[TheOtherHobbes]

>It was great for the writer that got published, but not so great for countless others who couldn't get a break and couldn't get into the vaunted 'club' of gatekeeping published writers.

It was also great for readers, because there was a realistic expectation that if something was in print it was at worst competent and at best outstanding. Not so much now.

>Democratization of culture and media means that it will be much harder for most (except for the tiny few) from making any sort of living from it.

Democratization of culture means that culture becomes confused with entertainment. They're actually not identical.

IG, YT, and the rest are now purely about marketing strategies. The content - which used to have to speak for itself - is now secondary to bikini ass shots and other eyeball acquisition systems.

There is something rather weird and culty about this. It's almost as if everyone who produces content is being forced to participate in a competitive reality TV show where they Market Their Brand Really Hard™ - and the content is increasingly irrelevant.

>Every single series that Netflix invests means they have to pass on countless others.

Then they need to start monitoring their pilots more effectively, and also spend a little more on up-front development so that the shows that make it out of the slush pile have some prospect of getting to the end of a natural arc.

This is the paradox that most people don't seem to understand. NF claims to be data driven, and supposedly it's economically pragmatic to cut off shows early.

It isn't at all. It's actually unbelievably inefficient, economically and also in terms of customer loyalty.

The efficient solution is to produce consistently great content. This pays off over the long-haul - because a successful series can keep generating significant income for decades.

[ghaff]

>Then they need to start monitoring their pilots more effectively, and also spend a little more on up-front development so that the shows that make it out of the slush pile have some prospect of getting to the end of a natural arc.

It's an interesting thought. Maybe if you had 3-episode arcs as a pilot and more development time, you'd have a better idea which ones have legs for a few seasons anyway. Though, as I wrote elsewhere, I don't want TV shows that go on for too long.

[macspoofing]

>Maybe if you had 3-episode arcs as a pilot and more development time

Sure ... but OP was complaining about shows being cancelled mid-narrative. How does releasing 3 episode pilots fix that? Most likely those will not be complete works, but rather end on some sort cliff-hanger, to entice viewership to stay with the show.

>Though, as I wrote elsewhere, I don't want TV shows that go on for too long.

I agree with you. I found 3 to 5 seasons seems to be the sweet spot for most shows. Once it goes past 5 seasons for many shows, the quality seems to degrade, the writers run out of ideas and just do things to fill time. There is a remake of Anne of Green Gables (Anne with an E) - and holy geeze is that true for that one when it comes to time-filler. Whereas the original series was tight with great pacing, this new series invents and explores every pointless side-story. For example, in the original, there would be a reference to Matthew going somewhere, and in the remake, because the writers have so much time to fill, you'll get a deep dive into that trip, which ultimately has no impact on the larger narrative itself.

[ghaff]

I think what the parent was suggesting was that if more time were spent up-front to maximize the chance that the chance that a show that makes it on is good, you wouldn't be pulling the plug on as many shows. I'm not sure that would actually work though. I assume they already try to do that in development where it's a lot cheaper to experiment than in production.

I only half-jokingly say that I lose interest in most series after, at most, 5 seasons. And it can be a lot less than that. A series can coast through maybe a season or two in significant part on a fresh concept, original characters, a different style, etc. Sure, the writing needs to be good too but it's not the only thing to engage the viewer. It gets harder after that and so does finding fresh stories.

[macspoofing]

>IG, YT, and the rest are now purely about marketing strategies.

OBVIOUSLY! Because there are a million others vying for the same eyeballs. The question is, how do you stand out? If you were a YouTuber who wanted to make a living from YouTube content you create, how would you do it?

>Then they need to start monitoring their pilots more effectively, and also spend a little more on up-front development so that the shows that make it out of the slush pile have some prospect of getting to the end of a natural arc.

How do you know they aren't doing that? No matter how good your pre-production process is for finding good shows, ultimately, it's the eyeballs and box-office that decide it. There is no formula to differentiate a hit from a bomb. What complicates things is that season 1 of the show may have been a hit, but subsequent seasons are not. There's no magic here. At some point, you are going to be cutting something to make room for something else.

>NF claims to be data driven

I'm sure it is, but there is no formula that you can use to figure out what is going to be a hit and what will be a bomb and lose you money. If there was, you wouldn't see companies spending hundreds of millions on movies that end up bombing at the box-office.

>The efficient solution is to produce consistently great content.

This is like saying the 'efficient solution' to investing is to invest in companies that give a good return and not invest in companies that lose you money.

Pretty sure everyone wants to produce great content.

[musingsole]

I remember chatting for an insufferably long time with an individual who loudly proclaimed early in our first meeting "I prefer art to entertainment"

That person sucked, and I was thoroughly surprised by the oxygen content of their own anus.