Current Events > Getting really tired of all this bullshit on streaming services.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I wish the streaming services cared about making cool stuff with impassioned filmmakers. Instead they're just like, hey, what brand/IP do we own that we can keep milking? Mortal Kombat? Flintstones? Alien? Harry Potter?

How hard is it do come up with something new? Or, I dunno, do a remake of a smaller property no one remembers that had some cool ideas but wasn't well-executed?

Would rather watch something made with purpose and a vision, you know, cinema that will be remembered, instead of something just cranked out to get dumped into the streaming black hole, immediately erased from cultural memory after it's been binged by everyone opening weekend.

Anyone else with me on this?

---

no we like it

---

brain do thing dont like thing

---

They care about money. They make money by giving people what they want. People want familiarity.

---

Welcome to literally every form of media for the past two decades. Once corporations realized that they can get away with vomiting out re releases/makes/masters of old beloved things they immediately quit caring about anything that involves risk, like new things.

ImmatureContent posted...

They care about money. They make money by giving people what they want. People want familiarity.

Not a fan of immature content myself. I'm a grownup who has moved past the need to rewatch things that were popular in my childhood.

---

How is that any different to how things were before the rise of streaming?

---

Darmik posted...

How is that any different to how things were before the rise of streaming?

It's Zithers, don't bother. "I am enlightened and love real cinema" has been his only gimmick for a decade

---

Zithers posted...

Not a fan of immature content myself.

Then why did you make an immature joke?

---

Criterion Channel exists.

SothaSil posted...

It's Zithers, don't bother. "I am enlightened and love real cinema" has been his only gimmick for a decade

I don't even get it. Everything he listed has always been a franchise they keep milking and none of them started with streaming.

---

I find myself watching stuff I used to watch growing up instead of new stuff. I think the streaming services are on to something here.

---

Darmik posted...

How is that any different to how things were before the rise of streaming?

We got original movies all the time. Good ones. At an alarming frequency. Now we just get franchise fodder since The Dark Knight and Iron Man fucked everything up in 2008. Disappointing tbh.

Also going on a vaguely related rant but given that everything has been streaming-only for the past year I have to laugh at the irony of no one having seen the Oscar nominees and people complaining about them picking movies no one has heard of when they've been sitting on Amazon or Netflix or Hulu or whatever this entire time. People are so fucking lazy. All intellectual curiosity has died in the past few years as people settle for whatever is marketed at them. Sad!

---

Netflix distributes a lot of good movies like the Irishman, Beasts of No Nation, Buster Scruggs etc. There's really no point in them producing them because those types of movies don't bring in a whole lot of new subscribers on any of these major platforms.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Criterion Channel exists.

yeah criterion channel owns

need to see red beard soon to continue my kurosawa-thon

three hours though, kinda scary

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Netflix distributes a lot of good movies like the Irishman, Beasts of No Nation, Buster Scruggs etc. There's really no point in them producing them because those types of movies don't bring in a whole lot of new subscribers on any of these major platforms.

TBH given how much money netflix spends it is genuinely insane they can only manage to average one good movie per year.

---

I basically just don't watch anything anymore unless something catches my eye because everything is so bland now.

Zithers posted...

We got original movies all the time. Good ones. At an alarming frequency. Now we just get franchise fodder since The Dark Knight and Iron Man fucked everything up in 2008. Disappointing tbh.

Every single top box office movie since 1991 has either spawned a franchise or was already part of one with the exception of Armageddon and whatever Ba Bai is.

There has always been franchise blockbusters and original movies.

---

---

Zithers posted...

TBH given how much money netflix spends it is genuinely insane they can only manage to average one good movie per year.

2020 was a pretty decent year for Netflix.
---

If I look at a random year like 1998

1 ArmageddonDisney$553,709,788
2 Saving Private RyanParamount / DreamWorks$481,840,909
3 GodzillaSony Pictures / TriStar / Toho$379,014,294
4 There's Something About MaryFox$369,884,651
5 A Bug's LifeDisney$363,398,565
6 Deep ImpactParamount$349,464,664
7 MulanDisney$304,320,254
8 Dr. DolittleFox$294,456,605
9 Shakespeare in LoveMiramax / Universal$289,317,794
10 Lethal Weapon 4Warner Bros.$285,444,603

I'm not seeing some massive gulf in quality here. Stuff like Deep Impact would be Netflix fodder these days. You've still got the milked movies like Dr Dolittle and Lethal Weapon.

---

Darmik posted...

Every single top box office movie since 1991 has either spawned a franchise or was already part of one with the exception of Titanic, Armageddon and whatever Ba Bai is.

There has always been franchise blockbusters and original movies.

Okay, sure, fine, franchise filmmaking in Hollywood really kicked into gear with Star Wars, but filmmakers still had a degree of control until a lot more recently. You can see this with Spielberg and Indy or the Wachowskis taking big swings with Matrix and Nolan with Batman, etc. Even Lucas with the prequels had no one telling him 'no.'

With streaming it is literally just like dangling a carrot in front of someone though, teasing them with IP to keep you subscribing and they do the absolute bare minimum (simply make the movie/show) and people hang around. It's stupid. Just watch something different. It isn't hard. Chances are you will find infinite things to enjoy!!!

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

2020 was a pretty decent year for Netflix.

Pretty sure Netflix didn't have any good movies come out in 2020 except for maybe Da 5 Bloods which I never got around to.

---

that's the top 10 films though? in-between the blockbusters and straight to video films is usually where you would find the interesting stuff.

It's been so long since we've gotten a proper Flintstones installment.

---

fuming posted...

that's the top 10 films though? in-between the blockbusters and straight to video films is usually where you would find the interesting stuff.

The best movie of 1998 is probably Buffalo '66.

---

Zithers posted...

Okay, sure, fine, franchise filmmaking in Hollywood really kicked into gear with Star Wars, but filmmakers still had a degree of control until a lot more recently. You can see this with Spielberg and Indy or the Wachowskis taking big swings with Matrix and Nolan with Batman, etc. Even Lucas with the prequels had no one telling him 'no.'

You mention Nolan but then act like he didn't make some weird time travel movie a year ago. You're somehow already forgot that Snyder cratered an entire cinematic universe because nobody told him 'no'. The new Star Wars trilogy sabotaged itself because the film makers got to do what they wanted.

What about people like Jordan Peele, Rian Johnson, Ryan Coogler, Taika Waititi etc.? All people who clearly were able to do what they want with their own movies?

---

Zithers posted...

Pretty sure Netflix didn't have any good movies come out in 2020 except for maybe Da 5 Bloods which I never got around to.

It was terrible. None of the characters wanted to fuck an octopus.

Netflix had really good documentaries that weren't centered around music acts, true crime bullshit, or 90 minutes of a South African dude's first touch of bestiality.

---

The problem is that people crave name value. As much as I fault the studios for retreads, it's the public that only wants products they've heard of.

A person has an idea for an empowering story of a badass teenage girl and her robot sidekick battling fascism in the year 2424. If it's an original property, it will likely be canceled. If that girl is Judy Jetson, you have a brand name product and it could run for multiple seasons.

It has nothing to do with The Jetsons as an intellectual property. It's about recognizing The Jetsons as a brand name. We've gotten to the point where we treat intellectual properties like they were brand names. You don't want x-brand shoes. You want the name brand.

Even if I think of Netflix last year they made a musical Christmas movie called Jingle Jangle that primarily had African-Americans in the cast. And it was good! I don't think this movie would even exist without streaming.

---

Darmik posted...

Even if I think of Netflix last year they made a musical Christmas movie called Jingle Jangle that primarily had African-Americans in the cast. And it was good! I don't think this movie would even exist without streaming.

Jingle Jangle was perfect for young viewers and parents. Beautiful sets, visual effects, songs, and performers.

---

Darmik posted...

You mention Nolan but then act like he didn't make some weird time travel movie a year ago. You're somehow already forgot that Snyder cratered an entire cinematic universe because nobody told him 'no'. The new Star Wars trilogy sabotaged itself because the film makers got to do what they wanted.

What about people like Jordan Peele, Rian Johnson, Ryan Coogler, Taika Waititi etc.? All people who clearly were able to do what they want with their own movies?

Only seen Black Panther from Coogler and if that is his own unique vision then he's not much of a filmmaker. Same with Waititi but with Jojo Rabbit. Both bad movies.

Zack Snyder is cinema for sure, albeit bad. And Netflix will get some with the two Knives Out sequels (irony) while Star Wars tanks in quality without Rian. Didn't see Tenet but Nolan only makes one movie every five years. We're definitely getting like 99% content and 1% cinema.

Especially with streaming exclusive stuff which is what I was talking about in OP and we are kinda getting, like, super far away from that...

---

Zithers posted...

Only seen Black Panther from Coogler and if that is his own unique vision then he's not much of a filmmaker. Same with Waititi but with Jojo Rabbit. Both bad movies.

Zack Snyder is cinema for sure, albeit bad. And Netflix will get some with the two Knives Out sequels (irony) while Star Wars tanks in quality without Rian. Didn't see Tenet but Nolan only makes one movie every five years. We're definitely getting like 99% content and 1% cinema.

Especially with streaming exclusive stuff which is what I was talking about in OP and we are kinda getting, like, super far away from that...

And yet you used George Lucas as a positive example? What's the difference between content and cinema and how is this any different to the 80s, 90s and 2000s? You're making up random percentages and not really backing them up.

Did you forget that Flinstones had two live action adaptations before streaming? That the 2000s primarily rotated between Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Shrek? That every successful horror movie in the 80s would spawn 9 sequels?

---

With streaming we can get longer movies that don't have to be cut so much by stupid studio people.

How many movies can you name would be masterpieces If they had the luxury of a 4 hour run time on a streaming platform?

The chinese audience is literally their biggest consumers these days. the shit they churn out is what they want

Zithers posted...

Pretty sure Netflix didn't have any good movies come out in 2020 except for maybe Da 5 Bloods which I never got around to.

Guessing you didn't watch I'm Thinking of Ending Things either.
---

Darmik posted...

And yet you used George Lucas as a positive example? What's the difference between content and cinema and how is this any different to the 80s, 90s and 2000s? You're making up random percentages and not really backing them up.

Did you forget that Flinstones had two live action adaptations before streaming? That the 2000s primarily rotated between Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Shrek? That every successful horror movie in the 80s would spawn 9 sequels?

Content is using a brand to entice viewers while not actually putting any effort into making something good.

Cinema is like when someone has a unique signature in the art. This can be good or bad (hence Lucas) fwiw.

The % is calculated by me watching a lot of movies.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Guessing you didn't watch I'm Thinking of Ending Things either.

Astonishingly bad movie. Mank and Chicago 7 also not good.

---

You liked Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?

---

TheoryzC posted...

You liked Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?

yeah one of the top movies of the 2010s for sure

---

Zithers posted...

Astonishingly bad movie. Mank and Chicago 7 also not good.

Lol nah. But those two looked bad. Wasn't going to waste my time with anything Sorkin.
---

V disappointed in Fincher. Dude doesnt do a movie since 2014 and comes back with that smh

---

Yeah, streaming killing off theaters and physical media aint workin for me. The franchise stuff is whatever for the most part, since I probably wasnt interested anyway, but its certainly restricted the concept of what a big budget movie is allowed to be. Blockbusters are essentially dead to me at this point as a result.

---

What pisses me off the most about Netflix is that they'll take movies/shows off of their service, re-add them in a month or two, and make it out like they're "new" additions to their library.

No, mother fucker. Stop.

---