this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
364 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

68066 readers
4663 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

People still want the TV and movie experience offered by traditional studios, but social platforms are becoming competitive for their entertainment time—and even more competitive for the business models that studios have relied on. Social video platforms offer a seemingly endless variety of free content, algorithmically optimized for engagement and advertising. They wield advanced ad tech and AI to match advertisers with global audiences, now drawing over half of US ad spending. As the largest among them move into the living room, will they be held to higher standards of quality?

At the same time, the streaming on-demand video (SVOD) revolution has fragmented pay TV audiences, imposed higher costs on studios now operating direct-to-consumer services, and delivered thinner margins for their efforts. It can be a tougher business, yet the premium video experience offered by streamers often sets the bar for quality storytelling, acting, and world-building. How can studios control costs, attract advertisers, and compete for attention? Are there stronger points of collaboration that can benefit both streamers looking to reach global audiences and social platforms that lack high-quality franchises?

This year’s Digital Media Trends lends data to the argument that video entertainment has been disrupted by social platforms, creators, user-generated content (UGC), and advanced modeling for content recommendations and advertising. Such platforms may be establishing the new center of gravity for media and entertainment, drawing more of the time people spend on entertainment and the money that brands spend to reach them.

Our survey of US consumers reveals that media and entertainment companies—including advertisers—are competing for an average of six hours of daily media and entertainment time per person (figure 1). And this number doesn’t seem to be growing.2 Not only is it unlikely that any one form of media will command all six hours, but each user likely has a different mix of SVOD, UGC, social, gaming, music, podcasts, and potentially other forms of digital media that make up these entertainment hours.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 49 points 6 days ago

Is it our complete lack of originality and obsessive wholesale rehashing and incessant rebooting and remaking of already existing movies that's to blame?

No, it's the children who are out of touch.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I’m 54 so not that young but I find myself watching more very specific videos of subjects I’m interested in than more mainstream movies or tv shows. I mean occasionally I’ll watch a movie or show but probably 90% of the time I’m watching content creators on YouTube or the like.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Same age and my wife and I tend to watch old movies or YouTube. When there are free channels for any well-produced fiction you care for like Omeleto, why bother with Hollywood?

[–] duckworthy36@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago

Personally I find real people and everyday life more interesting than the bland reboots and sequels of movies from my youth.

I think it also makes me a more aware person to watch content from people whose lives are totally different than mine, in different countries, with different abilities.

The only good movies and shows I watch are based on sci fi books or computer games that already did the work of building a plot and characters. And there’s a few really comedic writers that do great work- mostly on Apple TV.

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 6 days ago

Lil younger but same. I should cancel Paramount.

Stop making junk, and start making good content, and we'll watch it. But, as it stands, Creators with zero budget are making better content that the studios with nearly unlimited budget.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago

I've said it before: there's good and then there's good enough. Content that's "good enough" but easier to access will overshadow content that's maybe light-years better but harder to acquire. That and attention spans are getting shorter. My kid has the entire Disney library at his fingertips but he'd rather flip between YouTube channels.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Honestly most recent movies and tv shows look like scenarios were generated by AI or some barbie sweet happy life generator so there is nothing entertaining. Creators on the other side, I feel like they do the stuff without script, just making their raw videos without asking if they can put something in the video, it's entertaining because they make mistakes or have controversial opinions that you can't see in modern tv.

I think people feel more connected because they feel something when watching person talking on the screen whatever they want to talk about instead of person reading from script.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Honestly most recent movies and tv shows look like scenarios were generated by AI or some barbie sweet happy life generator so there is nothing entertaining.

A lot of slop has wide appeal. And let's not pretend soap operas and sitcoms and trope genre fiction don't routinely have wide appeal. The theory that AI can seamlessly replicate pulp fiction / scripted reality TV seems to have held up for the most part, because so much of this content is a canned and formulaic to begin with.

What AIs lack, more than anything, is a face and personality that is distinct to the line of work. There is no real AI "House Style" that gets adhered to. I can pick up a dozen Brian Sanderson novels and get roughly the same experience. But if I ask a Chatbot to "write me a chapter of a Brian Sanderson novel", what I'm really going to get is a generic jumble of Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Marvel with a few Brian Sanderson tropes thrown in.

I think people feel more connected because they feel something when watching person talking on the screen whatever they want to talk about instead of person reading from script.

So much of the "spontaneous" content is still heavily scripted and acted on delivery. What makes professional acting impressive is the range - a single person embodying a wide range of personalities and mannerisms. I don't watch Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis because I'm looking for unpolished delivery.

But the Auteur experience is what draws people in and makes certain works rise above their peer materials. AI has no real artistry. All it does is cut, copy, and paste from a grab bag of established popular materials, hoping it'll trigger enough nostalgia to be recognized as good.

As styles and tastes shift, I have to wonder what AI is going to look like, given how rooted it is in the moment of instantiation. The long tail will drag, while younger and historically unburdened artists will be out experimenting.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You're right that good actor makes a difference in average movie. I just want to add that Gary Oldman and Daniel Day-Lewis are 67. So those old guys started in theaters where you need to improvise to make people imerse in the play. All they had was a text and their own imagination.

Maybe this lack of improvisation is killing movie industry as I think smaller creators need to improvise a lot and maybe young actors are just like puppets, don't have this background where they need to put themselves in the role without all this technology around where you can look on everything how other people did it.

Number of technology stimulants these days are insane.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yay, my 50 something butt is a younger people.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No it isn’t … 😂 (I’m in the same boat by the way).

If you can injure yourself sleeping, you are NOT younger… 🤣

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sleeping? You should see me get out of bed, stumbling around hunched over for 10 minutes until all my parts agree that, no, it's not that painful, and, yes, we'll all start playing nicely soon enough.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I can totally relate to this.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Translation:

Big Social is unsurprisingly winning the competition for individuals' attention.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Even more reason to seed fedi!

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 3 points 5 days ago

Let's go fediverse!

I feel like creator content isn't about quality, but form. People watch the same TV shows from decades ago because they are familiar. Creator content is kinda like that, it's cozy. It's something you can just put on and zone out to. It's interesting and entertaining, but it's not very intense. Its usually people sharing their passions, so it feels very human and relatable too.

But also there's probably something to be said about how much it cost to get started on YouTube vs how much it cost to produce a TV show or movie.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Yay I feel young!

load more comments
view more: next ›