←back to thread

Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

(about.netflix.com)
1741 points meetpateltech | 4 comments | 05 Dec 25 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.567s | source
Show context
phartenfeller ◴[05 Dec 25 12:50 UTC] No.46160586[source]▶
I don't like this. Netflix rarely creates excellent content; instead, it frequently produces mediocre or worse content. Will the same happen for Warner? Are cinemas now second behind streaming?

Edit: I agree Netflix has good Originals. But most are from the early days when they favored quality over quantity. It is sad to see that they reversed that. They have much funding power and should give it to great art that really sticks, has ambitions and something to tell, and values my time instead of mediocrity.

replies(25): >>46160635 #>>46160784 #>>46160871 #>>46160906 #>>46160908 #>>46160976 #>>46161181 #>>46161209 #>>46161250 #>>46161377 #>>46161427 #>>46162473 #>>46162523 #>>46163337 #>>46163476 #>>46163711 #>>46163898 #>>46163935 #>>46164335 #>>46165595 #>>46166712 #>>46166867 #>>46167745 #>>46174490 #>>46175508 #
dclowd9901 ◴[05 Dec 25 13:45 UTC] No.46161181[source]▶
They're starting to up their quality. Frankenstein and Death by Lightning were two standout successes recently.

That said, I'm more uncomfortable with the continued consolidation of media ownership and more outsize influence of FAANG tech over media.

replies(5): >>46161329 #>>46161621 #>>46161699 #>>46162385 #>>46162552 #
josefresco ◴[05 Dec 25 15:16 UTC] No.46162385[source]▶
> Frankenstein and Death by Lightning were two standout successes recently.

IMHO Frankenstein" was pretty terrible. The makeup was awful, the effects were cheap, the monster... wasn't a monster! The entire premise depends on him being a monster, not some sort of misunderstood, sympathetic EMO.

replies(7): >>46162462 #>>46162986 #>>46163403 #>>46163439 #>>46163578 #>>46164681 #>>46167686 #
enragedcacti ◴[05 Dec 25 15:56 UTC] No.46162986[source]▶
> The entire premise depends on him being a monster, not some sort of misunderstood, sympathetic EMO.

This is a misconception on a similar level to thinking the monster's name is Frankenstein: "As depicted by Shelley, the creature is a sensitive, emotional person whose only aim is to share his life with another sentient being like himself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein%27s_monster#Perso...

replies(2): >>46163908 #>>46164854 #
1. josefresco ◴[05 Dec 25 16:55 UTC] No.46163908[source]▶
Thanks for stating the obvious and I assure you I know the story well. In order for the entire premise to work, there needs to be this conflict or tension between the perception of the "monster" and the true reality of his humanity. This movie failed at effectively portraying this conflict by humanizing the monster too much. Just my 2 cents.
replies(3): >>46164617 #>>46165856 #>>46177174 #
2. HelloMcFly ◴[05 Dec 25 17:45 UTC] No.46164617[source]▶
Completely agree. The movie ruined Dr. Frankenstein's motives by adding his benefactor, and ruined his monster by removing the inner rage he felt and expressed towards the world the shunned him. A very, very odd decision by GDT. Similar to Spike Lee remaking High & Low, but removing the critique of capitalism and the complicity of the wealthy so he could make Denzel the true protagonist.
3. enragedcacti ◴[05 Dec 25 19:10 UTC] No.46165856[source]▶
Ah, I understand what you mean. I don't think the viewer necessarily needs to experience the dissonance personally for the premise to work. That said, I agree that it could have afforded being less black and white, it at times felt like a children's movie with how plainly the message is communicated.
4. johnnyanmac ◴[06 Dec 25 22:31 UTC] No.46177174[source]▶
>there needs to be this conflict or tension between the perception of the "monster" and the true reality of his humanity

I think a proper subversion would be to remove that tension and see the peppes reaction anyway. That shows the true reality of humanity once you're on the "other side" after decades of older generations thinking otherwise.