Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- A good question to ask is why did Hollywood, as a centralized thing, ever exist in the first place?
Cameras and equipment was expensive and not terribly mobile. Having a few studios and lots with the cameras and lights and rigs and so on gave you a huge advantage. From that a lot of the industry moved to an area, so it also had the network effect. People start getting lazy and want to commute to their latest project, so the whole #FilmInLA is compelling.
That's disappearing. Rapidly. The idea that one place is where movies are made is comically obsolete.
Talent is around the globe. Handheld cameras provide extraordinary quality and can work off the lighting of a candle.
And honestly, Los Angeles is a stunningly boring city. And if the movie is invariably some navel gazing about it by its residents (always, always featuring long shots of people on highways or driving around, because every LA film has to jerkoff about driving), why should a film be filmed there? I'd infinitely prefer London, Paris, Toronto, Miami, Vancouver, Berlin, NYC, Chicago, rural areas, Rome, and so on.
The world would be a better place if this sort of backwards, historic centralization was obliterated.
by llm_nerd - Video game industry analysts are predicting the same is going to happen to their (my) industry. Contract out more and more work to SEA/China/Poland et.al. It's extra painful because games are relatively cheap to localize (fantasy is universal, it's just translating text and words), so studios based in cheaper parts of the world already have an advantage and they have access to the west markets. Global competition can be brutal.by YesBox
- As an aside, there are large portions of the US where coastal folks dont want to live. These places are 2-4x cheaper (compared to costal game industry hubs) and could be cost competitive.. but it's probably not going to happen.by YesBox
- > For a major blockbuster, tax incentives equate to tens of millions of dollars, freeing up money for name-brand actors, elaborate set pieces, and unremarkable CGI effects.
Love the dig at the end.
by vrosas - To paraphrase Syndrome [0]: When everything is a explosion, then nothing will be an explosion.
[0] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Incredibles_charac...
- When corporations grow to a certain size, they become banks.
The same thing kind of happens to industries when they get dominated by a few large players. The large players are banks. The core of the industry becomes a form of finance.
Hollywood is now the financial capital of the film industry, not where films are made. Hollywood finances films.
by api - Years ago I learned that GM’s financial arm made more money than the car company. The other day I also read that airlines make more money from selling points than from flying people.
Crazy world.
by DenisM - With a very few exceptions, I don’t watch anything made past 2016. Not sure what happened in Hollywood then, but it’s just seems that they are constantly making some sort of public service messages that they need to pay me to watch. Not the other way around. That goes even if I agree with some of the messages.by g42gregory
- I actually view 2012-2020 as peak “PSA messaging” era more, which a lot of people would probably coincide with the liberal optimism from Obama and course-correcting anxiety of Trump term 1. I think since covid Hollywood has “toned it down”, because the US has by and large moved on from that social phenomenon.
I’ve been in Los Angeles for over a decade, and I disagree with the premise that Hollywood has some overarching plan to shape how we think— more people watch TikToks than movies and network TV. I view Hollywood, and the creators/writers/producers of films themselves, moreso holding up a mirror reflecting the current circumstances we’re in rather than manufacturing it out of nowhere.
by bradchris - There’s definitely didactic art made post 2016, but I wouldn’t write everything off beyond that date forever. Online review aggregators are less reliable for recent movies, so you might want to find individuals that you trust for >2016 recs, instead of algorithmic scores.by biophysboy
- Films having a moral lesson for the audience is a weird thing to criticize when it's been done since time immortal—it's exceptional when a story doesn't have one. The fact that your cutoff is 2016 I think says more about what specific messages you're sensitive to rather than media containing more of them. I think cultural context is a big factor as well because you don't necessarily notice or react as strongly emotionally to what would have been considered controversial or on the nose at the time.
So like I think your experience is valid, and you're definitely noticing a real thing but I think it's better explained by you having more media literacy for contemporary topics and so you see the mirror being held up by these works way more obviously. Like I think about post 9/11 beginning of the Iraq war films and they're not even a little bit subtle.
by Spivak - It was Netflix. Only the most milquetoast pablum gets made over there and it’s all shot with the same cameras and settings and it all looks the same and every idea is ripped from either an HBO show if it’s a series, or an older film if it’s a film. They sprayed Marvel content everywhere to my dismay, I can’t think of a less interesting universe or setting than “gritty version of reality except with superheroes”. Netflix hasn’t made a single TV show or film worth watching.
It really killed filmmaking, I’ve only seen ~5 movies released since 2016: Parasite, Backrooms, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Get Out, Don’t Look Up. I watch plenty of movies, there are more great movies from the 1940s to 2010s than I’ll ever have time to watch. I hope interesting movies start being made again.
Hollywood also went into sequel overdrive and released very few original properties and milked X-men, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. That didn’t help.
- I absolutely don’t want to imply there’s any one reason that he led us to where we are. This comment isn’t to try to undercut or malign some great data and investigation. But an article on this topic that literally does not include the word union in the entire text is not painting a full picture.
You can fairly point out that unions still exist in Georgia, and that the UK and other European locations have robust worker protections - this isn’t a situation of union work vs. non-union work. But the extent to which unions in California have a stranglehold on the movie industry is absolutely part of the story here.
- Ok, what part then?by jayd16
- Given that New Zealand actually changed its laws to prevent unionisation in order to ensure The Hobbit was made there, I think unions are definitely a factor.
I have no idea how strong the unions related to film are in the UK. It varies a lot between industries.
by graemep - The cost of housing is probably the #1 reason and, in my opinion, California’s biggest problem.
California as a whole is still doing pretty well but high housing cost is slowly pulling out the rug from under the state.
But the California legislature does know that and has forced many cities to start building housing but there is still a lot work still in flight.
by harrall - The flood of immigrants into California inevitably pushes up housing prices.by WalterBright
- Cities don't need ever-increasing populations to thrive.by frollogaston
- I don't think you can argue that California is significantly worse off in terms of housing than London, which is where a large number of productions go due to tax incentives.by sparrc
- Los Angeles has mountains/water on all sides so it can't grow in size.
It also utilizes the space extremely inefficiently. Single level single family houses everywhere and the rest is parking space. The few parks are difficult to access by kids arriving by foot/bike.
This is what results in the high rent: Can't grow supply and don't use existing land efficiently.
Density: LA = 8,210/sq mi, Lisbon = 17,040/sq mi, Paris = 10,100/sq mi, Amsterdam = 13,670/sq mi, Copenhagen = 19,195/sq mi. (from wikipedia)
Look at Google Street maps: LA is a hellscape of concrete and asfalt. Lisbon and Amsterdam are much nicer and greener and they stil have higer density.
by silvestrov - I'd say it is the size of the population, far far too many people try to make it in Los Angeles without any specialized educations, so the car washers have 40 people that dry your windows, and the wait staff jobs are exponentially Orwellian. When I finally moved away, I was living over an hour away from Santa Monica, paying $4K a month for rent, and the entire neighborhood lights up every night like a gangsters' paradise. Street racing, graffiti everywhere, sidewalk food vendors everywhere, the local high school kids are covered in tattoos, including their faces. No thank you.by bsenftner
- >"If this has all drifted into bummertown, it’s because many of Hollywood’s problems can be traced back to a single economic theory of everything: the rent is too damn high. From there, everything else starts to unravel."
It's really understated just how much this is behind absolutely everything today. The only reason it became normal for SV software companies to pay 100k+ salaries to interns in the 2010s is because half of that had to be handed over to a landlord every month just to have people physically able to show up to your office. This is why Europe and Asia have completely dominated production of all the great AAA games over the last decade; when creative people can afford to live somewhere, all of the sudden you have the resources to truly focus on a product.
by ramesh31 - > It's really understated just how much this is behind absolutely everything today. The only reason it became normal for SV software companies to pay 100k+ salaries to interns in the 2010s is because half of that had to be handed over to a landlord every month just to have people physically able to show up to your office.
Well, it became normal because there were people (sometimes, but not always, the same people with significant holdings in the software companies) who held a lot of real estate and knew if they wanted that real estate to be more valuable, they'd need to force people to use it, meaning show up to work every day.
SV is the failure it is today because it concentrated all of the talent in one place needlessly. Something the rest of the country explicitly worked to not see happen.
by lenerdenator - That rent is simply a tax (tribute) paid from people (peasants) to property owners (lords.) It's why people who own capital are the wealthiest that they've ever been in history despite producing nothing and increasingly being of severely subnormal intelligence.
The distraction is that a lot of people think that they are property owners who are not. The bank owns your property, you're a tax farmer. The people who own the bank are your bosses. They are granted the right by the state to loan you the money to buy an overvalued property, without actually having the money to loan you, and on the condition that the property that you bought is theirs if you miss a repayment on the money that they loaned you that that they didn't have.
This is also why building more housing does not work in the long term to lower rents. We have a surplus of housing, just like we have a surplus of commercial property. But we have arbitrarily changed expectations for the margins of finance capital. The tax farmers (most landlords) are a distraction so that their tiny margins can be pointed at - because the money was made from the property when they purchased it. Now they're behind the 8-ball trying to make the payments, until they lose their job to a better tax farmer.
If you build 9000 shitty units at the site of a grocery store, you can raise all of the rents around them because the 9000 shitty units are now an escape valve against displacement and dislocation. The next step is to raise the rents on the 9000 shitty units, by any means necessary, even if it means keeping half of them empty for a decade, and using them to write off your taxes on other properties you own.
The fact that there's no grocery store and no parking for 9000 units? Your problem.
YIMBY activism is entirely financed by these people, which is why it's so loud.
by pessimizer - Also, a lot of real estate is owned by the Hollywood investors or their close friends, so this is a circular economy where they get rich, then buy property in that place and get even richer with real estate increasing in value. The same thing happened in Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and many other places.by coliveira
- by akurilin
- An interesting read but also feels like the rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic given the forthcoming disruption from generative AI in this industry.
I spent some time last month with a relative in the industry (camera operator and producer) and he already uses some very sophisticated AI to map out scenes and shots in gen ai full video before they shoot IRL. It's mostly a cost saving exercise as well as occasionally helping to improve the quality of the deliverable.
He is totally expecting that the next shift will be that gen ai video will become good enough to be considered the master (ie no need to film) and he is already transferring his skills as a camera operator into prompting and AI assisted scene design.
He knows that many different disciplines he works with will all compete for that prompting work and there obviously won't be enough work for everybody to go around.
The first part of this is using human actors in front of 360 video stages like The Volume [0] to display the sets (which was pioneered by The Mandalorian) and then ultimately the actors themselves will be AI rendered.
And at this point it doesn't matter where this is filmed.
I grew up close by to Pinewood Studios 30+years ago - I can't imagine them putting a lot more investment and development into that lot given where this is all going.
by dotBen - It's not a forthcoming disruption. They've been using "AI" for various visual effects tasks for a long time already.
If something is not being done using AI now, it's because the results are poor, not because of some sort of reluctance to embrace it.
by nitwit005 - > He is totally expecting that the next shift will be that gen ai video will become good enough to be considered the master (ie no need to film) and he is already transferring his skills as a camera operator into prompting and AI assisted scene design.
Yes. Asian drama is already there.[1] The first AI-generated Asian vertical-format drama was released in November 2025. Now, about 400 new ones are released each day. The tools are online, and you can sign up for a few dollars a month.
Quality varies widely. The visuals are now quite good, but chatbots used to generate screenplays still have trouble holding the plot together. Much of this stuff looks like fan fiction authors are at the controls. When someone competent is driving, the results are quite good. Cost is about 10% of live action.
Hollywood probably has less than three years to live.
[1] https://pinedrama.com/blog/paradigm-shift-ai-short-drama-rev...
by Animats - People want to see expensive effort in movies they have to buy tickets to see and AI is the opposite of effort.by UltraSane