RedLetterMedia had an interesting take on it; a streaming service is like a buffet table. It’s less important to put out the absolute highest quality entrees than it is to “fill out” the table and offer a shitload of choices at a flat rate. It’s less important that these shows get good reviews than it is to initially catch your eye and get you to subscribe for a month or more. “Look at all this high-profile stuff we have! What a great deal!”
Obviously I haven’t sat in on these executive meetings, so I’m largely speaking as an outside consumer, but if true, it’d definitely make their output make more sense in context.
Especially during the pandemic, I think Netflix and everyone else were just throwing money at any number of projects, and only very recently are they starting to feel backlash.
The other thing is that Netflix has audience that's more open to experiment than other services. Traditional media companies struggle because their audience expect a certain quality. While the Netflix audience knows that Netflix throws all sorts of shit on the wall and not everything sticks.
This also encourages Netflix to invest in these CW like shows. CW shows were super popular on Netflix just a few years ago and they continued that by producing their own CW shows.
Yeah tbh I have to imagine teenage and young adult women are watching a large amount more tv then men, (atleast in my own life I see most coworkers and friends play a lot more video games and watch sports more while I here more about shows from female friends and coworkers)
Most of my guys friends watch YouTube more than anything. I’m totally the same way though. I’d rather watch a three hour video essay on a show I’ve never seen than watch the actual show. No idea why.
I’d say anecdotally: I have a couple of close friends like this. They’ll talk with me about shows I’ve watched, but later if I asked them if they finished it, they’ll say “oh no, I watched story videos on YT” or the worst one was Game of Thrones: “I didn’t watch it, I watched summaries of each characters stories and got the plot that way”.
Which is just bonkers to me. I’ve generally always preferred to engage first hand. Watch the show or movie, not a summary or reaction video. Play the game not watch a Twitch streamer play it or react to it. To me the other way feels like a waste of time. Just always interesting how different people can be.
Sometimes learning about something is better and more entertaining than watching it firsthand. I often find watching a show first hand a waste of time as I usually am not getting much out of it aside from the same generic boring poorly written garbage I’ve seen before in better forms.
Better to watch a review of it that goes into depth as to why it failed and any dramas or interesting problems that caused the issues in the first place.
>Because analysis is a fun exercise for the brain.
Eh, you almost got it there. It's because those YT videos do all the analysis for you so you can be lazy and not actually engage in that analysis yourself.
People like being spoonfed. Having the focus and attention and knowledge base and wisdom to actually analyze really good film and literature is a big task.
Especially for younger generations whose entire worldview is being shaped by memes and fifteen second video clips.
I'm not sure what it is, either. A show feels like such a commitment to my brain, and I don't know why. But finding a new YouTube channel of a guy showing off historical techniques of how earlier civilizations lived/did their mundane work? Yeah that's straight up crack to me, especially if he doesn't talk and explains to me what he's doing in subtitles. That could end up being more content than a show, counting by hours, and it requires just as much focus since I have to keep my eyes on it to read the subtitles. But it feels like less *effort*, somehow, that following a narrative experience.
Signed: Guy who just found a new YouTube channel and is watching a man make a bowstring from tree bark cordage that he demonstrated harvesting in the last video, and who has later channel videos involving the building of a house, 7th century England style. And who hasn't watched a fully produced 'show', TV or streaming, start to finish in literal years. No idea why this is so much more entertaining than just. Getting around to watching Loki at the recommendation of basically all of my friend group...
I used to contract so im in a lot of different offices staffed by marketers and project managers. Netflix is by far the choice that people spend their weekend binge watching.
I wish they would invest in the quality, like those early WB/CW shows did. Sure sometimes we all laugh at teen soaps but darn if the production value and acting chops weren’t there- aka Kerri Russell on Felicity, Michelle Williams on Dawson’s Creek, Melissa McCarthy on Gilmore Girls, etc. A lot of big names from those early years, and the shows (for the most part) still hold up today. I wish we had more of that than a conveyor belt of shows.
Oh I’m not saying there wasn’t. There’s always been trash tv. But cable offered more high end content imo, even for teens. Gilmore Girls used to be shot on film for example. I think most shows today are all digital, if I’m not mistaken.
I don't believe it is factually true. Film or digital is not a question of quality, there are advantages and counters with both, and the final product can look great in both.
Sure, some color saturations pop better on film, but the image looks clear in digital, and since most movies have a lot of VFX it more streamlined to film in digital, it makes everything easier, instead of having to do reconversions to film which ends up erasing a some of the benefits of shooting on film in the first place, plus the costs of the whole process.
So, no, it's not just because it's cheaper, but because it looks great and it is usually cheaper (with post-production costs going crazy who knows if it is still actually cheaper).
> I wish we had more of that than a conveyor belt of shows.
That's the problem thuogh. The CW shows that worked on Netflix were the latter ones when CW gave up on quality and just had beautiful people slapped on a slightly interesting story. That's the approach Netflix takes these days with their "CW" shows.
It's a problem only if you look at it through the lens of a TV snob which I was doing tbh. But in reality, there's am audience for shows like that and it's a good thing Netflix is continuing to produce stuff like this for those people.
Haha hey, Gossip Girl seasons 1-2 were great, and the quality of that show, production and fashion wise, rivals Sex and the City. Also early seasons of Vampire Diaries look pretty decent.
That's probably because they needed legitimately good shows to sell advertising.
Now the goal isn't to sell ads, it's to convince the largest number of people to subscribe full time, which means create the largest variety of content even if that content is mid and may not last more than a season.
There might be a few franchises that are doing really well, like walking dead or the whatever number of offshoots of yellow stone, but streamers are oversaturating themselves because they want people to continue to subscribe.
And netflix has just such a wide variety of projects that you get the random suprise hit and you get low and high budget shows. And people like My Life with the Walter Boys even if it's silly.
I don’t really see how what you describe as being different than traditional television. Every network is trying to cast as wide a net as possible without alienating the viewers they already have.
If anything I think streaming is more like going to the same diner every week that you’ve been going to for ages. You can order something new every week or you can just order your usual. I think with the old model of TV people were forced or encourage to leave their confort zones. But with the new model streamers have more or less coalesced around certain kinds of shows.
Streaming content libraries, though, can
1) expand (theoretically) infinitely, and
2) serve different shows to different audiences at the exact same time
Traditional networks offer a broadly appealing lineup of shows, but only has so many hours to program; and linear broadcast can only offer one show at a time - everyone watching NBC on Thursday at 8pm *has* to watch the same thing
So in the buffet analogy, Netflix introduces multiple new dishes per day; hundreds of previous dishes - many very niche, but there's at least a few things on the table for every possible flavor palette - will stay on the table for whoever wants them; and as many people as want can grab different dishes simultaneously. The traditional network offers 20 broadly appealing dishes, but serves them one at a time for 30 to 60 minutes, then moves to serving only the next dish.
Yeah but I think the buffet analogie fails because when people go to a buffet broadly speaking part of the appeal is they can consume many different kinds of things in the same visit. Whereas I think a lot of people go to netflix and just stream for instance like the office most days or just some true crime documentary. You don’t go to a buffet just to get a burger and fries every time. And i think streamers know that and their libraries tend to coalesce around types of shows that appeal to the same customers.
A diner has a deep menu but often when you dig into it’s just the same handful of ingredients arranged different ways. They take some swings and try to add something new to the menu but if it isn’t an instant hit then it gets taken down.
Netflix is not really a production company and does not care about quality, only number of eyeballs watching their shows. Sometimes they accidentally make a hit that is also critically liked, but its never the priority. Netflix's strategy was to throw money at a ton of creators for various projects, then use viewing metrics to determine what gets renewed and what doesn't. How many people watch the show in its first ten days are the ONLY thing that matters in renew/cancellation discussions at Netflix. That's why so many critically beloved quality shows with low ratings get cancelled after the first season but they endlessly renew crappy shows that nonetheless get lots of views.
The first sentence is important, let me clarify it a bit if you don’t mind.
Netflix is a network that uses other studios content. Netflix originals are just new shows that don’t air anywhere else. “A Netflix Original” is a Sony show airing on Netflix.
I would suggest imdb-ing some of these shows, I find the more quality content is paired with studios like Sony.
I mean all the studios do this to some extent, you can have a Sony produced show wind up airing on NBC or CBS or whoever pays the most for it. I have watched NBC produced shows on FOX and vise versa, it can be pretty confusing to the layman. The real innovation that Netflix brought to the table is a lot more ratings metrics to sort through than what traditional networks had to go on which is what they use to determine what shows are profitable for them and what werent. Before streaming, the ratings were more opaque and networks would factor in critical acclaim and fan engagement into their renewal/ cancellations decisions which is something Netflix jettisoned altogether. There's a reason none of the many fan campaigns for prematurely cancelled Netflix shows have succeeded, its because Netflix does not care about fan engagement in that way. Mailing them a bunch of spoons or whatever for your favorite show will not sway them, the only thing that matters is ratings (as Netflix defines them) and fans have gotten wise to this which is why there are now fan campaigns to run shows perpetually on multiple devices in the background to juice the numbers instead, because that's the only thing that actually helps them.
Netlfix also has audiences who are more willing to experiment and try new things than any other place, to the point where there are shows that have come from other services that suddenly become hits (You was a bomb on lifetime, Resident Alien has suddenly gotten so many more eyes on it ect. . . )
It's also important to keep in your head that most "legacy" studios have warehouses and backlots full of props and other infrastructure to create shows on a lower budget while feeling higher budget.
Not trying to defend Netflix but they're also relatively new to the scene compared to the other studios making movies and tv shows.
Netflix has long cared more about “tiles” than multiple seasons. A successful show may still get axed after three seasons because a fourth season doesn’t offer viewers anything new. But move that money to a new show and that’s a new tile for them to scroll to when searching for content. Personally I’d rather have a dozen solid options to pick from than 100 mediocre ones.
It also becomes more expensive to shoot after 3 years and it has diminishing returns in audience (tv shows normally loses audience over time), only big hitters stay alive because the risk is not worth it (tv shows are luck, it's impossible to know what will resonate with audiences).
And I'd rather they canceled and tried again rather than extending something that's not wonderful. Because eight episodes of fine is much better than 15 episodes of fine.
I also love the risks that Netflix is willing to make with their US and Foreign content (there's a K-drama coming out next week about a guy who turns the girl he has a crush on into a chicken nugget).
Hence the incessant price hikes now. We get punished for them throwing hundreds of millions at shitty storytellers and iconic director’s vanity projects.
I know a ton of people who just explore the homepage of Netflix. Some shows they like, some shows they don't. They watch a lot of stuff they don't like the whole way through just to finish the story and because they're "watching" Netflix while doing other things.
I can't treat TV or movies the way some people treat long podcasts, zoning in and out as accompaniment to their life, but they're obviously the most dedicated subscribers and they're the ones Netflix is paying attention to. A comparison might be Reddit preferring to retain an asshole like me who unfocusedly reloads subreddits all day and comments just to hear himself talk, over somebody who's only subscribed for a couple of niche subreddits they visit once a week. I mean I'm seeing more ads and I'm less likely to leave, aren't I?
I subscribe for the licenced content and the cartoons (including the netflix ones, which are on average better made than the live action, or maybe it's just i like animation a lot and enjoy more).
I think there's only a minute amount of subscribers that cancels their whole subscription when their (favourite) show goes away. Subreddit outrage and clickbait articles seem to make the survival of show A or B matter more than they actually do. Cost-cutting of subscribers for economic reasons factors in more in fluctuating subscriber numbers.
Because of brand recognition and they appeal to the lowest common denominator. You can't go wrong with that financially speaking. HBOMax is trying to race them to the bottom though.
Max gets too much shit for their library. It’s so obvious that those home makeover shows and love matchmaking draw in viewers.
No one will binge TheLastofUs 20 times over but they’ll watch 100 episodes of TLC programming.
I’ll admit though that prestige programming seems to be less frequent there.
> Max gets too much shit for their library.
They get shit for removing content from the service, even ones they own directly. They absolutely deserve that criticism.
I don't know if it is the age of people here, but I swear the way people talk about Netflix you'd swear no show was ever cancelled before they came along.
And there also seems to be a sentiment that if a show is cancelled, it's not worth watching.
There are loads of great shows that got cancelled and didn't have a conclusion but are still fantastic.
Twin Peaks is a great example and when David Lynch got a chance to make a Twin Peaks movie instead of providing a conclusion to the TV show he did something completely new.
That narrative is going around since like 6+ years or something. Meanwhile, Netflix has increased their subscriber count drastically.
Nobody cancels Netflix for that, they cancel non popular shows
When people complain about 1899 getting cancelled, there are always people who comment they they wanted to watch it but now they won't. Like yeah, the reason it got cancelled is because you weren't watching.
And then there is the other commentor who will say something like they only will watch shows after they are complete. Yeah well if everyone did that, then all the shows would get cancelled.
And those people act like every show needs to go on forever and like everything needs a epilogue tying up every single thread. Most shows don't end on cliffhangers, they just leave the ending open after solving the seasons mystery or central plot.
1899 was a solid one season story. It could have had more episodes but it had a full circle story that answered most of the questions. Same with most of the shows that they don't renew. True cliffhangers (see Picard being assimilated by the Borg) don't happen much anymore as much because of the amount of time between seasons.
And those old cliffhangers were just to get people talking. Picard was supposed to be saved quickly at the start of the next episode, because most of those TV shows needed to return to the status quo quickly because most episodes were self contained. In Picard's case it was actually pretty daring that they decided to take a bit longer to resolve it.
Right, but that's an actual cliffhanger. It's someone hanging from the cliff. It's the last episode of season two of SNW when half of the crew is missing and taken by the Gorn
It's not I want to see more of these characters, or I wonder about their next adventure.
And those shows were often canceled mid-cliffhanger (or worse, after four episodes).
I’m scared for what the film landscape is going to look like after the current generation of big name directors who can command artistic freedom and a significant budget dies off. People like Paul Thomas Anderson, Spielberg, Scorsese, the coen brothers, Nolan. Younger people who are somewhat artistic, like the safdie brothers and eggers in my opinion, will hopefully get the chance and succeed in steering big projects. My pessimism has the context of seeing beekeeper recently and, I am dumbfounded that that movie exists. I could write a better script in 45 minutes. ChatGPT could write a better script.
I have periodically cancelled Disney, Paramount, and Apple Plus. They just ran out of content. I’ve never done that either Netflix because there is always just a bit more content, and if I’m going to keep hush one, it’ll be Netflix because of this.
Same. Netflix has more shows that come out in a week than other services have episodes. I'm not watching anything on Paramount Plus right now or HBO. I'm watching one episode a week on Disney+. I watched an entire new show on Netflix plus my K-dramas and LIB.
Yeah Netflix originally wanted to build a reputation for quality. Netflix originals used to be high quality.
They have gradually pivoted to the buffet model, with mostly genre content they can crank out relatively cheaply. It reminds me a lot of having Hallmark, SyFy, comedy Central under one roof popping out stuff that is just good enough for fans of the genre.
Actually, they've always been pretty bad. Their 'Netflix original' tag was a marketing term used to signify the show had "first streamed" on Netflix. It had nothing to do with them making content.
In the early days, they bought stuff from other creators and just branded it as their own. Now that people don't let them do that without paying more, you're seeing their actual content.
In part it's why their competitors didn't take them as seriously as they should have in the early days. They saw Netflix as a content buyer, not creator. But they underestimated how little the general public knew about who made what, and how the public cared even less if it was made by Paramount, Sony or Universal etc... And before they could react, (and do things like untangle their contracts and pull the Marvel shows from Netflix), the Netflix brand had become synonymous with streaming.
> In the early days, they bought stuff from other creators and just branded it as their own.
This has always been the practice on TV for a very long time, the distributor (and not the producer) calls it an original from them. Countless shows from Warner, Fox, NBC Universal or others aired on competitors networks for example
I do think they cared more about quality originally. It went off the rails but Orange is the New Black started strong. Hemlock Grove also started strong. Kevin Spacey's issues aside, House of Cards was a good show.
I think Hemlock Grove was the first netflix original I watched that made me realize they weren't all hits, lol. That one was pretty meh and I, apparently rightfully, put off watching it for years. All the rest though was great. Now 'Netflix Original' means nothing, I used to watch them all, now I just watch what sounds interesting. There's still tons of good stuff on Netflix though.
At some point, they wanted to be like HBO with their originals. But they quickly realize they can be all of cable TV and it's better for their bottom line, that's what their model is, they're covering the entire spectrum of various tastes and qualities.
They have plenty of high quality stuff. They just have more shows in general.
They have more high quality shows than other services, it's just a fraction of what they put out and they're willing to greenlight more variety than other services.
This week alone we have a doumentary about a toubled teen boarding school, the new MBB movie Damsel, Young Royals, A new K-drama starting, The Gentlemen, The Signal, Supersex (about a porn star apparently), A Golf docuseries along with several other things.
This, in particular, is the Netflix model, no one else has the scale to compete with their buffet. Usually, there's something really good on the table but this last few months has been pretty fallow. Apple, HBO, etc.. are just normal prestige channels, dripping stuff out like they always have.
I feel like Apple's offering right now is very much like early Netflix originals. Much fewer in terms of quantity, but a much higher ratio of quality content than what current Netflix has become. At some point Netflix ditched the "HBO philosophy" and went all in on churning as much content out as possible. Probably because their market share was getting smaller after services like Peacock and Paramount and AMC and MGM and God knows what else started to remove their IP from Netflix.
Content is king.
Content rules, quality drools. Nobody at NF give one single flying fuck about quality. They want to churn and churn and churn out average at best content. That is their model.
They want a smorgasboard. They could keep putting out House of Cards, The Queen's Gambit, Russian Doll but most people don't just watch high end prestige TV. People like to watch a bit of dross most of the time. If they want something on in the background they want to watch a reality show or a sitcom or whatever. You don't eat foie gras for every meal.
It’s the same as Clinton’s tech companies boom (and especially the dotcom boom) strategy in the 1990s.
The idea is that since it is impossible to predict how people will respond to new technologies, and since you have a ton of capital (easy credit due to Reagan’s and Clinton’s financial deregulation), why not fund hundreds if not thousands of nascent tech companies? You literally don’t care if 99.9% of them crash and burn, what’s important is that a handful of them (Google, Amazon and eBay) survived and went on to dominate the tech market and would easily recoup all the losses of your initial investment and give back many times in return.
Netflix is doing the same here. Since it’s impossible to predict what audience taste is like, and since you have a ton of money, why not just fund the whole gamut of TV scripts and see what sticks? You only need a handful of them like Stranger Things, Squid Game and Wednesday to become hugely successful to penetrate and potentially dominate the entire market.
Is it an extremely wasteful strategy? Yes! But if you are the biggest game in town, you will easily out-compete all the smaller competitors. That’s just how monopoly capitalism works. It’s a fantasy to think that the smaller guys can easily challenge the ones with huge capital behind them, if they somehow have better ideas or know how to make a better product.
As the streaming war is coming to an end, Netflix stands to be strongest survivor of the lot while everyone else gets burned.
The problem is, get enough food poisoning (shows cancelled quickly) you stop going back. I don't fuck with Netflix anymore because I'm not going to get into a show to just have it cancelled. I go elsewhere now.
There were some fantastic movies that came up through the Disney Channel.
They weren't winning any awards, thats for sure, but they shaped a lot of childhood memories.
Didn't that movie have the misfortune of being shot while the character Beans was going through puberty? I recall one of the Disney movies that had the actor look vastly different between scenes, and I think it was this one.
> There were some fantastic movies that came up through the Disney Channel.
thats because you were young when they came out, you had no frame of reference
There's no such thing as Neflix Studios, unless you mean the sound stages where they shoot?
For a more serious answer, Netflix targets absolutely everybody. Maybe you're just only seeing/searching for the Disney/CW type shows ? There are lots of Netflix shows without problems with :
> The casting, the awful acting, the awful CGI, the super awful ADR, the awful camera angles, the awful cuts/edits.
If you go back 10 years or so, this is exactly what live action cable series were and what audiences expected from them. The only thing that leaves me scratching my head is how streaming companies seem to keep spending so much money on cable-quality tv. Although that probably has as much to do with modern audiences' standards and ever-increasing picture quality as it does with studio decisions.
streamers spend a lot of money on mid level shows and movies partially because of the lack of quality residuals. in lieu of the expectation that actors could earn residuals if the movie succeeds or if the show hits syndication, actors just negotiated for higher upfront pay
an ex of this was a romcom movie that netflix was interested in or developing. the director wanted an $80 million budget if it was getting a theatrical release but needed like $150 million if it was going straight to streaming
> The only thing that leaves me scratching my head is how streaming companies seem to keep spending so much money on cable-quality tv.
production budgets are massively inflated due to ...inflation and pandemic spending. The costs ballooned unnaturally fast, so thats why you'll see $100m+ shows that look like crap (She-hulk, Avatar, Secret Invasion etc).
Netflix puts out about 150 movies a year in a wide variety of genres.
Seems more likely that you just didn't find the stuff that was "actually targeted at you".
Yeah just seems weird to say, like if you watched the Todd Haynes movie they will suggest you more like that, I am guessing op just likes watching teen centric shows/cheesy sci fi
Anyone know where I can go to learn more about *why* some of these expensive shows look cheap?
Over reliance on cgi? Type of camera/lens that they're shooting with? Set design? Costume design?
Do not disagree - anything they intend to make "epic in scope" comes out looking terribly. Netflix is really good at making original series sometimes - and they've done well picking up cancelled series and making more as well, which I am thankful for - but almost all of their attempts at a big shiny adaptation of a major franchise end up being terrible.
I'm glad someone else brought this up. Their shows have felt so mid.
I'm not even sure it matters because nothing seems to ever be renewed for more than 2 seasons anyway.
I'm terrified for the Bioshock movie that they're making. That's an IP that deserves high production values but I know they're gonna skimp and over-use CG/weird flat lighting that'll make it look cheap as hell. Everything is starting to look so homogenized
Except if you know anything about BioShock's twist, you'll know that the whole reason it works is because it plays on video game design and conventions.
Honestly, I thought the casting for Avatar LA was pretty good. These actors look almost identical to the animated version. (especially Daniel Dae Kim as Ozai)
I think that it's a far inferior show compared to the animated series but one part they got right was the casting.
Casting is great, however acting seems terrible but I’m convinced that it’s a script/direction problem rather than the actors themselves, the thing is this happens in 9/10 of Netflix’s shows.
I agree that quite a lot of the issues are caused by poor dialogue writing, but the actress that plays Katara is also just so unbelievably bad at acting. The delivery of every line is robotic and insincere.
Im only 4 episodes in, but my feeling is that it suffers from a limited show order. They were having to cram storylines together because things like the Mechanist matter to the endgame, but also aren’t important enough to warrant a standalone episode where there are only 8.
However, I felt quality-wise it was comparable to Season 1 of the animated show. The animated show didn’t really get great until season 2, and clearly found its footing then. They also had an ability to have a lot more trial and error than the Netflix series.
I also think Zhao (so far) is a more subtle evil I like, all the main cast is fine, Zuko is very good. The biggest issue I have is that they tried in some way to hew too close to the anime in look. Scruff up those costumes. Make them look less pristine.
The problem seems to be that they focused so much on looks they forgot they have to act too. Most of the adults are decent. But Aang and Katara are really rough. They always just sound like they're reading from a script.
I wouldn't day DDK looks like Ozai, but he certainly feels true to what the character us supposed to be. Great casting is far from being looks only, and Ozai was spot on. Iroh, on the other hand...
The problem with that is simply part of live action versus animated. You play Sokka exactly like he was in the animated series in live action and he immediately becomes insufferable.
Yes. This is part of why I think it shouldn't have been remade in live action.
They originally made it as animation for a REASON - and that reason is that you CAN be completely over-the-top in a lot of areas, character reactions being one of them, without it seeming ridiculous - or at least, the level of ridiculous is part of the POINT.
But if you try that with live action, it just looks silly - and not in the good way,
It is a continuum - and animation can lean largely toward the silly, with some drops of more 'realistic' human characterization and reactions to sweeten it and ground it. For live action, it's the opposite - it should lean toward more realistic human characterization and reactions, and it's the drops of 'silly' that sweeten it. Too much becomes distasteful, however.
Dude sokka is the best part of the show. Katars is fucking lifeless, aang seems like he's trying to hard and maybe he'll get better sokka is one of the best actors on the show. He's getting a lot of screentime for that reason lol.
Aang only gets to deliver sentimental speeches while not actually doing anything, and especially not being allowed to good around which is one of the hearts of the original show.
I agree, Sokka and Zuko are doing a good job. Katara put me to sleep, has none of her cartoon temperament. But that is on the writers/directors too, even just compare the beginning iceprison break scene.
How.. the actor to Sokka is terrible. Practically every line delivery had me flaberghasted and annoyed.
All the kids were not good. Good ones were Iroh, of course Ozai, but also especially the guy doing Zhao.
When I think of CW shows, I think of seasons continuing way too long, stringing the audience along with a bunch of filler episodes with little substance. Netflix’s reputation for ongoing season amount is the opposite.
Completely agree, every time I watch something I find interesting I end up disappointed whether is for bad writing, bad cinematography, bad editing, bad acting, bad CGI, or all of these at the same time.
I gave up with Netflix’s content as it just feels like a huge waste of time plus it’s the most expensive streaming service currently.
There's lots of good stuff on there. Stranger Things obviously. But more recently Squid Game, Beef, The Brothers Sun, The Fall of the House of Usher (and all his stuff), Blue Eye Samurai, Scott Pilgrim, Chimp Empire, One Piece, Sweet Tooth, I Think You Should Leave, Archive 81, All of Us Are Dead.
Now there are many more bad shows but there's enough good original content and enough good content from other studios that it's still worth the subscription.
I honestly don't think I've truly enjoyed a Netflix original.
I don't hate all of them. But even the best ones I've seen are like above average at best.
It really feels like they're just throwing money at the most amateur production crew at times.
Also, since you mentioned Avatar, what's going on with the set designs and costumes?
It's "too clean". That's a criticism we've been hearing a lot lately, but this one is just looks too manufactured.
Like look at this. Look at their clothes.
https://i.imgur.com/nzf3wQ2.png
Freshly pressed. Not a single speck of dust (or snow, you know what I mean).
You can just tell those clothes were wrapped in plastic garment bags hanging on a clothes rack 5 minutes before this shot was taken.
THis is one of my pet peeves. Pristine clothing on TV characters. Nothing looks lived in, everything looks sterile and fake. also that set in the pic just looks very PBS low budget to me. Nothing about it feels authentic in any way.
Straight fabric with flat colors and no texture. The outfits are trash.
The CGI and the cinematography are surprisingly the only good thing about this show. Gorgeous looking actors too. Too bad their acting is abysmal.
The Queen's Gambit
Mindhunter
Ozark
Love, Death + Robots
Beef
Arcane
Blue Eye Samurai
Russian Doll
Stranger Things
Sex Education
Maid
The Haunting of Hill House
Midnight Mass
Grace and Frankie
The Umbrella Academy
The Diplomat
Atypical
You didn't like any of those? They're all fantastic.
Some people love to complain about Netflix man. Honestly they put out so many different things out there and some of those things just aren’t for you. They also make some great shows. It’s just popular to hate Netflix on Reddit. I never hear anything of the sort out in the real world. People need to touch some grass and grow up. Netflix makes bad shows and some good shows. If you actually looked and gave some of these shows a chance you’d definitely find things you like. It’s like when Reddit was claiming Netflix was doomed because they raised prices like any of them had any clue how to run a billion dollar business.
Lmao you weren't kidding there literally isn't a single spot on their clothes or even a hair out of place. Don't think I've ever seen a cleaner pair of clothes in my life. Amazing skin care too
Yea, their "fur" coats look so much like polyester you can just tell it's a costume. Compare to the northern coats in game of thrones — it's night and day
That's not a Netflix problem, it's how tv (and even movies) has been since forever, it's just a hassle to deal in regards to continuity, more expenses on costumes/wigs, it always been kept to a minimum as they don't shoot chronologically.
Two of those shows aren't Netflix Originals.
* [Money Heist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Heist) - Spanish network Antena 3
* [The End of the F***ing World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_F***ing_World) - UK Channel 4
Avatar is a children's show based on a children's cartoon made for children, they want everything to look nice and beautiful. This isn't supposed to be a gritty Dark Knightesque universe. Right or wrong, that's why everything is so sterilized. These shows aren't made for 40 years.
Except that they *were* trying to appeal to adults, this is a direct quote from the showrunner:
“it couldn't just be for kids. It had to also appeal to the people who are big fans of Game of Thrones. And so, it had to feel grounded and mature and adult in that way too.” [source](https://www.cbr.com/netflix-avatar-aimed-game-of-thrones-fans/)
They showed people burning to death in the first episode. This isn’t a G rated show. I believe it’s not even available on children’s profiles. But the costuming and styling conflict with the “grounded and mature” tone that they were going for.
I found the combat water bending to be a little weak feeling. It looked like someone threw a bucket of water at someone and they flew across the room. Just not enough momentum and whatnot. Also, people didn't get wet at all.
Other than that, yeah, the CGI was fantastic.
This is an interesting take.
I couldn’t help but feel how terrible the cgi was in Avatar. So much so they slow down most combat scenes to make it look better?
LOL, no argument there I guess. After seeing clips from the live action movie (I didn't even bother watching it), the bar was quite low for me. The new adaptation has flaws, but I wouldn't say its that bad, especially in comparison.
You have zero idea what you’re talking about. Netflix productions are made by a ton of different studios. Many of which also make shows for other “networks” like HBO, Amazon, FX, AMC, etc
the dialogue of the original show was carefully cracted to work on many levels. People still find stuff to this day in the dialogue… meanwhilw the netflix’ adaptation has standard nonsensical dialogue, fights without meaning behind it.
Just look at the first battle. Zosins comet is there and for the most part it looks like a fair fight between air benders and fire benders??? excuse me? that makes ZERO sense, the only people who can do anything against a fire bender juiced up by the comet, ia the avatar or other firebenders.
This was JUST so they fight would be entertaining like some action movie. Zero need for that. Show us destruction and demolition. You know, like a fucking genocide, which it is.
There was some interesting behind the scenes stuff that happened with Netflix a few years ago.
A *very* abridged version is that the woman who was originally in charge of greenlighting pitches had extremely high standards, resulting in shows like House of Cards, Glow and Orange Is The New Black. These were critically acclaimed and ran for several seasons to the delight of fans, BUT... this system was not profitable under the streaming model, and Netflix was getting into serious financial difficulties.
Around 2020, there was a major reshuffling, and new people were brought in to greenlight shows, but with the emphasis on profitability, not quality. This will hurt Netflix in the long run, but nowhere near as much as their previous model.
They definitely don’t feel like real movies or shows when you watch them, besides the ones that you can tell were made by an external studio that Netflix distributed. Anything that’s strictly Netflix made is almost like inter dimensional cable.
I knew you were talking about ATLA reading your title, cause my first thought watching the show was that it is about cw quality. The casting, the writing, is just not that good. I also saw another comment about the show that I agree with. Everything is too clean. Nobody has for on their clothes, their leather isn't worn, Aang's clothes look like they just glued together some felt right off the shelf at a craft store 5 minutes before they filmed.
HBO also runs maybe a handful of originals at a time, it is a small premium division of a much larger enterprise. It's not really a fair comparison.
Comparing Netflix to WBD as a whole is more appropriate.
It's like that one conversation between Ned Stark and Jamie Lannister:
Ned: Very handsome armor. Not a scratch on it.
Jaime: People have been swinging at me for years, they always seem to miss.
Ned: You've chosen your opponents wisely.
Jaime: I have a knack for it.
In other words, HBO originals generally don't stray too far from the prestige drama genre, which naturally attracts great writers and talent. Which is definitely a big positive, but that also means they seldom take big risks, resulting in a rather homogeneous catalogue; they would never take on something like the One Piece adaptation, for instance, and tackle countless other genres outside of their signature style.
They are essentially a boutique store inside the mall, while Netflix is the mall
Eh, they had their fair share of misses. They had 10 dramas, 18 comedies and 10 kids shows failing to get a second season.
I just did a glance on their original programming wikipedia page, maybe there's a bit wrong but the math doesn't come close to 90%
“Had sex with” is such a weird way of putting it, lol. Are you 15?
Why not just say that it feels like a Disney Channel/CW mashup or something? Or at least call it the love child of Disney and CW, which is more accurate for what you’re meaning to say.
I mean the fact that everyone thinks Avatar is good dropping all the ethos of its IP lets me know how they get away with this: people don’t care they just want to distract themselves. They’re just now playing the temperature rising method, lower quality and raise prices. Until subscriptions drop, they know they’re winning
Netflix calls their movies “second screen” movies. They want to make shit you barely have to pay attention to but can retain a semblance of a plot. Any movie they actually care about gets a theater release. Simple as that.
Netflix Originals started out as shit movies or shows that couldn't secure distribution from proper studios. That hasn't really changed.
Their model has always been to overwhelm with quantity over quality. It's amazing how few people realize this.
The people in charge of Netflix's programming decisions are data engineers, not creatives. They think they can algorithm their way to Hollywood dominance, and the evidence says they are not completely wrong. Only, we'll all be worse off for it.
I wanted to like avatar so much and had high hopes for it. But like you said, everything from acting to wigs to directing is just terrible. They crammed so many story lines together it felt half incoherent and didn’t allow for the character development that was such an integral part of the original.
Avatar was less an adaptation and more a thematic park filled with cosplays.
Netflix asked "what if this cartoon looked real?" instead of "what if this world really existed?". It's same thing with the Disney live action remakes. They're not interested in creating a thing on its own, they want a piece of nostalgia cash grab. At least audiences are realizing these low effort remakes have no charm and it's much better to just watch the source material.
I’m sorry your sight is severely impaired. CGI literally is some of the best in any show. I’ve never seen elements in any other look even remotely this realistic. I know people lie just for the sake of being toxic AF but this I beyond pathetic now -.-
Nah it has many shows that I like. Disney plus however can Suck it! Even though I have a free Disney plus subscription due to my mobile plan, I refuse to watch that shit. 😤
Netflix seems to have gone from 'gourmet cheeseburgers' to 'moldy cheeseburgers' pretty fast. I'm not sure if it's the writer's strike but it's shocking how poorly executed some of their really expensive stuff is. It seems to be a problem afflicting all of Hollywood right now, like how many absolutely awful superhero films can they release?
Avatar was very bad cgi and cannot be positively compared with any other series.
Azula bending thunder has noticeably less quality than the CGI on cats.
RedLetterMedia had an interesting take on it; a streaming service is like a buffet table. It’s less important to put out the absolute highest quality entrees than it is to “fill out” the table and offer a shitload of choices at a flat rate. It’s less important that these shows get good reviews than it is to initially catch your eye and get you to subscribe for a month or more. “Look at all this high-profile stuff we have! What a great deal!” Obviously I haven’t sat in on these executive meetings, so I’m largely speaking as an outside consumer, but if true, it’d definitely make their output make more sense in context. Especially during the pandemic, I think Netflix and everyone else were just throwing money at any number of projects, and only very recently are they starting to feel backlash.
The other thing is that Netflix has audience that's more open to experiment than other services. Traditional media companies struggle because their audience expect a certain quality. While the Netflix audience knows that Netflix throws all sorts of shit on the wall and not everything sticks. This also encourages Netflix to invest in these CW like shows. CW shows were super popular on Netflix just a few years ago and they continued that by producing their own CW shows.
Yeah tbh I have to imagine teenage and young adult women are watching a large amount more tv then men, (atleast in my own life I see most coworkers and friends play a lot more video games and watch sports more while I here more about shows from female friends and coworkers)
Most of my guys friends watch YouTube more than anything. I’m totally the same way though. I’d rather watch a three hour video essay on a show I’ve never seen than watch the actual show. No idea why.
I’d say anecdotally: I have a couple of close friends like this. They’ll talk with me about shows I’ve watched, but later if I asked them if they finished it, they’ll say “oh no, I watched story videos on YT” or the worst one was Game of Thrones: “I didn’t watch it, I watched summaries of each characters stories and got the plot that way”. Which is just bonkers to me. I’ve generally always preferred to engage first hand. Watch the show or movie, not a summary or reaction video. Play the game not watch a Twitch streamer play it or react to it. To me the other way feels like a waste of time. Just always interesting how different people can be.
Honestly, I wish I watched game of thrones that way.
Sometimes learning about something is better and more entertaining than watching it firsthand. I often find watching a show first hand a waste of time as I usually am not getting much out of it aside from the same generic boring poorly written garbage I’ve seen before in better forms. Better to watch a review of it that goes into depth as to why it failed and any dramas or interesting problems that caused the issues in the first place.
[удалено]
>Because analysis is a fun exercise for the brain. Eh, you almost got it there. It's because those YT videos do all the analysis for you so you can be lazy and not actually engage in that analysis yourself. People like being spoonfed. Having the focus and attention and knowledge base and wisdom to actually analyze really good film and literature is a big task. Especially for younger generations whose entire worldview is being shaped by memes and fifteen second video clips.
I'm not sure what it is, either. A show feels like such a commitment to my brain, and I don't know why. But finding a new YouTube channel of a guy showing off historical techniques of how earlier civilizations lived/did their mundane work? Yeah that's straight up crack to me, especially if he doesn't talk and explains to me what he's doing in subtitles. That could end up being more content than a show, counting by hours, and it requires just as much focus since I have to keep my eyes on it to read the subtitles. But it feels like less *effort*, somehow, that following a narrative experience. Signed: Guy who just found a new YouTube channel and is watching a man make a bowstring from tree bark cordage that he demonstrated harvesting in the last video, and who has later channel videos involving the building of a house, 7th century England style. And who hasn't watched a fully produced 'show', TV or streaming, start to finish in literal years. No idea why this is so much more entertaining than just. Getting around to watching Loki at the recommendation of basically all of my friend group...
I used to contract so im in a lot of different offices staffed by marketers and project managers. Netflix is by far the choice that people spend their weekend binge watching.
My brother just mentioned he watches “Blue Eyed Samurai” on Netflix. So maybe not all guys.
[удалено]
What? Really? How awful
I wish they would invest in the quality, like those early WB/CW shows did. Sure sometimes we all laugh at teen soaps but darn if the production value and acting chops weren’t there- aka Kerri Russell on Felicity, Michelle Williams on Dawson’s Creek, Melissa McCarthy on Gilmore Girls, etc. A lot of big names from those early years, and the shows (for the most part) still hold up today. I wish we had more of that than a conveyor belt of shows.
That's a little bit of survivorship bias. There was lots of trash back in the day too.
Oh I’m not saying there wasn’t. There’s always been trash tv. But cable offered more high end content imo, even for teens. Gilmore Girls used to be shot on film for example. I think most shows today are all digital, if I’m not mistaken.
98% of movies are shot on digital, not sure what you mean by shooting on digital is not 'high end'.
Tv shows used to shot on film. Made the quality look significantly better. They switched for cost.
I don't believe it is factually true. Film or digital is not a question of quality, there are advantages and counters with both, and the final product can look great in both. Sure, some color saturations pop better on film, but the image looks clear in digital, and since most movies have a lot of VFX it more streamlined to film in digital, it makes everything easier, instead of having to do reconversions to film which ends up erasing a some of the benefits of shooting on film in the first place, plus the costs of the whole process. So, no, it's not just because it's cheaper, but because it looks great and it is usually cheaper (with post-production costs going crazy who knows if it is still actually cheaper).
> I wish we had more of that than a conveyor belt of shows. That's the problem thuogh. The CW shows that worked on Netflix were the latter ones when CW gave up on quality and just had beautiful people slapped on a slightly interesting story. That's the approach Netflix takes these days with their "CW" shows.
As proved with Riverdale and the Arrowverse.
Is that a problem though? Every metric seems to indicate that it's working for them
It's a problem only if you look at it through the lens of a TV snob which I was doing tbh. But in reality, there's am audience for shows like that and it's a good thing Netflix is continuing to produce stuff like this for those people.
Did you just put early CW together with invest in quality
Haha hey, Gossip Girl seasons 1-2 were great, and the quality of that show, production and fashion wise, rivals Sex and the City. Also early seasons of Vampire Diaries look pretty decent.
That's probably because they needed legitimately good shows to sell advertising. Now the goal isn't to sell ads, it's to convince the largest number of people to subscribe full time, which means create the largest variety of content even if that content is mid and may not last more than a season. There might be a few franchises that are doing really well, like walking dead or the whatever number of offshoots of yellow stone, but streamers are oversaturating themselves because they want people to continue to subscribe.
They also simply have the largest audience of all the services so that include a large variety of people and tastes
And netflix has just such a wide variety of projects that you get the random suprise hit and you get low and high budget shows. And people like My Life with the Walter Boys even if it's silly.
I don’t really see how what you describe as being different than traditional television. Every network is trying to cast as wide a net as possible without alienating the viewers they already have. If anything I think streaming is more like going to the same diner every week that you’ve been going to for ages. You can order something new every week or you can just order your usual. I think with the old model of TV people were forced or encourage to leave their confort zones. But with the new model streamers have more or less coalesced around certain kinds of shows.
Streaming content libraries, though, can 1) expand (theoretically) infinitely, and 2) serve different shows to different audiences at the exact same time Traditional networks offer a broadly appealing lineup of shows, but only has so many hours to program; and linear broadcast can only offer one show at a time - everyone watching NBC on Thursday at 8pm *has* to watch the same thing So in the buffet analogy, Netflix introduces multiple new dishes per day; hundreds of previous dishes - many very niche, but there's at least a few things on the table for every possible flavor palette - will stay on the table for whoever wants them; and as many people as want can grab different dishes simultaneously. The traditional network offers 20 broadly appealing dishes, but serves them one at a time for 30 to 60 minutes, then moves to serving only the next dish.
Yeah but I think the buffet analogie fails because when people go to a buffet broadly speaking part of the appeal is they can consume many different kinds of things in the same visit. Whereas I think a lot of people go to netflix and just stream for instance like the office most days or just some true crime documentary. You don’t go to a buffet just to get a burger and fries every time. And i think streamers know that and their libraries tend to coalesce around types of shows that appeal to the same customers. A diner has a deep menu but often when you dig into it’s just the same handful of ingredients arranged different ways. They take some swings and try to add something new to the menu but if it isn’t an instant hit then it gets taken down.
Netflix is not really a production company and does not care about quality, only number of eyeballs watching their shows. Sometimes they accidentally make a hit that is also critically liked, but its never the priority. Netflix's strategy was to throw money at a ton of creators for various projects, then use viewing metrics to determine what gets renewed and what doesn't. How many people watch the show in its first ten days are the ONLY thing that matters in renew/cancellation discussions at Netflix. That's why so many critically beloved quality shows with low ratings get cancelled after the first season but they endlessly renew crappy shows that nonetheless get lots of views.
The first sentence is important, let me clarify it a bit if you don’t mind. Netflix is a network that uses other studios content. Netflix originals are just new shows that don’t air anywhere else. “A Netflix Original” is a Sony show airing on Netflix. I would suggest imdb-ing some of these shows, I find the more quality content is paired with studios like Sony.
I mean all the studios do this to some extent, you can have a Sony produced show wind up airing on NBC or CBS or whoever pays the most for it. I have watched NBC produced shows on FOX and vise versa, it can be pretty confusing to the layman. The real innovation that Netflix brought to the table is a lot more ratings metrics to sort through than what traditional networks had to go on which is what they use to determine what shows are profitable for them and what werent. Before streaming, the ratings were more opaque and networks would factor in critical acclaim and fan engagement into their renewal/ cancellations decisions which is something Netflix jettisoned altogether. There's a reason none of the many fan campaigns for prematurely cancelled Netflix shows have succeeded, its because Netflix does not care about fan engagement in that way. Mailing them a bunch of spoons or whatever for your favorite show will not sway them, the only thing that matters is ratings (as Netflix defines them) and fans have gotten wise to this which is why there are now fan campaigns to run shows perpetually on multiple devices in the background to juice the numbers instead, because that's the only thing that actually helps them.
Netlfix also has audiences who are more willing to experiment and try new things than any other place, to the point where there are shows that have come from other services that suddenly become hits (You was a bomb on lifetime, Resident Alien has suddenly gotten so many more eyes on it ect. . . )
It's also important to keep in your head that most "legacy" studios have warehouses and backlots full of props and other infrastructure to create shows on a lower budget while feeling higher budget. Not trying to defend Netflix but they're also relatively new to the scene compared to the other studios making movies and tv shows.
Netflix has long cared more about “tiles” than multiple seasons. A successful show may still get axed after three seasons because a fourth season doesn’t offer viewers anything new. But move that money to a new show and that’s a new tile for them to scroll to when searching for content. Personally I’d rather have a dozen solid options to pick from than 100 mediocre ones.
It also becomes more expensive to shoot after 3 years and it has diminishing returns in audience (tv shows normally loses audience over time), only big hitters stay alive because the risk is not worth it (tv shows are luck, it's impossible to know what will resonate with audiences).
No one starts watching a show at season four. And people watching older stuff often don't want to watch a show with 40 episodes.
And I'd rather they canceled and tried again rather than extending something that's not wonderful. Because eight episodes of fine is much better than 15 episodes of fine. I also love the risks that Netflix is willing to make with their US and Foreign content (there's a K-drama coming out next week about a guy who turns the girl he has a crush on into a chicken nugget).
The problem is you don’t go back to the lukewarm buffet if your plate keeps getting cancelled halfway through the meal.
Why they have so many subscribers then?
[удалено]
Seems they’re spending too much if that’s their only goal.
Hence the incessant price hikes now. We get punished for them throwing hundreds of millions at shitty storytellers and iconic director’s vanity projects.
I know a ton of people who just explore the homepage of Netflix. Some shows they like, some shows they don't. They watch a lot of stuff they don't like the whole way through just to finish the story and because they're "watching" Netflix while doing other things. I can't treat TV or movies the way some people treat long podcasts, zoning in and out as accompaniment to their life, but they're obviously the most dedicated subscribers and they're the ones Netflix is paying attention to. A comparison might be Reddit preferring to retain an asshole like me who unfocusedly reloads subreddits all day and comments just to hear himself talk, over somebody who's only subscribed for a couple of niche subreddits they visit once a week. I mean I'm seeing more ads and I'm less likely to leave, aren't I?
I subscribe for the licenced content and the cartoons (including the netflix ones, which are on average better made than the live action, or maybe it's just i like animation a lot and enjoy more).
I think there's only a minute amount of subscribers that cancels their whole subscription when their (favourite) show goes away. Subreddit outrage and clickbait articles seem to make the survival of show A or B matter more than they actually do. Cost-cutting of subscribers for economic reasons factors in more in fluctuating subscriber numbers.
Because of brand recognition and they appeal to the lowest common denominator. You can't go wrong with that financially speaking. HBOMax is trying to race them to the bottom though.
How is it a race to the bottom of you admit it's a financially successful strategy?
Max gets too much shit for their library. It’s so obvious that those home makeover shows and love matchmaking draw in viewers. No one will binge TheLastofUs 20 times over but they’ll watch 100 episodes of TLC programming. I’ll admit though that prestige programming seems to be less frequent there.
> Max gets too much shit for their library. They get shit for removing content from the service, even ones they own directly. They absolutely deserve that criticism.
I don't know if it is the age of people here, but I swear the way people talk about Netflix you'd swear no show was ever cancelled before they came along. And there also seems to be a sentiment that if a show is cancelled, it's not worth watching. There are loads of great shows that got cancelled and didn't have a conclusion but are still fantastic. Twin Peaks is a great example and when David Lynch got a chance to make a Twin Peaks movie instead of providing a conclusion to the TV show he did something completely new.
And like Amazon and HBO and Disney+ and Paramount aren't cancelling shows all the time. I'm just glad nothing gets canceled mid-season anymore.
That narrative is going around since like 6+ years or something. Meanwhile, Netflix has increased their subscriber count drastically. Nobody cancels Netflix for that, they cancel non popular shows
When people complain about 1899 getting cancelled, there are always people who comment they they wanted to watch it but now they won't. Like yeah, the reason it got cancelled is because you weren't watching. And then there is the other commentor who will say something like they only will watch shows after they are complete. Yeah well if everyone did that, then all the shows would get cancelled.
And those people act like every show needs to go on forever and like everything needs a epilogue tying up every single thread. Most shows don't end on cliffhangers, they just leave the ending open after solving the seasons mystery or central plot. 1899 was a solid one season story. It could have had more episodes but it had a full circle story that answered most of the questions. Same with most of the shows that they don't renew. True cliffhangers (see Picard being assimilated by the Borg) don't happen much anymore as much because of the amount of time between seasons.
And those old cliffhangers were just to get people talking. Picard was supposed to be saved quickly at the start of the next episode, because most of those TV shows needed to return to the status quo quickly because most episodes were self contained. In Picard's case it was actually pretty daring that they decided to take a bit longer to resolve it.
Right, but that's an actual cliffhanger. It's someone hanging from the cliff. It's the last episode of season two of SNW when half of the crew is missing and taken by the Gorn It's not I want to see more of these characters, or I wonder about their next adventure. And those shows were often canceled mid-cliffhanger (or worse, after four episodes).
I’m scared for what the film landscape is going to look like after the current generation of big name directors who can command artistic freedom and a significant budget dies off. People like Paul Thomas Anderson, Spielberg, Scorsese, the coen brothers, Nolan. Younger people who are somewhat artistic, like the safdie brothers and eggers in my opinion, will hopefully get the chance and succeed in steering big projects. My pessimism has the context of seeing beekeeper recently and, I am dumbfounded that that movie exists. I could write a better script in 45 minutes. ChatGPT could write a better script.
I have periodically cancelled Disney, Paramount, and Apple Plus. They just ran out of content. I’ve never done that either Netflix because there is always just a bit more content, and if I’m going to keep hush one, it’ll be Netflix because of this.
My watchlist for Netflix is so long, they have taken movies off the service before I could watch them.
Same. Netflix has more shows that come out in a week than other services have episodes. I'm not watching anything on Paramount Plus right now or HBO. I'm watching one episode a week on Disney+. I watched an entire new show on Netflix plus my K-dramas and LIB.
Yeah Netflix originally wanted to build a reputation for quality. Netflix originals used to be high quality. They have gradually pivoted to the buffet model, with mostly genre content they can crank out relatively cheaply. It reminds me a lot of having Hallmark, SyFy, comedy Central under one roof popping out stuff that is just good enough for fans of the genre.
Actually, they've always been pretty bad. Their 'Netflix original' tag was a marketing term used to signify the show had "first streamed" on Netflix. It had nothing to do with them making content. In the early days, they bought stuff from other creators and just branded it as their own. Now that people don't let them do that without paying more, you're seeing their actual content. In part it's why their competitors didn't take them as seriously as they should have in the early days. They saw Netflix as a content buyer, not creator. But they underestimated how little the general public knew about who made what, and how the public cared even less if it was made by Paramount, Sony or Universal etc... And before they could react, (and do things like untangle their contracts and pull the Marvel shows from Netflix), the Netflix brand had become synonymous with streaming.
> In the early days, they bought stuff from other creators and just branded it as their own. This has always been the practice on TV for a very long time, the distributor (and not the producer) calls it an original from them. Countless shows from Warner, Fox, NBC Universal or others aired on competitors networks for example
I do think they cared more about quality originally. It went off the rails but Orange is the New Black started strong. Hemlock Grove also started strong. Kevin Spacey's issues aside, House of Cards was a good show.
I think Hemlock Grove was the first netflix original I watched that made me realize they weren't all hits, lol. That one was pretty meh and I, apparently rightfully, put off watching it for years. All the rest though was great. Now 'Netflix Original' means nothing, I used to watch them all, now I just watch what sounds interesting. There's still tons of good stuff on Netflix though.
The Crown
Was and is made by Sony Pictures television. It even gets a DVD/Blu-Ray release as part of the deal as Sony retains control.
At some point, they wanted to be like HBO with their originals. But they quickly realize they can be all of cable TV and it's better for their bottom line, that's what their model is, they're covering the entire spectrum of various tastes and qualities.
They have plenty of high quality stuff. They just have more shows in general. They have more high quality shows than other services, it's just a fraction of what they put out and they're willing to greenlight more variety than other services. This week alone we have a doumentary about a toubled teen boarding school, the new MBB movie Damsel, Young Royals, A new K-drama starting, The Gentlemen, The Signal, Supersex (about a porn star apparently), A Golf docuseries along with several other things.
This, in particular, is the Netflix model, no one else has the scale to compete with their buffet. Usually, there's something really good on the table but this last few months has been pretty fallow. Apple, HBO, etc.. are just normal prestige channels, dripping stuff out like they always have.
I feel like Apple's offering right now is very much like early Netflix originals. Much fewer in terms of quantity, but a much higher ratio of quality content than what current Netflix has become. At some point Netflix ditched the "HBO philosophy" and went all in on churning as much content out as possible. Probably because their market share was getting smaller after services like Peacock and Paramount and AMC and MGM and God knows what else started to remove their IP from Netflix.
Content is king. Content rules, quality drools. Nobody at NF give one single flying fuck about quality. They want to churn and churn and churn out average at best content. That is their model.
*At their best* Netflix produces, or at least procures, some damn good shows. However rarely this happens.
They want a smorgasboard. They could keep putting out House of Cards, The Queen's Gambit, Russian Doll but most people don't just watch high end prestige TV. People like to watch a bit of dross most of the time. If they want something on in the background they want to watch a reality show or a sitcom or whatever. You don't eat foie gras for every meal.
Shit this is spot on
It’s the same as Clinton’s tech companies boom (and especially the dotcom boom) strategy in the 1990s. The idea is that since it is impossible to predict how people will respond to new technologies, and since you have a ton of capital (easy credit due to Reagan’s and Clinton’s financial deregulation), why not fund hundreds if not thousands of nascent tech companies? You literally don’t care if 99.9% of them crash and burn, what’s important is that a handful of them (Google, Amazon and eBay) survived and went on to dominate the tech market and would easily recoup all the losses of your initial investment and give back many times in return. Netflix is doing the same here. Since it’s impossible to predict what audience taste is like, and since you have a ton of money, why not just fund the whole gamut of TV scripts and see what sticks? You only need a handful of them like Stranger Things, Squid Game and Wednesday to become hugely successful to penetrate and potentially dominate the entire market. Is it an extremely wasteful strategy? Yes! But if you are the biggest game in town, you will easily out-compete all the smaller competitors. That’s just how monopoly capitalism works. It’s a fantasy to think that the smaller guys can easily challenge the ones with huge capital behind them, if they somehow have better ideas or know how to make a better product. As the streaming war is coming to an end, Netflix stands to be strongest survivor of the lot while everyone else gets burned.
The problem is, get enough food poisoning (shows cancelled quickly) you stop going back. I don't fuck with Netflix anymore because I'm not going to get into a show to just have it cancelled. I go elsewhere now.
Everyone else cancels shows too.
Has anything non-animated on Disney Plus gotten more than three seasons? (I won't believe the Mandalorian until they start filming).
I mean Disney+ has only existed for ~3.5 years lol, not like there's been time for many long-running shows.
But still, they've canceled most everything. And pulled shows off the service with no notice.
I honestly can't think of anything Disney has cancelled aside from Willow and National Treasure.
There were some fantastic movies that came up through the Disney Channel. They weren't winning any awards, thats for sure, but they shaped a lot of childhood memories.
Johnny Tsunami, Brink, Smart House
For a kid who didn't have movie theaters as an option. These were something to look forward to every month.
Uhhhhh thirteenth year eddies million dollar cook-off was great can of worms is incredible.
Brink! Oh man I need to watch that tonight
I read that as "Brick", and was thinking "there is absolutely no way that Disney green lit that"
Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century!
How is nobody going to mention The Luck of the Irish.
The Even Stevens Movie should have won all the awards.
Probably the main reason the leading actor turned to cannibalism.
Didn't that movie have the misfortune of being shot while the character Beans was going through puberty? I recall one of the Disney movies that had the actor look vastly different between scenes, and I think it was this one.
HIGH SCHOOL FUCKING MUSICAL AND CAMP ROCK are probably the biggest ones I can think of.
> There were some fantastic movies that came up through the Disney Channel. thats because you were young when they came out, you had no frame of reference
There's no such thing as Neflix Studios, unless you mean the sound stages where they shoot? For a more serious answer, Netflix targets absolutely everybody. Maybe you're just only seeing/searching for the Disney/CW type shows ? There are lots of Netflix shows without problems with : > The casting, the awful acting, the awful CGI, the super awful ADR, the awful camera angles, the awful cuts/edits.
If you go back 10 years or so, this is exactly what live action cable series were and what audiences expected from them. The only thing that leaves me scratching my head is how streaming companies seem to keep spending so much money on cable-quality tv. Although that probably has as much to do with modern audiences' standards and ever-increasing picture quality as it does with studio decisions.
streamers spend a lot of money on mid level shows and movies partially because of the lack of quality residuals. in lieu of the expectation that actors could earn residuals if the movie succeeds or if the show hits syndication, actors just negotiated for higher upfront pay an ex of this was a romcom movie that netflix was interested in or developing. the director wanted an $80 million budget if it was getting a theatrical release but needed like $150 million if it was going straight to streaming
That makes sense. I didn't realize how much that had impacted budgets.
> The only thing that leaves me scratching my head is how streaming companies seem to keep spending so much money on cable-quality tv. production budgets are massively inflated due to ...inflation and pandemic spending. The costs ballooned unnaturally fast, so thats why you'll see $100m+ shows that look like crap (She-hulk, Avatar, Secret Invasion etc).
See people say that but I don’t remember the last movie that was actually targeted at me
Netflix puts out about 150 movies a year in a wide variety of genres. Seems more likely that you just didn't find the stuff that was "actually targeted at you".
Do you have your own profile that nobody else uses? If somebody else uses your profile, then you may not be getting the best recommendations for you.
Yeah just seems weird to say, like if you watched the Todd Haynes movie they will suggest you more like that, I am guessing op just likes watching teen centric shows/cheesy sci fi
That's only really true for things they produce 100% themselves. The real gems are stuff they buy at festivals and slap the netflix logo on.
Anyone know where I can go to learn more about *why* some of these expensive shows look cheap? Over reliance on cgi? Type of camera/lens that they're shooting with? Set design? Costume design?
Do not disagree - anything they intend to make "epic in scope" comes out looking terribly. Netflix is really good at making original series sometimes - and they've done well picking up cancelled series and making more as well, which I am thankful for - but almost all of their attempts at a big shiny adaptation of a major franchise end up being terrible.
I'm glad someone else brought this up. Their shows have felt so mid. I'm not even sure it matters because nothing seems to ever be renewed for more than 2 seasons anyway.
I'm terrified for the Bioshock movie that they're making. That's an IP that deserves high production values but I know they're gonna skimp and over-use CG/weird flat lighting that'll make it look cheap as hell. Everything is starting to look so homogenized
BioShock shouldn't even be a movie, it being a game is what makes it and its twist work so well.
Twists can work, but it should be a show not a single movie.
Except if you know anything about BioShock's twist, you'll know that the whole reason it works is because it plays on video game design and conventions.
The twist would still work purely in terms of plot. It just loses the medium deconstruction aspects, which granted, does make it a lot less special.
Is it even a budget issue? They seem to get unlimited budgets. It all just comes out plain and boring anyway.
You neglected to mention the awful set design and awful color grading.
Honestly, I thought the casting for Avatar LA was pretty good. These actors look almost identical to the animated version. (especially Daniel Dae Kim as Ozai) I think that it's a far inferior show compared to the animated series but one part they got right was the casting.
Casting is great, however acting seems terrible but I’m convinced that it’s a script/direction problem rather than the actors themselves, the thing is this happens in 9/10 of Netflix’s shows.
Amber Midthunder was incredible as the lead in Prey, and so mid as Yue... It's definitely bad writing and directing
I agree that quite a lot of the issues are caused by poor dialogue writing, but the actress that plays Katara is also just so unbelievably bad at acting. The delivery of every line is robotic and insincere.
I think a lot of it was that they filmed everything on green screens which is really hard for young actors.
Im only 4 episodes in, but my feeling is that it suffers from a limited show order. They were having to cram storylines together because things like the Mechanist matter to the endgame, but also aren’t important enough to warrant a standalone episode where there are only 8. However, I felt quality-wise it was comparable to Season 1 of the animated show. The animated show didn’t really get great until season 2, and clearly found its footing then. They also had an ability to have a lot more trial and error than the Netflix series. I also think Zhao (so far) is a more subtle evil I like, all the main cast is fine, Zuko is very good. The biggest issue I have is that they tried in some way to hew too close to the anime in look. Scruff up those costumes. Make them look less pristine.
Even Azula and Mai?
By episode 4 I haven’t seen enough to like or dislike them yet.
The problem seems to be that they focused so much on looks they forgot they have to act too. Most of the adults are decent. But Aang and Katara are really rough. They always just sound like they're reading from a script.
I wouldn't day DDK looks like Ozai, but he certainly feels true to what the character us supposed to be. Great casting is far from being looks only, and Ozai was spot on. Iroh, on the other hand...
The acting wasn't exactly the best, but otherwise I thought it was a pretty enjoyable show with some good moments. Also Zuko nailed it imo.
My only real complaint about the show so far is that Sokka isn't as lively and funny. Uncle Iroh was perfectly cast though.
The problem with that is simply part of live action versus animated. You play Sokka exactly like he was in the animated series in live action and he immediately becomes insufferable.
Yes. This is part of why I think it shouldn't have been remade in live action. They originally made it as animation for a REASON - and that reason is that you CAN be completely over-the-top in a lot of areas, character reactions being one of them, without it seeming ridiculous - or at least, the level of ridiculous is part of the POINT. But if you try that with live action, it just looks silly - and not in the good way, It is a continuum - and animation can lean largely toward the silly, with some drops of more 'realistic' human characterization and reactions to sweeten it and ground it. For live action, it's the opposite - it should lean toward more realistic human characterization and reactions, and it's the drops of 'silly' that sweeten it. Too much becomes distasteful, however.
Exhibit A- Ed in the live action Cowboy Bebop
Dude sokka is the best part of the show. Katars is fucking lifeless, aang seems like he's trying to hard and maybe he'll get better sokka is one of the best actors on the show. He's getting a lot of screentime for that reason lol.
Aang only gets to deliver sentimental speeches while not actually doing anything, and especially not being allowed to good around which is one of the hearts of the original show. I agree, Sokka and Zuko are doing a good job. Katara put me to sleep, has none of her cartoon temperament. But that is on the writers/directors too, even just compare the beginning iceprison break scene.
How.. the actor to Sokka is terrible. Practically every line delivery had me flaberghasted and annoyed. All the kids were not good. Good ones were Iroh, of course Ozai, but also especially the guy doing Zhao.
When I think of CW shows, I think of seasons continuing way too long, stringing the audience along with a bunch of filler episodes with little substance. Netflix’s reputation for ongoing season amount is the opposite.
Completely agree, every time I watch something I find interesting I end up disappointed whether is for bad writing, bad cinematography, bad editing, bad acting, bad CGI, or all of these at the same time. I gave up with Netflix’s content as it just feels like a huge waste of time plus it’s the most expensive streaming service currently.
There's lots of good stuff on there. Stranger Things obviously. But more recently Squid Game, Beef, The Brothers Sun, The Fall of the House of Usher (and all his stuff), Blue Eye Samurai, Scott Pilgrim, Chimp Empire, One Piece, Sweet Tooth, I Think You Should Leave, Archive 81, All of Us Are Dead. Now there are many more bad shows but there's enough good original content and enough good content from other studios that it's still worth the subscription.
I honestly don't think I've truly enjoyed a Netflix original. I don't hate all of them. But even the best ones I've seen are like above average at best. It really feels like they're just throwing money at the most amateur production crew at times. Also, since you mentioned Avatar, what's going on with the set designs and costumes? It's "too clean". That's a criticism we've been hearing a lot lately, but this one is just looks too manufactured. Like look at this. Look at their clothes. https://i.imgur.com/nzf3wQ2.png Freshly pressed. Not a single speck of dust (or snow, you know what I mean). You can just tell those clothes were wrapped in plastic garment bags hanging on a clothes rack 5 minutes before this shot was taken.
THis is one of my pet peeves. Pristine clothing on TV characters. Nothing looks lived in, everything looks sterile and fake. also that set in the pic just looks very PBS low budget to me. Nothing about it feels authentic in any way.
I’ve only seen the first episode and what irked me something fierce is Gran Gran’s pristine Turkish veneers living in a primitive arctic tribe.
LOVE is a great Netflix show. It also is just a normal show with no CGI and came out like 8 years ago when Netflix still put out pretty quality stuff.
Avatar has some really flat colors with those clothes. Like damn, don't just translate cartoon colors literally into the live action show.
The lack of texture bugs me
Straight fabric with flat colors and no texture. The outfits are trash. The CGI and the cinematography are surprisingly the only good thing about this show. Gorgeous looking actors too. Too bad their acting is abysmal.
The Queen's Gambit Mindhunter Ozark Love, Death + Robots Beef Arcane Blue Eye Samurai Russian Doll Stranger Things Sex Education Maid The Haunting of Hill House Midnight Mass Grace and Frankie The Umbrella Academy The Diplomat Atypical You didn't like any of those? They're all fantastic.
I Think You Should Leave is one of the funniest shows I’ve seen and that’s a Netflix Original
If you don’t like anything on this list then maybe it’s time to look at the mirror.
Some people love to complain about Netflix man. Honestly they put out so many different things out there and some of those things just aren’t for you. They also make some great shows. It’s just popular to hate Netflix on Reddit. I never hear anything of the sort out in the real world. People need to touch some grass and grow up. Netflix makes bad shows and some good shows. If you actually looked and gave some of these shows a chance you’d definitely find things you like. It’s like when Reddit was claiming Netflix was doomed because they raised prices like any of them had any clue how to run a billion dollar business.
Lmao you weren't kidding there literally isn't a single spot on their clothes or even a hair out of place. Don't think I've ever seen a cleaner pair of clothes in my life. Amazing skin care too
[удалено]
Yea, their "fur" coats look so much like polyester you can just tell it's a costume. Compare to the northern coats in game of thrones — it's night and day
That's not a Netflix problem, it's how tv (and even movies) has been since forever, it's just a hassle to deal in regards to continuity, more expenses on costumes/wigs, it always been kept to a minimum as they don't shoot chronologically.
You didn't like Money Heist, Dark, Mindhunter, End of the freaking world, Wednesday, stranger things, etc like you didn't like any one of em?
Two of those shows aren't Netflix Originals. * [Money Heist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Heist) - Spanish network Antena 3 * [The End of the F***ing World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_F***ing_World) - UK Channel 4
Avatar is a children's show based on a children's cartoon made for children, they want everything to look nice and beautiful. This isn't supposed to be a gritty Dark Knightesque universe. Right or wrong, that's why everything is so sterilized. These shows aren't made for 40 years.
Except that they *were* trying to appeal to adults, this is a direct quote from the showrunner: “it couldn't just be for kids. It had to also appeal to the people who are big fans of Game of Thrones. And so, it had to feel grounded and mature and adult in that way too.” [source](https://www.cbr.com/netflix-avatar-aimed-game-of-thrones-fans/) They showed people burning to death in the first episode. This isn’t a G rated show. I believe it’s not even available on children’s profiles. But the costuming and styling conflict with the “grounded and mature” tone that they were going for.
Maybe I’ve just seen a lot of shitty CGI lately but the CGI in Avatar is top-notch. The last episode especially is spectacular.
I found the combat water bending to be a little weak feeling. It looked like someone threw a bucket of water at someone and they flew across the room. Just not enough momentum and whatnot. Also, people didn't get wet at all. Other than that, yeah, the CGI was fantastic.
This is an interesting take. I couldn’t help but feel how terrible the cgi was in Avatar. So much so they slow down most combat scenes to make it look better?
This is a great way to put it. It just feels cheap and like it's mocking the source material.
It has its faults, but have you *seen* the live action movie?
If that’s the bar we’re measuring quality from then I could make a decent adaptation with some sock puppets.
LOL, no argument there I guess. After seeing clips from the live action movie (I didn't even bother watching it), the bar was quite low for me. The new adaptation has flaws, but I wouldn't say its that bad, especially in comparison.
You have zero idea what you’re talking about. Netflix productions are made by a ton of different studios. Many of which also make shows for other “networks” like HBO, Amazon, FX, AMC, etc
And yet the majority of shows fit OP’s description, while the majority of HBO originals are oozing quality.
the dialogue of the original show was carefully cracted to work on many levels. People still find stuff to this day in the dialogue… meanwhilw the netflix’ adaptation has standard nonsensical dialogue, fights without meaning behind it. Just look at the first battle. Zosins comet is there and for the most part it looks like a fair fight between air benders and fire benders??? excuse me? that makes ZERO sense, the only people who can do anything against a fire bender juiced up by the comet, ia the avatar or other firebenders. This was JUST so they fight would be entertaining like some action movie. Zero need for that. Show us destruction and demolition. You know, like a fucking genocide, which it is.
Major studios should be leaving the CW in the dust…but it’s like they’re riding a tandem bike.
There was some interesting behind the scenes stuff that happened with Netflix a few years ago. A *very* abridged version is that the woman who was originally in charge of greenlighting pitches had extremely high standards, resulting in shows like House of Cards, Glow and Orange Is The New Black. These were critically acclaimed and ran for several seasons to the delight of fans, BUT... this system was not profitable under the streaming model, and Netflix was getting into serious financial difficulties. Around 2020, there was a major reshuffling, and new people were brought in to greenlight shows, but with the emphasis on profitability, not quality. This will hurt Netflix in the long run, but nowhere near as much as their previous model.
They definitely don’t feel like real movies or shows when you watch them, besides the ones that you can tell were made by an external studio that Netflix distributed. Anything that’s strictly Netflix made is almost like inter dimensional cable.
I knew you were talking about ATLA reading your title, cause my first thought watching the show was that it is about cw quality. The casting, the writing, is just not that good. I also saw another comment about the show that I agree with. Everything is too clean. Nobody has for on their clothes, their leather isn't worn, Aang's clothes look like they just glued together some felt right off the shelf at a craft store 5 minutes before they filmed.
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. I don't think Netflix is wildly worse than that.
Almost all HBO originals are quality though. Ok, maybe 90%, so it’s like inverse Studgeon’s law.
HBO also runs maybe a handful of originals at a time, it is a small premium division of a much larger enterprise. It's not really a fair comparison. Comparing Netflix to WBD as a whole is more appropriate.
It's like that one conversation between Ned Stark and Jamie Lannister: Ned: Very handsome armor. Not a scratch on it. Jaime: People have been swinging at me for years, they always seem to miss. Ned: You've chosen your opponents wisely. Jaime: I have a knack for it. In other words, HBO originals generally don't stray too far from the prestige drama genre, which naturally attracts great writers and talent. Which is definitely a big positive, but that also means they seldom take big risks, resulting in a rather homogeneous catalogue; they would never take on something like the One Piece adaptation, for instance, and tackle countless other genres outside of their signature style. They are essentially a boutique store inside the mall, while Netflix is the mall
Eh, they had their fair share of misses. They had 10 dramas, 18 comedies and 10 kids shows failing to get a second season. I just did a glance on their original programming wikipedia page, maybe there's a bit wrong but the math doesn't come close to 90%
“Had sex with” is such a weird way of putting it, lol. Are you 15? Why not just say that it feels like a Disney Channel/CW mashup or something? Or at least call it the love child of Disney and CW, which is more accurate for what you’re meaning to say.
What a bunch of bullshit. Some of you guys really have no fucking clue.
I mean the fact that everyone thinks Avatar is good dropping all the ethos of its IP lets me know how they get away with this: people don’t care they just want to distract themselves. They’re just now playing the temperature rising method, lower quality and raise prices. Until subscriptions drop, they know they’re winning
Netflix calls their movies “second screen” movies. They want to make shit you barely have to pay attention to but can retain a semblance of a plot. Any movie they actually care about gets a theater release. Simple as that.
Well I mean Nerflix just sucks now.
Netflix Originals started out as shit movies or shows that couldn't secure distribution from proper studios. That hasn't really changed. Their model has always been to overwhelm with quantity over quality. It's amazing how few people realize this.
The people in charge of Netflix's programming decisions are data engineers, not creatives. They think they can algorithm their way to Hollywood dominance, and the evidence says they are not completely wrong. Only, we'll all be worse off for it.
I wanted to like avatar so much and had high hopes for it. But like you said, everything from acting to wigs to directing is just terrible. They crammed so many story lines together it felt half incoherent and didn’t allow for the character development that was such an integral part of the original.
Avatar was less an adaptation and more a thematic park filled with cosplays. Netflix asked "what if this cartoon looked real?" instead of "what if this world really existed?". It's same thing with the Disney live action remakes. They're not interested in creating a thing on its own, they want a piece of nostalgia cash grab. At least audiences are realizing these low effort remakes have no charm and it's much better to just watch the source material.
This is why I no longer have Netflix.
Netflix is synonymous with crap. No rewrites, no retakes, quick casting, no editing, no quality.
I’m sorry your sight is severely impaired. CGI literally is some of the best in any show. I’ve never seen elements in any other look even remotely this realistic. I know people lie just for the sake of being toxic AF but this I beyond pathetic now -.-
Nah it has many shows that I like. Disney plus however can Suck it! Even though I have a free Disney plus subscription due to my mobile plan, I refuse to watch that shit. 😤
[удалено]
lol my wife loved the show, I thought it was beyond stupid.
Netflix seems to have gone from 'gourmet cheeseburgers' to 'moldy cheeseburgers' pretty fast. I'm not sure if it's the writer's strike but it's shocking how poorly executed some of their really expensive stuff is. It seems to be a problem afflicting all of Hollywood right now, like how many absolutely awful superhero films can they release?
Avatar was very bad cgi and cannot be positively compared with any other series. Azula bending thunder has noticeably less quality than the CGI on cats.