Is it realistic to assume the market will become 100x more saturated than it already is? Cost of equipment is already so low that further reduction is unlikely to spur more production - time, skills and people are the limiting factor now, and until we improve cloning technology that's not likely to change much. There's some finite limit to the number of people with the time, skills and drive to tackle the task of producing a feature film, no matter what the cost.
I'm sorry to bring this up again but what you have written here is almost word for word verbatim what I heard 15-20 years ago in the music business. In the early 90's I spent about $70k on the latest technology, HD digital recorder, mixer and processing equipment, all of professional standard. The technology had advanced to the point that I could afford to get into that side of the business, 5 years earlier the equivalent equipment cost 10 times as much and just as Cracker, I thanked the music gods. Throughout the 90's equipment prices fell further but we weren't terribly worried because making a successful professional recording/album had always required a highly skilled team: A composer, musicians, a team of highly qualified engineers (Recording engineers, Mix engineers, Mastering engineer), a Studio Owner, a Producer and the backing of an A&R Exec to pump in the tens/hundreds of thousands required to hire all these people. By about 10 years ago, technology and the price of it reached what seemed to us old timers to be truly unbelievable levels, what had once cost hundreds of thousands could effectively be brought for just a few hundred, musicians could largely be eliminated (by advances in Music Industry Digital Interface technology) and the software/hardware made it possible (though not desirable) to replace all the engineers. The team was gone and could in theory all be done by just one person (with a few hundred $ of gear)! By the mid/late 90's the market was hugely over saturated, competition was fierce and the chances of success were tiny (sound familiar?) but by 10 or so years ago the cost of the equipment meant that even the average kid in their bedroom could in effect be a music production team/Record Label and the market became over saturated at least 100x more than it already was, if not 1000x more! Music became essentially worthless and music creators rushed from the music industry to the film/TV world, the only area of music creation which still paid a good living wage. But of course, that massively over saturated an already highly competitive film/TV marketplace for music creators. And IT members know the result of this because many of you use composers/music creators and know their market value!
The realistic holy grail for mass producers (like Panasonic, etc.) is not a product with a reasonable profit margin aimed at the tens or hundreds of thousands but a product with a smaller profit margin aimed at the hundreds of millions. At the moment, decent film cameras are well into the 4 figures, which puts them in a specialist, niche market but I guarantee you that all the big manufacturers are not only dreaming of bringing the cost down to a few hundred to make their film cameras a mass market item but are actively pumping in huge amounts of R&D to achieve it. Professional standard broadcast/film cameras are already about 10 times cheaper than they once were but they've probably got somewhere around another 10 times to go! And, not only will they be far cheaper but their operation and the operation of the software to manipulate the images will also be easier (and cheaper and better). 15 years ago the editing solutions cost tens of thousands, 10 years ago it cost 10-20x less, today it costs a few hundred and tomorrow it will be even cheaper AND easier. That's why professional editors were so pissed off with FCPX, it wasn't an upgrade for FCP7, it wasn't even a product aimed at them, it was aimed at the next generation of bedroom directors/editors/filmmakers, who only existed in relatively small numbers at the time but Apple obviously wanted to get themselves a market position early, ready for when the masses arrive. This is what pissed off the editors, FCPX heralded the end of editing as a profession for all but a handful of them.
So, what makes me assume the market will be 100x more saturated, that lower cost equipment will spur more production and that skills and people will not be as relevant as they are now? A: The trends of the equipment manufacturers, the trends of the film marketplace and history! Let me put your question the other way around: Accepting that the market is already more saturated than it was and is getting more saturated everyday, that the equipment is constantly getting cheaper/better, that the manpower requirements and skills are reducing/costing less and that the number of filmmakers is growing, what makes you think this trend has stopped or is stopping rather than increasing?
I also think you're missing the point of what Wong Fu is doing. Their profit model isn't based on selling a certain number of copies of a DVD or VOD views into a generic market of indie film watchers. In fact, up until now their revenues haven't been based on selling videos at all.
No, I understand exactly what Wong Fu is doing, and that's what worries me!! What you're saying is that the next generation of professional filmmakers aren't actually full-time professional filmmakers anymore, filmmaking is only one of their Brand's products and maybe no more than a sideline.
But now that they are producing (and I assume eventually selling) a feature film, they're still not competing with everyone else. What difference does it make to them if there's 100x as many films in the market next year? That's the key here. It's the Apple model - build something that people love and they will continue to pay a premium for it despite the availability of significantly cheaper (or even free) options in an otherwise commodified market.
You're missing the point. Apple don't just sell an iPhone 5S at whatever price they want, they extremely carefully place the iPhone at a price the market will accept. Which is roughly the same price or slightly higher than other manufacturers' equivalent models and they can charge a small premium by adding value in terms of build quality, design, ease of use, security and brand prestige. With a 100x more films in the market, the price of films will fall and eventually the expected/acceptable market price will be zero or close to it. Neither Wong Fu nor anyone else will be able to ignore this acceptable market price but they might be able to charge a premium, the question is, how much of a premium? At what point does even that premium make it uneconomical for investors to fund a $170k film or for Wong Fu to make a film in preference to concentrating on other more profitable products? At that point, our next generation professional filmmakers won't actually ever make any films! Or if they do, the films are no more than a marketing tool or loss leaders for the "Brand's" other, profitable products. Either way, 100x more films in the marketplace could very possibly herald the virtual end of the professional filmmaker, even for those with a very substantial established following/subscriber base! Incidentally, this is
precisely where the recording industry now is, there really are almost no professional recording artists or record labels anymore.
G
This is pretty much where I am and where I'm at. If some notoriety finds me or one of my projects catches on with a wider audience, I won't turn down that ticket to ride. In the meanwhile, I'm just tinkering as an enthusiastic hobbyist and trying to produce work that I, and anyone who is involved, can be proud of.
