2 ms·

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/mone

by 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.
  - andirk 4y ago
    I hope you are right about quality winning out because it looks like a nosedive at this point. The popular content online is becoming very short clips of the stupidest shit I've ever seen. It's like listening to looping House music and wondering if everyone else at the party realizes the DJ has absolutely no talent. I digress. Point is the idea of quality may fully be taken over by cheap Chinese products on your doorstep 2 day delivery. I see a pattern.

by dmix 4y ago

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.
- andirk 4y ago
  I hope you are right about quality winning out because it looks like a nosedive at this point. The popular content online is becoming very short clips of the stupidest shit I've ever seen. It's like listening to looping House music and wondering if everyone else at the party realizes the DJ has absolutely no talent. I digress. Point is the idea of quality may fully be taken over by cheap Chinese products on your doorstep 2 day delivery. I see a pattern.