I loved this when it came out. Lars von Trier was one of its creators and has a collection of amazing films. Check out Dancer in the Dark (2000) if you haven't already.
But it should be remembered as returning to an earlier technique. For example, one of the two or three greatest directors to ever live, Abbas Kiarostami, has a film called Where is the Friend's House (1987) which is pure -- and pure magic.
If you're not aware of "sync rights", it's probably worth reading up on given your interests. There is an entire specialization of music copyright law focused solely on synchronization of music to visuals. The good news is that studios almost never obtain this set of rights to the music they publish (because historically there wasn't enough money in it to justify negotiating for them).
Thank you for taking the time to say that. I really appreciate it.
When YouTube was new, a guy named JT Helms made that top one (Once Upon a Time in the West cut to Arcade Fire) and when Bruce Springsteen was asked if he liked anything on YouTube, he said that. And it made me happy because it was my favorite too. And I thought we were on the cusp of something like a new art form.
I still think that. I'd like to see short films shot to music as well.
I'm a huge believer in this. It's something we need to do more, in our industry, and everywhere, honestly.
When I moved back to the Bay Area after having lived in the south of France for years, one of the first things I did was set up a sort of "salon" of people I found interesting in the space I liked -- and it worked like a charm. We met once a month for the entire time I was there, with eventually the coolest collection of people. All it took was setting the calendar date, inviting people, and prompting good questions to discuss. Recommended.
When I was in high school I was a reckless driver, and with each narrow escape, I became more confident and certain that I was in control and a bad outcome wouldn't happen, couldn't happen. Your comment was downvoted with the same hubris. Success is not a teacher.
HN is a mirror on the tech world -- which is dead. There is dearth of original ideas, generally. There are no cool startups, no investment, nothing happening.
I agree there. Back in 2009 I used to be excited by each new YC batch. There were fresh new ideas like Dropbox, AirBnB, Instacart. I feel like there were cool stories around those startups, like Drew losing a thumbdrive and coming up with the idea for DropBox, or the AirBnB marketing hack with the cereal, or Instacart's founder having beer delivered during the YC interview. I can't think of any recent YC startups that I've cared about. Maybe it just became saturated or maybe I just moved on to other things. I will say this, that the ideas I had 15 years ago needed a startup and investment. Now I'm able to build a lot of those ideas using the cloud and AI. It seems inevitable that some solo founder will soon be able to build a unicorn with no investment and no employees.
> It seems inevitable that some solo founder will soon be able to build a unicorn with no investment and no employees.
I know I'm no ivy grad or some hot shot, but this is my goal. Although I have a small team that I want to build up (they're fresh) because they're passionate about the problem space.
Exactly, and the formula in the past was less "[hot new tech] for [some industry]" back in the day, and more "[problem solved] for [target audience]". Maybe it is just the wording that I object to, and not the substance of the startup's solution to the problem?
I guess I don't care about today's "AI agent for the agricultural industry" as much as I cared about yesterday's "Tool to help farmers plan crop rotation".
"$Foo for $Bar" has always been a common formula for startups that are just getting going, including in YC. I think you guys are rewriting the past a bit here.
I have to defer, you're a lot closer to these things than I am, but I remember since the 90's the "this-for-that" analogies were around and became hot at some point, so that you were even encouraged by some to put it into that form for a while.
Where I see a difference is that it used to be about creating unique combinations and now it's more about deployment. "What about the known tool for this market?" It's banal. I can honestly say, it's not that I don't remember -- I do -- it's that I'm waiting and hoping to get excited about a startup again.
Yeah I remember the "X for Y" format being encouraged [1]. But X was always an example of a successful startup that was a leader in one category/audience, and you were saying you would be the X for a different category or audience.
PG's examples here were AirBnB as the "Ebay for space" or Viaweb as "the Microsoft Word of Ecommerce".
I'm not rewriting history when I say that the X has changed from a representative example of a successful company to a lazy broad technology like "AI agent for insurance" or "AI native recruiting". Here is a current YC batch startup: Manicule - AI Native Developer Relations. I have no Idea what that is. Does it talk to devs using my product like in a chatbot? Does it help them write code using AI? If they said "HubSpot for developer content" or "Vercel for developer relations" I would get it right away. But better than the X for Y formula would be just to describe the startup: we provide an AI-native developer relations team that owns documentation and technical content end-to-end so you don't have to hire someone for $300k.
Correct $Foo for $Bar was common back then but I made the subtle distinction between "TikTok for Math Tutors" ([solution] for [audience served]) where naming a startup in a different vertical is a shortcut for the solution, and what we see now which is "AI agents for Banking" ([technology] for [industry]) where naming the technology doesn't make it clear what the problem or solution is, and the industry doesn't necessarily say who has the problem or needs the solution.
And yet, it's not unusual that a poorly written book gets a decent movie adaptation. Sometimes it's not even a good plot OR well written, sometimes a book is just popular and the execs cash in on its popularity.
I'm thinking things like Da Vinci Code, 50 shades, Twilight, neither of which (the books) are particularly good or tasteful or whatever, but they were very popular, appealing to people who normally don't read books.
You're definitely looking for something other than the writing and even the plot. For example, the novel "The Firm" had a ridiculous ending but they fixed it for the screenplay.
I dropped of a book to this guy that I had just finished called "The Hotel on the Roof of the World," and he later told me that they optioned the author. Unfortunately the film never got made, but if you read it you'll see it has the bones of a really nice film.
How did he get that job? I imagine you have to prove you have good "taste" for what makes a good movie... I imagine some difference from what makes a good book
I think it was a combination of right place/right time, knowing everything about film-making (and you're right, what makes a good adaptation) and was just a naturally cool, interesting guy, so that everyone who met him just liked him.
It didn't last forever. The last time I saw him was one of those wild random coincidences. I was visiting Cannes during the festival (as a tourist) and ran into him on the Croisette. We went for coffee and he told me that he had become a television producer.
Exactly this. They're a necessary evil and they require constant vigilance to minimize the "make what you measure" effect.
The original author's point is interesting, seeing rules as the constraints that, in one sense, spur creativity, give life. The reason the trumpet is the instrument of jazz isn't in spite of it having merely three valves, but because of it.
But it should be remembered as returning to an earlier technique. For example, one of the two or three greatest directors to ever live, Abbas Kiarostami, has a film called Where is the Friend's House (1987) which is pure -- and pure magic.
reply