
Hollywood Is Wrong: Netflix Is the Future of Film - simulate
https://futurism.com/netflix-future-film-industry/
======
hbosch
I still quite like going to a theater, the experience is much different than
watching a movie at home. In a theater I am much more focused on the film
being shown, the screen is large and crisp, the speakers overwhelm – it's much
more a celebration of the artwork than almost any _typical_ home environment.
On the other hand, I also like watching movies at home because I like sitting
with my dog and being comfortable.

In that sense, it's almost ridiculously obvious why Hollywood doesn't like
Netflix... it minimizes the "big screen experience". Imagine if we all
replaced fine art galleries with mobile phone apps. Would anyone be surprised
if masterworkers of paint and sculpture got upset about that? Of course not!
They work on mediums that are designed to be experienced in a very specific
spacial context. A director like Christopher Nolan, whether you like him or
not, designs his movies specifically to be seen on 80ft wide projections with
100 speakers all around you. Anything less than that and, in his eyes, your
mission is now to render his movie meaningless.

All this said, I really think the directors' gripes are misplaced. Netflix
didn't kill theaters... theaters killed themselves. Rising prices, gouging on
food, maintaining massive floorplans that require massive leases of land. If
going to the theater to see a movie wasn't, by and large, a $50+ excursion for
a family of 4 to eat garbage food and struggle to find seats then maybe we
wouldn't all be staying at home?

~~~
falcolas
It doesn't help that virtually the only way for theaters to make money is to
sell that food. They make virtually nothing on the tickets themselves - almost
all of the ticket money goes back to the studios for the first few weeks.

How do you keep a theater running as a business when you need to have huge
floorplans, when you need to make money some way other than via ticket sales?

~~~
baby
I think Netflix should look into releasing some of their stuff to the Cinema
while not taking advantage of them like that.

~~~
WillPostForFood
It would be better for them to continue to let theaters die off, than breathe
life into their competition.

~~~
Twisell
This is ridiculous the more you watch movies the more you want to watch more
and in different setup. Here in France pirating is known to have brought back
people to theaters (mainly because theaters stroke back with $20 monthly
subscription for unlimited entry).

Netflix is an even better vector than piracy because people actually pay
royalties to Hollywood to watch movies at home. How can they be so blind?

I’m pretty sure that if they could come up with a combined subscription
Netflix+Theaters for around $30 sales would skyrocket. Actually I think it’s
what will happen anyway, depending on how it turn out it will be a cross deal
or Netflix will just start to buyback theaters at some point.

~~~
arbie
> Netflix will just start to buyback theaters at some point.

I like this idea a lot. Netflix subscribers can pay a fixed premium ($4?) per
showing of new/exclusive films that are held off of Netflix for a week or two.

One could buy a "Comedy" pass for a specific theater hall that will only air
comedies back-to-back with schedules published in advance. Given pure digital
distribution, Netflix could even set up a local CDN and refresh content every
day if they wanted to.

Lots of possibilities!

~~~
Twisell
Or old movie could be rescheduled on theater based on local wishlist of nearby
Netflix subscribers. Could be a way to reintroduce a form of midnight movie
formula: "Alert: This item on your wishlist will play in theater near you on
Wednesday night at midgnight! click here to book your seat !"

------
Pigo
I guess I just hope both Netflix and Hollywood step up their game, I'm pretty
bored with both of them. I don't really care about super heroes, or watch kids
dancing, or another stupid Adam Sandler movie. But I burn through the handful
of Netflix shows I really like in a day or two, and then spend months in
between them hoping they bring Futurama back.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
but you, like me (with the exception of super hero movies... my guilty
pleasure. They've taken the place of Star Wars) are probably old (Futurama was
a tip off). And by the very definition of old, not the future. To quote
Invader Zimm, "Go die now." =)

~~~
ch4s3
I love new things in arts and entertainment, but I feel like we're in a bit of
a shovel-ware/and also moment in film where there's one hit and 100 crappy
imitators. This isn't a problem per se, but it reminds me of some moments in
music or video games in the last 20 years. I'm bullish on the Netflix model
more or less, but I can't say I love their content lately.

~~~
baby
Check Annhiliation and Mind Hunter. You’re welcome.

~~~
Pigo
Mind Hunter was the last new show that I kind of liked, and I do think it's
worth watching. But I also think the bar is really set low for these shows.
Most of them feel like good movies that are stretched out into a series of
shows. The beauty of great television is a show that has a great arc, but also
where the episodes can stand on their own. You could watch one episode of the
first couple seasons of the Sopranos, and be moved by it without ever watching
the rest of the show.

------
jernfrost
Something has to change. Hollywood movies are just so receipt oriented. I kind
of like super hero stuff, but I hate most of the super hero movies coming out.
I loved kick-ass, and I think the various super hero series on Netflix such as
Jessica Jones has been quite good.

Other than that I realize I want to see more movies from other cultures. I am
Norwegian myself but have tended to gravitate towards Hollywood, because the
production and is higher quality and selection of actors is better.

However I have noticed that some of the stuff that I have enjoyed the most and
which has felt most fresh such as Skam, has been from my own country.

There is a lot of foreign films I never get access to because they are not
really distributed. I notice when recommending Norwegian series or movies to
friends abroad, that they are really hard to get hold of and even harder to
get subtitles for.

The teen drama Skam only worked because fans made the subtitles themselves for
the foreign audience.

Netflix shows a path forward here in that they are opened up for more
diversity and allow more foreign series. E.g. you got Norwegian Viking comedy
series "The norsemen" on Netflix.

It was made in a way that I think is a great solution going forward for
foreign film/series makers. The creators of the Norsemen filmed every scene in
Norwegian and English successively so that the show could be shown easily to
both a domestic and foreign audience.

~~~
csisvunit
trollhunter rocked. want to see that turn into a franchise.

------
appleflaxen
Several posters are talking about theater sound being a great thing, but I
think it's miserable: basically a volume war, which my ears are going to lose.
How can theaters get by with such loud volumes, when a work site would be shut
down by OSHA if the workers didn't have hearing protection.

There is obviously an issue of how long you're exposed, but no theater should
be allowed to push the volume into the range where hearing loss could possibly
occur.

And in the case of Netflix... it's never an issue because I control my volume.

~~~
goostavos
My local AMC plays movies so loud that I can hear the dialog for some movies
through the walls in an entirely different theater. It's kind of the
ubiquitous theater experience for me now to just have some kind of foreign
noise going on -- people crunching popcorn, talking to each other, or, the
most absurd, another movie that is not the movie I'm watching.

So, yeah, bring on the death of the theater, please.

------
gamblor956
I laughed pretty hard after reading this blog post.

Netflix movies have been on a horrific downhill trend in quality (though their
documentaries have remained great). After the Adam Sandler flicks, _Bright_ ,
_The Cloverfield Parodox_ , and especially _Mute_ , it's become clear that
Netflix's film department has no fucking clue what they're doing. It's getting
to the point where people I know who are avid Netflix bingers would literally
rather rewatch a show or film they just saw than watch the latest Netflix
film.

~~~
krageon
What is wrong with Mute? I actually really liked how they captured the feeling
that goes with living with the kind of liberal arts studiers (it's a bit of a
generalisation, but I think it holds) that make a group of people like that.
They pretty much nailed the ambiance and the personal interactions, even if
they were occasionally a bit overblown. That is something movies do.

~~~
gamblor956
Oh, many things. Bad acting, bad dialogue, bad directing, bad editing,
undeveloped characters, inconsistent characterization, tonally inconsistent,
logically nonsensical. It wanted to be film noir, or some sort of bizarre
satire about immigration, but did neither well. The sci-fi aspect of the film
was also shoe-horned in at the last minute.[1]

The visual effects were good though.

[1] Per the post-premier interview by Rian Johnson, this was apparently the
first script Duncan Jones wrote. It went undeveloped for 15 years because no
studio would touch it. After Netflix agreed to produce the film, Duncan
updated the film to a sci-fi setting because Netflix wanted a followup to
_Moon_ and was also shopping around for sci films. Originally, _Mute_ would
have been set in the 1980s or roughly modern day.

------
jbob2000
The article is missing the forest for the trees. Hollywood isn't snubbing
Netflix (in my opinion, anyways). Hollywood is all about the cinema and the
theatrical release. It is a completely different experience streaming a movie
at home than going to see it in the theatre.

Netflix makes movies to keep people subscribed. Hollywood makes movies to get
people to the cinema. On the surface, it looks like they're in the same
business, but the products are engineered differently for different purposes.
It makes sense to keep these in separate buckets; they are rated by different
metrics.

~~~
DamnYuppie
I will be honest the only draw of going to a theater is to see a new release.
If they let me stream it form $30 one time to my home I would much rather do
that.

I don't enjoy the movie theater experience, kids being noisy, 25+ minutes of
previews, and most importantly not being able to pause the movie to go to the
bathroom!

~~~
ghaff
>most importantly not being able to pause the movie

OTOH, not being distracted. I actually mostly like seeing movies in the
theater now and then, albeit not enough to actually go out and see something
more than once in a blue moon. But, yeah, it's mostly when there's some new
release that I want to see without spoilers.

~~~
bhandziuk
Is the need to pee really badly not distracting to you?

------
gamblor956
My experience is definitely different from normal because I live in Tinseltown
a few blocks from one of the theaters where they hold movie premieres and from
an Alamo Drafthouse, but I could never see Netflix replacing Hollywood.

The business models are fundamentally different. All Netflix cares about is
eyeballs and giving customers the barest reason to continue subscribing. This
means that they focus on quantity over quality, as evidenced by their last 3
years of films: each worse than the one released the week before it, with
extremely rare exceptions like _Beasts of No Nation_ and _Mudbound_. (It's
curious that their films are so horrifically bad when their TV series are
generally watchable, though _Lost In Space_ and the recent seasons of _OitNB_
and _HoC_ suggest that the malaise affecting their film department has spread
to the show department.)

Hollywood, for all the moaning about sequilitis and mass-market crap, at least
makes crap that's good enough to draw people out of their homes, drive a few
miles, and plop down a few dozen dollars for seats and maybe food. There's a
strong incentive to maintain at least a minimum baseline of quality and a
stronger incentive to make a commercially viable movie.

Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't
find any Netflix films among them. But the cultural significance of films like
_La La Land_ , _Star Wars_ , even the the _Fast and the Furious_ franchise
will outlive us all.

~~~
scott_s
> Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't
> find any Netflix films among them.

Films, maybe not. But _House of Cards_ , _Orange is the New Black_ , _Stranger
Things_ , _Black Mirror_ and _The Crown_ have just as much cultural
significance as Hollywood movies. And if we expand to HBO, then we can call in
_Game of Thrones_ , which has had far more cultural impact than _La La Land_.
This is related to a cousin comment of mine: films are no longer the most
important cultural medium. Long-form shows with high production values are.

It's also worth noting that _Icarus_ , which won the Academy Award for Best
Documentary Feature, is from Netflix.

~~~
gamblor956
Right, and I am differentiating films from TV/shows because they're completely
different markets.

However, with respect to _Icarus_ , it was not produced by Netflix; only
distributed by it. Hollywood studios also bid on the distribution rights but
Netfix simply outbid them. (Per reports, it was the most ever paid for a
documentary.) Similarly, both _Beasts of No Nation_ and _Mudbound_ , the only
two well-regarded films in Netflix' lineup, were both produced by indie
studios. Netflix simply outbid Hollywood studios for the distribution rights.
Netflix has never actually made a good movie on its own. (Though in Netflix'
defense on my thesis about the crap quality of their movies, _Cloverfield
Paradox_ was a Paramount production; Paramount got the better end of the
deal.)

~~~
scott_s
I _don 't_ differentiate long-form shows (like House of Cards or Game of
Thrones) from movies because I think they hold the same place in culture. They
pull in A-list actors, directors and writers. I don't think they are different
markets because of that. For example, most movie studios would not release a
fantasy movie (I'm including Star Wars in that) the same weekend the final
episode of Game of Thrones airs. People only have so much time and head-space
for the things they watch.

~~~
gamblor956
I would disagree about the cultural significance of TV shows and movies. They
occupy very different places in culture.

TV shows aren't just long-form narratives; people develop relationships with
the show and its characters similar to the relationships they develop with
friends they see regularly and learn about over time. People's experiences
with the show differ based on whether they started watching from when it first
aired or binged it after the end of a season. Moreover, shows change, often as
a result of the cultural response to the show or viewership (see, e.g.,
_Walking Dead_ 's latest season, L&O SVU, daytime soaps).

Movies are essentially one-time events and distinct unalterable shared
experiences They don't change (directors' cuts notwithstanding). The cultural
response to the movie may change over time, but the movie itself doesn't. (For
example, _Gone with the Wind_ is the same movie it's always been, but people
now view its depiction of minority characters far less favorably.)

~~~
scott_s
Movies have sequels - the Fast and Furious franchise is built on the same
audience-character relationship development that you attribute to shows. And
there are one-off long-form shows that are very unlikely to have sequels (such
as Godless) which are more like 10 hour movies.

------
FreeKill
I think one of the big issues with the film industry today, and one thing
Netflix addresses tangentially, is that all films should not be the same
price. It's strange to me that a movie like 'Avengers Infinity War' is the
same price as 'Super Troopers 2' or 'A Quiet Place'.

I consider myself a movie buff and I remember in the 90's, friends and I would
go to movies as something to do. We wouldn't necessarily plan to go, but
movies were a reasonable price < $10, we were bored, and you'd just go, see
what piqued our interest, and give it a try. Now-a-days, movies are so
expensive that it's almost an event and something you have to save for like
concert tickets or sports tickets. Why would you take a risk on movie X, with
middling reviews, when it costs so much? That's why so many middle of the road
films seem to crash and burn so much more starkly these days, because people
can't afford to take a chance on a potential stinker.

I think movies should have a scale for pricing, Infinity War costs $20 to see,
but Super Troopers 2 costs $10 to see. Maybe they both start at $20, but over
time, the price slowly declines until it leaves theaters based on how it's
performing. After all, the goal for theaters is get butts in seats so they can
sell concession food anyway.

Where Netflix really stands out is their incentive is entirely different. They
have one goal, to keep subscribers from unsubscribing for another month. As a
result, they hope that when you're bored and you turn on Netflix, something in
their library catches your eye. Netflix has replaced the 'randomly going to a
theater' experience and as a result, many movies that perform poorly in the
theaters can thrive on the platform. Who cares if a movie is a 30% Rotten
Tomatoes candidate, when it cost you nothing at the moment to watch it, and
you have nothing better going on anyway. It's not an event, it's a way to pass
some time. It's the new channel surfing...

All the film makers who end up being snobby about Netflix are missing the
point entirely. Not all movies are suited for the $20, monster screen
experience, and you can clearly see that with many experimental films crashing
and burning hard in recent years. The cinema price is so prohibitive these
days that a family doesn't take any risks, they save their money for huge tent
poles where the rating is virtually guaranteed. That's a losing formula for
experimental films who were never going to have broad appeal and it's a shame
that a segment of the film industry seems hell-bent on standing in the way of
that alternative outlet. They should embrace it with open arms.

~~~
irrational
I stopped going to the theater for a long time until the local theaters put in
large recliners, reserved seating, and cheap-ass Tuesdays. All seats for all
showings on Tuesdays are $5-7 (depending on the theater). So we have started
going back to the theaters on Tuesdays for spectacle movies like Star Wars and
Marvel.

------
ryanianian
God help us.

Apart from content, what hollywood movies offer is some competition on viewing
experience. The netflix content is 'fine', but the UX is hateful and activates
every anxiety center that exists in my brain. I get anxious just thinking
about looking for content I might actually like on Netflix (and I'm not the
anxious type!).

HBO/Hulu/Amazon are better in this regard for now. But it's a sure bet that
they will also go the netflix route of trying to push you to WATCH SOMETHING
NOW versus mindfully choose something. (E.g. HBO-Go rarely has previews now -
why would they show previews when you can just waste 20 minutes deciding you
don't like it?)

This says nothing of there being a half-dozen walled-garden services. You
basically have to subscribe to all of them to see new-releases. Hollywood
content: you pay per viewing. It's annoying to pay $15+ for a movie (or be
forced to buy it online when you just want to rent it for the weekend), but at
least you don't have to pay for a service every month that's full of B-rate
content that you hate to dredge through.

We're on the edge of a dystopian version of "the golden age of television."

~~~
WillPostForFood
Try [http://instantwatcher.com](http://instantwatcher.com) as an alternative
interface to Netflix. Simple lightweight text oriented page with better search
and filters than Netflix offers.

------
nickconfer
The issue here is not is the theater still relevant, but can the economics
continue to support theaters.

If the trends in ticket sales continue, it seems like theaters by and large
could be a thing of the past. It really is not about whether a large group see
it as still relevant, its can the theater business maintain a profitable
industry if it loses x% of its patrons.

If ticket sales decline, profits shrink or losses grow. Changing the model
another way might increase revenues for theaters (say a all-you-care-to-watch
pass, which would likely increase food sales), but only if Holywood changes
its revenue model as well. If they continue to charge theaters the same rates,
that model likely wouldn't work well. Further, if Holywood had to lose
revenue, would it be more interested to work with other streaming services
first, or create a competing service, versus go to the theaters?

To me the MoviePass subscription company is almost a Trojan Horse. While they
continue to burn and lose money, and grow subscribers, they are making their
subscribers see their experience as the new norm. If they go out of business,
these subscribers now have to chose if they want to pay for each pass again
individually (very expensive in comparison). Likewise, if theaters and
Hollywood make a deal, it cuts their own revenue significantly. Its almost a
lose/lose situation.

All this is just some of whats hurting Hollywood and the theaters. You also
have personal politics growing sharper, a Millennial generation that doesn't
value these experiences as highly, a fundamental change in how reviews are
looked at, no longer being as easily controlled (RottenTomatoes), 3D movies
not holding peoples interest, etc..

Its a bumpy road that doesn't seem to be getting much smoother.

------
HenryBemis
> And guess what: MoviePass now has 2 million subscribers. People want this
> service. The bad news is that the company is simply bleeding money.

Seems like they want to become a monopoly, or get to the size that it would be
profitable to run the business.

Netflix has a mortal enemy: the Cinemas.

Hollywood/Cannes (movie makers in general) prefer to have the multitude of
channels than having Netflix, which can be a monopoly. If Netflix doesn't like
XYZ studio it can shut it down if it becomes a monopoly. And by "like" I mean,
set/extort/define the pricing.

Having a unique outlet is not the best idea. Netflix wants to be _it_.

I don't think Netflix is the future of film. I will always want to watch Star
Trek/Star Wars/Avengers/etc on a 10-20 _meters_ screen, eating popcorn, rather
than on the 10-..-50 _inches_ of a monitor/TV/tablet eating pizza.

To be honest I like both. But Netflix wants to change the model.

~~~
praneshp
Heh, moviepass is not killing anyone. I'm a natural customer (1 movie a week
at least), and signed up in september or so. They turned around and dropped 3
out of the 4 theaters I watch movies in (one of which was an AMC)

------
isthatart
The real problem is that people want to watch movies for free, so Netflix
tries to take a little bit of $ from a huge population, while Hollywood tries
to take lots of $ from the few patrons left. On the average Netflix movies are
better than the average (legacy?) movie, IMO the logical step is that Netflix
will suck all the talent by making the movie makers to compete for the few
shows distributed by Netflix. Same story as in the ridiculous Gold OA in
academic publishing [http://archive.is/uYN0I](http://archive.is/uYN0I)

------
justherefortart
I gave up on theaters well over a decade ago.

To me theaters are like Malls vs the Internet. Your time is coming, quickly.

~~~
pc86
I love the theater. Working from home, it's actually possible to go see a
movie at 2 or 3pm as a break in the work day. Yeah, it's expensive for what it
is but I think the value it there. I view it as the tax to see something 6+
months early. $20 for a movie, popcorn, soda, and much better AV quality than
I have at home. And going that early in the day means there are no crowds. I
saw A Quiet Place the first Thursday afternoon it was out and there were maybe
half a dozen other people in the largest theater in the multiplex.

I don't think theaters and Netflix are direct competition, and I think there
will always be demand for theatrical releases, if maybe in slightly smaller
establishments.

~~~
sotojuan
I really enjoyed going to the theater to see Isle of Dogs (at Alamo). Sure, it
wasn't cheap but the experience was great and it's not much more expensive
than the nice dinner + drinks people do every weekend.

The problem for movie theaters is that while I enjoy the experience, I'll only
go max twice a year.

~~~
pc86
I've only been to an Alamo once, it was amazing. Unfortunately the closest one
to me is an hour away and I'm not willing to dedicate the better part of a day
to seeing a movie and having some (admittedly very good) popcorn.

I probably only go once every 3 or 4 months so not much more than you. But if
there was an Alamo within a short drive I'd probably go more often.

------
open-source-ux
Netflix is thriving outside the US too - and challenging the dominance of
traditional TV broadcasters.

For example, the UK and Germany are two of Netflix's largest markets in
Europe.

In the UK, Netflix is more popular than the BBC's iPlayer on-demand service.
The BBC has released some series with all episodes available at the same time
- clearly influenced by Netflix.

Competition from Netflix is a good thing, and it will be interesting to see
how broadcasters respond.

------
larrik
"Studios are lagging behind for the very simple reason that they are relying
on retreads and reboots, and most of those aren’t being well received."

I hear how badly the movie industry is doing, while they keep breaking sales
records. I don't believe it at all. It is, and always has been, a hits-
oriented business. This means profitability analysis is total nonsense.

~~~
jhall1468
Sales records in film are flat values, not inflation-adjusted values. Avatar
is the only film in the 2000s to break the top 10 for inflation-adjusted
revenue from film. So they aren't breaking sales records, or even close to it,
they are breaking "dollars earned" records. Inflation-adjusted costs of going
to a movie have remained fairly even, while inflation-adjusted sales figures
have plummeted.

~~~
beautifulfreak
Box Office Mojo's inflation adjusted list:
[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm)

------
nimish
Theater owners are both extremely powerful and extremely weak: they have put
their foot down on any improvements to the film distribution process out of
existential fear of losing their early film run monopoly. The studios still
need the distribution power of the theaters so they comply.

In the uk all of the chains have a movie pass subscription deal. The problem
is that it is per-chain and nobody cares which theater shows the avengers. And
films that you don't care about the spectacle of don't need a 30' screen.

The rise of fake IMAX and 3d is basically desperation moves to add value.
Nobody likes the shitty experience of crap food and drinks (so smaller, high
end chains with good food and experience are doing fine) but the big multiplex
experience is a uniform and really expensive cartel.

~~~
koolba
> The rise of fake IMAX and 3d is basically desperation moves to add value ...

What's "fake IMAX"?

~~~
blanderman
Smaller than the original IMAX but not branded any differently. There's also
the digital vs film debate for IMAX releases.

[https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-
puni...](https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punier-days-
just/)

------
jo_el
One knock against Netflix is that I’ve been told they pay-less-than standard
wages to non-actor, union workers. This means the prop designers,
cameramen/women etc get paid less to work on Netflix productions.

------
ebbv
The future of bad films.

My wife and I give most of the netflix movies and shows a shot but the batting
average is unfortunately really low. At least for us. We thought "Bright" and
"Titan" were absolutely terrible.

And it's not like we're snobs, we're looking forward to "Infinity War" even
though it's silly and dumb. The writing the Netflix movies is mostly really
horrible, though.

I hope they make some better movies because the world does not need more bad
or even mediocre ones. We have plenty.

------
EastLondonCoder
I like to be able to see film in a theatre, and as far as I can see the only
way of having theatres work out financially is for them to have a short
monopoly on screening the film before they go to streaming services. For me
the combo of Odeon limitless and Netflix/Prime/Iplayer/BFIplayer works quite
well. But I think that Netflix would need to be ok to release their
productions cinema first in order for theatres to still have a viable business
model.

------
irln
The Future of Film? I love Netflix, however, isn't the jury still out if their
pricing model is sustainable given their debt issuance?

------
no1youknowz
The theater is ripe for disruption. I cannot stand going and in over 25 years
the amount of times I have gone is 2.

I cannot wait until someone brings out VR which immerses the wearer into a
theater experience. That is, big screen and thx sound. Plus, for those who
"absolutely" need to have other people there. It being VR you can have people
from all over the world (who you know) also join and collectively watch it.

I hope netflix also starts creating a worldwide catalogue of films. Which
would do 2 things. Downplay piracy and also increase profits.

Praise be, when I read that the last theatre chain has gone under and the way
of blockbuster!

Oh and one more thing. There's another revenue stream and 2d fails to realise
this. How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie
and then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or
what about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own
experience?

With the rise of AI for video and lyrabird for audio. Maybe one day it's just
a case of actors signing away their Avatar for their talents, a director AI
creates the film and the user consumes it.

That's why I hope Netflix is the future of film. Current film is dead and has
no-where to go.

~~~
icebraining
_How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie and
then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or what
about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own experience?_

I think those are called videogames. People have been using the look and voice
of live actors for characters for a long time (at least since 1989, in Prince
of Persia).

------
gormz
I hope not. If people want to hate on hollywood for holding so much share in
film, why would you want it to go to ONE company. Netflix is a corporation and
we all know corporations are inherently evil. Given enough time, Netflix may
murder all people who don't subscribe to make smut for it's subscribers.

------
throwaway84742
God I hope not. The overwhelming majority of their shows are badly produced,
drawn out drivel. It’s kind of like paying someone not for the results, but
for hours billed: there’s a strong possibility this incentive will become the
maximization objective for the payee.

------
caligarn
Putting the beauty and power of going to the movie theater aside, I think what
is most powerful about Netflix, and something they learned from HBO, is how to
give the directors/writers/producers more autonomy over their work. This is
something TV execs have failed to do again and again. I think the problem is
this does not translate to cinema. Films are a much more tight medium where
spreading your wings and entertaining a multitude of ideas fudges the thrust
of the narrative. With TV, we are willing to entertain long arches of story
that wind and weave without a clear endpoint or direction. Let’s take Game of
Thrones, for example, it’s rarely quite clear what is going to happen. We do
have the specter of the Khaleesi and the white walkers arriving on the shores
of Westeros, but throughout you have an overarching theme of uncertainty with
any and all of the characters. Cinema would not allow this kind of
uncertainty. And that’s exactly one of the reasons why superhero movies do so
well. They have a clear and crisp narrative that we go to the cinema to
satisfy. Being nuanced in film is much harder because in film you also have to
be blunt. In film, you must pay more close attention to the heroes journey. In
TV, you can hack and toy with it.

This is why I think Netflix thrives in TV shows but flounders in cinema.
Cinema requires tight thinking and TV requires open thinking. Netflix, by its
business model and Silicon Valley culture, is inherently an open culture. They
are willing to entertain and support the ideas of creators. Now, you might
argue, hey look at A24, they allow their creators a lot of space and still
pull off great cinema like Ex Machina and Moonlight. I think Netflix hasn’t
quite made it there yet but is inching towards it with movies like
Annihilation. Annihilation also tries to do too much but it is succinct as
compared to Bright. That’s A24’s strength it picks and guides its creators
towards succinct storylines that, in the end, are powerful.

I think the best example of the above points is how weak Netflix superhero
shows are overall compared to its big hits like Stranger Things and House of
Cards. With superhero stories, they are inherently tight: the hero must win.
There isn’t much room for subtlety and so these shows tend not to catch on. It
doesn’t play to Netflix’s open-ended storytelling strengths (and granted their
production value is usually B level). Whereas with Stranger Things, the open-
ended nature of the story keeps the viewer entranced.

Unless Netflix hires some people who understand these fundamental issues at
its top levels, it will be hard for them to really innovate on cinema. IMHO.

------
dawnerd
I’ll keep going to the theater until Netflix can stream disc quality video and
audio.

~~~
nickconfer
I doubt there will be enough users who feel the same way to make this a reason
why theaters remain. The same argument has been made about sound quality, and
overwhelmingly now the sound quality in streaming services has improved, but
is no where near perfect.

4k streaming will be more of a norm, and that will likely be enough for most
users.

~~~
dawnerd
Whats sad is netflix's 4k looks worse than their super HD streams. People see
4k and just blindly assume its better which is really sad.

------
bdreadz
netflix starts it's own high end theaters. Think how rad that would be that
maybe they hold back on a season finale of a show and you see the last one in
a theater. Then the next day it releases on the service. Get to be around a
bunch of people chatting about theories. Or something along those lines.
Upgrade your account package to include seeing stuff in their venues. Make it
an experience around their flagship shows. I'd go.

------
perseusprime11
Netflix will eventually reinvent the theatre experience just like how they got
into originals. Going to movies will become fun with AR & VR.

------
ryanisnan
The bit about Spielberg just sounded like an old man complaining about
something he doesn't understand.

------
blanderman
Submarine article for MoviePass?

------
originalsimba
Hey I just wanted to let everyone know that the year 2000 called.

------
grendelt
"film"

------
shmerl
It's quite weird for Steven Spielberg. I thought he isn't one of those
backwards thinking legacy execs. I guess he is.

All of this has nothing to do with evaluating art, but it's simply a jerk
reaction of legacy distribution business to innovative disruption. Film
directors should know better.

~~~
mfoy_
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the
villain.

~~~
monetus
Remember his character in south park?

