'Arrested Development' Comes Exclusively To Netflix 201
Posted
by
timothy
from the on-probation dept.
from the on-probation dept.
First time accepted submitter Xondak writes "The cult series 'Arrested Development' is being resurrected and brought exclusively to Netflix streaming subscribers. This marks the first time a major studio has produced first-run content for the streaming service and perhaps this will afford other opportunities for cancelled Fox series. Firefly, anyone?"
Several thoughts on this rather positive trend (Score:3, Insightful)
1) "Firefly" or "SGU" or whatever your sci-fi poison is can't and won't be retrieved this way - because it is too expensive and Netflix subscribers simply won't do all the lifting;
2) As someone already pointed out, Netflix and other streaming services which streams tv series are kinda useless in big picture, because they won't be allowed in the rest of the world due of syndication/greed/whatever is new reason for MAFIAA to restrict their product to be available for rest of us;
3) And I'm alergic to bulshit like SOPA too - so I see less and less initiative to play by the rules. If they think that threatening everyone like wannabe criminals, why I should try to change their mind? There is lot of other things to really worry about, like hunger, economical stagnation, or even existence of capitalism itself. I will try to get myself into more independent stuff and support them - as I already do using open source and free software for 11 years.
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate It (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor - limited selection. I can get show X or album Y on service 1, but not on service 2.
I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.
I've long thought that digital media should be like the Internet, with individual Music Service Providers competing based on their interface, features, etc., and not on their catalog. In other words, all content available through everyone and that's not why you choose one over the other.
iTunes, Google Music, Netflix, etc. are simply recreations of the record company distribution monopoly. At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.
Re:I'll pass. (Score:1, Insightful)
As for the topic, Firefly stopped running in 2002. It's dead, and it's not coming back. To put this in perspective, high end home computers at the time typically touted Pentium 4 processors.
I took the liberty of looking some things up, and it may surprise you to learn that the cast of TV shows does indeed age with the passage of time. Firefly was nearly 10 years ago, so everyone is now 10 years older. It's funny how that works isn't it. A quick look at wikipedia indicates that all parties involved moved on to other things a long time ago.
Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Bruce Campbell might have contractual obligations to the show he's currently working on...
When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (Score:5, Insightful)
Netfix surely could have gotten the content cheaper if it was non-exclusive. The price hike everyone was griping about isn't being spent (entirely) on bringing more content to Netflix subscribers. Part of it is being spent on keeping content away from subscribers of other content delivery services, i.e. exclusivity. You're happy to pay more to help Netflix shut out its competitors, right?
Note: I'm not arguing about whether or not Netfix is a good deal for the price. I'm arguing against exclusivity as a matter of principle -- it's an abuse of customers to make them pay more in order to make the market less competitive (which ultimately hurts consumers).
Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Arrested Development would still be dead if Netflix didn't pay enough to be the exclusive distributor.
Firefly, anyone? (Score:0, Insightful)
No Just You.
Re:Them? (Score:1, Insightful)
How did this fucking numbskull get modded up? What exactly is the "marketing trick" in making new episodes of a show so that people will subscribe to your service? If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".
The stupidity around here sometimes makes my fucking face hurt.
Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. It's incredibly bad actually. None of the characters are remotely believable or likeable. It's hard to get into a spy show when you're rooting for the protagonist to get shot. And the premise? "When you're a spy, you don't get fired, you get sent to Miami." WTF is that? I watched a half dozen episodes of this with family and it was completely and utterly without any merit whatsoever.
Re:Cult? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes - Fox did everything they could to sabotage the show, including but not limited to musical timeslots. airing shows out of order, placing it in timeslots where it would be preempted by sports or political speeches, and so on. They went out of their way to kill the show, justifying their cancelling it due to low ratings which were due in large part to the musical timeslots and preempting and delaying of broadcast, and yet it STILL became an astounding success upon DVD release and reruns on cable networks have been strong as well. So yes, it enjoys a cult following.
I'd like to see "No Ordinary Family" and "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" be continued as well. Also, Firefly, I would second, providing the writers pretend "Serenity" never happened (It was a really shitty ending and we never did learn much about Shepherd's backstory and why at times he enjoyed a VIP get out of jail free card) and just pick up where the series originally left off.