Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#251

Post by odessacubbage » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:09 AM UTC

russelldjimmy wrote: post #165

Spivak wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if representation is fine what do you want it to look like? Because by your rules black people aren’t allowed to have fun fantasizing about being a pirate sailing the high seas in colonial England, a trans man can’t be in a WWII fiction fighting nazis, a woman can’t be in a medical drama about stopping the cholera outbreak. So if they can’t be key roles (i.e. important at all to the plot) minorities should be rele…

I agree with the other poster. It’s not relatable. No offence to the minorities. It feels like forced messaging to the rest of us. Why represent only minorities in race, ethnicity and sexuality? Why not represent people such as war widows, people with skin diseases, mental disabilities, people with above average heights, obese people, etc.? For those of us not living in the USA, it feels like cultural imperialism. “W…

the ironic thing is that manga solved this problem decades ago by simply creating genres for every possible niche.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#252

Post by evocatus » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:10 AM UTC

Espressosaurus wrote: post #196

solarhoma wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Like most things in biology, sexual attraction is a spectrum. It's not binary. Given wider acknowledgement and acceptance of that I can see more folks coming out as bi.

No post body was provided.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#253

Post by philjohn » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:14 AM UTC

solarhoma wrote: post #191

scotu wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By having homosexuality violently oppressed, ostracized and ridiculed in the past, and slowly reversing that attitude towards it? People were literally criminals for loving people of the same sex...

20-40 years turnaround in a civilization is anything but slow in my opinion.

A lot can happen in 20-40 years, and has happened in 20-40 years throughout history. Industrial Revolution, being a prime example.

We've also become far more interconnected in the last 20 years, which plays a large part - whereas before people may have kept quiet because they thought they were the odd one out they now know they aren't.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#254

Post by philjohn » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:16 AM UTC

lovemenot wrote: post #234

ikr678 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shows produced outside of the US are generally better on the diversity of appearance front. UK content particular is much more watchable for me, as actors are closer to regular people you'd see on the street vs the very thin, athletic, impossibly white toothed American casting ideal.

I approve of the use of talented non-white actors in British period dramas, such as David Copperfield. It is obvious that the person's skin colour is ahistorical for the role. But it doesn't matter. We the audience are tacitly invited to look past this detail. It seems a little incongruous for about ten seconds, then just disappears into their fine performance.

See also Chernobyl being full of actors with British accents ... jarring for about 30 seconds, and then you don't even realise for the rest of the show, because it's just that good.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#255

Post by evocatus » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:18 AM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #145

solarhoma wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes a problem though when shows are catering to what 1% (or less) of the population looks like or is diagnosed with. This is what people are getting upset with. Representation is fine. But when every new show you turn on has half of the cast as a trans person, a non-binary person, and a whatever else it gets old. It gets old when historical shows and films have distorted facts or figures to, again, fill some q…

Gen-z identifies as 20% queer. Each new generation is more willing/able to live their truth. Wouldn't surprise me if we land somewhere around 25-30%. In large part thanks to representation in shows and movies. The us is rapidly diversifying too in terms of race, yet still even more under represented in media. Glaad says only ~10% queer characters on broadcast, and was a decline from previous study. Specifically compa…

Why are you focusing on LGBTQ+ which, as some other posters have noted, appear over-represented in media (relative to their occurrence in the population), and not transracial people who receive effectively zero representation in media? Do you think it's acceptable to punch down like this?

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#256

Post by suriyaG » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:20 AM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #237

mitchdoogle wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The culture is more accepting of LGBTQ these days, so people are more likely to admit it. It's that simple - there's no need to try and psychoanalyze millions of people based on your political ideology.

But you've just done that. The answer is that it's obviously not that simple. What we know is that there has been a large percentage increase in the number of people identifying as queer. One hypothesis is that this is because there was previously a certain percentage of the population who was queer, but the societal cost for identifying as such was sufficiently high so as to prevent them from doing so. It is therefo…

I agree that your hypothesis is a possibility. But, what type of advantage does identifying as LGBTQ provide that is not in being a heterosexual?

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#257

Post by throwawaylinux » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:23 AM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #3

> One of Holland’s last projects for Netflix was The Queen’s Gambit, an expensive period piece that sources say was mocked as “Holland’s Folly” by some in-house. According to sources, Bajaria and her staff were dismissive and even unpleasant to the team that worked on it. What a hellscape to work in. I got on Netflix very briefly, just to watch that show. I can't think of any reason to get back on.

The article seems like it might be biased and pushing a narrative. It might not be, and I am not dismissing the sources or their sincerity. But a few things seem a bit off to me.

Bajaria is brought in to bring fresh eyes and a new approval chain to the process as part of a strategic direction. It's just asserted this was the wrong thing to do, and the anti-Bajaria sources here clearly met her with hostility from the start:

"Everybody thought it was a terrible thing Ted did, allowing one team to greenlight something that another team had passed on."

and

"And Ted loved that stupid phrase, ‘There are multiple paths to yes.’"

Why? Why was it a bad thing to have different groups looking at shows with a different eye? For a corporation and workforce which allegedly pride themselves on diversity this seems strange to me. They go through a bunch of examples of shows that were dismissed by Holland which Bajaria picked up, but list hits, and credit her with other "megahits". Seems like the diversity of opinion and skill paid off in those cases at least.

They're also dismissive and making seemingly arbitrary statements to support that:

"By then, Holland was to oversee 80 shows on the service while Bajaria was responsible for 60. “Who can make 140 shows a year?” asks one creative. “That’s insane."

Why is 80 shows by one team okay but another 60 by another team insane? Maybe they're just talking absolute numbers, but the article very clearly ties it to the same paragraph where it introduces Bajaria.

Given the hostility and dismissiveness of the original group, I could completely understand a bit of return from the new group. Now what I think is equally likely to have happened is that the new group's arrival put noises out of joint because it threatened the existing power structure, and things deteriorated from there. Now that is always to be expected to some degree in a situation like this so likely the CEO should have managed it better. But maybe it was largely caused by assholes in the Holland camp. Or maybe by those in the Bajaria camp. Or maybe none of it's really a problem and Netflix hasn't got dramatically worse, they're just hitting limits of growth and facing increasing competition, and their stock crash is just a good excuse for disgruntled people to air their grievances.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#258

Post by philjohn » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:24 AM UTC

moomin wrote: post #113

The thing is, their strategy is fundamentally flawed. They understood they needed to build up a library, but their metrics chased subscriber uptick that said “Only the first two seasons matter.” So, with a couple of exceptions they’re building up a large library of cancelled shows.

I'm STILL salty that Teenage Bounty Hunters got cancelled.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#259

Post by bombcar » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:25 AM UTC

avalys wrote: post #197

QuikAccount wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to break this to you but that's all documentaries in general. Every documentary has the goal of convincing you of something.

Ever watch Modern Marvels on the History Channel? The only point of those is “look at this cool shit!”

Both the “look at cool shit” and the “here’s how this simple looking thing actually is really complex and how it works” type of documentaries seem to mainly be on YouTube now.

YouTube is perfect for 10 minutes of content without having to try to stretch it to an hour.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#260

Post by prawn » Fri, May 06, 2022, 7:25 AM UTC

solarhoma wrote: post #133

Spivak wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Increasing pop politics seemingly shoe horned into everything I'd turn on :( I know this is a tangent but it’s always sad to see representation treated as inherently political. Like this is the first time in my life I’ve ever seen mainstream shows portray wlw relationships. Or shows portray the reality of how common and casual sexual assault is. Or characters that that struggle with depression as more than just an…

It becomes a problem though when shows are catering to what 1% (or less) of the population looks like or is diagnosed with. This is what people are getting upset with. Representation is fine. But when every new show you turn on has half of the cast as a trans person, a non-binary person, and a whatever else it gets old. It gets old when historical shows and films have distorted facts or figures to, again, fill some q…

Like when in decades past they'd make pre-historic films but characters had American accents or even just spoke English. Or a sword and sandals epic with very white actors, etc? Productions cater to an audience because they're ultimately commercial ventures. Streaming is more global than ever so it seems shrewd to incorporate a diverse range of actors to me.