they rely almost entirely on the distribution provided by YouTube, Twitch and a handful of other services. If Hollywood suddenly started hemorrhaging money and needed to change their platform, they still have TONS of other distribution channels unavailable to streamers. And that's just *one* of the many advantages entrenched industries have.

Webshows? Netflix and Amazon are not doing that? Was Beast of no Nation not a webshow? Are Netflix's shows not webshows?

Keep in mind, Broadway has remained the most prestigious and iconic location for theater for a 100 years.

Now, you can't stream theater, but the idea that it would have moved elsewhere for expense reasons but didn't make sense to me that the movies and TV have too many roots in Hollywood to leave.

Broadway is a much nicher product with lower costs.

[Rocketboy1313]

I assure you, property in New York is not a lower cost.

The point is, people know of Hollywood and they go to it to get involved in the industry.
Its existence is an advertisement for itself. Only about 1% of people who want to be actors have any knack for it, and only about 10% of them have the looks. Beyond that you need those with the drive to practice, the willingness to be in commercials, soap operas, stage productions, or Gal #3 in the back of the hall in "God's Not Dead 3: This Time it's Personal".

Hollywood consolidates all of these things in one area, much as Broadway does in New York. It provides a place for all the talent agencies, modeling agencies, acting classes, plastic surgeons, writers, key grips, and craft services to consolidate, communicate, and coordinate.

It is the same reason so many tech firms are in silicon valley and all of US manufacturing was in Detroit. Having a dozen related professions all in one area allows them to poach talent off one another and gives flexibility to the market place as a person who worked craft services for the WB also has a degree in photography and got drafted to work 2nd unit because he made nice with the Director's assistant and two of the stand-ins. The internet fills in some of this, there are film productions in Vancouver for instance, especially in the field of special effects work, but that also has to do with government art subsidies, and the desire to keep all of the people who know how to make blue screen convincing working together and sharing their skills to make each of them more talented overall.

And all of this connects to the literal buildings. Studios, offices, mansions, recording houses, all of it. That stuff is already built and would cost a couple billion dollars to build elsewhere. And that is assuming you could justify (somehow) to Chris Evans that he should totally buy a mansion in Kansas City because they are (for some reason) going to be filming a shit ton of stuff there because property is cheap and he will get work there.

Because, people don't want to live in Kansas City. They want to live in LA, that place where skiing and surfing are each a two hour drive away.

[rickgriffin]

Webshows? Netflix and Amazon are not doing that? Was Beast of no Nation not a webshow? Are Netflix's shows not webshows?

You said streamers. I'm including independent youtube shows. You're talking about productions that MAY have a per-episode budget of $1000 at most, and generally have a budget of maybe $20 and a sandwich.

Even if you're talking about Netflix produced shows and movies, they do pay quite a bit more than that, but that's still in the barely-a-handful range compared to Hollywood in general. It'd be like saying Kickstarter video games are going to supplant the AAA games industry. Kickstarter may be able to throw a bit of weight around but it's still like a chubby squirrel trying to knock over an oak tree. It's gonna be a factor other than the upstarts that moves the entrenched industry.

Broadway is a much nicher product with lower costs.

No it isn't lower cost? I don't know how to explain this?

[TGLS]

Let's suppose blockbuster movies started opening on Netflix and the like instead of at theaters. Let's further assume that blockbuster movies would be charging $10 per view before some kind of "General Release".

To compare how much money is made, let's use Doctor Strange as an example. It grossed $675 mil, which gives a studio take of $337.5 mil (studio take is usually about half, cinemas are in the food business, so they don't need a huge cut.) Assuming the ticket price is $9, that means 75 million people saw the movie.

Let's say just as many people will watch the movie if it premieres on Netflix as it does in theatres (I bet they won't). So that means that they're making $750 million! Great deal, right? Wrong. People go to the movies together, in groups. Let's say that three is the regular number of people who see a movie at the same time. Now, unless Netflix employs XBone spy cameras, there's no way they can charge me for multiple people in the same room, watching a movie. Now the gross is down to $250 million! Sad. So the price compared to theatres would have to rise. And Netflix isn't in the food business, they're only making money from people watching stuff over their service, so they'll need to start taking a bigger cut of the gross! Now this is really looking like a bad deal.

[TGLS]

Broadway is a much nicher product with lower costs.

No it isn't lower cost? I don't know how to explain this?

I think he's saying that Hollywood spends more on one production than Broadway spends on ten.

[rickgriffin]

Broadway is a much nicher product with lower costs.

No it isn't lower cost? I don't know how to explain this?

I think he's saying that Hollywood spends more on one production than Broadway spends on ten.

I suppose in the absolute sense, yeah Broadway costs less, but it became a niche product in the first place because stage productions cost so much more in other ways, such as paying cast and crew for *every* performance. It feels kinda unfair to compare broadway to hollywood--you don't see broadway productions with hollywood budgets simply because there are only so many seats they can fill at a time, whereas hollywood doesn't have that limitation.

Broadway is, technically, stuck in new york not because it's cheap enough to produce to stay there, but they can't really be anywhere else due to needing that sufficient mass of people to keep up with all the money they DO spend. Even with the vast number of broadway shows that fail to make money, there are very good reasons you don't see them debut in Branson: People already go to New York to see Broadway. People go to Branson for a cheap vacation or because you're stuck in the dang ozarks. Having a famous location is self-advertising that itself saves money that would otherwise have to be spent to convince people to come elsewhere. That goes for peripheral companies as well as audiences.