Netflix Plan To Test Varying Play Speeds Meets Filmmaker Backlash (hollywoodreporter.com) 212
Netflix said Monday it is introducing a new test feature to allow viewers to either speed up or slow down content on their smartphones, a move that quickly gained criticism from Judd Apatow and other filmmakers online. From a report: Some users spotted a new feature earlier this month that allows a viewer to choose to slow down a show as much as 0.5x the normal speed, or increase the speed up to 1.5x the normal runtime. Apatow, who co-created the Netflix series Love, slammed the feature, tweeting "No @Netflix no. Don't make me have to call every director and show creator on Earth to fight you on this. Save me the time. I will win but it will take a ton of time. Don't fuck with our timing. We give you nice things. Leave them as they were intended to be seen." He added in a follow-up tweet, "Distributors don't get to change the way the content is presented. Doing so is a breaking of trust and won't be tolerated by the people who provide it. Let the people who don't care put it in their contracts that they don't care. Most all do." A Netflix spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter, "We're always experimenting with new ways to help members use Netflix. This test makes it possible to vary the speed at which people watch shows on their mobiles. As with any test, it may not become a permanent feature on Netflix."
Who's in charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely it should be up to the viewer, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but previous, similar lawsuits have said that's not the case [wikipedia.org].
OTOH, Clean Play, which dynamically edits movies in the player, has not been shut down. I don't think the directors have a legal leg to stand on here. Whether they can browbeat Netflix into changing its position is less clear.
Personally, I think XanC has the right of it: It should be the viewer's choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think XanC has the right of it: It should be the viewer's choice.
Yeah. That was true in 2004, too, when justice wasn't served.
As far as injustices go, it's not a big deal. At worst an annoyance.
Family Entertaintment and Copyright Act, 2005 (Score:3)
In 2005 the Family Entertaintment and Copyright Act explicitly made what Clean Play does legal. To qualify under that act, it can't save an edited copy and can't add new content, only hide parts of the original content.
welcome to the 1980s.. (Score:2)
Hey Judd, let me introduce you to the 1980s, you must have missed it.
We now have amazing things called VCRs, and they have fast forward and rewind, with slow motion in both directions on some fancy models.
My crystal ball tells me that in the next decade we may get something called a DVD, and Blusomething also, that do it even better!
You better get all your mates together to stop this insane break away from overpaying to 'enjoy' a movie in the local cinemaplex with people coughing, throwing overprices popcor
The slow bits between explosions and gunfights ... (Score:4, Informative)
That said I'm OK with 1.5x. Worked great for online college lectures. I think 1.5x could work well for films in general during all the boring slow bits between the explosions and gun fights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fast forward is good for porn but terrible for mainstream movies of lesbian love stories, where you must skip the urge to FF to "the good stuff".
Let the sexual tension build and build and build so it can blam with maximum effectiveness when released, as the director intended.
Re: (Score:2)
My video player supports multiple fast forward speeds, and my digital video players support fully variable play speeds.
So I've been able to watch fast for a long time, not just skip content.
Re: (Score:2)
there is a few slow talking youtubers I watch on 1.5x speed
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you hate when you google for what should be a simple question, and the first hits are long videoes that allure to having an answer, and they are 10.. minutes.. long..
Not everything has to be a video *sigh*
Re: (Score:3)
Me: *watches a single YouTube tutorial so I can fix my door hinge*
YouTube: WHAT'S UP, HINGE-LOVER? HERE ARE THE TOP 1000 VIDEOS FROM THE HINGER COMMUNITY THIS WEEK. CHECK OUT THIS TRENDING HINGE CONTENT FROM ENGAGING HINGEFLUENCERS.
Seriously, any DIY video I look up I have to fast-forward like 3 minutes through all the bullshit.
(stolen from @acarboni on Twitter)
Re: (Score:2)
I think 1.5x could work well for films in general during all the boring slow bits between the explosions and gun fights. :-)
Is that you, Mr. President?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the same viewer who keeps their TV on showroom mode, with crappy motion interpolation on, and a zoomed aspect ratio different than the content came in "so I use the whole TV".
Some things are best left out of peoples hands. Or at least, in an advanced menu buried somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
My dad hated letterbox, as he felt ripped off there was unused black screen.
Keep in mind when they do this, losing the edge 1/3, they often over-zoom so you even more pointlessly lose some of the top, too.
Re: (Score:2)
We give you nice things. Leave them as they were intended to be seen
*cough* George Lucas *cough*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but so is sticking a pencil in your eye. I mean you can do it, but its not a good idea.
And FIlmmakers have every right to be cross. Nobody is making laws here, they are making business decisions and the thing with business decisions is they can be negotiated. And if the film makers don't want their work trashed , they have every right to negotiate that it doesn't
Re:Who's in charge? (Score:5, Informative)
When I purchase a product, I get to decide how to use it, not the manufacturer. Their say is limited to warranty concerns.
Re: (Score:3)
And if the film makers don't want their work trashed , they have every right to negotiate that it doesn't
Then they should no longer allow ads interrupting their work. I'm sure (or at least I hope) they didn't produce that movie with ads in mind. On the other hand, if they indeed designed their "work" around ads, all bets are off and I can skip, slow down and speed up that movie however I want, because it means their work is trash to start with and I simply un-trash it.
Re: (Score:3)
Filmmakers being cross is and should be irrelevant. The distributor is not changing the content being distributed. Nor are they in anyway lowering the value of the content.
They are providing the end user the choice & ability to change the content on a viewing basis. This should always be within the full rights of the end user... irrelevant of where the choice was provided from within the supply chain. The director's opinion isn't much different from chef's that believe we shouldn't add extra pepper
Who's art is it? (Score:2)
Surely it should be up to the viewer, right?
I think the message the directors of the film are sending is that the cadence of the artwork they have produced is intrinsically connected to the plot of the movie and thus any critique of the artwork no longer has any genuine validity because it is no longer being viewed as intended.
Imagine if it was music sped up in the same way, it's not the same song anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the message the directors of the film are sending is that the cadence of the artwork they have produced is intrinsically connected to the plot of the movie and thus any critique of the artwork no longer has any genuine validity because it is no longer being viewed as intended.
Imagine if it was music sped up in the same way, it's not the same song anymore.
Yeah, exactly. They put a lot of effort into making a movie exactly as envisioned and understandably don't like anyone screwing with the experience. This includes the studios, censors, theaters and other distributors. I can't really imagine watching a movie at 1.5x - why watch it at all if you're not enjoying it? The pacing, comedy timing and editing would be all wrong.
That said I don't see a reason not to give the viewers the option to change playback speed if they want. It's their experience and they can
Re: (Score:2)
One shouldn't wreck good stuff because you wanna zoomer thru boring stuff. Don't watch the boring stuff.
Movies are not data dumps of information. They require time to build emotions properly.
Movies are not data dumps of information.
Movies are not data dumps of information.
Movies are not data dumps of information.
Re: (Score:2)
One shouldn't wreck good stuff because you wanna zoomer thru boring stuff.
Please make up your mind. It's either good, or boring. Can't be both.
There are movies plenty of movies with good scenes in general, but interlaced with feet-dragging scenes which bore me to death. It's obvious that the director needed a filler and inserted some dragging scenes to make the movie long enough to last 90 minutes or whatever.
This is all not about "watching the movie as envisioned", but preventing viewers from deforming the five key turning points as explained here> https://www.storymastery.co [storymastery.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed and some DVD players offer this feature, so the battle is already lost.
I use 1.5x speed on YouTube sometimes. For example Lawful Masses can be a bit rambling and he reads out entire court filings in full where as I really want the summary version and some commentary, so I speed him up.
Haven't really found a use for the 0.5x speed yet though.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed and some DVD players offer this feature, so the battle is already lost.
I use 1.5x speed on YouTube sometimes. For example Lawful Masses can be a bit rambling and he reads out entire court filings in full where as I really want the summary version and some commentary, so I speed him up.
Haven't really found a use for the 0.5x speed yet though.
You usually have to, ummm, lot in for those types of videos.
Re: (Score:2)
I watch abom79 at 1.5x as he is a bit of a slow talker.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely Positively.
Piss off filmmakers.
Fix the problems with your dialog being super quiet and everything else being super noisy first....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely it should be up to the viewer, right?
No, it shouldn't. I can't address crappy, boring stuff, but you probably shouldn't be wasting hours of your life watching it in the first place. Cut your losses and bail.
But good shows have emotion and build up, which takes time to lodge in the mind of the viewer. It's precisely this that gets eviscerated when you halve it.
Good movies aren't a data dump of information that can be done at high speed like Neo learning drunken boxing.
Re: (Score:2)
If they where getting paid by the view they wouldn't have an issue give them 1.5x so they can watch even more of my content.
Re:Who's in charge? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I read a book, I sometimes skip through the boring parts, reading a few words in every paragraph to make sure I don't miss anything important. Would the authors be up in arms if they knew I did that? Would they refuse to sell the book to me, unless I promise to read each and every word the way they intended it?
Some TV shows are just too damn boring to watch at normal speed. But you've already watched many episodes, so you want to know how it ends. Accelerated viewing is a godsend then. If something is too slow for my brain, I speed it up. When I'm watching lectures on youTube, 175% is pretty much standard speed for me.
If they don't want me to speed it up, they shouldn't make it so slow. Either I watch it at higher speed, or I don't watch it at all. Pick one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nowadays I enjoy watching action movies and I'd be happy to watch some parts in slow motion, my VCR could do a slow motion play years ago. It would add to my enjoyment of, say John Wick, to be able to follow some of the moves better
Keanu Reeves fighting in slow motion? That would be The Matrix ;-)
Reminds me of that "family friendly" editing... (Score:3)
Several years back I recall there was a business that would take a customer's copy of a given movie, rip it, edit out things they didn't like in the movie (sex scenes, violence, stuff that made religion look bad, etc) and create a new version of the film. They would then make the customer a new disc for them to play for their family with this custom edit.
This didn't go over well with some people -- namely film directors. From what I remember the company got lost in a wash of lawsuits by movie studios.
I was watching something on the "free with ads" Vudu VoD listings a few weeks back and saw what appeared to be the exact same service offered as a live-during-playback feature. Take a film you want to see, click a few on-screen switches, and when you watch it certain stuff gets skipped in the playback. I wondered what had changed legally between then and now to suddenly make folks all right with this third-party editing.
Re:Reminds me of that "family friendly" editing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet somehow directors are okay with pan-and-scan, with airplane and/or TV cuts, etc etc.
Re:Reminds me of that "family friendly" editing... (Score:4, Informative)
Yet somehow directors are okay with pan-and-scan, with airplane and/or TV cuts, etc etc.
Are they? [variety.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yet somehow directors are okay with pan-and-scan, with airplane and/or TV cuts, etc etc.
Hey, artistic vision requires smut. Dialog and character development are more expendable.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how successful/rich they are already, and in some cases who they sold their soul to for the financing to make their artistic dream.
An established director like Scorsese can come out against commercial edits for format and content. He gets paid up front and has the money and awards.
Some new guy making a mass-market action movie? He definitely doesn't care about commercial edits -- he wants his movies on all possible screens for the money. Plus he probably framed the whole film at a smaller a
Re: (Score:2)
They reluctantly agree to it for money. It's conceivable they would agree for censored versions for money, but censored where someone else, and only someone else profits from their work?
Nope.
Re:Reminds me of that "family friendly" editing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This didn't go over well with some people -- namely film directors. From what I remember the company got lost in a wash of lawsuits by movie studios.1.
Yes, and I remember thinking all they really had to do was package and market the versions shown on planes.
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered what had changed legally between then and now to suddenly make folks all right with this third-party editing.
What is legally different is that back then they were ripping a new copy of the movie, whereas this new service is just time-skipping ahead in the existing stream. In disk terms that would be like automating something that goes "ok at 23:40, skip ahead 15 seconds" without actually making a copy of the disk.
Not changing content so precedent is dubious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current service, ClearPlay doesn't change the content. Based on settings the user chooses it applies a script of skips, jumps and mutes to edit out the unwanted content from the pr
Depends on who is getting paid (Score:2)
Edit out all the nipples you like, just pay the studios their due. I find it tacky AF, but I'm not your target audience. I can tolerate content th
Re: Reminds me of that "family friendly" editing.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
also about 30 minutes of every Breaking Bad episode
Re: (Score:2)
Skipping breakfast is unhealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
One shouldn't screw up quality shows, which use time to properly build emotions, because some people want to watch crap at high speed.
Don't watch the crap. Just a suggestion.
1.5x worked for class lectures (Score:5, Interesting)
The syllabus had the schedule to watch the videos by and the professors gave us reminders at the end of each class. This allowed them to devote all the class time to Q&A and discussion, both students asking questions and the professor posing questions to the class and individuals for discussion. Sometimes the professor discussing with the student(s), sometimes a student/student discussion refereed by the professor.
A far far better use of that face-to-face class time, and a better way to do lectures too. YMMV depending on the class topic.
Re: (Score:2)
So in the end the class takes up more time, for the same number of credits?
Re: 1.5x worked for class lectures (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So in the end the class takes up more time, for the same number of credits?
We learned more. Time was spent more effectively. My classmates overwhelmingly thought these classes were superior to the tradition format of a long live lecture followed by a short Q&A.
Also note that at 1.5x you are getting through the lecture more quickly than live. The extra time spent in Q&A reduces the need for office hour visits to TAs and professors and you have to spend less of your free time puzzling things out as you study for exams. So the notion of spending "more time" in class is mor
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what college is like now, but when I went to college the best classes also had the best lectures and if you went to class and took notes on the lectures you could pretty much guarantee a B in the class without much more than a cursory review of the written material. Obviously this also required A-level effort on homework and written assignments which were often the tools/cues to get further engagement with the readings.
Getting an A in the class required all the lectures plus some deeper level
Re: (Score:2)
Same beef here with those online video courses at some online **ahem** "universities". What makes a talking head better than having to read the same text on paper or screen? Text has the killer feature of the reader going as fast or as slow as he wants, jumping back and forward almost effortlessly (and of course: notes and bookmarks, in the case of paper).
Guess I've become a grumpy old fart in the past couple of years, just wanting to chase all those millennials and their baubles off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a TA in a high school class that did something similar. Teachers made a video of themselves teaching material. Kids watched the video at home, instead of doing homework. Kids did their homework during classtime. This allowed the kids time to ask questions as they were doing homework and work as groups more.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Distributors don't get to change the way the content is presented.
The distributor isn’t changing anything. They’re allowing the end user to change the way content is presented, which has been possible for decades when not using a streaming service.
If presentation is really that important to them then these movies should never been widely released. After all, I might alter the contrast on my TV.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Distributors don't get to change the way the content is presented.
They actually do. If they need to shove an advertisement in someplace. And then even an absolutely critical scene supporting the plot isn't sacrosanct.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate that, when they break between scenes, when some scene transitions are one of the most powerful moments in the film.
Wizard of Oz is often cut just as she walks to the door and opens it, revealing the world of incredible colors.
Carry on... (Score:2)
a good HTML5 speed control (Score:5, Informative)
Works fine for me using Brave on YT and a lot of other sites. YMMV.
This helps slightly with Sturgeon's law -- "90% of everything is crap." if it's crap, then FF/SKIP. If I'm not quite sure yet, it's 1.6x speed until it gets interesting or NEXT.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube has speed controls built in, no need for an add-on. You can go from about 0.5x to 2.0x. It corrects the pitch of audio too.
Historical Horrors. (Score:3)
Truly a terrible time in the industry.
Give? (Score:5, Funny)
"We give you nice things"
More like they fulfill their side of a contract and get paid a shit-ton of money to do it.
"I will win but it will take a ton of time"
No they won't. It's America. There are a tens of thousands of talented people lined up to take his spot who will gladly let the consumer use the product as they want to. He's expendable, he just doesn't seem to know it yet (hubris will do that to you).
Re: Give? (Score:4, Interesting)
Search this guy on Google News. He never runs out of things to tell other people they have to do. I suspect most serious people just ignore him at this point.
Re:Give? (Score:5, Insightful)
The studios already won (mostly). CleanFlicks [wikipedia.org] tried to sell modified movies a little over a decade ago - editing out objectionable content like nudity. But because they were a conservative group fighting for the right to modify how movies are played back, most of the folks here said screw them [slashdot.org]. They lost the initial lawsuit at the federal level, and had to throw in the towel due to financial reasons They got no assistance from the typical rights and liberties groups like the ACLU.
So in an attempt to screw over conservatives, you screwed everyone over. The highest court ruling on this matter is currently in favor of copyright holders because you tried to politicize this ("who cares if conservatives can't do this"), rather than address it objectively ("should people in general have the right to do this?").
This was about money, not liberal vs conservative (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Give? (Score:5, Informative)
The ACLU has literally assisted neo-nazis [wikipedia.org] in exercising their rights. The thing about obtaining assistance is that you frequently have to ask for it, which you may not do if you instead decide to hire a big private law firm [shermanhoward.com] to bring your case [courtlistener.com].
The highest court ruling "in this matter" was a District of Colorado case that is binding upon literally nobody but the participants, and that has literally nothing to do with the playback speed of an unedited motion picture.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACLU still gives lip service to first amendment rights, but it fights for Causes now. Sorry to disillusion you.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that had anything to do with conservatives.
That topic was about the distributor altering content that they didn't have the rights to. You can't alter content and then distribute it. Because you don't automatically get rights to distribute said altered work nor any of its derivatives (barring the usually artistic/satire/criticism/new work exemptions). If that company just acquired a license to a specific derivative work (or one generically defined in a contract so they can make derivatives) from t
If there are so many talented people... (Score:2)
Want an example?...porn. It's pretty easy to make a hot porno and the market is swamped with a lot of hot women performing whatever sexual act you like. Anyone can make a porn and therefore, we be
Don't tell this guy about fast forward... (Score:2)
Don't tel this guy about fast forward, rewind, or pause. He is gonna FREAK out.
Don't fuck with our timing... (Score:2)
"Save me the time. I will win but it will take a ton of time. Don't fuck with our timing."
No. Actually he WON'T.
They will take you to court, point to BROADCAST TELEVISION, DVD. Blu-Ray and Digital Download as prior examples, then have the case dismissed with prejudice and you get to pay all the legal costs.
Television has been playing with timing on content, so they can fit commercials, station checks, etc in FOR LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE.
More-over, in media like DVD/Blu-Ray and Digital Download, you'
Didn't Nintendo lose this case 30 years ago (Score:2)
My Body My Choice (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you Apatow (Score:2)
"We give you nice things."
I'm pretty damned sure you don't GIVE Netflix anything.
If you like this ability, just install supernetflix on your browser and tell Apatow to bite me.
What a creep Apatow is (Score:2)
Hey, I'm the viewer. I read the parts of the books I like and skip over the parts I don't -- skim boring bits, jump back and re read.
And if I want in the middle of your video I can get up and walk out of the room!. Or read a book.
Take your conrtol freakery and bug off.
Distributors don't get to change the way... (Score:2)
I'd watch more shows on Netflix (Score:2)
Not a new feature (Score:2)
Mr. Apatow, allow me to introduce you to the "Fast Forward" and "Reverse" buttons on the VCR (stands for "video cassette recorder" if you aren't familiar with ancient hardware) along with the playback-speed selection buttons they also had (all the way down to stepping one frame at a time). All Netflix is doing is continuing a long tradition of media players offering the same functionality as old-fashioned VCRs. And directors and such will deal with it the same way they've been dealing with it for decades: f
YouTube has this feature (Score:2)
Judd Apatow must not know about YouTube.
I can slow down a video by as much as 0.25x or increase it up to 2x the normal speed under the "Playback speed" setting.
I disagree Apatow (Score:2)
I completely disagree with Apatow. Take the mini series War of the Worlds 2019 (France). This is so slow to get to anything good you have to watch it at x2 just to make it through the entire film. The director is sooooooo slow to get to what is going on all anyone would do is go to sleep. I completely understand that the point of this film is to make you LIVE the fear and FEEL as if you are actually there, but come on, 8 hours is a long time, so playing it at x2 you get the entire film in 4 hours and still
Teenage me. (Score:2)
I used to listen to Monty Python tapes at 2x ('dubbing') speed.
Twice the jokes per minute multiplied by silly voices.
Re: (Score:2)
Redefining "Give" (Score:3)
We give you nice things
How generous of you to give things in exchange for just a few million dollars.
This will get me to subscribe. (Score:2)
I watch a lot of youtube since I learned you could boost it to 2x speed.
I can see it now (Score:2)
1.5x t binge watch until the sexy parts, then it drops to .5x
What's the product, who's the customer (Score:2)
not possible? (Score:2)
MP3s (Score:2)
I remember when MP3s were new and artists were upset that people didn't have to buy the whole album. We heard a lot of bleating about how an album is one unit of art and should be enjoyed as such. Artists can be such whiny bitches. They got over that once they figured out how to be paid for individual songs (iTunes etc). Take your money and leave us to enjoy it as we wish.
Just say no (Score:2)
Why speeding up movies and shows would wreck their presentation, though that has nothing directly to do with this issue.
https://youtu.be/3Q3eITC01Fg [youtu.be]
Leave them as they were intended to be seen (Score:2)
What? I doubt very much the stuff they create was intended to be seen with commercials. Yes, I know Netflix doesn't do commercials (yet). But over the air TV, Cable, satellite do. With all the competition Netflix is about to get how soon before they do too. So back to my comment.... They are concerned about "timing" stuff, but not concerned if someone interrupts their "presentation" with commercials. BAH - don't see an argument there. It's a users CHOICE if they want to speed up or slow down a show, it's no
If you have to speed it up... (Score:2)
Disney better let the Simpsons be frame by frame! (Score:2)
Disney better let the Simpsons be frame by frame!
Of Course This Should Be An Option (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
What gives the filmmaker more rights in terms of preferences than the viewer who paid for and is legally watching the content?
If I want to watch it in black and white, in SD, through 3D glasses, with mono-sound, or backwards, it's none of the filmmaker's business. I've paid for a viewing... I've viewed it how I prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm right behind this guy. If you've ever created any piece of art, and film making is an art, then you know what it's like when you sell it and someone screws with it.
It's kind of like if you made an apple pie and then someone covered it in mustard and said the pie was crap.