For me, the problem is they are just throwing too many darts at the wall at this point. There is just sooo much garbage original content being added monthly, it seems. They are almost over optimizing/testing their shows, in my opinion. Instead of focusing on the good shows (obviously opinionated), and building up on them with new seasons, it seems like they are just investing more into new content to see what happens. Sadly, they have also been ending a lot of what I thought were popular shows on there (some of my favorites). Their catalog outside of Netflix original shows has also been dropping significantly, which many very popular shows leaving here soon (Office/Friends).
I used to spend about 80/20% time on Netflix/Hulu, now it's 100% Hulu after cancelling Netflix. The content on Hulu has been ramping up significantly for their TV department (non-originals). Plus, I love having my HBO through Hulu, and it's all in one place under 1 subscription payment.
I'll most likely re-subscribe to Netflix again in a few years just for a month or two to watch a few seasons of new content that will actually interest me (then cancel again), but until then, no need to pay them so they can produce the copious amounts of BS half-assed content like they seem to only be doing lately.
It’s not like you watch HBO 12 hours a day expecting pure content that you love from start to finish.
That said, apart from the tent pole series they [plan to] push out each year (stranger things, better call saul, Fargo, mindhunter, nightflyers, etc.) the rest is clearly data driven garbage that doesn’t realise it’s working a cliche. With a couple of exceptions even the marvel universe shows fell into their pattern.
In that sense it’s Netflix Unoriginal Content. But you still get the diamond in the mine.
Being in the EU I get about 8 different translations of two different kinds of zombie story, but you’re not really paying for that.
And on the same level, it’s a shame that streaming is now split. American Gods, Good Omens, The Expanse, and Mr Robot are all on Amazon. Netflix definitely dropped a ball on some of that. The TV show costs the same but I have to pay 2x to watch because of the networks.
Who wouldn’t want more Noah Hawkley.
What Netflix should be called on is their stubborn refusal to improve the interface/search. They want to make it seem like they have oodles of content so they show the same show 5 times under different genres on the main page. They have all the information there, yet you can't do a search based on a combination of tags or genres.
I've been doing the 2 months off 1 month on thing for a while not because I don't feel their content is worth the full price but because when a company looks like it's trying to 'trick' you it loses a lot of goodwill.
An alternative way to phrase this would be that the owners have realized that the streaming rights for their properties are worth a lot more than Netflix was paying for them.
So there's obviously more money on the table there than netflix charges. It's just a pity that these businesses are going to, by necessity (or arguably short sightedness), re-fragment how consumers gain access to shows. For every increase in inconvenience they'll make piracy a more appealing option. Especially globally where broadcasting/streaming rights are an even more fragmented mess.
It quoted a section from an article in The Information:
> [Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when they’re still popular. Netflix has learned that the first two seasons of a show are key to bringing in subscribers—but the third and later seasons don’t do much to retain or win new subscribers. Ending a show after the second season saves money, because showrunners who oversee production tend to negotiate a boost in pay after two years.
Is it possible that the best distribution is an exponential backoff of new episode timing instead of just cutting it off at "2 seasons".
I feel like a majority of shows in the U.K. tend to only go for a few seasons then stop. Compare that to typical shows in the U.S. getting beaten to death, having most viewers think the show might have gone one season too long.
That could mean the stories are written to wrap up mostly nicely, instead of leaving cliff hangers to lead to the potential next season.
Compare Weeds (8 Seasons) to Breaking Bad (5 Seasons), B.B was written to not drag on forever. The recent GoT season finale, where lots of fans went a bit overboard with their reactions when the show runners ran out of their own original ideas. LOST, anyone?
My best example is looking at Black Mirror. When that was mainly for a U.K. audience the first two seasons could have ended and that would have been the best two season show. Netflix did swoop in and that gave us White Christmas(?), but the show has definitely been tailored to American audiences and maybe the premise is being drawn out too much at this point. Don't get me wrong, I love me some more Black Mirror or any of the other shows listed above, but sometimes a story needs to end even if it means its shorter than you expected.
Furthermroe, did you see the other discussion about Netfli/Hollywood recently here on HN? 
From the article:
> Netflix now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when they’re still popular. Netflix has learned that the first two seasons of a show are key to bringing in subscribers—but the third and later seasons don’t do much to retain or win new subscribers.
> Ending a show after the second season saves money, because showrunners who oversee production tend to negotiate a boost in pay after two years.
Propably a financially sound approach, but I doubt I'll stay a subscriber much longer if that's the direction they are heading.
Or look at how the main complain people have about Steam (when moving to GOG and other platforms) is the sheer amount of "crap" on that platform making discoverability of high quality content very hard.
The difference is, more of this content used to be licensed to Netflix, but shows have been leaving as licensing deals expire and typically end up on Hulu, which is a first-party platform for Disney (ABC, Freeform, FX, A&E) and NBC (Syfy, Bravo, USA), and a third-party platform for WarnerMedia until they finish starting their own.
Streaming services are proliferating as each vertical starts their own, and exclusivity is being leveraged to drive subscriber numbers. Discerning viewers can choose on content or cycle out subscriptions as they consume the material of interest, while casual viewers can choose on a different dimension like price per month, size of back catalog, variety of genres, search and discovery tools, or lack or presence of commercial breaks.
I think, this process is happening throughout the entire motion picture industry and in the next 10-20 years we will likely see a shift to some new type of entertainment that hasn't been ruined by formalized best practices yet.
So, Youtube? Unless Google ruins it in its own way of course.
Can't have more good shows if you don't make new shows.
The writing's clearly on the wall - the major content providers are cutting Netflix off. They need a large stable of good-enough content, and quickly. Some of that new content will be crap, just like on the networks. Some will be awesome. Some of the awesome stuff will get enough viewers to stick around.
In reference to 'Braid':
'She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.'
Anyone who needs to stoop to the level of insulting something to convince me it's not legitimate is not presenting their argument in an intelligent or unbiased manner. You wanted people to read this? I'm not even sure how it's relevant, but I can't get past how awfully written it is.
And I think you just misunderstood the statement, his fortune cookie reference is to the story in the game, not to the person referred to by "She'.
You might be able to get lots of cheap stuff, but they will eventually destroy the market for quality fixtures or tools or paint or whatever.
I do like the DVD service.
I know Netflix likes to keep the UI simple, but simple is stupid if I still have to use JustWatch/IMDB/RottenTomatoes to figure out which show to actually watch and then search for it in Netflix. That's me unknowingly avoiding the Netflix UI! Netflix should be striving to become the hub, not the endpoint.
The fact that the alternatives in the pirate realm are better in many ways is ridiculous.
It's reduced Netflix's utility since I never browse now like I used to, and only go on when I have something specific I know they have that I want to watch so I can go straight to it.
It's the worst when trying to browse with someone else. You stop to talk for a second and the TV starts yelling at you. WTF.
With recent news that reruns like the Office and Friends are leaving next year, it would be really funny if a large chunk of Netflix subscribers are literally subscribing just to watch decades old reruns. It could be a bit of an Emperor Has No Clothes situation for them.
My anecdote on this: My collage age daughter watches Friends on Netflix basically continuously -- she's probably watched every season a dozen times now -- when she gets to last episode it just cycles around again. This is because she keeps on it in the background when she's studying or doing school work.
Netflix content is a reflection of it's desire to compete with HBO, not NBC.
You need 10-20 years to do it.
This decade of outrage that we’re coming out of (hopefully) has crushed an entire generation of comedians and actors. Look at late night talk shows for example; they’re totally stale. Nobody has the balls to say anything, fearing the tweet storm will be turned against their production company.
It’ll take another generation before we’ll be in a place to create good shit again. Or maybe it will never happen again and the golden age is over?
I know that a significant portion just bing rewatch the Office and Friends, however they do not own the rights and these will go back to NBC who will just host them in their own streaming service.
This is the main issue facing Netflix. The more their competitors wise up and take their content elsewhere people will be more reticent to pay for a sub fee since there are now way too many options to choose from.
Anyway, we have Hulu now which has gotten quite good. I can imagine cancelling Netflix pretty soon honestly.
Technically, it seems unnecessary to stream the same content repeatedly, and financially it seems wasteful to pay a monthly fee for access to the same content. How about buying the particular shows once (e.g. iTunes) and have the data stored locally (e.g. appleTV)?
This is an impressive bit of spin, seeing as how creating new original programming is always going to be more expensive than licensing older/original programming. So yeah, losing the licensed programming "frees up budget," but the end result will be a smaller catalog.
The problem for them is much like for Netflix.
Having a way to predict the future is not the whole story of how to decide what to do.
Netflix having a whole load of data about what people watched, for how long, their demographics, etc, is probably very useful. But it is not an obvious step to go from knowing what people saw, even predicting it, to deciding what to produce and what to present to them.
Add to that the likely fact that people often want something fresh and innovative, and you have quite some stretched assumptions in statistical terms.
Not saying this is the end, I don't know enough about the business. Just that it's an interesting jump that I rarely hear anyone talk about.
Netflix's on-demand streaming is basically the only way I can watch long-form media content these days.
Also the economics of paying a low monthly fee for access to billion dollars worth of content per year is insane value and something I'd definitely like to see more of, so I'd like to see the Netflix model continue to succeed.
Favorite anime series audio is not available in English. Nor is most other originally non-English content.
Why should I renew?
I don't think they want your kind, and I don't blame them.
But no. Netflix's value seems to be in its original shows. So, if they come out with a new season show I'm interested in, such as The Last Kingdom, they can have my subscription for the month. The trend of show seasons becoming progressively worse, a la House of Cards, should be a concern for them.
Disney+ is really going to give them a challenge once it is available.
I don't really want to know how much time I've spent in my life scrolling through Netflix thinking "meh".
I have used Netflix since back in the days when they would send you discs in the mail; now all they send us garbage content over the net.
Disney also seems to place a lot of emphasis on UX, so I bet that the app that they come out with will be fantastic.
- The OA
- Sense 8
- Black Spot
Not really. Politics manifested as a talk show host, like Ellen Degeneris is fine. People know who Ellen is, and what she thinks. So they can tune in or not, according to their preferences. What I'm referring to is the imposition of politics to customers who don't want it and aren't seeking it out. It's not manifestation of politics, period. Most art has some politics in it. It's a certain disingenuousness and/or high-handedness in doing so.
Thanks for pointing out where I should clarify.
Ellen wasn't a talk show host. Ellen was a sitcom character. Thanks for pointing out where you misunderstood. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-20-mn-5159-s...
Many of the people in that poll who say they support Roe are also saying they want its ruling to be adjusted - which in practice means overturning Roe and replacing it with new controlling precedent. Arguably, Roe was already overturned once by Planned Parenthood v Casey, which replaced the trimester framework with the undue burden standard and allowed several regulations that had been considered unconstitutional under Roe.
RBG I believe supports using the privileges and immunities clause instead
It will be difficult to hire actors to work in these places.
Money talks. Most actors are desperate for money.
It's not as if actors constantly get abortions during filming... I hope.
Actors constantly go to on-location filming in places that don't meet Hollywood standards. They go to countries where women are property and there is a death penalty for willingly receptive gay men. If the actors will go to those places, this is just posturing. It'll all be forgotten when there is a paycheck being offered.
There is no stigma with it. Once an uproar has been created as in the Georgia case, it becomes like supporting apartheid South Africa.
You're saying it's annoying to see that when you want to relax and watch a movie. You cannot relax watching a movie where there's a mixed-race gay couple? Why?
For an international audience this is very obvious in your face propaganda. It's hard to miss it or ignore it, when you only see this in US shows and nowhere else.
You don't have 25% single mothers, 25% blacks, 50% gay Asian couple.
Looks like you're the one saying that, uh?
In the movie I mentioned, there are a handful of people that find themselves in the house.
- single mother who drinks while pregnant
- gay, mixed-race couple #1
- black guy who ends up with single mother (mixed-race couple #2)
- evil Trump supporter
- bunch of bad white guys #1 (those two that make a mess)
- bunch of bad white guys #2 (everyone else who tries to kill everyone)
The fact that every single minority MUST be represented in every single movie—despite the fact that this makes the story less believable or even weaker is what's annoying. Not to mention changing established characters (like Ghostbusters, Terminator, Little Mermaid) to make them black women.
Back when I grew up, we had Will Smith who was basically every kid's idiol in Europe, and he was black. We had Ripley from Alien who was a believable female role. We had Priscilla with trans protagonists. No one complained, all those characters worked. Now, every movie seems to be just an excuse to virtue signal. It's all politics. I want to watch a movie, not be indoctrinated by a corporation about whatever politics they're into.
In what way is that particular story less believable because it shows minorities? Is it showing minorities in a context (geographical and time) where you have 100% information that it's very different from the reality of that context? Is this particular movie supposed to show a factually based representation of that context?
If an owner of some IP decides to change the racial, ethnic, etc profile of some character as they were represented previously in said franchise it doesn't take away from the franchise (imagine that they didn't release anything new), you can still watch the older movies that you enjoy. Similarly to how if a new video game is released in a series which is very different (or simply bad, quality wise) from the previous games in the series, it doesn't take away from you the previous titles, you can still enjoy the previous games all you want.
> Back when I grew up, we had Will Smith who was basically every kid's idiol in Europe, and he was black. We had Ripley from Alien who was a believable female role. We had Priscilla with trans protagonists. No one complained, all those characters worked. Now, every movie seems to be just an excuse to virtue signal. It's all politics. I want to watch a movie, not be indoctrinated by a corporation about whatever politics they're into.
I find that as a very naive and simplistic view of said movies. There was politics back then too in said movies, you just didn't notice it or cared about it, you took those things for granted. This is the essential problem with this type of complains, you assume that what was before/you grew up with was the "gold standard" and so making drastic changes to that is somehow bad (and I'm not talking just about minority representation in media, I see this in almost every context with people over a certain age). You should probably see how people complained the first time a black person was on TV, the complains are very similar.
I'm not saying that now there isn't a more active effort around introducing more minority representation into media, it obviously is so, I'm only arguing against that being a bad thing on its own and/or saying that didn't happen before. If this is more important to the studios than making good quality movies then obviously the quality will suffer, but that's not special in any way to the minority representation push.
I did not happen before, at this scale. It's a new thing. And it's annoying.
> If this is more important to the studios than making good quality movies then obviously the quality will suffer, but that's not special in any way to the minority representation push.
Looks like it is. Look at the backslash with movies such as Star Wars, Ghostbusters, etc., where they take established characters and alienate fans by changing an established character that was a white male into a black woman (007, have you heard he's now a black woman?).
Feeling like you belong in the world is a core need of every human being. This recognition has a worth in itself; even if the company did nothing else (e.g. political lobbying, donations, supportive hiring practices, structural changes to the business), this is still something of value for this audience.
There's a weird paradox here. You object to entertainment getting too ideological, but then you indicate that companies should somehow reflect their ideologies (or lack thereof) in their output.
(I'm loath to use marketing cynicism, but the shorter version is: you're not the target audience.)
Why am I not the target audience of movies anymore?
The underlying assumption is that, when you (and characters you do not object to) were portrayed in mass media entertainment, everyone was covered too.
The target audience isn't just black people and gay couples: it's black people, gay couples, and those who do not object to the aforementioned groups.
What I said is a common critique of content coming out in the past few years.
Even if it wasn't, you can also have 1 talking point in common with white supremacists without being a white supremacist..?
There's an old joke.
"You see that pier on the lake out there? I built that pier with my bare hands. Drove the pilings against the tide of the sand, plank by plank. But do they call me MacGregor the pier builder? No. But you fuck one goat..."
It's only common in certain circles and we all know exactly which ones.
They're just pandering to younger generations who are (as it's always been) more liberal, and right now have more disposable income—which is what companies are after.
The action of showing off how progressive these companies are while at the same time not giving a damn is what virtue signalling is (at least, to me).
I actually have similar ideas to the ones that are being pushed, ex., I don't oppose mixed-race couples, gay couples, etc. It's just annoying for everything to be about that nowadays.
Can you back that up? Since it's "obvious" it should be very easy.
I'm not familiar with Netflix's internal benefits but I am familiar with another big tech company's benefits and they go out of the way to guarantee equal benefits to same sex couples, beyond what the state/federal law provides (which results in the company spending more money out of pocket to provide those benefits so they match what state/federal provides to heterosexual couples). Or how in interviews it's very strongly emphasized to avoid any discussion, question, etc from which one can infer marital status, sexual orientation, parenthood, etc.
That shows to me that the contrary is valid and I suspect Netflix to not be far from that since it competes for the same talent pool in the same geographical location.
Corporations go make their products in countries where there are no labor laws, where they make people and even children work 16 hours/day, to make your shoes for 50c and then sell them back to you for $50.
Do they care about minorities? Why don't they open a factory in some depressed area in the States instead of going to China?
Do they care about gay rights? Why don't they denounce/boycott Muslim countries where they have the death penalty for being gay?
Do they care about women? Why do they support factories where women work 16 hours and are regularly harassed?
Companies are pandering to liberal kids with left-wing, progressive ideas because they want their money and they are the demographic most willing to give it to them. In the process, they annoy everyone else—including people who don't care about politics, or don't live with their parents and understand what actual problems people have. Unfortunately I'm in the second group.