zlacker

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

> Several screenwriters who’ve worked for the streamer told me a common note from company executives is “have this character announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along.” [...] One tag among Netflix’s thirty-six thousand microgenres offers a suitable name for this kind of dreck: “casual viewing.” Usually reserved for breezy network sitcoms, reality television, and nature documentaries, the category describes much of Netflix’s film catalog — movies that go down best when you’re not paying attention, or as the Hollywood Reporter recently described Atlas, a 2024 sci-fi film starring Jennifer Lopez, “another Netflix movie made to half-watch while doing laundry.”

In other words, people like me, who want to focus on and experience a great film or series, are no longer the target audience.

Apparently, there's no money in targeting people who want to pay attention.

---

[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_Channels_(And_Nothin'_On)

>>cs702+Nn
There is still good cinema and television, it's just shockingly difficult to find.

The first person who figures out how to sort the wheat from the chaff and does so with no interior motive could be a millionaire immediately.

>>Loughl+gz
"could be a millionnaire immediately" is precisely the kind of techbro ulterior motive that creates these situations in the first place.