Enemy Number One is Netflix: The Monster That's Eating Hollywood (business-standard.com) 312
From a WSJ report: Tara Flynn, a rising star at a TV production unit of 21st Century Fox, walked into her boss's office last August and told him she was quitting and joining streaming-video giant Netflix Inc. The news was not well-received. "Netflix is public enemy No. 1," said Bert Salke, the head of Fox 21 Television Studios, where Ms. Flynn was a vice president, according to a Netflix legal filing. When Netflix finalized Ms. Flynn's hire a few weeks later, Fox sued, accusing it of a "brazen campaign" to poach Fox executives. In response, Netflix argued Fox's contracts are "unlawful and unenforceable." The ongoing legal battle is just one sign of the escalating tensions between Netflix and Hollywood as the streaming-video company moves from being an upstart dabbling in original programming to a big-spending entertainment powerhouse that will produce more than 70 shows this year. It is expanding into new genres such as children's fare, reality TV and stand-up comedy specials -- including a $40 million deal for two shows by Chris Rock. The shift has unnerved some TV networks that had become used to Netflix's original content being focused on scripted dramas and sitcoms. Netflix's spending on original and acquired programming this year is expected to be more than $6 billion, up from $5 billion last year, more than double what Time Warner Inc.'s HBO spends and five times as much as 21st Century Fox's FX or CBS Corp.'s Showtime.
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
At least the majority of what Netflix is doing is actual original programming. Hollywood needs someone to kick them swiftly in the ass and stop doing remakes of old shows and movies (some of which aren't actually old, Matrix reboot?)
Their Marvel based offerings are quite good, and Stranger Things is phenomenal.
Amazon is creating some genuinely entertaining original content as well. I think it's time for a changing of the guard.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, poor Hollywood. Got some competition. The MPAA might have to change their draconian thinking.
Hollywood hasn't had a new idea in decades. Whether it's Netflix, Amazon, whoever, I hope they eat Hollywood's lunch and burp afterwards. The sooner, the better.
Then the TV networks will have to look at their tawdry monopoly and figure out how to compete with both the cord cutters and those that aren't going to use an antenna anymore. Oh dear. Here, let me see if my heart bleeds for them. Nope.
Hollywood and the networks had a nice long run. Goodbye.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix's push for more original content is, partly, a result of the major studios effort to starve Netflix of content a few years ago [slashdot.org].
Netflix decided to use the money it was no longer spending on licensing to the studios to buy or finance Netflix 'original' content. Much of the original content is even made by the TV production departments of the very studios that are complaining about Netflix. If the major studios had financed these productions, they would have made the first pass profits and then licensed re-runs to Netflix.
By breaking this model, the studios left a big chunk of the viewing (and paying) market un-served. Netflix stepped up to the plate and said "We'll take those profits that you are leaving on the table, thank you very much!"
The studios bosses need to read pogo [wikipedia.org].
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
PLEASE Netflix, don't go down the route of fscking "reality tv"....please....
If it gets overrun by reality crap, I"ll drop netflix.
Hell, if they ever syndicate something awful like the existing kardashain shit out there, I"ll possibly pull the plug on NF.
I like a lot of what NF is doing, I do wish they'd get back a little more of the commercial movie stuff, but in all I'm fairly happy with their offerings.
But geez, "reality" tv type stuff has ruined what used to be good networks.
DIY...dead to reality stuff, no longer DIY stuff.
Cooking Channel and FoodTV...I rarely see a show on there where someone actually cooks recipes to show and educate the view...it is some fucking contest or reality type cooking thing.
More and more seems to fall to this crap and it makes me sick.
The latest victim I've heard about, is the show I really used to like to watch, Wheeler Dealers on the Velocity channel.
The main part of the show, was with Edd China doing the mechanical work and explaining what was going on.
Well, apparently a US company has bought them off, and was going to cut the actual "meat" of the show drastically....and I envisioned, having Edd and Mike argue like the fucking Tuttle's did on that chopper show...?
I respect Edd...who QUIT the show. [youtube.com] I'll not be watching it anymore.
So, Netflix...keep up the good work and leave the CRAP reality/contest shows to the regular networks that are rapidly becoming non-relavent anymore to anyone that wants to view something worth watching.
Re:Good. (Score:5)
Hell, if they ever syndicate something awful like the existing kardashain shit out there, I"ll possibly pull the plug on NF.
With the latest Netflix app, you can pick and choose what you watch. If they produce something you're not interested in, you can watch something else. Amazing!
Re: (Score:3)
One of my gripes with regular TV was that they replaced (relatively) good shows with their (un)reality & sitcom crap. I wouldn't give a !@#$ if Netflix had that crap, as long as they don't replace better stuff with it.
Re: (Score:3)
If they produce something you're not interested in, you can watch something else. Amazing!
Witchcraft!
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
PLEASE Netflix, don't go down the route of fscking "reality tv"....please....
They already did, but it seems you didn't even notice.
My wife and I watched through their original series Ultimate Beastmaster [netflix.com] a few weeks back, which is a reality TV show that knocks off American Ninja Warrior (and the shows it knocked off before it). The fact that you seem to have not been aware of its addition just goes to show why it's not a concern if they get into reality TV. Netflix can add content intended for me without displacing content intended for you. It's not a zero-sum game. My gain is not your loss, unlike with network TV, where my gain naturally comes at the loss of whatever show used to occupy that time slot.
All of which is to say, I'm fine with Netflix adding more content of more varieties for more people. That I don't enjoy all of it is fine, so long as they keep adding the stuff I enjoy too.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollywood hasn't had a new idea in decades.
You can thank the terms "Intellectual Property" and "Monetization" for that. Seriously - when creative works are locked-up tight in literal century-plus copyright term lengths, and are bought and sold like commodities under that condition? There's little wonder that Hollywood is trying to see some kind of ROI on the stuff they bought, as opposed to coming up with (or at least taking a risk on incorporating) original stuff.
Drop copyright term lengths back to 25 years (retroactively, BTW), and I bet you'll see Hollywood get their shit together again... because then they won't have a choice but to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing you can do with literal money is exchange it for other currencies.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)
There...fixed that for you....
There is many a chuckle to be had when peopel become enraged about some gay characters in a story about bestiality. P Looks like we see what the homophobes are actually into.
Re: (Score:3)
I get a bit upset when they tinker with a classic tale to just be politically correct, or controversial, etc.
The old characters were just fine as they were.
Hot woman fucks a bull. Yeah - a real classic.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the networks and cable channels is that they put out really crappy "reality shows" because it's cheaper and can't understand why people quit watching their shows and cut the chord and start getting their TV from places like Netflix.
Meanwhile, Netflix, who have a much better pulse on who is watching what (they get better access. Direct access to the data) pick up shows that people actually want to watch. (it's not reality shows). Then they make sure they are done right. A lot of what Netflix produces is much better than the average from networks and cable.
If you want to fight Netflix- create shows that people want to see and stop cutting corners producing reality shows.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
cable companies have fantastic metrics, there is a reason cable card died - they want you to use their spying always logged in cable box. It tracks every channel switch, every mute, every volume change.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the cable companies failed to communicate that data to the channels they hosted. They forgot to tell NBC that nobody gives a frick about the bachelor and forgot to tell the History channel no-one wants to watch pawn stars.
Re: (Score:2)
... cut the chord...
That's one way to silence them :)
I make that exact same spelling mistake every time when I'm typing fast and not reading back. You'd think one day I would get it right.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that the person who made the joke you thinks that "chords" implies "vocal chords", except that it's "vocal cords".
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously they aren't appealing to the new content creators. Netflix is far-reaching and easily accessible. Same goes for Amazon. If 21st and the other network producers don't catch up technologically, they'll be left in the dust.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if it's so much that they're not appealing to new content creators or that they're afraid to take the risks investing in new IP.
My guess would be a mixture of both. They're probably not actively seeking people looking to launch new properties, and when someone offers up something new and original those ideas are probably met with a mountain of skepticism and dread that they're going to lose their investment.
Look at all the barriers that were put in the way of creating Deadpool. From a terribly screwed up version in Origins: Wolverine, to Ryan Reynolds having a terrible history in superhero movies (Green Lantern was...painful.) It took some serious fighting to get that movie made, and made right, despite the character himself having a relatively sizable fan base.
Sometimes I think the creators think the battle isn't worth it, and sometimes the studios think the risk isn't worth it. Both combined have given us the situation we have today, but thankfully we have Netflix and Amazon willing to pick up the slack.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, Hollywood should stop making movies pitched at six to twelve year old. Just how low do you have to pitch it that a talking CGI midget racoon is the best thing about a movie.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollywood needs to get over itself, in a big, big way. For every soccer mom that wants to read about the custody battles between Brad and Angelina, there's someone who's just plain sick of it. Sick of actors grandstanding and talking about subjects they know nothing about (Tom Cruise). Sick of self-important over-inflated egos throwing phone books at a concierge (Russel Crowe), or denigrating a lighting guy on the set (Christian Bale) because he interrupted your "process". Get over yourself. You aren't half as believable as you think. And it would be great if people stopped interviewing Gwyneth Paltrow so we aren't subjected to whatever inane half-thought she vomits out.
I'm sick of the "Hollywood Accounting" used to show movies that take in hundreds of millions of dollars have made no money. I'm sick of the over-paid, over-hyped, over-the-top everything actors, directors, producers, and everyone else right down to craft services. You're an adult man, wearing tights, speaking a fictitious language, and wielding a fake sword to tell a story for the purposes of entertainment. Or you're a "reality" television star who's only real talent came from a leaked sex tape (Kardashian). You people are not doing medical research, astrophysics, or materials science. At best, the only problem you may be solving is boredom.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
The film and TV industry have been in a stasis for decades. TV, in particular, hasn't really changed significantly since the early 1960s, and Hollywood has basically functioned the same way since the collapse of the Studio System. It's time for a big shake up and if companies like Netflix and Amazon can deliver that shakeup, then so be it.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
TV has changed though. TV seemed to have mostly avoided the serialized nature of shows from the movie houses and radio programs ending on a cliff-hanger, "Tune in next time to find out what happens!" to an episodic format where each individual program told a whole story that was reasonably self-contained. One could enjoy the show without having to know too much about what happened previously, so the threshold for new viewers was low. Unfortunately for the studio this also meant that it was easy for viewers to stop watching the show if the quality took a dip, as there was no need to find out where the plot or arc was going. Obviously not all TV followed this model (thinking of soap operas in particular) but if you look at shows like M*A*S*H or The Honeymooners or Star Trek or The Odd Couple you find most episodes are self-contained, and that it's fairly rare for most stories to directly span more than one episode. Even if characters change out it doesn't affect the ability to start watching.
Sometime in the nineties this shifted, and TV became serialized like those old radio shows and old movie house pre-movie filler shows. There were some elements introduced and resolved in a single episode but a lot more of the plot, if not most of the plot, directly tied into a long-term direction that the season or the whole show was building toward. It's a lot harder to just pick up a show like this, but if the studio manages to attract an audience then that audience might stick around for more episodes even if some are subpar along the way because they want that conclusion that appears to be coming. PVRs and streaming the existing episodes helps make it easier for the viewer to get into the show in the first place.
I prefer the episodic model, as I don't feel compelled to watch if I don't want to, and I don't worry if I miss an episode or if I watch them out of original order. Unfortunately this model is increasingly relegated to half-hour sitcoms, and anything with dramatic content is now serialized whether it needs to be or not.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The serialized shows are a double edged sword. They might encourage me to stick with a series, but they also discourage me from starting one, especially if I don't start until Episode #5.
Re: (Score:2)
The serialized shows are a double edged sword. They might encourage me to stick with a series, but they also discourage me from starting one, especially if I don't start until Episode #5.
Indeed... and as a corollary, if episode #1 of a season totally turns me off or I decide that it's crap, I may just decide to not bother with the rest of the season. If I change my mind later and decide maybe to give it another shot, I'd immediately think 'why bother? I'd have to catch up first, and I'm not really sure if it's worth the time to do so.'
Best example I can think of is The Walking Dead, when they killed off a character at the end of last season that a huge chunk of viewers really liked, and the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
sure, that means it doesnt matter if you are watching Blindspot or Streets of San Francisco, the plots are the same.
Re: (Score:2)
if you look at shows like M*A*S*H or The Honeymooners or Star Trek or The Odd Couple you find most episodes are self-contained, and that it's fairly rare for most stories to directly span more than one episode. (...) Sometime in the nineties this shifted, and TV became serialized (...) I prefer the episodic model, as I don't feel compelled to watch if I don't want to, and I don't worry if I miss an episode or if I watch them out of original order.
Because VCRs became affordable and common. About the episodic format though, I think you're one of the few that don't enjoy any character development or long story arcs but would rather have a series spinning its wheels in one place. It's okay to be on season two when the show is at season five, unless you're the kind of person who can't put a book down. Even if the show is mostly the same like Big Bang Theory it's much better with a glacial drift, major big boobs Houlihan and i-want-out Klinger were pretty
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I prefer the episodic model, as I don't feel compelled to watch if I don't want to, and I don't worry if I miss an episode or if I watch them out of original order. Unfortunately this model is increasingly relegated to half-hour sitcoms, and anything with dramatic content is now serialized whether it needs to be or not.
Everything you say is a very valid concern for the old model. There are a number of shows i stopped watching because i missed enough episodes that i didn't feel like i'd know what was going on currently. Some of those i would try to catch up later on DVD, but that means you're now running at least a season behind, especially since back in the day it took forever for TV shows to come out on video.
However Netflix actually does away with a lot of the downsides of such serialized content. If it's on Netflix
Re: (Score:2)
I personally *despise* the episodic model. I'm all for the serialized one, and in fact, except Netflix's offerings, the serialized versions found on networked shows pale in comparison (in terms of serialization that is). I'm one of those people who really enjoyed the serializing nature of LOST (minus the disastrous 6th season). I absolutely never watch episodic television. I find it cheap, and non-artistic. In a perfect world, I'd like most TV shows (not all, but most) to end in 3 seasons: beginning-middle-
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends on the show and the strengths and qualities of the writers involved. Sometimes serialized shows work, and sometimes they would be better off episodic .
A lot of shows get ruined by serialization if the writers aren't skilled enough to introduce character development without compromising plot (or even if they are very skilled, but just better at plot than "character development"). As an example, take Sherlock, great when it first started out when it was more episodic in nature but has be
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the serialized series is that many arcs simply do not contain enough plot to be sustained over 10-13 shows. Often by the end of the series, one is feeling that the ending is long overdue - and I've often stopped watching these series at show five or six simply because their plot pacing was so glacial.
If Netflix wants to really produce great programs, they also need to drop the standard 10 or 13 program package. Sometimes a story does take a long time to tell. Other times it's just filling o
Re: (Score:3)
I think the best example of this is comparing the British and US versions of Being Human.
The British version was 6-8 episodes a season. And it was very hard to not binge watch it, as the story was very tight and kept things moving along.
The American version was 26 episodes to a season, with the same story lines. IOW, a hell of a lot of filler. We tried watching it and gave up after 3 episodes because the story moved so slowly.
Same with police procedurals. The British versions get a lot more story in a lot f
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
My heart pumps purple piss for these studio assholes that refuse to adapt to changing technology and customer expectations. If you don't want to lose your customers to a more agile company offering better service, then you can either make your offerings better, or continue to lose relevance.
Excellent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*Voice of Smithers*
So in your analogy Smithers is Netflix and Burns is Hollywood?
Get What You Pay For (Score:5, Insightful)
"public" ? (Score:2)
"Public enemy #1" whereby "public" means "anybody I care about, everyone else can go get stuffed."
Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and what do the studios do? Whine.
If everybody would just cry hard enough, they'd have a new moat. Think of the poor unemployed cartoon princesses if they fail! Why isn't the water rising?
Re: (Score:2)
DRM or not, Netflix-in-a-browser is still a stupid idea.
Normal people don't hook up their PC tower or laptop to their big TV.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM or not, Netflix-in-a-browser is still a stupid idea.
Normal people don't hook up their PC tower or laptop to their big TV.
Normal people use a laptop or tablet these days to watch TV grandad.
Re: (Score:2)
Your tablet has a Netflix app, and so should your computer.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] and so should your computer.
The Netflix Win10 app does weird shit because those apps are written without multi-tasking in mind. It can make the machine sluggish, prevent other video sources form playing while it's running, not to mention just derping out and freezing up, or having the video go black while audio plays on. Watching on a PC the browser is much, much better than the native app.
Re: (Score:3)
When I watch movies, I either sit in a train, a plane, sometimes a car, or in/on my bed.
And as rule number one for a healthy sex life: no TV in the bed room.
Oh, and BTW I don't own a TV and will very likely never buy one as I *only* watch movies on my laptops. However I conisered to buy 2 40" TVs and use them as computer screens ...
Ah, just for the reference, I live in germany. There is nothing on TV worth watching anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Err...so, what do you do when you're *finished* fucking your woman....?
Hell, I've often caught the scores on ESPN looking over her head while she was giving head...etc.
Re: (Score:3)
And as rule number one for a healthy sex life: no TV in the bed room.
Turns out, the number one thing you can do to get laid more often is to put your tv in your bedroom. According to a poll in Britain, couples with a tv in their bedroom have sex twice as often as couples who do not.
Re: (Score:3)
Normal people don't hook up their PC tower or laptop to their big TV.
I always knew I wasn't normal, but I don't see the point any more of buying a TV rather than a big monitor. It makes much more sense to me to have the intelligence in a separate box, be it a decoder box, a Raspberry Pi with Kodi, an Apple TV, something Android, an OSX/Windows computer, or whatever else will float to the top in a few years. Betting on the wrong platform is also not so painful if said box is roughly $100.
I cannot recommend this kind of setup yet to my less tech-savvy mother, but it is getting
Re: (Score:2)
My point is - TV or monitor - that people use a set-top box, game console or tablet to watch Netflix. All of which have native applications.
Only on computers themselves, which have been running applications since the beginning, does Netflix only run in a web browser. It makes no sense.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, Roku began life as a Netflix streaming box idea that a group within Netflix had. Netflix eventually decided not to pursue the project and it was spun off as a separate company, albeit one with Netflix as the primary application draw. IIRC, early on Roku was boasting that they'd have 10 channels by the end of the year. They hit that number and then rocketed up in popularity soon after.
Old business models don't die, they are killed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old business models don't die, they are killed (Score:5, Interesting)
What's really amusing about the B&N/Amazon thing is that as B&N falters against Amazon(I will point out that TradPub is as big of a problem for B&N here as anything they're actually doing wrong) the tiny bookstores that B&N pushed out of the market are starting to come back. They won't thrive nearly as well as they used to of course, but they'll at least exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just Hollywood... (Score:3)
Netflix is the monster that eats normal tv. And I'm fine with that. Being able to watch a movie/series/comic/whatever when you want WITHOUT commercials is so much better than what the normal tv channels have to offer.
Sure you can have discussions that not all the content that you want is on Netflix. Ok then watch normal tv. But I can't handle the burden of interruptions by commercials, news flash or moving widgets on my screen anymore.
Some cable companies already realize that: a internet plus phone subscription with my local isp is just as expensive as an internet plus phone plus tv subscription...
Re:Not just Hollywood... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you are used to not having *everything* and realize you have *enough*, Netflix becomes the unquestionable leader.
You just have to get over the idea that it is worth paying 15x as much to get "everything". After you have had Netflix you realize you can't watch everything so why pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
And no pay check for anyone comes along and makes Kodi useless.
If they really want to piss Fox off.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If they really want to piss Fox off.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Use the 'verse and make an anthology series. The actors are less expensive if you don't keep them too long.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see more firefly. I'm not sure it would piss off Fox, though. Where they mad about Arrested Development?
Re: (Score:2)
Employee Retention (Score:5, Insightful)
A company whose employee retention plan is to call the lawyers likely isn't a great place to work anyways.
Lack of originality did the deed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Go look at Hollywood movies and try to find one that is not:
1) a Remake
2) a Sequel
3) Based on a book/videogame or similar items.
And traditional TV isn't much better - Riverdale, Lethal Weapon, Supergirl, etc. etc.
Now check out Netflix's stuff.
Yes, Netflix is pumping money into it - because they are making more money than Hollywood because they are MAKING GOOD, ORIGINAL SHOWS.
Don't blame the winner for earning more money and reinvesting it. Blame the loser for losing their market share.
Re: (Score:3)
As a counter, recall the old adage "There are no new stories"
Re:Lack of originality did the deed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Training Day was actually shaping up to be pretty decent, if formulaic. Then Paxton died.
Re:Lack of originality did the deed. (Score:5, Informative)
Daredevil? House of Cards? Fuller House? Arrested Development? All of them are reboots/sequels or remakes. What makes them good or bad is not whether they are remakes. Hollywood has been doing remakes from the beginning (The Wizard of Oz and The Maltese Falcon are both remakes of earlier, less successful attempts to adapt those books to the screen).
Re: (Score:3)
You have a point, but missed my point, which is also correct.
Netflix (etc.) does do some remakes/reboots/sequels. - more than 10%. Hollywood always did some remakes. But modern Hollywood is 95% remake/reboot/etc. Hollywood used to be more balanced. Now, Hollywood insists on massive budgets for productions (superhero for example.) For this reason, they insist on a 'proven' subject, hence the remakes.
The remakes, etc. are the SYMPTOM, not the cause of my subject Lack of originality has destroyed Holly
Re: (Score:2)
True. Also, the huge costs means the international market has become essential, meaning all stories have to work for all cultures. Can't piss off the Chinese, is just one example of the issue.
Netflix can make shows catering to small markets.
Well blame Hollywood for creating their own enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well blame Hollywood for creating their own ene (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly so. The Law of Unintended Consequences in a nutshell. The networks and studios decided to shut down Netflix and monetize their old movies and TV shows on their own. And for a while, it worked. Netflix lost subscribers, and their movie selection was absolutely abysmal. But unlike the networks and studios, Netflix was able to adapt, and it became exactly the type of company that the networks and studios could no longer hurt.
It's such a pleasure to watch Hollywood being devoured by the monster it created.
Re: (Score:2)
You nailed it! Netflix was forced into this position by the old-school content creators and their (sic) valuable content libraries. It's not hard to make a TV show and there are plenty of great writers, actors, and directors just waiting to make some great stuff.
This is a lesson is greed. Netflix wanted to charge customers a flat-rate and the studios wanted to eat Netflix's profit. There was a time where it looked like Netflix would collapse because the price of content was going up, but they raised pri
Re: (Score:2)
Massive presumption (Score:2, Interesting)
The article is based on one massive, ludicruous presumption that we all actually want Hollywood to survive.
Hollywood clearly have a stranglehold on the market, but the only output they can create is mindless, formulaic dross aimed at the lowest-common-denominator. They are also a breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists, scientologists, and talentless, shallow, manufactured "celebrities" that are famous just for their "lifestyle", not for actually achieving anything of real merit.
I say the world, es
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to dial it down to a 5 and just watch indie movies....
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to watch indie movies, but Hollywood has already made sure that they don't even get a chance to play in the vast majority of US theatres.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is based on one massive, ludicruous presumption that we all actually want Hollywood to survive. Hollywood clearly have a stranglehold on the market, but the only output they can create is mindless, formulaic dross aimed at the lowest-common-denominator. They are also a breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists, scientologists, and talentless, shallow, manufactured "celebrities" that are famous just for their "lifestyle", not for actually achieving anything of real merit. I say the world, especially the US, would be a MUCH better place totally without Hollywood.
I'm European and left-leaning, but not so much that my ear touches the ground. In the US political spectrum that probably makes me a 'radical left-wing socialist'. (we prefer the term `humane realist', but never mind).
The idea that Hollywood (of all places) is a "breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists" is so ludicrous that I kindly suggest you get some mental health support ASAP while you're still insured against calamities such as this.
Apart from that rather large niggle, I actually agree with y
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think I watch Fox News? Its just like all the other media outlets: just more shit designed to brainwash the masses.
NO WAY (Score:2)
They have the audiance already... (Score:4, Interesting)
Finally a company ready to actually spend money and do the right thing by their customers.
Netflix is sending a message to all the old guard cable stations. They can and will cut out the middle man. They will not be extorted for content.
You keep trying to milk us more and more... fine, we'll make the shows ourselves.
It also wouldn't surprise me if netflix started up a sister company to cover and stream sports. More likely to partner with a company already in the biz though.
BULLSHIT! (Score:3, Funny)
We all know PIRACY is the one number enemy of Hollywood! No one else has done trillions of dollars in damages!
Escalating tension? (Score:3)
But, But I thought It Was Pirates!! (Score:2)
All that money, time and effort and they got fooled. So fucking funny.
Serves them right (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have loved for Netflix just to have become a place where I could watch recent and older hollywood movies, completely replacing video rentals. But I get to be frustrated that new movies aren't there to watch and old movies aren't there to be found.
But hey, whats this, its a Netflix original show? Hey it isn't half bad. Well I could watch more of this.
Hollywood, you had the chance to box Netflix in and have them just BE the rental market. You could have just banked fewer dollars from rentals but still retained a lot of control.
But nooooo, you had to block the access to your catalogs of movies to try and cripple them. Now they're creating content that is very often better than what you are coming up with.
Cry me a river, hollywood. You deserve to go down, hard. You've never really played fair with your customers and now we're buying entertainment elsewhere....
Re: (Score:3)
Hollywood tried to strike Netflix down, but it became more powerful than they could have ever imagined.
I feel their pain (Score:2)
Nope, can't say it with a straight face.
Boo hoo (Score:2)
And here i sit at my piano, practicing along with a 'how to play piano' video on youtube, produced by a musician/former radio star, whilst watching a London theatrical performance that was recorded and made available for viewing on streaming Netflix.
This is actually dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
I know everyone wants to back the little guy, but Netflix is actually recreating the very monopolies we are trying to break-up:
The common complaint about cable was that they bundled everything together. You had to pay a monthly fee, you couldn't pick your channels a la carte, and if you wanted to watch "Game Of Thrones" you had to subscribe to HBO and pay monthly, even for just one show. In addition, nobody liked having to pay for cable TV & internet both, since it felt like the same service from the same company. Then to make matters worse, you had to buy HBO on cable just to stream the show on HBO's web site, which made no sense. (HBO might have fixed this, but the same goes for other channels, and sporting events.) This drove piracy mainstream. [theoatmeal.com]
But the bigger issue is that telecommunications companies are buying out content providers. [wired.com] This merging is dangerous [fool.com], because a telecom company controlling say, a media news outlet [wikipedia.org], can't be unbiased. And there is nothing to stop them from offering certain content on their networks only.
Netflix threatened to break that all up. I could buy my internet from anyone, subscribe to Netflix, and have so much content we didn't need cable TV. We no longer paid for TV "channels" we didn't need. But then Amazon Prime came along, and then we needed to buy Netflix + Amazon. Oh, and buy Hulu for your TV watching. So now, we need to again buy all these services in order to have access to a full catalog of content. We are back to premium TV channels again. But at least we gained our a la carte stations!
But if Amazon and Netflix start to offer exclusive content, we get back to the media companies (Amazon, Netflix) being content providers too. I want to watch just one show, and I have to subscribe to Netflix. I's the HBO Game-of-thrones scenario all over again.
The solution is, and has been for 40+ years, to break apart the monopolies. We must separate content delivery companies from content creating companies. That no longer just means the telecom monopolies shouldn't be content providers, but it also means the streaming companies can't be content creators, and transitively, the telecom can't be either one. This gets us back to the ideal world where we choose our telecom company, choose our streaming service, and choose our content - all separately. Every streaming service should be able to provide all content, or nearly all of it. Competition comes back, we no longer have the zero-rating problem. [wired.com].
So cheer Netflix's success, but be careful what you wish for. At the present rate, we will all be paying $50/month for all these streaming services just to get the content we need.
P.S. We also need to stop each streaming service provider from using their own protocol. You bought a Roku box last year huh? Well, you can't access the newest coolest streaming service because they didn't make a firmware update for that service. If 20 years ago, you told people that their TV or cable-box needed a firmware update every time a new channel came-out, they would be attacking the telecom companies with pitchforks. Yet that is happening today and people accept it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Netflix outspends HBO more than 2:1? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They won't be after the talent responsible for those HBO originals flock to netflix because they pay better.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Netflix outspends HBO more than 2:1? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why are most Netflix shows such drivel, especially when compared to HBO's original offerings?
You have cited the two shows which are quality on HBO with Westworld being the best show I have ever watched but try to name another HBO show. After I watched Westworld I searched HBO for something else on that level and came up short for even anything else to watch.
IMO, Netflix has a much deeper catalog with more consistent/diverse offerings and it's only growing for here.
What Netflix original programming have you watched? I recommend the first seasons of Sense 8, Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Black MIrror and Bloodline.
Re: (Score:2)
Drivel? I thought Santa Clarita Diet and Stranger Things were incredibly well-written, original shows. There are others that I thought have done really well, but those two stick out to me.
Re: (Score:3)
You could always buy physical media if you want to be able to watch them at any time without being encumbered by some company's decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
inb4 "Unable to authorize disc play, please check your connectivity or consult your network's administrator."
93.8 million subscribers at the end of 2016 (Score:2)
Some actors make $20mil for a movie - so it's high, but not all that outrageous. They are investing in things that will cause their subscriber base to grow. ++
I am all for it. Their original content has gotten better and better. Networks had better pay attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Since they have about 95 million subscribers now $6 Billion would be around half their yearly revenue. If the new content brings in new subscribers it would be well worth it and they don't need to be cord cutters netflix service is still less per year than I paid for cable per month.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is approaching 100 million subscribers; looking at it that way they find him $0.20/subscriber funny. That might not be an unreasonable amount if his shows get a lot of views.
I do think that video streaming has a problem of being very fragmented. If you subscribe to a music streaming service, chances of finding a particular album you're looking for on there are pretty high. If you subscribe to a video streaming service, you get access to more video than you could ever watch, but the chances of findin