Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Slow Death of Hollywood

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 267 posts

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#61

Post by delinka »

pfranz wrote: post #34
WarDores wrote: post #22

I'm typically a "when in doubt, free markets" type, but the three tier system (production, distribution, and retailing) has numerous advantages. The craft beer boom, for example, would never have happened in the absence of a legally-mandated 3 tier system. Not only did this result in greater consumer choice, but it also allowed small businesses to thrive in a sector where there are significant economies of scale. I t…

> The craft beer boom, for example, would never have happened in the absence of a legally-mandated 3 tier system. Really? I'm not intimately familiar with it, but I've heard the exact opposite. Big distributors are already partnered with the big guys, so small guys had a lot of trouble getting distribution and couldn't do it themselves. There are also silly restrictions. I toured the Budweiser factory in St Louis, go…

I feel like you contradict yourself. You point out that "Big distributors are already partnered with the big guys, so small guys had a lot of trouble getting distribution and couldn't do it themselves." Right, the legally mandated change solved this problem for the little guys.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#62

Post by Retric »

smacktoward wrote: post #55
scarface74 wrote: post #33

This entire article is flawed because of the premise that Netflix is a monopoly. There were 495 active scripted shows in 2018 - 146 more than in 2013 ( https://gazette.com/arts-entertainment/the-number-of-scripte... ). There are also more avenues than ever to shop around a scripted show including five networks - as opposed to three four decades ago and many cable channels. In the 80s and 90s, most cable channels were…

I suspect that Peak Netflix is already behind us. They've been quite frank that in their current incarnation they're aiming to become the next HBO (see https://gizmodo.com/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster... ), and while HBO was definitely the "gold standard" of prestige TV, it was never anywhere near crowding out its many rivals. The big question mark hanging over this plan is that they are burning tons of b…

Calculating Netflix profitability over the short term is hard because it’s difficult to value the residuals from their IP. If for example stranger things is still being watched in 20 years that’s less content they then need to pay for over time.

I don’t think they are creating a lot of valuable content right now. But, that’s more option than fact.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#63

Post by jpalomaki »

holy_city wrote: post #31

I just wanted to disagree with the author's assertion : >[Netflix has] "slowly reconstructed the old vertically integrated studio system. The company is an integrated production and streaming service." Netflix is probably the least integrated business in Hollywood when it comes to production. To use an analogy, think of content as sausage. Netflix doesn't make the sausage and they don't care about how it's made. They…

Netflix also has lots of detailed data about what kind of ingredients people want in their sausage.

Would make sense for them to start being quite specific with the suppliers what they want to get.

This is not just on high level. You could track on individual episodes and even inside episodes (for example do you pause, switch to another app).

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#64

Post by goto11 »

ravenstine wrote: post #51

Hollywood is hanging itself by its own velvet rope. Remakes are seen as an excellent investment because, so long as they are properly stylized and full of dazzle, they are low-risk and have reasonable returns. Usually. This won't work for them forever, and I think everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already bought. The other day, my cousin's 11 year old so…

> everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already bought.

But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. And Hollywood have always been criticized for being vapid entertainment, empty spectacle etc.

"catching on to the fact" suggest that this is some secret insight which undermines the enjoyment of the movie. But I'm pretty sure most people who goes to the Disney remakes go because it is remakes of movies they already know and love. They want to see the same thing in a new way.

According to Wikipedia, Aladdin grossed "$923.7 million, against a production budget of $183 million". So despite you and your nephew, Disney seem to manage OK.

Hollywood does have problem, but it is not due to lack of originality. Hollywood produces plenty of original stories still, but it is the remakes and franchises which grosses the most. Because the consumers likes this stuff.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

ravenstine wrote: post #51

Hollywood is hanging itself by its own velvet rope. Remakes are seen as an excellent investment because, so long as they are properly stylized and full of dazzle, they are low-risk and have reasonable returns. Usually. This won't work for them forever, and I think everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already bought. The other day, my cousin's 11 year old so…

Recycling culture nakedly has always been Disney's thing, the familiarity of the stories has always been a selling point with much of the market (and the “its just recycling what I've already experienced” has always been the refrain of another part of the market.)

That's also true of Hollywood more generally. To the extent Hollywood is dying it's because new media (that are no less enthusiastic about recycling culture) is displacing old, but the same corporate Giants (and even moreso the same moneyed interests behind them) control much of new media as dominate the old, so ultimately the difference it makes is pretty minimal.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#66

Post by jpalomaki »

One thing Netflix has not yet cracked is how to keep me constantly hooked and to stop me from quitting once in a while.

As I can just catch up with the missed episodes later, I don’t see problem canceling the subscription.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#67

Post by delinka »

addicted wrote: post #49
pfranz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the three tier system (production, distribution, and retailing) has numerous advantages Do you see cable tv as a successful implementation of this? Every few years I'll see news articles and billboards about "Fox couldn't negotiate a deal with Dish." It'll be unavailable for a few weeks until they reach a deal, but in the meantime both sides blame each other and the customer goes without. Not to mention cable addin…

For all the complaints about cable, what we are transitioning into is significantly worse, with a bunch of different concentrated streaming services. The Fox-Dish battles were basically what helped keep prices lower for viewers. Right now, customers have no big player on their side, so essentially the only way to fight Netflix price increases is on a purely individual level, which rarely works. Dish would concentrate…

People have clamored for a la carte pricing for a long time. Well, the direction we're headed is a response to that, albeit not a good response from the view of consumers. We'll have to start managing which services we pay for - subscribe, binge, unsubscribe, move to the next service, repeat.

The smaller players will sell out to the bigger players. The bigger players will gain additional leverage against content providers. This is the market functioning.

What amazes me every time I think about this is the ever-present short-term thinking by these companies: gain subscribers now, take as much money as we can now, and the downside will be dealt with by the next generation of executives in three years. While consumers' economy is affected negatively almost immediately and for the long term.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#68

Post by notfromhere »

dragonwriter wrote: post #65
ravenstine wrote: post #51

Hollywood is hanging itself by its own velvet rope. Remakes are seen as an excellent investment because, so long as they are properly stylized and full of dazzle, they are low-risk and have reasonable returns. Usually. This won't work for them forever, and I think everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already bought. The other day, my cousin's 11 year old so…

Recycling culture nakedly has always been Disney's thing, the familiarity of the stories has always been a selling point with much of the market (and the “its just recycling what I've already experienced” has always been the refrain of another part of the market.) That's also true of Hollywood more generally. To the extent Hollywood is dying it's because new media (that are no less enthusiastic about recycling cultur…

Recycling concepts is one thing. Recycling a movie thats still popular only with slightly different acting is quite another.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#69

Post by mrkurt »

scarface74 wrote: post #33

This entire article is flawed because of the premise that Netflix is a monopoly. There were 495 active scripted shows in 2018 - 146 more than in 2013 ( https://gazette.com/arts-entertainment/the-number-of-scripte... ). There are also more avenues than ever to shop around a scripted show including five networks - as opposed to three four decades ago and many cable channels. In the 80s and 90s, most cable channels were…

I don't think it makes sense to define monopoly as a binary state. There are ways that companies with monopoly power behave even if you can argue the company itself isn't a monopoly.

And, for what it's worth, copyright owners are the canonical monopolies. There's no suitable replacement for Stranger Things. What's new is that TV show copyright owners are now able to monopolize distribution.

I get that there's a more diverse set of good content, you'd expect that to happen with the explosion of the internet. But that's happening in spite of monopolist behavior, not because of it. Most of the wealth in movie/tv creation is getting captured by a smaller group of companies.

Hence the article focusing on Netflix canceling shows after the second season. The creators of shows make more money when they run a long time, Netflix would prefer to keep those people working for cheap if it doesn't create churn.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#70

Post by lkrubner »

jpalomaki wrote: post #66

One thing Netflix has not yet cracked is how to keep me constantly hooked and to stop me from quitting once in a while. As I can just catch up with the missed episodes later, I don’t see problem canceling the subscription.

Very much the same for me. I try not to waste too much time watching movies, but also I want to keep up with the culture. But I find if I binge one month a year, I end up seeing almost everything that people are talking about.
Post reply on HN