5 ms·

> Everyone here actively despises the local film industry. We do not need to inflict Dutch television on the world. Thats torture. I don't understand. Do the D

> Everyone here actively despises the local film industry. We do not need to inflict Dutch television on the world. Thats torture. I don't understand. Do the Dutch hate their own programmes? Why would they bother making shows they don't want to watch? > if your culture is so great France and Germany you wouldn't need these subsidies. I'm not sure they need them, just that it helps promote it. These shows might not necessarily be record-smashing-popular, but local film/TV from other countries routinely makes it's way to the US with sizable audiences (despite the US drowning in it's own media). Even childrens shows often have broad appeal. (as just a few examples, see 'Degrassi' from Canada, 'PJ Masks' and 'Miraculous' from France, 'Sarah and Duck' from Britain, 'Octonauts' from Ireland). Some of those are funded in part from "cultural quotas" (various implementations of similar ideas) such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content . But it doesn't mean they aren't popular or good on their own.

kodablah 8y ago
> I don't understand. Do the Dutch hate their own programmes? Why would they bother making shows they don't want to watch? Same reason any culture creates art, by choice. Not all art has to be accepted (or forced) and many times the value to its creator and/or a small subset of patrons is enough to justify it. >> if your culture is so great France and Germany you wouldn't need these subsidies. Netflix is not a public broadcaster. > I'm not sure they need them, just that it helps promote it I added more context to the original quote. I assume the original poster didn't mean "subsidies" as financial assistance, but instead misused the word to mean restrictions on foreign content. I think most agree grants for the arts have value due to some forms of art being unsustainable on their own.
- grimskin 8y ago
  > I assume the original poster didn't mean "subsidies" as financial assistance I, obviously, have no idea what original poster meant but forcing streaming services to buy local titles is, basically, financial assistance.
jacquesm 8y ago
> Do the Dutch hate their own programmes? Yep. > Why would they bother making shows they don't want to watch? Subsidies.

kodablah 8y ago

> I don't understand. Do the Dutch hate their own programmes? Why would they bother making shows they don't want to watch? Same reason any culture creates art, by choice. Not all art has to be accepted (or forced) and many times the value to its creator and/or a small subset of patrons is enough to justify it. >> if your culture is so great France and Germany you wouldn't need these subsidies. Netflix is not a public broadcaster. > I'm not sure they need them, just that it helps promote it I added more context to the original quote. I assume the original poster didn't mean "subsidies" as financial assistance, but instead misused the word to mean restrictions on foreign content. I think most agree grants for the arts have value due to some forms of art being unsustainable on their own.

grimskin 8y ago
> I assume the original poster didn't mean "subsidies" as financial assistance I, obviously, have no idea what original poster meant but forcing streaming services to buy local titles is, basically, financial assistance.

jacquesm 8y ago

> Do the Dutch hate their own programmes? Yep. > Why would they bother making shows they don't want to watch? Subsidies.