5 ms·

To me, it seems like Hollywood is betting everything on 3D movies in the fantasy/superhero/werewolf/supernatural abilities/animated/zombie genre(s). That's rou

by flexie 10y ago

To me, it seems like Hollywood is betting everything on 3D movies in the fantasy/superhero/werewolf/supernatural abilities/animated/zombie genre(s). That's roughly 3/4 of what the three cinema chains in my city show. That leaves some 25 percent to the remotely realistic movies - the ones with characters and stories that could be true, at least in a distant future. There are nights where the only movies the cinemas show, are fantastic ones. Where the only cinema experience would involve wearing 3D glasses and watching childish characters save the world. Personally, I am fine with the establishment taking some beating. But I sure hope there will be more than just a handful of providers of content. Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, Amazon. That's not nearly enough.

wyldfire 10y ago
The landscape of video entertainment is being reshaped. Over the last two or three decades, content production has gotten much cheaper, easier and faster. In the last decade or so, content distribution has gotten cheaper, easier and faster. As a result, what we've called "television" is now a place where long-form dramatic stories can unfold. Since it's more affordable to produce, content which can appeal to smaller audiences can be created and marketed to those smaller audiences. Cinema is where the short-story of the video world now exists. While content distribution is easier, cinema is constrained by a finite number of theaters. Financing a motion picture is extremely conservative: if you don't have an established audience, you will have trouble getting funded. So now we see mostly adaptations, sequels, nostalgia-fests. I wouldn't say that a story has to have "stories that could be true" in order to be compelling and moving art. But the most compelling stories certainly tend to be set in the present with non-supernatural characters. > handful of providers of content. Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, Amazon. That's not nearly enough. It seems like we're seeing a significant direct investment from content distributors directly into content production. I agree that it could be a bit of an oligopoly, but the fact that it's "easy" to make a content distribution enterprise (relative to how it was in 1910-2000) means that we have more entertainment choices now than ever before.
- bhalperin 10y ago
  Know any good longreads on this?
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    Sorry, I don't.
stinkytaco 10y ago
> Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, Amazon. That's not nearly enough. Except I don't want to pay for another service. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon and one of the reasons streaming was appealing is that it was different from cable. If we multiply streaming services, pretty soon I'm paying $5/month here and $10/month there and much of that for one thing I'd like to see on that service. I'd like to see production and distribution separated, though I recognize that's probably a pipe dream.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  1. Is this not what cable subscribers always wanted? 2. You can just buy the show in most cases if a sub does not suit you. 3. The nickle and diming is real. I still do not spend as much, but its getting close. I feel the quality (compared preimum cable) is higher however.
- rhino369 10y ago
  So only pay for Netflix and just accept that you won't get everything available. There is already too much content to watch. Netflix and Amazon aren't magic. Sure there is some industry of scale by selling their wares internationally and some savings by letting ISPs distribute their content, but fundamentally TV hasn't become cheaper to make. If anything, Netflix and Amazon are spending more than average amounts of money on their new content. That results in beautiful shows, but it's not cheap. And those services don't use commercials, which means they'll be more expensive than cable content that does. You can get production and distribution separated, by paying per episode on itunes or amazon. But that is more expensive for heavy users because they can't bake in an unlimited plan. You can use these services to get the handful of shows you really want to watch but aren't on netflix or amazon.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    I suppose I meant that in response to "the establishment taking a beating". It's taking a beating, but leading to a new establishment that's much the same as the old one. Yes, I get a lot of content with Netflix, but since content is scattered and exclusive, I end up paying for much that I don't want across many services. Much like if I want to watch network "x" on cable, I also need to get network "y". To watch show "w", I need to get show "x" on network "y". Of course, I can buy show by show, but since a single season of a show costs as much as several months of a subscription, that shows there's much to be gained in "bundling" for providers and I suppose we'll need to accept that (like I said, it's a pipe dream). I think in a few years time this will all start to become more complicated. For a younger generation, the content is in independent products distributed on YouTube rather than professional productions on subscriptions networks. If the YouTube model becomes popular, TV will become cheaper to make and then costs shift to distribution.
pier25 10y ago
It makes sense. For most people entertainment is about escapism after all.
contravariant 10y ago
I don't see how any of the things you mention have anything to do with fantasy per se. Gimmicky movies about flat characters with a predictable plot aren't exactly limited to a particular genre.

by flexie 10y ago

wyldfire 10y ago

The landscape of video entertainment is being reshaped. Over the last two or three decades, content production has gotten much cheaper, easier and faster. In the last decade or so, content distribution has gotten cheaper, easier and faster. As a result, what we've called "television" is now a place where long-form dramatic stories can unfold. Since it's more affordable to produce, content which can appeal to smaller audiences can be created and marketed to those smaller audiences. Cinema is where the short-story of the video world now exists. While content distribution is easier, cinema is constrained by a finite number of theaters. Financing a motion picture is extremely conservative: if you don't have an established audience, you will have trouble getting funded. So now we see mostly adaptations, sequels, nostalgia-fests. I wouldn't say that a story has to have "stories that could be true" in order to be compelling and moving art. But the most compelling stories certainly tend to be set in the present with non-supernatural characters. > handful of providers of content. Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, Amazon. That's not nearly enough. It seems like we're seeing a significant direct investment from content distributors directly into content production. I agree that it could be a bit of an oligopoly, but the fact that it's "easy" to make a content distribution enterprise (relative to how it was in 1910-2000) means that we have more entertainment choices now than ever before.

bhalperin 10y ago
Know any good longreads on this?
- wyldfire 10y ago
  Sorry, I don't.

stinkytaco 10y ago

> Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, Amazon. That's not nearly enough. Except I don't want to pay for another service. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon and one of the reasons streaming was appealing is that it was different from cable. If we multiply streaming services, pretty soon I'm paying $5/month here and $10/month there and much of that for one thing I'd like to see on that service. I'd like to see production and distribution separated, though I recognize that's probably a pipe dream.

Neliquat 10y ago
1. Is this not what cable subscribers always wanted? 2. You can just buy the show in most cases if a sub does not suit you. 3. The nickle and diming is real. I still do not spend as much, but its getting close. I feel the quality (compared preimum cable) is higher however.
rhino369 10y ago
So only pay for Netflix and just accept that you won't get everything available. There is already too much content to watch. Netflix and Amazon aren't magic. Sure there is some industry of scale by selling their wares internationally and some savings by letting ISPs distribute their content, but fundamentally TV hasn't become cheaper to make. If anything, Netflix and Amazon are spending more than average amounts of money on their new content. That results in beautiful shows, but it's not cheap. And those services don't use commercials, which means they'll be more expensive than cable content that does. You can get production and distribution separated, by paying per episode on itunes or amazon. But that is more expensive for heavy users because they can't bake in an unlimited plan. You can use these services to get the handful of shows you really want to watch but aren't on netflix or amazon.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I suppose I meant that in response to "the establishment taking a beating". It's taking a beating, but leading to a new establishment that's much the same as the old one. Yes, I get a lot of content with Netflix, but since content is scattered and exclusive, I end up paying for much that I don't want across many services. Much like if I want to watch network "x" on cable, I also need to get network "y". To watch show "w", I need to get show "x" on network "y". Of course, I can buy show by show, but since a single season of a show costs as much as several months of a subscription, that shows there's much to be gained in "bundling" for providers and I suppose we'll need to accept that (like I said, it's a pipe dream). I think in a few years time this will all start to become more complicated. For a younger generation, the content is in independent products distributed on YouTube rather than professional productions on subscriptions networks. If the YouTube model becomes popular, TV will become cheaper to make and then costs shift to distribution.

pier25 10y ago

It makes sense. For most people entertainment is about escapism after all.

contravariant 10y ago

I don't see how any of the things you mention have anything to do with fantasy per se. Gimmicky movies about flat characters with a predictable plot aren't exactly limited to a particular genre.