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

Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#81

Post by Apocryphon »

lockhouse wrote: post #44
Apocryphon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of good shows get cancelled even without piracy, though. One wonders what’s the best way to signal to the suits that a show is in hot demand. Maybe by buying it directly or by being a Nielsen viewer.

When it comes to streaming content, the suits have all the data. It comes down to the simple formula of does this show keep and attract subscribers in sufficient numbers to make its production costs worthwhile.

They might have all the data but they still might make questionable decisions. As often pointed out, Netflix’s strategy of cancelling shows after a season or two has prevented them from fostering productions that could have benefited from gaining a foothold both narratively and with an audience, leading to a negative reputation from viewers.

https://youtu.be/64QS38epsgk

It would be interesting if in the age of “interactive” audiences who freely choose content, if streaming services could try to mix up the relationship. Somehow charge die-hard fans a commitment to a show by serving them ads, perhaps. Something like the ransom model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system

In any case, streamers looking at short-term numbers cause them to axe promising shows and cult classics before they have a chance to prove themselves. Which is something network TV has always done, see FOX in the 2000s, but you’d think with interactive technology and evolving formats they would experiment with new ways of going about it. There’s more to running a network than a simple cost-benefit formula.

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#82

Post by lockhouse »

Plasmoid wrote: post #54
lockhouse wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything else, I will pirate without guilt. Are you unwilling or unable to pay for the remaining content you plan to consume? I’ve never understood how flippant HN is about piracy. The entire tech industry is built on intellectual property.

I don't mind paying for content. You made a thing I enjoy, so I will compensate you for it. However, I am not a pawn to be jerked around. Content comes to me, I don't go to it. I'm not going to search a dozen streaming sites for the thing I want. I'm not going to follow you to another streaming site because you wanted to segregate New Star Trek and old Star Trek into different platforms. I have paid accounts with str…

> Content comes to me, I don't go to it. I'm not going to search a dozen streaming sites for the thing I want. I'm not going to follow you to another streaming site because you wanted to segregate New Star Trek and old Star Trek into different platforms.

I can’t think of any industry that works like that. I can’t buy a new Toyota at a Chevrolet dealership. If my local Target doesn’t carry something, I have to go to another store. Even Amazon, as expansive as their selection is, doesn’t carry everything.

If I subscribe to National Geographic, it doesn’t mean I can grab this weeks copy of Newsweek from the local news stand gratis.

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#83

Post by Apocryphon »

lockhouse wrote: post #82
Plasmoid wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind paying for content. You made a thing I enjoy, so I will compensate you for it. However, I am not a pawn to be jerked around. Content comes to me, I don't go to it. I'm not going to search a dozen streaming sites for the thing I want. I'm not going to follow you to another streaming site because you wanted to segregate New Star Trek and old Star Trek into different platforms. I have paid accounts with str…

> Content comes to me, I don't go to it. I'm not going to search a dozen streaming sites for the thing I want. I'm not going to follow you to another streaming site because you wanted to segregate New Star Trek and old Star Trek into different platforms. I can’t think of any industry that works like that. I can’t buy a new Toyota at a Chevrolet dealership. If my local Target doesn’t carry something, I have to go to a…

You could do that if you go to the library instead of the newsstand. So really the solution to balkanized streaming isn’t to pirate, but to patronize libraries.

(One wonders if the the first sale doctrine which allows public libraries to check out e-books can also be applied to streaming media- perhaps Apple or Amazon can cut a deal with libraries for them to buy up episodes of shows which then can be borrowed by cardholders!)

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#84

Post by starkparker »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #36
afavour wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Going forward, I'm expecting cheaper content Netflix's proliferation of reality TV (Love is Blind etc) felt absolutely jarring to me at first but it's just the tip of the iceberg. We're going to look back on the era of prestige TV fondly.

> We're going to look back on the era of prestige TV fondly. I don't think prestige TV is necesirely expensive though. The wire, breaking bad, Andor, the bear, severance all can achieve incredible results without hollywood budgets. If anything big budgets have not translated into quality, see GoT, Rings of Power, Stranger Things all getting worse the more moeny thrown at them. prestigue tv is about talent, and having…

> Andor ... severance all can achieve incredible results without hollywood budgets

Severance S2 reportedly costs $15–20 million per episode to make, and Apple+'s average original series budget is ~$10M/ep.: https://www.gq.com/story/severance-season-2-delayed-behind-t...

Andor S1's budget was reportedly $250M for 12 episodes ($20.8M/ep): https://www.ign.com/articles/andor-season-1-reported-budget-...

Which is more expensive than the combined budgets for The Mandalorian S1 and the upcoming Skeleton Crew S1. Tony Gilroy outright said:

“We got lucky making this during the gold rush a few years ago. A lot of people now have cold feet, and you can’t do this show inexpensively.”

https://fandomwire.com/we-got-lucky-you-cant-do-this-show-in...

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#85

Post by lockhouse »

Apocryphon wrote: post #83
lockhouse wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Content comes to me, I don't go to it. I'm not going to search a dozen streaming sites for the thing I want. I'm not going to follow you to another streaming site because you wanted to segregate New Star Trek and old Star Trek into different platforms. I can’t think of any industry that works like that. I can’t buy a new Toyota at a Chevrolet dealership. If my local Target doesn’t carry something, I have to go to a…

You could do that if you go to the library instead of the newsstand. So really the solution to balkanized streaming isn’t to pirate, but to patronize libraries. (One wonders if the the first sale doctrine which allows public libraries to check out e-books can also be applied to streaming media- perhaps Apple or Amazon can cut a deal with libraries for them to buy up episodes of shows which then can be borrowed by car…

I couldn’t agree more! Libraries are so underutilized and underrated. Best of all, they are completely legal. Most of them also offer digital media, DVDs, and video games to borrow as well.

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#86

Post by rglullis »

lockhouse wrote: post #79
rglullis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire tech industry is built on intellectual property. That's absolute bullshit. Companies used to provide detailed schematics. Source code was shared freely by manufacturers. Micro-soft (when they had the hyphen) was one of the first to push for this change and responsible for making things "closed", writing letters to people asking them to stop making unlicensed copies of their Basic compiler.

The hardware companies still made heavy use of intellectual property. IBM mainframes were heavily patented. The manuals they shipped with were copyrighted. The software was just mostly seen as an implementation detail and its value independent of hardware hadn’t occurred to most people yet. Also, like it not, companies like Microsoft drove the tech industry forward during the eighties and nineties because of them cre…

Alright, then the argument becomes "why should we care about the industry?"

Much like Big Tech, I would be happy to see the complete obliteration of Hollywood.

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#87

Post by HDThoreaun »

lockhouse wrote: post #76
HDThoreaun wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I'm unwilling to reward streaming services for continuing down the path of making their product worse and worse while raising prices. Make no mistake, if subscriptions nosedive they will go back on the multiple household stuff.

Then simply don’t watch it. It’s a very entitled attitude to feel that you are entitled to their content without paying for it. In your own profession, are the customers entitled to the fruits of your labor free of charge if they don’t feel like paying you for it?

If I'm not paying anyway I don't see the problem. I'm totally fine with people using my work without paying if they were never going to pay anyway. In fact i encourage it.

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#88

Post by fragmede »

Apocryphon wrote: post #75
nullindividual wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix's proliferation of reality TV (Love is Blind etc) felt absolutely jarring to me at first but it's just the tip of the iceberg. This should be seen as a death-kneel for any channel/service, yet those cable channels keep going after decades of truly terrible TV. I wonder what kind of person these shows pander to.

I haven’t looked into the numbers myself, but after reading the great comment below about how mobile game studios essentially bought AAA game publishers instead of the other way around, it’s made me reflect on the recent Discovery acquisition of HBO in a new light. Maybe an empire of cheap and disposable reality TV is far more profitable than expensive, smaller audience-appealing, prestige television. In much the sam…

The metric to look at is viewers per dollar. If Foundation or The Expanse drew in viewers for the millions per episode spent on them, that would be one thing. But if you spend a tiny budget of a couple hundred thousand dollars, max to make an episode of, say, Naked and Afraid, and got commensurate viewership, if not higher, what would you choose, if you're running a business. Combine it with the fact that reality tv contestants don't receive residuals, there are no union writers to pay, it's obvious which direction the American TV business is headed because reality tv is a ridiculously better deal for them. Get the theme song recorded as a work for hire as well and it's pure profit for Discovery.

It's not great for the industry but culturally, we're not supportive of strikes worker rights, especially if the media tells us it's okay to hate those workers for being "rich" Hollywood folk (most writers are struggling), and doesn't point out we're supporting scabs by watching reality tv.

We may all want to watch Ballers or some other a tv show starring The Rock but he's the highest paid actor in Hollywood and is able to command a share of the revenue from the show. It's not publicly known for him, but the TV show friends had their actors earning a million dollars per episode by the end of it, and they get paid residuals for every time the episode gets watched. Meanwhile in a race to the bottom, reality tv show contestants are often (sometimes literally!) fighting for table scraps from the tv studio. A one time appearance fee $25,000 or lower - and the beauty of it being a contest is you pay the losers even less, if at all! Hell, some of them do if for the exposure and the experience and go home with nothing other than being able to advertise for their restaurant with that claim to fame for their restaurant.

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#89

Post by lockhouse »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #87
lockhouse wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then simply don’t watch it. It’s a very entitled attitude to feel that you are entitled to their content without paying for it. In your own profession, are the customers entitled to the fruits of your labor free of charge if they don’t feel like paying you for it?

If I'm not paying anyway I don't see the problem. I'm totally fine with people using my work without paying if they were never going to pay anyway. In fact i encourage it.

The problem is that you are not entitled to someone else’s property simply because you want it and don’t feel like paying for it.

Re: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending

#90

Post by Apocryphon »

fragmede wrote: post #88
Apocryphon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t looked into the numbers myself, but after reading the great comment below about how mobile game studios essentially bought AAA game publishers instead of the other way around, it’s made me reflect on the recent Discovery acquisition of HBO in a new light. Maybe an empire of cheap and disposable reality TV is far more profitable than expensive, smaller audience-appealing, prestige television. In much the sam…

The metric to look at is viewers per dollar. If Foundation or The Expanse drew in viewers for the millions per episode spent on them, that would be one thing. But if you spend a tiny budget of a couple hundred thousand dollars, max to make an episode of, say, Naked and Afraid, and got commensurate viewership, if not higher, what would you choose, if you're running a business. Combine it with the fact that reality tv…

All of this makes complete sense, it just felt shocking because HBO has such greater cultural cachet and prestige than Discovery, which I didn’t even know owns an empire of reality shows aside the ones on its channel. Guess that really illustrates how what is seen as good TV is increasingly decoupled from what is actually watched on TV. There was a recent meme about how the “little-known” ABC drama The Good Doctor was obscure to the Twitterati but is, in reality, a long-running series with viewership that dwarfs the Succession set.

And on the subject of reality TV, this is a good retrospective of how many cable channels from MTV to Bravo have drifted from their once lofty, even high-brow identities into domination by reality television. It really is a ubiquitous trend.

https://youtu.be/Vd1gqLVHZWo

I wonder what genre will succeed reality television. Maybe they’ll find a way to adapt Twitch streaming or vlogging for television, and then they will have to pay even fewer people.

> We may all want to watch Ballers or some other a tv show starring The Rock

As an aside, apparently not, judging by what happened to Young Rock. :p

Post reply on HN