4 ms·

> Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't find any Netflix films among them. Films, maybe not. But House of Cards, Orange is

> Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't find any Netflix films among them. Films, maybe not. But House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Stranger Things, Black Mirror and The Crown have just as much cultural significance as Hollywood movies. And if we expand to HBO, then we can call in Game of Thrones, which has had far more cultural impact than La La Land. This is related to a cousin comment of mine: films are no longer the most important cultural medium. Long-form shows with high production values are. It's also worth noting that Icarus, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, is from Netflix.

gamblor956 9y ago
Right, and I am differentiating films from TV/shows because they're completely different markets. However, with respect to Icarus, it was not produced by Netflix; only distributed by it. Hollywood studios also bid on the distribution rights but Netfix simply outbid them. (Per reports, it was the most ever paid for a documentary.) Similarly, both Beasts of No Nation and Mudbound, the only two well-regarded films in Netflix' lineup, were both produced by indie studios. Netflix simply outbid Hollywood studios for the distribution rights. Netflix has never actually made a good movie on its own. (Though in Netflix' defense on my thesis about the crap quality of their movies, Cloverfield Paradox was a Paramount production; Paramount got the better end of the deal.)
- scott_s 9y ago
  I don't differentiate long-form shows (like House of Cards or Game of Thrones) from movies because I think they hold the same place in culture. They pull in A-list actors, directors and writers. I don't think they are different markets because of that. For example, most movie studios would not release a fantasy movie (I'm including Star Wars in that) the same weekend the final episode of Game of Thrones airs. People only have so much time and head-space for the things they watch.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    I would disagree about the cultural significance of TV shows and movies. They occupy very different places in culture. TV shows aren't just long-form narratives; people develop relationships with the show and its characters similar to the relationships they develop with friends they see regularly and learn about over time. People's experiences with the show differ based on whether they started watching from when it first aired or binged it after the end of a season. Moreover, shows change, often as a result of the cultural response to the show or viewership (see, e.g., Walking Dead's latest season, L&O SVU, daytime soaps). Movies are essentially one-time events and distinct unalterable shared experiences They don't change (directors' cuts notwithstanding). The cultural response to the movie may change over time, but the movie itself doesn't. (For example, Gone with the Wind is the same movie it's always been, but people now view its depiction of minority characters far less favorably.)
    - scott_s 9y ago
      Movies have sequels - the Fast and Furious franchise is built on the same audience-character relationship development that you attribute to shows. And there are one-off long-form shows that are very unlikely to have sequels (such as Godless) which are more like 10 hour movies.

gamblor956 9y ago

Right, and I am differentiating films from TV/shows because they're completely different markets. However, with respect to Icarus, it was not produced by Netflix; only distributed by it. Hollywood studios also bid on the distribution rights but Netfix simply outbid them. (Per reports, it was the most ever paid for a documentary.) Similarly, both Beasts of No Nation and Mudbound, the only two well-regarded films in Netflix' lineup, were both produced by indie studios. Netflix simply outbid Hollywood studios for the distribution rights. Netflix has never actually made a good movie on its own. (Though in Netflix' defense on my thesis about the crap quality of their movies, Cloverfield Paradox was a Paramount production; Paramount got the better end of the deal.)

scott_s 9y ago
I don't differentiate long-form shows (like House of Cards or Game of Thrones) from movies because I think they hold the same place in culture. They pull in A-list actors, directors and writers. I don't think they are different markets because of that. For example, most movie studios would not release a fantasy movie (I'm including Star Wars in that) the same weekend the final episode of Game of Thrones airs. People only have so much time and head-space for the things they watch.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  I would disagree about the cultural significance of TV shows and movies. They occupy very different places in culture. TV shows aren't just long-form narratives; people develop relationships with the show and its characters similar to the relationships they develop with friends they see regularly and learn about over time. People's experiences with the show differ based on whether they started watching from when it first aired or binged it after the end of a season. Moreover, shows change, often as a result of the cultural response to the show or viewership (see, e.g., Walking Dead's latest season, L&O SVU, daytime soaps). Movies are essentially one-time events and distinct unalterable shared experiences They don't change (directors' cuts notwithstanding). The cultural response to the movie may change over time, but the movie itself doesn't. (For example, Gone with the Wind is the same movie it's always been, but people now view its depiction of minority characters far less favorably.)
  - scott_s 9y ago
    Movies have sequels - the Fast and Furious franchise is built on the same audience-character relationship development that you attribute to shows. And there are one-off long-form shows that are very unlikely to have sequels (such as Godless) which are more like 10 hour movies.