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

351–360 of 363 posts

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#351

Post by skeledrew »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #344
skeledrew wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh they can use it for background listening, but content shouldn't be specifically designed for that mode. Same way people using a hammer to drive screws shouldn't have screws designed for hammer driving. It just doesn't make sense when something more appropriate already exists.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#352

Post by skeledrew »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #328
skeledrew wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The viewing of particular visual content being restricted by some religion, etc is a different argument from visual content somehow designed not to be viewed - by anyone - being created. The former is a matter of opinion, the latter a pointless paradox.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#353

Post by f33d5173 »

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 money in that, it just fundamentally doesn't make sense to build a subscription service for it. There are still good movies being made, but they cost money to make, and someone needs to pay for them. They cannot exist if they get thrown on a streaming service where they'll earn a pittance. HN seems to believe they have a fundamental right to watch all the movies and tv ever made for $8/month, but that was only possible due to very special circumstances that have since evaporated.

Netflix is slowly succumbing to it's inevitable fate of turning into daytime tv. That's the only space where it makes sense economically to pay a fixed subscription fee regardless of how much you consume. If you want an all you can eat buffet, don't act surprised when it isn't michelin starred.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#354

Post by salgernon »

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.

Not that anyone is likely to see this older thread, but Earth Abides was just released as a series. I haven’t watched it yet, I hope it does the book justice.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#355

Post by _m_p »

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…

Enough of this and you get a Wagner reinventing the medium altogether.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#356

Post by _m_p »

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.

_Until the End of the World_

_The Seventh Seal_

_The Sacrifice_

_La Jetee_

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#357

Post by MichaelZuo »

skeledrew wrote: post #352
MichaelZuo wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The viewing of particular visual content being restricted by some religion, etc is a different argument from visual content somehow designed not to be viewed - by anyone - being created. The former is a matter of opinion, the latter a pointless paradox.

The latter is also an opinion, because the people who decide to create videos are also fallible human beings…

Unless you believe it’s impossible for someone to have contradictory or incoherent intentions?

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#358

Post by sevenseacat »

habitue wrote: post #274
genezeta wrote: post #96

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 -i…

This was actually pioneered by Bruce Willis. He would get paid a lot to show up in a couple of introductory scenes for really low budget films. They'd put his face on the movie poster, they'd pay him like half the budget of the film, then he'd move on to the next one. (Unfortunately, it turns out he was struggling with dementia and it seems he was trying to cash out before he couldn't act at all)

I watched some of those movies - my god they were terrible. I'm pretty sure Willis filmed his parts in front of a green screen because he was never in shot with other actors.

Knowing the reason why though, I don't blame or fault him for doing it.

Re: Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

#360

Post by skeledrew »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #357
skeledrew wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The viewing of particular visual content being restricted by some religion, etc is a different argument from visual content somehow designed not to be viewed - by anyone - being created. The former is a matter of opinion, the latter a pointless paradox.

The latter is also an opinion, because the people who decide to create videos are also fallible human beings… Unless you believe it’s impossible for someone to have contradictory or incoherent intentions?

Nothing about opinion or fallibility here. The latter is theoretically possible, but practically senseless. In a very literal way. There is 0 purpose to have something visual that is not intended to be consumed visually. What is a picture that is never seen? This is actually very similar to the philosophical question of whether or not a tree falling in a forest with nothing to hear it makes a sound, but this isn't philosophy we're dealing with.
Post reply on HN