Netflix opening physical locations

Axman said:
I was explaining to you why people say Netflix has a library full of crap.
Click to expand...
This is an opinion. We'd be better off taking a poll if that's what you want to talk about.


sleepeeg3 said:
Netflix = low-budget shovel-media. Netflix spent $5.8B in 2023 on original productions. Sounds like alot - it's not. Even if they spent that same amount over the last 12 years (they didn't) producing 3,642 movies, that would only be $69.6B or $19M / movie.
The average Hollywood movie costs $100M. Netflix is spending less than 1/5 of the cost, shoveling out content. Quantity over quality.
Click to expand...
I can tell you don't really know anything about film production when you equate money for quality.

1a.) 100M is not at all an average film production budget. That is still by every definition, in 2023, a high production budget for a film. If there was a weighted average of production costs and not a total average, it wouldn't look that way. But the reason why it can even have that appearance is because of 1b, below.
1b.) One of the biggest issues in Hollywood is about risk and risk management. Disney is one of the largest offenders. They have destroyed all moderate production films in order to make films that are "sure things", that is to say, films that will give them a multiple of their investment in returns. And they have constantly pushed away from creating art with artists and more towards a commercial product.

2.) Budget does not equate to quality. Otherwise we could go through and list every bloated 100+ million dollar film and you'd have to spend all your time defending every DC movie as being the "peak of absolute quality", and that is unequivocally not true. And throughout film history, I could easily make the argument that the films that were moderate budget on weighted average have produced more quality films than the high budget films. Sure, Stanley Kubrick and Francis Ford Coppola spent stupid amounts of money (for the time) on films. But in comparison with every Bond, Marvel/DC, Star Wars, or other big budget film that have been mediocre, they're in the vast minority.

If you want to have a game making perspective. What you're saying in gaming terms is that AAA is the only type of game that is good and that should be made. And frankly in gaming, high budget doesn't mean a good game either. And I'm personally sick of every big budget sequel that gets pumped out.

3a.) If you want quality, that just means good writing, directing, editing, and acting with a moderate level of production. If you understand how to maximize your budget, then the budget ceases to matter nearly as much. Pulp Fiction was made on around $8.5 million dollars in 1994. Adjusted for 2023 inflation, that movie was made on $17.6 million dollars. That is very far away from 100 million. Would Pulp Fiction really be a better movie if Tarantino had access to more than 5x the budget? I think you'd have a really hard time making an argument for that. Regardless of if you're a fan of his work or not.

Again in gaming terms this is also like original studios making original games on much lower production budgets.

3b.) Budget just increases production level. If you need to film in 5 different countries, need to blow up cars, shut down city streets, have elaborate sets, rent out incredibly expensive locations (buildings, castles, stadiums, etc), and want to hire top movie stars, then yes, that is where money helps. But it doesn't necessarily mean it will be "a better movie" unless you define a better movie by how many real things you blow up and how many top movie stars you want to pay (that's a whole other topic, but yeah, there are some actors making 10-20M+ a film. And if you think that star power magically makes movies better when they're eating up 1/5th+ of the budget, you really have it wrong). And besides that, not every movie wants or needs to blow cars up. Some films or just drama or genre pieces or comedies or whatever that never need to travel, don't need to shoot in 100 locations, never blow things up, or ever hire expensive actors.

Netflix has been a boon to filmmakers because they are willing to take a chance with moderate production budgets and relatively new filmmakers. Or, even moderate production budgets and well known filmmakers so that they have some amount of freedom to create what they want without the confines of the studio system and having to make a purely commercial product.
You may not personally see any point to having different levels of film production, but Christopher Nolan wouldn't be here if didn't get to make a 5-9 million dollar movie in Memento. And a similar story for Spielberg and Jaws. Even the Godfather part I, is only around a 50 million dollar budget when accounting for inflation. I already brought up Tarantino. But basically any filmmaker that has even produced something you like or care about, did so because they first did a much smaller production. And when given a bigger production that doesn't even necessarily mean they produced better movies, just rather that they had access to more tools.

I sincerely hope more "moderate budget" 20-60 million dollar movies get made. Because those are the original films that aren't a sequel or a reboot. Those are the films taking chances on new actors and directors (mostly, top directors still produce low budget films, especially as personal projects). Does that require wise investment still? Absolutely yes. However Netflix dumping money into the system increases the chances of the next excellent directors and actors getting a shot to make something brilliant.

The cost of that has always been that there will be people that produce films with nothing new to say, or something by the numbers. It's not as if the aren't tons of trash movies in every decade that no one has ever watched ever again. But you and people like you don't have a film making perspective nor paid attention to the history of film to have an accurate view to what it's like or what it has ever been like.
 
Last edited:
UnrealRG said:
Maybe dine-in movie experience with Netflix originals/exclusives, screened weeks/months before it is available to stream?
Click to expand...
or like they do at some theatres where you can get a few people to chip in and rent out the whole theatre and can even watch titles from the back catalog and being netflix, that would open up to a lot more choices. so you can basically use it for a movie party and see your favorite films on the big screen and bangin sound system. because i'm sure it'll be, like the theatre closest to my house, that serves a full food menu and bar.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Budget just increases production level.
Click to expand...
They give days, would it be filming, SFX, time always cost a lot, even a small one room movie like say the Whale in the 70s they could have had 100 days of shooting, now 45, outside Hollywood or indy 15-20.
 
relapse808 said:
I just bought a LG C3 TV and a Sony X700 4k blu ray player. I have never watched a 4k blu ray before with HDR and holy crap it blew me away. I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark and it was like watching it for the first time. I will never buy a TCL again.
Click to expand...
even give the sony bravia's a look. back in the mid 00's when the housing market crashed i worked as assistant manager in a rent-to-own place for a while and at the time everyone was wanting samsungs, we all agreed (the people running the store) that out of all the brands we were selling the sony's had the best picture and color couldn't be beat. and what the owner ended up putting in his house. that and then i found out how sony's trinitron technology was basically reference grade tech back in the crt days, i've been a sony guy when it comes to televisions ever since.
 
d3athf1sh said:
even give the sony bravia's a look. back in the mid 00's when the housing market crashed i worked as assistant manager in a rent-to-own place for a while and at the time everyone was wanting samsungs, we all agreed (the people running the store) that out of all the brands we were selling the sony's had the best picture and color couldn't be beat. and what the owner ended up putting in his house. that and then i found out how sony's trinitron technology was basically reference grade tech back in the crt days, i've been a sony guy when it comes to televisions ever since.
Click to expand...

I will check them out when I need to buy again. I have never had a OLED or 4k player. My friend recommended these both so I just got them instead of shopping and comparing.
 
LukeTbk said:
They give days, would it be filming, SFX, time always cost a lot, even a small one room movie like say the Whale in the 70s they could have had 100 days of shooting, now 45, outside Hollywood or indy 15-20.
Click to expand...
The cost of days is relative to production level and certainly yes more money helps there.

However it should be apparent that a 15 person crew with 5 actors shooting in cheap locations costs far less per day than shooting in Italy at the Colisseum with Tom Cruise, 10 other actors/stars, 100+ extras, and a 60 person crew. Not to mention how that scales with trailers, gears, food, insurance, permits, and all the other line items.

EDIT: the other thing there as well is about efficiency. Usually bigger budget films also have much more extensive shot lists and types of shots, and the shot duration will also be much shorter.

It takes far longer to have an opening crane shot for 2 seconds, a follow car shot for 1.5, seconds, and then 2 more 2 second shots just for a car pulling up to a location. Smaller films will have fewer shots per sequence and use less expensive shots (that is in regarding equipment). They might only have 2 shots for the same sequence and not use a crane or a car.

So there is another area where the efficiency of a smaller film can tell a tighter story for less money while still bringing art to the imagery. Bigger films do all that stuff because they can, however it means they are by their nature much slower to produce and require way more days to produce the same amount of minutes.

Which again, raises production level, but absolutely does not mean that the film is “better”. Not your point, but was my original point.
 
Last edited:
relapse808 said:
I just bought a LG C3 TV and a Sony X700 4k blu ray player. I have never watched a 4k blu ray before with HDR and holy crap it blew me away. I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark and it was like watching it for the first time. I will never buy a TCL again.
Click to expand...


Totally agree, it is amazing. I have the old LG B2 77 and I got the Panasonic DP-UB820-K which is great with HDR. I am buying more and more 4K films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top