311–320 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was wondering if this could be applied to music streaming services in the future. Forcing Spotify or Apple Music to make at least 30% of their content locally produced music seems... Exceedingly high.
Honestly I think that more doable than 30% of movies and tv-shows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um. That's already a part of the television culture in some places. Norway has slow tv. I don't watch it, but some folks out there do. https://www.visitnorway.com/media/news-from-norway/finally-t...
At one point when our son was four, almost five, he loved Slow TV, in particular the 7 hour train journey. (We are in Australia so watching it on Netflix.) We'd just put it on for him and he'd play with it on in the background. It is far less annoying than some of the other things he wants to watch (e.g. Commander Keen playthroughs on YouTube). (But, since then, he has kind of lost interest in trains, so it hasn't be…
> The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%) 30% for each country seems really high to me. As usual for regulation, there will likely be high unintended consequences. While in the US and elsewhere…
The proposition is also to promote production from anywhere else within the EU to 'a' national market, and therefore exposing an audience to TV shows/films they wouldn't have access to through their national broadcaster. I do believe this is unfair on streaming service as the national markets are still closely guarded market, and national network should be made subject to the same constraint. I would even go one step further and break the national airwave license in favor of a European one, but that is going to be another discussion entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it will pretty much never be cost-efficient to make a German language movie with a limited market compared to a English movie. No matter how great it is. It is even worse for smaller countries like Finland or Netherlands. There will NEVER be comparable ratings for a Dutch comedy show vs Modern Family with a global audience. So unless regulated, investments will shift to…
But, isn't this literally the point of the European common market? Germans make the best pretzels, Italians make the best olive oil, and French make the best cheese, and all the countries can share their exports with each other with no trade barriers. Why should protectionism be embraced for cultural exports when the EU was literally established to eliminate protectionism for other exports?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not as diverse for major film. Most of the film in the US comes from Hollywood.
So? Walk onto a set and I bet you'll find people from every continent except Antarctica there. People born on those continents too, not just descendants.
- What language do they speak?
- What cultural nuances are they bringing to their films? Local food, local culture?
99% of US films have little to do with international perspectives, much less with local cultures.
A black man eating a Big Mac is a person eating a Big Mac, no matter how black he is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a pretty ridiculous and off-the-mark assertion about both the nature of Bollywood cinema and its popularity within India. I welcome a fact-based counter-argument. What is exactly ridiculous? That India had many illiterate people in the past? India is at 72%, below Bangladesh, and slightly above Rwanda and Yemen, far below all western countries. And that's the median, there are provinces like Bihar with sub…
> This is not about retaining some rights. This is about having the rights of natural persons. Referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood Yes, this is about retaining the rights. That's exactly why corporations have rights of personality, both in the US and in Europe. It's not some unique facet of US law; it's literally written into the constitution in multiple European countries. > I welco…
This is what people call a discussion, where they exchange arguments. I don't throw pre-digested ready-made conclusions at the other and call it a day. If you're interested in what historians say on the matter, go read them.
I gave my argument, and pointers to any raw facts used in it (e.g. literacy rates). You can evaluate it on its own merits, or leave it.
I, furthermore, have witnessed the connection with poverty/illiteracy and own-language song-and-dance movies from my own country, which for a large span until the '70s had a similar film industry, and for very similar reasons (and I have read local academics and cultural workers come to the same conclusions). But I don't just spew ready-made conclusions when it comes to soft sciences (as if they were physics), I prefer to process things with my own arguments.
In any case, here's another link between illiteracy and Bollywood:
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/02/22/let-a-billion...
> The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%) 30% for each country seems really high to me. As usual for regulation, there will likely be high unintended consequences. While in the US and elsewhere…
> 30% for each country seems really high to me. The article misstates what the proposal actually says. It's a quota of 30% on "European works". The term is defined in Article 1 (1) (n) of Directive 2010/13/EU [1], which the proposal seeks to amend; it includes works originating in the member states, works originating in countries that are parties to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, and works copro…
> The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%) 30% for each country seems really high to me. As usual for regulation, there will likely be high unintended consequences. While in the US and elsewhere…
I mean, Uwe Boll is European (German, specifically).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone here actively despises the local film industry. We do not need to inflict Dutch television on the world. Thats torture. I don't understand. Do the Dutch hate their own programmes? Why would they bother making shows they don't want to watch? > if your culture is so great France and Germany you wouldn't need these subsidies. I'm not sure they need them, just that it helps promote it. These shows might not ne…
> I don't understand. Do the Dutch hate their own programmes? Why would they bother making shows they don't want to watch? Same reason any culture creates art, by choice. Not all art has to be accepted (or forced) and many times the value to its creator and/or a small subset of patrons is enough to justify it. >> if your culture is so great France and Germany you wouldn't need these subsidies. Netflix is not a public…