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

101–110 of 267 posts

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#101

Post by jariel »

The primary issue is that distribution has shifted, i.e. the quality of the viewing experience at home (w/ high bandwidth great displays), makes for a great experience, competitive with the theatres.

'Netflix' is the big winner in this, but their story is secondary to the channel disruption.

But - consumers will have more than $12 to spend on content and the 'fight' will be between HBO, Disney and other package providers, and AT&T/Comcast etc. who'll fight for those dollars by pushing up bandwidth prices.

The other, major issue unmentioned in the article is that Hollywood is now playing to a truly global audience, not just 'America + Europe + Anglosphere'.

This means the stories are ever dumber, playing to the lowest common denominator, relying more on action than even dialogue let alone acting or plot.

Most importantly 'context' disappears as the nuance of, for example, the English class system, barely relevant in America to begin with is way beyond the average Brazilian viewers knowledge base, and so stories relying on such familiarity are 'out' along with everything else requiring remotely any regional knowledge.

And of course, every big Hollywood film now has to have the approval of the Chinese government, if that's not the most dystopian thing that nobody ever thought could happen.

'The Fast and the Furious', 'Transformers' and Superhero movies are now effectively what Hollywood is.

The cinema as we once knew it will be relegated to TV for the time being.

That said, there will be some good content.

The Oscars will have to update how they do awards in order to handle this new issue, because they want to remain 'prestigious' but also relevant at the same time, which will be hard.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#102

Post by Mountain_Skies »

zajd wrote: post #26
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…

There is no such thing as a free market. The sooner Americans accept this maybe we can move forward towards a society where we don't allow businesses to engage in predatory practices under the guise of "free market ideology". Like Uber/Lyft price dumping for the past decade. We're ruining the taxi industry for what exactly? So a bunch of millionaires can lose money for 20 years because they are selling billionaires o…

The taxi industry ruined itself long before anyone conceived of Uber or Lyft. There was nothing stopping the taxi industry from creating Uber. They had the regulatory capture to make it happen much easier than how Uber and Lyft built themselves. Even without Uber or Lyft the taxi industry was busy pushing their customers into purchasing private automobiles because taxi service was so awful.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#103

Post by majormajor »

magduf wrote: post #81
goto11 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mos…

>But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. >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. Exactly. People are bemoaning th…

> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks.

It's harder to get people to go to the theater due to a bunch of factors like improved TV tech and increased competition for time, but "hollywood" is also capitalizing on those things. Look at how many original series are on Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc, and compare that to what we had 30 years ago between theaters and TV.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#104

Post by spacegod »

Causality1 wrote: post #82

>be that person an artist or a major studio; it’s simply impossible to compete Has this guy somehow missed out on the fact that Netflix doesn't own the vast majority of the content its users watch? A major studio competing with Netflix is not terribly difficult since all it has to do is yank its own content off the platform. CBS launched a successful streaming service on the backs of one Star Trek series and a bunch…

What happens when the networks all have their own streaming service? I mean inevitably some of them die, right?

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#105

Post by goatlover »

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.

It's only a problem to be cracked if the number of people cancelling once in a while is significant. Anecdotes aren't statistics.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#106

Post by ravenstine »

liber8 wrote: post #98
magduf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. >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. Exactly. People are bemoaning th…

"Hollywood" has never, ever taken more risks than they are taking today. Netflix alone spent $12 billion on new content in 2018. They expect to spend $15 billion in 2019, and expect this to hit almost $18 billion in 2020.[1] There is more new, original content being produced than anyone could ever expect to watch in one lifetime. Compare this to a few decades ago when you had 3 or 4 networks on TV each making a dozen…

What are we defining as "Hollywood" here? Is Netflix really considered the same thing as the studios that produce the blockbusters?

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#107

Post by goatlover »

mamon wrote: post #8

Cancelling show after two seasons is a blessing: original idea has usually already ran its course by then, and the story becomes more and more convoluted and boring. Very few shows remain high quality in third or subsequent seasons.

Not any of the shows I enjoy watching. Two seasons is often not enough time to do proper justice to the characters arcs and the overall story.

Now that maybe true once you get beyond five or six seasons for many shows. However, the final two seasons of GoT suffered from rushing the story to a conclusion, and should have gone about 10 seasons to do it proper justice. But GoT is admittedly an outlier with a very complex story and tons of characters.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#108

Post by Retric »

scarface74 wrote: post #95
Retric wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you really want to compare the value of Netflix’s IP to that of Disney or Warner?

It’s not about the situation today. Right now Netflix is paying Disney quite a bit of money to use their IP, but that really can change with time.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#109

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

ravenstine wrote: post #100
B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hollywood is hanging itself by its own velvet rope. There you go, that's one better than the alleged Lenin witticism "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." (Well researched, as usual, here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/22/rope/ ) Disintermediation strikes again.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that, but maybe it slipped into my consciousness from somewhere.

Might, might not, I was just amused at revolutionaries becoming unemployed through DIY.

Comrade Karl did not know half of it when he penned "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part."

(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... - it's a good free verse poem, actually, what with the "All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned" line, among others. 'Tis pity the slaughter it drove.)

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#110

Post by scarface74 »

Retric wrote: post #108
scarface74 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really want to compare the value of Netflix’s IP to that of Disney or Warner?

It’s not about the situation today. Right now Netflix is paying Disney quite a bit of money to use their IP, but that really can change with time.

That’s not the point. Disney will soon have their own streaming service with a much better library.
Post reply on HN