Netflix Discussion - failure and success

The algorithm is definitely influencing decision making during the development phase, as I've heard filmmakers talk about it. Specific things like "our data tells us people will turn the movie off if you have character 'X' do 'Y' at 'Z' time... you don't want people to turn your movie off, do you?". It's why alot of netflix movies and shows look and feel the same, regardless of premise/storyline.

It is an extension of the way studios develop scripts, by using box office metrics... netflix's data is even more "evolved" for lack of a better term, as it's all based on capturing real time user behavior. Netflix isn't capturing that data for nothing... they use it to keep their subscribers. And you keep subs by continuing to give them what they're used to.

 

They pushed the idea of debt for content for years. Churn out enough content, even mediocre, and the subscribers will stick around. The problem is they wildly overpaid for it -- in 2016 they had around $2B of corporate debt; in 2022 it's around $15B. That debt will never be retired. On top of that, the competition has caught up.

Disney's massive library and franchises guarantees that D+ isn't going anywhere for a very long time. Amazon just spent $8B to add MGM's film library to a service they push only to get you to click "Buy Now" more. Apple's streaming service went from non-existent to a Best Picture Oscar in three years -- and it's still just a thing to sell more iPads. Netflix has thrown millions at chasing one of those statues and has nothing to show for it [whether that is out of spite from AMPAS or the quality of the eventual winners is another conversation entirely].

I'm still in on Netflix for now; with six people in the house it's easier to justify multiple services, but I think this will be the beginning of the company settling to steady-state operation. The days of massive customer growth projections are over. The only questions are if they can maintain value at the current price structure (I doubt it); will there be enough revenue/equity in a few years to keep it going in that state (maybe), or if it gets sold off for parts or into a private equity vampire (highly likely).

 

Netflix continues to crash and burn... slashes 150 jobs:

Netflix cuts 150 jobs amid subscriber slump - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

They are likely going to be chopped up and served to the highest bidder at some point in the near future... this whole debacle will make a fascinating tell-all book. Hollywood's streaming phase in general has been a giant clusterfuck.

 

$5 says it'll become a podcast that then gets turned into a miniseries on Hulu

 

They'll sell the streaming rights to their own demise.

They're releasing the next season of Stranger Things soon, right? They really should use that to test the waters of weekly releases.

 

I'll personally cancel Netflix once I'm done watching Arcane for the 37th time.
I'll subscribe again when the new season comes out.

Jokes aside (not Arcane, it is the best animated show I've seen and one of my favorite show period, next to Breaking Bad), I mainly kept it so my family could enjoy it. Besides Arcane, the Witcher and the Silent Sea, I really haven't watched Netflix much at all in the past 3 years.
Now at $19.99 I'm seriously considering dropping it and start rotating between all our other subscriptions on a 1~3 months basis.

I originally got Netflix 8.5 years ago because of its catalog of known TV series (mostly adult cartoon) and movies which put it far ahead of live TV and their stupid 30% commercial / 70% content which I found so irritating (coming from France where commercial breaks are (used to be?) a lot more reasonable).

I now find that Hulu is a lot more like what Netflix used to be, so I'll definitely keep that one.

 

I’ve got Amazon, Disney, Stan (Oz equivalent of Hula), Foxtel Premium, Apple + and Netflix. I can’t remember the last time I watched Netflix. Disney and Amazon have all the good movies these days and Apple’s original content; while limited, is excellent: Foundation, Slow Horses to name a couple.

 

Was just thinking and realized how sucky it must be as a filmmaker making movies for netflix, as they only way people can see your movie is if they subscribe to netflix.... and at any point, if they stop subscribing, they stop having access to your movie (without resorting to piracy).

I cannot fathom how that makes any goddamn sense for cinema fans... back in the day you could just buy a DVD/Bluray of a film you liked and have it forever. Filmmakers are now dependent on other films to keep fans sticking around the service to watch their work. Meaning, if people get tired of the garbage on netflix, you can kiss that fan goodbye when it comes to accessing your film. They just can't watch it anymore. Why would any filmmaker want to limit access to their work? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

This goes into a deeper conversation about ownership and studios/corporations now just leasing you movies rather than allowing you to own a copy. Even if you buy a digital download, you still have to access it through a service (vudu, movies anywhere, etc). If your internet goes out, no more access. If the company goes belly up, no more access. You don't own a copy of that movie anymore like you owned a copy of a Bluray, which you could take to a friend's house, watch anytime, rip, etc.

You can still buy physical media of other studios' films and have that copy indefinitely. You can't do that with netflix. Another reason the company was kind of doomed to fail.

 

As someone who hasn't had much or really wanted access to Netflix or any other video streaming service since their "mail you a DVD era" - I'm surprised they've been running it the way they are in the past 2-3 years from the little I can see. Maybe this is an example of too much metrics gone wrong? Or are their hands really that tied from too many of the original rights holders yanking their rights to whatever content?

Have occasionally got some crap for my small blu-ray collection, but once Netflix started doing really well, I was thinking the barrier to entry was too low for them to totally dominate the space forever. With a fragmenting of the market would eventually come various access issues, which led me to buying blu-ray again. For quite a while most were $3-5 on Amazon, but unfortunately that is going away too now...

I guess any of this beats paying $100+/mo for cable TV that feels like it's 50% commercials / 50% mediocre content though.

 

So I'm watching yet another Netflix series, THE LINCOLN LAWYER. Being a fan of Michael Connelly's Mickey Haller books, I know the material pretty well--and my thought process here was that after Prime hit it out of the park with BOSCH, what are the odds lightning will strike twice?

Well, I was right--sort of. Three episodes in this series is starting to gather steam and get more interesting. I think it has more to do with the screenplay and locations than anything else: it's a Michael Connelly story and it's shot in LA., and both are usually a good thing.

From minute-1 I was unconvinced by the casting. Manuel Garcia-Rulfo was terrifying in GOLIATH/Season-2, and he played a sturdy bad/good guy in the remake of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. He's a solid actor, but not a natural fit for the role of Mickey Haller. The other leads also strike me as less than ideal. But somehow it's coming together. The story & the narrative are the stars here.

I also have my doubts about Netflix, but I'm not even close to dropping them. They keep coming up with the occasional winner for me, plus they have more documentaries than any other service, albeit not all winners by any means...

 

So, I recently bought the LG G1 77” OLED TV and the full Sonos Arc Immersion set up. Extremely happy and I haven’t lost my comic timing - the Missus and I both tested positive today so we’re not leaving the house for a while.
Anyone know what format ‘best possible quality’ means in Prime and Disney+? I am a bit sus, why don’t they just state the format the movies are in like Apple. I have been using Apple to rent movies as it says 4K HDR. Not sure about the others; anyone know anything? Thanks.

 

Rob - each program on Amazon or Disney+ will have different quality just like the rest of streaming. Luckily, most everything new is complimentary to your new tv. When you click a title, it should tell you 4K or UHD and if it is HDR / Dolby VIsion etc.

I have the 77 CX and use Apple TV to get the 'best' out of streaming - I think a few others here use the Roku or other 4K stick/device dongle thingy.

 

Thanks @M3NTAL I also use the new Apple 4K unit to stream, for the same reasons as yourself.

 

There are some good shows on this platform, but once you finish them, there’s no point in paying for them anymore. I watched BoJack Horseman, Arcane, Hilda, and some other shows there, but the recent Netflix originals are of very low quality, and I see no sense in paying them anymore.
That’s why I canceled the subscription last month, and the only subscription-based platform I pay for now is Spotify. But, for movies, I can use ***lame link dismissed with prejudice*** instead because it’s free, and the catalog collection is more convenient. Netflix needs to drop the price significantly for me to return.

 

Bot...bot...bot...

 

Plenty more where that came from too. Just send me your card details and receive a link in your inbox daily!

 

I think I’m done with streaming shows made before 2000. They reformat all the 4:3 for wide screen and cutoff the top and bottom

 

Ewww

 

Had a bad experience on Prime Video last night, one that has happened before twice. I'm inclined to think of conspiratorial reasons for this:

1. I watched 3 episodes of Season-1 of WHITSTABLE PEARL, a British police procedural that I'm getting to like. It was listed as available to me at no additional cost on Prime. There were 2 seasons listed.
2. Last night I tried to tune into Episode-4. Suddenly this show is behind a pay-wall. Now it's part of Prime's Acorn sub-channel. I was encouraged to start my 7-day Acorn trial, which I did. But I'm annoyed as hell.
   
3. Just went to Prime Video online and checked. Yes, this show is now available via Acorn.

I checked online and found dozens/hundreds of complaints about this very thing. Some of the people doing the complaining believe Prime picked them off as targets for an upgrade to a sub-channel...using an algorithm presumably based on # of episodes watched of a given series, also maybe including ratings/comments by the viewer. And suddenly that show is behind a pay wall.

I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but this makes perfect sense to me for the following reasons:

• Amazon's business model is entirely different from Netflix'. Amazon underwrites only a relatively small subset of original shows and films available to subscribers at no additional cost. The rest--a really vast pile of video content--is only available either by rental; purchase; or subscription to various sub-channels (ie, SHOWTIME, Acorn, etc).
• If is very much in Prime Video's interest to drag viewers into paying for shows they're watching that aren't original Amazon content.
  
• They obviously have the technology to present each individual with a carefully curated list of content currently watched; content possibly of interest based on other things watched; "My Stuff"; etc.
  
• So intervening mid-season with a "take it or leave it" conversion of a show to pay for a single user is entirely within the platform's capability. I'd love to know the % of annoyed users like me who started a trial period for the sub-channel in question--which BTW autmoatically to monthly charges at the end of the trial unless I call off the dogs.

Am I crazy, or is this for real?