I guess I wasn't clear. I'm talking about the ability of artists to get funded and the ability to make a living off of it. Maybe also the quality and quantity o

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm talking about the ability of artists to get funded and the ability to make a living off of it. Maybe also the quality and quantity of new movies or shows. My belief is that it's easier now than ever to make a movie or TV show by getting a deal with a streaming service. This is in comparison to making a living from the industry that the post is talking about ("hits-based" movie making). Record stores went out of business when vinyl was replaced by cassettes. Video rental went out of business during the early days of the internet. Brick and mortar music stores declined with the availability of mp3s online. Book stores declined in popularity with the rise of Amazon. So, too, are cinemas declining with the offering of on-demand movies and TV. I guess your assumption is that small art houses are the drivers of weird, niche culture? I would disagree. The availability of platforms that get media in front of more peoples eyes and the lowering cost of creating and distributing that media are what I would guess as the main benefit of producing weird, niche media. I love cinemas but the world changes and if their model only exists when the movie industry has a stranglehold on the distribution, then, as much as I hate to see them go, they're just not viable anymore.