"Hollywood" has never, ever taken more risks than they are taking today.

Netflix alone spent $12 billion on new content in 2018. They expect to spend $15 billion in 2019, and expect this to hit almost $18 billion in 2020.[1] There is more new, original content being produced than anyone could ever expect to watch in one lifetime. Compare this to a few decades ago when you had 3 or 4 networks on TV each making a dozen or so shows each year, and a handful of studios producing movies (many of them remakes from the 30s, 40s, and 50s).

Everyone seems to view "Hollywood" with rose colored glasses. The medium through which people consume entertainment certainly seems like it is starting to change, but that doesn't mean "Hollywood" is dead or dying. The exact opposite is happening.

[1] https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spendi...

Netflix isn't "Hollywood"; that should be pretty obvious from the context of this discussion. Netflix got into the made-for-Netflix movie production business because the traditional studios were pulling their content from Netflix. "Hollywood" is the studios producing movies that go to the big-screen theaters. We aren't talking about indie stuff here, movies only shown at art-house theaters, movies only shown on Netflix or Amazon Prime, etc.

Netflix is quite literally Hollywood...it has the only studios physically located in Hollywood, releases movies on the big screen, and adheres to all of the guild/union rules with respect to film productions.

It's had its share of horrible remakes, blockbuster crap, and arthouse films.

No studio releases all of its movies to theaters; most studio catalogs have more VOD releases (formerly "direct-to-video") than studio releases. The VOD releases are frequently more profitable on an average basis so long as budgets are strictly adhered to.

My understanding of the business is limited. I did hear Patrick Whiteside speak at a dinner though last year, and from his description, it seemed like most of these shows are packaged up and sold by the studios of even the agency itself. So say the agency represents a good writer who has a new script and Reese Witherspoon suits the lead role, is also represented by the agency, and wants the work. The agency essentially will go pitch the script and likely cast to Netflix, Hulu, etc. so often Netflix isn’t the one actually the entire conception and implementation of the show. They are just the ones buying the rights to own it and distribute it.

The OP article clearly counts Netflix as part of Hollywood, just like Disney.

What are we defining as "Hollywood" here? Is Netflix really considered the same thing as the studios that produce the blockbusters?

Your statement begs the question. The OP said "Hollywood" doesn't produce as much original content as it did decades ago. When I point out that there is more original content being created today than ever (probably on the order of several magnitudes) simply because it's cheaper than ever to produce original content, the only thing you mention is "blockbusters". Clearly, the production of blockbusters has nothing to do with the amount of original content being created. Why differentiate Netflix from the rest of "Hollywood"? (Remember, Netflix won an Oscar last year.) For that matter, why overlook the dozens of smaller or independent shops that are producing original content in staggering amounts, regardless of how that content is being distributed?

But, if you want to talk about more traditional blockbusters, Netflix makes plenty of those (arguably more than many traditional studios).

They share the same offices and employees move back and forth between them, so yeah, I'd say they're the same.

Is Netflix taking risks though? If you look closely most of their content seem to be written by bots trying to maximize revenue. They are taking everything people love and then writing stuff around it. Sure, there are originals here and there but look closely there is lot of rehashed stuff as well.

Those are TV series for the most part. What's their movie budget?

Oh, please. With all the questions for Hollywood, it's worst creations are still much better than any TV-serie ever made.

When they produce a movie, they want to sell it to auditory, to lure us into theaters and make to pay for tickets. They are attaching stars and buying stories and making trailers and posters.

The only purpose of TV-serie is to work out a Pavlov dog reflex: they want us to be before a TV every week at the same time. So they are making cliffhangers and misterious faces, and are filling all the emptyness with action scenes and dialogs.

NB: I am aware that some of Netflix production are not series but feature movies.

> The only purpose of TV-serie is to work out a Pavlov dog reflex: they want us to be before a TV every week at the same time. So they are making cliffhangers and misterious faces, and are filling all the emptyness with action scenes and dialogs.

The studio system already assimilated this criticism and Netflix just dumps entire TV shows in one go. It's more like a 10 hour feature, split into easily digestible chunks.

Plus, TiVo et al already killed this "want us to be before a TV every week at the same time". There is a new episode every week at the same time, but I'll see it when I get the chance, I'm not peeing into bottles to watch the opening of The Fugitive.

The fact that some people recently changed their way of ingesting TV-series content does not cancel another fact, that hefty part of TV-series production industry is still working according to old principles. Intra-series cliffhangers are slightly giving way to intra-seasonal ones, but the idea is still the same: to get user's attention, not to sell the product.

There is a reciprocial movement in Hollywood with it's endless stream of sequels, which are closer in quality to TV rubble. There must be a junction point somewhere in a near future, I'm looking for it with amusement.

NB: I'm glad for those downvotes. It means I am close to truth, people used to hate uncomfortable truth.

That's not even wrong; lots of TV series don't have continuity, so they can't have cliffhangers and other tricks like that.

Just to be clear, out of the gross $920 million, Disney get ~50%, and the production budget of $180 million does not include advertising/promotion which is reportedly in the range of $50-100 million for big releases such as this.

That said it's still making good money and will make even more after the box office run.

> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks.

It's harder to get people to go to the theater due to a bunch of factors like improved TV tech and increased competition for time, but "hollywood" is also capitalizing on those things. Look at how many original series are on Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc, and compare that to what we had 30 years ago between theaters and TV.

Not according to the numbers.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=ytdcompare

That doesn't take inflation into account though. You'd expect it to go up 3-4% in $ terms even if sales were the same. That the number is actually flat over the last 4 years does mean sales are down a bit.

The $6.05B 2016 figure would be about $6.45B in 2019 dollars.

Box office trends have been shifting over the last decade or so... the big blockbusters (superhero movies especially) are bigger and bigger, but the mid-budget stuff that was a mainstay of the 90s and early 2000s (think stuff like Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler movies) is getting squeezed pretty hard.

To give one look at the distribution.... last year the 100th best performing movie did ($21.7M / $700M) = 3.1% of the #1 movie.

In 2010, ($26.5M / $415M) = 6.38%

In 2000, ($18.7M / 260M) = 7.19%

> I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago

This probably depends on your definition of original. Franchises dominates today, but lots of older movies are based on books or plays or are remakes of even older movies.

> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks.

Casablanca was a remake of another Casablanca 10 years before, but I believe this previous Casablanca is now lost.

> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now.

This is false.

Sequels and book adaptions have dominated the top 10 every year for decades and decades.

Right. Movies don’t come out of thin air. They all need inspiration whether a book, a story, news item, etc. Its not writers making movie scripts ala SNL sketches.

I'd say all art needs inspiration, but there are certainly plenty of screenplays (just like theater plays) that don't come from a single item. As a random example, Woody Allen came up with the title "Midnight in Paris", then wrote the whole screenplay from the title.

I complained to Trekkie friend that nothing since Star Trek TOS has Star Trek been any good. He asked what evidence I had.

I said the lack of quotable lines. I know a long list of TOS quotable lines, and exactly one from after ("KKKAAAAAAHHHHHNNNNNN!"). No quotable lines means the writing is crummy and the shows are not memorable.

The same for Star Wars. Who quotes any lines from other than the first one? I stopped watching the SW new movies, too. Zzzzzz....