Ex-technologist, now a filmmaker and mostly a visual artist.
Quality is the way to go, not quantity. This is what they should have done years ago already, now it might be already too late.
Instead, they opened up too much, greenlighting everything under the sun. This of course created a lot of jobs in the industry, and filmmakers were able to start a career with it, but in reality, this hurt Netflix.
In today's world, streaming services don't just compete with other streaming services. These are the least of their concern. Their greatest competition is TIME, against computer games and social media. If they want people to invest attention time to them, they need to provide quality films of the kind of things that the 18-29 demographic wants: sci-fi, horror, action/adventure, fantasy, mystery. And it has to be good. That's it.
And while many people like binging, and they will react negatively to this part of my comment, the reality is that they need to stop releasing episodes all at once. It has been killing their marketing and watercooler effect. They need to catch zeitgeist. Without it, you can't make it in this business. Which is why mid-range rom-coms or dramas aren't really made anymore. There isn't much of zeitgeist you can capture with these.
I would not agree with you. I found the camera work fantastic and not distracting at all.
Thank you for this article, it was something that had to be said.
It's my opinion too that the first Twilight film is a masterpiece. It has been downvoted heavily on IMDb, unfairly. It's literally one of the best films I've ever seen: the cinematography, the pacing, the mystery and rollercoaster of emotions etc. Catherine Hardwicke has done a miracle with the film, and let's not forget that both the editor and the script-writer were also women, which probably led to the film capturing the female imagination and idealism of romantic love.
The same can't be said about the subsequent films, mostly put together by men who turned it mostly into the action films that they weren't. They were ridiculous and over the top, the magic was completely lost. I personally never rewatch the subsequent films, I pretend they don't exist. But the first Twilight, I rewatch it 2-3 times a year.
For me, cinematic means whatever looks like a blockbuster movie: wide shots, usually anamorphic but not always, great kodak film color AND texture/acutance (which usually means extra softness with grain). Also, a respectable amount of shallow depth of field, but NOT an extreme amount (as it's usual these days on HBO dramas).
Unfortunately, on youtube, anyone using slow motion dubs their video "cinematic". It's not. It's just slo-mo.
Interestingly, the image on this article, from Tree of Life, is not very cinematic to me. In general, Malick's newest movies don't look cinematic to me. They're way too wide and without a shallow depth of field, and when he pans the camera with that ultra wide lens, he gives me a headache. Terminator 2, Indiana Jones, The Matrix feel truly cinematic to me instead.
Just like the other commentators here correctly said, no one will watch covid-related shows or films. People watch fiction to get away from reality, not to steep deeper in it.
I personally consider "canon" only the first Matrix. The rest 3 movies were just the studio wanting to make more money off of it. It was not part of the original thought of the creators and that's why they came out of garbled and not clear in terms of what they were saying. The only problem of the first Matrix was that the directors wanted the humans to be a kind of collective consciousness for the machines, rather than just batteries for energy. But the studio found that the concept was too advanced, so they changed it to batteries.