3 ms·

I remember groaning when all the "me too" streaming platforms were announced. Netflix was good when it had what I called "remnant content" like full ad-free sea

by jmyeet 3y ago

I remember groaning when all the "me too" streaming platforms were announced. Netflix was good when it had what I called "remnant content" like full ad-free seasons of TV that I could finally catch up on. And at $8 (or even $10/month) I basically kept it forever even if I didn't watch it for a few months. But now all these services are rapidly pushing towards $20/month. My usage pattern is to sign up for Netflix about one month a year, binge what I want then cancel. I'll probably do similar with Hulu too. I only have HBO because it's bundled with my ISP. Netflix's big mistake was movies. The only thing that makes movies economical is theatrical releases. I'm sure Netflix has lost billions trying to create top-tier movies. Disney's big mistake was thinking their back catalog and milking the Marven and Star Wars properties could carry their platform. But there were always going to be losers in the "me too" streaming gold rush. But we saw cable haemorrhage customers due to continual price hikes. I'm surprised there hasn't been more focus on controlling costs. Below a certain level customers will just keep a service forever. What I think Netflix needs to do is build out regional content in a much bigger way. This means have a studio in Spain producing Spanish language content, another in Germany and so on. These should be completely focused on producing content desired by those local markets. Then you cherrypick content to internationalize with dubbing. For whatever reason, the voice acting I've seen on virtually every dub is awful. And it seems to be the same small group of people that does it too. Money Heist springs to mind. Even "3%", which is a great show, has some awful dubbing. So Netflix kind of does this but not nearly enough. Like there are Turkish shows produced in Germany that are popular in Spain for whatever reason. Or Korean soaps that have a non-Korean audience. I'm honestly shocked at how bad the dubbing and voice acting ecosystem still is.

edgyquant 3y ago
I’ve definitely noticed that there seems to be ~5 people who do all the dubs on Netflix. For instance there’s obviously one guy who does all the main character voices, one guy who does all of the black guy voices, etc
- jmyeet 3y ago
  Yeah, it's deeply frustrating. I don't want to read subtitles so I like dubs. But compare it to American animated series (eg The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, etc) where voice acting is taken seriously as acting, which it is. Having the right voice actor matters. But for dubs it seems like they have like 6 people on staff whose job it is to do the dubs and they're just bad at it. It's clear it's not taken seriously. Being bad at it isn't the end of it either. The voice just has to be appropriate to the presentation and demeanour of the character. This shouldn't be an afterthought.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    If they have just 6 people who do all the dubs, those people aren't bad at it. But they will be good at it not in the way you like, but the way producers like - do everything acceptably in one take etc. Dubbing is a pretty extreme industry, from what I've heard. I used to know someone who had contracts to dub Disney stuff - they had ridiculous (and possibly illegal) contracts with huge penalties for quitting, since Daisy Duck better not start sounding different... I have also witnessed Norwegian children's TV "dubbed" by a broken nynorsk TTS engine.
- sklarsa 3y ago
  I always watch with subtitles in general because the dubs seem to lose the emotion of the scene. The downside being that I can’t multitask and have to pay full attention to what’s happening on the screen. Why do you prefer dubs?
kranke155 3y ago
>The only thing that makes movies economical is theatrical releases. Ah no. Home releases have been for very long the single biggest profitable part of a movie's life cycle. That's why Netflix doesn't waste its time with theatrical unless it has to, ie when they employ Scorcese and he puts in his contract, I'm assuming. https://stephenfollows.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/how-movies-make-money-Average-income-for-Hollywood-blockbuster-700x286.png https://stephenfollows.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/how-mo... https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-blockbusters/ https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-b...
- jmyeet 3y ago
  First, that's 2016. The central point there is how the fall in physical media sales is hurting movies. That trend has continued. I found something else suggesting DVD and BluRay sales were now about 2/3 of theatrical earnings where it used to exceed it. And that was a problem. Second, from the article: > Video on Demand performed very poorly for these blockbusters, with almost half of the films earning under 1% of their total income from VOD. So the digital home entertainment income is revenue from jsut having the content available on Netflix, Hulu or whoever. Third, even here 20%+ of the revenue came from theatrical release. Given how much a concern there is around the decline in physical media sales, losing that 20% seems like a far bigger deal, which is my point. Netflix basically loses that 20% off the bat. Fourth, these are averages. There is a long tail in theatrical earnings where the biggest blockbusters can make over a billion. By having streaming-only income you basically lose all your blockbuster potential. Lastly, just speculating here but as soon as the windows come down between theatrical release, paid VOD release and streaming release come down, it hurts all theatrical and paid VOD release revenue because a lot of people will just wait. This comes into play with simultaneous streaming and theatrical releases, which seem to make even less economic sense.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Then what's your theory why Netflix is not doing theatrical, if, like you say, it's just a missed opportunity ?
smileysteve 3y ago
Disney likely needs to consider "straight to Disney+ pay per view" like they did during the pandemic for Mulan, Jungle Cruise. There may even be a pricing structure potential for new series or legacy rentals.

by jmyeet 3y ago

edgyquant 3y ago

I’ve definitely noticed that there seems to be ~5 people who do all the dubs on Netflix. For instance there’s obviously one guy who does all the main character voices, one guy who does all of the black guy voices, etc

jmyeet 3y ago
Yeah, it's deeply frustrating. I don't want to read subtitles so I like dubs. But compare it to American animated series (eg The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, etc) where voice acting is taken seriously as acting, which it is. Having the right voice actor matters. But for dubs it seems like they have like 6 people on staff whose job it is to do the dubs and they're just bad at it. It's clear it's not taken seriously. Being bad at it isn't the end of it either. The voice just has to be appropriate to the presentation and demeanour of the character. This shouldn't be an afterthought.
- vintermann 3y ago
  If they have just 6 people who do all the dubs, those people aren't bad at it. But they will be good at it not in the way you like, but the way producers like - do everything acceptably in one take etc. Dubbing is a pretty extreme industry, from what I've heard. I used to know someone who had contracts to dub Disney stuff - they had ridiculous (and possibly illegal) contracts with huge penalties for quitting, since Daisy Duck better not start sounding different... I have also witnessed Norwegian children's TV "dubbed" by a broken nynorsk TTS engine.
sklarsa 3y ago
I always watch with subtitles in general because the dubs seem to lose the emotion of the scene. The downside being that I can’t multitask and have to pay full attention to what’s happening on the screen. Why do you prefer dubs?

kranke155 3y ago

>The only thing that makes movies economical is theatrical releases. Ah no. Home releases have been for very long the single biggest profitable part of a movie's life cycle. That's why Netflix doesn't waste its time with theatrical unless it has to, ie when they employ Scorcese and he puts in his contract, I'm assuming. https://stephenfollows.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/how-movies-make-money-Average-income-for-Hollywood-blockbuster-700x286.png https://stephenfollows.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/how-mo... https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-blockbusters/ https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-b...

jmyeet 3y ago
First, that's 2016. The central point there is how the fall in physical media sales is hurting movies. That trend has continued. I found something else suggesting DVD and BluRay sales were now about 2/3 of theatrical earnings where it used to exceed it. And that was a problem. Second, from the article: > Video on Demand performed very poorly for these blockbusters, with almost half of the films earning under 1% of their total income from VOD. So the digital home entertainment income is revenue from jsut having the content available on Netflix, Hulu or whoever. Third, even here 20%+ of the revenue came from theatrical release. Given how much a concern there is around the decline in physical media sales, losing that 20% seems like a far bigger deal, which is my point. Netflix basically loses that 20% off the bat. Fourth, these are averages. There is a long tail in theatrical earnings where the biggest blockbusters can make over a billion. By having streaming-only income you basically lose all your blockbuster potential. Lastly, just speculating here but as soon as the windows come down between theatrical release, paid VOD release and streaming release come down, it hurts all theatrical and paid VOD release revenue because a lot of people will just wait. This comes into play with simultaneous streaming and theatrical releases, which seem to make even less economic sense.
- kranke155 3y ago
  Then what's your theory why Netflix is not doing theatrical, if, like you say, it's just a missed opportunity ?

smileysteve 3y ago

Disney likely needs to consider "straight to Disney+ pay per view" like they did during the pandemic for Mulan, Jungle Cruise. There may even be a pricing structure potential for new series or legacy rentals.