> 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)
Netflix has shows made for really watching too. I don't know if they are rebellious acts from their makers, brought without an option, or actual choices, but Netflix does have them.
My impression is that Netflix cornered themselves into the same AAA race to death that the major movie studios are in. Everything is too expensive, so they can't accept risks, so nothing is really good (nor really bad). Micromanaging is just one more visible consequence of that, between lots and lots that stay hidden but are as important to the final result.
What? No they don't. Film and television are visual art forms that are meant to be viewed and given the appropriate attention. There's already plenty of mediocre television out there you can use as background noise; we don't need to intentionally lower the bar for the media that's being made. As the article mentions, Netflix has already played its part in ruining the job landscape for writers and actors. I guess they see a need to play their part in devaluing the work that remains.
According to who…?
There’s not even a universally agreed upon definition of ‘art’ last time I checked.
Since the day they were invented? Certainly by the mid 50s there were hundreds of different relgious sects all over the world with prohibitions of some kind.
Because different people can have differing opinions… or do you somehow believe literally 100% of the human population shares that opinion?
Unless you believe it’s impossible for someone to have contradictory or incoherent intentions?