by skeeter2020 15 hours ago

Netflix has always had one or three stand-out projects over a year, but is that what we want from studios? It is like the tech model: 1 big success for 10+ duds (the VC show) or another superhero installment (the Google/Meta cash cow movie).

sbarre 15 hours ago | [-3 more]

You're describing TV and movies since forever.

Ever year there are a few good shows and movies and a lot of mid-to-bad shows and movies.

This is not a Netflix thing, nor is it new.

HDThoreaun 10 hours ago | [-2 more]

Just not true with HBO. Most of their content is consistently pretty good

triceratops 5 hours ago | [-1 more]

HBO is expensive and most people don't have it. Ergo most people never see or hear about their lower quality content. Only the good stuff that their rich friends rave about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HBO_original_programmi...

I don't recognize half the titles on that page.

They also make less content overall. This makes sense because they are one TV channel and assume you can get your reality TV fix somewhere else.

Netflix wants to be the only thing you watch. So they have to serve all needs.

HDThoreaun 5 hours ago | [-0 more]

You not recognizing their shows doesnt mean they are bad. Ive seen most of those and the overwhelming majority are at least solid. I understand netflix's business model, Im just annoyed that theyre buying HBO because they will likely make it worse. Maybe netflix wants more prestige content and will let HBO be HBO but I doubt it.

jimbokun 13 hours ago | [-0 more]

By the definition of "stand out" you can't have very many right?

If all of them "stand out" then none of them do.

nebula8804 15 hours ago | [-5 more]

If WB was any good, would they have been snatched up by Netflix?

All these studios fought the good fight against big tech over many years but the writing was on the wall.

Hopefully a future Progressive presidency reviews all these mergers and breaks up big tech big time.

Arkhaine_kupo 13 hours ago | [-1 more]

> If WB was any good, would they have been snatched up by Netflix?

Yes because the situation of WB has nothing to do with their performance.

In 1990s they merged with TIME publishing right before the internet killed all magazines. In 2000s with AOL right before th dot com bubble. In 2010s with AT&T who realised they needed a shit ton of money to roll out 5G so they took a massive loan and charged it to Warner debt.

So WARNER keeps performing and the business side keeps adding debt from horrible decisions

kovezd 11 hours ago | [-0 more]

Lol so this means Netflix/streaming is the next trend going down?

Mindwipe 14 hours ago | [-2 more]

Honestly Warner would have been fine if they hadn't been saddled with the debt that AT&T used to buy them. It wasn't an issue of Warner's business performance.

truelson 13 hours ago | [-0 more]

AT&T was able offload a bunch of debt on to them, and cash out at about what they paid in 2016. Not shabby.

cap11235 13 hours ago | [-0 more]

At this point why would you consider WB as an entity at all. Thry were just another IP bundle