Hacker News Reader

Comment by abigail95 | Hacker News Reader

I look forward to paying for value myself, instead of taking it from future subscribers.

The more money the streaming companies charge, the more they can spend on bigger productions.

Imagine the level of content you could produce if every subscriber paid $50?

Bigger budget doesn'talways mean better films. Most of my favourite films were made for less than $10 million, but that's just my taste I suppose.

Edit: changed 1 million to 10 million after I actually googled their budgets.

>Imagine the level of content you could produce if every subscriber paid $50?

Rings of Power and Wheel of Time is the level of content you can produce if you have unlimited budgets.

Oof! I actually like Rings of Power—but whatever they spend their budget on, it's not clear in the final product.

We know what it would look like.

It would look like Netflix of the past. Some IP was pulled because the owner didn't want it on Netflix at any price. Most was pulled because Netflix couldn't afford the rates, which they could if they had 10x revenue.

I think Hollywood's decades long risk aversion and reliance on their 'formula' for success (big budget bling and actor's with audience draw) has skewed focus away from investing in creative writers/story tellors with vision. IMHO creative writers worth their salt don't tend to chase fame or their name in lights. Big budget mentality has lost sight of this and the reason most modern shows lack compelling story telling.

why do you want bigger productions? especially now where we have the new lord of the rings, the MCU, the DCU and a new avatar that will most likely be forgotten just as quickly as the previous one to show for bigger budget productions.

There comes a point where having more money adds nothing, and in a lot of genres that point is quite low. I'd imagine CGI/SFX/animation is the biggest scaling cost, very few genres use it that much to justify it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com