Because it provides the single most important factor of leverage for artists and unions to find some stake in their own success.
-
Show this thread
-
But in a world where everything is turning to streaming and subscription models, the company cash flow now has nothing to do with your given success, so they paint you one way or the other to help their $$$ side.
2 replies 5 retweets 125 likesShow this thread -
I understand some of what I'm saying is generalization and there's a lot of little finicky points in this. There are people are genuine damn experts in all of it (and fighting accordingly). But this is absolutely the broad strokes of what is happening.
1 reply 2 retweets 121 likesShow this thread -
What's hilarious is the studios would have LOVED to have this years ago because it meant they wouldn't have to have shared backend, etc. But now we're undoing basically everything those artists and unions fought for.
4 replies 4 retweets 137 likesShow this thread -
"But but but please tell me it's good for consumers?" Sorry, it just means your favorite shows are going to get cancelled more and for less good reasons. Also movies don't make economic sense for streamers soooooooo not looking great on that front either.
3 replies 20 retweets 217 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
I recently read that streaming services (maybe just Netflix?) don't want a show to go for more than 2 seasons, because anything after that doesn't help bring in new subscribers. So there's that, possibly, as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @SweetCammyMac
The thing that drives me nuts is that's not true. They just haven't made GREAT shows. Look at breaking bad and HBO efforts were ratings went up up up and helped the brand. They're making crap and are like "huh! guess no one wants long shows" and its like YOU FOOLS
3 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK @SweetCammyMac
Feels a little harsh to be like "they're making crap" when many shows are quite good. (They're not Breaking Bad, but what is?) Also, seems unfair to compare animation to costlier, live-action series. The entire run of Bojack probably cost what 1 season of Umbrella Academy does.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoshuaMPatton @SweetCammyMac
So many other companies have much much much better batting averages, which is fine, but my argument is with their approach. Also animation is incredibly expensive.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK @SweetCammyMac
Look, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially inre: a ratings system for streaming. But 'Netflix shows are crap' and the idea that their animation costs are equivalent to their live-action costs....gives me pause. But not looking to go rounds.pic.twitter.com/NEDBdlU8zQ
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
1. Huh? I literally never said they are crap. They've literally made some of my fave shows. 2. Uhhhh, have you ever worked in television? Animation usually has a base-line cost of a million an episode, usually more. Because of the process. When it comes to live action...
-
-
some big budget stuff obviously swells north of that, but a lot is much cheaper.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
Yeah, definitely not gonna get into a credentials-measuring contest here. But you said they're making crap. It's a quote.pic.twitter.com/KzyTlUXqYc
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.