[sphinx]

He’s right about streaming services. The product is thoroughly diluted to the point where most of the content is unwatchable. I’ve been noting Apple TV’s rollouts and even the trailers are bad. There’s just nothing there. On the other hand, it’s a banner market for actors, but they will have to get used to less pay with fewer viewers and more material vying for everyone’s attention. I don’t see a future for new marquee-level names once the current group retires and dies out.

You nailed it. TV has always been oriented towards quantity over quality, with lowest common denominator shows for loosely attached, casual audiences who can channel surf constantly. And now, with streaming, viewers don't even need to sit through the entire show; they can stop and come back a week later, maybe, to pick it back up. The movie business was traditionally run by people who, for all their many faults, were passionate about movies and who wanted to produce classic films. The streamers are run by beancounters who are selling subscriptions and producing or buying content to fill a 24/7/365 demand for something, anything new. A reality show is as good as a classic movie if it attracts eyeballs, and it takes less money and vastly less talent to produce. The suits don't care much about quality; they care about subscriptions.

It is true that a lot of movies were always junk, but still: in theatrical films the product is marketed as an EVENT. Going to the theater, paying for a ticket, and sitting in a darkened room with other people required audience buy in and commitment. Viewers are compelled to pay attention in a way that simply isn't relevant in tv. In the hands of gifted producers, directors and writers, this created an opportunity to at least attempt to elevate "mere entertainment" to a high art. The best people in film have always aspired to do this. On occasion, they succeed. The dominance of the streamers threatens to create a commercial environment in which that simply isn't much valued.

I suppose there will always be auteurs who continue to view film the way talented playwrights view stage plays and serious writers view the highbrow corners of their craft. But I'm afraid that these unique and talented voices will be reduced to niche distribution systems. They won't be well funded. Interesting projects will continue to draw talented actors, who with today's technologies only need to be on set for very limited periods; good actors will often enjoy doing something of quality and intellectual interest in their downtime between shooting endless, generic television content. They'll make their money from dreary Netflix garbage; they'll take pride in their indie films. So there's that.

The other problem with the dominance of the streamers is that both production and distribution are being concentrated in very few hands. We've complained for years about the news industry, where CBSNBCABCMSNBCNYTWaPo has become the Borg. In film, NeflixABCDisneyComcastSony is becoming the same thing -- literally, as it's largely the same global conglomerates that control both "news" and entertainment. Most of the traditional movie studios are now just operating units of the big conglomerates, and they're being homogenized by the corporate overlords. It's a political monoculture solidly embedded in the toxic left. It will push these values downward even to independent projects that the streamers might support and buy. The Borg will become a censor and a gatekeeper. Truly independent voices will still exist, but they will have a hard time being heard.

[sphinx]

P.S. I don't know how best to fight back, but for starters we should vote with our feet when we get the chance. It's guerilla warfare, yes, but we must fight with what we have, and if it's just pinpricks for now, at least that's a start. I won't walk through the whole story again now, but I experienced a bit of a revelation a few years ago when -- having mostly given up on Hollywood a long time ago -- I tripped quite accidentally over a hidden gem. Some astonishingly good movies are still being made, but they aren't what the industry tends to push. The streamers in particular are oriented towards the lowest common denominator mass audience, and a lot of what they push is trash. The good stuff often hides in plain sight. In my case, I started on some political website, followed a couple of links, and tripped over an article that mentioned in passing the effective use of Columbus, Indiana's modernist architecture in a movie. As a Hoosier expat who knew the Columbus backstory and who had taken the tour years ago, I was intrigued. I watched it out of curiosity and -- well, if you haven't seen Columbus, watch it now.

So: after years of tuning out Hollywood -- once my kids got old enough that I didn't have to take them to the hot children's movies -- I asked myself, "How is it that movies this good are still being made, and I never hear about them?" I have started reading reviews and paying attention to favorable mentions by conservative writers that I follow. I spend some time with critics' "most underrated" and "most overlooked" lists. They ain't gospel, but they're full of good hints; a lot of serious movie people are as fed up as most of us are with comic book superheroes in spandex tights and the valorization of mentally fragile basket cases behaving badly. There's good stuff out there; you just have to track it down. One of my new resolutions, now that theaters are reopening, is to make a point to see movies in which I've taken an interest in the theater. I can always watch a film again later on a streaming platform, but if we want good theatrical movies to be made, we need to ante up and go watch them when they're in the theaters. If we don't, soon there will be no more theaters, and the streamers will have unchallenged distribution dominance.