Monthly Archives: November 2025

Evolution of Character

Evolution of Character – King Kong

Leave a comment

One thing that seems to not have lost any appeal over the years in the history of cinema is a good monster movie.  There’s something very cinematic about the thrills that come from seeing a giant beast rampaging through a city or town and striking fear into the hearts of the humans that live there.  We have seen many different monsters brought to life on the big screen, but the whole subgenre itself owes it’s existence in the annals of movie history to the granddaddy of them all; King Kong.  Kong was the first true noteworthy movie monster; an incredible larger than life beast that could only come alive through the magic of movie-making.  Without Kong, we wouldn’t have ended up with Godzilla or Jurassic Park.  He was the true pioneer who paved the way for creature creation in the movies.  And he still remains a character at the forefront of so many different  advances in cinematic artistry.  Starting off as a mere puppet brought to life through stop motion animation, Kong now is given life through CGI technology that makes him feel even more lifelike and capable of conveying a whole range of emotions on screen.  In time, he has grown from a fearsome monster into something of an unexpected hero and protector of the human race, especially as he becomes a central character in what is know as the Monsterverse series of movies.  It is fascinating to see how Kong has evolved with the times through his nearly century long history, sometimes with some rather embarrassing results (especially during his more kid friendly era in the 1960’s.)  While much of Kong’s character remains the same, his impact on cinema takes some very interesting turns, and it shows that he is truly a timeless character that can still appeal to audiences of multiple generations.  In this article, I will be taking a look at some of his most noteworthy screen appearances and see how they individually impacted Kong’s legacy on the big screen.

KING KONG (1933)

The debut of the Eighth Wonder of the World.  Everything that we know about King Kong’s place in cinematic history stems from this iconic film.  This was the movie that placed RKO on the map as a powerful player in Hollywood, delivering a blockbuster that contained at the time some truly groundbreaking visual effects.  The film was the brainchild of director Merian C. Cooper, who co-directed the movie with Ernst B. Schoedsack.  One can’t help but see some meta-textual elements in the story, with Cooper creating a self-insert of himself in the character of Carl Denham (played by Robert Armstrong), a filmmaker who seeks to capture on film a creature the world has never seen before.  The journey takes him and his crew to the mythical Skull Island, where it is said that prehistoric creatures still live, enclosed by the native population behind an ancient stone wall.  They soon learn that the strongest of all the beasts behind the wall is a 50 foot tall giant ape known as Kong.  Kong was brought to life through several different techniques.  One was a giant mechanical head for the facial close-ups, and the other was through stop motion animation, done by pioneering animator Willis H. O’Brien.  O’Brien’s groundbreaking animation of Kong went beyond just bringing the creature to life.  He also gave Kong personality; even to the point where we have sympathy for him as he tries to fight back against the humans trying to hunt him.  O’Brien’s work would be a great influence on future special effects wizards in the industry, including the legendary Ray Harryhausen.  But it wasn’t just the animation that made the movie iconic; it was how Cooper and Schoedsack staged their action as well.  Not only did they have Kong rampaging through his native jungle, but he was also set loose on New York City as well, leading to a final confrontation on the then recently completed Empire State Building.  Thanks to this movie, not only was Kong immortalized, but so was his connection with the iconic structure.  Even after 90 years of standing tall in the New York Skyline, the image of Kong battling airplanes at the top of the skyscraper is still what most people will think of when they see it in person.  For being called the Eighth Wonder of the World, this movie went a long way towards helping Kong earn that title.

KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962)

Of course, King Kong had appeal far beyond just Hollywood.  In Japan, the original King Kong was a profound influence on an aspiring filmmaker who had an idea for a monster movie of his own.  In 1954, Ishiro Honda would change Japanese cinema forever with his groundbreaking monster film Godzilla (1954).  Instead of a giant ape, Honda imagined the people of Tokyo being terrorized by a giant lizard, born out of the after effects of nuclear fallout.  Godzilla was meant to be a metaphor of the terrible trauma that the Japanese people endured after the nuclear strikes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II.  The film itself would go on to become a massive hit not just in Japan, but across the world itself, sparking a new era in monster movie filmmaking.  And it was only inevitable at some point that both Kong and Godzilla would cross paths.  The studio behind Godzilla, Toho Productions, managed to secure the rights to use King Kong in one of their movies, which of course would pit him in a one on one confrontation with their iconic monster.  Honda himself would return to direct, though he objected to the more comical tone that Toho wanted to push on this movie.  His Godzilla was made like the original King Kong to be a terrifying experience for the audience, fitting with the message that he wanted to deliver about the dangers of nuclear war.  But, as both Godzilla and King Kong had grown to become these characters with mass appeal with audiences, the tone shifted from being serious to playful, and that’s largely what King Kong vs. Godzilla ended up being.  Unlike in his original film, Kong would be played physically by a man in a giant ape costume.  It fits with the style that Toho had developed with their Godzilla style monster movies up to this point, but the rubber masked actor doesn’t quite match the personality that was given to the stop motion puppet in the original.  Still, the show down between these two titans would indeed be popular, and of course, it wouldn’t be the last time they would share the big screen either.

KING KONG (1976)

After a decade of being a part of Japan’s monster movie pantheon, Hollywood would reclaim their iconic titanic ape for another big screen adaptation.  But, like with his Japanese portrayal, he would be brought to life through an actor’s portrayal in an ape suit.  What may be the most shocking detail of about this film is that the man in the ape suit is none other than legendary multi-Oscar winning make-up artist Rick Baker.  Baker designed and crafted the ape suits himself, but it’s rather surprising that he would be the one to wear it all himself.  While the facial sculpting and mechanical extensions to his hands are fairly impressive, it still creates an inauthenticity effect when you can clearly tell that it’s still a human actor playing this giant ape.  As hard as Rick Baker tries, he just doesn’t convincingly move the same way that a real ape does.  Interestingly, the movie takes the same story of the original film, but updates it to the present day, which at the time would have been the mid-70’s.  Instead of Carl Denham the eccentric showman hunting for a glimpse of King Kong, we have an oil tycoon named Fred Wilson (played by Charles Grodin) seeking to eliminate Kong so that he can extract resources from his home on Skull Island.  And instead of ending at the recently completed Empire State Building of the original, this version has it’s climax at the then recently completed Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.  There is an unmistakable environmental message being delivered, which does tie into the original film’s underlying theme about man’s hubris when it comes to attempting to conquer nature.  But, the delivery here is a lot less subtle with it’s message, and in many ways undermines the plot itself.  Unfortunately for all involved, the movie was a major financial bomb and put Kong into hibernation in Hollywood for quite some time afterwards.  At least for Rick Baker, this movie would lead to a very prosperous career afterwards where he would truly break new ground in visual and prosthetic make-up effects over the next several decades, becoming a true legend in the industry.  And he probably was happy that he didn’t have to be the guy in the monkey suit ever again.

KING KONG LIVES (1986)

This film made a decade after the last is indeed a direct sequel to 1976’s King Kong, and yet it also feels like a reboot of sorts.  I didn’t matter anyway since this movie also was a financial failure.  The noteworthy thing about this movie is that it introduces the idea that Kong is not alone in the world.  A second Kong is discovered, and she’s a female.  This prompts Kong to escape as he pursues his potential mate, even though he still suffering from the after effects of his fall from the Twin Towers.  Yes, doctors actually perform heart surgery on Kong in this movie, giving him an artificial heart to keep him alive.  It’s all a convoluted way to build Kong into a franchise character.  Part of what made Kong such an appealing character in the first place was the tragic pathos of his journey.  Even the 1976 film got that.  Kong is a creature that only attacks after being provoked.  His fury is not out of malice, but as a response to human beings not respecting his privacy.  The story of Kong is one of mankind attempting to find common ground with mother nature, or else it will succumb to forces it doesn’t understand and is too arrogant to honor.  But King Kong Lives ignores all that and just turns the film into an action packed thriller where we see Kong tear things apart.  Sadly, given the limited budget this movie had, all of the miniatures of the tanks and trucks that Kong tears apart just end up looking like he’s playing with toy cars.  Played by Peter Elliott this time, the ape suit is not quite as well constructed as the Rick Baker one, so it just reinforces the artificiality all the more.  The movie only stands out for it’s depiction of Kong undergoing heart surgery, which in a way is kind of a ridiculous campy moment that needs to be seen to be believed.  They literally take his old heart out like it’s a toy from a giant claw machine game.  Other than that, this was another failed attempt to recapture some of the cinematic magic of seeing King Kong alive on the big screen.  Thankfully, it would also mark the end of Kong’s ape suit era.

KING KONG (2005)

Finally, we have Kong brought to life in a way that feels true to his origins.  Instead of using a man in an ape suit or stop motion animation, this version of Kong would be brought to life through the newest advances in CGI technology.  It would not only help to make Kong look like a real ape, but also act like one too, while at the same time still displaying the personality that has helped to set him apart as a cinematic icon.  Director Peter Jackson has always pointed to the original 1933 King Kong as the biggest inspiration for him as a filmmaker.  It’s the movie that lit his fire, not just as a storyteller, but also as a filmmaker who makes extensive use of visual effects to tell his story.  After changing the world of cinema with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson was ready to deliver his loving tribute to the original King Kong.  And indeed, he would give Kong the epic treatment, taking the original story and expanding it into a 3 hour long extravaganza.  Of all the Kong movies, this one perhaps takes it’s subject the most seriously.  It’s definitely the most emotional portrayal of Kong we’ve ever seen, brought to life by the king of motion capture performance Andy Serkis, who previously brought the character of Gollum to vivid life for Peter Jackson in the Rings films.  You really become emotionally attached to this version of Kong, and that’s in large part thanks to what Serkis is able to do with his remarkable physical portrayal.  He would continue to build on what he did with Kong when he played another powerful, albeit much smaller, ape character as Cesar in the Planet of the Apes series.  Another key to the film’s success was the way they fleshed out the character of Ann Darrow.  Played famously by Fay Wray in the original, Ms. Darrow was not much more than a typical damsel in distress, but in Peter Jackson’s version she is played by Naomi Watts and is a woman with agency and someone who finds more connection with this massive ape than she does with any human.  The movie may be a tad too long and overly reverential, but it does give Kong a worthy portrayal that indeed is the best we’ve seen since his early days.  And it definitely proved that this was a character best realized through animation and not by way of a man in a monkey suit.  This movie set the standard for how we would see Kong brought to the big screen from here on out.

KONG: SKULL ISLAND (2017)

The Peter Jackson King Kong was more or less it’s own stand alone project, playing out much as the original did with the “twas Beauty killed the Beast” ending.  To depict Kong once again on the big screen would call for a reimagining.  Ten years after Jackson’s film, Legendary Pictures was developing their own slate of movies combining all of cinema’s most famous giant movie monsters into a shared universe, and they wanted to bring King Kong into their fold as well.  The Monsterverse, as it has come to be known, got it’s launch with a modern update of Godzilla (2014).  Naturally, the plan was to lead up to a confrontation between the two biggest icons, but Kong needed a new introduction to differentiate from all other versions of him we’ve seen before.  The people at Legendary came up with a rather unique idea by having Kong’s newest movie be done in the style of 70’s era Vietnam war flick, making this newest Kong film both grittier but also stylish in a way that matched the new tone.  This would also be the largest Kong we had ever seen before.  Previous Kongs, including the original and the Peter Jackson version, were estimated to stand as much as 50 ft. in height.  This Kong dwarfs them all by topping out at nearly 300 ft.  Instead of scaling skyscrapers, this Kong is one.  Like with Andy Serkis’ portrayal, this Kong is brought to life through mo-cap performance, this time by actor Toby Kebbell, and though he isn’t given as much of an emotional range as Serkis’ version, Kebbell still gives his Kong a menacing presence.  His Kong is very much a force of nature kind of creature; by poking the bear, you’ve become more likely to be torn to pieces by him.  The movie is more or less about the land of Skull Island itself and all the perils it holds, with the crew of humans led by Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, and John Goodman all learning that Kong’s kingdom is best left to the King.  Overall, it does a good job of introducing King Kong into the Monsterverse, and in many ways it hinted at just how much of a powerful force he was going to bring to the series in the years to come.

GODZILLA VS. KONG (2021) and GODZILLA X KONG: THE NEW EMPIRE (2024)

As promised, the Monsterverse did bring it’s two biggest hitters together in a one on one confrontation, and it thankfully didn’t disappoint.  Any time Godzilla and Kong share the screen, it is magnificent.  Of course, the weakest parts of all these Monsterverse movies have been the human characters, and over time it feels like the people at Legendary have figured this out too.  The growing trend throughout the Monsterverse movies that feature Kong is that he is being given more and more screen time.  In many ways, he’s grown into the main protagonist of the series, and that overall has been a good thing.  The Kong we meet by the time we get to Godzilla vs. Kong is older and more accustomed to being around humans.  The organization in the Monsterverse called Monarch that oversees the Titan creatures like Kong and Godzilla have found ways to accommodate human society around these monsters and even rely on them as protectors from more dangerous threats out there.  It’s weird to think of King Kong and Godzilla as forces for good in our world, but somehow the Monsterverse movies have managed to make that concept work in their movies.  Of all the Monsterverse characters, Kong is clearly the best defined, and he makes for a strong and likable hero in this franchise.  One of the best ideas the franchise has put forth is that Kong and Godzilla are begrudging allies in this world they co-inhabit, teaming up only when it’s necessary to take down a greater threat.  Otherwise, they’ll be fighting each other for supremacy.  This version of Godzilla is very territorial and doesn’t want anyone to challenge his reign as King of the Monsters, which Kong seems to oblige just as long as he gets to live freely in his home in the hollow Earth.  These movies are becoming increasingly ridiculous, but that’s kind of been their charm too.  In many ways, these Monsterverse films accomplish more effectively what the Toho monster films were attempting; creating silly but engaging entertainment around these iconic monsters.  And the crazier these movies get they somehow become more entertaining.  And the filmmakers knew that Kong would be the best one to anchor this whole Monsterverse together.

Over the 90 plus years that King Kong has been seen on the big screen, he still stands as one of cinema’s most enduring icons.  The original film is still a masterpiece of action filmmaking, with visual effects that have gone on to inspire so many other film creations over the years.  And at it’s center was proof that even a visual effect could act and show emotion.  You can see why people like Ray Harryhausen and Peter Jackson were so inspired by what the movie accomplished.  It was a movie that really showed what the medium was capable of.  And as we’ve seen with the Legendary Pictures’ Monsterverse movies, Kong is still a character that audiences can root for.  But, it’s his story that also resonates across the years.  Mankind has often pushed itself into places it’s perhaps should have left alone, and as a result has paid the price for it.  We are still grappling with the effects of our impact on nature, and how we as humans treat animals great and small.  In the original story, Kong isn’t so much killed by his chase after Beauty, but instead by being out of his natural element.  He is pulled away from his home on Skull Island to the concrete jungle of Manhattan, and it dulls the instincts that kept him alive all these years.  He has grown more tame, because he doesn’t understand this new world he’s been brought to, and that made him vulnerable.  It makes one reconsider what we are doing to the great ape species like him when we observed them behind bars at a zoo.  King Kong’s original story is a profound one, but we’ve also seen how Kong can endure when his story isn’t bound to tragedy.  The great thing about the Mosnterverse franchise is that it’s shown us a Kong that is truly set free and allowed to earn that title of King in his own domain.  We’ll see where his adventures take him next, but there’s no doubt of his rightful place as one of cinema’s true icons.  The Eighth Wonder of the World and so much more.

Editorials

Liking and Subscribing – How YouTube Ultimately Won the Streaming Wars

Leave a comment

For the last few years, the entertainment industry has gone through a massive upheaval, chasing after a brand new online based revenue stream.  This “streaming war” involved a huge amount of capital being poured into creating the infrastructure as well as the exclusive content that would draw audiences to these new platforms.  For the longest time, Netflix was alone as a streaming provider, and Hollywood was taking notice of just how much money they were making on monthly subscriptions.  Netflix continued to grow even more as they had gained the ability to form their own production wing, and were not as reliant on all the licenses that they were paying the movie studios for in order to play their movies and shows.  As Netflix continued expanding, the movie studios (in particular the Big 5 of Disney/Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal and Sony) began to consider that it would be in their best interest to take Netflix’s formula and repeat it under their own umbrella.  The expense of setting up all of these streaming platforms was not unsubstantial, but Hollywood believed that it was an investment worth making for the long term, as it seemed that streaming was the future of entertainment.  But, what ended up happening was that the pool of potential subscribers was split up among the separate streamers and many of them couldn’t reach the lofty growth projections that they hoped to reach.  Even with the assist of the pandemic forcing many people to turn to streaming as a sole outlet for entertainment over the course of that turbulent year, many of the streaming platforms struggled to find their footing.  Now, over half a decade in and only one of the studio run streaming platforms (Disney+) has managed to reach profitability, and just barely.  What Hollywood failed to see was that another factor in the streaming content market was also affecting the viewership patterns of the audience pool that the studios were hoping to capitalize on.  The user generated video streaming site YouTube has not only emerged as a primary player in the streaming wars, but possibly also it’s victor.  And the truth behind it’s dominance all comes down to economics; particularly when it comes to the audience itself.

YouTube of course existed long before there was any concept of streaming entertainment.  When it launched in 2005, home entertainment was still dominated by the likes of Blockbuster Video.  Netflix had only just started it’s DVD by mail service, and it would be another 6 years before they would make their first jump into streaming.  And yet, YouTube would instantly make an immediate splash in the online world.  The concept of “Viral Video” stemmed from the way user uploaded videos would suddenly gain attention not just in the online community, but in the whole pop culture zeitgeist itself.  Google, which clearly saw the potential of YouTube’s ability to generate buzz worthy content, purchased the platform for a then substantial $1.6 billion.  With Google’s backing, YouTube was able to expand it’s revenue through advertising monetization program, which enabled people who uploaded to the platform to make money off of the content they created.  Being a YouTube content creator could actually help people earn a living, and in some cases, people who were able to gain a massive subscriber base could become multi-millionaires.  But, to get to that place is difficult, and a large part of YouTube content creation is trying to figure out how to manage the algorithm and get noticed in a competitive market.  That’s why so many YouTubers are working a hustle in all their videos, asking people to like and subscribe to their channel.  The constant pressure to meet quotas for viewership in order to make money off of the platform has also led to a lot of creators burning out over time.  But, even with all that, YouTube still has managed to evolve into something that not only provides plenty of material for broadcast on a daily basis, but many of the creators on the platform has improved the quality of their content so much that it rivals much of what we see on linear television itself.  One big factor that helped to make YouTube even more of a worthy competitor to television itself was in 2010 when they removed the time limit for video uploads.  Before then, all content creators were bound by a ten minute ceiling, but afterwards the sky was the limit.

Now people regularly go to YouTube for any kind of entertainment they desire, and creators could take advantage of the creative freedom allowed on the platform.  YouTube became a place for underground outlets of journalism and experimental film-making.  Of course, terms and conditions set by YouTube and their parent company Google applied, but YouTube content creators found that this platform afforded them an outlet that could reach a totally different audience than they would’ve through traditional media.  The barriers to getting noticed were also smaller, as it didn’t matter if you had a foothold in the entertainment business beforehand; you could reach a massive audience and become famous if you managed to stick out in the algorithm.  Even Hollywood was taking note.  While viewership numbers for linear TV shows have been declining for years, those same shows can still retain relevancy if the clips on their YouTube channel still get a lot of views.  The Nielsen ratings, once the major barometer for judging the success of television show, now only tells half of the story.  The viewership patterns for NBC’s Saturday Night Live are a good example of this, as their TV ratings make it look like the show is falling off every single season due to dwindling broadcast numbers.  And yet it’s cultural relevance still has not waned, because it also enjoys a massive following on YouTube.  It has a 16 million large subscriber base, and their clipped videos almost continually do millions of views even in the course of a week after airing.  And in case of some of their more viral videos, like the “Lonely Island” music videos they’ve put out, they can reach far more viewers than they ever would’ve during their late night broadcasts.  YouTube has significantly changed the way that people consume television, with a lot people opting not to check out these shows live when they were originally scheduled, but instead on their own time, and repeatedly if they are viral enough.

But there is a much bigger factor in what has ultimately made YouTube the true king of streaming; that it’s free to use.  Where all the other streaming platforms derive revenue from monthly subscriptions, YouTube is primarily funded through ad revenue.  Sure, there is a YouTube Premium service available where people can subscribe to watch their content ad-free, but for the most part, people have largely accepted the ad service model as a way of getting content at no cost to them.  This is why YouTube is the second largest trafficked website on the planet, because there is no barrier to logging in and watching.  And as stated before, the quality of the content has risen so much over the years that YouTube channels are now competitive with what we see on television.  Sure, network television is still made free for the public, and also supported by add revenue, but the number of stations is limited to just a handful of networks; ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW, and Public Broadcasting.  Cable Television was created as a paid alternative to give viewers more choices in programming, but the fact that it’s pay walled has diminished it’s value over time, especially in competition with what streaming provides.  One thing that we have seen the big studios struggle with in the last couple of years is what to do with linear television, as the ad revenue they can generate from their holdings have shifted to other places like YouTube.  Advertisers have learned that more eyes are going to streaming instead of the networks and cable channels, so that’s where they are putting their money now.  Disney, whose holdings include ABC and ESPN, has had to reshuffle their corporate structure in order to meet the new reality in broadcasting; so much so that many have speculated that Disney may be looking to offload their linear television channels in the future in order to focus on streaming instead.  The tolerance for ad breaks has been one of the biggest surprises to come from the streaming wars, largely due to the fact that YouTube’s ad support model is getting the most traction in the online space.  That’s probably why so many of the streaming platforms have created their own ad-supported tier as a more budget minded alternative; including Netflix.

But one thing that YouTube has decided is not in their wheelhouse is the idea of creating their own original content to compete with the likes of Netflix.  Not that they didn’t try.  Before YouTube Premium became an ad-free only option, YouTube had another paid service called YouTube Red.  YouTube Red was going to be ad-free like Premium ultimately ended up being, but it was also going to offer original shows and films made by YouTube’s own in house production company.  YouTube Originals would create a string of original shows and movies that not only would compete with the likes of Netflix, but would also be useful in spotlighting the brand of YouTube itself.  One thing that YouTube Originals did was tap into their own pool of content creators to develop shows and films that would be extensions of their own channel content, only with a more substantial budget.  Creators like gamer PewDiePie and others were among the people tapped to start up this new phase of YouTube’s programming, with a large emphasis on reality based content.  But, there were scripted programs made too, including a couple of buzz-worthy programs.  It may surprise many to know that a hit show like Cobra Kai, a spinoff series based on the Karate Kid films, started it’s life as a YouTube Original.  YouTube produced the first two seasons of the series, and for those seasons it became the driving force for YouTube Red’s subscriber growth.  But it clearly wasn’t enough.  In 2018, YouTube announced that they were phasing out YouTube Red in favor of growing their Premium service, and this included the shuttering of YouTube Originals.  The majority of the original shows that premiered on YouTube Red were quietly cancelled, but a couple were allowed to be shopped out to other interested parties.  In the case of Cobra Kai, it was picked up by Netflix, which kept the show running for an additional four seasons, all of which were wildly successful for the streamer.  In the end, YouTube saw their value as a platform for content creation rather than a production outfit themselves.

This has helped YouTube to stay ahead of so many other streamers in the race for attention from potential viewers.  So many of the studio run streamers cater to such a specific kind of audience, while YouTube is literally a place where you can find anything to watch.  Sure, YouTube can’t run movies and television shows from the major studios (and they have strict rules about uploading pirated movies onto their platform as well), but they are the place where everything else is available to see: how-to tutorials, video podcasts, highlight reels, and tons of videos about cute pets.  What YouTube has done in it’s 20 year existence is change the viewing habits of the average consumer.  One phenomenon that has come from consuming programming on YouTube is the “rabbit hole” binge watching habit that so many people have developed.  It comes from people choosing one video to watch on YouTube, and then clicking on one of the algorithmic selected suggestions that are attached to that video, and then repeating the same function after watching that.  Some people can spend hours just watching the random stream of videos that are suggested to them through YouTube’s algorithm, and that’s the thing that Hollywood is trying to compete against.  Of course all the streamers operate on some kind of algorithmic programming that caters to the subscriber’s viewing habits, but their suggestions are often confined to the niche selection that they have curated from their own libraries.  Meanwhile, YouTube literally contains billions of random types of videos on their platform, with countless more added each day, so those who go down the YouTube rabbit hole are far more likely to encounter something new they haven’t seen before when they are given suggestions from the platform’s algorithm.  This is why so many people are giving their time over to YouTube; the variety of options and the simple interface of YouTube’s platform that makes it easy for viewers to continue watching.

The streaming wars as a result has become less of a race to the top and more of a contest for third place.  Netflix had a ten year head start on all the other wannabe competitors, but even Netflix has to compete for time with what YouTube has to offer.  The bad news for Hollywood is that there doesn’t seem to be any alternative path to being able to do what YouTube is able to do.  It really is an entity without peers.  Disney or Universal is not going to suddenly launch a competitor to YouTube, where users can upload videos onto a site they run.  With YouTube, it’s better to find ways to work with it than compete against it, and all the major studios have their own channels on the platform where they launch movie trailers, as well as a couple YouTube exclusives of their own.  But just like everyone else, they are subjected to the ebb and flow of how YouTube’s algorithm works, so it’s not exactly the place where they can launch one of their multi-million dollar projects.  The problem Hollywood faces now is trying to figure out how to maximize their audience reach in a market that clearly has been shaken up by streaming.  With YouTube pulling in millions of views daily, and Netflix showing little signs of weakness, the studios are searching for new ways to drive engagement on their own platforms.  For the longest time, exclusive content was the thing to bring in subscribers, but that required an insane amount of capital to produce, especially in the early days of the streaming wars when these new platforms had so little to offer.  What we’ve seen happen is a lot of these traditionally powerful media giants face some hard financial pitfalls due to their ramp up of production to feed these streaming monsters.  But, because of the large amount of offerings out there (with every studio jumping in) the potential audience was splintered and the amount or revenue coming in was not countering the investment it took to put it all together.  That’s why so many mergers and acquisitions are happening, as the studios are trying to shore up their financial burdens due to the amount of money they burned through in such a short amount of time.  Meanwhile, YouTube and Netflix have continued to maintain their leads in the streaming race, with their already firmly established hold on their audiences allowing them to weather the stormy seas of the streaming wars.

YouTube may not be a powerful player in terms of production, it still is the place where most people go to for quick, easy to digest entertainment.  Hollywood is learning more and more that their goal should be to offer audiences entertainment that is special enough to get people to click of their computers and phones for an hour or two.  For a long time during the streaming wars, the studios were under the Field of Dreams belief that “if you build it, they will come,” but as we’ve seen building isn’t enough.  You need to make people want to actively go out and see something, whether it be in a theater or on a separate platform.  One of the biggest problems facing streaming right now is the rising cost of everything.  The low price points at launch were a big help in getting people to subscribe to these new streaming surfaces, but all the incremental price increases since then have caused a lot of budget conscious people to tune out.  Moving to streaming was a big part of the whole “cutting the cord” movement that drew people away from subscribing to cable, but now the costs have risen to the point where streaming is now on par with cable TV and possibly even more depending on how many services people have signed up for.  While streaming can be a good value overall depending on how robust their libraries are, people are becoming more picky about which ones they want.  And that audience churn has become the biggest problem facing the market today, especially for the studios that have seen their growth stagnate even after spending billions creating exclusive programming for it.  All the while, YouTube is free to use, easy to navigate, and offers a lucrative creator incentive structure that enables a higher quality of entertainment than just simple home videos.  At the same time, there is truth to there being too much of a good thing, and YouTube’s monopoly on people’s attention is not exactly healthy in the long term for the future of entertainment.  Hopefully Hollywood discovers a way to deal with the competition that they face with YouTube and manage to build something special that either competes strongly against the pull of YouTube, or manages to survive alongside it.  In the face of television and home video, Hollywood has always managed to find ways to bring audiences back to the movies and prestige entertainment.  In the meantime, enjoy the best that YouTube has to offer, but in good moderation.  There are plenty of good content creators on YouTube that are deserving of your attention.  But just remember to come out of that YouTube rabbit hole before it consumes too much of your day and support the arts in far more direct and personal ways beyond it.