
The Slow Death of Hollywood - howard941
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywood
======
ravenstine
Hollywood is hanging itself by its own velvet rope. Remakes are seen as an
excellent investment because, so long as they are properly stylized and full
of dazzle, they are low-risk and have reasonable returns. Usually.

This won't work for them forever, and I think everyday people are catching on
to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already
bought. The other day, my cousin's 11 year old son was over and we were trying
to figure out what movie to go see. We asked him if he wanted to go see the
live-action Aladdin remake. He told us he didn't want to see it because
they(Disney) were just taking a 2D movie that he'd already seen and are just
doing the same thing again with actors to make more money. _I gave him a fist-
bump._ He's not even a cynical kid, either. We ended up not even going to the
movies because everything that was out was either a remake or n-th sequel,
ridiculous looking, or rated R.

If kids who weren't even around when Aladdin or The Lion King first came out
are catching on to the fact that corporations are just recycling their
parent's generation's culture, it's a sign that Hollywood has gotten
completely full of itself and is in early-stage apoptosis.

~~~
goto11
> everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold
> the same stuff they've already bought.

But Hollywood have _always_ done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping.
And Hollywood have _always_ been criticized for being vapid entertainment,
empty spectacle etc.

"catching on to the fact" suggest that this is some secret insight which
undermines the enjoyment of the movie. But I'm pretty sure most people who
goes to the Disney remakes go _because_ it is remakes of movies they already
know and love. They want to see the same thing in a new way.

According to Wikipedia, Aladdin grossed "$923.7 million, against a production
budget of $183 million". So despite you and your nephew, Disney seem to manage
OK.

Hollywood does have problem, but it is not due to lack of originality.
Hollywood produces plenty of original stories still, but it is the remakes and
franchises which grosses the most. Because the consumers likes this stuff.

~~~
magduf
>But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping.

Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a
few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks.

>According to Wikipedia, Aladdin grossed "$923.7 million, against a production
budget of $183 million". So despite you and your nephew, Disney seem to manage
OK.

Exactly. People are bemoaning the current state of Hollywood, but it's
extremely profitable, and that's all that really matters to them. There's no
shortage of paying customers willing to see the latest
sequel/prequel/remake/reboot. Sure, they might lose a few ticket sales from
people like me and this OP and his nephew, but it's more than made up for by
countless others who just don't care and want entertainment. And yes, they
might make more profit on a really great original movie (like the original
Star Wars in 1977), but that's also a big risk and it might flop and be a
giant loss, so they tend to shy away from such things now and make safer
movies that have an almost guaranteed profit, even if it isn't as much.

~~~
liber8
"Hollywood" has never, ever taken more risks than they are taking today.

Netflix alone spent $12 billion on new content in 2018. They expect to spend
$15 billion in 2019, and expect this to hit almost $18 billion in 2020.[1]
There is more new, original content being produced than anyone could ever
expect to watch in one lifetime. Compare this to a few decades ago when you
had 3 or 4 networks on TV each making a dozen or so shows each year, and a
handful of studios producing movies (many of them remakes from the 30s, 40s,
and 50s).

Everyone seems to view "Hollywood" with rose colored glasses. The medium
through which people consume entertainment certainly seems like it is starting
to change, but that doesn't mean "Hollywood" is dead or dying. The exact
opposite is happening.

[1] [https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-
spendi...](https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-
spending-2019-15-billion-1203112090/)

~~~
magduf
Netflix isn't "Hollywood"; that should be pretty obvious from the context of
this discussion. Netflix got into the made-for-Netflix movie production
business because the traditional studios were pulling their content from
Netflix. "Hollywood" is the studios producing movies that go to the big-screen
theaters. We aren't talking about indie stuff here, movies only shown at art-
house theaters, movies only shown on Netflix or Amazon Prime, etc.

~~~
gamblor956
Netflix is quite literally Hollywood...it has the only studios physically
located in Hollywood, releases movies on the big screen, and adheres to all of
the guild/union rules with respect to film productions.

It's had its share of horrible remakes, blockbuster crap, and arthouse films.

No studio releases all of its movies to theaters; most studio catalogs have
more VOD releases (formerly "direct-to-video") than studio releases. The VOD
releases are frequently more profitable on an average basis so long as budgets
are strictly adhered to.

------
sek
I think it's a combination of things, but primarily we are in a low interest
environment.

Money is looking desperately for something to invest in and the problem of
Hollywood and cable companies was that they made too much money. Netflix was a
distributor who figured that out and was creating a low subscription model for
content.

When the content producers realised this Netflix was exposed, they knew they
would not renew their contracts and as a defensive measure just started
producing content like mad. They had all this leverage because the market is
flooded with money and they have a pretty stable revenue stream.

Netflix is what Napster was for music, because movies were always too big to
pirate it took a little longer. Now it's too late, people don't buy a CD with
one song for $12 dollars and they won't pay $100 for a cable subscription any
longer.

~~~
smogcutter
The lower cost vs cable is a mirage. Once TV is finished balkanizing into
separate streaming services, expect the cost of signing up for everything you
had on cable to add up to about the cost of a cable subscription.

~~~
dougmwne
Most people I know cycle through the streaming services instead of subscribing
to everything on the market. Streaming video is a very different product than
cable. A single service gives you more on-demand content than you could ever
watch. There's no particular rush to see a series since every season of a show
is usually available. With cable you need the hundreds of channels to have any
chance of finding something to watch, and if you miss it when it's live then
too bad.

So people keep repeating that we're going to end up paying $100 a month for
our subscription services, but I am going to happily keep paying about $12 a
month. A quick google found an article from 2015 that Netflix is estimated to
have about 35k hours of content. Another article claimed that Netflix adds an
additional 3k hours of content each year. Do you really need to subscribe to
2x, 3x or 5x that amount all at once?

~~~
asdff
Everything is distributed in my family. I'm on my parents netflix, my
brother's hbogo, and I offer my hulu account. There's probably another half
dozen close friends who've ended up with these passwords one way or another as
well.

Pretty much all my peers are bumming someone's password, too.

------
JansjoFromIkea
Honestly I'm expecting the whole industry to crash hugely. I've received so
many free cinema tickets to mainstream cinemas in the past 3 years that I
haven't once actually paid to see anything by a major studio in that time, and
I'm someone who goes to the cinema once a week on average. Much like MoviePass
I assume _someone_ is paying for all those trips I go on for free, and when
they stop paying I'm not going to go anywhere near 90% of those films.
Meanwhile the specified prices of cinema tickets have grown and grown to the
point that I'm honestly appalled when I hear how much people go to see such
and such a new blockbuster on release day.

And on the TV side of things Netflix seem focused on making consumable content
over anything that endures. I can't think of any shows of theirs that're going
to age as well as HBOs finest have and I can see that being an issue in the
long term when they don't have these kind of pillars to fall back on. It all
seems focused on hyping people up into subscribing and then hoping that they
forget about the subscription cost indefinitely.

~~~
thrusong
One of the most frustrating things for me regarding ticket prices is that no
theatres in my hometown (Winnipeg, Manitoba) offer matinee pricing anymore.

I'm guessing this is possibly because of the Cineplex monopoly since they
bought out Famous Players.

I get so pissed off with paying $16 to see a movie by myself in an empty
auditorium during the day when it used to be $8 a seat. What happened to
supply and demand?

As for the whole Netflix = consumable content thing, I completely agree. Maybe
they come up with a good first season because of big data... there's no
overall plan where to take the story and usually the follow up seasons are
terrible.

Look at a show like Santa Clarita Diet- I'm positive that show had absolutely
no idea how to explain anything or how to wrap it up.

~~~
williamDafoe
When I was a kid in the mid 70s movies cost $3.00 in the Midwest. Westegg says
that inflation is up 10x since then. Any movie less than $20 is actually a
bargain. However, my dad's salary was 7,000x a movie ticket (Midwest CS
professor before salaries exploded).

~~~
Broken_Hippo
When I was a kid in the 90's, I could see a movie for $1.50 in the evenings or
$1 for a matinee ... in the midwest. They weren't first run movies, but rather
movies that were in between their time in the movies and when they went to
video. I'm guessing a few of them might have been on HBO during that time
frame, but it really didn't matter.

Some years later, that theater quit doing the second run movies and switched
to regular movies. I feel kind of lucky that it was after I moved away and had
basically quit going to theaters anyway.

I'd probably go more often if things were of similar cheapness. The low cost
also meant that I'd be more willing to see comedies and take chances on other
movies that don't truly benefit from a large screen and sound system. I also
wasn't all that out of sorts if the movie wasn't very good since even at that
time, it wasn't much money.

I truly think the advantage of movies in the 70's and early 80's was the lack
of popular home video. If you didn't see the movie, you missed out. And I
think that helped afford somewhat higher prices, though they didn't need to
charge less for second showings as they used to do (Disney cartoons, for
example).

~~~
thrusong
You make some interesting points regarding the current exhibition business.
Before, Hollywood had a monopoly over the cinemas. Between 70 to 90 per cent
of ticket sales would go to the studio of the film, hence the expensive food.

But, when the industry switched to digital projectors, the studios offered the
VPF (virtual print fee) where cinemas got to keep a big chunk of the ticket
sales to offset the cost of the projectors.

You could equip a 35mm film booth for as little as $7500 using old gear. Brand
new was about $50,000 while digital projectors debuted at $100,000 and up.

Now, the theatres are keeping more of the ticket sales (50-70%) and they're
charging for all sorts of "innovations" or upgrades (3D, ultra giant screens,
fake IMAX screens, Dolby Atmos sound). All in 20-year-old multiplexes from the
late-90's/early-00's expansion boom.

Did you have to pay a surcharge for stadium seating? Surround sound?
Cupholders? No.

I think the current cinema chains are ripe for disruption.

------
holy_city
I just wanted to disagree with the author's assertion :

>[Netflix has] "slowly reconstructed the old vertically integrated studio
system. The company is an integrated production and streaming service."

Netflix is probably the least integrated business in Hollywood when it comes
to production. To use an analogy, think of content as sausage.

Netflix doesn't make the sausage and they don't care about how it's made. They
pay people a lot of money to do it, and that's about it. They're in the
business of distributing the sausage. They also buy a lot of bulk sausage that
they found at a sausage festival, meaning they had no stake before it was
made.

(some) Traditional studios _do_ care a lot about the making of the sausage. To
make sausage for them, you have to buy their spices, use their casings, and go
to a meat supplier that they recommend and might have a co-ownership stake in
with other sausage distributors. That's not a bad thing, making sausage is
complicated with a lot of people involved - the studios give you a good deal
by removing that complexity, and helps keep your costs down before you get to
see a profit.

~~~
gamblor956
_Netflix doesn 't make the sausage and they don't care about how it's made.
They pay people a lot of money to do it, and that's about it. They're in the
business of distributing the sausage. They also buy a lot of bulk sausage that
they found at a sausage festival, meaning they had no stake before it was
made._

This is quite literally the opposite of the truth...

Netflix makes a lot of the "sausage". They use roughly the same organizational
and production structure that the other big studios use to make and distribute
films. They have some of the biggest studio spaces in Hollywood, behind only
Disney/Fox, Universal, Sony, and Paramount. If you live in the LA area, you
can actually visit some of their studios (though generally to tour the
facilities you need to arrange for a tour in advance).

The primary difference is in how Netflix _pays_ for the films: Netflix pays
extra upfront, with no backend. The studios payout participants over time.

~~~
holy_city
It's a bit weird to say they have "some of the biggest" spaces if you don't
count _everyone else of note_. But backlots and shootling locations are just a
part of the recipe. Look at the end credits of Netflix originals and compare
them to Disney, especially w.r.t. the VFX and post production shops. That's
the difference in vertical integration I was trying to point out.

~~~
gamblor956
It's a bit weird that you think Hollywood is only 5 studios. That would be
like saying Silicon Valley is just FAANG. There are dozens of studios in LA
alone, not including the studios in NY, Atlanta, and Vancouver.

Netflix is the 5th biggest studio in Hollywood _(the industry)_ but is the
biggest studio actually located in Hollywood (the neighborhood of LA) as the
other major studios have their own facilities in other neighborhoods or cities
of LA. (Sony = Culver City, Fox/Disney = Century City and Burbank, Paramount =
Mid City, Universal = Universal City.)

Comparing the end credits for Netflix originals and Disney films, I see no
difference in the amount of vertical integration. Netflix films generally
aren't VFX heavy so there isn't as much outsourcing that needs to be done.
Disney films are, and most VFX shots are outsourced since (a) it's cheaper and
(b) the specialized VFX shops are usually faster and more nimble than in-house
VFX teams. Compare the end credits for thein-house VFX-heavy Netflix original
like Bright and Mute. They have just as much outsourcing as a Disney film.

(Source: I count Fox Searchlight, Vendome, and Sony Pictures as former clients
and I currently work for a media company. I'm well versed in how movies are
made.)

------
cs702
Highly recommended reading! Don't let the catchy title fool you.

This passage, in particular, stuck with me:

> "But there’s no reason we have to build a highly concentrated storytelling
> industry on top of the internet, which used to be the most decentralized
> communications technology ever imagined in human history. The answer to the
> question of whether Hollywood can be saved is, a resounding YES.
> Fundamentally streaming is a commodity service; Netflix isn’t anything
> special, it’s just a good infrastructure service which has morphed into a
> monster attempting to control our access to content. Disney is just trying
> to become a monopoly studio of branded must-have content, and reproduce
> Netflix’s power. Movie chains are too big. And so on and so forth. These are
> all just _political_ choices. In other words, we should aim to restore open
> markets for content again. This means separating out the industry into
> production, distribution, and retailing."

The article makes a persuasive case, I think, that market structure is indeed
a _political_ choice.

------
jedberg
> There’s much less of a market, and much less information circulating, even
> though we have the internet and much better mechanisms for moving
> information to one another.

I think it is _because_ of the internet and better moving information that
there is a lack of a market and the "slow roll" doesn't work anymore.

If a movie is bad, most people will know after the first day. Also, back in
the day you'd just show up at the theater and pick a movie after dinner,
because it was a pain to look that stuff up ahead of time. Then you'd pick a
movie that maybe you'd seen an ad for and watch it.

Now, you'll pull out your cell phone at dinner, see what movie starts next,
check the reviews and tweets, and then pick another one if it's bad. Before
you ever get to the theater. And if there is nothing good, you'll do something
else.

You can't get away with making a bad movie anymore like you could in the 80s.
I saw a lot of bad movies in the 80s and 90s.

I don't see bad movies anymore because it's so easy to avoid them.

~~~
mango7283
This applies to a lot of things.

I actually feel like the constraints on supply in my childhood enabled me to
experience a wider range of media than I otherwise might have. Sure, I read a
lot of crappy books and terrible TV ( or good stuff that is outside my
immediate interests) back then because there wasn't anything else but that in
of itself was an experience.

That's lost when I can pick anything and just drop anything that doesn't have
the right genre and is 5 star on whatever rating service I used.

------
scarface74
This entire article is flawed because of the premise that Netflix is a
monopoly.

There were 495 active scripted shows in 2018 - 146 more than in 2013
([https://gazette.com/arts-entertainment/the-number-of-
scripte...](https://gazette.com/arts-entertainment/the-number-of-scripted-tv-
shows-that-aired-in-is/article_52b9bb92-ff11-11e8-944e-0f47faebceff.html)).
There are also more avenues than ever to shop around a scripted show including
five networks - as opposed to three four decades ago and many cable channels.
In the 80s and 90s, most cable channels were just showing reruns of network
shows.

You also have multiple streaming services backed by companies with far more
money than Netflix either already on the market or coming within the next
year. Including Disney, WarnerMedia, Apple, Sony, etc.

My dad was an avid movie goer for decades. Since we got him a Roku TV, he goes
to the movies a lot less frequently. There may be a near monopoly on movie
screens, but there are a lot more outlets and large screen TVs are incredibly
cheap.

~~~
mrkurt
I don't think it makes sense to define monopoly as a binary state. There are
ways that companies with monopoly power behave even if you can argue the
company itself isn't a monopoly.

And, for what it's worth, copyright owners are the canonical monopolies.
There's no suitable replacement for Stranger Things. What's new is that TV
show copyright owners are now able to monopolize distribution.

I get that there's a more diverse set of good content, you'd expect that to
happen with the explosion of the internet. But that's happening in spite of
monopolist behavior, not because of it. Most of the wealth in movie/tv
creation is getting captured by a smaller group of companies.

Hence the article focusing on Netflix canceling shows after the second season.
The creators of shows make more money when they run a long time, Netflix would
prefer to keep those people working for cheap if it doesn't create churn.

~~~
scarface74
Compare Netflix’s library to Disney’s, especially with the Fox acquisition.
Which library would you rather have going into the next decade?

~~~
mrkurt
I don't think people will give Netflix subscriptions for Disney, I think
they'll buy both.

I'm sure Netflix would rather have Disney's library, but there's always a
second place in a duopoly.

~~~
scarface74
But the problem is there is a chance that Netflix could be fourth at least in
the US. Especially with Disney taking over Hulu. Hulu is already only $5.99 a
month with commercials and $12.99 a month with no commercials. Disney will be
moving most of it’s less kid friendly content over to Hulu. Disney Plus will
only be $7.99. It’s not hard to imagine a bundled price for both - with better
content - that’s less than Netflix.

If someone has Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video (because everyone already has
Amazon Prime), do they really need the low budget originals on Netflix?

~~~
mrkurt
Disney owns Hulu, I expect that'll be rolled into Disney+. I might be over
estimating Netflix's skill in this area, but I suspect they are really good at
converting production money into subscribers.

All that said, none of this is good for creators or customers, it doesn't
really matter if Netflix is first, second, or dead.

~~~
scarface74
Disney isn’t going to roll Hulu into Disney+. Why would they when they can
charge for both. Besides, Disney+ is suppose to be family friendly. Hulu isn’t
it.

Disney doesn’t own Hulu outright yet. Warner Bros still has its 10% stake and
Comcast still has its stake for now.

~~~
pkroll
Technically they don't own it outright yet, but they have full control as of
May 14: [https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-full-control-
hu...](https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-full-control-hulu-comcast-
deal-1203214338/)

------
WarDores
I'm typically a "when in doubt, free markets" type, but the three tier system
(production, distribution, and retailing) has numerous advantages. The craft
beer boom, for example, would never have happened in the absence of a legally-
mandated 3 tier system. Not only did this result in greater consumer choice,
but it also allowed small businesses to thrive in a sector where there are
significant economies of scale. I think similar benefits would be realized in
the art world, with similar exceptions for very small studios that usually
don't have access to the same distribution channels.

~~~
zajd
There is no such thing as a free market. The sooner Americans accept this
maybe we can move forward towards a society where we don't allow businesses to
engage in predatory practices under the guise of "free market ideology". Like
Uber/Lyft price dumping for the past decade. We're ruining the taxi industry
for what exactly? So a bunch of millionaires can lose money for 20 years
because they are selling billionaires on the idea of having a monopoly.

~~~
magduf
They "ruined" the taxi industry because it was anti-consumer and absolutely
horrible. That's why it was so easy for them to "ruin" it (read: make it so
much better).

Seriously, you think it's "ruining" an industry to have a convenient
smartphone app instead of having to call someone on a phone and hope a driver
shows up within 2 hours? And then have a driver that doesn't use a taximeter,
drives around in circles, and just makes up a price on the spot? Maybe you
never tried using cabs in the suburbs before the invention of Uber/Lyft.

------
dade_
Or the slow death of both. After Mad Men and House of Cards, I just kept
Netflix around but not usually impressed since anything I found that was any
good got cancelled on the second season. I had no idea this was intentional
until reading this article.

So I cancelled when they raised the price and shared an account with a friend
since I rarely used it. They raised the price again and he cancelled, but I
don't miss it. Amazon Prime has enough content for me.

~~~
softwaredoug
I remember when SyFy got a bad reputation for canceling their best shows.
Seems a bold assumption that a paying customer base wouldn’t notice...

------
quibbler
"In fact, median wages for writers are dropping quite quickly, down 23% from
2014 to 2016, which is a similar amount as the fall in earnings for book
literary authors after Amazon launched its vertically integrated kindle e-book
reader."

Couldn't this simply be an artefact of more authors entering the market (and
filling out surveys). It doesn't seem conclusive as a scare metric.

As for the general article, at the moment more art seems to be produced than
ever before. No matter what endgame Netflix has in mind, I don't see how they
could achieve a monopoly situation as with the Hollywood firms if the past.
There is now the internet, everybody can publish.

Diacoverability, maybe - so they would become the Google of movie search
engines? How would they prevent for example Google becoming the Google of
movie search engines? Google retains its dominance because it is also pretty
good, so far.

------
freerootkit
Price of 1 movie ticket: $15 Price of small popcorn: $8 Price of small drink:
$8 Price of small candy: $5 Total: $36

Time it took to drive to theater: 10 mins Time it took to wait in line for
food: 10 mins Time it took to watch trailers: 25 mins Total: 45 mins

Buying the movie and watching it my house costs no more than $20 (when it
first comes out) and I can make whatever I want to eat and don't have to drive
anywhere. So I save money and time. Oh and I almost forgot, no children or
people next to me coughing if I stay home.

~~~
magduf
Watch out, you're going to have some purist chime in about how worthwhile the
"theater experience" is because it's "shared" or whatever. I see these
arguments _all the time_ on /r/movies; the movie snobs really hate people who
watch movies at home and don't go to the theaters and put up with rude
patrons, overpriced concessions, 25 minutes of commercials, etc.

~~~
thirdsun
These days it's entirely possible for cinephiles to have a very fine home
cinema setup. Depending on how you live a projector and good sound system is
far from outlandish.

As someone who loves films, but would have to drive at least 45 minutes to the
next cinema which only shows current, popular movies in localized audio it's
much more practical for me to watch whatever I want, wether it's a timeless
classic or new, niche arthouse film, in my home cinema. Plus, food and drinks
are way cheaper, the audience is mostly silent and I can pause/resume whenever
I want.

~~~
magduf
>Plus, food and drinks are way cheaper

It's not just this: you can actually eat quality food, not junk food. I'm not
a teenager any more, so I don't eat popcorn covered with fake butter and
artificial flavors, or crappy candy, or soda, and instead I actually eat real
and relatively healthy food. Sure, there's some higher-end "dinner theaters"
that do serve real meals, but those aren't that common.

>the audience is mostly silent and I can pause/resume whenever I want.

Exactly. My cats don't make much noise, any guests I invite over are going to
be quiet too, and it's really nice being able to pause when I need a bathroom
break, or rewind if I didn't understand something (this happens to me with
dialog sometimes), or if I want to talk with my companion about something.

Honestly, except for nostalgia for the old days when cinemas were the only way
to see movies, I don't see what the attraction is compared to a decent home
theater. Even a 55" screen is really good enough, and those are pretty cheap
these days (especially compared to what I see people paying to go out to a
movie as a couple or family).

------
jstutzman
[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when
they’re still popular. Netflix has learned that the first two seasons of a
show are key to bringing in subscribers—but the third and later seasons don’t
do much to retain or win new subscribers.

\- That's crazy and smart all at the same time. Definitely not user-centered
design.

~~~
ravenstine
I don't particularly mind this. All the shows that I love usually peak within
their first 3 seasons. I'd much rather a show end while it's good than for it
to drag its feet for 7+ seasons and die with a whimper. Most viewers just
follow trends and are fickle. This is Netflix's way of allowing shows to have
fans but also stay viable(cool, hip, new, and full of _zazz_ ) for the general
audience.

------
codingdave
I wasn't aware that Netflix was strategically aiming for 2 seasons show now. I
kinda like that. I might like 3 better. But so many shows in the past have
driven forward until they were unwatchable and cancelled. And with a timebox
of 2 seasons, the writers can know exactly how big their story arc is, and can
wrap everything up cleanly.

As far as the impact on Hollywood that this all has... I'm not trying to be
rude, but I am having a hard time caring. Actors still have jobs, as do the
tech crews. We still get entertainment. Aside from wanting to maintain the
status quo, which HN usually isn't concerned with... why does it matter?

~~~
kodz4
Enough "Art" and blockbuster comedies have not been produced apparently :)

------
thrusong
I love going to the cinema, but I avoid Cineplex here in Canada like the
plague.

They lack basic showmanship like dimming the lights (every showing I've been
at in the past seven years they just flicked the lights off and started
playing the movie and then the credits roll and BAM, full brightness).

Couple that with Cineplex being an "extract-every-penny and don't re-invest"
business. The top reviews for their biggest theatre in town include comments
such as "the carpet smells like corpse."

Honestly, if bad content will lead to the demise of this company, I say bring
it on. Hopefully Landmark will escape largely unscathed.

------
SolaceQuantum
_"...Netflix’s strategy is straightforward market power exploitation. The
company is cancelling shows that subscribers like, so it won’t have to pay
creators the amount they would otherwise be able to get for making good
commercially successful art. In other words, Netflix is subtly raising prices
on subscribers and paying creators less for their work."_

I wonder if this means in the future, the price for a first and second season
labor will be higher, thereby locking out new competition to new original
series.

~~~
cmiles74
It's hard to guess at the reason that Netflix is canceling these shows, but
many shows simply have too many seasons. I suspect it's because the way the
networks estimate their viewership (things like Nielsen households or
telephone surveys) are less reliable than the detailed metrics that Netflix
can track.

While everyone misses their favorite show when it's canceled, it could be as
simple as viewership has dropped below some bar Netflix has established for
that particular show. I don't think it needs to be as nefarious as large scale
plan to depress the earnings of those who work on these shows.

Certainly it looks like it now makes sense to plan for a show running no more
than two seasons and then negotiating appropriately.

~~~
iscrewyou
I have this gripe that shows DO NOT need to run for 10 seasons. Breaking bad
was a great example of a show that didn’t drag on, caught itself when it was
starting to and pivoted and finished it strong. Now it’s a classic. Should
there still be shows with 10 seasons? Sure. But most of them should be like
3-4-5 seasons. People lose interest. But if they knew that the only need to
pay attention for 3-4 seasons, i think the shows could be more successful (for
viewer attention span and for creators to work within a certain time frame and
constraints).

~~~
AmVess
Breaking Bad is not a great example, because the show was created with a
defined length that fit the narrative. It had a certain beginning and and end
in mind before it became a show. The studio wanted it to run longer, but the
owners of the show said no.

The only major departure from Breaking Bad on paper and Breaking Bad in
reality was Jesse Pinkman. He was originally only to be a bit character in one
episode, but the showrunners liked Aaron Paul so much that he became a part
of, and changed the tenor of the whole show.

~~~
dylan604
The creators of Lost claimed they new exactly how that series was going to go,
but watching it definitely felt like they were stringing things along to get
to the 100 episode syndication threshold more than telling a fulfilling story.

I've been enjoying the limited-series shows, or shows that do not attempt to
correlate multiple seasons together like Fargo. The first season of True
Detective was done in the right number of episodes to get the story told
without stringing it along. The studios forced a rushed second season that I
pretend doesn't exist. HBO's Sharp Objects is another example of using just
enough episodes to tell the story.

------
jpollock
I thought the slow burn of older movies was because of the cost of printing
and managing the prints.

My understanding is that it was a substantial investment for a movie, which
meant that releases had to be staged - you wanted the most bang from each
print [1][2].

With digital theaters, this is no longer an issue, the cost is up front with
the expensive projecting equipment.

[1] [https://newrepublic.com/article/119431/how-digital-cinema-
to...](https://newrepublic.com/article/119431/how-digital-cinema-took-
over-35mm-film)

[2] [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-
xpm-2014-j...](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-
xpm-2014-jan-17-la-et-ct-paramount-digital-20140117-story.html)

~~~
rsj_hn
During the "golden age" of Hollywood in the 30s-40s, the studios would crank
out one movie per week. Stars would often appear in 3 movies per year. Today,
stars shoot a film every 3 years or so. E.g. take a look here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RKO_Pictures_films#194...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RKO_Pictures_films#1940)

In 1940, RKO released 55 films, of which they produced 39. That's basically a
film per week. And these were feature films.

For the individual stars, take a look at Humphrey Bogart, who starred in 3
films in 1941: The Maltese Falcon, The Wagons Roll at Night, High Sierra. I
don't think there was a year in the 40s up to the mod 50s when Bogart didn't
star in at least 2 releases per year. In 1951 he was in The African Queen,
Sirocco, and The Enforcer.

Today, take a major studio, say Paramount Pictures. It released 11 films in
all of 2018.

What happened was JAWS created the 'blockbuster' phenomena, in which the
studios made huge money on a small number of very expensive films with huge
marketing budgets compared to previous eras. That totally changed the dynamic.
It also made actor pay shoot up.

But it has nothing to do with the cost of the prints -- just strategy of
whether you want to make a small number of films with tons of marketing spend
like in the post JAWS era or a large number of cheaper to produce films with
small marketing budgets like the pre-JAWS era.

In many ways, what is happening with TV and Netflix is akin to a return to the
studio model but for episodes, where Netflix seems to be able to crank out a
large number of relatively cheap but decent quality episodes, and this of
course corresponds to lower actor pay per episode.

------
mamon
Cancelling show after two seasons is a blessing: original idea has usually
already ran its course by then, and the story becomes more and more convoluted
and boring. Very few shows remain high quality in third or subsequent seasons.

~~~
jandrese
I'd argue that a lot of shows have fairly rough first seasons, good to
excellent second and third seasons, and then start running out of ideas in the
fourth season.

Four seasons is a good length for a TV show. Two is too few most of the time.

This is a very rough metric of course. Some shows peak in their first season
and go downhill from there. A few manage to reinvent themselves enough each
season to avoid going stale, but in general four and done is good.

~~~
cmiles74
I don't have any data to back this up, but I have been watching TV for many,
many years. It seems to me that we have two types of television series...

1) A show that was carefully written over the course of several years and had
a pretty large budget when the first season of the show was finally made.
These have a good first season and maybe an okay second season but often
flounder in their second season.

2) A series that maybe had a good idea and a decently written pilot but not
much more on the books in terms of time investment, often having a smaller
budget. These shows might have a pretty poor first season with some good
episodes here and there, perhaps the cast starts to show some real chemistry
as their characters begin to get fleshed out towards the end of that season.
The second season only gets better as everyone has a better handle on what is
working.

It could be argued in both cases that more seasons are worth the gamble. In
practice, though, more shows just get worse. I can't fault Netflix for leaning
towards early cancellation, that seems like the obvious safe bet.

~~~
jandrese
It's an obvious safe bet until you cancel Firefly after one season. :(

~~~
cmiles74
In terms of this article, I guess the important takeaway is that happened with
the traditional system, before Netflix and Amazon were making their own shows.
Some networks were already leaning towards cancelling early and often.

------
sytelus
There have been counter arguments that Netflix and Prime Video has in fact
saved Hollywood. If you want to make a movie in hollywood, you have to know
people who will fund you. You need big connections, close friendships, strong
referrals. Even then terms are often not favorable to artists, budget cuts
could happen at whims and non-established artists have little freedom. It's
like a startup scene but how things used to be done before YC. With Netflix, I
think what has happened is that humanity has collectively handed over $10B to
one company to create entertainment for them. The budgets are deterministic
and not at whims of few people. Artists can take risks because you don't have
to count tickets sold. You can create artistic content that has expense and
income numbers that don't make sense because eventually it balances out in the
larger pool. Suddenly there is lot more money for artists and lot more
freedom. It's still not quite like YC where you show up with idea for your
movie and instantly get funded but its getting closer to that model.

~~~
keithwhor
> It's like a startup scene but how things used to be done before YC.

Jeebus. Things aren't better or worse after YC, they're just different. YC is
the same kind of content farm as Netflix. It's not that YC can't produce great
startups, it's that so many "dumb money" investors rely heavily on YC as an
initial signal that it's (1) more difficult to succeed if you're not YC and
(2) if you are YC and fail (statistically likely), you are blackmarked in a
pretty terrible way. Many businesses take multiple iterations to succeed.

YC was great when it had 30 great founders in the same way Netflix was great
when it first aired Black Mirror. We have to find more robust funding models
for promising teams (in all verticals) that don't get compromised by immediate
cashflow requirements. Or else we end up with a Miley Cyrus Disney-Ending
Black Mirror episode that... we... liked... but what happened to the dystopian
horrors we thought we were paying for?

~~~
sytelus
I think you are missing my point. YC model hasn't changed probabilities of
success for startups too much. It has, however, democratized _who_ can do
startups. I don't have to have friends in VC circles, I don't need to visit
dozens of VC offices, I don't get term sheets that takes away 20% of my
company, I don't have board members who dictates and vetos over my vision.
This is a big deal and huge improvement over older model - it's not just
"different".

------
Causality1
>be that person an artist or a major studio; it’s simply impossible to compete

Has this guy somehow missed out on the fact that Netflix doesn't own the vast
majority of the content its users watch? A major studio competing with Netflix
is not terribly difficult since all it has to do is yank its own content off
the platform. CBS launched a successful streaming service on the backs of one
Star Trek series and a bunch of stupid sitcom reruns. HBO Now is making a
profit and it's about to be making a much bigger one since Time Warner is
pulling their IP off Netflix to combine into HBO Max. The Disney behemoth is
also creeping steadily forward. You know, the giant company that dominates the
highest grossing films of the year and has done so for several years? The one
with a stranglehold on children's programming? I'm not going to pay for
Disney+ but almost every friend of mine with kids is looking forward to
unlimited Mickey Mouse for only $15 a month.

Netflix is scrambling because it's only got a couple of years before IP
holders start ripping its guts out en masse.

------
efa
Correction: the terrorists in Back to the Future gave Doc Brown weapons-grade
plutonium, not uranium!

------
apo
> ... it’s simply impossible to compete making better goods and services if
> your competitor can lose money indefinitely.

This is yet another consequence of the Federal Reserve's forever bailout of
the US stock market: a repeatable business model in which a company can
operate at a loss indefinitely while it furiously tries to build an
uncrossable moat around itself.

------
sleepysysadmin
The rapid changing from VCR -> DVD -> Blueray -> digital meant their industry
was able to resell their product over and over. This produced a golden age and
created a ridiculous amount of money. Their golden age is over.

In the very near future what used to be the movie/tv industry will be
significantly smaller.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Obviously it’s a bit of a Rorschach but I see it differently:

Industrialists took control of the production apparatus and stopped funding
anything that didn’t fit into “proven” parameters. This produces a lot of
money for owners, in a very efficient way. Very little money is wasted, there
are clearly lost opportunities on risks not taken, but as long as there is
enough work to keep the top management busy at full capacity, there’s no
incentive to chase those risks.

This model displaced a lot of content creators who didn’t fit the formula.
Some small number of passionate people made work anyway, fumbling through with
PayPal and DVDs and Amazon sales and whatever else.

That small pool of dedicated creators was enough of a market to build an
alternate production apparatus. CDBaby, YouTube, digital cameras, cheap video
editing rigs, Twitter, even email... all of these tools emerged to help
independents survive.

Then, it was a classic “Innovators Dilemma” tipping point: suddenly a TV show
could be produced for an order of magnitude less money and there was a
generation of established creators that the establishment had written off.

It was just waiting for someone to start writing small-for-networks but big-
for-indie-filmmakers checks. Netflix did it.

Now there are a new set of proven formulas. The networks are on the ropes, but
they could come back easily. At the end of the day this business has nothing
to do with technology. Viewing experiences will change but it’s still just
people in dimly lit rooms watching screens and advertising.

~~~
sleepysysadmin
Maybe my perspective is a bit skewed as a Canadian, our government requires X%
of content on tv to be Canadian made. Which was fine because tons of stuff is
made in vancouver and toronto but it never pushed the little guy out. We still
have all the small time crap like ice road truckers or trailer park boys.

>At the end of the day this business has nothing to do with technology

I disagree that technology isnt involved. As I said, changing formats but then
you bring up all the technologies which were developed which changed things.
Youtube/Netflix itself is technology.

------
softwaredoug
Great article. To me the weak part in this argument is arguing this all
involves “lock in”. Specifically:

> The story is that users will buy Netflix streaming services and it will be
> too much trouble to switch to a different service, which is a variant of a
> phenomenon called “lock-in.”

And because of this they can get away with building bad content and losing
money.

I don’t agree users won’t easily switch or leave if quality drops. Netflix is
becoming a premium channel like HBO (or vice versa). It’s trivial to cancel
the service like it is to cancel any premium channel (think HBO after GoT) and
look at other options. If anything, eventually my credit card expires and I
revisit all my subscriptions...

This does seem to be a problem in the case of a duopoly or monopoly, which is
perhaps the real threat the author means to describe.

------
unnouinceput
Quote: "One could quibble about creativity, but it’s generally thought in
Hollywood that the last great comedy franchise to launch was The Hangover,
created in 2009. There have been a few others, like Pitch Perfect and 21 Jump
Street, but those both came out around the same time, in 2012. There
effectively have been no comedy smash hits in for nearly a decade."</endquote>

Are you kidding me? Last great comedy was The Hangover? Does the author of the
article ever heard of Toy Story 4 (now in theaters), Secret life of pets 1 &
2, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Zootopia etc etc? Granted, they are animated
movies versus live action like The Hangover but they are movies, big ones,
made by Hollywood, with a plethora of A list actors voicing the characters.
The fact that they are animated is irrelevant, because the taste of the public
always evolves. That's why action flicks of the '80s are no longer enough to
entertain us, and they seem a cliche instead. We, the consumers, became more
sophisticated, our taste evolved and demanding better quality for our money.
Therefore the creativity went where was required, where the public demand it,
not to be stuck in the same style of movies. Otherwise John Wayne's style of
Western movies would still roll on big screen. Tell me, when was the last time
such a Western made it big on box office? I tell you instead that HBO's
Westworld is very much a Western style show that I deeply enjoy. That's where
the creativity went! To be in the same pace as our modern, more subtle, taste.

~~~
mercer
> the last great comedy franchise _to launch_

------
gpayan
Interesting read, but I tend to disagree with the author on many levels.

I do believe we are still in a golden age for content producers and audiences.
The amount of money going into content production, the number of shows being
produced and the number of streaming services being launched offer a variety
of options for people to finance, distribute and consume video content.

Content creators are looking essentially for 3 things: telling great stories,
reaching large audiences and making money. They make an informed decision
based on those 3 factors when choosing to work with Netflix, Amazon or other
studios/streaming services. If it becomes obvious that Netflix will cancel
their show after 2 seasons or will not expose their content to large
audiences, content creators will stop pitching their shows to Netflix and turn
to other distribution providers such as Amazon, Warner Media, Disney, NBC,
Facebook, CBS, YouTube etc. And if audiences like their content, they will
follow it and subscribe/spend time on other platforms.

I’m also unsure about Netflix’s “lock-in” power. Netflix is not Spotify where
I spend time creating and organizing playlists. I see it only working if
Netflix’s recommendation engine is so well trained with my data that moving to
another streaming service will force me to spend much more time looking for
relevant content to watch. Otherwise, I watch Friends on Netflix. I can easily
switch next year to watch it on HBO Max.

It is true that the old days of “Friends” and “Seinfeld”, where a hit show
would generate billions of dollars for its creators, are gone. Netflix and
other streaming platforms are now acquiring global content rights for shows
and production companies are becoming more like “work for hire” studios –
where ownership is transferred to the streaming platform and no future
residual revenues can be expected from re-runs (syndication deals).

That being said, the median wage of writers dropping seems to be more the
result of talent agencies’ “packaging practices” than Netflix.

And by the way, “Where are the great comedies?” the author asks. Blockbuster
movies – because of their high production costs – look for global appeal. Car
crashes (aka “action movies”) are understood across the world. It’s not
necessarily the case for jokes (aka “comedies”) that might not cross oceans as
easily.

------
goldcd
I'm actually OK with the cancellations.

Maybe I'd have liked more Santa Clarita Diet - but had given up watching
Orange is the New Black and the Marvel stuff.

I'd loved them, liked them, then maybe was watching out of a "sense of duty"..
There's only so much TV I can/should ever watch, so if there's going to be
anything new, they've got to stop making something old.

~~~
ravenstine
I loved Santa Clarita Diet, but I'm also fine with them having cancelled it.
I'd prefer shows just stick around for a few good seasons than get long in the
tooth. I hope they develop more shows like it, though.

------
Buetol
I have another guess: Rising inequalities in the U.S. means fewer and fewer
people can have access to high quality movies. This means the internal market,
which is the fuel of Hollywood, is dying and that's why Hollywood is dying.

It's just an intuition and a guess.

EDIT: Also, it could mean that the concentration of money inside a few hands
in Hollywood mean they try to make fewer movies so they get more return on
investment. For example, if you produce 20 movies per month or 10 movies per
month, and you have a monopoly, then it's cheaper and almost as profitable to
10 movies a month. Only an healthy competition or subsidies like in France can
make you want to produce more movies.

EDIT 2: I confess that I'm an Armchair Economist
[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armchair%20E...](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armchair%20Economist)

~~~
codingslave
Inequality is rising, but so are the lowest rungs of american society. They
have seen huge increases in standard of living.

------
kingkawn
A friend teaches English in south east Asia. His younger students refuse to
watch any movies from before ~2010, saying they are too old and slow. I think
the focus on remakes is an attempt to capture this market that would otherwise
not bother watching older content.

~~~
asdff
The poorly aged CGI didn't help. That and shitty sound is what stopped me from
watching many older movies as a kid.

~~~
kingkawn
Aw man there’s such deep beautiful feeling in some old movies. I sorta feel
like it’s a huge oversight to believe that movies are watched for their
technical achievements, rather than the people and ideas in them.

But my dad was into cinema so showed me tons of old film when I was a kid.
Charlie Chaplin is still hilarious.

------
cmiles74
> The centralization of power in a few studios and chains is global. In 2015,
> the U.S.-China Security Review Commission noted that Hollywood now obeys
> Chinese censors pretty much for all films, even those made and distributed
> solely in the West. Unless this system is restructured, it is unlikely we
> will see any critical depictions of Chinese government actors again, which
> has its parallels to the Studio System in the 1930s pandering to Nazi
> Germany.

> ...

> In other words, we should aim to restore open markets for content again.
> This means separating out the industry into production, distribution, and
> retailing. We should probably ban predatory pricing so Netflix isn’t dumping
> into the market. And we should probably begin a radical decentralization of
> chains and studios.

There's some interesting stuff in this article and I'm glad that I read it.
But at the end of the piece, aren't we talking about the same thing we're
seeing in all US industries? As the players getting larger and more wealthy
and become more powerful they do their best to freeze out competitors until we
end up with a weird and dysfunctional closed system.

A lot of these criticisms pre-date Netflix and Amazon: summer movies started
to become an all-or-nothing bet (and thus more homogenous, dull, and less
risky intellectually) when it was just the studios.

I don't know what the solution might be, I struggle to keep a positive frame
of mind in this regard. I do think it's unlikely that the government will step
in an break these companies up, especially when they have so much money under
their control.

~~~
mrkurt
> I don't know what the solution might be, I struggle to keep a positive frame
> of mind in this regard. I do think it's unlikely that the government will
> step in an break these companies up, especially when they have so much money
> under their control.

I'm not usually optimistic about it, but there's some political noise about
actually enforcing the Sherman Act again. We're not _that_ far removed from a
DoJ that blocked Microsoft mergers, and there's hopefully enough political
pressure to staff the FTC/DoJ some people with spines instead of rubber
stamps.

------
Merrill
"How many films are released each year?" [https://stephenfollows.com/how-many-
films-are-released-each-...](https://stephenfollows.com/how-many-films-are-
released-each-year/)

The graph shows "Hollywood Wide Releases" at about 100/year for 1995 to 2016.
The rate is almost constant.

"All Other Releases" go from about 170/year in 1995 to 640/year in 2016. The
increase is roughly linear, with a major dip during the great recession of
2008-9.

Other graphs show that theater admissions are roughly constant over the
period.

------
wowandflutter
Seems to me the same kind of thing is happening to the music industry.
Streaming is great, however having “too many choices” sometimes feels
overwhelming. Corporations want to make a profit, so naturally they will seek
out the next big streaming hit and market it to their end users. How do they
do this? Algorithms, popularity, number of plays, demographics, etc.
Eventually, a few big names get most of the attention. And the user base with
the highest number of (paying) listeners is catered to above everything else.

------
jedberg
Netflix would like nothing more than to have the government force production
and distribution to be separate. Their core business was using data to buy
better content for cheaper and then figuring out what you want to watch better
than anyone else.

If production and distribution were separate, _everyone_ would want to be
distributed by Netflix because they have the largest global reach. And they
could get out of the huge money sink that is making content. They only make
content because they saw this consolidation coming.

------
slowhadoken
Yeah Wim Wenders made a documentary back in 1982 about this. It’s a series of
interviews with world famous directors of the time talking about the direction
of the movie industry.

------
raxxorrax
Hollywood has often claimed to be in the process of dying. While I think the
current content is mostly boring, it still generates profit. Predictable
scripts but the industry demands it like this. Remakes are popular because
they have a somewhat predictable return of investment because they provide a
fanbase from the start.

If engagement suffers further, movies are going to change again. But on the
other hand rehashed content is always new content for new generations.

------
segmondy
Hollywood is dying because most of their movies are garage. There have been
very few good movies made lately or perhaps I'm just getting old. I use to go
to the movies once or twice a month a long time ago, now I can go a whole year
without going. Besides the quality going down, it costs too much too.

The remake fatigue is also real. Very few original content. It's either a
remake of something from the past, another country or a sequel.

------
axilmar
Holywood is certainly not dying economically, but it certainly died a long
time ago when it comes to actual entertainment and art.

And it's not a matter of age. I like films older than me, there are genuine
diamonds amongst them. Today's movies are shitty for the most part with few
notable exceptions.

Thank God there are tons of great movies outside Holywood.

------
shmerl
_> This means separating out the industry into production, distribution, and
retailing._

I'd welcome that, less exclusives - better for the end user. Except retailing
is obsolete in this context. In the digital world, it's only production and
distribution.

And films should be available to buy digitally DRM-free, not just rented,
Netflix-like.

------
ilaksh
With decentralized technologies we can have the large networks/platforms
without the monopolies. Just imagine that Ethereum 2.0 comes out supporting
many transactions. Then create a dapp that integrates video somehow, maybe
with something like BitTorrent.

------
ars
How do you write this article without mentioning youtube?

I watch far more youtube, than traditional Hollywood. And I don't mean random
clips, but high quality content.

He's worried that Hollywood won't criticize China, or the military. Instead
you'll find that on youtube.

------
RickJWagner
Yes, Hollywood has long ago gone stale.

Too many movies today rely on reboots or sequels. The system itself is
terribly corupt, ala Weinstein. The fame business has raised a pack of
entitled, self-important cry babies.

More power to Amazon and Netflix. We deserve better.

------
jpalomaki
One thing Netflix has not yet cracked is how to keep me constantly hooked and
to stop me from quitting once in a while.

As I can just catch up with the missed episodes later, I don’t see problem
canceling the subscription.

~~~
lkrubner
Very much the same for me. I try not to waste too much time watching movies,
but also I want to keep up with the culture. But I find if I binge one month a
year, I end up seeing almost everything that people are talking about.

------
robomartin
Want the formula for every single Hollywood movie? Google “the hero’s journey”
and compare the formula to every movie you have seen.

~~~
orf
Doesn’t fit with many films. Memento for example.

~~~
robomartin
Of course, I should have said “most”. This is a formula used by a huge
percentage of US movies and TV shows. People are so used to it they don’t even
think about the fact that the fundamental storyline is the same on a good
percentage of what they watch.

------
beezle
Movie -> tv adaptation -> musical -> movie remake

depending the subject, there may also be a cartoon tv series as well.

------
pier25
Very few shows are good after the first couple of seasons. Breaking Bad is
probably the only TV show I know longer than 2-3 seasons that maintains its
quality from beginning to end. The Americans is also pretty good.

Even Game of Thrones went downhill on its last seasons.

Stranger Things has also gone down the hill. I watched the first 3 episodes of
the new season and I'm done with it. It has gone from a sci-fi show to a
teenager drama.

------
PaulHoule
I don't like the "all you can eat" model. I think it killed cable because
people paid for stations even if they didn't watch them, so there was no
feedback loop to reward better stations. It devalues content wherever it has
been tried from music to video games.

------
dawhizkid
Hollywood is doing fine. Disney's stock is at an all time high.

------
drenvuk
nice writing, but this sentence is off:

>It’s becoming increasingly clear that the only goal now in Hollywood is to
become gain market power in distribution or must-have content production, and
then use that monopoly power to reduce the quality of output and reduce the
bargaining leverage of artists.

I like the depth and history he brings into this piece.

------
henntipular
Redlettermedia have made a lot of 'normal' people aware of just how aweful
movies and the movie-going experience is. A lot of times it's more
entertaining to watch a group of friends absolutely destroy a moviethan it was
to watch the film.

