How much more Netflix can the world absorb?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
"Bela Bajaria, who oversees the streaming giant’s hyper-aggressive approach to TV-making, says success is about “recognizing that people like having more.”
Where do people get sentences like -> success is about “recognizing that people like having more.”
How does it even mean anything for an average student or housewife?
Which is also worrisome.
It seems to be an awful lot of filler, and it's not even as if the search or the descriptions are any good.
Maybe I'm spoilt having access to BBC iPlayer?
Compared to Amazon prime, there's more things there that take my fancy. If I were to choose one I'd go for prime.
Given parent comment is someone presumably from the UK as they're discussing iPlayer, Netflix never had this catalogue. The Office US is still on Netflix in the UK.
The OA and Glow were really interesting shows that got cancelled prematurely, without any resolution to the storylines. When this becomes a trend, it makes me not want to get into any new Netflix series, and that usually ends with me cancelling my Netflix subscription.
TBF, Amazon Prime has also done the same with some of their shows (e.g. Forever).
Where BBC really shines is that a 6 episode story isn't stretched to 2 seasons à la Netflix.
As for the other ones, I do a month or two of Netflix each year and it's pretty much always a disappointment, though with a bit of digging there are normally 2 or 3 things I find to justify the price for a month or two.
Rather annoyingly, I find Amazon Prime Video has much more interesting content in general, though I have kind of worn that out now I think. With any of these services I might leave for a year, come back and find some of the exact same stuff is still pushed as 'popular' or 'featured'.
Really need to break bad habits around laptop use during films, then I can embrace subtitled foreign language films.
(Line of Duty is a show that was recommended to me that I liked quite a bit. I'm trying to remember the couple of others, but coming up blank...)
> But Hastings told me that she impressed him, during a business trip to Delhi early in her tenure, by insisting that they leave the grounds of the five-star Imperial Hotel to eat at a “hole-in-the-wall that had epic food.”
Is this the person they've set to take the fall for Netflix shovelware?
What they're hoping for is cheap-but-great stuff, and that's going to be more about serendipity rather than effort. It's hard to tell which project is going to be disproportionately brilliant before you've greenlit it.
It happens from time to time, but as far as I can tell there's nobody with a special talent for knowing it beforehand. It's more about survivorship bias: somebody got lucky, and maybe they're a bit better at picking good stuff than the average person, but odds are their next effort will revert to the mean.
I'm OK with that. I'd rather have that then them funding a bunch of the same stars to parade around being famous rather than specially talented. That model does turn out a lot of hits, not great films but certainly popular ones. There should be room for both, but many more low-budget ones just because you can.
I suspect that most of them seemed like a good idea at the time, and then got bogged down in process. I'm an actor, and I've seen that happen. A few mistakes and now you're committed to a process with too many sunk costs to abandon and no way to get back to "good".
Some of them probably seemed like possible big hits that just didn't pan out. Others seem to have been striving for low-budget mediocrity, and failing to hit that.