[skeeter2020]

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]

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]

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

[triceratops]

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]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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

[johnnyanmac]

Given the state of streaming and revenue... Well, shit. Can they not take down my childhood with it please?

[johnnyanmac]

Yea WB went downhill... Because the merger had the new CEO slash with reckless abandon. His only goal was to get the company nice and pretty to sell, not to turn it around with quality content.

And he succeeded.

>The writing is on the wall

That everyone will blow themselves up to get a big acquisition paycheck as these companies crash a century of collective culture? I guess so.

[Mindwipe]

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]

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

[johnnyanmac]

Its always Art that gets the shaft first when businesses implode. Shows the respect these people have for culture.

[cap11235]

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