Are Netflix and the Like Dying?

[frozenchurchwarden]

With the cost of subscriptions now and considering the quality delivered (both image quality and writing quality), I am quite satisfied to continue building my collection of classic movies on 4K Bluray (last week I snagged the Harry Potter 8 film collection for $80).

I will sign up for one month here or there if a high priority show pops up, which to this point just means The Witcher and The Mandalorian.

 

[mawnansmiff]

If tumbling subscriptions to streaming services wasn't enough....if this story has any credence to it we'll all soon be watching 'robots' on our super snazzy megga pixel TVs....

Actors launch campaign against AI 'show stealers' - BBC News

...I suppose if this is indeed true, then films should be cheaper to make.....no expensive actors to pay, just a load of computer nerds huddled together in some garage in downtown Hollywood

Regards,

Jay.

 

[sablebrush52]

If tumbling subscriptions to streaming services wasn't enough....if this story has any credence to it we'll all soon be watching 'robots' on our super snazzy megga pixel TVs....

Actors launch campaign against AI 'show stealers' - BBC News

...I suppose if this is indeed true, then films should be cheaper to make.....no expensive actors to pay, just a load of computer nerds huddled together in some garage in downtown Hollywood

Regards,

Jay.

Studio execs have been pushing for this to happen for decades, it's only in the past couple of years that AI technology has advanced to the point that extremely convincing Deep Fakes are becoming widespread.

Check out the episode of The Book of Boba Fett on Disney+ that features a 20 something year old Mark Hamill playing Luke Skywalker. It takes a lot of operator skill to make the tech work at this level, but that also equates to a possibly tectonic shift regarding who's skills are really relevant.

I went through something like this with the technological shift from optical/mechanical/chemical technology to optical/digital technology in the '90's. I made the leap. Others didn't and lost their careers.

But keep this in mind. While the technology now exists to convincingly Deep Fake images of each and every one of you, it's another thing to fake performances, and the tech isn't there to do that. The Hamill/Skywalker deep fake happened because the guy who created it, independently of Disney BTW, did such a convincing job of animation that the studio hired him.

We have the means to capture performance and eventually that wall will come down as well, and we'll have even more celebrity simulacrums than we have currently.

 

[brian64]

If tumbling subscriptions to streaming services wasn't enough....if this story has any credence to it we'll all soon be watching 'robots' on our super snazzy megga pixel TVs....

Actors launch campaign against AI 'show stealers' - BBC News

...I suppose if this is indeed true, then films should be cheaper to make.....no expensive actors to pay, just a load of computer nerds huddled together in some garage in downtown Hollywood

Regards,

Jay.

A good movie dealing with this subject is The Congress (for @jpmcwjr I'd give it 4/5):

 

[TheIronMonkey]

Studio execs have been pushing for this to happen for decades, it's only in the past couple of years that AI technology has advanced to the point that extremely convincing Deep Fakes are becoming widespread.

Check out the episode of The Book of Boba Fett on Disney+ that features a 20 something year old Mark Hamill playing Luke Skywalker. It takes a lot of operator skill to make the tech work at this level, but that also equates to a possibly tectonic shift regarding who's skills are really relevant.

I went through something like this with the technological shift from optical/mechanical/chemical technology to optical/digital technology in the '90's. I made the leap. Others didn't and lost their careers.

But keep this in mind. While the technology now exists to convincingly Deep Fake images of each and every one of you, it's another thing to fake performances, and the tech isn't there to do that. The Hamill/Skywalker deep fake happened because the guy who created it, independently of Disney BTW, did such a convincing job of animation that the studio hired him.

We have the means to capture performance and eventually that wall will come down as well, and we'll have even more celebrity simulacrums than we have currently.

It's only a matter of time and licensing before there are new John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart movies, and for those who can afford it, custom POV celebrity porn (hopefully not with John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart, but, different strokes for different folks).

 

[brian64]

It's only a matter of time and licensing before there are new John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart movies

I doubt it would be done with actors of that era unless they do it soon, because the audience for that is dying off.

I wouldn't watch it anyway purely on principle regardless of whether it was any good...which I wouldn't expect it to be. I can see it now..."woke" versions of John Wayne and Bogart...the horror.

 

[TheIronMonkey]

I doubt it would be done with actors of that era unless they do it soon, because the audience for that is dying off.

I wouldn't watch it anyway purely on principle regardless of whether it was any good...which I wouldn't expect it to be. I can see it now..."woke" versions of John Wayne and Bogart...the horror.

You're probably right. However, I could imagine reworkings of films cast with actors who were supposed to be in them, but, the deal fell through. There are tons of "what if" Hollywood casts in the film history books that could be fascinating. If done with restraint and tastefulness, some alternate gems could be created. I didn't mind George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but, Sean Connery opposite Diana Rigg could've been so much more.

 

[The Clay King]

I just don't watch T.V as its all so depressing. With so many remakes of older movies that have become now vehicles for inclusion propaganda I just don't bother. I might watch Operation Mince Meat which is a remake of the 1950s movie The Man Who Never Was but that is more out of curiosity.

@condorlover1 I haven't got a TV set!

 

[bobomatic]

Been with Netflix for over 10 years. I cancelled my subscription today. Had enough.

 

[sablebrush52]

Netflix has bounced back, big time and is once again the 800 pound gorilla in the room. In the meantime, the streaming wars are underway and we'll be seeing consolidation over the next couple of years. I'll be dropping a few services as I don't use them often enough to justify the expense.
This is the first year that I've had to pay for Netflilx and was going to cancel, but they made me an offer that was acceptable. I'm going to ditch Prime this fall.

 

[jpmcwjr]

I, too, am sticking with Netflix; Prime; Britbox; PBS Passport; ESPN+; Peacock; and Paramount+.
The latter three for sports I love, and Prime stays as between my son and I, a lot gets ordered and the free delivery is key.

 

[kcghost]

I personally dislike the extreme violence we are subjected to all the time. I prefer an old fashion mystery where the violence is usually off screen and we have to match the main character solve the mystery.

 

[AroEnglish]

I’m not sure if they’re doing I’ve only got a subscription for Hulu because it was a Black Friday deal for $0.99/mo for 12 months. It’ll get canceled once that promo ends.

 

[Lumbridge]

I'm in my early 30s and hardly ever watch TV or movies. I don't have cable or any streaming services. My TV is pretty much exclusively used with game consoles - every now and then I watch a Blu Ray on the PS5, usually old favorites like The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I know a lot of people around my age that have similar habits. Anecdotal, but it seems to me like there's a general trend that younger people aren't really watching this crap... and a lot of it is CRAP. That would certainly make a noticeable dent in profits. I know it saves me a fair bit of money and time.

 

[mawnansmiff]

Perhaps I'm an outlier here as I subscribe to no TV services and never have.

I watch TV only from 6pm to midnight and in those 6 hours I cram in several news bulletins and watch anything I might have recorded previously, mostly documentaries with the occasional drama thrown in and that's plenty of viewing options for me.

Just for a change I might watch a DVD (remember those?) but mostly it's recorded stuff for me.

If i ever did subscribe to say Netflix then I'd feel compelled to watch what they have to offer solely to justify my outlay which to me would mean watching a load of tripe (I have seen what they have to offer and very little of it appeals to me) so I steer well clear.

Jay.

 

[Sigmund]

Yes, the decline was due to a huge covid boost. Once some folks could get out again they stopped the service. Pretty common for a lot of businesses in 22.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Well, perhaps I am a true "vidiot", but I recall in the 70's and 80's one was considered a Neanderthal if one admitted he ever watched TV.

But in 2024, there is more excellence in TV than ever before. Also true: There is more tripe, trash and garbage than ever before.

So I watch a lot. Being a fan of the Premier league alone makes my weekly consumption of TV a big number.

 

[sablebrush52]

When I was young, TV content was much more limited in scope, with the meager budgets very much in evidence on the little screen. The kinds of limited series, like Shogun, weren't even a thought bubble. TV was the Ghetto. Also, being young, I had a lot of other interests and activities, so TV mostly didn't exist for me.
Today it is the opposite in terms of TV content. There's much more quality going into streaming programming than the big screen and a lot of variety. I don't spend days watching TV, though I sometimes have it on in the background while I'm working, kind of like radio. At this point in time there's no cachet in avoiding the little screen. It's no longer the 1980's.

All that said, Sturgeon's Law applies as it does to everything:

Sturgeon's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mawnansmiff]

When I was young, TV content was much more limited in scope

When you were a youngster TV was steam powered no?

Seriously, we over here had a mere 2 channels to chose from which eventually became 3 and not that long ago we had 4.

Now my TV registers something like 230 channels......and 99.9% of those are absolute drivel with much repeated drivel week after week.

Only having the 4 channels suited me just fine.

Jay.

 

[sablebrush52]

If tumbling subscriptions to streaming services wasn't enough....if this story has any credence to it we'll all soon be watching 'robots' on our super snazzy megga pixel TVs....

Actors launch campaign against AI 'show stealers' - BBC News

...I suppose if this is indeed true, then films should be cheaper to make.....no expensive actors to pay, just a load of computer nerds huddled together in some garage in downtown Hollywood

Regards,

Jay.

Eventually that may essentially be correct, though like the majority of Hollywood predictions it enthusiastically belongs in Sturgeon's 90%.

When you were a youngster TV was steam powered no?

Yes, that so. But still easier to watch than the shuffled cuneiform clay tablets in use where you grew up.