Netflix Is Betting On Exclusive Programming 216
An anonymous reader writes: You may have heard of the recent launch of the new Daredevil TV show, and possibly the hit shows House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. They're all original programming from Netflix — the company that used to just mail DVDs to your door. But Netflix is now running a lot more than just those three shows — it has 320 hours of original programming planned for this year. This article discusses how Netflix is betting big on original, exclusive content, and what that means for the future of television. "Traditionally, television networks needed to stand for something to carve out an audience, he said, whereas the Internet allows brands to mean different things to different people because the service can be personalized for individual viewers. That means that for a conservative Christian family, Netflix should stand for wholesome entertainment, and, for a 20-year-old New York college student, it should be much more on the edge, he said.... 'We've had 80 years of linear TV, and it's been amazing, and in its day the fax machine was amazing,' he said. "The next 20 years will be this transformation from linear TV to Internet TV.'"
Giving the customers what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent shows, commercial free, on demand, released one season at a time. At the same time I have watched some networks take a 30 minute time slot show and reduce the actual show from around 21-22 minutes to 17-18 minutes, making more time for commercials. I'll sit on my couch with my potato chips and watch the demise of network TV with delight.
Re:Giving the customers what they want (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, I'm all in on the Netflix bandwagon. It, along with other streaming services (I'm a huge anime fan so Crunchyroll is in that list) are all I watch these days.
On the other hand I hope Hulu dies in a fire. I'm ok with watching ads to pay for my TV, and I have no problem with paying for a service to stream TV. I do however have an issue with paying a service to stream TV and still having to watch ads. Hulu+ is a joke of a service being managed by the same corporate assholes who made me leave cable in the first place. Netflix just beats out Hulu in terms of where you can use it (just about every possible device runs Netflix, while there's a lot that won't handle Hulu+) Heck even Amazon Prime is beating Hulu in terms of devices I see which support it. I hope the Hulu people figure their shit out eventually since there's a handful of shows I would watch (like South Park) if they had a reasonable streaming service that didn't try to double dip with both ads and subscriptions.
$30 per month (Score:2)
I do however have an issue with paying a service to stream TV and still having to watch ads.
Would you prefer a choice between Hulu Plus with ads at $10 per month and ad-free Hulu Plus Plus at $30 per month? Because the operators of these services would argue that only the combination of ad revenue and subscription revenue is enough to pay the royalty bills.
Re:$30 per month (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think they're getting that much for the ads. After all, netflix manages to offer ad-free stuff for $8/month, same as Hulu+. It's probably closer to the difference between $8/month and $12.
I think the ultimate reason Netflix is creating it's own content is that the more content it controls, the more influence it has over the other media copyright holders. If Netflix can legitimately argue that if copyright holder X doesn't play ball, that it's average subscriber won't sign up to site Y for $Z revenue because the subscribers will simply watch something else, such as one of Netflix's exclusive shows, then they're leaving money on the table, and they don't like doing that.
Sort of like a backwards HBO. HBO does great shows, but are really exclusive about them. If you want to see Netflix's shows, you have to sign up, but it's not nearly as expensive as a cable package + HBO.
Re: (Score:2)
The other big advantage Netflix has is that it releases its shows world-wide simultaneously. Traditional TV is getting slightly better at that, but there is still a long way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ESPN essentially is available ala cart, ESPN, AMC, and TNT (for NASCAR) are the main draws in the sling tv offer at $20/month and AMC wasn't part of the initial offering so it was basically ESPN and TNT for $20/month.
Years later (Score:2)
After all, netflix manages to offer ad-free stuff for $8/month, same as Hulu+.
It also gets the ad-free stuff months or years later (except for its own productions), when licensors are willing to license the works at a rate acceptable to Netflix.
If you want to see Netflix's shows, you have to sign up, but it's not nearly as expensive as a cable package + HBO.
Likewise, if you currently subscribe to only cable TV and not wired Internet, Netflix is expensive because you have to add cable Internet to your package.
Re:$30 per month (Score:5, Insightful)
Hulu however has current TV a day later. Netflix doesn't get it for months. Hulu's also sponsored by the content networks who are trying to basically regain their ad revenue.
Netflix is creating original content because it can - its business model depends on subscribers and growing that subscriber base. Showing unlimited movies that have been out for months, or TV seasons that everyone else has seen months ago doesn't grow subscribers, especially since OTA TV will get them for free too, just on a less convenient schedule.
Instead, Netflix has to basically create content or inherit content that the networks can't justify carrying so subscribers have something new to watch.
Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, etc., they get the latest TV within hours of airing which is why they generally cost more because their first-run. Netflix picks up the rest.
In the lifecycle of a movie, it first comes out in theatres. Then it comes out as a digital rental (CinemaNow, Vudu, etc). Then it comes out as purchase - either digital (iTunes, Ultraviolet, etc) or physical (DVD/Blu-Ray). Then general rentals, then Netflix, and finally, regular free TV. This takes around a year or two to fully execute.
The lifecycle for a TV program is first airing, then digital sales (Amazon, iTunes), and Hulu. Then months later, season box sets on DVD, and Netflix.
If you're not fussy about waiting, Netflix is a great service. Most people though can't wait that long for their TV, so there are options. And Netflix knows once they have the people who don't care or who don't mind waiting, their subscriber base is saturated. They need to have new content to attract new subscribers who may not watch much of the catalog, but will catch the exclusives and pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix would answer thus: "Show older shows so you don't have to pay as much in royalties."
Re: (Score:3)
I don't quite get that objection. It's not like it's particularly new. Magazines and newspapers were subscription-based and full of ads, for instance.
Mind you I choose to only watch Hulu and not pay for Hulu plus. Netflix is already the best and I have Amazon Prime because it comes with ancillary benefits. The benefits from Hulu Plus that I don't get some other way are too small.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite get that objection. It's not like it's particularly new. Magazines and newspapers were subscription-based and full of ads, for instance.
So...how's that been working out for them lately?
It seems that both print and traditional pay TV have been increasing both prices and % of ad content for a long time. People are starting to reject these levels, and younger people that are not yet used to paying for it are rejecting it quicker.
Meanwhile, the companies have grown to expect this level of income, so they're not quick to adapt.
Evolve or die.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope the Hulu people figure their shit out eventually since there's a handful of shows I would watch (like South Park) if they had a reasonable streaming service that didn't try to double dip with both ads and subscriptions.
I'm not even a fan of South Park (anymore) and even I know you can watch any episode any time here: here [cc.com]. Why bother with Hulu?
Re: (Score:2)
We tried out Hulu Plus when we cancelled cable and I don't mind it that much. I think of it as my DVR-replacement. Instead of recording shows and then having to fast forward through commercials, I get to see a show slightly delayed from when it aired on Cable with fewer ads than cable TV would have given me. I definitely prefer Netflix or Amazon Prime, but Hulu gives me access to many shows that I would need to buy via Amazon VOD or Google Play otherwise and thus winds up saving me money.
Even with Hulu P
Re: (Score:2)
Anime is like any other product, in that 80% of it is mediocre at best and garbage at worst (ecchi or otherwise). In addition to Crunchyroll, I also subscribe to Funimation, as I occasionally enjoy English dubs, and they have a pretty decent library of their older shows too. Unfortunately, I can't say much for their Xbox 360 app. It barely qualifies as serviceable. I'm not sure if the other platforms are any better. The best part is that those services are inexpensive enough that it's not to painful to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Giving the customers what they want (Score:4, Interesting)
I largely agree, but I'm not sold on the full season release part. It pretty much ruins any opportunity to discuss the show with friends or online communities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I talk about movies with friends weeks after they are released. We don't usually all go the every movie in absolute sync.
A full season of TV released at once is like a super-movie.
I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it's worth it, nor do I think it really eliminates it. After all, A Song of Ice and Fire came out a book at a time. A whole series worth of content. And then it takes years to get the next book. He had forums dedicated to speculation too. It's still serialized, it's just bi
Re: Giving the customers what they want (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One big thing I'm hoping to see is shows with a more complex plot. As it stands you only see one episode per week, and during that week you forget things. Plus you may miss an episode here an there, which means writers can't make things too complicated or they will loose viewers who miss episodes.
But a season that gets released as a block and people binge watching it is a whole different ball game. You can afford t
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen so far from Daredevil, this is definitely what it means. Also, there are less filler episodes as the writers try to slow the plot advancement down and have a "bad guy of the week" for our heroes to tackle who is completely unrelated to the main plot. The plot pacing on Daredevil (so far... I'm 7 episodes in) is a whole lot better than on network shows.
Re: (Score:2)
When Time Warner asked why I was cancelling the video package from my bundle, I replied that the only TV I watch anymore is Netflix and Amazon. Sounded weird at the time but was the absolute truth.
Online blackouts (Score:4, Interesting)
the only TV I watch anymore is Netflix and Amazon.
That's fine for people who don't watch live political news (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-SPAN) or live sports. Because the leagues still sell exclusive rights to particular matches to traditional TV networks, the leagues' streaming subscription services black out any match shown on broadcast, cable, or satellite TV in your area
Re: (Score:2)
'Live political news' can generally be had OTA(over the air) or via free internet sites(with some advertising if you must absolutely listen to the talking heads). You have a point about the live sports, but that's getting pricier and pricier for more people. Not just from rate increases, but from reduced usage outside of watching said live sports.
If you sit there and realize that you're spending $100/month for a cable plan you're not using except as a carrier for a $100 premium sports package, suddenly yo
Re: (Score:2)
If I could just cheer for Minnesota instead of the Pats, that would solve the prime time game problem
Multitasking (Score:2)
I can't imagine watching news when I can read so much faster and from so many more sources.
Can you read a wide variety of sources while doing other housework? Because that's what my roommate ends up doing. She plugs cordless headphones into the TV's audio out, puts on MSNBC or C-SPAN, and listens to the talking heads while doing housework in another room.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine for people who don't watch live political news (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC,
When are you going to list channels with news, and not bullshit entertainment?
C-SPAN)
.250 ain't even good in baseball.
or live sports
More and more of which will come to the internet over time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Online blackouts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have the needs to root for a team or other such pointless ritual to reinforce social identity.
We don't, but a lot of us live with people who do.
Re:Giving the customers what they want (Score:4, Interesting)
While Netflix's distribution model and show quality make it a locally good thing, I think that in the larger scheme, having content production and content distribution tied together will ultimately continue the problems that the current system has. While some of this content is available through other distributors, they always have an incentive to give preferential treatment to their own distributor. I doubt we'll ever see House of Cards on Hulu Plus, for example.
Aside from having to subscribe to several services to hit all of the content that you're interested in, you also have the cases where, like HBO, they have conditions on subscribing and draconian restrictions on what devices they allow playback on (eg, until a couple of years ago, Android playback was locked out if you had an external display connected)
Re: (Score:2)
For Netflix, I think making their own content is a hedge against the content providers who see Netflix as a threat* and who want to only give them old scraps of content, at best, to try to kill Netflix off.
* In reality, Netflix is probably one of the content providers' best allies against piracy. How many people will take the time, effort, and risk to pirate a show when it's available via Netflix?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yea I noticed the extra 12 minutes of tv show time while watching Daredevil on netflix.
The episodes seem just that much longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in: People don't like commercials, especially when you make them pay for the privilege of watching them.
Daredevil... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I watched it and generally agree, but I'd still rank it significantly above average. "meh" is far more positive than what I could say for most current traditional TV shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understood his dialog just fine. I enjoyed Fisk as much as any of the characters I think... I thought he was well written and well acted.
Re:Daredevil... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be frank (Score:4, Interesting)
They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.
Re:Lets be frank (Score:4, Interesting)
They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.
Er, so?
Yes, on a broad scale to get quality TV, it will still be made by people who make money off of it. It should be a relief that someone can still do that, not a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.
I might phrase it differently as adapting to the eventual market.
Netflix isn't going to be the only big web distributor for long. Not only are cable companies putting out their own distribution networks but so are the Networks who produce content. When there's 10 services available people are going to go to the service with the hit shows, if each service is also a content provider they can create the exclusive hit show that preserves part of the audience, if not they wither away and die as their audience is
Come full circle (Score:2)
And if there are multiple providers each with "hit shows" someone might want to bundle them all together so they can negotiate the licensing rights in bulk and let people get everything at a reasonable rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Every Dog's Day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ace that cable has up its sleeve is that your $8 Netflix subscription is riding on a cable internet pipe. In my area, the local non-Comcast provider actually publishes a real pricing scale, and 50 cable channels is a $10 add-on for internet access: http://www.tvcconnect.com/wp-c... [tvcconnect.com]
Re:Every Dog's Day (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint to cable : Deliver more for $8 than Netflix instead of charging hundreds per month.
Like US car companies, it is very hard to admit when the fat years are over. Give them time; I suspect they will come around a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Like US car companies, it is very hard to admit when the fat years are over. Give them time; I suspect they will come around a bit.
Like anything in the US, all the big players wants to keep status quo. In many ways I experience the US as being hopelessly stuck in the 70'ties... :)
Granted I've only lived here for a little more than a year now, nor was alive in the 70'ties
Re: (Score:3)
Cable TV can't lower their bills much -- the licensing fees for the premium cable networks are spiraling out of control.
Netflix doesn't have the money to license cable networks like Starz. Netflix philosophy is "if we can't afford to license the content, we'll simply make our own." They really don't have much of a choice.
Cable TV isn't in any trouble (yet). They have a near monopoly on content.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than content, they have a near-monopoly on Internet access - a total monopoly in some areas. If I want wired, broadband Internet access, my one and only choice is Time Warner Cable. If TWC decided tomorrow that my Internet access without cable TV costs $100, has a 10 GB limit, and a $10 per GB overage fee, there would be nothing I could do. That's admittedly an extreme example, but some cable companies are pricing their no-TV Internet packages higher than their TV+Internet bundles to force people t
Re: (Score:2)
Cable TV can't lower their bills much -- the licensing fees for the premium cable networks are spiraling out of control.
This is why I think cable companies SHOULD move to a la carte programming options. If they can show a cable network that only 2% of their customer base is willing to pay $2.50 per month to subscribe to their channel, then maybe the price should come down a little.
As all of this shakes out, I don't believe the cable companies will be the big losers. After all, they own the physical wires that will be used to deliver content to the customer. In whatever form that is, the cable companies will be in a positi
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad Netflix doesn't do sports, live stuff, new non-Netflix episodes, on demand payments (no subscriptions), etc.
Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past (Score:4, Interesting)
It's probably a good thing that companies like Netflix are making good original programming, but I've noticed that their catalog of classic films has shrunk significantly.
What I really want is a service like Netflix that is more Spotify-like, with an enormous catalog of old films, classic foreign films, art films, shorts, animation, etc.
I guess the fact that copyright trolls are scrambling to take old movies out of the public domain and congress has seen fit to extend copyright to ridiculous lengths makes that a problem. So even though I subscribe to Netflix, I find myself looking to torrent sites and the Internet Archive to scratch my film noir, King Vidor, Vittorio De Sica and Busby Berkely itch. Because sometimes Jack Lemmon and Catherine Deneuve in "The April Fools" or Lee J Cobb in John Boorman's "Point Blank" is just what the movie doctor ordered. Sometimes, a creepy-as-hell Richard Widmark in the 1953 Sam Fuller classic, "Pickup on South Street" is preferable to watching Ryan Gosling try to create an expression on his face.
Hell, a little while ago, I just wanted to sit back and enjoy the 1973 blaxploitation classic, "The Mack" and learned that Netflix doesn't have it available for streaming (but you can get a DVD if you still use that legacy format). I mean, what the fuck. Who's gonna mess with physical media and snail mail just to watch a movie? Not only that, but they don't carry "Trouble Man" at all, and that has one of the greatest soundtracks ever by Curtis Mayfield.
In case you aren't familiar with cinematic masterpiece "The Mack", here's the scene where Goldy and Pretty Tony face off. Check the very young Richard Pryor: https://youtu.be/sdR_t5nsZqI [youtu.be]
I'm spoiled because back in my university days, I worked as a projectionist at a revival house for seven years and got the most thorough education in film history one could ever hope for. But some of you younger folks might not know what came before The Avengers and Fast and Furious 7, and that makes me sad. Hell, the 1970s were a veritable golden age for independent films and hardly anybody gets to see those movies today. Even the "classic movie" channels on cable only play the same top forty old movies over and over again, never digging deep into back catalogs. There is so much cinema to be discovered. Don't fear the black and white or silent.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh shit. I just realized I made a grievous error, in attributing the "Trouble Man" soundtrack to Curtis Mayfield instead of its true creator, Marvin Gaye. Curtis Mayfield did the soundtrack for "Superfly" (which by the way, is also unavailable to stream from Netflix, those bastards). If you are unfamiliar with the Trouble Man soundtrack, go check it out on Youtube right now. You will come away understanding why Pharrell Williams is a punk ripoff.
I just stuck myself in the leg with a pen knife to atone
I hate these blurred lines (Score:2)
Is "Trouble Man" by Marvin Gaye in the same way that "Blurred Lines" is by Marvin Gaye?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes it is.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I made a grievous error, in attributing the "Trouble Man" soundtrack to Curtis Mayfield instead of its true creator, Marvin Gaye.
I don't think anyone actually noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm spoiled because back in my university days, I worked as a projectionist at a revival house for seven years and got the most thorough education in film history one could ever hope for.
Minneapolis had a theater like that, the Uptown. New schedule came out every month, and a good chunk of the month was different movies on different days, sometimes even different movies at different showings. Occasionally there would be a theme (eg, Tommy and Quadrophenia in one evening) and once in a blue moon a movie would span a weekend if it was new/popular. The movies were all manner of genres, from foreign to documentary to arthouse (Jim Jarmusch, etc) to revival showings. Quite often the films sh
Re: (Score:2)
One of the coolest movie experiences I've ever had was watching Hot Water (1924) starring Harold Lloyd in a church with live organ accompaniment.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that Netflix doesn't want to show these old movies/TV shows, it's that the content owners often give Netflix scraps hoping to starve them out of existence. They see Netflix as a threat to their old business model and want them gone.
Do you really want 6 different boxes to get 6 diff (Score:2)
Do you really want 6 different boxes / accountants to get 6 different shows? this sounds a little like the old C-band days before the videochiper ii.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs 6 different boxes? I have a Roku box connected to my TV. With it, I access Netflix, Amazon (both Prime and VOD), Hulu Plus, Google Play, and various other services. I can switch between services effortlessly.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it wrong if... (Score:2)
Is it wrong if, for a moment there, I was expecting a discussion based on a custom programming language or something?
I need to take a vacation.
OK, Netflix (Score:2)
At least it's not a new programming paradigm (Score:2)
When I read the headline, my first thought was that it was some new programming paradigm. Horrific visions of pundits at the EPcon briefly formed and then vaporized as I realized the phrase had a different meaning.
Brand (Score:2)
What's the value of a brand if it means something else to everyone? It would become a non-brand like "water", that's something else to each one, too. Or if "CocaCola" suddenly to some one would mean "orange juice".
BoredDevil (Score:2)
Netflix is awesome for stirring up the system, but I don't get the hype about DareDevil... and i like a bit of action, I just thought it was overall shit, wouldn't watch any more even if it was free.
I can imagine it being popular with children, but then it is a comic book hero, maybe i shouldn't have expected more from a live action comic book hero... Or maybe i just wanted something original, dark and unusual with at least half decent acting like Dexter instead of rehashed shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Though I happen to like Daredevil, I definitely WOULDN'T recommend it for children. At least, not younger children. There's a large amount of bloodshed that even the Marvel movies don't have. Without getting too spoilery, the Fisk "car scene" in Episode 4 alone would make this not for kids.
Exclusive programming? (Score:2)
How does exclusive programming compare to extreme programming and functional programming?
College Student's Programming (Score:2)
and, for a 20-year-old New York college student, it should be all tits
I'm sure that's what they meant to say.
Ahem, screw the conservative Christian family (Score:2)
I want more shows like Rake (the Australian version), The Fall (UK), and Wire in the Blood.
There's already plenty of sweetness and light and pre-digested pap for the masses who only want something to fill their mind between stuffing their faces and going to bed.
All it does is encourage me to read more (Score:2)
One of the draws of network television was if I sorta liked a show, I would 'make time' to watch it when it came on. Especially back in the old days when if you missed a show you had to wait months to see it again on reruns. It was easy to sit in a chair at 7pm and watch whatever shows were one. Even more compelling if they had a story-line that required seeing every episode. I remember making time to watch every episode of Heroes (the first season only) and Babylon 5.
Now that so many shows are streaming,
Wholesome? (Score:3)
I take issue with the idea that conservative entertainment is inherently any more "wholesome" than any other. Conservatives aren't the authority on morals, at least not the sole authority, as much as they would like us to believe that they are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is news. Between Netflix and Amazon developing their own shows, and HBO converging to the same market from the other side by launching a standalone streaming service, it's increasingly clear that we're in the middle of a major shift in television.
It's not a single, discrete event, but few truly important stories are.
Re: (Score:3)
Between the disruption of well established television model, the impressive evolution of the capabilities of the internet, and the recent decision on Net Neutrality I'm convinced you're trying to sound smart by being contrarian.
Re:They should resurrect some shows... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should un-cancel Better Off Ted. That lie detector scene was priceless and that fake Veridian ad about friendship was really spot-on.
Deal with it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already have started doing that...to mixed results. See: Arrested Development season 4 [netflix.com].
But yes, resurrecting shows that were mishandled to begin with is a great way to attract people to their medium, especially since once you get them there, they're likely to get hooked on the low price and massive amount of content that can fill idle time (of course, if you're looking for something specific that's newer, you're probably better served with a rental service like Amazon or iTunes). I was a Netflix user b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If broadcast TV were to die to internet TV, we would be left with content for the ones that can afford it and nothing for the ones who can't.
How is that any different from today?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not know how "Broadcast TV" works?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's fucking Kevin Spacey. You shut your whore mouth!
Re:Original? (Score:5, Informative)
House of Cards is a remake of a British TV series from the 90s. And this isn't the first Daredevil offering either.
You know this, but I'll point out that they mean "original" as in content not produced by a different company. The actual script does not need to be new in any way at all to qualify as original material.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you have that exactly backwards? "Net Neutrality" has been the default. The new neutrality laws don't create a level playing field, they preserve it. Why would Net Neutrality and having Comcast separated from the content creators make it harder for Netflix? They're already paying for
Re: (Score:2)
It's more likely you will be long dead before Christianity loses influence in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Your saying 247 million Americans don't matter
Don't confuse being raised going to church with actually believing that bullshit. Very few people actually believe in an invisible friend with magical powers.
Re: (Score:2)