Streaming channels (Netflix, Amazon Video, etc..) vs Hollywood. A good or a bad thing?


I want to open a discussion on what everyone’s opinion is about the current landscape of television/cinema.

Netflix and other streaming services have pumped a lot of their investment in new original content, to promote their service. What we get in return is some amazingly good series/movies that have made a name for themselves more than anything else made by television channels or Hollywood.

If anything, it has attracted people away from television channels/cinemas even more because of that. After all, isn’t it much more comfortable to be able to sit at your coach and watch something that is genuinely good at the convenience of your home, rather than spend (a lot of) money in a cinema, be bothered by other people while watching a movie that is only mediocre at best (Hollywood is continuing to disappoint me with their movie releases).

How do you see thing “evolve”? Let me know, I’m curious about your opinion and whether it’s a good, or bad, thing.


I feel that Oates studio is a head of the curve. They make a nice 15-20 minute ‘short’ and then people can crowdfund the series. So the public can choose which series to keep running. I expect more series to do the same in the future with possible community input regarding the direction of the series.


I don’t think streaming channels are affecting Hollywood that much, after all, you go to the theater to see new movies that aren’t available anywhere at the moment and if they are, then they pirated, which means it has bad quality.

No streaming channel can offer me watching movies like the new Spiderman movie, Wonderwoman, Dunkirk, etc. Plus, I dothink that the film industry is still making amazing movies and I love watching them in a theater.

Although, I think TV series are slowly losing popularity, I barely see people who say they watch TV these days. Almost everyone watches everything from their phones, that includes news and series.


I don’t think it’s specifically streaming channels that are the cause, the output quality of HBO and others since 2000 is the real cause. The reality is that technology vs budget vs quality has reached a point on TV where there is little reason to go to watch a movie, now even on streaming services (5 years ago there wasn’t really necessarily the budget or quality on there but recent stuff both in syndication and original programming is putting that to rest)

Technology is getting cheaper, specifically with regards to CGI, budgets are clearly increasing for the right programming, and a culmination of all this and more is pulling top quality actors from the B list (though also in some cases A list, and in many cases showcasing more acting talent that COULD be A list) to take part. All of this culminates in an experience that now means that at least 6 hours, if not 8, of quality show is available for a fraction of the price of a single movie ticket.

For more of a view on this, @Matthew wrote this and is pretty spot on

I can foresee that in the future independent cinema will more likely be found on streaming services, and that the cinema experience in general will be reserved for the kinds of experiences that only sitting in a movie theatre can provide. However I think cinemas will find it hard for this model of participation to be financially viable and without greater support from movie studios it’s entirely possible we could see the death of the movie theatre.

But this doesn’t mean Hollywood would be dead, it just means that they’d be accepting that their product would be going into a different environment for initial consumption for many (though not nearly for all, plenty of people only engage with a film at first when it comes to TV or via Blu-ray). This may mean lower budgets, or it could mean altogether different revenues for streaming/subscription services that allow for the funding of those ventures in a new way.

I think 3D is going to be the key at first, and then VR. 3D is a proposition that is largely unique as a benefit of going to the cinema (though some will argue it’s just a gimmick that adds nothing, and others have understandable accessibility and comfort concerns), but if VR was something that became cheaper then I could see films being more viable in the comfort of your own home taking in a greater view of the world the movie is taking place in. This kind of content simply wouldn’t be viable in a cinema environment. Personally I think 3D is well rooted now, and helping to turn movie theatres into a place you only really go for blockbuster cinema, and I’m dubious that VR would work well enough to make it past any initial mainstream forays.

Is it a good or bad thing? I don’t think it’s necessarily either. Or it’s both, I don’t know. I am thankful that great quality content is accessible in the home for cheaper, and content that is much more experimental and independent than you’ll find in a normal movie schedule. But the experience of cinema, taking for example Gravity, is something that is simply impossible to replicate on the “small screen” in many instances. I watched The Revenant in the theatre and it just completely swept me away in a manner that it simply wouldn’t do on my TV. I don’t want to see that disappear, but it’s down to how much other people care for that experience too, or for the “day out” socialising aspect.


I know that Netflix wants to have movies that are playing in theaters currently, where you buy to watch it from home. I think it was Netflix at least.


Eeyup, you are correct!


It’s been a point of contention for a while, film studios don’t want to piss off theatres yet so aren’t willing to stop the exclusivity that they give for cinema play. That’ll change.


It does seem like more and more original shows on streaming services are getting big name actors involved, which means they probably have less time for movie roles.


It’s interesting to hear actors talking positively about TV as a way of really getting into a role more, I guess for the “real” actors who are more theatrically trained it’s the ideal medium for them outside of being on stage.


Or actors that I like but don’t seem to be in many movies, like Winona Ryder. She nailed it in Stranger Things


I feel like her character could’ve been better written. She went from 0 to nuts WAY too fast. Once she hit max nuts she couldn’t really develop more.


But she lost her son and then got some strange encounters that hinted that her son may be alive. I think any parent who love their children would go nuts to protect their children, but it also depends on how a person deals with tragedy and she just decided to not give up.

To be honest, if something like that happens to me, I think my parents would have reacted the same way lol.

Edit: But I kinda agree, sometimes she could’ve just play it cool so people in the town and her other son would stop thinking that she’s crazy.


I understand the motivation and reason why, but from a script standpoint having your character develop that quickly ruined the emotional ride. It’s like if Darth Vader started in Episode 1. It just is better narrative to not just get to the ‘end product’ as fast as possible. Yes, it’s realistic, but for a film/tv series I think it’s a no no. There are a lot of tv shows that would get ruined if one of their main characters simply turned into the end product before the appropriate arc.

I liked her being crazy, but after 80% of the season with her being the same she didn’t seem to shine as much imo. Heck, I’d even be fine with her going from 0 to nuts, then back down after something happened only to have her go nuts again even more. But going to 11 at the start I feel means you lose out on a cool arc.


Yeah, I can understand that. I also thought that she should’ve calmed down at times, it would’ve helped her in certain situations.


Getting really bored of Netflix to be honest. I originally got the service to watch movies. Shows were just a plus. The U.S. selection on netflix is terrible right now. I feel like I’m wading through a sea of netflix shows I don’t care about,(and the ones I do) terrible b movies that aren’t even bad-good, and a classic here or there that I’ve already seen. Contracts for movies are expiring constantly, now with all the other streaming services, competition is stiff. Foreign selection is awful, and worthwhile foreign films usually have short contracts because they don’t make a lot of money. Criterion collection films have been monopolized by Hulu. You have to have more than one service if you want to get the variety old Netflix had. It feels exactly like paying for different packages on cable, when you maybe just want to watch one show.

Ultimately, I feel in a few years time, these services will further replace TV networks but start functioning in essentially the same way. Shows will start releasing episodically(I think some already have), you will start having to pay for PREMIUM packages, and prices will rise.

I’m cynical about it.


Personally, I feel like streaming sources don’t effect Hollywood too much, but they do effect live T.V.

I’ve been living in my current apartment for two years now with my wife, and we’ve never paid for cable or dish. Yet between Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Video we can watch just about any show or movie that we want to. Sure we don’t see the “live” airings of shows, but waiting a day really is no big deal when you have such a busy life you’d DVR it anyway.

In addition streaming exclusives are just getting better. Handmaid’s Tale, 13 Reasons Why, Stranger Things, are all great examples of quality shows being able to exist on a streaming service without a major T.V. platform.

Also Red vs. Blue is on Netflix. Even more points for them.


Exactly, great shows. I also enjoy The man in the High Castle on Amazon Video and my wife was happy that Netflix got Bates Motel -> @Hillbilly_Deathlord, you might like that show, it’s a prologue of the movie Psycho (or at least based on it) in a series with a somewhat modern setting. It was surprisingly well done.