Ex-technologist, now a filmmaker and mostly a visual artist.
Netflix has 200mil subscribers overall, and about half of them are in the US. So it's normal that it fills up the list easier. On top of that, they flood their service with 400+ Originals per year, more than any other service -- regardless of quality. The more interesting and revealing thing is that only 2 out of the 9 Netflix shows in the list are actually Netflix Originals. Everything else is either reruns, or bought-off from other networks, or licensed as "original" (but not produced).
When The Mandalorian returns next week, I expect that show to top anything that Netflix offers, and by a huge margin. And when Disney+ gets more shows (their first year they only had 3 real originals: Mandalorian, Hamilton, Artemis Fowl), then Netflix won't be performing the same way anymore. Because Netflix has nothing of note to actually offer. No franchises, and except of 2-3 efforts, no visionary content. Just pedestrian. Which is why I unsubscribed from them 2 months ago, after being with the service since their DVD days, in the mid-2000s.
Hmm, in my opinion, it's to decide: if what you need to learn is highly technical (e.g. VFX, cinematography etc), then you should go to school. If what you need to learn is more artistic, or learning the ropes of the job on the field, then it's better to learn while working. I'd say that most directors don't need to go to schools if they have enough personal experience with music videos, short films, some writing etc. All they need is a showreel, some existing personal work on their belt, and some good contacts. Maybe even start low, as assistant director, and then move up from there overtime.
I hold the exact same opinion for traditional art too (which is my main job). If someone wants to learn some very specific technique (e.g. photorealistic painting) or they want to get contacts to become a big name in the "high art" gallery scene, they should go to art school. If they are happy with how they learn by themselves and they want to make money "now", opening an IG account and amassing thousands of followers that leads to direct sales, then they should skip school and dive into the business of it. I chose the second route for my artworks, and I'm doing financially better than most "high art" artists. My technique is not the best, but that doesn't matter much for the kind of folk illustrations I do. The idea matters more than the technique in these kinds of artworks.
So each to its own.
I ran some numbers a few weeks ago, and the result was that the market can support only up to 6 paying subscriptions (eg. Disney+, Netflix, HBOMax, Paramount+, AppleTV+, Hulu), 5-6 major free ad-based ones (eg. TubiTV, Peacock, Crackle, RokuTV etc), and about 7-8 smaller free ad-based services (e.g. Vudu, Pluto, IMDbTV, Canopy etc). Quibi didn't fit at all into that model.
I believe that we're heading towards major consolidation in the next 4 years. For example, Hulu might not survive as Disney+ adds adult Fox shows as rumored (Disney is the major stakeholder in Hulu and owns 20th Century Fox), while things like Showtime, Epix, Shudder and StarZ will have to merge with their parent companies' streaming services (or sell out) to provide more content richness in order to survive.
As for Netflix, it bleeds money left and right by going for quantity over quality. At least 50% of the shows it provides (over 1300 originals so far), are not watched by viewers. Too much clutter. It makes sense to create a secondary Netflix app (or part of the main app), called Netflix Free or something, and provide that bottom 50% of shows free with ads. At least this way they could recoup some of their costs.
For me, these things are evident and to be expected. The only big unknown is Sony Pictures. They are the only big studio that doesn't own a streaming service. They even sold Crackle, that they owned for years, because their CEO didn't want to follow a streaming strategy back in 2018. But now with the theaters are faltering, let's see how they will survive.
I think that these disclaimers might be needed for this coming generation (because it directly connects to the generation that these artworks were made for, so clashes could be had), but not the one thereafter. Society evolves, and by then, it should be automatically understood that culture & arts of a bygone era are often outdated, or simply, different.
I was watching Goodmorning Vietnam the other day, and I couldn't stop thinking that when I was a kid in the late '80s I found the film super funny, but now I can see how some of Williams' jokes can be seen as racist. So for the current new generation, a disclaimer might be needed. But for the one after that, it won't be needed anymore, because it will be seen as "historical", rather than "contemporary".
(I removed the comment, I posted on the wrong article, sorry :o).
A few things about the Ursa 12k: you need very sharp lenses to resolve that 12k resolution. Very few of these lenses actually exist. The Sigma 40mm is one of these, and it should have been the one tested, simply because it's one that it's known to be sharp at f/2 already, and it's easily available.
Also, a lot of filmmakers don't know that on a super35 size sensor and 12k res, you reach diffraction at f/4 already. At 8k, it's f/5.6. So you need a lens that it's super sharp between f/2 and f/4. Hence my recommendation for the Sigma 40mm to do these tests and not random lenses, or even expensive cinema lenses that might, or might not be able to resolve the 12k resolution.
Now, regarding how things looked, the Canon colors looked way more filmic (matte and muted, as it's supposed to be for celluloid film). The Ursa had IR issues (again!), moire issues, and its colors looked exactly as if from a Sony sensor. I know that BMD said that they "designed" the sensor, but this looks like a Sony sensor to me color response-wise.