Live data from Hacker News

Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

hollywoodreporter.com

351–360 of 416 posts

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

#351
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gen Z isn’t the world. US lgbt pop is 7% according to Wikipedia and that sounds high to me, maybe college kids experimenting with their identity in response to woke culture. I’d guess it’s more like 3-4%

Oh come on, are you really going to look up data about populations expecting it to be low, and then because it doesn’t conform to your world view make up some reason why it must be wrong? And the point about Gen Z is that this is where we’re heading. Millennials are 10% lgbt and growing, Gen Z is around lgbt 20% and growing. My all time favorite concert was Girl in Red who sold out a 5000 person venue in less than 30…

All social justice movements have a trend phase, unfortunately this one is leading to life altering surgeries and suicides.

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

#352
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...

And if you go way back in history, homosexuality was totally accepted in places like ancient Greece. It's good that TV series show homosexuality as something normal, because it is. And if it helps to encourage more people to openly come out as either homo- or bi-sexual all the better.

No post body was provided.

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

#353
post #98

Can this really be classified as a "crash"? They're a 20+ year old company, a hugely successful business, and likely to continue to be a major player in both entertainment & tech for the next decade+. Perpetual high growth is a fantasy.

Stock is down 70% year to date!

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

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over representation and privilege, eg, easier admissions to college or hiring. We haven’t ended bigotry, but under the guidance of Democrats and Leftists, created a new system of bigotry — using euphemisms like “equity”. Which is the same reason White students lie about their race. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/57...

The underlying principle of equity is a decent one though. The problem is in how it's implemented: using a person's self-declared identity as an indicator of disadvantage, rather than their actual material conditions. For example if universities would take factors like poverty and access to educational resources into account, rather than using racial identity as a inaccurate proxy for this, they'd likely achieve more…

> The underlying principle of equity is a decent one though.

> For example if universities would take factors like poverty and access to educational resources into account, rather than using racial identity as a inaccurate proxy for this

That’s equality — as in “equal opportunity” and we had that before “equity” was introduced.

By contrast, equity is a fundamentally racist idea which emerged from a collectivist authoritarian view of the world which tries to fix past wrongs between purported “racial groups” by introducing present discrimination to “correct” past discrimination.

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

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Any idea why so many would be bisexual vs fully homosexual? This number is really what makes me believe it is more of the ‘woke’ politics being pushed. I view this as (potentially) individuals who have no group and who are desperate to cling to something that makes them a victim in this world.

Biphobia is a thing and it is a thing in gay/lesbian communities just as it is among straight people and your statement demonstrates why that is: straight people just see bisexuals as gay or lesbian and gay or lesbian people see them as traitors or cowards, especially if they live in a stable "straight passing" relationship.

Bisexuals aren't just "homosexuals who aren't committed enough". Research dating all the way back to Kinsey demonstrates that most people aren't fully hetero- or homosexual in whom they find sexually attractive regardless of what they identify as. If anything, "fully" homosexual or heterosexual people would be expected to be the exception if there were no hangups around these labels and identities.

> desperate to cling to something that makes them a victim in this world

There's a grain of truth in this perception but sadly it's tainted by American culture war bullshit. Teens and young adults have always experimented with identity and social roles so it's unsurprising they'll "try on" identities relating to themselves and that some of them will be whatever gets hotly debated today.

But this is very much a "now that we have stopped physically punishing children for using their left hand all of a sudden everybody is left-handed" dynamic to this, too. Social acceptance of left handed people led to a sharp increase in the number of left handed people followed by a period of stabilization leading to a steady proportional demographic because there were already left handed people living "in the closet" (knowingly or not) and they were finally able to "come out" once being left handed became socially acceptable. There were probably also some people unsure if they may have been left handed all along and giving it a try to see what felt more natural and then settling one way or the other, but left-handedness wasn't a "trend" or a "social contagion" or an "epidemic", just a way of being human that was previously suppressed and now normalizing.

And even today left-handed people encounter some discrimination or bias (intentional or not) in their daily lives. Utensils may still be needlessly tailored to right-handed people or left-handed alternatives may be unavailable simply because nobody considered the need for them or left-handed people are just expected to make do because they're a minority and shouldn't cause a fuss (and they can just try to use their right hand anway, right?).

But it would probably sound ridiculous to you if I said "I think kids these days are just claiming they're left-handed because they want to be victims" -- and I don't think it would have sounded as ridiculous when left-handedness was only just gaining acceptance and there was a sudden massive spike in the number of people claiming to be left-handed.

So here's a thought: why are identities like being bisexual (which if we can trust Kinsey mostly just means not making any assumptions about who you might find attractive by gender alone) considered "victim" roles? If it's because they're being treated badly, why don't we just stop treating them that way? So what if it means some kids who were "only doing it to be the victim" end up being caught in the crossfire and end up being victimized less?

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

#356
post #34

This is great insider reporting! Most people have no clue how shows gets selected and blame “wokness” for troubles at Netflix. In reality, the cost-cutting high-volume risk-averse leadership took over initial leadership of opposite nature. Transition from “ gut-driven, risktaking, maverick culture” to “prudent and frequently indecisive” is exactly the story of many other areas. Well put.

If you like this stuff here's another one https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/he-makes-you-fe...

Absolutely love behind the scenes stuff. I'm only a little way into Binge Times[0] by Dade Hayes and Dawn Chmielewski and I'm pretty sure I can recommend it here.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B099WY4H6G/ref=docs-os-doi_0

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

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you go way back in history, homosexuality was totally accepted in places like ancient Greece. It's good that TV series show homosexuality as something normal, because it is. And if it helps to encourage more people to openly come out as either homo- or bi-sexual all the better.

Quoted post unavailable.

> With this sentiment why is Saudi Arabia not more accepting of homosexuality then?

Because Saudi Arabia is a religiously fundamentalist theocracy and literally punishes people engaging in any activities perceived to suggest homosexuality with physical violence or death.

> Or, did their media push it down their citizens throats until accepted as is being done today.

You're using a metaphor that implies violent coersion. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "pushing it down their throats"? If you're referring to "overrepresentation"[0], can you elaborate who is doing it, why you think they're doing it (i.e. to what ultimate cause beyond "normalizing minorities") and why that is bad or objectionable?

It reads like you're trying to say a lot of things you don't want to spell out but I'm not sure what they are. Just to be sure: I'm a white European heterosexual man, you don't have to worry about offending me.

[0]: If you strictly mean demographic proportions, I guess is fair when applied to shows and films individually, though I'd like to see some numbers if you want to claim that this applies to Netflix's entire offering as a whole.

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

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Any idea why so many would be bisexual vs fully homosexual?

Note that the 20% gen-z study also said "Gen Z women are roughly 3 times more likely than men to identify as LGBTQ", so a 5% : 15% split. And, you know, bisexual woman age 20-25 being LGBT is technically correct, the best kind of correct.

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

#359
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should happen, if we're doing "shoulds", is that it shouldn't be permitted for one company to own both distribution and production, nor for such companies to create long-term exclusivity agreements with one another.

Is there any country that forbids this?

Until very recently (a year or two ago?), the US didn't allow film studios to own movie theaters. Hadn't for something like 70 years. That was due to antitrust action over a situation pretty similar to what's happening with streaming services.

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

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that Netflix just has poor execution on a lot of shows. When telling a story on TV, you often want to cut the story to the bone such that it can be understood quickly and entertain without confusing the viewer with side tangents that aren't central to the story. If a non-story-essential element is too prominent then the viewer might feel it's boring

This happened to Doctor Who. Too much emphasis on LGBTQ rather than good stories.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Like, when exactly did that happen? Most people who enjoyed the new show and dropped out did so with the Thirteenth Doctor (Whittaker). There were some episodes that made me roll my eyes (e.g. the Rosa Parks one) but personally I mostly I lost interest because of the pacing and the IMO blandness of the characters and the lack of chemistry between them (again, this is just me).

But the show was pretty much about identity for most of its first ten series, not to mention that you could say that there is an inherent aspect of transness to the character of the Doctor (especially their experience with other characters familiar with past incarnations of the Doctor). The show plays a lot with gender, especially around the timelords.

Heck, even on a purely literal textual level the show is extremely LGBTQ from the start. Captain Jack Harkness is openly bisexual (or pansexual) and flirts with the (male presenting) Doctor who is clearly intrigued. The "love triangle" subplots largely play out more as depictions of polyromantic relationships rather than sources for drama. Even without featuring any clearly trans characters, the show is fundamentally queer if you even barely scratch the surface of it.

I guess if you want to consider the show overly "woke", that started as early as when Martha Jones became a companion because her race became relevant to the plot. The only thing that changed with the newer series is that the writing IMO got sloppier.

Post reply on HN