The Economist Interviews Sony Pictures CEO, Michael Lynton, And What We Think About It

If you don't read it or check out their site every once in a while, I'm sure you're still aware of magazine called The Economist. I don't subscribe to it or anything, but I do peruse the site and download a podcast or two, every now and then. If you're interested in what The Economist is all about, it's a weekly news magazine that's done out of London. It's almost more like a newspaper, but it's got a glossy front, so I call that a magazine. They claim that it's "not a chronicle of economics". No, not even... The say they aim "to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress". Well, I'm not sure what that all means or if it's actually a complete sentence, but it hasn't kept me away from the content they produce. Now, what I really like about them is that every once in a while, they come up with something that ties all my worlds together. This interview with Michael Lynton, the current Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment is one such thing. It's about 15 minutes long and I've embedded it below, it's a great interview. Grab a coffee, sit back, and give it a watch. I have some thoughts on what he says below...



One of the most interesting things about this interview is how he looks at "Paranormal Activity" and low-budget films as 'phenomenon' and not a business model. I have to say, I both agree and disagree. Most certainly, "Paranormal Activity" was a phenomenon, and so was "Blair Witch", but there is a common thread between the two - they're low-budget horror. I guess studios can't see it, or maybe I'm just stupid, but I think horror lends itself so well to low-budget filmmaking, that an extremely well done low-budget horror film will always have the ability to break into the mainstream. Not only that, there's SO many low-budget horror films out there that are good, and COULD make a profit (but won't break through to the mainstream or move the needle for a company like Sony Pictures) that a small, niche company could consistently turn a profit by churning them out and then properly marketing and distributing them. That, my indie friends, IS a business model. It's just one that Sony wouldn't be interested in.

The other interesting point he makes is about piracy... There's obviously a dark side to piracy. More so, it's mostly a dark side, but there IS a good side that studios don't see. On one level, torrent sites are no different than a DVR. I download TV shows that I miss all the time. Hell, I'll download an entire season of something to get caught up. I don't see that as bad... why? Because people do that all the time, legally, with their DVR's and all I'm doing is getting caught up, so I can watch your programming at its regular time - and then you can show me your ads. It's called time-shifting and it's a problem that the networks and studios are going to have to deal with. I've also argued MANY times that the torrent sites and file sharing is GREAT for indie film. No one wants to distribute your film? Don't know how to get it out there and drum up interest? Well, put it out there for free. If it's good, people will spread the word, interest will build, then you'll be able to get screenings, distributors will come knocking and, all of a sudden, your film's a success. "Ink", which just came out, is a classic example of how that can work. Is it good for the studios? No, they have nothing to gain from it. Good for the indies? Absolutely...

Whatever side of the argument you're on, in the end, it's just always good to be up to date and understand how the studio system works. We all love our indie film and we're more than happy to toil away it, but... if the studio's came knocking, you know you'd answer the door. So, you better understand what makes them tick...

Have a great weekend, see you next week!