14 ms·

The disappearance of the hit-driven business model

144 points by Flatcircle 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago
I think something similar happened to tech startups, in between the 1990's and 2020's: https://app.pressnt.net/post/77/ https://app.pressnt.net/post/77/ (but I had been blaming interest rates, not saturation — I guess if rates continue to return to normal, we'll get a chance to see how much of each factor was important, by whether or not hit-driven software development returns)
Jensson 4y ago
Yet another example where mass production replaces craftsmen. Why try to find brilliant people to make something new when you can just churn out another super hero movie? You see it everywhere, creative people creates things, then a pattern is discovered and after that businesses just starts repeating that pattern and stops caring about creativity.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  The demand to be entertained outstrips supply of novel ideas.
  - ip26 4y ago
    Or, perhaps only our ability to locate good novel ideas.
    - nottorp 4y ago
      Only our courage to implement those novel ideas.
dmix 4y ago
> Little did I know, I was searching for an answer to a much larger question. The artists/entrepreneurs directly dedicating their lives, sacrificing day-to-day, and taking real risks within the larger industry typically tend to be the ones with the best insights into recent changes. These are the voices you hear early on, then later on when smaller Big Cos fails or stocks drop after commiting to [old out-of-date but safe business model] you hear the same explanations (that were surely obvious 5-10yrs ago if people listened!). These things are rarely all-bad. It's just different. Ultimately Amazon Prime and Netflix teams still want good content. Good always sells, even with shitty low-budget marketing. So they'll eventually adapt and develop models that select for quality, without sacrificing the new model of betting on 1000 creative people instead of 10 safe ones.
- TylerE 4y ago
  It feels like Netflix(especially) isn’t betting on a bunch of creative people but rather on too many focus groups.
  - dmix 4y ago
    True, you often see producers get promoted on movie trailers/ads because they sometimes are the ones organizing the talent for the movie (directors/scripts/money etc). So if Netflix/et al turn a smaller group of talented producers into a central corporate factory floor then naturally talent and script spotting also becomes systematized. And corporations love making safe bets with things like focus groups. Who knows... maybe eventually it's still a win given the influx of capital being thrown against the wall by these big streaming services. Maybe the analytics on views-to-completion will weed out the crap like TikTok does scary well.
    - andirk 4y ago
      Same goes with music. Since maybe the late 1990's, the safe bet has been the way to go for labels. No more risking an alternative artist that doesn't check the right boxes. Stick with a repeat of what worked before with a small twist to make spoon-fed ears feel like it's a new thing (yes, the ears are fed via spoon).
      - dmix 4y ago
        That's true for the 1990s, but I still think this is different. The Netflix model is much higher paced, much larger amounts of capital, and far higher numbers of 'artists'. What we're seeing is the higher end Netflix bets being corporate garbage, the way boy bands were. But we're also seeing tons of low-end budget "Netflix movie" garbage that got made merely to fill the queues. That's something that major music labels never did in the 1990s at this scale. The side effect of that much money being thrown around a quanity > quality is that it also happens to filter down into lots of quality filmmakers. So the problem is no longer bets/money but how to surface quality. Because I personally think they will still benefit from sourcing quality in the long run once they mature their algorithms.
monero-xmr 4y ago
If you can create some valuable IP as part of a hit, like Hello Kitty, The Simpsons, Game of Thrones, etc. you can get a very reliable revenue stream. Licensing is a great business model.
ido 4y ago
In some way this seems like a message from the future of the games industry (with Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc pushing their game subscription services but a few years behind TV streaming)… So far I was surprised by how much Amazon and Google have blundered in this space (despite spending 100s of millions $). Netflix seem to be going in a better direction (time will tell) and Apple are focusing on the family friendly/casual niche (and I think doing ok there). MS we’re early movers in this space (with GamePass) and seem to be doing well.
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  This already happened, maybe even before the movie industry. There are plenty of long running and very profitable online games that fly under the radar of most AAA gamers, and even AAA games are designed for longterm 'player engagement' for quite some time now. When you look at Steam Charts, it's mostly 'evergreen' games that make up the top group: https://steamcharts.com/ https://steamcharts.com/
  - ido 4y ago
    Right, but the wholesale massive move of the entire industry to subscription services (offering access to X games for a fixed monthly cost) is happening in movies a few years before games. What you're talking about are single games offering a subscription which is a step in that direction, but not quite the same (you're still paying for each individual game - and usually to the developer of that game - not to a distribution company to provide you an entire growing catalogue of games).
    - cdogl 4y ago
      There hasn’t been a “wholesale massive move of the entire” games industry to subscription services. Game Pass is big, but the market is gigantic and diverse.
      - ido 4y ago
        Right, that's what I was saying. At least not yet...
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
This will sound incredibly naive, but ... just make movies with a smaller budget. The thing is FX tools are getting cheaper, distribution is cheaper, the production tools are cheaper. That leaves ... labor. What may really be dead is the megastar, unless that megastar brings the bacon (for example, Tom Cruise is basically a producer for the films he stars in, but then again he has the money of dozens of former "hits" in the old model). But then again, we are in the golden age of television. Movies might be suffering, perhaps because television is so much better. Television has the budget and FX is cheap enough that the OMG effects are no longer the monopoly of the film business. And the article fails to address the shocking lack of good new IP and movies that are coming out of the film industry before the sea change of the subscription services. I personally point to the Matrix as the last time a good movie that wasn't just a sequel or a template or a remake was made. Yeah, uh, that was 1999. Funny writing that date, because it almost sounds like a date from the 1800s. There used to be multiple tentpole event movies every year before then, iconic movies. What changed? Is there LESS money available now with mass release? Is it the lack of DVD revenue? China revenue means less creativity to offend The Central Party? And what is a producer ultimately? The go between the financing and the "real" creatives. Is the guy really just complaining that his role in the modern pipeline is reduced, the financing more distributed and available from more sources, so they are less valuable? D&D from Game of Thrones were getting crazy amounts of credit for the series, but the pipeline of content ran out and suddenly they didn't look like geniuses anymore.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  > Yeah, uh, that was 1999 I’d say Interstellar was a great and new movie in 2014. Also, the last movie I’ve seen ;)
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    I figure 1962 was Peak Hollywood.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Golden age of TV? Surely you jest!
rendall 4y ago
I feel that this article describes a transitional period, not a permanent state. Streaming services are relatively new, and new technology always introduces instability before everything settles into a new normal that looks somewhat like the old normal. > If the company spends time and energy on only certain audiences, the numbers fall, and that company becomes a niche; however, subscription services cannot only cater to niches, they must try to be everything to all people, which places more value on the content platform and its library than the quality of each individual piece of content. Netflix's revenue stream fell recently. I have seen analysis that this was in part due to its "quantity over quality" model. My personal opinion is that finding quality programming in Netflix is difficult, and when I cut any streaming services from my monthly budget, Netflix will be the first to go. Contrast Netflix with HBOMax and Disney+, each of which have consistently incredible quality. It may be wishful thinking, but I suspect that this transitional period will last perhaps a few more years, and then the streaming consumer will be more willing to pay a premium for true quality, in turn driving a new hit-driven normal. > subscription services cannot only cater to niches, they must try to be everything to all people There are niche streaming services. Shudder for horror, MUBI for foreign and art films, Nobudge for first-timer and low budget films. I'm certain there are or will be others.
- danjac 4y ago
  I wonder how much of this is due to Netflix' "algorithm" punishing promising new shows by cancelling them after season 1, or letting shows drag on way past their sell by date (Stranger Things anyone?). In the old days of network television, a new show might struggle in the ratings trying to gain its audience, but a producer might champion and protect it enough until it gains a footing. For example, Lucille Ball kept this weird little scifi show called Star Trek alive until it became the hit franchise that's still going to this day. The Netflix algorithm would have cancelled Star Trek after a season and it would have been forgotten. On the other hand, perhaps many shows got cancelled because a dumb producer just didn't get it, or there was behind-the-scenes politics where they fell out with a director or lead actor. But it seems overall that Netflix perhaps needs more of a human taste behind the scenes and less reliance on data-driven decision making.
  - 4y ago
abetusk 4y ago
The tenor of the post is more along the lines of "how can I adapt" rather than pining for the glory days, so that's nice, but I also have very little sympathy for this person. The movie market was like a fiefdom, much like the music industry 20 years ago, and now streaming and internet have democratized access and content creation. You don't get $20M budget at the cost of hundreds of other independent films? Yeah, sorry, boo-hoo. We're living in a golden age of TV. In the past decade there have been many in depth TV series that only a handful of movies dared to explore precisely because the industry was hits driven. More than that, I've seen some exceptional B-movie sci-fi movies on Netflix in the past 10 years as well. People who win at this type of game have the equivalent of survivorship bias. They don't realize how much is sacrificed to create their hit movie and how the industry contorts content to serve their distribution model.
- Seattle3503 4y ago
  > You don't get $20M budget at the cost of hundreds of other independent films? Yeah, sorry, boo-hoo. This is the part of the article I don't grasp. The article kept saying things like: > however, subscription services cannot only cater to niches, they must try to be everything to all people, which places more value on the content platform and its library than the quality of each individual piece of content. That seems like a more accurate description of the old model. A box office blockbuster film must be everything to everyone. A NYT bestseller must be be everything to everyone. The subscription model in both visual media and books has unlocked unexplored niches. There is tones of anime all over Netflix. I have read a bunch of "progression fantasy" on Kindle Unlimited, exemplified by the Cradle Series by Will Wight. This sort of media would never have survived under the old model, as it is too niche. Will Wight doesn't care about making NYT bestseller, he is focused on cultivating his 1000(0) followers.
  - rg111 4y ago
    What you say sounds good in theory. But, for profit-driven businesses like Amazon, the goal isn’t to barely make money, but it is to maximize the amount of money coming in. It was quite sad for me when "The OA" and "Mozart in the Jungle" were cancelled. It's not like these companies are okay making less money in some projects, and making more money in a few. They want to _maximize_ money from all projects. And niche shows are often cancelled.
theonlybutlet 4y ago
A different perspective, the players are now completely risk averse. The past few years they've been concentrating resources on fewer larger budget movies with a much greater chance of success. The likes of the Marvel MCU, Star Wars and other sequels and remakes. They've chosen safe formulaic stories with evidenced success and pumped large amounts into the marketing of these films. The initial success of these drowned out any prospect of a low budget hit and have killed off the mid tier movie (those that were just fine and perhaps eeked out a small profit). Commentators in the past have noted how this focus could kill off the industry. Now a triple whammy. Firstly, there's less current evidence to justify funding these smaller films, as a consequence of the past few years. Secondly, the popularity of the formulaic big hit is starting to wane and thirdly, streaming, a wild card, has introduced uncertainty and volatility into this business model.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Secondly, the popularity of the formulaic big hit is starting to wane It's the same problem as everywhere else: When people get too greedy, they ruin the show for everyone else. The amount of content that Disney pumps out in the MCU is too immense to follow up - the cinema movies, okay, but even then if you want to start fresh it's like two days worth of non-stop binge starting from the OG Iron Man... but forget about all the side content on Disney+. The amount of money customers can set aside for entertainment is shrinking: three years of covid have eradicated savings, inflation has skyrocketed, and the future is looking uncertain AF - so the first thing that gets cut is entertainment. "Cord cutting" has become so commonplace it's a meme, but cinemas or even Netflix (!) have been hit by people trimming their budgets, and it doesn't help either that maintaining Netflix, Disney+, HBO and whatever else has grown so expensive it exceeds your prior cable TV bill. So that means people will go and see one, maybe two MCU movies a year and that's it - no budget left over for anyone else.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > three years of covid have eradicated savings Saving went up because of the lockdowns. > The amount of content that Disney pumps out in the MCU is too immense to follow up - the cinema movies, okay I would diagnose a radically different problem - the MCU only has a lot of content measured in minutes of film. Measured in plot, there's almost nothing. I watched the 2016 film Doctor Strange. That was a huge mistake. I couldn't tell you anything about the film other than "Benedict Cumberbatch is in it" and "don't waste your time; there is no reason you'd ever want to see this". Ask me what happened, or indeed if anything happened, and I'll be stumped. It doesn't come as a surprise that with the decline of the idea that a movie should tell you a story, movies are getting less popular.
fbn79 4y ago
With the subscription model bit hits are still fundamental. They are "killer apps" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application) for selling the subscription. Think of "Stranger Things" or "Squid Game" for NETFLIX, "TOP GUN" for Paramount+ or "Star Wars" for Disney plus. Not in the business and I don't know how they reward this productions, but I think it would be fundamental for a platform to incentivize big hit productions and not just many low audience shows.
- Agraillo 4y ago
  Good point. That's probably why high-quality tv series emerged as a phenomenon. Once the TV producers tried making expensive, star-fronted, good-story series, they've got a new hit-driven ecosystem.
chx 4y ago
Based on box office numbers, where 2022 should've been the year of recovery, perhaps even surpassing pre-pandemic number as people surged back to the cinema... none of that happened. The numbers are down drastically, box office is 60% of the pre-pandemic times. This year doesn't look particularly promising either. One Avatar a recovery doesn't make. The blockbuster movie and the multiplex cinema created a self strengthening cycle but it's over. I think we will see entire chains going under and with them, the blockbuster will die too. It is indeed the time of the home theater. A family of four wants to go to the cinema, that's at least $100 if not $200 outright. Or they can watch Disney+. This is a no brainer.
- jasmer 4y ago
  Price. If they cut the ticket price dramatically, people would go to back to the theatre. Pricing structure for cinema is completely wrong.
  - HelloNurse 4y ago
    I've had a multiplex restructured with about 25% of the seats (replacing normal, comfortable seats with ridiculous motorized reclining armchairs) and now the films I care about are frequently sold out. Their "pricing structure" cares about removing booze at the bar, making soft drinks self-service to save some labor, replacing the arcade games and bookstore that made waiting for the movies pleasant before the pandemic with a huge empty atrium to save further labor, and so on.
    - jasmer 4y ago
      Ticket revenues to to the studio, popcorn to the theatre. Studios need to drop their pants and share revenues with theatres.
    - jeff_jefferson 4y ago
      I love the new screens with the reclining chairs. I've not been to the cinema much in the last 3 years (COVID plus children) but I only go to the cinema nearby that has the armchairs.
moomin 4y ago
There will be people who don't mourn the loss of highly-paid creatives, but bear in mind that what this person is describing affects absolutely everyone: the camera operator, the set designer, and most definitely the VFX people. Like music, the ability to make a good living has been absolutely squeezed out the industry and the power concentrated on the money men and those who control distribution.
rickdeckard 4y ago
> In this new model for storytelling, volume is more important than quality. If your goal is to gain and keep subscribers, the subscribers must feel they are important to the company. If the company spends time and energy on only certain audiences, the numbers fall, and that company becomes a niche I don't agree that volume is more important than quality, even if some layers of the industry may act like it is. I wouldn't invest time and money for a streaming service full of bad content. If a streaming service is a super market, I will not buy there if it doesn't meet my quality expectations, regardless how many (bad) products it has. But for sure: - If I can't do all my shopping in your supermarket but in the supermarket of others, I may rather go there instead. - If you want to sell me on your new yoghurt you decided to distribute, just putting it on the shelf of all the yoghurts may not be enough to create a blockbuster hit. You will need to reach me outside of the supermarket as well. - If you used to produce yoghurt and people flocked to your farm or small shop just to buy it, those times have likely changed, yes.
noduerme 4y ago
This is also just a lament that the distribution channels are once again vertically integrated with content production the way they were in the 1920s. That can also be fairly easily disrupted if one is willing to produce through unique channels at actual personal financial risk, isn't it?
jwmoz 4y ago
I'm just here to say I'm still annoyed Netflix cancelled The OA and now 1899.
- rg111 4y ago
  I am angry about The OA, too. 1899 is good, but not DarK-good. It's also a shame that Mozart in the Jungle was cancelled.
Roark66 4y ago
I know nothing about the business of making movies, but I have to say the quality of films/TV produced in the west has been in steady decline for quite some time. Sure there are odd creations that are really good (like Dune), but then the average is horrible. Same stories rehashed over an over with lots of clishe's, sex scenes squeezed in just because etc. But the worst is the dumbed down stories. It seems as if Western producers think the story has to be horribly simplified or there is no chance of "world success". To see how it should be done look at South Korean(and some Japanese) dramas on Netflix. Not all are great, but the average is way better. It came to a point I think I just saw one western TV production last year I liked and there were probably 5 or more Korean ones. Why is it that they can make interesting and surprising stories into TV/films in places like Korea?. Similar for Japan, but I found many Japanese dramas seem to be too focused on picturing "internal struggles" of characters in a way that seems a bit overdone for a western audiences. For examples of what I mean see "Alice in Borderlands" (Japanese - suffers some previously mentioned issues, but overall very good). "Glory" (Korean - when you read the brief it sounds like something that would be horrible to watch, but they pulled it off great), "Train to Busan" (Korean film about freaking zombies that is actually good), D. P.(Korean,again brief seems completely cheesy "Military police searches for escaped draftees" in actuality it has great story, it shows some really hard realities of military draft, like abuse etc in a way that is really believable a normal person could end up in such situation etc.) And many more. The only western TV drama that was good was "1899" (German/UK production). This was really good too. So why is it there is so much bad quality tv/films produced in the west? Such great opportunities wasted? I had great hopes for the Mandalorian. I couldn't watch more than 2 episodes because the story was written for 10 year old. Etc.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  I agree that S. Korean film and series production is so good right now that it lays bare the USA's tired weekend movie tropes. The peak blockbusters still come occasionally, and the grittier, meatier content is available in droves on streaming services from US and UK productions at least. This is the golden age of television, despite Disney. If you aren't seeing some of the incredible series listed in sister threads, I suggest you give them a shot. Or just peruse rotten tomatoes. There's more richness out there, but the signal to noise may have gotten slightly worse.
ripe 4y ago
This article taught me what a "creative producer" role is in Hollywood. "The key people working directly with the creative producer are the director, who oversees the creative vision of the film, and the line producer, who oversees the budget. The creative producer is the ultimate form of middle-management who sees the whole picture with the core reason to exist being at the detail-level, focusing solely on a project as a supervisor of the creative." The author produced hits with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, and he also produced Manchester By The Sea. He explains well the impact of streaming on people like himself in the US. I would just like to add that Netflix was able to fund a lot of projects in other, non-US film industries. A whole bunch of movies and miniseries made in India would never have been funded before Netflix and Amazon came there. I am thankful for that. The other side of the coin.
whycome 4y ago
Netflix has a cool (but sometimes goofy) mini-series/documentary called 'This is Pop'. It looks at some of the work behind 'hit creation' as a business. There are some really cool insights behind songs we've all heard. https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81050786 https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81050786
madrox 4y ago
I watched the hit-driven business die from the inside at an entertainment company that produced films and games, and I think the author misdiagnoses the cause as the rise of subscription. Subscription is another symptom. Hits-driven business is dying because you can’t produce hits on a schedule, and if you miss more than a couple times then you’re done. Even before subscription came around, executives spoke of the need for “more singles and doubles than home runs.” Productions are slated years in advance and creatives are rarely insulated from date-driven delivery. Date driven delivery means something ships on a schedule regardless of quality. Low quality means appeal isn’t as broad. In the scheme of things, subscription revenue doesn’t quite make up for hits when they hit (look at entertainment earnings this last decade) but it’s more predictable and that can be more valuable to publicly traded entertainment companies. From where I sit in the entertainment industry for the last 20 years, the hits model still exists, but the bets are smaller. You see it among independent, privately owned studios. It’s easier than ever to be independent, but it puts creatives in a spot where they have to put their money where their mouth is. The author wants to work on hits while also pulling a predictable salary. Can’t have it both ways.

144 points by Flatcircle 4y ago

I think something similar happened to tech startups, in between the 1990's and 2020's: https://app.pressnt.net/post/77/ https://app.pressnt.net/post/77/ (but I had been blaming interest rates, not saturation — I guess if rates continue to return to normal, we'll get a chance to see how much of each factor was important, by whether or not hit-driven software development returns)

Jensson 4y ago

Yet another example where mass production replaces craftsmen. Why try to find brilliant people to make something new when you can just churn out another super hero movie? You see it everywhere, creative people creates things, then a pattern is discovered and after that businesses just starts repeating that pattern and stops caring about creativity.

quickthrower2 4y ago
The demand to be entertained outstrips supply of novel ideas.
- ip26 4y ago
  Or, perhaps only our ability to locate good novel ideas.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    Only our courage to implement those novel ideas.

dmix 4y ago

> Little did I know, I was searching for an answer to a much larger question. The artists/entrepreneurs directly dedicating their lives, sacrificing day-to-day, and taking real risks within the larger industry typically tend to be the ones with the best insights into recent changes. These are the voices you hear early on, then later on when smaller Big Cos fails or stocks drop after commiting to [old out-of-date but safe business model] you hear the same explanations (that were surely obvious 5-10yrs ago if people listened!). These things are rarely all-bad. It's just different. Ultimately Amazon Prime and Netflix teams still want good content. Good always sells, even with shitty low-budget marketing. So they'll eventually adapt and develop models that select for quality, without sacrificing the new model of betting on 1000 creative people instead of 10 safe ones.

TylerE 4y ago
It feels like Netflix(especially) isn’t betting on a bunch of creative people but rather on too many focus groups.
- dmix 4y ago
  True, you often see producers get promoted on movie trailers/ads because they sometimes are the ones organizing the talent for the movie (directors/scripts/money etc). So if Netflix/et al turn a smaller group of talented producers into a central corporate factory floor then naturally talent and script spotting also becomes systematized. And corporations love making safe bets with things like focus groups. Who knows... maybe eventually it's still a win given the influx of capital being thrown against the wall by these big streaming services. Maybe the analytics on views-to-completion will weed out the crap like TikTok does scary well.
  - andirk 4y ago
    Same goes with music. Since maybe the late 1990's, the safe bet has been the way to go for labels. No more risking an alternative artist that doesn't check the right boxes. Stick with a repeat of what worked before with a small twist to make spoon-fed ears feel like it's a new thing (yes, the ears are fed via spoon).
    - dmix 4y ago
      That's true for the 1990s, but I still think this is different. The Netflix model is much higher paced, much larger amounts of capital, and far higher numbers of 'artists'. What we're seeing is the higher end Netflix bets being corporate garbage, the way boy bands were. But we're also seeing tons of low-end budget "Netflix movie" garbage that got made merely to fill the queues. That's something that major music labels never did in the 1990s at this scale. The side effect of that much money being thrown around a quanity > quality is that it also happens to filter down into lots of quality filmmakers. So the problem is no longer bets/money but how to surface quality. Because I personally think they will still benefit from sourcing quality in the long run once they mature their algorithms.

monero-xmr 4y ago

If you can create some valuable IP as part of a hit, like Hello Kitty, The Simpsons, Game of Thrones, etc. you can get a very reliable revenue stream. Licensing is a great business model.

ido 4y ago

In some way this seems like a message from the future of the games industry (with Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc pushing their game subscription services but a few years behind TV streaming)… So far I was surprised by how much Amazon and Google have blundered in this space (despite spending 100s of millions $). Netflix seem to be going in a better direction (time will tell) and Apple are focusing on the family friendly/casual niche (and I think doing ok there). MS we’re early movers in this space (with GamePass) and seem to be doing well.

flohofwoe 4y ago
This already happened, maybe even before the movie industry. There are plenty of long running and very profitable online games that fly under the radar of most AAA gamers, and even AAA games are designed for longterm 'player engagement' for quite some time now. When you look at Steam Charts, it's mostly 'evergreen' games that make up the top group: https://steamcharts.com/ https://steamcharts.com/
- ido 4y ago
  Right, but the wholesale massive move of the entire industry to subscription services (offering access to X games for a fixed monthly cost) is happening in movies a few years before games. What you're talking about are single games offering a subscription which is a step in that direction, but not quite the same (you're still paying for each individual game - and usually to the developer of that game - not to a distribution company to provide you an entire growing catalogue of games).
  - cdogl 4y ago
    There hasn’t been a “wholesale massive move of the entire” games industry to subscription services. Game Pass is big, but the market is gigantic and diverse.
    - ido 4y ago
      Right, that's what I was saying. At least not yet...

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

This will sound incredibly naive, but ... just make movies with a smaller budget. The thing is FX tools are getting cheaper, distribution is cheaper, the production tools are cheaper. That leaves ... labor. What may really be dead is the megastar, unless that megastar brings the bacon (for example, Tom Cruise is basically a producer for the films he stars in, but then again he has the money of dozens of former "hits" in the old model). But then again, we are in the golden age of television. Movies might be suffering, perhaps because television is so much better. Television has the budget and FX is cheap enough that the OMG effects are no longer the monopoly of the film business. And the article fails to address the shocking lack of good new IP and movies that are coming out of the film industry before the sea change of the subscription services. I personally point to the Matrix as the last time a good movie that wasn't just a sequel or a template or a remake was made. Yeah, uh, that was 1999. Funny writing that date, because it almost sounds like a date from the 1800s. There used to be multiple tentpole event movies every year before then, iconic movies. What changed? Is there LESS money available now with mass release? Is it the lack of DVD revenue? China revenue means less creativity to offend The Central Party? And what is a producer ultimately? The go between the financing and the "real" creatives. Is the guy really just complaining that his role in the modern pipeline is reduced, the financing more distributed and available from more sources, so they are less valuable? D&D from Game of Thrones were getting crazy amounts of credit for the series, but the pipeline of content ran out and suddenly they didn't look like geniuses anymore.

Semaphor 4y ago
> Yeah, uh, that was 1999 I’d say Interstellar was a great and new movie in 2014. Also, the last movie I’ve seen ;)
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  I figure 1962 was Peak Hollywood.
readthenotes1 4y ago
Golden age of TV? Surely you jest!

rendall 4y ago

I feel that this article describes a transitional period, not a permanent state. Streaming services are relatively new, and new technology always introduces instability before everything settles into a new normal that looks somewhat like the old normal. > If the company spends time and energy on only certain audiences, the numbers fall, and that company becomes a niche; however, subscription services cannot only cater to niches, they must try to be everything to all people, which places more value on the content platform and its library than the quality of each individual piece of content. Netflix's revenue stream fell recently. I have seen analysis that this was in part due to its "quantity over quality" model. My personal opinion is that finding quality programming in Netflix is difficult, and when I cut any streaming services from my monthly budget, Netflix will be the first to go. Contrast Netflix with HBOMax and Disney+, each of which have consistently incredible quality. It may be wishful thinking, but I suspect that this transitional period will last perhaps a few more years, and then the streaming consumer will be more willing to pay a premium for true quality, in turn driving a new hit-driven normal. > subscription services cannot only cater to niches, they must try to be everything to all people There are niche streaming services. Shudder for horror, MUBI for foreign and art films, Nobudge for first-timer and low budget films. I'm certain there are or will be others.

danjac 4y ago
I wonder how much of this is due to Netflix' "algorithm" punishing promising new shows by cancelling them after season 1, or letting shows drag on way past their sell by date (Stranger Things anyone?). In the old days of network television, a new show might struggle in the ratings trying to gain its audience, but a producer might champion and protect it enough until it gains a footing. For example, Lucille Ball kept this weird little scifi show called Star Trek alive until it became the hit franchise that's still going to this day. The Netflix algorithm would have cancelled Star Trek after a season and it would have been forgotten. On the other hand, perhaps many shows got cancelled because a dumb producer just didn't get it, or there was behind-the-scenes politics where they fell out with a director or lead actor. But it seems overall that Netflix perhaps needs more of a human taste behind the scenes and less reliance on data-driven decision making.
- 4y ago

abetusk 4y ago

The tenor of the post is more along the lines of "how can I adapt" rather than pining for the glory days, so that's nice, but I also have very little sympathy for this person. The movie market was like a fiefdom, much like the music industry 20 years ago, and now streaming and internet have democratized access and content creation. You don't get $20M budget at the cost of hundreds of other independent films? Yeah, sorry, boo-hoo. We're living in a golden age of TV. In the past decade there have been many in depth TV series that only a handful of movies dared to explore precisely because the industry was hits driven. More than that, I've seen some exceptional B-movie sci-fi movies on Netflix in the past 10 years as well. People who win at this type of game have the equivalent of survivorship bias. They don't realize how much is sacrificed to create their hit movie and how the industry contorts content to serve their distribution model.

Seattle3503 4y ago
> You don't get $20M budget at the cost of hundreds of other independent films? Yeah, sorry, boo-hoo. This is the part of the article I don't grasp. The article kept saying things like: > however, subscription services cannot only cater to niches, they must try to be everything to all people, which places more value on the content platform and its library than the quality of each individual piece of content. That seems like a more accurate description of the old model. A box office blockbuster film must be everything to everyone. A NYT bestseller must be be everything to everyone. The subscription model in both visual media and books has unlocked unexplored niches. There is tones of anime all over Netflix. I have read a bunch of "progression fantasy" on Kindle Unlimited, exemplified by the Cradle Series by Will Wight. This sort of media would never have survived under the old model, as it is too niche. Will Wight doesn't care about making NYT bestseller, he is focused on cultivating his 1000(0) followers.
- rg111 4y ago
  What you say sounds good in theory. But, for profit-driven businesses like Amazon, the goal isn’t to barely make money, but it is to maximize the amount of money coming in. It was quite sad for me when "The OA" and "Mozart in the Jungle" were cancelled. It's not like these companies are okay making less money in some projects, and making more money in a few. They want to _maximize_ money from all projects. And niche shows are often cancelled.

theonlybutlet 4y ago

A different perspective, the players are now completely risk averse. The past few years they've been concentrating resources on fewer larger budget movies with a much greater chance of success. The likes of the Marvel MCU, Star Wars and other sequels and remakes. They've chosen safe formulaic stories with evidenced success and pumped large amounts into the marketing of these films. The initial success of these drowned out any prospect of a low budget hit and have killed off the mid tier movie (those that were just fine and perhaps eeked out a small profit). Commentators in the past have noted how this focus could kill off the industry. Now a triple whammy. Firstly, there's less current evidence to justify funding these smaller films, as a consequence of the past few years. Secondly, the popularity of the formulaic big hit is starting to wane and thirdly, streaming, a wild card, has introduced uncertainty and volatility into this business model.

mschuster91 4y ago
> Secondly, the popularity of the formulaic big hit is starting to wane It's the same problem as everywhere else: When people get too greedy, they ruin the show for everyone else. The amount of content that Disney pumps out in the MCU is too immense to follow up - the cinema movies, okay, but even then if you want to start fresh it's like two days worth of non-stop binge starting from the OG Iron Man... but forget about all the side content on Disney+. The amount of money customers can set aside for entertainment is shrinking: three years of covid have eradicated savings, inflation has skyrocketed, and the future is looking uncertain AF - so the first thing that gets cut is entertainment. "Cord cutting" has become so commonplace it's a meme, but cinemas or even Netflix (!) have been hit by people trimming their budgets, and it doesn't help either that maintaining Netflix, Disney+, HBO and whatever else has grown so expensive it exceeds your prior cable TV bill. So that means people will go and see one, maybe two MCU movies a year and that's it - no budget left over for anyone else.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > three years of covid have eradicated savings Saving went up because of the lockdowns. > The amount of content that Disney pumps out in the MCU is too immense to follow up - the cinema movies, okay I would diagnose a radically different problem - the MCU only has a lot of content measured in minutes of film. Measured in plot, there's almost nothing. I watched the 2016 film Doctor Strange. That was a huge mistake. I couldn't tell you anything about the film other than "Benedict Cumberbatch is in it" and "don't waste your time; there is no reason you'd ever want to see this". Ask me what happened, or indeed if anything happened, and I'll be stumped. It doesn't come as a surprise that with the decline of the idea that a movie should tell you a story, movies are getting less popular.

fbn79 4y ago

With the subscription model bit hits are still fundamental. They are "killer apps" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application) for selling the subscription. Think of "Stranger Things" or "Squid Game" for NETFLIX, "TOP GUN" for Paramount+ or "Star Wars" for Disney plus. Not in the business and I don't know how they reward this productions, but I think it would be fundamental for a platform to incentivize big hit productions and not just many low audience shows.

Agraillo 4y ago
Good point. That's probably why high-quality tv series emerged as a phenomenon. Once the TV producers tried making expensive, star-fronted, good-story series, they've got a new hit-driven ecosystem.

chx 4y ago

Based on box office numbers, where 2022 should've been the year of recovery, perhaps even surpassing pre-pandemic number as people surged back to the cinema... none of that happened. The numbers are down drastically, box office is 60% of the pre-pandemic times. This year doesn't look particularly promising either. One Avatar a recovery doesn't make. The blockbuster movie and the multiplex cinema created a self strengthening cycle but it's over. I think we will see entire chains going under and with them, the blockbuster will die too. It is indeed the time of the home theater. A family of four wants to go to the cinema, that's at least $100 if not $200 outright. Or they can watch Disney+. This is a no brainer.

jasmer 4y ago
Price. If they cut the ticket price dramatically, people would go to back to the theatre. Pricing structure for cinema is completely wrong.
- HelloNurse 4y ago
  I've had a multiplex restructured with about 25% of the seats (replacing normal, comfortable seats with ridiculous motorized reclining armchairs) and now the films I care about are frequently sold out. Their "pricing structure" cares about removing booze at the bar, making soft drinks self-service to save some labor, replacing the arcade games and bookstore that made waiting for the movies pleasant before the pandemic with a huge empty atrium to save further labor, and so on.
  - jasmer 4y ago
    Ticket revenues to to the studio, popcorn to the theatre. Studios need to drop their pants and share revenues with theatres.
  - jeff_jefferson 4y ago
    I love the new screens with the reclining chairs. I've not been to the cinema much in the last 3 years (COVID plus children) but I only go to the cinema nearby that has the armchairs.

moomin 4y ago

There will be people who don't mourn the loss of highly-paid creatives, but bear in mind that what this person is describing affects absolutely everyone: the camera operator, the set designer, and most definitely the VFX people. Like music, the ability to make a good living has been absolutely squeezed out the industry and the power concentrated on the money men and those who control distribution.

rickdeckard 4y ago

> In this new model for storytelling, volume is more important than quality. If your goal is to gain and keep subscribers, the subscribers must feel they are important to the company. If the company spends time and energy on only certain audiences, the numbers fall, and that company becomes a niche I don't agree that volume is more important than quality, even if some layers of the industry may act like it is. I wouldn't invest time and money for a streaming service full of bad content. If a streaming service is a super market, I will not buy there if it doesn't meet my quality expectations, regardless how many (bad) products it has. But for sure: - If I can't do all my shopping in your supermarket but in the supermarket of others, I may rather go there instead. - If you want to sell me on your new yoghurt you decided to distribute, just putting it on the shelf of all the yoghurts may not be enough to create a blockbuster hit. You will need to reach me outside of the supermarket as well. - If you used to produce yoghurt and people flocked to your farm or small shop just to buy it, those times have likely changed, yes.

noduerme 4y ago

This is also just a lament that the distribution channels are once again vertically integrated with content production the way they were in the 1920s. That can also be fairly easily disrupted if one is willing to produce through unique channels at actual personal financial risk, isn't it?

jwmoz 4y ago

I'm just here to say I'm still annoyed Netflix cancelled The OA and now 1899.

rg111 4y ago
I am angry about The OA, too. 1899 is good, but not DarK-good. It's also a shame that Mozart in the Jungle was cancelled.

Roark66 4y ago

I know nothing about the business of making movies, but I have to say the quality of films/TV produced in the west has been in steady decline for quite some time. Sure there are odd creations that are really good (like Dune), but then the average is horrible. Same stories rehashed over an over with lots of clishe's, sex scenes squeezed in just because etc. But the worst is the dumbed down stories. It seems as if Western producers think the story has to be horribly simplified or there is no chance of "world success". To see how it should be done look at South Korean(and some Japanese) dramas on Netflix. Not all are great, but the average is way better. It came to a point I think I just saw one western TV production last year I liked and there were probably 5 or more Korean ones. Why is it that they can make interesting and surprising stories into TV/films in places like Korea?. Similar for Japan, but I found many Japanese dramas seem to be too focused on picturing "internal struggles" of characters in a way that seems a bit overdone for a western audiences. For examples of what I mean see "Alice in Borderlands" (Japanese - suffers some previously mentioned issues, but overall very good). "Glory" (Korean - when you read the brief it sounds like something that would be horrible to watch, but they pulled it off great), "Train to Busan" (Korean film about freaking zombies that is actually good), D. P.(Korean,again brief seems completely cheesy "Military police searches for escaped draftees" in actuality it has great story, it shows some really hard realities of military draft, like abuse etc in a way that is really believable a normal person could end up in such situation etc.) And many more. The only western TV drama that was good was "1899" (German/UK production). This was really good too. So why is it there is so much bad quality tv/films produced in the west? Such great opportunities wasted? I had great hopes for the Mandalorian. I couldn't watch more than 2 episodes because the story was written for 10 year old. Etc.

jvanderbot 4y ago
I agree that S. Korean film and series production is so good right now that it lays bare the USA's tired weekend movie tropes. The peak blockbusters still come occasionally, and the grittier, meatier content is available in droves on streaming services from US and UK productions at least. This is the golden age of television, despite Disney. If you aren't seeing some of the incredible series listed in sister threads, I suggest you give them a shot. Or just peruse rotten tomatoes. There's more richness out there, but the signal to noise may have gotten slightly worse.

ripe 4y ago

This article taught me what a "creative producer" role is in Hollywood. "The key people working directly with the creative producer are the director, who oversees the creative vision of the film, and the line producer, who oversees the budget. The creative producer is the ultimate form of middle-management who sees the whole picture with the core reason to exist being at the detail-level, focusing solely on a project as a supervisor of the creative." The author produced hits with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, and he also produced Manchester By The Sea. He explains well the impact of streaming on people like himself in the US. I would just like to add that Netflix was able to fund a lot of projects in other, non-US film industries. A whole bunch of movies and miniseries made in India would never have been funded before Netflix and Amazon came there. I am thankful for that. The other side of the coin.

whycome 4y ago

Netflix has a cool (but sometimes goofy) mini-series/documentary called 'This is Pop'. It looks at some of the work behind 'hit creation' as a business. There are some really cool insights behind songs we've all heard. https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81050786 https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81050786

madrox 4y ago

I watched the hit-driven business die from the inside at an entertainment company that produced films and games, and I think the author misdiagnoses the cause as the rise of subscription. Subscription is another symptom. Hits-driven business is dying because you can’t produce hits on a schedule, and if you miss more than a couple times then you’re done. Even before subscription came around, executives spoke of the need for “more singles and doubles than home runs.” Productions are slated years in advance and creatives are rarely insulated from date-driven delivery. Date driven delivery means something ships on a schedule regardless of quality. Low quality means appeal isn’t as broad. In the scheme of things, subscription revenue doesn’t quite make up for hits when they hit (look at entertainment earnings this last decade) but it’s more predictable and that can be more valuable to publicly traded entertainment companies. From where I sit in the entertainment industry for the last 20 years, the hits model still exists, but the bets are smaller. You see it among independent, privately owned studios. It’s easier than ever to be independent, but it puts creatives in a spot where they have to put their money where their mouth is. The author wants to work on hits while also pulling a predictable salary. Can’t have it both ways.