The Slow Death of Hollywood • Hacker News Board

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#231

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

holy_city wrote: post #154

gamblor956 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix doesn't make the sausage and they don't care about how it's made. They pay people a lot of money to do it, and that's about it. They're in the business of distributing the sausage. They also buy a lot of bulk sausage that they found at a sausage festival, meaning they had no stake before it was made. This is quite literally the opposite of the truth... Netflix makes a lot of the "sausage". They use roughly th…

It's a bit weird to say they have "some of the biggest" spaces if you don't count everyone else of note . But backlots and shootling locations are just a part of the recipe. Look at the end credits of Netflix originals and compare them to Disney, especially w.r.t. the VFX and post production shops. That's the difference in vertical integration I was trying to point out.

It's a bit weird that you think Hollywood is only 5 studios. That would be like saying Silicon Valley is just FAANG. There are dozens of studios in LA alone, not including the studios in NY, Atlanta, and Vancouver.

Netflix is the 5th biggest studio in Hollywood (the industry) but is the biggest studio actually located in Hollywood (the neighborhood of LA) as the other major studios have their own facilities in other neighborhoods or cities of LA. (Sony = Culver City, Fox/Disney = Century City and Burbank, Paramount = Mid City, Universal = Universal City.)

Comparing the end credits for Netflix originals and Disney films, I see no difference in the amount of vertical integration. Netflix films generally aren't VFX heavy so there isn't as much outsourcing that needs to be done. Disney films are, and most VFX shots are outsourced since (a) it's cheaper and (b) the specialized VFX shops are usually faster and more nimble than in-house VFX teams. Compare the end credits for thein-house VFX-heavy Netflix original like Bright and Mute. They have just as much outsourcing as a Disney film.

(Source: I count Fox Searchlight, Vendome, and Sony Pictures as former clients and I currently work for a media company. I'm well versed in how movies are made.)

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#232

Post by wowandflutter » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

Seems to me the same kind of thing is happening to the music industry. Streaming is great, however having “too many choices” sometimes feels overwhelming. Corporations want to make a profit, so naturally they will seek out the next big streaming hit and market it to their end users. How do they do this? Algorithms, popularity, number of plays, demographics, etc. Eventually, a few big names get most of the attention. And the user base with the highest number of (paying) listeners is catered to above everything else.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#233

Post by davesmith1983 » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:13 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #227

davesmith1983 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is partly due to new media however lets consider some other things which are really important. 1) The problem is that a lot of the remakes/sequels and reboots are quite frankly crap. I don't care too much about Disney. But other remakes and sequels are generally awful. So lets take some case studies: * Robocop (2013). The movie except for on 2 minute scene was dire. It was a PG-13 remake of what was at the time a…

This type of rant is exactly why most of us find the "fandom" so tedious.

I find unconstructive comments which hand waive away valid criticism by trying to tie you to a group (in this case fans) to be a disingenuous.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#234

Post by sleepysysadmin » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #23

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #14

The rapid changing from VCR -> DVD -> Blueray -> digital meant their industry was able to resell their product over and over. This produced a golden age and created a ridiculous amount of money. Their golden age is over. In the very near future what used to be the movie/tv industry will be significantly smaller.

Obviously it’s a bit of a Rorschach but I see it differently: Industrialists took control of the production apparatus and stopped funding anything that didn’t fit into “proven” parameters. This produces a lot of money for owners, in a very efficient way. Very little money is wasted, there are clearly lost opportunities on risks not taken, but as long as there is enough work to keep the top management busy at full cap…

Maybe my perspective is a bit skewed as a Canadian, our government requires X% of content on tv to be Canadian made. Which was fine because tons of stuff is made in vancouver and toronto but it never pushed the little guy out. We still have all the small time crap like ice road truckers or trailer park boys.

>At the end of the day this business has nothing to do with technology

I disagree that technology isnt involved. As I said, changing formats but then you bring up all the technologies which were developed which changed things. Youtube/Netflix itself is technology.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#235

Post by magduf » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

pfranz wrote: post #77

addicted wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I kind of agree with you on that. People don't seem to have much sympathy about multiple subscriptions services. The mantra is to cancel subscriptions to whatever you're not watching ATM, but with young children that's untenable (I'd prefer to just outright buy, but discoverability and availability doesn't always work like that). It does suck when Comcast is fighting with ESPN and you don't care because your kid just…

>The mantra is to cancel subscriptions to whatever you're not watching ATM, but with young children that's untenable

Young children don't need to watch TV, in fact it'd be better if they didn't watch any at all. Maybe have some DVDs they can watch when they want; that's certainly a lot cheaper than any kind of subscription.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#236

Post by magduf » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

jstutzman wrote: post #47

[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when they’re still popular. Netflix has learned that the first two seasons of a show are key to bringing in subscribers—but the third and later seasons don’t do much to retain or win new subscribers. - That's crazy and smart all at the same time. Definitely not user-centered design.

Two seasons seems a little short; maybe 3 would be better?

Just look at The Expanse; that one I thought did well with keeping me engaged, but they ended it (by design) after 3 seasons, and it seemed to be just the right length for the overall story arc they were going for.

Whereas Game of Thrones stayed interesting for a long time (6 seasons to be exact), but after that started faltering and in season 8 really became disappointing, mainly because the books they were basing it on had run out and they were now making things up as they went along.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#237

Post by magduf » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

freerootkit wrote: post #73

Price of 1 movie ticket: $15 Price of small popcorn: $8 Price of small drink: $8 Price of small candy: $5 Total: $36 Time it took to drive to theater: 10 mins Time it took to wait in line for food: 10 mins Time it took to watch trailers: 25 mins Total: 45 mins Buying the movie and watching it my house costs no more than $20 (when it first comes out) and I can make whatever I want to eat and don't have to drive anywhe…

Watch out, you're going to have some purist chime in about how worthwhile the "theater experience" is because it's "shared" or whatever. I see these arguments all the time on /r/movies; the movie snobs really hate people who watch movies at home and don't go to the theaters and put up with rude patrons, overpriced concessions, 25 minutes of commercials, etc.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#238

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

davesmith1983 wrote: post #118

dragonwriter wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is partly due to new media however lets consider some other things which are really important. 1) The problem is that a lot of the remakes/sequels and reboots are quite frankly crap. I don't care too much about Disney. But other remakes and sequels are generally awful. So lets take some case studies: * Robocop (2013). The movie except for on 2 minute scene was dire. It was a PG-13 remake of what was at the time a…

> Just under half of the Country voted for the current president

Less than 30% of eligible voters (and an even smaller percentage of the country) did, actually.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#239

Post by NeedMoreTea » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

goto11 wrote: post #217

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was interesting from 50+ years before I was born, through B&W B movies of the 50s, to maybe early 00s. Independent movies don't have the same absurd tendencies, and often still have lots of contrasts. Sure, some of those are just poor too. Independents have changed too, but haven't magically ended up with the same framework every time. Hollywood didn't used to. There were always derivatives, themes, fashions, but…

You think older movies were better because of the time filter - we remember the classics and forget the crap. You think movies you saw in your youth were great because they were original to you - you hadn't seen all the previous movies and plays they were inspired by or remakes of. This is the same for everybody, which is why people was saying the exact same thing as you do 10, 20, 30 years ago. > Too much chasing wh…

> You think older movies were better because of the time filter - we remember the classics and forget the crap.

No you're making excuses. I don't think they were always better, but that they took from a FAR wider selection of production styles. Hollywood has been afraid of variety for decades, inserting the cliche "family values" ending in every movie, or even demanding the neat happy end every time, or some cliche camera technique, whether the Dutch angle, or today's overhead rotating zoom-in. Habits and techniques that run in eras. Those homogenised 5 or 15% of the film, with half of that always the cliche ending.

There have been shite movies in every era, but both good and bad provided a far wider variety of production styles. Emphatically not saying that every film became crap - though they often seem tired and boring because even a good or perfectly directed and produced film feels tired when its 5th or 15th in the franchise. Everything feels like it's in the same franchise now at 70-90% homogenised.

Maybe you don't see it, but my kids and their friends seem to and regularly take the piss about movies they saw. They can't compare with earlier eras but they can, and do, come back and take the piss about the scene or idea lifted straight from the last movie they went as a group to. Not always - they can rave about some film I thought awful too. :)

> Hollywood is a business, it exists to make money. It have always been like that.

The point, that I could have expressed better, is that it always existed to make money, but didn't completely sacrifice everything else on that altar. Yet despite scifi, yes even Star Wars, usually being western in space the theme book had more than one page. Maybe there were a dozen or so common, cliched themes and production styles, but clearly more than one.

The point I suppose boils down to: every movie now has become a super-hero martial arts movie. A horror film has become a super-hero martial arts movie in a cabin in the woods etc. The book must say that's what encapsulates the perfect movie, so that's the form given to every movie.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#240

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41

0815test wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "when in doubt, free markets" Monopolies are antithetical to the free market, and vertical integration in industries with high economies of scale does create substantial monopoly concerns! The best market-based solution, so far as we can tell, is precisely to carve out the monopoly-prone "tier" in the industry (this is not always easy as monopoly-potential is not always correctly judged; it's more about inherent la…

> even nationalizing it if necessary (this is, after all, the basic rstionale for why many public services are provided by the government) Note that those public services generally aren't nationalized . The local water utility is typically operated by the city, not the feds.

s/nationalised/deprivatised/

Or, you know, socialised.