> 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)
TV show creators understood and planned for people watching their shows in a variety of environments, with varying degrees and kinds of attention. A lot of what made for example X-files and Sopranos compelling was a willingness to break this convention, so it was still firmly in place by the late 90s.
You could also maybe reasonably claim that all TV shows before those were bad as well. But then you need to view netflix as reverting to the norm rather than being a novel travesty. We are simply exiting a 20 year anomaly where TV was good.
I'm not quite making that argument here though. I think there was good TV before the 90s, so I think this is a constraint on the form that good creators can work through and still make compelling art. Why netflix can't is an interesting question but I think this avenue is a dead end for understanding it.
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.
So, watching a sitcom or similar where the characters' body language or facial expressions are important is an exercise in frustration.
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.
"MUBI IS TERRIBLE! *---- 6y ago • Nick2866 MUBI is terrible there's no good action or horror films it's crazy because almost all of the movies on the app I haven't even heard of and I'm a big movie buff. So just don't waste your time with MUBI just get Netflix or amazon prime."
Making video (more complicated than "talking heads") so nobody watches it is such a waste... (so is non peer to peer mass streaming, come to think of it).
Movies were an experience because... they were an experience. They weren't constantly on. They were a rare treat, not something consumed nightly.
My guess is some internal metrics favor watch time over quality and is just quietly killing their business.
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.
It’s worth checking out on trial, or at least browsing the catalog, but the collection was too esoteric for me to keep a subscription. If you like art house, though, and especially if you’re cool with diving into unknown titles, it’s pretty impressive.
According to who…?
There’s not even a universally agreed upon definition of ‘art’ last time I checked.
We'll still need people to create actually good content, but that crappy filler stuff will be generated.
It will be a special kind of hell, but there will probably be some way to find out what to actually spend your time watching.
I think the person choosing to spend a few hours of their one life with some audio/visual media, whether they’re doing their laundry or not, is the one who gets to decide whether or not it’s art, and how much attention it deserves. Anything else leads to some uncomfortable places.
The Muzak-ification of film?
There is also The Criterion Channel where I saw La Jetée for the first time after years of reluctance to immerse myself in a film essentially made of still photos. I have now gone back and watched it three more times, both in French and English. That’s how large of an impact it’s had on me. And I originally meant to get through it quickly (28 minutes duration), in preparation to rewatch 12 Monkeys.
Netflix does show some films that cater to a non mainstream audience, but may take more effort to find them. I recently saw Aftersun directed by Charlotte Wells, and I can’t recommend it highly enough. You will sob quietly.
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?
erm, I'm a huge proponent of both peer to peer networking and piracy but it's hard to argue that transiting backbone links is more efficient than CDN boxen sitting at ISPs right next to last mile links.
I think what bothers me is Netflix inserting themselves into this conversation and trying to dictate what creators create. The idea of using data to say "well, some portion of people don't actually pay attention while their TV is on" to conclude "therefore, we should create visual media that is not intended to be watched" is the reductio ad absurdium conclusion of data-driven decision making gone wrong and it deserves ridicule.
We would not have as many streaming subscriptions as we do if had to sit in front of the TV to watch shows, if we couldn't have shows in the background while doing laundry and other chores.
It’s not that I’ve never watched a terrible tv or movie, or can’t believe that Netflix’s actions here could lead to more of them. It’s just that I have difficulty raising this to the level of art. We only consider a minuscule fraction the printed word to be art, and we don’t accuse producers of the other 99.99999999% schlocky text produced daily (including hacker news comment posters like me tbc! :) of destroying literature. People who only want to read text they consider art continue to have options, even while the rest of us are free to read less elevated prose.
What it feels like to me, is that the cost to consume video, art or not, has steadily declined over decades, so a lot more people are watching a lot more video. Just like text after the printing press, most of that is never going to be art, and imo that’s fine. I have many other concerns with a world where ppl consume video all day, just not whether or not they are consuming art or being correctly deferential.
I know several people on my life who have been leaving a TV on in their house all day, for decades before Netflix existed. Personally I can’t stand this, but because it’s a distraction, not because they are somehow disrespecting someone involved in the production who wants to believe they are an artist.
Some of it, yes. But the majority of it is just circus, designed, together with bread, to keep the masses quiet.
Netflix is slowly succumbing to it's inevitable fate of turning into daytime tv. That's the only space where it makes sense economically to pay a fixed subscription fee regardless of how much you consume. If you want an all you can eat buffet, don't act surprised when it isn't michelin starred.
Unless you believe it’s impossible for someone to have contradictory or incoherent intentions?