As I read through the article, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between making a good film and building a successful startup venture.
Both are highly creative and technical processes. Getting a motley crew of crazies together, (almost) irreverent belief in your vision, passionate director/founder(s), willingness to work long and hard, working creatively within budget, and zealously promoting your wares.
It matters not how many movies you watch, or how many business books, or blogs you read. Learning comes from doing.
Except, with a movie, you don't get a do-over. With startups, you can iterate, pivot, evolve, and march on.
I like the parallels - I'm managing a tech company at the moment but have previously worked at production companies. The overlaps are ample but I'm curious if anyone sees the negative aspect of such low barriers of entry.
I first noticed this as I started losing interest in photography following the shift to digital. Previously it required such a large degree of craft and investment of time. Interestingly enough this is what made it rewarding. Exposing celluloid, developing it by hand, and printing in darkrooms was something of a meditative and powerful process. And in turn the results were more highly valued. After the barriers were removed via digital photography the space got more crowded, and the craft was, if not eliminated, then replaced by something altogether different.
I understand nothing is stopping anyone from still developing by hand, but the value has been destroyed as you can't compete with the low cost or, more importantly, the low barriers for creating a satisfying image - and in turn, the value of photographers as a profession (and the work they create) has become saturated.
I balance this reality with the undeniable ease of shooting now, and there is room for innovation yet in that field. And the social benefits of being able to easily share imagery is still in its infancy. But in my heart I'm doubtful if we'll see another Cartier-Bresson or Adams as the climate has been saturated, and therefore simply commoditized.
And so that's the question - do low barriers of entry inherently lead to saturation/commodification of a craft (as much as you can label startups/entrepreneurship a craft)? And is that, in reality, the point? The inevitability?
barriers for the craft may have been removed, but a lot of good technicians won't make a good movie, a geek with the best gear you can buy, won't make good photo (as Art, not as technically good).
And it's the same for programming, the best programmer doesn't necessarily comes with the killer idea, or the skills to bring this killer idea to an accomplished project.
To me it's the difference between craft and art. If you have the idea, craft and skills shouldn't be a barrier.
EXACTLY! As a big movie fan, I also have that same theory. In fact I have read Robert Rodriguez's "Rebel Without a Crew" (from where the "10-minute Film School" comes from), and I see so many parallels between indie film-making and bootstrapping a company.
I would argue that with a movie you actually do iterate and evolve: That's during the editing process. I believe Scorcese once said that his key job as a director was not during filming per se, but during editing.
Also, a curiosity: Rodriguez is a major geek. He does his own special effects on his own studio in San Antonio.
Editing is filmmaking. Writing, acting, photography, recording, those are all arts in themselves, and if you're good at just one of them you don't need a film to be successful. Add editing, and you've turned it into filmmaking.
I'm actually more of a filmmaker than I am a startup guy, but I can see lots of overlaps.
Each film project essentially is a startup. Most are the results of special purpose, one-off companies. You might work with a lot of the same people, but the situations are always fluid. You're creating something from scratch, most of the time, building up something from nothing.
I've made dozens of short films, most via a loose collective of filmmakers, mostly for festival screenings and for the learning experiences. Some with a slightly more formal organization, intended to make money via short film distribution networks online and on cell phones. Which we did, by keeping our production costs very , very low. Some lessons learned there about cofounder selection and clear responsibilities.
Working now with some established producers on securing funding for a indie sci fi feature film. The whole funding cycle is a long, drawn out process, like it is in most businesses. A real roller coaster of emotion, like a startup. In the end, like a startup, the funding is as dependent on establishing belief in the people involved as it is in the idea itself. If not moreso. And of course it's all spare-time after-the-day-job stuff, like a lot of startups.
It's fun, though, and I wouldn't trade the ride for anything else.
Many of his DVD commentary tracks are packed with similar info. Spy Kids 2 hardly references what's happening onscreen and is one long discussion about his creative process. It's great.
Does this mean I should rent Spy Kids 2 so I can listen to interesting commentary about making films? The world still has a few surprises left, I guess.
I've gotten all of his kids movies just for the commentary tracks. It's been a while since I listened to all the commentary tracks, but I remember Spy Kids 2 being the best, Spy Kids 3D being decent, and Shark Boy & Lava Girl being a letdown.
"Too many creative people don't want to learn how to be technical, so what happens? they become dependent on technical people. Become technical, you can learn that. If you're creative and technical, you're unstoppable."
The similarity one notices between "making a movie" and "building an app" is something more commonplace.
In all activities that involve significant investment of time/money in the start and a big cheque at the end require this kind of thinking.
1. Bootstrap
2. Play ur bootstrapped tag to your advantage
(get customers who like offbeat things/ don't like big brands/ love promoting newbies etc)
3. Collect fat cheque at the end if 2 gets u mainstream
Both are highly creative and technical processes. Getting a motley crew of crazies together, (almost) irreverent belief in your vision, passionate director/founder(s), willingness to work long and hard, working creatively within budget, and zealously promoting your wares.
It matters not how many movies you watch, or how many business books, or blogs you read. Learning comes from doing.
Except, with a movie, you don't get a do-over. With startups, you can iterate, pivot, evolve, and march on.