The Slow Death of Hollywood • Hacker News Board

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#141

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:10 PM UTC

mrkurt wrote: post #124

scarface74 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare Netflix’s library to Disney’s, especially with the Fox acquisition. Which library would you rather have going into the next decade?

I don't think people will give Netflix subscriptions for Disney, I think they'll buy both. I'm sure Netflix would rather have Disney's library, but there's always a second place in a duopoly.

But the problem is there is a chance that Netflix could be fourth at least in the US. Especially with Disney taking over Hulu. Hulu is already only $5.99 a month with commercials and $12.99 a month with no commercials. Disney will be moving most of it’s less kid friendly content over to Hulu. Disney Plus will only be $7.99. It’s not hard to imagine a bundled price for both - with better content - that’s less than Netflix.

If someone has Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video (because everyone already has Amazon Prime), do they really need the low budget originals on Netflix?

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#142

Post by l33tbro » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:12 PM UTC

patrick5415 wrote: post #131

l33tbro wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hollywood produces plenty of original stories still I'd love to see you back this up with data in comparison to previous years. Even a cursory glance at opening weekends over the years on Box Office Mojo tells me you're misinformed.

You’ve asked for hard data, and then make a contrary assertion for which you have no data either. No, glancing at a website periodically doesn’t count.

Conversely, you made a broad claim that runs contrary to popular consensus. Cursory glance or not, the onus is on you to back up your initial wild claim with a source.

Regardless, are you really going to double-down on Hollywood producing more original stories than ever?

Hollywood studios today are in the business of SASOR (sequels, adaptations, Spin-offs, Remakes). That is their primary business model. They may buy up an original productions at festivals like Sundance & SXSW, but that is only for distribution and a light spend on P&A.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#143

Post by burntsushi » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:13 PM UTC

williamDafoe wrote: post #79

thrusong wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most frustrating things for me regarding ticket prices is that no theatres in my hometown (Winnipeg, Manitoba) offer matinee pricing anymore. I'm guessing this is possibly because of the Cineplex monopoly since they bought out Famous Players. I get so pissed off with paying $16 to see a movie by myself in an empty auditorium during the day when it used to be $8 a seat. What happened to supply and demand? A…

When I was a kid in the mid 70s movies cost $3.00 in the Midwest. Westegg says that inflation is up 10x since then. Any movie less than $20 is actually a bargain. However, my dad's salary was 7,000x a movie ticket (Midwest CS professor before salaries exploded).

I still see movies for $6 a pop in central Massachusetts. (They just recently increased their price from $5.) You can't see movies there when they first come out, but they serve beer and cheap burgers.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#144

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:14 PM UTC

cladari wrote: post #139

gamblor956 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hollywood's doing just fine. While people bemoan the constant blockbuster remakes, they forget the dozens and hundreds of other movies that Hollywood also makes which people don't watch...because they don't want to. Hollywood pushes blockbusters because they're the surest bets for making lots of money. But they also make lots of artsy films because many of the folks want to do something more rewarding than a vapid bl…

Unless you live in or near a fairly large urban center, or some large college towns, you won't find movie theaters showing small films.

Why are you blaming Hollywood for the lack of local distribution?

Hollywood made the movies. It's up to the local theater to actually show them. They generally don't because it's not worth the money to do so outside of big cities and college towns.

(Hollywood hasn't controlled the theater industry since 1948, when the courts ruled that studios owning theaters was a violation of antitrust law. See United States v. Paramount.)

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#145

Post by hello_moto » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:15 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #51

Hollywood is hanging itself by its own velvet rope. Remakes are seen as an excellent investment because, so long as they are properly stylized and full of dazzle, they are low-risk and have reasonable returns. Usually. This won't work for them forever, and I think everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already bought. The other day, my cousin's 11 year old so…

> He told us he didn't want to see it because they(Disney) were just taking a 2D movie that he'd already seen and are just doing the same thing again with actors to make more money

On-point... next one on the pipeline is "MULAN" Cartoon to Real Human.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#146

Post by mrkurt » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #141

mrkurt wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people will give Netflix subscriptions for Disney, I think they'll buy both. I'm sure Netflix would rather have Disney's library, but there's always a second place in a duopoly.

But the problem is there is a chance that Netflix could be fourth at least in the US. Especially with Disney taking over Hulu. Hulu is already only $5.99 a month with commercials and $12.99 a month with no commercials. Disney will be moving most of it’s less kid friendly content over to Hulu. Disney Plus will only be $7.99. It’s not hard to imagine a bundled price for both - with better content - that’s less than Net…

Disney owns Hulu, I expect that'll be rolled into Disney+. I might be over estimating Netflix's skill in this area, but I suspect they are really good at converting production money into subscribers.

All that said, none of this is good for creators or customers, it doesn't really matter if Netflix is first, second, or dead.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#147

Post by rsj_hn » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:19 PM UTC

jpollock wrote: post #121

I thought the slow burn of older movies was because of the cost of printing and managing the prints. My understanding is that it was a substantial investment for a movie, which meant that releases had to be staged - you wanted the most bang from each print [1][2]. With digital theaters, this is no longer an issue, the cost is up front with the expensive projecting equipment. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/119431…

During the "golden age" of Hollywood in the 30s-40s, the studios would crank out one movie per week. Stars would often appear in 3 movies per year. Today, stars shoot a film every 3 years or so. E.g. take a look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RKO_Pictures_films#194...

In 1940, RKO released 55 films, of which they produced 39. That's basically a film per week. And these were feature films.

For the individual stars, take a look at Humphrey Bogart, who starred in 3 films in 1941: The Maltese Falcon, The Wagons Roll at Night, High Sierra. I don't think there was a year in the 40s up to the mod 50s when Bogart didn't star in at least 2 releases per year. In 1951 he was in The African Queen, Sirocco, and The Enforcer.

Today, take a major studio, say Paramount Pictures. It released 11 films in all of 2018.

What happened was JAWS created the 'blockbuster' phenomena, in which the studios made huge money on a small number of very expensive films with huge marketing budgets compared to previous eras. That totally changed the dynamic. It also made actor pay shoot up.

But it has nothing to do with the cost of the prints -- just strategy of whether you want to make a small number of films with tons of marketing spend like in the post JAWS era or a large number of cheaper to produce films with small marketing budgets like the pre-JAWS era.

In many ways, what is happening with TV and Netflix is akin to a return to the studio model but for episodes, where Netflix seems to be able to crank out a large number of relatively cheap but decent quality episodes, and this of course corresponds to lower actor pay per episode.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#148

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:21 PM UTC

holy_city wrote: post #31

I just wanted to disagree with the author's assertion : >[Netflix has] "slowly reconstructed the old vertically integrated studio system. The company is an integrated production and streaming service." Netflix is probably the least integrated business in Hollywood when it comes to production. To use an analogy, think of content as sausage. Netflix doesn't make the sausage and they don't care about how it's made. They…

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 the same organizational and production structure that the other big studios use to make and distribute films. They have some of the biggest studio spaces in Hollywood, behind only Disney/Fox, Universal, Sony, and Paramount. If you live in the LA area, you can actually visit some of their studios (though generally to tour the facilities you need to arrange for a tour in advance).

The primary difference is in how Netflix pays for the films: Netflix pays extra upfront, with no backend. The studios payout participants over time.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#149

Post by unnouinceput » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:29 PM UTC

Quote: "One could quibble about creativity, but it’s generally thought in Hollywood that the last great comedy franchise to launch was The Hangover, created in 2009. There have been a few others, like Pitch Perfect and 21 Jump Street, but those both came out around the same time, in 2012. There effectively have been no comedy smash hits in for nearly a decade."

Are you kidding me? Last great comedy was The Hangover? Does the author of the article ever heard of Toy Story 4 (now in theaters), Secret life of pets 1 & 2, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Zootopia etc etc? Granted, they are animated movies versus live action like The Hangover but they are movies, big ones, made by Hollywood, with a plethora of A list actors voicing the characters. The fact that they are animated is irrelevant, because the taste of the public always evolves. That's why action flicks of the '80s are no longer enough to entertain us, and they seem a cliche instead. We, the consumers, became more sophisticated, our taste evolved and demanding better quality for our money. Therefore the creativity went where was required, where the public demand it, not to be stuck in the same style of movies. Otherwise John Wayne's style of Western movies would still roll on big screen. Tell me, when was the last time such a Western made it big on box office? I tell you instead that HBO's Westworld is very much a Western style show that I deeply enjoy. That's where the creativity went! To be in the same pace as our modern, more subtle, taste.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#150

Post by sien » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:32 PM UTC

cladari wrote: post #139

gamblor956 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hollywood's doing just fine. While people bemoan the constant blockbuster remakes, they forget the dozens and hundreds of other movies that Hollywood also makes which people don't watch...because they don't want to. Hollywood pushes blockbusters because they're the surest bets for making lots of money. But they also make lots of artsy films because many of the folks want to do something more rewarding than a vapid bl…

Unless you live in or near a fairly large urban center, or some large college towns, you won't find movie theaters showing small films.

On the other hand they are easier than ever to stream.

Legal streaming has more movies than a good video shop had 20 years ago. Less legal distribution has even more.