zlacker

>>meetpa+(OP)
I don't like this. Netflix rarely creates excellent content; instead, it frequently produces mediocre or worse content. Will the same happen for Warner? Are cinemas now second behind streaming?

Edit: I agree Netflix has good Originals. But most are from the early days when they favored quality over quantity. It is sad to see that they reversed that. They have much funding power and should give it to great art that really sticks, has ambitions and something to tell, and values my time instead of mediocrity.

>>pharte+n4
They're starting to up their quality. Frankenstein and Death by Lightning were two standout successes recently.

That said, I'm more uncomfortable with the continued consolidation of media ownership and more outsize influence of FAANG tech over media.

>>dclowd+Yd
Netflix has always had one or three stand-out projects over a year, but is that what we want from studios? It is like the tech model: 1 big success for 10+ duds (the VC show) or another superhero installment (the Google/Meta cash cow movie).

>>skeete+mg
You're describing TV and movies since forever.

Ever year there are a few good shows and movies and a lot of mid-to-bad shows and movies.

This is not a Netflix thing, nor is it new.

>>sbarre+cm
Just not true with HBO. Most of their content is consistently pretty good

>>HDThor+9w1
HBO is expensive and most people don't have it. Ergo most people never see or hear about their lower quality content. Only the good stuff that their rich friends rave about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HBO_original_programmi...

I don't recognize half the titles on that page.

They also make less content overall. This makes sense because they are one TV channel and assume you can get your reality TV fix somewhere else.

Netflix wants to be the only thing you watch. So they have to serve all needs.