9 ms·

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 f

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.
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
    The OA most likely would never have been made at all ten years ago.
  - skydhash 4y ago
    My biggest disappointment was that 1899 was cancelled by Netflix. Shows like that can be watched decades afterwards.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > A box office blockbuster film must be everything to everyone. A NYT bestseller must be be everything to everyone. Yes, and the more depressing part: to make the model work, there will also be a huge effort to mold everyone into the blockbusters’ public, the bestsellers’ buyer. Your movies will make a lot more when you have options to nudge people’s tastes.
- cableshaft 4y ago
  Had to look up 'progression fantasy'. So it's basically like a niche genre that uses more or less the same structure as Dragon Ball Z (characters getting progressively more powerful over time)? Or am I misunderstanding it?
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    Yes. I'm not sure about GP's point that it never would have survived under the old model either. It's a pretty common trope in Wuxia, one of the oldest genres of literature still active today.
  - CBLT 4y ago
    In a sense, yes. I read a good number of works that overlap with the "progression fantasy" genre, and I'd say they have 3 main characteristics: 1. Fantasy. They have interesting and engaging fantasy worlds. There's a lot of mixed results here, I personally don't think DBZ or Cradle are that interesting. 2. The main characters are empowered to actively participate in events that surround them. The trope here is that they fight back against the latest unfairness of the world, but more creative storytelling can make this very fresh and interesting. 3. The main characters aren't defined by their circumstances. They prove themselves by their work ethic or cleverness, not by being born to a powerful family. Most works in this category are rehashes of CRPG or Xianxia tropes. I'd personally recommend Mother of Learning as the best progression fantasy I've read.
- criddell 4y ago
  > subscription services cannot only cater to niches That's where they lost me. Here's a list of 10: https://www.cbr.com/niche-streaming-services-what-to-watch-first/ https://www.cbr.com/niche-streaming-services-what-to-watch-f...
  - paraselene_ 4y ago
    I've been on-and-off curiosity stream(+nebula) and dropout tv, the former for several science/tech/logistics related youtubers' longform content, and the latter for comedy. While I wouldn't call those categories especially niche, but I've grown to enjoyed their content more than current offerings from netflix and amazon prime to be frankly honest, and I'm all for it. It seems vimeo found their niche(?) of a market providing white-lable OTT service, which I'd assume makes spinning up a streaming provider for a niche market even simpilier.
groestl 4y ago
And presumably, how many talented people don't make it because they lacked their first hit, being squeezed out on the long tail, often sacrificing their wealth and health in the process.
tuyiown 4y ago
There's also the takes about quality: > In this new model for storytelling, volume is more important than quality. > which places more value on the content platform and its library than the quality of each individual piece of content. (this one is repeated twice) > The subscription model means content providers are paid regularly no matter the quality and quantity of the product The idea that the hit model with large budget waste is the only way to drive talented people is just wrong, people can produce great content on low budget, it's just another kind of talent, for another kind of content. Certainly platforms should not try to produce content alike the ones of the hit model, but I'm not that sure that the public, and neither the industry, is losing that much.
mschuster91 4y ago
> and now streaming and internet have democratized access and content creation It's the other way around - they have more monopolized (or rather, oligopolized) the content creation and distribution aspect. Say you're an independent producer... small "arthouse"-style cinemas have closed down shop everywhere because it simply isn't worth it to run them any more without serious financial assistance, which means you essentially have to put your movie up on Youtube/Vimeo/whatever and completely lose out on income besides the assistance money from moviemaker funds, crowdfunding, government facilities and rich sponsors. Alternatively, you focus on monetization via Netflix - but unless you are already well-known enough that your name will get your movie into Netflix anyway, you have to do that upfront because of Netflix' technical requirements [1], so you lose out on quite a bit of artistic freedom, not to mention the "Netflix look" aka color grading [2]. [1] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-Image-Capture-Requirements-and-Best-Practices https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake3j5/why-does-everything-on-netflix-look-like-that https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake3j5/why-does-everything-o...
- abetusk 4y ago
  I might be wrong, I'm not well versed in this area, but it'd be nice to have some data that backs up claims (either yours or mine). The first thing is that making a living off of art is hard, so we're really talking about the difficulty pre adoption of widespread streaming services vs. post widespread adoption of streaming services (I guess 2015 or so). YouTube is a different model but there are many people making a living from producing content. As an extreme example, Mr. Beast is a triple digit millionaire [0]. I've heard anecdotally that getting series made on Netflix, especially if you're a star is (or at least was) easier than getting a green-lit for movie funding. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2022/11/30/could-mrbeast-be-the-first-youtuber-billionaire/?sh=197e6058191a https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2022/11/30/could-m...
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    At least for cinema closures in the US, there's tons of reports from the early covid days until a few days ago [1][2][3]. In Germany, the situation is just as bad - about 70% of cinemas do not have money left anymore for (sometimes sorely needed) renovations or equipment upgrades [4]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/business/media/pandemic-small-movie-theaters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/business/media/pandemic-s... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-10/closed-movie-theaters-leave-void-from-small-towns-to-big-cities https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-10/closed-mo... [3] https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/cineworld-hits-a-new-low-as-it-continues-to-warn-of-significant-dilution https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/cineworld-hits-... [4] https://www.ndr.de/kultur/film/Studie-zum-Kinomarkt-Situation-vieler-Kinos-besorgniserregend,kinoauslastung100.html https://www.ndr.de/kultur/film/Studie-zum-Kinomarkt-Situatio...
random314 4y ago
I saw this as ominous. The actual talent is getting commoditized, and there is no profit sharing anymore - because the streaming platforms don't release the viewing numbers. The profits will be kept by the rent seekers i.e. the streaming services and the talent will work for a wage.
paganel 4y ago
> and now streaming and internet have democratized access and content creation Unfortunately this has come with a real decrease in artistic/creative value. For all intents and purposes almost everything that Netflix now has on its platform is basically crap, I've last spent about half an hour trying to find something nice to watch but nothing. I would have settled on the spot for light but original comedy like "American Pie", but couldn't find it. The same goes for HBO Max (granted, the first season of "White Lotus" was ok-ish, but by the second season you could see half of the directorial and writers' takes coming from half a mile away).
- narag 4y ago
  I feel the same way. There are a few funny shows, like Succession, but most other series, even if they have an interesting start, decline very fast. Visually they're all OK to very good. But the writing is boring, often appalling.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    This mirrors what I am seeing as well. Lazy writing that produces a reaction of “why did they even bother making this movie?” despite the good actors and videography. Is it because good writers are difficult to find or, as with the actors, are the writers being constrained as well either by the streaming business model or poor taste in story selection by the streaming execs? The emergence of generative AI might make this even worse, as it’s only a matter of time till these are used to churn out scripts; although some of these scripts are so bad, maybe it has already started? Anyway, I find myself terminating movies earlier and more readily than in the past due to the higher frequency of disappointing dialogue and story lines along with the fear of wasting my time. My response is cancelling streaming subscriptions for a year or so and then resubscribing for a few months in hopes that a few decent new pieces of content were created.
  - fullshark 4y ago
    Yeah the writing is horrible on the vast majority of these new shows/movies, they've been able to cover it up with amazing production values and paying for high quality acting but once you are no longer dazzled by that the story just leaves you with nothing compelling. Part of it is they are just producing so much content that the marginal quality of each script that now gets made is lower, but I do think script writing is an art that has been reduced to a series of tricks and cliches and storytelling has massively suffered.
rg111 4y ago
Do you have a Letterboxd or Trakt account? Can you give me the link? If not, just recommend me top-k TV/Web series, and top-k "exceptional B-movie sci-fi movies on Netflix". Thanks.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  Love and Monsters was a good b-scifi movie.
lommelun 4y ago
Democratized? It’s more centralized than ever. Also, giving more projects $5m is not a victory if the cost of a proper production is $20m. It’s just an explanation for why quality is dipping. Or following your logic and “hundreds of other films”, it seems like you’re under the impression that a good film can be made with $100k. I’m finding more blind spots and jumps to conclusions in your comment than in the admittedly poorly written article. Give that, it doesn’t surprise me that you’re one of the ones who are looking at what’s being served as tv shows and actually enjoying it. If you ask me, “the golden age of TV” is a meme based on a handful of shows, all of them made at the onset of the new economy when the nascent methodologies of the new economy led to authors having outsized influence for a short period of time. There’s something seriously brainwashed about looking at what’s at offer today and still concluding that because the Sopranos exists we’re still producing good content. I will give you the enjoyable b-movies, but also remind you that those have existed always, and often in greater numbers.
- metacritic12 4y ago
  > I will give you the enjoyable b-movies, but also remind you that those have existed always, and often in greater numbers. Don't think this is true. If you consider a lot of self-produced Youtube clips as C-movies, there are way more today. And audiences have voted for what they want: they want more lower-production-cost movies in their exact niche than academic film-art blockbusters like Ben Hur.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    >academic film-art blockbusters like Ben Hur Wat
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    Sure, if you consider a lot of self-produced Youtube clips as C-movies. But I think historically B-movies were paid for by Hollywood studios (but given shoestring budgets). It's hard to imagine a time in history where the 50's and 60's didn't dominate with B-movies. Perhaps with the collapse of the drive-in, the matinee, there has not been a compelling business model for the studios to finance B-movies for decades now.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
I sort of see what you're saying — hopefully the new streaming world we've found ourselves in can allow for more "long-tail" content. But "we're living in a golden age of TV" sounds so ... gross.

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.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  The OA most likely would never have been made at all ten years ago.
- skydhash 4y ago
  My biggest disappointment was that 1899 was cancelled by Netflix. Shows like that can be watched decades afterwards.
makeitdouble 4y ago
> A box office blockbuster film must be everything to everyone. A NYT bestseller must be be everything to everyone. Yes, and the more depressing part: to make the model work, there will also be a huge effort to mold everyone into the blockbusters’ public, the bestsellers’ buyer. Your movies will make a lot more when you have options to nudge people’s tastes.
cableshaft 4y ago
Had to look up 'progression fantasy'. So it's basically like a niche genre that uses more or less the same structure as Dragon Ball Z (characters getting progressively more powerful over time)? Or am I misunderstanding it?
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  Yes. I'm not sure about GP's point that it never would have survived under the old model either. It's a pretty common trope in Wuxia, one of the oldest genres of literature still active today.
- CBLT 4y ago
  In a sense, yes. I read a good number of works that overlap with the "progression fantasy" genre, and I'd say they have 3 main characteristics: 1. Fantasy. They have interesting and engaging fantasy worlds. There's a lot of mixed results here, I personally don't think DBZ or Cradle are that interesting. 2. The main characters are empowered to actively participate in events that surround them. The trope here is that they fight back against the latest unfairness of the world, but more creative storytelling can make this very fresh and interesting. 3. The main characters aren't defined by their circumstances. They prove themselves by their work ethic or cleverness, not by being born to a powerful family. Most works in this category are rehashes of CRPG or Xianxia tropes. I'd personally recommend Mother of Learning as the best progression fantasy I've read.
criddell 4y ago
> subscription services cannot only cater to niches That's where they lost me. Here's a list of 10: https://www.cbr.com/niche-streaming-services-what-to-watch-first/ https://www.cbr.com/niche-streaming-services-what-to-watch-f...
- paraselene_ 4y ago
  I've been on-and-off curiosity stream(+nebula) and dropout tv, the former for several science/tech/logistics related youtubers' longform content, and the latter for comedy. While I wouldn't call those categories especially niche, but I've grown to enjoyed their content more than current offerings from netflix and amazon prime to be frankly honest, and I'm all for it. It seems vimeo found their niche(?) of a market providing white-lable OTT service, which I'd assume makes spinning up a streaming provider for a niche market even simpilier.

groestl 4y ago

And presumably, how many talented people don't make it because they lacked their first hit, being squeezed out on the long tail, often sacrificing their wealth and health in the process.

tuyiown 4y ago

There's also the takes about quality: > In this new model for storytelling, volume is more important than quality. > which places more value on the content platform and its library than the quality of each individual piece of content. (this one is repeated twice) > The subscription model means content providers are paid regularly no matter the quality and quantity of the product The idea that the hit model with large budget waste is the only way to drive talented people is just wrong, people can produce great content on low budget, it's just another kind of talent, for another kind of content. Certainly platforms should not try to produce content alike the ones of the hit model, but I'm not that sure that the public, and neither the industry, is losing that much.

mschuster91 4y ago

> and now streaming and internet have democratized access and content creation It's the other way around - they have more monopolized (or rather, oligopolized) the content creation and distribution aspect. Say you're an independent producer... small "arthouse"-style cinemas have closed down shop everywhere because it simply isn't worth it to run them any more without serious financial assistance, which means you essentially have to put your movie up on Youtube/Vimeo/whatever and completely lose out on income besides the assistance money from moviemaker funds, crowdfunding, government facilities and rich sponsors. Alternatively, you focus on monetization via Netflix - but unless you are already well-known enough that your name will get your movie into Netflix anyway, you have to do that upfront because of Netflix' technical requirements [1], so you lose out on quite a bit of artistic freedom, not to mention the "Netflix look" aka color grading [2]. [1] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-Image-Capture-Requirements-and-Best-Practices https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake3j5/why-does-everything-on-netflix-look-like-that https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake3j5/why-does-everything-o...

abetusk 4y ago
I might be wrong, I'm not well versed in this area, but it'd be nice to have some data that backs up claims (either yours or mine). The first thing is that making a living off of art is hard, so we're really talking about the difficulty pre adoption of widespread streaming services vs. post widespread adoption of streaming services (I guess 2015 or so). YouTube is a different model but there are many people making a living from producing content. As an extreme example, Mr. Beast is a triple digit millionaire [0]. I've heard anecdotally that getting series made on Netflix, especially if you're a star is (or at least was) easier than getting a green-lit for movie funding. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2022/11/30/could-mrbeast-be-the-first-youtuber-billionaire/?sh=197e6058191a https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2022/11/30/could-m...
- mschuster91 4y ago
  At least for cinema closures in the US, there's tons of reports from the early covid days until a few days ago [1][2][3]. In Germany, the situation is just as bad - about 70% of cinemas do not have money left anymore for (sometimes sorely needed) renovations or equipment upgrades [4]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/business/media/pandemic-small-movie-theaters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/business/media/pandemic-s... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-10/closed-movie-theaters-leave-void-from-small-towns-to-big-cities https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-10/closed-mo... [3] https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/cineworld-hits-a-new-low-as-it-continues-to-warn-of-significant-dilution https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/cineworld-hits-... [4] https://www.ndr.de/kultur/film/Studie-zum-Kinomarkt-Situation-vieler-Kinos-besorgniserregend,kinoauslastung100.html https://www.ndr.de/kultur/film/Studie-zum-Kinomarkt-Situatio...

random314 4y ago

I saw this as ominous. The actual talent is getting commoditized, and there is no profit sharing anymore - because the streaming platforms don't release the viewing numbers. The profits will be kept by the rent seekers i.e. the streaming services and the talent will work for a wage.

paganel 4y ago

> and now streaming and internet have democratized access and content creation Unfortunately this has come with a real decrease in artistic/creative value. For all intents and purposes almost everything that Netflix now has on its platform is basically crap, I've last spent about half an hour trying to find something nice to watch but nothing. I would have settled on the spot for light but original comedy like "American Pie", but couldn't find it. The same goes for HBO Max (granted, the first season of "White Lotus" was ok-ish, but by the second season you could see half of the directorial and writers' takes coming from half a mile away).

narag 4y ago
I feel the same way. There are a few funny shows, like Succession, but most other series, even if they have an interesting start, decline very fast. Visually they're all OK to very good. But the writing is boring, often appalling.
- cudgy 4y ago
  This mirrors what I am seeing as well. Lazy writing that produces a reaction of “why did they even bother making this movie?” despite the good actors and videography. Is it because good writers are difficult to find or, as with the actors, are the writers being constrained as well either by the streaming business model or poor taste in story selection by the streaming execs? The emergence of generative AI might make this even worse, as it’s only a matter of time till these are used to churn out scripts; although some of these scripts are so bad, maybe it has already started? Anyway, I find myself terminating movies earlier and more readily than in the past due to the higher frequency of disappointing dialogue and story lines along with the fear of wasting my time. My response is cancelling streaming subscriptions for a year or so and then resubscribing for a few months in hopes that a few decent new pieces of content were created.
- fullshark 4y ago
  Yeah the writing is horrible on the vast majority of these new shows/movies, they've been able to cover it up with amazing production values and paying for high quality acting but once you are no longer dazzled by that the story just leaves you with nothing compelling. Part of it is they are just producing so much content that the marginal quality of each script that now gets made is lower, but I do think script writing is an art that has been reduced to a series of tricks and cliches and storytelling has massively suffered.

rg111 4y ago

Do you have a Letterboxd or Trakt account? Can you give me the link? If not, just recommend me top-k TV/Web series, and top-k "exceptional B-movie sci-fi movies on Netflix". Thanks.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
Love and Monsters was a good b-scifi movie.

lommelun 4y ago

Democratized? It’s more centralized than ever. Also, giving more projects $5m is not a victory if the cost of a proper production is $20m. It’s just an explanation for why quality is dipping. Or following your logic and “hundreds of other films”, it seems like you’re under the impression that a good film can be made with $100k. I’m finding more blind spots and jumps to conclusions in your comment than in the admittedly poorly written article. Give that, it doesn’t surprise me that you’re one of the ones who are looking at what’s being served as tv shows and actually enjoying it. If you ask me, “the golden age of TV” is a meme based on a handful of shows, all of them made at the onset of the new economy when the nascent methodologies of the new economy led to authors having outsized influence for a short period of time. There’s something seriously brainwashed about looking at what’s at offer today and still concluding that because the Sopranos exists we’re still producing good content. I will give you the enjoyable b-movies, but also remind you that those have existed always, and often in greater numbers.

metacritic12 4y ago
> I will give you the enjoyable b-movies, but also remind you that those have existed always, and often in greater numbers. Don't think this is true. If you consider a lot of self-produced Youtube clips as C-movies, there are way more today. And audiences have voted for what they want: they want more lower-production-cost movies in their exact niche than academic film-art blockbusters like Ben Hur.
- andrepd 4y ago
  >academic film-art blockbusters like Ben Hur Wat
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Sure, if you consider a lot of self-produced Youtube clips as C-movies. But I think historically B-movies were paid for by Hollywood studios (but given shoestring budgets). It's hard to imagine a time in history where the 50's and 60's didn't dominate with B-movies. Perhaps with the collapse of the drive-in, the matinee, there has not been a compelling business model for the studios to finance B-movies for decades now.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

I sort of see what you're saying — hopefully the new streaming world we've found ourselves in can allow for more "long-tail" content. But "we're living in a golden age of TV" sounds so ... gross.