I think it has more to do with a lack of a theatrical release... These Netflix movies are conceived and created for the small screen; The ipad, the laptop and the 55" TV... It's obvious... When everyone from the director, cinematographer, art director and editor to the actors know that this will be seen on a small scale rather than cinematically it will change things, conciously or subconciously...

The thing is, compared to TV movies of the past they are incredibly successful in terms of aesthetics, breadth and probably even audiences...

The problem is commentators and audiences still try to compare Netflix to cinema... It can't measure up... It's still TV...

Also, there have been no Michael Bay Netflix movies yet... I'm serious... There is no big commercial director who has made a Netflix movie yet... It's all smaller, less experienced directors... Give Ridley Scott or James Cameron $100 million in Netflix money and see what you'll get... Even if it isn't Oscar material, it will be cinematic and most likely a hit... 😎

@Renovatio said:

Also, there have been no Michael Bay Netflix movies yet... I'm serious... There is no big commercial director who has made a Netflix movie yet... It's all smaller, less experienced directors... Give Ridley Scott or James Cameron $100 million in Netflix money and see what you'll get... Even if it isn't Oscar material, it will be cinematic and most likely a hit... 😎

Well, we do have Scorsese's The Irishman coming out soon. That could potentially be amazing considering Scorsese hasn't really had full control in ages. And maybe other directors will follow suit.

I think it has more to do with a lack of a theatrical release... These Netflix movies are conceived and created for the small screen; The ipad, the laptop and the 55" TV... It's obvious... When everyone from the director, cinematographer, art director and editor to the actors know that this will be seen on a small scale rather than cinematically it will change things, conciously or subconciously...

I haven't seen Mute yet but I think it does look pretty cinematic. Just as cinematic as Moon. I hope the reviews are wrong because I was looking forward to it. I really liked Moon and Source Code. But I wonder if what you say could really have such an effect on a director who flies so high with Moon that he falls so hard with Mute.

Maybe it's just that filmmakers need to learn to adapt to this new approach.

I think our sample size, so to speak, is still too small... Scoresese will be an interesting data-point with The Irishman, but no DiCaprio in the movie...

Mute is better than the average Sci-Fi (mostly due to the cyberpunk and noir elements), but falls far short of Moon or Source Code despite being very cinematic for the first half of the movie... It's a very idiosyncratic movie and very different from what we usually see from TV movies or even most indie movies...

@Renovatio said:

I think our sample size, so to speak, is still too small... Scoresese will be an interesting data-point with The Irishman, but no DiCaprio in the movie...

I've always thought that it was the time that DiCaprio made his entry into Scorsese's films that the quality dipped. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy them. But I'd take DeNiro over Dicaprio any day. And his presence could signal a return to their heyday. Fingers crossed.

Mute is better than the average Sci-Fi (mostly due to the cyberpunk and noir elements), but falls far short of Moon or Source Code despite being very cinematic for the first half of the movie... It's a very idiosyncratic movie and very different from what we usually see from TV movies or even most indie movies...

Well, I like that it's different. And I love cybernoir. So maybe I'll like it.

I quite enjoyed Death Note and this.

@chilone said:

I quite enjoyed Death Note and this.

I sort of kind of enjoyed Death Note. Probably because of the 80's music. But it was a bad film. It rushed through the source material. I refuse to believe that Mute is as bad as the critics make out. 9% on RT? That does seem a bit silly.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@chilone said:

I quite enjoyed Death Note and this.

I sort of kind of enjoyed Death Note. Probably because of the 80's music. But it was a bad film. It rushed through the source material. I refuse to believe that Mute is as bad as the critics make out. 9% on RT? That does seem a bit silly.

Sorry but no. It wasn't a bad film.

9%?!

I thought it was more good than bad... Even though I recognise it's failings, which aren't what most critics are complaining about (unlikable characters, etc... it's neo noir, of course they're unlikeable 😉)...

Seemingly, very few of the negative critics want to engagge with the movie on it's terms...

@JustinJackFlash said:

But this also suggests another worrying notion. Most of us film fans have always spat in the face of studio interference. But were the studios always right in the first place?

This is an interesting thought. Unlike others in this discussion, I don't really view Netflix films as "made for TV" although now that it's pointed out one can see the comparisons. That said, it does seem to me that we should at least cede to Netflix some middle ground. I can't think of the last truly "made for TV" movie (thinking USA markets here) that had any quality at all. They are so safe and so canned and so cheesy as to be nearly unwatchable. I feel like the same thing is true of Netflix's TV series' as well, but to a lesser extent (they seem much more formulaic to me).

Back to the OP's point, on some level one must think that for a strong director to fight through productions and studios to make a film with real vision may be a bit like the effect of a butterfly emerging from its cocoon: while the struggle is great the resulting product is beautiful and full of life. Well, at least the ones that live in great director's control. Perhaps Netflix being in its infancy doesn't present the kind of obstacles required to demand great work? I'm not saying the studios are getting it done, but maybe producing resistance that the ones that do get through are truly great for surviving.

That said, one thing we have all seen is studios see one thing work then make 100 more just like it. Or willing to make a film no matter how bad because they know there will be a market (profit) at the end. But such is life.

Thought provoking post...I'm eager to see where this new wave of film making goes! I for one still have hope. :)

@Daddie0 said:

Back to the OP's point, on some level one must think that for a strong director to fight through productions and studios to make a film with real vision may be a bit like the effect of a butterfly emerging from its cocoon: while the struggle is great the resulting product is beautiful and full of life. Well, at least the ones that live in great director's control. Perhaps Netflix being in its infancy doesn't present the kind of obstacles required to demand great work? I'm not saying the studios are getting it done, but maybe producing resistance that the ones that do get through are truly great for surviving.

I think that answers my question. Your saying that filmmakers need that struggle and opposition as a filter? That makes a lot of sense. They have to really be sure that their material is worth the battle. If they feel their daring ideas aren't worth fighting a studio for they probably wouldn't have turned out that great anyway.

Kinda like how Hitchcock had to find a way to deal with the code restrictions of the 40s & 50s?

I think there is some truth to the sense that restrictions can force creativity... BUT, I think it is too soon to say that this is the case with Netflix movies... We've had too few of them, mostly from small time directors...

The first half of Mute is pretty good anyway... As is Okja, but I thimk that was bought by Netflix and not developed for it. Mudbound was bought as well.

I think the premise of OPs question relies on concession that Mute is a bad film. It's not, it's excellent - not for everyone, clearly, but as a sci-fi fan (and Duncan Jones fan), I wasn't disappointed at all. In fact, given the horrible reviews this received, I was very pleasantly surprised!

@silverhawkins said:

I think the premise of OPs question relies on concession that Mute is a bad film. It's not, it's excellent - not for everyone, clearly, but as a sci-fi fan (and Duncan Jones fan), I wasn't disappointed at all. In fact, given the horrible reviews this received, I was very pleasantly surprised!

Not really. Because at the time I wrote the original post I had still yet to see Mute and was basing the premise on a broad range of releases. I chose that film to start the thread because that had just been released at the time. I have now seen it and, no, I didn't like it (and I am a sci-fi noir and Duncan Jones fan). But that doesn't mean that one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

Regardless of whether or not Mute is a bad film, there were still many examples of disappointing Netflix films up until that point and there still are many that continue to be released (although in fairness, they do seem to be getting better).

Four years on and @JustinJackFlash is a prophet.

I happened to watch this film again, and as others have said in this thread, it wasn't the worst thing made...especially with hindsight. While I still happen rate it the same four years later, this film is far, far superior than anything Netflix has been involved with since. The new game for me is to find anything worth watching. I don't know what the future of filmmaking is, but we are in a dry season that--ironically--is full of content.

@Daddie0 said:

Four years on and @JustinJackFlash is a prophet.

I happened to watch this film again, and as others have said in this thread, it wasn't the worst thing made...especially with hindsight. While I still happen rate it the same four years later, this film is far, far superior than anything Netflix has been involved with since. The new game for me is to find anything worth watching. I don't know what the future of filmmaking is, but we are in a dry season that--ironically--is full of content.

Haha, why thankyou, dude. I do appreciate being hailed as a prophet. I can't say that's ever happened before.

But I do give credit where credit is due and I do think Netflix has improved in this area. Yes I do still see a lot of examples of what I was referring to in my original post get released. But I have seen a fair few that seem to hold together as a successful, cohesive vision. If you haven't already done so I recommend giving a few of these a go:

22 July by Paul Greengrass, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs by The Coen Brothers, The Two Popes, Flovors of Youth, Dolemite is My Name, Mank by David Fincher, Uncut Gems, The Trial of the Chicago 7 by Aaron Sorkin, The Night Comes For Us, Da Five Bloods by Spike Lee and The Dirt.

I know we also discussed Marriage Story before and while we may not have agreed on it's status as entertainment, I'm sure we can both recognise it as a film that achieves what it set out to in a cohesive way. And itt matched up to director Noah Baumbach's pre-Netflix work. Wheras if you compare it to something like Okja, which represents the kind of film I was referring to in my OP, a film which seems to try to appeal to both Western and Korean audiences and comes across as a bizarre mess as a result. That film doesn't seem to match up to Bong Joon Ho's pre Netflix work and definitely not his post Netflix Parasite.

I acknowledge that I'm unsure whether all the above films mentioned were actually made by Netflix or bought by them afterwards and I also acknowledge that we have our own personal taste. But what I'm talking about in this thread is whether these films make for a cohesive vision akin to something that would be produced by the studios that have always aimed for cinematic releases. Or are they the meanderings of an undisciplined artist.

I haven't had Netflix for a while but I have also noticed a fair few of their exclusives receive highly positive reviews recently. Far more so than during the time of my OP.

Films such as Malcolm and Marie, The Harder They Fall, News of the World, Oxygen, The Mitchells vs the Machines, Don't Look Up, Vampires vs the Bronx, The White Tiger, Fear Street and The Forty Year Old Version.

I couldn't comment on how accurate those reviews are yet as I have yet to see these films so maybe there is something fishy going on. And I'm definitely not saying Netflix are perfect in this area, but I do think they are better than they were and generally I don't feel as weary when approaching a Netflix original as I used to. Maybe the existence of many of these films could be due to Netflix now exuding more control over their artists, and I have heard rumours so that may be the case. And I would imagine that is the direction every company will always inevitably go.