91–100 of 267 posts
>It’s becoming increasingly clear that the only goal now in Hollywood is to become gain market power in distribution or must-have content production, and then use that monopoly power to reduce the quality of output and reduce the bargaining leverage of artists.
I like the depth and history he brings into this piece.
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).
Some years later, that theater quit doing the second run movies and switched to regular movies. I feel kind of lucky that it was after I moved away and had basically quit going to theaters anyway.
I'd probably go more often if things were of similar cheapness. The low cost also meant that I'd be more willing to see comedies and take chances on other movies that don't truly benefit from a large screen and sound system. I also wasn't all that out of sorts if the movie wasn't very good since even at that time, it wasn't much money.
I truly think the advantage of movies in the 70's and early 80's was the lack of popular home video. If you didn't see the movie, you missed out. And I think that helped afford somewhat higher prices, though they didn't need to charge less for second showings as they used to do (Disney cartoons, for example).
This entire article is flawed because of the premise that Netflix is a monopoly. There were 495 active scripted shows in 2018 - 146 more than in 2013 ( https://gazette.com/arts-entertainment/the-number-of-scripte... ). There are also more avenues than ever to shop around a scripted show including five networks - as opposed to three four decades ago and many cable channels. In the 80s and 90s, most cable channels were…
It mentions that investors are pricing it based on hope that it could become a monopoly, which is explicitly saying that Netflix is not a monopoly.
This entire article is flawed because of the premise that Netflix is a monopoly. There were 495 active scripted shows in 2018 - 146 more than in 2013 ( https://gazette.com/arts-entertainment/the-number-of-scripte... ). There are also more avenues than ever to shop around a scripted show including five networks - as opposed to three four decades ago and many cable channels. In the 80s and 90s, most cable channels were…
To actually quote from TFA: > The story is that users will buy Netflix streaming services and it will be too much trouble to switch to a different service, which is a variant of a phenomenon called “lock-in.” So no one will be able to compete, the company will be able to raise prices and lower costs, and voila, another Amazon-style monopoly. It will be one of the few left standing after the inevitable shake-out. This…
The Disney brand and their library is much larger than Netflix’s. If anyone can break in Disney can.
Besides that, Disney has an evergreen library that goes back decades. The only war that Netflix has to make its money back off content are subscription fees. By the time a movie hits Disney+, it’s already made millions in revenue. Disney+ may “operate at a loss” for four or five years, but that’s only because it is “paying Disney” for the rights to distribute movies.
What if the other one is HBO+ - Warner Brothers announces streaming service? Now you have a choice between the two largest movie studios with popular movies everyone has heard of and you get Amazon Prime Video for free because let’s face it. Everyone has Amazon Prime.
What happens when Disney bundles Disney Plus and Hulu for the same price as Netflix? Now you have access to a much better library than Netflix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that Peak Netflix is already behind us. They've been quite frank that in their current incarnation they're aiming to become the next HBO (see https://gizmodo.com/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster... ), and while HBO was definitely the "gold standard" of prestige TV, it was never anywhere near crowding out its many rivals. The big question mark hanging over this plan is that they are burning tons of b…
Calculating Netflix profitability over the short term is hard because it’s difficult to value the residuals from their IP. If for example stranger things is still being watched in 20 years that’s less content they then need to pay for over time. I don’t think they are creating a lot of valuable content right now. But, that’s more option than fact.
As far as the impact on Hollywood that this all has... I'm not trying to be rude, but I am having a hard time caring. Actors still have jobs, as do the tech crews. We still get entertainment. Aside from wanting to maintain the status quo, which HN usually isn't concerned with... why does it matter?
This entire article is flawed because of the premise that Netflix is a monopoly. There were 495 active scripted shows in 2018 - 146 more than in 2013 ( https://gazette.com/arts-entertainment/the-number-of-scripte... ). There are also more avenues than ever to shop around a scripted show including five networks - as opposed to three four decades ago and many cable channels. In the 80s and 90s, most cable channels were…
I don't think it makes sense to define monopoly as a binary state. There are ways that companies with monopoly power behave even if you can argue the company itself isn't a monopoly. And, for what it's worth, copyright owners are the canonical monopolies. There's no suitable replacement for Stranger Things. What's new is that TV show copyright owners are now able to monopolize distribution. I get that there's a more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already bought. But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. And Hollywood have always been criticized for being vapid entertainment, empty spectacle etc. "catching on to the fact" suggest that this is some secret insight which undermines the enjoyment of the movie. But I'm pretty sure mos…
>But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. >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. Exactly. People are bemoaning th…
Netflix alone spent $12 billion on new content in 2018. They expect to spend $15 billion in 2019, and expect this to hit almost $18 billion in 2020.[1] There is more new, original content being produced than anyone could ever expect to watch in one lifetime. Compare this to a few decades ago when you had 3 or 4 networks on TV each making a dozen or so shows each year, and a handful of studios producing movies (many of them remakes from the 30s, 40s, and 50s).
Everyone seems to view "Hollywood" with rose colored glasses. The medium through which people consume entertainment certainly seems like it is starting to change, but that doesn't mean "Hollywood" is dead or dying. The exact opposite is happening.
[1] https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spendi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The West Wing" is the one that hurt me in my heart place. I stopped watching when the meteor was hurtling towards the planet and I was relieved I wasn't still watching the show when they started to bring in musical guests. In my opinion, most shows would do better with far fewer seasons.
I just started watching it this year. The writing is fantastic. I'm mid-way through Season 4. I hear it drops off after that with Sorkin's departure. Should I just pretend seasons 5-7 don't exist?
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…
> Hollywood is hanging itself by its own velvet rope. There you go, that's one better than the alleged Lenin witticism "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." (Well researched, as usual, here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/22/rope/ ) Disintermediation strikes again.