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

The Slow Death of Hollywood

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 267 posts

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#251

Post by dredmorbius »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #248
dredmorbius wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism, as with capitalism refers to ownership, not payment mechanism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Ad-funded media is indirectly paid just as tax-funded healthcare is, though side effects differ. I agree that scale affects accountability, but again, that's orthogonal to ownership. And locally owned (or operated) services can be extraordinarily unresponsive to (at least some) local needs: h…

> Socialism, as with capitalism refers to ownership, not payment mechanism: From your link: > any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods The distinction in this case being the distribution of goods. When you have the ability to say that you don't want something and you're not going to pay for it…

the local government was responsive to the local majority

Needn't be the case -- Apartheid South Africa comes to mind, or English-occupied Ireland.

And in the case I'd illustrated, it was local businesses running the postal franchise who were discriminating, not (just) the local government.

I think you're rather off base on your first argumnt as well, though I don't care to continue that point.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#252

Post by thirdsun »

dade_ wrote: post #9

Or the slow death of both. After Mad Men and House of Cards, I just kept Netflix around but not usually impressed since anything I found that was any good got cancelled on the second season. I had no idea this was intentional until reading this article. So I cancelled when they raised the price and shared an account with a friend since I rarely used it. They raised the price again and he cancelled, but I don't miss i…

That's my problem with Netflix - they don't seem to strive for excellence in their content. I understand that a popular, good enough series that runs for 2 seasons is financially worthwhile but it doesn't lead to masterpieces like The Wire, The Sopranos or Mad Men. It's natural that the very best content is rare, but by now I'd have expected Netflix to come up with their own contribution to that league of shows. Then again, they seem to do fine regardless.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#253

Post by thirdsun »

magduf wrote: post #237
freerootkit wrote: post #73

Price of 1 movie ticket: $15 Price of small popcorn: $8 Price of small drink: $8 Price of small candy: $5 Total: $36 Time it took to drive to theater: 10 mins Time it took to wait in line for food: 10 mins Time it took to watch trailers: 25 mins Total: 45 mins Buying the movie and watching it my house costs no more than $20 (when it first comes out) and I can make whatever I want to eat and don't have to drive anywhe…

Watch out, you're going to have some purist chime in about how worthwhile the "theater experience" is because it's "shared" or whatever. I see these arguments all the time on /r/movies; the movie snobs really hate people who watch movies at home and don't go to the theaters and put up with rude patrons, overpriced concessions, 25 minutes of commercials, etc.

These days it's entirely possible for cinephiles to have a very fine home cinema setup. Depending on how you live a projector and good sound system is far from outlandish.

As someone who loves films, but would have to drive at least 45 minutes to the next cinema which only shows current, popular movies in localized audio it's much more practical for me to watch whatever I want, wether it's a timeless classic or new, niche arthouse film, in my home cinema. Plus, food and drinks are way cheaper, the audience is mostly silent and I can pause/resume whenever I want.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#254

Post by axilmar »

Holywood is certainly not dying economically, but it certainly died a long time ago when it comes to actual entertainment and art.

And it's not a matter of age. I like films older than me, there are genuine diamonds amongst them. Today's movies are shitty for the most part with few notable exceptions.

Thank God there are tons of great movies outside Holywood.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#255

Post by mercer »

unnouinceput wrote: post #149

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?…

> the last great comedy franchise to launch

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#256

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dredmorbius wrote: post #251
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Socialism, as with capitalism refers to ownership, not payment mechanism: From your link: > any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods The distinction in this case being the distribution of goods. When you have the ability to say that you don't want something and you're not going to pay for it…

the local government was responsive to the local majority Needn't be the case -- Apartheid South Africa comes to mind, or English-occupied Ireland. And in the case I'd illustrated, it was local businesses running the postal franchise who were discriminating, not (just) the local government. I think you're rather off base on your first argumnt as well, though I don't care to continue that point.

> Needn't be the case -- Apartheid South Africa comes to mind, or English-occupied Ireland.

Which of these are supposed to be instances of local control? The first is where the majority of the local population didn't have the franchise, the second a central government imposing its will on local people.

> And in the case I'd illustrated, it was local businesses running the postal franchise who were discriminating, not (just) the local government.

How is that worse than when it's the central government getting it wrong, where the equivalent would be a federal prohibition on anyone delivering packages to black people anywhere?

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#257

Post by Retra »

goto11 wrote: post #228
Retra wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>According to Wikipedia, Aladdin grossed "$923.7 million, against a production budget of $183 million". So despite you and your nephew, Disney seem to manage OK. That's not an objective way to look at things. If there were only 1 model of car being sold this year, you can bet it will sell with record numbers and produce more profit than any other vehicle in the past. The fact that records are being broken so rapidly…

But the number of movies released has been steadily growing, not shrinking.

"Released" isn't really important; "marketed and/or advertised" is.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#258

Post by magduf »

thirdsun wrote: post #253
magduf wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch out, you're going to have some purist chime in about how worthwhile the "theater experience" is because it's "shared" or whatever. I see these arguments all the time on /r/movies; the movie snobs really hate people who watch movies at home and don't go to the theaters and put up with rude patrons, overpriced concessions, 25 minutes of commercials, etc.

These days it's entirely possible for cinephiles to have a very fine home cinema setup. Depending on how you live a projector and good sound system is far from outlandish. As someone who loves films, but would have to drive at least 45 minutes to the next cinema which only shows current, popular movies in localized audio it's much more practical for me to watch whatever I want, wether it's a timeless classic or new,…

>Plus, food and drinks are way cheaper

It's not just this: you can actually eat quality food, not junk food. I'm not a teenager any more, so I don't eat popcorn covered with fake butter and artificial flavors, or crappy candy, or soda, and instead I actually eat real and relatively healthy food. Sure, there's some higher-end "dinner theaters" that do serve real meals, but those aren't that common.

>the audience is mostly silent and I can pause/resume whenever I want.

Exactly. My cats don't make much noise, any guests I invite over are going to be quiet too, and it's really nice being able to pause when I need a bathroom break, or rewind if I didn't understand something (this happens to me with dialog sometimes), or if I want to talk with my companion about something.

Honestly, except for nostalgia for the old days when cinemas were the only way to see movies, I don't see what the attraction is compared to a decent home theater. Even a 55" screen is really good enough, and those are pretty cheap these days (especially compared to what I see people paying to go out to a movie as a couple or family).

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#259

Post by dredmorbius »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #256
dredmorbius wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the local government was responsive to the local majority Needn't be the case -- Apartheid South Africa comes to mind, or English-occupied Ireland. And in the case I'd illustrated, it was local businesses running the postal franchise who were discriminating, not (just) the local government. I think you're rather off base on your first argumnt as well, though I don't care to continue that point.

> Needn't be the case -- Apartheid South Africa comes to mind, or English-occupied Ireland. Which of these are supposed to be instances of local control? The first is where the majority of the local population didn't have the franchise, the second a central government imposing its will on local people. > And in the case I'd illustrated, it was local businesses running the postal franchise who were discriminating, not…

The point is that neither local vs. national, government vs. business, market vs. nonmarket, nor majority vs. minority strictly deliver a fail treatment to all. Power and discrimination will out.

Moral and equitable comportment is not neatly slotted into any ideological political-economy pigeonhole.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#260

Post by pkroll »

scarface74 wrote: post #156
mrkurt wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disney isn’t going to roll Hulu into Disney+. Why would they when they can charge for both. Besides, Disney+ is suppose to be family friendly. Hulu isn’t it. Disney doesn’t own Hulu outright yet. Warner Bros still has its 10% stake and Comcast still has its stake for now.

Technically they don't own it outright yet, but they have full control as of May 14: https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-full-control-hu...
Post reply on HN