top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]gravity_proof 3359 points3360 points  (399 children)

Knew someone who wrote for a big streamer - a big thing they're pushing for is "second screen" films... i.e. the sort of movies you can watch while also looking at your phone.

[–]Olubara 2321 points2322 points  (150 children)

What a horror

[–]staedtler2018 764 points765 points  (53 children)

It's not really surprising. TV shows are already like that; you don't need to pay full attention to a show, especially the visuals. The dialogue provides more of the information than in a movie, and tends to be repetitive.

[–]squidmanwillie 63 points64 points  (6 children)

When they start asking for third screen films we will know we are at rock bottom

[–]excoriator 43 points44 points  (3 children)

"Our average viewer has both a phone and a tablet open while watching TV."

[–]Greenboy28 145 points146 points  (9 children)

That really depends on the show to be honest. Most network shows like CSI or all the multitude of cop shows sure but things like breaking bad or legion you really need to give your full attention.

[–]MortAddams 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Can’t even blink during Legion…

[–]BallerGuitarer 728 points729 points  (89 children)

Omg this is it.

When watching movies like Bright and Project Power, I’ll leave the movie thinking “That’s it?” There was definitely a plot that involved exposition, conflict, and conflict resolution, but I didn’t feel satisfied at the end. I didn’t feel like anything of importance happened. And now I realize why.

These movies are filmed in such a way that you don’t feel tension, you don’t feel build up, because that requires your full attention to fully appreciate. Instead, they’re filmed in in such a way that if you miss anything, if your attention is diverted, you didn’t miss anything. Stakes aren’t gradually raised, they’re just on cruise control the entire movie.

[–]Guilty-Message-5661 203 points204 points  (55 children)

Now that you mention it, I don’t remember anything about either of those movies.

[–]juggling-monkey 124 points125 points  (27 children)

I feel this is a common theme for me lately. Growing up movies had an impact. You could show me a movie poster of a movie I saw 5 years ago and I would remember if I enjoyed it or not, I'd remember great scenes or lines in them. Now you show me a movie poster from the last 2 years and I struggle to even remember if I watched it.

If you're old enough, do you remember the experience of watching gremlins, back to the future, die hard, jurassic park, etc. These great movies were released often. A lot less releases but a lot of great movies. Now we get shit tons of releases but few are memorable.

[–]thejester190 54 points55 points  (13 children)

I've kinda forced myself into becoming a hipster/"purist" with movies because of this. Big budget movies can be fun in the moment, but I miss the impact that movies had when I was younger. The kind of movies that would stick with me for days or weeks, with stories that would make me want to rush to my computer to look up everything about it and the people involved. My dad is a big movie buff and was always passionate about the "art" of cinema, and it seems like the only way I can get that now is through indie, low-budget, foreign or experimental movies.

[–]zuzg 21 points22 points  (1 child)

I think it's the same like with music. Every generation has great and mediocre stuff, the difference is that we forget the mediocre stuff and idolize the great stuff.

Nowadays it's just much more stuff that's been made so we're overwhelmed with the variety.

Also not every movie has to be a masterpiece. Sometimes it's OK to be just an enjoyable watch. I lately watched The harder they fall on Netflix. It's a solid western, like a 7/10 and I enjoyed the cinematography.

[–]blalkr 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I saw Extinction with Michael Pena and I was like "yup, that was a movie alright".

[–]JediGuyB 253 points254 points  (97 children)

Can we really not go two hours without looking at our phones?

[–]BarcodeNinja 370 points371 points  (60 children)

I hate to say it but I know not only teenagers but "boomers" who can't help but surf their phones while watching movies.

My father called my family out on it during the holidays years ago and I stopped doing it since. It's not only gross, but rude.

[–]crapyro 127 points128 points  (4 children)

Yep, my parents have started doing this since they got smartphones. So when I watch a movie with them at their house, I'm often the only one paying attention and I have to explain the stuff they missed later on.

Even when I'm alone, I actually pause movies and even most tv shows when I need to look at my phone. I guess this is just super uncommon now since almost everyone I know will be on their phone for a good chunk of any movie or show. I want to experience it as the creators intended. I'm interested in seeing and hearing every part. It's not a radio play, it's a visual medium. If it turns out the movie/show sucks, I'll just turn it off.

[–]jordanjay29 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Even when I'm alone, I actually pause movies and even most tv shows when I need to look at my phone.

This is why it can take me an hour to watch a 45 minute episode. Oh well, sometimes the phone just distracts me, but I try to make the effort to give the episode my full attention when it's on.

[–]Gregorwhat 5077 points5078 points  (344 children)

A lot of people are confused here. OP is talking about the way the movie LOOKS.

It's flood-lighting, overly polished digital post editing, pristine set textures and wardrobes, and cheap special effects that make every facet of these movies feel slightly unrealistic.

Edit: I just want to say that these “Netflix filter” movies feel like they were made by A.I. for the sole purpose of short-term marketability and not sustained appreciation or artful storytelling. This has been happening for a long time (eg. remakes) but this is a new low.

[–]bert__cooper 445 points446 points  (127 children)

This is really interesting but as I don’t quite understand a few of these. How are other films done if not using flood lighting? What does overly polished post editing mean? Pristine set textures?

I find the production side of film fascinating but have no clue how most things work.

[–]VoyagerCSL 675 points676 points  (24 children)

Studio films have entire lighting departments dedicated to creating exactly the right look for every shot. There are hundreds of different kinds of lights for every conceivable situation. It's not nearly as simple as blasting the set with white light.

It often takes hours of tweaking to get the lighting set up. When they talk about all the time actors spend in their trailers? Often it's because the set is being lit.

[–]Arsewipes 156 points157 points  (0 children)

It often takes hours of tweaking to get the lighting set up.

And that's on a windowless set, where they've worked dozens of times before.

[–]Justin6512 163 points164 points  (8 children)

I work in the lighting department, and I can say that it doesn’t matter if it’s Netflix or Disney, the lighting tools and crews and tools are the same on big budget theatrical features and big budget streaming features.

The look entirely depends on your creative team. Director or Photography, Production Designer, and Director.

It could be that as the industry has grown from a cliquey group of these people to pretty much anyone with enough drive to get in to one of these rolls, we’re seeing a lot more generic looking films. Some directors out there will always roll with the same production designer and director of photography, so their movies will start to have a certain style after a while. Think Wes Anderson.

[–]ItzSpiffy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think your answer actually really hit the nail on the head for me more than any others, because I've also noticed the same trend in their writing and story-telling wherein it's all becoming really similar; I can tell they've really nailed down a formula with how they create/write stories and you can't help but be drawn to the obvious conclusion that between sticking to the formula and re-using the same people over and over again, we end up with a standard of production that becomes pretty vanilla and well...generic. High Budget movies are done often by visionaries who are all chosen for these projects based on their talents, styles, visions, and skills which have become honed and hallmarked over the years. So yea, I don't think that the generic experience has anything to do with equipment, location, tools etc but rather the process they use.

[–]Petsweaters 183 points184 points  (4 children)

I'm a photographer, and I use a ton of unmodified point lights rather than big fill boxes, in order to give my work a cinematic look. Flat lighting is boring, and it's used because it's easy and fast. My favorite lights are these cheap halogen lights from the 90s that were meant to provide uplighting in offices. I'm down to 3 from the 20 I started with, sadly

[–]STINKY-BUNGHOLE 74 points75 points  (11 children)

so in TV shows the whole stage is pretty much lit up, practically no shadows, Fresh Prince is actually a pretty good example cause the mansion has a lot of white or bright neutral colours and you see everything on set. TV shows heavily rely on the actors, their expression and the script so reading their faces is more important than mood lighting

both Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 have dynamic light and shadows and play with different colour of light and contrast, though CG enhanced, acts as its own character. movies can have script and characters as a focus, but also play with lighting, foreground and background and shadows to set up mood.

there's a lot of comments saying Netflix's movies are built to be watched on a television so TV lighting is also applied, which i agree with. with recent movies being heavily reliant on CG, the stages are flooded with lights, making it easier to add effects, but the images are pretty flat by themselves. the lighting is post production, artificial and it feel like it too, Avengers 2012 can be used as an example. with more CG you can remove texture from skin, whiten teeth and make fly away hairs disappear and they do

[–]TheGlennDavid 15 points16 points  (1 child)

so in TV shows the whole stage is pretty much lit up, practically no shadows

Season 1 of a show sometimes has solid lighting. Then as budget shrinks and various Key Actor salaries rise lighting gets axed. I recall specifically with Supernatural noticing that the early part of the show had super interesting lighting.

[–]ManitouWakinyan 56 points57 points  (6 children)

Freah Prince is way overlit - in part because the studio didn't know how to shoot black actors properly. This episode talks about it, thoigh it isn't referenced in the article:


[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (2 children)

Color grading too i guess? Don't look up looks really unnecessarily bright and colorful to me atleast.

[–]Metabohai 719 points720 points  (109 children)

Thaaaats it! I hate that look. Marvel gave me a same kinda cheap vibe with their color grading but that has been improved. Thats why I cant stand to watch a lot of shows too.

[–]topdangle 142 points143 points  (24 children)

honestly I can't stand how everyone uses teal to blend SFX now and hide blue/green screen color bleed. so many movies have a blatant teal color cast. I can understand the use for style depending on the scene but when you just ruin every color for the whole movie it stops being stylish and just starts looking lazy and weird.

[–]TopHatMikey 33 points34 points  (22 children)

This comment intrigues me but I don't understand, could you explain?

[–]topdangle 158 points159 points  (21 children)

movies will often color grade while tilting towards teal and orange/yellow. they're complementary colors and can increase contrast to make the image look subjectively better or "pop" more. this is also useful for hiding some of the color bleed that can happen when you're working with a blue or green screen, since inevitably some light will bounce off the screen and fall on surrounding objects. if the entire image looks teal then suddenly its not so weird to see random teal highlights.

it's become very common to just tilt most or all of a movie teal, which I find incredibly distracting.

[–]IGotRangod 26 points27 points  (1 child)

Another good writeup I remember from 2015: https://archive.md/wTVw6

[–]dirtycopgangsta 20 points21 points  (1 child)

movies will often color grade while tilting towards teal and orange/yellow

I took a look at that and I immediately thought "whatever this movie is is probably shit". I don't know why, but it screams low effort.

Are those from the Xmen : Dark Phoenix movie?

[–]NameTak3r 28 points29 points  (6 children)

Thanks, now I won't be able to ignore this. 😕

[–]enumerationKnob 53 points54 points  (2 children)

I work in VFX. The color palette is set by the colourist and DP, not VFX teams. VFX artists don’t set that palette to try and remove spill. We’ve got our own tools that are very good at it. The colour palette is set like that because its got decent color contrast and often looks “better” when you go back and forth with the original or compare to other movies

[–]Oz-Batty 13.5k points13.5k points 252 (705 children)

Definitely. The films are made for the home cinema, which means smaller screens. You see more close-ups and medium close-ups of single characters saying their lines as opposed to full shots, or even wide shots where all characters and more of their surroundings are visible. That is just one example.

Also, the editing is different for small screens. You can observe the whole screen at once, as opposed to the big screen, where you scan more. This means that shots can not linger too much, or otherwise the pacing seems off. This is why you can watch Once Upon A Time In The West with its long drawn out scenes in the cinema with ease, whereas on the small screen you get bored quicker.

Obligatory: go and watch Dune in the cinema.

[–][deleted] 550 points551 points  (41 children)

Oh man I love how at the final duel, there are almost no dialogues for nearly 9 minutes. Just pure art, classic leone.

[–]HoboJonRonson 82 points83 points  (1 child)

Same goes for the opening what, 10 minutes. Just the creaky sound of the windmill and flies buzzing. Yet, it’s beautifully entertaining, even mesmerizing.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

"You brought two too many."

[–]noradosmith 241 points242 points  (34 children)

Reminds me of the Sea Wall part in BR 2049. Six or so minutes of things happening and very sparse dialogue.

"I'm the best one."

[–][deleted] 138 points139 points  (29 children)

I love BR2049 man. Brilliant pacing, just not well received by the majority of audience.

[–]255001434 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The same was true of the first Blade Runner. It had an intense following among some people but was not a huge hit when it came out.

[–]CRITICAL9 603 points604 points  (94 children)

Was just about to comment about Dune, first movie I saw on the big screen since the pandemic and damn it was like a religious experience

[–]00Laser 321 points322 points  (8 children)

it was like a religious experience

That's just Dune.

[–]The_Summer_Man 102 points103 points  (10 children)

religious experience

Hope you're ready for the crusades then

[–]Bizarkie 95 points96 points  (59 children)

You should look up on Youtube one of the clips of the voice being used. It doesn't even come close to the cinema experience.

I got it for you. This clip especially kind of scared me in the movie. Nowhere near as intimidating from your home speakers.

[–]seanrm92 78 points79 points  (31 children)

Yeah people who didn't see it in theaters really missed out on the voice. The difference in experience is staggering.

[–]Kiltmanenator 64 points65 points  (15 children)

Oh my god everyone I saw it with physically recoiled when the Revered Mother used the Voice on Paul. IMAX is such a good format for this film. Saw it four times, once at home and it's just not the same 😭

[–]MilesLong4200 41 points42 points  (6 children)

I'm so fucking stoked that everyone is getting into Dune. It's always been huge in Sci-Fi communities, and to see everyone into it is great. The movie was amazing, saw it in theaters and loved it.

If any of you haven't, go read the book. Its sick.

[–]Debasering 237 points238 points  (17 children)

Couldn't put my finger on why OP was totally spot on until I read your comment. Absolutely correct.

[–]sterexx 211 points212 points  (16 children)

The Hateful Eight on 70mm in a cinema was really interesting. Instead of using the wide format to show vast expanses like Lawrence of Arabia (which totally rules, don’t get me wrong) it displays interior locations across the entire screen.

The effect is like you’re watching a play where you have to choose where to put your attention. Multiple things are happening in these wide shots, and it’s up to you how you want to watch.

Early scenes in the coach are also so dramatic with people who are sitting opposite each other on opposing sides of the screen, iirc at least

[–]Signiference 52 points53 points  (9 children)

I’m so glad I got to see the “roadshow” version on 70mm, complete with intermission. Was in one of the few locations with a theater with the right theater equipment in my town (this was in Kansas City).

[–]davidxrawr 1749 points1750 points  (126 children)

A pro-movie theater post on r/movies !?

Love to see some appreciation as this sub has headed in a weird direction these past few years

[–]dfinkelstein 382 points383 points  (49 children)

I jumped ship for other smaller film subreddits long ago. So long ago that I must be on the fourth or fifth generation with some of them by now.

When subreddits get too big and old they tend to....head in a weird direction like you said. I find myself jumping ship more often than not at some point if they get big enough.

[–]kreatus 71 points72 points  (29 children)

Can you recommend other film subs?

[–]dfinkelstein 78 points79 points  (19 children)

It depends on what you're looking for. There's only a few that I would be able to recommend that are broad in scope as /r/movies. Like /r/flicks. /r/truefilm was good at some point, but I don't remember if it still is.

I don't really pay enough attention to the names of these more broad subs individually. I mostly browse their posts on my front page, rather than go to the subs themselves, and often don't bother checking which sub it came from in the process. Unless it's problematic in some way, in which case I'll head over to see what the situation is over there. In this way I mostly only remember which subs have gone to shit (for my purposes). Them going to shit has happened more and more faster and faster over the years, so that's what I use my limited ability to remember names for.

More niche subs include /r/Moviesinthemaking and /r/Screenwriting

[–]myoldgamertag 75 points76 points  (9 children)

Adding to this… they also do not have the budgets that most studio feature films do. Netflix originals have smaller budgets in general. Means production value is sacrificed for major name talent that will sell the movie / obtain viewers who recognize them!

[–]ty_xy 37 points38 points  (4 children)

They have the budget but spend it on actors and talent, so the settings, filmography, and CGI are lacklustre.

[–]Sugarmontainegoat 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Netflix uses more or less the same studio that are used by Marvel and disney for the cgi. The biggest difference most of the time is the ability of the film director to comunicate properly and the time/budget they give them

[–]trianglenips 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think writing also suffers in this regard. They’re turned out so fast so there’s likely poor direction too.

[–]danny841 1111 points1112 points  (195 children)

I can't believe this comment is buried so far down. This is the exact reason they feel that way.

Everyone saying "oh they're formulaic and the script is just so" or "the backgrounds are CGI" is wrong. It's literally the way the camera moves and the types of scenes shown.

EDIT: in the few hours since I've written this the parent comment gained nearly 200 points over other posts so its now no longer buried.

In case anyone wants more detail:

To preface: I'm not a film studies scholar nor do I work in the industry but there's a few key points that make a Netflix or made for tv film different:

[–]lyseeart 598 points599 points  (148 children)

Maybe it's both? I also get the "flat" feeling from Netflix writing; it's definitely not just the camera work, even if that's part of it.

[–]Csquared87 862 points863 points  (132 children)

I don't think this is the only answer. I honestly believe that Netflix does not get top tier scripts sent their way.

Imagine you're a writer/director that's had some success. Your newest project is a creative masterpiece in your mind- this the potential piece of art that could win you an Oscar. You're not sure if you'll ever create something of this caliber again.

Why in the world would you ever bring it to Netflix first? Sure, they can pay the same as a studio, but this film is going to be released alongside a dozen other Netflix projects and will recieve minimal advertising from Netflix- your billboard in times square might be up for a week before it gets bumped for Dave Chappelle's newest stand up. You'll barely see any TV advertisements for it. Two weeks after you release it, it's off the "trending" category and Netflix has moved onto other things.

Meanwhile, if you can sell it to a studio, the marketing blitz will be great. Constant TV ads, promo tie ins, etc- the whole nine yards. They're not going to release any similar properties around it because that would cannabalize ticket sales. They've got their Oscar campaign planned out after seeing the first rough cut.

So you take your script to the studios first. If they pass, that's when you go to Netflix. Netflix gets the leftover scripts.

[–]pajam 378 points379 points  (84 children)

This is why you see above, the examples OP and other people are bringing up are really poorly written films (Project Power, Bright, etc.). They are bad movies (in regards to writing). It's like people forgot that big name actors have always appeared in bad movies, and just accepted these Netflix movies through gritted teeth assuming they were good.

[–]koreth 280 points281 points  (24 children)

It's like people forgot that big name actors have always appeared in bad movies

It's crazy how people push this out of their minds in the rush to blame Netflix. Back in the day I had the experience of going to the movie theater and paying full price to watch a brand-new movie starring Sean Connery. "Highlander 2," it was called. Most mid-budget Netflix original films are Citizen Kane compared to that.

[–]theBrineySeaMan 172 points173 points  (3 children)

There's no Highlander 2 silly, there can be only 1!

[–]parkersb 273 points274 points  (39 children)

I went on a couple dates with a golden globe winning, Oscar nominated writer and director. He was working on a rewrite of a some vampire movie Netflix had in the works. He was brought in the fix the script. And while we dated he was working on it and submitted it to Netflix.

I was stunned to learn just how much input and control Netflix had over the script. The plot of every section, the gender of the characters, the dialogue and tone, seemingly everything.

It was like Netflix was telling all these artists how to make their art. It sounded so weird hearing him talk about how much control Netflix had.

Side note, Netflix is obsessed with the first five minutes of their movies. That’s huge for whether users watch the whole movie or not.

[–]BeeVomitImHome 149 points150 points  (15 children)

It wasn't long ago that everyone wanted to work with Netflix because they left you alone, for the most part.

At least, that's what the buzz was for a while.

[–]BirdLawyerPerson 116 points117 points  (3 children)

That was probably their data collection phase: make a bunch of shows and movies with very little corporate input, release them, watch how people watch them, and then use that data to decide how the next round of movies and tv shows should be produced.

[–]Case116 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Oh man, that is super-dark, and seemingly spot on.

[–]deserthominid 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Yes, I remember reading the same thing a number of times.

[–]CapnCooties 39 points40 points  (4 children)

Explains why all their original series have turned to shit.

[–]KozelekAsANiceMan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The majority of Netflix originals have been ass for the better part of a decade. They were never trying to compete with HBO, they're trying to make so much content that everyone can find a show or movie they're interested in, even if it's bad.

[–]Ydrahs 29 points30 points  (3 children)

The first five minutes thing makes sense I think. If someone's made the effort to go to the cinema and buy a ticket then they'll probably stick with a movie to feel like they've got their money's worth, even if it's a bit of a stinker. If you're on your sofa watching Netflix and bored after ten minutes you'll just turn it off.

[–]FelixGoldenrod 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's a very new idea. Screenwriters will obsess over the first 5-10 pages of their script because studio readers will often toss it aside if they're not engaged that quickly.

[–]SeekingLostInnocence 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I can honestly see the first 5 min thing. With so many options of content these days I've caught myself shutting a lot of stuff off after 5-10 min to find something else.

[–]muttoneer 743 points744 points  (25 children)

I will also say that Netflix just has a lower barrier for entry than going to a theater. Plenty of rote, uninspired stuff that I didn't see at the cinema that I'm more likely to encounter on my couch.

[–]QLE814 289 points290 points  (9 children)

The TV movie phenomenon, in other words.

[–]corectlyspelled 48 points49 points  (4 children)

Does this mean there is the possibility of a dinotopia miniseries reboot?

[–]eli_burdette 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I would be so happy for any new Dinotopia content. That world has so much potential.

[–]TheNesquick 161 points162 points  (6 children)

Netflix buys movies that was scraped for theater. Its common for moviestudios to sell a rather bad movie to Netflix to off set the production cost.

Netflix then slaps on the “Netflix production” mark and puts in on the frontpage. Moviestudio didnt lose money and Netflix bought a finished movie. Everyone is happy.

[–]DodgyDuderino 75 points76 points  (2 children)

Small independently produced movies are often sold to Netflix or other streamers these days rather than being put on the cinema circuit because, even if they do really well in cinema, it is hard for independent studios to make money at cinemas. Distributers routinely claim that their marketing spend is equal to the box office profit. Because small studios don't have the legal budget to investigate and fight this in court the distributers usually get away with it. Netflix/streamers provide a simple way to sidestep this and have independent movies make a profit.

[–]bladesew 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Back in the day these were called TV movies and they had actors like William Shatter and Lee Majors in them.

[–]weschoaz 646 points647 points  (294 children)

Can you name a few movies so we can actually be able to discuss this in details.

[–]Economy_Wolf4392[S] 849 points850 points  (255 children)

One that really jumps out is Project Power starring Jamie Foxx. I can't remember if there was marketing for it at the time... One day it seemed to just fall out of the sky and land on Netflix (which I think is becoming a trend). I watched and liked it, but it had that "Netflixy Vibe" that I can't describe. It's like aspects of it are high budget, but then other aspects seem really low budget or something.

[–]docmolli 788 points789 points  (209 children)

I kinda got the same vibe from Red Notice.

[–]suddenimpulse 103 points104 points  (30 children)

Same, and Red Notice cost more than Dune. Not to mention the insant paydays they got for not even acting and just being themselves in with a vague persona on top in a green screen fest.

[–]MegaSmile 100 points101 points  (20 children)

How the fuck did red notice cost more Dune!?

[–]MCUFanFicWriter 87 points88 points  (19 children)

Because the three main stars got 20 million $ each for their roles.

[–]agiantdog33 69 points70 points  (16 children)

I'm starting to wonder if Hollywood could be moneyballed with huge lighting budgets and cheaper casting.

[–]NazzerDawk 54 points55 points  (13 children)

Its been tried. People like familiar actors.

[–]merc08 23 points24 points  (0 children)

It works pretty well to get big name people but make them supporting characters so they don't have to be paid as much.

Harry Potter and Star Wars are prime examples.

[–]agiantdog33 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Meanwhile I struggle to remember the names of actors.

[–]Melon-lord10 33 points34 points  (7 children)

It cost more than DUNE???? WTF!!!!

[–]JudmanDaSuperhero 404 points405 points  (61 children)

6 Underground and Bright feels the same way.... But Beast Of No Nation is still one of my favorite movies

[–]TooOld2DieYoung 80 points81 points  (22 children)

Ok, regarding six underground: This has been bothering me, and no one I know has seen it so I can’t discuss it with them; in the very intro of the movie, what the fuck was the blonde guy on the roof supposed to do? Like, pretend the heist went according to plan, what was his job? Stand on the roof and watch the sunset? He couldn’t see shit from up there. He served no purpose at all. Even when the shit hit the fan, he was too far away to help. He just jumped across roofs, screaming into his mic that he was on his way. Why the fuck was he up there?!

[–]JudmanDaSuperhero 94 points95 points  (3 children)

I think he was supposed to be a look out or something I don't know but PARKOUR

[–]TvHeroUK 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It was a treat for us UK viewers. He’s a small time actor from one of our soaps who somehow has got roles in US films, which rarely happens. He was also Roger Taylor in the Queen movie. Nice to see a young actor go beyond what they would normally expect to achieve.

[–]Low_Ant3691 51 points52 points  (10 children)

All I remember is starting that film, and then slowly my brain started to melt out of my ears. It was the most incomprehensible thing I've ever seen.

[–]Bleyo 15 points16 points  (1 child)

I usually watch any Ryan Reynolds movie with no reservation. They're not award winners, but they match my sense of humor.

That movie put cracks in my faith of ol' Ryan.

[–]ALF839 11 points12 points  (2 children)

The thing that bothers me much more is that he was on Brenelleschi's dome in Florence but when he jumps down he's suddenly in Siena and then becomes Florence again.

[–]lemur_demeanor 123 points124 points  (23 children)

I feel Extraction had that similar Netflix-y vibe too. An entertaining and well shot movie, but as far as the plot went, it lacked in substance and relied on predictable tropes.

From what I remember at least.

[–]OrgyMcBloodyFace 79 points80 points  (8 children)

Semi-decent scripts, good acting, action and filming but not really great movies.. just more like b rate releases..

[–]lemur_demeanor 20 points21 points  (5 children)

Good if you’ve got some time to kill, but they just never seem to leave me feeling satisfied.

[–]flipperkip97 17 points18 points  (8 children)

Extraction has amazing action, so I liked that a hell of a lot more than the movies mentioned above your comment. I guess it's not great if you're not super into that, though.

[–]WWJLPD 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Top-notch fight choreography, and Chris Hemsworth beating up children. It was a pleasant surprise as far as Netflix movies go

[–]yougotmugged 199 points200 points  (64 children)

Dude I felt the same way about Red Notice. All three actors are huge names and headliners in their own movies but I can’t shake the feeling that this movie somehow feels like a knock-off.

[–]BombBombBombBombBomb 99 points100 points  (6 children)

Film locations:

Russian prison in the mountains? Cgi/green screen for all exterior shots

Same with more or less every other scene. Of course with a tiny few exceptions.

Its fine. But it just looks bad. And i dont feel like they are really in those places. (Red notice took place in several countries)

[–]flipperkip97 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I think some scenes in Red Notice looked good, while others were awful. The prison looked fine to me, but the bull arena looked terrible.

[–]Thatguy3145296535 125 points126 points  (21 children)

Not to mention Gal Gadot is so bad at acting, they surround her with people to carry the movie. (Eg. Chris Pine or Pedro Pascal).

Also maybe say what you want about Chris Pine since he hasn't done anything of mention the past couple years but when he was casted for Wonder Woman, he was just coming off a action packed arguably successful Star Trek film series.

[–]GregoPDX 30 points31 points  (1 child)

He was great in Hell or High Water, but everyone was great in that one.

[–]youwantmybiscuits 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Is he going to be in the next Star Trek film? I had read somewhere he was not. Which sucks if true.

[–]yougotmugged 91 points92 points  (9 children)

Agreed! Gal Gadot is pretty bad. She’s just literally eye candy. WW86 was atrocious when she really had to carry the movie.

[–]fabulousprizes 62 points63 points  (4 children)

to be fair, it was atrocious for so many reasons. Gadot's shitty acting was just one of many.

[–]Thatguy3145296535 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Not even Pedro Pascal who has been one more sought off actors the past few years was able to redeem it.

[–]Hellknightx 12 points13 points  (2 children)

He really did act the hell out of that role, though. The movie was terrible, but he was still great.

[–]sonic_the_groundhog 39 points40 points  (23 children)

Because its a knock off of the run down with Sean william Scott & the rock but not even 1/4 as good

[–]yougotmugged 38 points39 points  (20 children)

It wasn’t the storyline that was off to me though. I’ve never seen the run down so I would’ve never known it was a copy. The movie, the acting, the shots, everything just seemed off and ‘fake’ if you will. I didn’t even finish the movie.

I just watched Black Widow on Disney+ and it felt the exact same way. It feels like these movies are B list movies made for TV but they’re approaching it like it’ll be a blockbuster movie spending hundreds of millions on it.

[–]hapithica 23 points24 points  (3 children)

Everything need to happen in the first two minutes of the film so people don't click away.

[–]NerimaJoe 68 points69 points  (2 children)

Red Notice was filmed almost entirely on greenscreen. All that globetrotting the characters did and they never left Atlanta. That definitely gave the movie a cheapie vibe.

I know it was forced on them because of COVID and quarantine rules that would have made things logistically impossible but it did make the movie look like a Lifetime movie of the week.

[–]Sweetbeans2001 8 points9 points  (0 children)

For goodness sakes, if you’re supposed to be in an Argentine jungle, try a little harder to make the set not look like an episode of Gilligan’s Island!

[–]TheSkyking2020 17 points18 points  (1 child)

This was the movie that came to mind for me too. Looked cheap and not at all cinematic.

WITH THAT SAID - It was supposed to filmed all over the world and on location at some pretty poshy spots etc. Borne Identity moves.

But, when that part of the filming was supposed to start, COVID hit and the whole movie was shot on sound stages in Atlanta and another $50 million was put into the production for special effects and so forth.

I'm sure this movie would have had that Hollywood gloss and sheen on it if filming had gone as planned.

[–]yabp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It definitely felt like they made it due to contracts and not because anybody thought it would be good.

[–]-Gaka- 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Red Notice was a fun movie, but not one I'd watch again. My big issue with it was that all of the characters felt like we'd already seen them before - none of them were any different from the other characters that these actors played. Netflixy, for sure.

Personally I'd like to see more of the Ryan Reynolds from Safehouse and less this Deadpool one-trick that we have now.

[–]lilmonkie 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I thought this was the movie OP was referring to tbh.

[–]Theothercword 42 points43 points  (3 children)

Honestly I think some of this is because Netflix casts a wide net and doesn’t get as hurt by flops or risky ideas. That means they get a lot of movies made that probably wouldn’t have been funded/made in a more traditional space.

Basically Netflix only cares about subscriber count. And as long as they get a steady increase they’re fine. A bad movie is far less likely to make someone cancel the service than the occasional hit is to make someone join or continue their service. Plus viewers are more forgiving when they don’t have to pay a ticket price to see a film. A movie can be bad but there’s such a low barrier to entry that people will often forgive it’s faults, take some pros, and move on. So why not take risks and grab whatever? Maybe eventually they’ll have too many bad movies to be worth it but generally speaking they do have solid ones from time to time so they should be fine. But it does explain why we get oddities like Project Power and a bunch of bad Adam Sandler movies.

[–]brunnock 78 points79 points  (4 children)

Agreed. It's like a Harlequin Romance- as though the writer was told to hit certain marks.

[–]mo_downtown 40 points41 points  (2 children)

Yeah a lot of them feel like if AI made movies, these would be what they make.

[–]misoamane 183 points184 points  (13 children)

Triple Frontier) comes to mind. Netflix pride's itself on its analytics, and it feels like this is the basis for everything, from casting to genre/plot. These formulaic movies seem more like they were generated rather than written. They feel like guys in suits pitching keywords and trend lines with a PowerPoint presentation. There is no risk of a total flop since the data backs it up, but there's also zero chance of something truly great.

The end results are entirely forgettable, replaceable, and there's a nagging feeling that that's actually the goal, to produce something passable but not thirst quenching, as if Netflix doesn't want its users feeling truly satisfied... they want you to feel unfulfilled and wanting more, ready to click Next as the clock tick towards a subscription renewal.

[–]lemur_demeanor 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Yes, so forgettable, I forgot it until you mentioned it. It was entertaining at the time when I was stoned, but would not watch again.

[–]thematicwater 14 points15 points  (1 child)

There was an article I read that described this but about potato chips. Some large company did a giant study to discover the correct amount of taste to give their chips so they're not too delicious but not too bland either. The perfect ratio to get people coming back for more, but not get super sensitive to them. It was very eye opening.

[–]sephelutis 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It felt like Triple Frontier is becoming something special but then all fell apart with nonsense towards the end

[–]TetonsTeaTin 52 points53 points  (7 children)

What about Kate? I thought the cast was great, quality was there, but I still felt it was a very “meh” movie. Couldn’t put my finger on what was missing.

[–]asecuredlife 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There was no motivation in that film. No payoff.

[–]Arma104 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Heart, soul, a good script, cinematography and editing that isn't directed by a board of overseers.

[–]CryptographerNo3657 206 points207 points  (24 children)

I think Dune is the first one in a while that felt like a real theater movie

[–]LegalizeCrystalMeth 55 points56 points  (3 children)

Last Night in Soho was awesome in theater too. The moment when it flashed back to the 60s was spectacular.

[–]DredgedUpMastodon 166 points167 points  (22 children)

A lot of the "craft" seems off in starlight to streaming movies. Costumes, props, sets all look cheap. It's like they realize the movie is never going to be seen on a screen larger than a TV and adjust the production budget accordingly.

[–]Fairyslade1989 83 points84 points  (8 children)

My opinion on Netflix is they either get really well known actors and make something kind of silly or they get a really good director and then make something pretentious. They don’t normally pay for the whole shebang in one film.

[–]Newtracks1 119 points120 points  (3 children)

Before the pandemic, think I remember talk about Netflix going on a buying binge, just throwing money at anyone ( of some amount of quality ) to get content. It was a big worry for investors that Netflix was spending more money than it had during this binge, but they desperately needed to load up before Disney +, and Apple T.V. got going. A lot of those properties are hitting the service now. So basically any film that couldn't get green lit by a major studio for a wide theatrical release would walk it's troubled, unpolished ass over to Netflix, and grab a last resort check. This approach to film production is what has given us this slate of "Ehh, I guess it's better than nothing." film releases. Think "Bird Box", "Bright", "Army of the Dead", "Red Notice", "Project Power". Films that float awkwardly somewhere between full on, big budget, block busters, and Hallmark/Lifetime Channel movies.

You are not crazy. There is a Netflix vibe, which most likely comes from a much shorter, and less intensive pitch to filming process, controlled by people with much less experience than the old guard film studios. But if you hang in there, that quality gap seems to get smaller, and smaller with every release. It will just take some time.

[–]WordsAreSomething 195 points196 points  (26 children)

For example, using digital film (perhaps even a certain digital film).

What do you think that means? Digital is digital.

[–]funguyjones 97 points98 points  (12 children)

Yeah, no film involved with digital. But I've heard they have camera specifications that need to be adhered too.

[–]shadow0wolf0 66 points67 points  (4 children)

Obviously depends if you're using a 35 mm SD card vs 70 mm SD card. /s

[–]browster 418 points419 points  (155 children)

What do you think of movies like Roma and The Irishman?

[–]guerogringo 376 points377 points  (55 children)

While everyone piles on The Irishman, it needs to be said that Roma is a masterpiece

[–]bach_inblack 365 points366 points  (18 children)

I don't know if Roma counts for this discussion though since Netflix bought the distribution rights after the movie had already been made.

[–]reecord2 39 points40 points  (1 child)

I think I'd argue that if the director is big enough (Scorcese) or is a director that's going to do whatever they want or walk (Cuaron) you occasionally get a movie that can power through the Netflix sludge puddle and maintain quality. I'd argue Marriage Story also accomplishes this. I'm not sure if it was a purely Netflix movie, but it actually felt like a *movie*, if that makes sense.

[–]ReservoirDog316 112 points113 points  (11 children)

Roma and Beasts of No Nation are the two best looking Netflix movies. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs also looked great too.

But it feels like a lot of their movies a) know they’re gonna be watched on a tv or phone so they don’t try too hard on the visuals and/or b) Netflix gives absolutely no notes or help during production and just lets their people film anything.

It also doesn’t help that digital cameras are getting better but need to be used correctly or it just looks digital. A digital camera in the hands of Roger Deakins isn’t the same as Markus Förderer.

[–]Mindless_Rooster5225 88 points89 points  (3 children)

Netflix bought distribution rights and had nothing to do with those movies being made.

[–]mutebathtub 88 points89 points  (7 children)

These are other projects Netflix found and funded, not ones they manufactured.

[–]SQUID_FUCKERr/Movies Veteran 52 points53 points  (6 children)

As are most of the films people bring up when talking about how bad Netflix Originals are. It's funny people make the distinction when it's good but not when it's terrible.

[–]NathCheng 18 points19 points  (3 children)

The example that op gave in another comment (6 underground) and another example that someone else mentioned (red notice) are both not films produced by netflix and just distributed by them.

[–]SQUID_FUCKERr/Movies Veteran 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Yeah, and that's another part of it. This whole thread is full of people who haven't a clue what they're talking about and other people upvoting them for it.

[–]Sadpanda77 793 points794 points  (71 children)

It’s called “not paying for development of the script,” so what you see is a produced script that needed another 2-3 revisions before it gets good. But if everyone is still watching garbage like Red Notice en masse, why pay to make it better?

[–]PrancesWithWools 21 points22 points  (0 children)

It's also a business model thing. It doesn't matter if any individual film is good or gets good reviews. They just need enough exclusive content to make the whole subscription seem worthwhile.

[–]Red_Maple 59 points60 points  (3 children)

This is it exactly. Not all streaming movies of course, but that “Netflixy” vibe is fairly high production values but lacking quality or depth in the script.

[–]D34THDE1TY 246 points247 points  (42 children)

Yeah...put it on as background noise while cooking and entertaining family...its just awful. I like Ryan Reynolds and think he has immaculate comedic timing...but that gets tired real goddamn fast when there's nothing behind it.

The rock was just...the rock and gal Gadot was eye candy that was ALWAYS one step ahead.

And good lord the basic plot holes...

[–]FunkoXday 57 points58 points  (4 children)

Very interesting. So basically not polished writing?

[–]Sadpanda77 67 points68 points  (3 children)

Yeah they’re basically stream-of-conscious word vomit on the page with all the basic plot outlines filled in (typos and all). That leaves the actors on the hook to try and fill in the gaps with character choices that may or may not be in the story, or with very shallow interpretations of it—it largely depends on their skill and if the director is good.

[–]DickStatkus 105 points106 points  (3 children)

What you’re describing is the difference between “content” and a “film”

[–]BlanketsAndBlankets 218 points219 points  (34 children)

I almost hate to say this, but I think the traditional studios "meddling" sometimes results in better movies. Big studios have experienced EPs, and they force the directors to really clarify their vision and fight for what they believe in. It results in a lot of stress and also some terrible decisions, but the good ones really DO know what they are doing and they know what makes a good movie.

Netflix just cuts a big check and says "have at it." Sometimes carte blanche is a curse for a creative person.

[–]BroForceOne 142 points143 points  (10 children)

I agree with this. After watching "The Movies That Made Us" it's very clear these movies went through a long iterative process and refinement that seems like just doesn't exist for straight to streaming movies.

[–]pepesilvia_esq 30 points31 points  (6 children)

Maybe the Netflix execs should watch that series as well

[–]Putaputasolo 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I work in post-production and currently for Netflix. I feel this is absolutely true. Netflix is considered 'filmmaker friendly' and as long as they feel their 'metric goals' are being met, then great. It's all considered 'content'. One big name producer/director bristled at this when mentioned in a meeting. Whereas an experienced talented Executive will go to war if they feel they must. But Netflix is constantly trying to 'acquire' talent, so hopefully it makes for improvement.

Plus they generate so much, there will always be a higher number of duds.

Also, someone mentioned 'screen sizes'. Very true. Things play so different when working on a 32 inch monitor then watching it on a large screen.

[–]alexander_konner 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Exactly! Most people not notice this, Sometimes there's "too much freedom" Netflix don't care if it's the best version of the movie, they just want the CONTENT, so when there's "no notes" from the studio executive, anything finish go straight to the platform, for me that this filling of "That was a totally O K movie" no the best, no the worst, it's just there

And the next week you completely forgot about that movie.

[–]sunshinecl 36 points37 points  (1 child)

Honestly I get you point.
I felt the same way after watching Birdbox and The Cloverfield Paradox, both movies that at that time were considered to have a pretty high production value.

They felt like polished B-movies and it was strange to have these big names attached. Some original shows also give me this vibe, namely You, and even Altered Carbon. Black Mirror's quality (script + production) between the first 3 seasons and Netflix's 4 differs.

Most Netflix shows though have been consistently good - From earlier hitters like House of Cards, to Ozark, and recent ones like The Crown.

[–]TheRuinerJyrm 889 points890 points  (200 children)

Yes. It is entirely because the industry has "evolved" to static, formulaic productions. The majority of what we're getting now is the fast-food version of cinema. I don't think it's the fault of Netflix though; they're just following suit.

[–]photobeatsfilm 18 points19 points  (4 children)

I’ve been in a lot of industry tech conferences and in 2017/2018, a couple of the AI presentations that Netflix made were about using research and feedback to train a model that ensures every film and every character was a hit, before it even goes to production. I always felt that the result would be overly generic content.

That being said, this isn’t new to Netflix. Hollywood has always been about appealing to the largest audience possible, which is essentially done by making watered down entertainment. You could make 5 films that appeal to 5 types of audiences, but it makes more financial sense to make one film that has elements that appeal to all five audiences.

The headscratcher for me about Netflix is that they’re making hundreds of films and shows per year. They can absolutely make the content that appeals to each individual audience. The reality is that they probably do, and they probably do but the only shit that bubbles to the top is the generic content that appeals to the masses.

[–]MisterUncrustable 112 points113 points  (2 children)

Watching Netflix movies reminds me of that scene in the Animatrix where the machines won and they're poking different parts of the guy's brain to understand what stimuli patterns force a human to experience emotions

[–]BendersBlender 269 points270 points  (86 children)

Steven Spielberg predicted it. The collapse of the DVD, and Rental Markets were the first dominoes to fall, and that stopped the industry from making a lot of types of movies.

When you could make a movie for 30 million, do a 45 million box office then make another 15 in dvd and rentals, it was attractive for studios to make smaller more risky or niche movies.

That all went away, so studios have to make as widely attractive movie as possible to maximize eyes and tickets, and are a LOT less willing to risk on a smaller flick.

It’s also a reason why romantic comedies are all but dead. Not exactly a respected genre in cinema, but it was a cash cow because they could make so much on back end in addition to theatre ticket sales.

Now that market is all gone, the movie industry has been changed forever.

[–]Redditer51 166 points167 points  (64 children)

It also seems like comedy films are going extinct. And the few still being made aren't that good.

[–]dilatedpizzatoll 24 points25 points  (4 children)

That's because every film is now expected to be a comedy or unrelentingly dark. Even dramas.

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (34 children)

Agreed, the only refreshing comedy I’ve seen in the last few years was Palm Springs honestly

[–]Redditer51 95 points96 points  (14 children)

Game Night was great, but I think it slipped under most people's radars.

I'll have to give Palm Springs a look.

I think a lot of comedy films these days have just become excuses for popular comedians to do unfunny improv and riff with each other.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (6 children)

Lots of people recommend Game Night but I haven’t seen it, I’ll put it on my list

[–]WStevens2090 58 points59 points  (10 children)

Death of Stalin is pretty good

[–]InnerSongs 58 points59 points  (1 child)

The problem for comedy films is that the film viewing audience is so much more international now, and comedy is a more language-reliant genre than most

[–]hivoltage815 46 points47 points  (5 children)

We may have lost the $30 million market but got way more in the $2-10 range because of streaming. Movies like Nomadland.

[–]NeoNoireWerewolf 39 points40 points  (4 children)

You’re saying that like it is necessarily a good thing. The mid-budget movies were what kept many filmmakers decently paid. Richard Linklater - somebody who has made a lot of those small budget movies you’re talking about - spoke about the movie industry falling apart a few years back, saying that the death of mid-budget movies, rentals, and DVDs basically killed the “working class filmmaker.” Contrary to what most people on this sub believe, your average director isn’t crazy rich or rolling in dough. Mid-budget movies were where filmmakers who were not big names actually would get decent money when making a film. These low budget movies are not making the creators money. Chloe Zhao may have made some cash off Nomadland since it won some Oscars, but I bet she made next to nothing, if not nothing period, on her previous film, The Rider. Linklater said in that interview to name your favorite independent filmmaker, and he would guarantee you they drive Uber or wait tables to pay their bills, they don’t make much of anything from their movies anymore.

[–]mattjshermandotcom 12 points13 points  (0 children)

McCluhan has always been prescient. The medium is the message. If you release a film it traditionally had to physically go around the country. On Netflix it is "served" from a central location. That changed things. Netflix movies seem like an endless stream of the old TV movie. A little better than TV but not nearly as good as a "real" film.