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
I think such is the reality of serving a large customer base on something subjective like movies and TV. Most people would find most content not that appealing, and a small subset they like. The problem is everyone's small subject are different.

It's like having a restaurant that serves 300 million people. You can try to offer every type of food there is, but most people may not like most of them. Which is fine, as long as you have something they like.

>>yibg+an1
Well we have over a century of media and it should be diverse enough to serve everyone. The issue is we're shifting towards a future full of McDonalds and Dennys instead of culture. Safe, inoffensive slop that you grab because you're hungry, not curious.

It's also almost like we shouldn't have one restaurant serve 300m people. Aka a monopoly.it'll collapse overtime anyways, because of you're competing on slop you can't beat the social media model of a bunch of low cost addictive TikToks for "free". The race to the bottom was already won and ot doesn't cost $25/month.