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

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#321

Post by frereubu »

tptacek wrote: post #292

This is such a weird article. It reads like a 3000 word lament for the death of video stores, down to a coda about how Reed Hastings fabricated the story about the Apollo 13 late fee that triggered him to start Netflix in the first place. Why would I care if that story was false? Video stores were bad. Multi-month theatrical release windows are bad. The studio system was bad. Things are better now. In all these kinds…

I didn't read it that way at all. It felt to me like the author thought video stores were terrible too, just in a different way, and the main point of the article was the different incentive structures for the pre-streaming movie companies (high ticket sales and people watching the entire movie without distractions) vs Netflix (recurring monthly revenue from people who are just satisifed enough not to cancel their subscription). They're both focused on numbers, but the meanings of those numbers are very different. (I'm not sure I entirely agree with that - I think the pre-streaming movie companies were hyper-focused on the bottom line too - but I think that's what the article was trying to say).

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#322

Post by drewcoo »

marcosdumay wrote: post #256
cs702 wrote: post #191

Nowadays, whenever I browse Netflix, I feel like that Bruce Springsteen song, "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)."[a] Sure, there are lots of choices, but they all kinda suck . I find myself wondering, why? The OP weaves an insightful, opinionated narrative that explains how we got here. Much of it rings true. This passage, in particular struck a chord with me: > Several screenwriters who’ve worked for the streamer told m…

Well, people that want to half-watch TV deserve stuff made for them too. Netflix has shows made for really watching too. I don't know if they are rebellious acts from their makers, brought without an option, or actual choices, but Netflix does have them. My impression is that Netflix cornered themselves into the same AAA race to death that the major movie studios are in. Everything is too expensive, so they can't acc…

> Well, people that want to half-watch TV deserve stuff made for them too.

The Muzak-ification of film?

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

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#323

Post by drewcoo »

thrwthsnw wrote: post #120
SunlitCat wrote: post #2

Oof. What's next? Announcing what they see? What items are around them and how they could interact with them (or not)? Like "Protagonist: I walked north and I entered a mysterious room, full of different bottles. They don't look like I could use them, but maybe I should take one with me?"

If people aren’t watching the show why not just make it a radio play?

That's not how (good) radio plays work either. Through good use of dialog and foley, they could avoid such ham-handed writing.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#324

Post by skeledrew »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #308
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, people that want to half-watch TV deserve stuff made for them too. What? No they don't. Film and television are visual art forms that are meant to be viewed and given the appropriate attention. There's already plenty of mediocre television out there you can use as background noise; we don't need to intentionally lower the bar for the media that's being made. As the article mentions, Netflix has already played…

“ Film and television are visual art forms that are meant to be viewed and given the appropriate attention.” According to who…? There’s not even a universally agreed upon definition of ‘art’ last time I checked.

Since when is there video that's not meant to be viewed? Is there also audio not meant to be listened? Written words not meant to be read? Of people want something to listen in the background while doing something else, there's music, podcasts and audiobooks.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#325

Post by tptacek »

kasey_junk wrote: post #319
tptacek wrote: post #292

This is such a weird article. It reads like a 3000 word lament for the death of video stores, down to a coda about how Reed Hastings fabricated the story about the Apollo 13 late fee that triggered him to start Netflix in the first place. Why would I care if that story was false? Video stores were bad. Multi-month theatrical release windows are bad. The studio system was bad. Things are better now. In all these kinds…

I remember very fondly 2 video stores from my youth, mostly because of the knowledge (and frankly very nerdy) employees. My breadth of viewing and thus my subsequent taste was extremely impacted by them. And I e yet to find an algorithmic equivalent (nor music or books). But this is just a bias. Most of the video stores I ever used were garbage. I presume soda fountains were the same but that didn’t stop my grandfath…

See I'm not even saying all video stores are without value, just that there is virtually nobody who would prefer to have to schlep to a retail outlet every time they want to see a different movie, which was literally how things worked until streaming happened.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#326

Post by slowmovintarget »

marcosdumay wrote: post #256
cs702 wrote: post #191

Nowadays, whenever I browse Netflix, I feel like that Bruce Springsteen song, "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)."[a] Sure, there are lots of choices, but they all kinda suck . I find myself wondering, why? The OP weaves an insightful, opinionated narrative that explains how we got here. Much of it rings true. This passage, in particular struck a chord with me: > Several screenwriters who’ve worked for the streamer told m…

Well, people that want to half-watch TV deserve stuff made for them too. Netflix has shows made for really watching too. I don't know if they are rebellious acts from their makers, brought without an option, or actual choices, but Netflix does have them. My impression is that Netflix cornered themselves into the same AAA race to death that the major movie studios are in. Everything is too expensive, so they can't acc…

No. No they don't.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#327

Post by vo2maxer »

geoelectric wrote: post #307
emptiestplace wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This App Store review makes Mubi sound promising: "MUBI IS TERRIBLE! *---- 6y ago • Nick2866 MUBI is terrible there's no good action or horror films it's crazy because almost all of the movies on the app I haven't even heard of and I'm a big movie buff. So just don't waste your time with MUBI just get Netflix or amazon prime."

Mubi has a truly fantastic art house selection along with a few more accessible films like the recent critically acclaimed horror, The Substance. It’s worth checking out on trial, or at least browsing the catalog, but the collection was too esoteric for me to keep a subscription. If you like art house, though, and especially if you’re cool with diving into unknown titles, it’s pretty impressive.

Where else but in MUBI can you discover the works of Andrea Arnold and her most recent film, Bird? The same goes for countless other directors whose oeuvre was unknown to me, someone who was introduced by my Father to Bergman and Kurosawa when I was barely seven.

There is also The Criterion Channel where I saw La Jetée for the first time after years of reluctance to immerse myself in a film essentially made of still photos. I have now gone back and watched it three more times, both in French and English. That’s how large of an impact it’s had on me. And I originally meant to get through it quickly (28 minutes duration), in preparation to rewatch 12 Monkeys.

Netflix does show some films that cater to a non mainstream audience, but may take more effort to find them. I recently saw Aftersun directed by Charlotte Wells, and I can’t recommend it highly enough. You will sob quietly.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#328

Post by MichaelZuo »

skeledrew wrote: post #324
MichaelZuo wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Film and television are visual art forms that are meant to be viewed and given the appropriate attention.” According to who…? There’s not even a universally agreed upon definition of ‘art’ last time I checked.

Since when is there video that's not meant to be viewed? Is there also audio not meant to be listened? Written words not meant to be read? Of people want something to listen in the background while doing something else, there's music, podcasts and audiobooks.

> Since when is there video that's not meant to be viewed?

Since the day they were invented? Certainly by the mid 50s there were hundreds of different relgious sects all over the world with prohibitions of some kind.

Because different people can have differing opinions… or do you somehow believe literally 100% of the human population shares that opinion?

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#329

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

AndrewOMartin wrote: post #133

> Oh help me! Oh, help me! My life is in danger! > Oh help me! Oh, help me! My life is in danger! > The venomous monster is drawing upon me > And I can’t escape him. > How near is his bite, > With teeth sharp and white! > Oh gods above! > Why can’t you hear my mortal cry? > Destroy the beast or I will die! > Or surely, I will die! The opening lines to The Magic Flute (which continues in a similarly expository tone fo…

In Mozart's time what was happening on the stage was a footnote to eating, talking, flirting, seeing, and being seen. Opera was a social event with background music.

Treating art with reverence and rapt attention didn't get to be a thing until the late Enlightenment. Before that the kind of art you took seriously was religious, and the idea that you were supposed to reverent about it could be considered a carry-over from religion.

Talking over things and not paying attention is almost the default. Sitting still and concentrating on a performance of any kind is a relatively recent idea.

None of this makes the crapification of Netflix (and related trends in other media touched by streaming and tech) any less annoying.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#330

Post by mindslight »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #215
cs702 wrote: post #191

Nowadays, whenever I browse Netflix, I feel like that Bruce Springsteen song, "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)."[a] Sure, there are lots of choices, but they all kinda suck . I find myself wondering, why? The OP weaves an insightful, opinionated narrative that explains how we got here. Much of it rings true. This passage, in particular struck a chord with me: > Several screenwriters who’ve worked for the streamer told m…

I mean it is also somewhat dependent on how much bandwidth you have free while doing laundry, some people can handle watching the complicated stuff while doing their daily tasks and I guess those people also hate these half-assed shows.

If I'm sitting down to watch something new, I'm going to give it my full attention and therefore want it to be awesome. If I just want background noise then I can just put on anything that I've already seen for its mood. I can't fathom wanting to be only half paying attention to new things. It feels like living very indeliberately. Is the point just to be able to say you've seen such and such new show, or what?
Post reply on HN