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

Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

nplusonemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 363 posts

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#91

Post by zo1 »

chgs wrote: post #44
zo1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is very little good or "main" content these days on Netflix. Every single time without fail whenever I have an urge to watch a specific show or movie, sometimes an old one, it's never available on Netflix. And even if they did have it, they "licensed" it for a year and no longer have it. What good is that for me? So most of our usage these days of Netflix is just having something playing on the side or backgrou…

Why do you need something on in the background?

Personally it helps me sleep having "TV" playing in the background. But my SO uses it while she works, having something to break the monotony as music is distracting.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#92

Post by Dylan16807 »

jsnell wrote: post #49

The source, https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/ , seems like a much better article. But it is hilarious in a meta kind of way that a bottom feeder "summarize real writing done by others, and slap on a clickbait headline" website pretends to have the moral high ground on this issue. I wonder what the guidance they give t to their writers is, and what metrics they're pushed to improve.

That article has a lot of quality but it also has a lot of telling the history of Netflix. Of the eight sections, I'd only really recommend the first plus a paragraph, then 6-8, maybe 5-8.

I wouldn't call the OP clickbait, it's a reasonable title for the focus of the article. And I appreciate it having focus.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#93

Post by magicalhippo »

Argonaut998 wrote: post #54
dist-epoch wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet you watch these instead of the ones with "soul". Seems to me they provide what the market wants.

My wife chooses the Netflix ones unfortunately. What ones are good?

Some that I've enjoyed recently (or rewatched):

Good One (2024) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30319516/

Strange Darling (2023) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22375054/

The Creator (2023) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11858890/

The Night House (2020) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9731534/

The Empty Man (2020) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5867314/

Possessor (2020) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5918982/

Booksmart (2019) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1489887/

Volition (2019) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6385952/

Welcome the Stranger (2018) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5716280/

Time Trap (2018) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4815122/

Wind River (2017) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/

A Dark Song (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4805316/

I Am Not a Serial Killer (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4303340/

Midnight Special (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2649554/

The Devil's Candy (2015) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4935372/

Mr. Holmes (2015) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3168230/

The Witch (2015) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4263482/

A Most Wanted Man (2014) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972571/

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340800/

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465522/

Pandorum (2009) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1188729/

The Fall (2006) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460791/

In a Savage Land (1999) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151047/

Office Space (1999) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/

The Double Life of Véronique (1991) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101765/

Don't have Netflix so not sure what's available there, and several might not be wife-friendly. Also I enjoy weird, so YMMV.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#94

Post by Yeul »

austin-cheney wrote: post #13

I suspect this appeals to two types of audiences. The first being people who play on their phones instead of watching the show. You can blame phone addiction and ADHD type behaviors for this but it feels like a slippery slope of stupidity in the face of good writing/acting as opposed to constant cartoon like action. (the wife and I do it too). The second set of audience this would appeal to are people with autism. Si…

A common misconception. Autistic people have emotions and empathy- perhaps more than other people. They just keep it inside. Also no Seinfeld is not funny.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#95

Post by bpye »

superjan wrote: post #76
Argonaut998 wrote: post #43

It’s just slop par excellence. I’ve been watching a number of movies with my wife over Christmas. Everything is so bland, repetitive and ‘design by committee’. It goes further than merely announcing what the characters are doing (in that new wannabe Die Hard movie we hear that they are expecting a baby three times in 5 minutes), you just know there are certain metrics used for every genre of movie accounting for ever…

If you’re curious to try arthouse/international cinema, give Mubi a try. There is less to choose from, but the selection rotates.

Mubi has some great cinema! Definitely more of the sort of cinema you’d see at a film festival than mainstream.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#96

Post by genezeta »

I was just wondering a bit about this. I read some of your comments here and, as I sometimes do, writing and discarding before submitting my response.

But it just occurred to me... Maybe Netflix should do half-movies next. The movie is designed to be appealing on the menu, to have a good but not too engrossing first 30 minutes, and then start ramping down the budget drastically for the remaining of the film, which -it seems- people aren't watching any more. Like don't bother with FX, then just don't bother with actors, then just insert shots of the storyboard or don't even bother with the story at all and just insert stock video, etc. Maybe at the end add a narrated summary of what happened (or didn't happen).

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#97

Post by Dylan16807 »

keiferski wrote: post #57
austin-cheney wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the downvote I suspect you find this description of inattention, or chores, offensive. How is that, the complete inability to focus and the emotional hostility you imagine about it, not a form of ADHD?

Try doing chores for multiple people, hours a day, years on end, first. I’m guessing you haven’t done that, or you wouldn’t suggest that people who like having a little entertainment while doing chores have a form of ADHD.

What a strange interpretation of what they said.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#98

Post by jiggawatts »

egeozcan wrote: post #82

You can't do 100% "show, don't tell" unless your movie is 15 hours long. It's always about balance, and it's probably one of the hardest challenges in scriptwriting and directing. Netflix movies have always leaned more toward the "tell" side, and this feels like an open acknowledgment of it. Small digression: Turkish series have been doing an extreme version of "telling" for ages. I've been watching the cheesiest one…

I know precisely what you mean. I randomly stumbled upon the anime Solo Leveling, which also follows the 100% tell style. The main character reads out everything, narrates every scene, and explains his own thought processes and emotions at every step.

It is weirdly addicting, perhaps only because I'm bored of the show-don't-tell style and it's refreshing to see something going contrary to that.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#99

Post by Dylan16807 »

Arch485 wrote: post #73
austin-cheney wrote: post #13

I suspect this appeals to two types of audiences. The first being people who play on their phones instead of watching the show. You can blame phone addiction and ADHD type behaviors for this but it feels like a slippery slope of stupidity in the face of good writing/acting as opposed to constant cartoon like action. (the wife and I do it too). The second set of audience this would appeal to are people with autism. Si…

As someone with autism, the second paragraph is entirely incorrect.

Entirely?

They're using the word empathy wrong but trouble reading emotion sounds accurate enough.

Post reply on HN