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

341–350 of 363 posts

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#341

Post by formerly_proven »

warner25 wrote: post #259
keiferski wrote: post #15

Netflix thought they could take on Hollywood and beat them at their own film game. But in the process they realized that it’s not actually a game worth winning, and more importantly, that YouTube and TikTok are their real competition, not Hollywood. The future of most media is video-based, and I think Netflix probably understands this and is trying to get away from the historical model as movies you watch online and…

> YouTube and TikTok are their real competition Even in real-time... My wife will literally watch Facebook Reels on her phone while we sit on the couch at night to watch something on Netflix together. Anyway, I was thinking about this too when the article talked about the data from Amazon showing that viewers preferred stuff from the 90s and 00s over their newly produced content: How are Netflix, Amazon, etc. doing w…

> My wife will literally watch Facebook Reels on her phone while we sit on the couch at night to watch something on Netflix together.

HN spans this incredible gamut from “Turing-award winner chimes in on their field of expertise” to stuff like this that just puts you in awe how pozzed some people are.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#342

Post by fian »

Loughla wrote: post #237
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love apocalyptic movies (even ones that are not considered great) but the few I started watching on Netflix were really bad.

Can you name a good apocalyptic movie? I'm really struggling to come up with one. Twister, sort of, and that's neither good nor apocalyptic really. Edit: Twelve Monkeys. I think that counts.

The Book of Eli War of the Worlds 2012 Day of the Triffids (TV series) The Bodysnatchers Waterworld The Postman Contagion

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#343

Post by appreciatorBus »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #332
appreciatorBus wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no they don’t. … > meant to be viewed and given the appropriate attention I think the person choosing to spend a few hours of their one life with some audio/visual media, whether they’re doing their laundry or not, is the one who gets to decide whether or not it’s art, and how much attention it deserves. Anything else leads to some uncomfortable places.

There are two different perspectives. The viewer is, of course, entitled to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. The creator or creators, conversely, are entitled to create something with the intention that it be viewed; if they didn't have that intention, then they probably wouldn't choose a visual medium. I think what bothers me is Netflix inserting themselves into this conversation and trying to…

That’s fair, I guess my interpretation of Netflix's actions isn’t that they are not inserting themselves between artists and art lovers, but rather as simply another middleman between consumer and producers. Neither bad or good, imo. They apparently feel they have data showing that most people most of the time, don’t want art, so they are acting accordingly.

It’s not that I’ve never watched a terrible tv or movie, or can’t believe that Netflix’s actions here could lead to more of them. It’s just that I have difficulty raising this to the level of art. We only consider a minuscule fraction the printed word to be art, and we don’t accuse producers of the other 99.99999999% schlocky text produced daily (including hacker news comment posters like me tbc! :) of destroying literature. People who only want to read text they consider art continue to have options, even while the rest of us are free to read less elevated prose.

What it feels like to me, is that the cost to consume video, art or not, has steadily declined over decades, so a lot more people are watching a lot more video. Just like text after the printing press, most of that is never going to be art, and imo that’s fine. I have many other concerns with a world where ppl consume video all day, just not whether or not they are consuming art or being correctly deferential.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#344

Post by appreciatorBus »

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.

Why aren’t people allowed to to use movies or tv shows as background listening?

I know several people on my life who have been leaving a TV on in their house all day, for decades before Netflix existed. Personally I can’t stand this, but because it’s a distraction, not because they are somehow disrespecting someone involved in the production who wants to believe they are an artist.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#345

Post by hulitu »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #304
marcosdumay wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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

Some of it, yes. But the majority of it is just circus, designed, together with bread, to keep the masses quiet.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#346

Post by warner25 »

formerly_proven wrote: post #341
warner25 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> YouTube and TikTok are their real competition Even in real-time... My wife will literally watch Facebook Reels on her phone while we sit on the couch at night to watch something on Netflix together. Anyway, I was thinking about this too when the article talked about the data from Amazon showing that viewers preferred stuff from the 90s and 00s over their newly produced content: How are Netflix, Amazon, etc. doing w…

> My wife will literally watch Facebook Reels on her phone while we sit on the couch at night to watch something on Netflix together. HN spans this incredible gamut from “Turing-award winner chimes in on their field of expertise” to stuff like this that just puts you in awe how pozzed some people are.

I think that those of us who live in the HN bubble, who tend to be more intentional and minimalist about our technology choices, are often out of touch with 90+% of users. My wife is my daily reminder of, and window into, the technology world that most people live in.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#347

Post by weebull »

Loughla wrote: post #235
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…

There is still good cinema and television, it's just shockingly difficult to find. The first person who figures out how to sort the wheat from the chaff and does so with no interior motive could be a millionaire immediately.

*ulterior motive

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#348

Post by jakubmazanec »

Could Netflix create Friends or The Office? Has there even be a single Netflix show with more than 100 episodes? I did a quick search but found none. I admit that I too was once enamored with Netflix and streamers in general, but now I think that distribution should be separated from creation.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#349

Post by Xenoamorphous »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #291
Loughla wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name a good apocalyptic movie? I'm really struggling to come up with one. Twister, sort of, and that's neither good nor apocalyptic really. Edit: Twelve Monkeys. I think that counts.

The Road? Not something you ever need to watch more than once but if you want to internalize bleakness it worked for me.

Possibly (and sadly) the most realistic.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#350

Post by john-tells-all »

strogonoff wrote: post #68
fabioborellini wrote: post #46

My wife considers “show, don’t tell” shows confusing and just bad. More dialogue, better the show. She chooses to watch shows in which characters address each other with full names and say their intentions out loud. My brain hurts.

One of my favourite films is called Upstream Color. Below is not a spoiler, but I like to avoid reading anything about a good film before watching it, and I recommend to do the same here. You like it or you don’t. This film has no staged speech that tries to explain anything. The little dialogue that it has is what would naturally arise given the situation. For the same reason, most characters have no names or no ful…

Strong agree: Upstream Color is poetry

Stanley Kubrick did something similar in `2001: A Space Odyssey`. In a scene where staff were being transported in a taxi... on the moon... 100% of the dialog is meaningless. They're discussing the merits of this or that sandwich, not how wonderful the Earth looks from space, or overcoming technical challenges.

It's so refreshing to be living in an environment vs being spoon fed.

Even better is very old or even silent movies ("M" is fantastic: modern-ish thriller from 1931 where sound is a character; Metropolis)

Also dialog-less movies: `Koyaanisqatsi` is incredibly beautiful and has a specific plot, even if there's no understandable dialog nor words.

In theaters _right now_ is `Flow`. No dialog, and no _human_ characters! It's all animated cats and dogs and other animals. It's startling how directly the characters transmit their goals and agenda and emotions.

Post reply on HN