Slashdot Mirror


Netflix Is Betting On Exclusive Programming

An anonymous reader writes: You may have heard of the recent launch of the new Daredevil TV show, and possibly the hit shows House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. They're all original programming from Netflix — the company that used to just mail DVDs to your door. But Netflix is now running a lot more than just those three shows — it has 320 hours of original programming planned for this year. This article discusses how Netflix is betting big on original, exclusive content, and what that means for the future of television. "Traditionally, television networks needed to stand for something to carve out an audience, he said, whereas the Internet allows brands to mean different things to different people because the service can be personalized for individual viewers. That means that for a conservative Christian family, Netflix should stand for wholesome entertainment, and, for a 20-year-old New York college student, it should be much more on the edge, he said.... 'We've had 80 years of linear TV, and it's been amazing, and in its day the fax machine was amazing,' he said. "The next 20 years will be this transformation from linear TV to Internet TV.'"

216 comments

  1. TPB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trailer park boys last 2 seasons, thank you netflix!!!

    1. Re:TPB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off AC!

    2. Re:TPB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I loved that they picked up Trailer Park Boys, and I really wish they'd pick up Danger 5 as well.

    3. Re:TPB by rhazz · · Score: 1

      They did pick up Danger 5, at least on Canadian Netflix.

    4. Re:TPB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I should have been more specific: they are actually funding new seasons of Trailer Park Boys.. I'd like to see them fund new seasons of Danger 5, which, like trailer park boys is extremely low budget and a lot of fun.

    5. Re:TPB by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I was very happy to stumble upon that a few weeks ago. I would like it if they did the same with Corner Gas, but I don't know if the people involved with it would want to do more seasons.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  2. Giving the customers what they want by uolamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Excellent shows, commercial free, on demand, released one season at a time. At the same time I have watched some networks take a 30 minute time slot show and reduce the actual show from around 21-22 minutes to 17-18 minutes, making more time for commercials. I'll sit on my couch with my potato chips and watch the demise of network TV with delight.

    --
    s/©//g
    1. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /discussion

    2. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Linsaran · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, I'm all in on the Netflix bandwagon. It, along with other streaming services (I'm a huge anime fan so Crunchyroll is in that list) are all I watch these days.

      On the other hand I hope Hulu dies in a fire. I'm ok with watching ads to pay for my TV, and I have no problem with paying for a service to stream TV. I do however have an issue with paying a service to stream TV and still having to watch ads. Hulu+ is a joke of a service being managed by the same corporate assholes who made me leave cable in the first place. Netflix just beats out Hulu in terms of where you can use it (just about every possible device runs Netflix, while there's a lot that won't handle Hulu+) Heck even Amazon Prime is beating Hulu in terms of devices I see which support it. I hope the Hulu people figure their shit out eventually since there's a handful of shows I would watch (like South Park) if they had a reasonable streaming service that didn't try to double dip with both ads and subscriptions.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
    3. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Damn i forgot about hulu. They were all funded by the established anyways. Ok, forgot about them again now :)

    4. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I largely agree, but I'm not sold on the full season release part. It pretty much ruins any opportunity to discuss the show with friends or online communities.

    5. Re:Giving the customers what they want by theskipper · · Score: 1

      When Time Warner asked why I was cancelling the video package from my bundle, I replied that the only TV I watch anymore is Netflix and Amazon. Sounded weird at the time but was the absolute truth.

    6. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how. I'd be fine with an artificial trickle of episodes, once the *season* is done being edited.

      I'm *reallllllly* hoping that a season at a time means they're actually *writing a fucking season at a time* rather than the crap "oh, we wrote ourselves into a hole cause we had no f'n plan or ending, so we'll just drive this into the ground until we get cancelled" that is *universal* with network programming these days.

      A proper, well thought out, complete season, would be f'n rad.

    7. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also consider Funimation's streaming service. There's overlap with Crunchyroll, Netflix, and Hulu, but there are still enough exclusive shows/seasons/dubs to possibly make it worthwhile. Still an uncomfortable amount of ecchi shit, but less of an emphasis than Crunchyroll's library seems to have on it.

    8. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      To each his own. I enjoyed binge watching Daredevil with friends over a weekend. Good memories, good show actually.

    9. Re:Giving the customers what they want by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While Netflix's distribution model and show quality make it a locally good thing, I think that in the larger scheme, having content production and content distribution tied together will ultimately continue the problems that the current system has. While some of this content is available through other distributors, they always have an incentive to give preferential treatment to their own distributor. I doubt we'll ever see House of Cards on Hulu Plus, for example.

      Aside from having to subscribe to several services to hit all of the content that you're interested in, you also have the cases where, like HBO, they have conditions on subscribing and draconian restrictions on what devices they allow playback on (eg, until a couple of years ago, Android playback was locked out if you had an external display connected)

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Anime is like any other product, in that 80% of it is mediocre at best and garbage at worst (ecchi or otherwise). In addition to Crunchyroll, I also subscribe to Funimation, as I occasionally enjoy English dubs, and they have a pretty decent library of their older shows too. Unfortunately, I can't say much for their Xbox 360 app. It barely qualifies as serviceable. I'm not sure if the other platforms are any better. The best part is that those services are inexpensive enough that it's not to painful to the wallet to subscribe to both.

      Also, like GP, I'm never going to use Hulu until they provide an ad-free service. Subscription + ads? Screw that.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re:Giving the customers what they want by peragrin · · Score: 1

      yea I noticed the extra 12 minutes of tv show time while watching Daredevil on netflix.

      The episodes seem just that much longer.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PS3 Funimation app has a clunky interface and barely functions for watching video, in that it seemingly can't buffer worth a damn and is constantly making me wait 30+ seconds for 5 seconds of show. The Roku app performs much better in that regard, playing nearly seamlessly enough to convince me that it's not a problem with my connection, but the interface is still clunky as hell. None of them have a "recently watched" function, and they don't track what episodes of a series you have or haven't watched. Having to repeatedly search through the listings, sift through 100+ episodes of a series, and trying to remember which episode I left off at last month is frustrating to say the least. Their queue function, which serves as the only way to quickly find a series that you want instead of digging through their catalog, also doesn't work. It either says "this data is unavailable at this time" or it gives me a list of shows which I'm sure is probably someone's queue, but it sure isn't mine.

    13. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All I want is for Netflix to keep building a bigger library and stop losing/rotating content. When it comes down to it, they have a weak library. Not much for horror. Kind of shit for sci-fi. Kind of shit for fantasy. Kind of shit for comedy. I would rather they focus on that than on their own exclusive content. I don't go to netflix for exclusive content. I go there for a massive cheap library of ALL THE OTHER CONTENT.

      That said, they are now producing enough content often enough that they're worth $8/mo almost just for their own content. They're almost to the point of putting out enough material that you should have a new season of something to watch every month that *YOU* will like... For instance, I really loved DareDevil. It was fantastic. that was worth it for the month, even if I found that stupid Tina Fey sitcom to be absolute shit (which it was) or Orange is the new Black to be shit (which it is).

      They aren't quite there.. but they are getting there. If they get to the point where they're putting out three new seasons of different shows every month, at least one is bound to be worth the subscription.

      Counter that to HBO. Sorry, I really love Game of Thrones.. but I'm not paying $15/mo for one fucking show with HBO GO. That's three months of RDIO. That's two months of Netflix. That's two months of Prime.

    14. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      I don't quite get that objection. It's not like it's particularly new. Magazines and newspapers were subscription-based and full of ads, for instance.

      Mind you I choose to only watch Hulu and not pay for Hulu plus. Netflix is already the best and I have Amazon Prime because it comes with ancillary benefits. The benefits from Hulu Plus that I don't get some other way are too small.

    15. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      I talk about movies with friends weeks after they are released. We don't usually all go the every movie in absolute sync.

      A full season of TV released at once is like a super-movie.

      I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it's worth it, nor do I think it really eliminates it. After all, A Song of Ice and Fire came out a book at a time. A whole series worth of content. And then it takes years to get the next book. He had forums dedicated to speculation too. It's still serialized, it's just bigger chunks coming in slower. On the other hand, in the past, some things published as novels now were kind of just collected magazine serial stories edited together.

      The flip side is that they *could* release 5 minutes every day until the season is done. I think most agree that's too little at a time and would probably only watch when the slow drip of content reached a certain threshold.

      I greatly prefer watching the whole season at once. In fact I often intentionally delay watching real world TV until I can binge-watch it.

    16. Re:Giving the customers what they want by houghi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I do not like the whole season in one time. Having to wait for what will happen next week was part of the fun.

      I noticed that I hardly finish a season of anything. Daredevil? Watched two shows and the rest is waiting. Orange is the new black? Watched the first series by forcing myself. The second is still on my planning.

      The same goes for al others that I have. This while when I look at other shows who even might be less in quality, I watch them all.

      And why make 13 different shows when they are available at the same time anyway? You loose a lot with just the credits.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Giving the customers what they want by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I hope the Hulu people figure their shit out eventually since there's a handful of shows I would watch (like South Park) if they had a reasonable streaming service that didn't try to double dip with both ads and subscriptions.

      I'm not even a fan of South Park (anymore) and even I know you can watch any episode any time here: here. Why bother with Hulu?

    18. Re:Giving the customers what they want by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

      While it certainly does make it difficult to discuss with friends it has its upsides as well.

      One big thing I'm hoping to see is shows with a more complex plot. As it stands you only see one episode per week, and during that week you forget things. Plus you may miss an episode here an there, which means writers can't make things too complicated or they will loose viewers who miss episodes.

      But a season that gets released as a block and people binge watching it is a whole different ball game. You can afford to have more characters and more things going on simultaneously. Having a character show up 4 episodes ago is 4 weeks on TV, but more like 4/5 hours on Netflix. People can track the story never miss an episode, remember everything about the story as it develops.

      Personally I hope this leads to TV shows that are much richer in content, and have more developed story lines.

    19. Re:Giving the customers what they want by sinij · · Score: 1

      This what happens when traditional TV corporations spend decades shitting their beds with exorbitant cable fees, bundling, and obnoxious advertising.

      This just in: People don't like commercials, especially when you make them pay for the privilege of watching them.

    20. Re:Giving the customers what they want by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Did you also notice how the episodes aren't scripted around the commercials? This is one of the biggest problems I have with network TV. The entire show is scripted around the fact that there are going to be commercial breaks at designated times throughout the episode. You can't have a 20 minute continuous sequence because they would have to shove a commercial in there every 10 to 15 minutes. And because they want to make sure you don't want to leave, they have to spend 2 minutes leading up to the commercial building up suspense, and then they usually put about 30 to 60 seconds of filler after the commercial to make sure nobody misses anything. So, not only are the episodes shorter, they waste even more time just working around commercials. The amount of actual story you get in a "1 hour" network show could probably be compressed to 35 minutes if they didn't have to work around commercials.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      We tried out Hulu Plus when we cancelled cable and I don't mind it that much. I think of it as my DVR-replacement. Instead of recording shows and then having to fast forward through commercials, I get to see a show slightly delayed from when it aired on Cable with fewer ads than cable TV would have given me. I definitely prefer Netflix or Amazon Prime, but Hulu gives me access to many shows that I would need to buy via Amazon VOD or Google Play otherwise and thus winds up saving me money.

      Even with Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Netflix, buying shows on Amazon VOD/Google Play, and buying more DVDs, we're STILL paying less than half of what the cable company wanted us to pay.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    22. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't mind the ads on Hulu, if I didn't sit down to marathon some episodes of something and see the same goddamned ad four times per goddamned episode, every goddamned episode.

      Plus Marco Polo is worthy of being thrust alongside HBO's Rome and John Adams.

      Keep it up, Netflix.

    23. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen so far from Daredevil, this is definitely what it means. Also, there are less filler episodes as the writers try to slow the plot advancement down and have a "bad guy of the week" for our heroes to tackle who is completely unrelated to the main plot. The plot pacing on Daredevil (so far... I'm 7 episodes in) is a whole lot better than on network shows.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    24. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      For Netflix, I think making their own content is a hedge against the content providers who see Netflix as a threat* and who want to only give them old scraps of content, at best, to try to kill Netflix off.

      * In reality, Netflix is probably one of the content providers' best allies against piracy. How many people will take the time, effort, and risk to pirate a show when it's available via Netflix?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    25. Re:Giving the customers what they want by jythie · · Score: 1

      This touches on why this trend might not be a good thing long term, with exclusive content you end up getting to choose between being locked in to one set or subscribing to multiple bundled services. In the past you would, on rare occasions, see people with multiple cable subscriptions due to some edge cases they wanted to be able to watch and they were pretty annoyed about this. However if we increasingly tie shows to services, it is going to get harder and harder to subscribe to a single feed and get all the stuff you want.

    26. Re:Giving the customers what they want by jythie · · Score: 1

      For the moment people will generally not bother, but as more programming moves under this model and people start to become annoyed at managing multiple subscriptions (each of which only has one or two shows they want) we will probably see an increase again.

    27. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that you don't have an attention span, but how does that mean Netflix's model is bad? If you don't want to watch more than one episode a month, you're free to do that. For the people that enjoy the show and want to watch it all, they get to do that. Literally EVERYONE wins.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    28. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I don't quite get that objection. It's not like it's particularly new. Magazines and newspapers were subscription-based and full of ads, for instance.

      So...how's that been working out for them lately?

      It seems that both print and traditional pay TV have been increasing both prices and % of ad content for a long time. People are starting to reject these levels, and younger people that are not yet used to paying for it are rejecting it quicker.
      Meanwhile, the companies have grown to expect this level of income, so they're not quick to adapt.

      Evolve or die.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    29. Re: Giving the customers what they want by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      I think it depends on the show. There are some notable shows such as Lost that not only benefitted greatly from the online discussion but also arguably made the show much more entertaining. It would still be a great show to binge watch but you would lose a lot of the contemplation and discussion around it.

    30. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My tracker has House of Cards & presumably all other Netflix exclusives ... I have Netflix, so it isn't worth my time, but lots of people don't pay for Netflix, I bet they get downloaded plenty.

    31. Re:Giving the customers what they want by netsavior · · Score: 1

      I can't think of many companies whose business model is "Give the customers what they want" it is refreshing and amazing.

    32. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Jax+Omen · · Score: 1

      They use Hulu as their back-end for southpark.cc.com now.

    33. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Even with the whole season available, I don't really have time to watch it at once. I might see one or two eps, then I have to quit and do something else. Or I might be tired of that show and want to switch to a different one. Heck, I could decide that Sunday at 6 is "Daredevil time" and watch a single ep weekly like I used to with regular TV. The main downside is, I'm not on the same schedule as everyone else. If I've only seen the first two eps, I probably don't want to talk with someone who's seen the whole season.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    34. Re:Giving the customers what they want by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Well, the difference between Hulu and print ads is that you can skip the print ads. I don't know, maybe it's because I grew up with the notion that commercials = free content, but I can't stand to pay money, and then to have commercials shoved down my throat. I won't pay for cable, and I sure won't pay for Hulu. HBO is a little pricey at $15 mo., but once they have a PS4 app, I'm probably in.
      I'm glad Netflix decided to start producing good content while we wait for the networks and studios to wake up. Remember "the long tail'? I still have hopes that, within my lifetime, we'll be able to see any movie or TV show, anytime, no matter how obscure, at our convenience.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    35. Re:Giving the customers what they want by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Having to wait for what will happen next week was part of the fun.

      So watch it that way. Most series I watch on Netflix take me months to get through. No one says you have to sit on your couch all weekend and watch the whole series. Go play frisbee instead and just watch it an episode at a time.

    36. Re:Giving the customers what they want by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I think what the GP meant is that the conversation loses a dimension, because binge watching will always lack the anticipation of what's to come, aside from the next season. What's the smoke monster? When will we meet the mother? What's up with the dragon eggs? With binge watching, there can be no speculation about what will happen next week, or where the plots will go from episode to episode. The odds that you will be synchronized with anyone else in your viewing is low, unless they are watching it with you.

      Anticipation is half the fun of anything, or at least half the experience. It's potential. It's possibility. Once the experience arrives, it collapses down to a single outcome, for better or worse. Binge watching deprives us of a large part of that anticipation.

      But it's still how I watch most of my shows, because I want instant gratification as badly as the next American.

    37. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daredevil is an excellent show. Really well-done, with A-list talent.

      Lets' not talk about that Daredevil excretion of a decade ago...

    38. Re:Giving the customers what they want by vivek7006 · · Score: 1

      You are 100% correct

    39. Re:Giving the customers what they want by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      I largely agree, but I'm not sold on the full season release part. It pretty much ruins any opportunity to discuss the show with friends or online communities.

      Before there were full seasons of new shows there were full seasons of new to me shows, so that's not new.

      On the whole, I think I absolutely have seen more TV shows end to end then I ever would have without Netflix and that gives us more to talk about.
      SOMEDAY, my friends might catch up on Fringe, but if they had to pick between that and something else this week, it's probably not happening.

    40. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --HBO Now is not just GOT - it's the entire library of HBO content available for streaming. Subjectively, HBO is a better value than Showtime (on cable, for example. Compare the average daily content on the different channels if you don't believe me.)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    41. Re:Giving the customers what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it is all on-demand there is no need to subscribe to more than one at a time. You could switch services every month or two.

  3. Daredevil... by msauve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry if this offends comic fans, but Daredevil is meh. Reasonable plot/character development, interrupted by extended punchfests reminiscent of '60's Batman Pow! Blam! Zowie! kitsch.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Daredevil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Daredevil is ok, but only because Fisk is at least interesting to watch. Foggy can't act, Karen is an idiot, Ben is very blah, and honestly I don't give a shit about Murdock -- which doesn't bode well for the series, but could be on purpose since he really hasn't come into his own yet...

    2. Re:Daredevil... by slinches · · Score: 2

      I watched it and generally agree, but I'd still rank it significantly above average. "meh" is far more positive than what I could say for most current traditional TV shows.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    3. Re: Daredevil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me quite a lot of Fox's Gotham... good potential storyline but the characters are mostly cardboard and too much filler/contrivance in the writing.

    4. Re:Daredevil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't stand how fisk is always mumbling/talking low. They're going for some dramatic effect but it just comes off lazy to me. Other than that, we was extremely well casted.

    5. Re:Daredevil... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I understood his dialog just fine. I enjoyed Fisk as much as any of the characters I think... I thought he was well written and well acted.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:Daredevil... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't care how good the show is written, it is just the most ridiculous and retarded character. Blind people cannot even watch your show, so there is little reason to cater to that audience.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Daredevil... by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 0

      damn , I had mod points just yesterday. oh well.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    8. Re:Daredevil... by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I loved the portrayal of Fisk, along with Foggy I thought they picked out some of my favorite parts from the various versions I've read. Fisk's somewhat humanizing love for Vanessa and Foggy being more than a dimwitted comic relief.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    9. Re:Daredevil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care how good the show is written, it is just the most ridiculous and retarded character. Blind people cannot even watch your show, so there is little reason to cater to that audience.

      Supposedly there is a really good Descriptive Audio Service to go with Daredevil, so the blind can "watch" it.

    10. Re:Daredevil... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Really good is relative. You simply cannot cram enough information into audio to do much of anything. particularly an action packed show.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    11. Re:Daredevil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conrgatulations - you've discovered that there are things that are subjective!! :-)

      Some people have a lot more difficulty understanding speech than others - I mostly have the TV turned up loud so I can understand quieter speech, which makes my family cringe because the effects and other loud bits then blow you out of your seat. My hearing's fine, I can HEAR the speech, I just can't make out what they're saying in real time. I fear I have cheap Intel integrated speech processing, rather than a $400 high-performance gaming card, and the extra processing means it just can't keep up.

      Interesting thing is that for some actors, it's not a problem - there seems to be a skill in speaking low and mumbling, whilst still being comprehensible; others mumble and it's just mumbling. Maybe it's an "acting on stage" thing.

    12. Re:Daredevil... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Casting is ok, Fisk is excellent, but Murdock is, unfortunately, not the best choice. Too bad he's the main character. Reminds me of McGuire in Spiderman.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    13. Re: Daredevil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It just mostly loops, "Characters still punching each other."

    14. Re:Daredevil... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Turn on subtitles. I almost always turn on subtitles for everything I watch, regardless of whether or not I speak the language.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:Daredevil... by Willuz · · Score: 2

      extended punchfests reminiscent of '60's Batman Pow! Blam! Zowie! kitsch

      I'm glad you said this. I have actually found myself fast forwarding many shows lately while making the batman kerPOW sounds out loud. Agents of Shield is the worst about this and I'm on the verge of not watching it anymore. Comic book movies got popular again because Joss Whedon knows how to write dialog and emphasize characters. In most of his work the fight scenes are used the emphasize the emotions behind the dialog that continues throughout the scene. Other directors have misunderstood why Avengers is so popular and are just spitting out boring martial arts scenes with shallow representations of beloved characters.

    16. Re:Daredevil... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Sorry if this offends comic fans

      And what about the rest of us? You insensitive clod!

      I think Daredevil is pretty awesome. Although it's disappointing that he doesn't kill people.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    17. Re: Daredevil... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So, a pretty good description of the action.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  4. They should resurrect some shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That were cancelled by idiot networks. Fringe, Dark Angel, etc.

    1. Re:They should resurrect some shows... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They should un-cancel Better Off Ted. That lie detector scene was priceless and that fake Veridian ad about friendship was really spot-on.

      Deal with it!

    2. Re:They should resurrect some shows... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      They already have started doing that...to mixed results. See: Arrested Development season 4.

      But yes, resurrecting shows that were mishandled to begin with is a great way to attract people to their medium, especially since once you get them there, they're likely to get hooked on the low price and massive amount of content that can fill idle time (of course, if you're looking for something specific that's newer, you're probably better served with a rental service like Amazon or iTunes). I was a Netflix user before the original content started, and it's been a nice bonus, since as they branch out more with it, they hit more and more areas of interest for me. House of Cards was up my alley, and Daredevil is one that I'll definitely be taking a look at.

    3. Re:They should resurrect some shows... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      8.2 on IMDb, not so good for a tv series.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re: They should resurrect some shows... by rkcth · · Score: 1

      Yes! Funniest show I've ever seen. I was devastated when I found out they cancelled it. This is definitely prime Netflix continuation material.

    5. Re:They should resurrect some shows... by afidel · · Score: 1

      They can't un-cancel Fringe, Leonard Nimoy is dead, Josh Jackson got picked up for a second season of The Affair, John Noble is doing Sleepy Hollow. They could pickup the idea and reboot the series but the head writers are all on other projects, JJ Abrams is a bit busy, only J.H. Wyman is available from the original staff so even a reboot would be unlikely to be anything like the original run.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:They should resurrect some shows... by samwichse · · Score: 1

      I would enroll in Netflix just for more Better off Ted. C'mon, Lem and Phil are my favorite TV duo! That episode where they have the timer set to switch which one is in charge every couple minutes is frigging genius.

      Sam

  5. not alone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is everyone else. Amazon has publicly stated they don't want shows that are on other streaming services.

  6. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've had 125 years of dumbass corporate executives thinking they knew something worth more than used toilet paper, and we're about to have another 125 years of the same.

  7. Is this an advertisement? by Kohath · · Score: 0

    It's not news.

    1. Re:Is this an advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is news. Between Netflix and Amazon developing their own shows, and HBO converging to the same market from the other side by launching a standalone streaming service, it's increasingly clear that we're in the middle of a major shift in television.

      It's not a single, discrete event, but few truly important stories are.

    2. Re:Is this an advertisement? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Between the disruption of well established television model, the impressive evolution of the capabilities of the internet, and the recent decision on Net Neutrality I'm convinced you're trying to sound smart by being contrarian.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  8. anon quote anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An anonymous reader writes:

    An anonymous spokesman says: ...he said.... 'We've had 80 years of linear TV, and it's been amazing, and in its day the fax machine was amazing,' he said...

    TFA, TFA... oh! That would be Reed Hastings. Neat. Ah, stylistic memories of my 8th grade school paper.

  9. Original? by zurtle · · Score: 1, Informative

    House of Cards is a remake of a British TV series from the 90s. And this isn't the first Daredevil offering either.

    --
    Couldn't stand the weather
    1. Re:Original? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's fucking Kevin Spacey. You shut your whore mouth!

    2. Re:Original? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      House of Cards is a remake of a British TV series from the 90s. And this isn't the first Daredevil offering either.

      You know this, but I'll point out that they mean "original" as in content not produced by a different company. The actual script does not need to be new in any way at all to qualify as original material.

    3. Re:Original? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

    4. Re:Original? by msauve · · Score: 1

      And Star Wars is a remake of a Japanese movie from the 1950's (The Hidden Fortress).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Original? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Star Wars is a remake of ...

      Maybe so, but Lucas didn't constantly promote Star Wars as "an ORIGINAL movie". Try and find Netflix pimping House of Cards without the false "an ORIGINAL series" tag.

    6. Re:Original? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Yep and Stargate SG1 was never a Sci-Fi original series either.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Original? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      To give the devil his due Netflix do mention both the original book(s) and the BBC series in the credits.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    8. Re:Original? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original House of Cards is from 1990 so I guess that qualifies as the '90s.

      That was 25 years ago and it's also moved across the pond to make more sense to American audiences. So it's updated and freshly filmed. That makes it somewhat "original"

      It's also one of only a handful of times A British show has been translated into American and not completely fucked it up.

  10. Lets be frank by ADRA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Lets be frank by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.

      Er, so?

      Yes, on a broad scale to get quality TV, it will still be made by people who make money off of it. It should be a relief that someone can still do that, not a bad thing.

    2. Re:Lets be frank by quantaman · · Score: 1

      They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.

      I might phrase it differently as adapting to the eventual market.

      Netflix isn't going to be the only big web distributor for long. Not only are cable companies putting out their own distribution networks but so are the Networks who produce content. When there's 10 services available people are going to go to the service with the hit shows, if each service is also a content provider they can create the exclusive hit show that preserves part of the audience, if not they wither away and die as their audience is slowly siphoned away.

      If Netflix wants to survive they need to produce a show so they can control the distribution. Hopefully this leads to cross licensing so you can watch everything by choosing among competing services, but even if not a fragmented market is better than a monopoly.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Lets be frank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and in a world where there are (say) a dozen streaming providers, no one's going to subscribe to them all, so Netflix are making sure that they're one of the ones you do subscribe to. I assume subscription services make more money than pay-as-you-go, so the ones that people don't subscribe to will go pay-as-you-go, and even if they subsequently produce the Worlds best content ever, they won't get 'sticky' brand loyalty because people will just pay-as-you-go and then disappear. Meanwhile Netflix continues to take their monthlies from all the people that are busy watching something else from someone else.

      Along with all this, you then have the brain-dead Amazon model where you have to subscribe to see anything at all, and then pay as you go to see anything vaguely good. Apart from a season of Peppa Pig that my kids watch on loop, I haven't found any use for Amazon (although the Fire TV box is actually pretty nice).

  11. Wait! I can get dvds to my door? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when? How? Sign me up!

  12. Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by xhelmboyx · · Score: 1

    If broadcast TV were to die to internet TV, we would be left with content for the ones that can afford it and nothing for the ones who can't. Whether it's money sucking subscription or budget paid advertising internet video, both will use some sort of restrictive, closed source key management system that's only available to a select group of devices. At least broadcast TV doesn't do DRM!!! If people don't like broadcast shows being cancelled then they should do something to fix the monopoly ratings system.

    1. Re:Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      What's this DRM you're discussing? :)

    2. Re:Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cable company has DRM'd all but local TV stations. If you get a digital tuner for your LAN or PC, it requires winblows mediacenter to watch the DRM'd channels. Linux users are left out. WTF do they think they are protecting? That's what torrents are for.

    3. Re:Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by xhelmboyx · · Score: 1

      Pay TV providers wanting customers to only use their provided devices to "protect" content, shocking :)

    4. Re:Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If broadcast TV were to die to internet TV, we would be left with content for the ones that can afford it and nothing for the ones who can't.

      How is that any different from today?

    5. Re:Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.. are you not aware of what the term "Broadcast TV" means?

    6. Re:Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, shows that are attractive to those with disposable income are preferred to shows that attract those who don't spend as much on items. Commercials select content, rather than users, and commercials select based on the desires of the "more valuable" watchers.

      Do you not know how "Broadcast TV" works?

    7. Re:Internet TV pay walls/restrictive DRM by xhelmboyx · · Score: 1

      The problem is less and less people have disposable incomes due to population grow and hoarding of personal wealth. Besides that broadcast TV is still the best method of distribution to the widest audience due to no DRM or pay walls. And FYI, broadcast content is targeted to key demographics based on small, manipulated sample group which has needed an overhaul since the founding of the Nielsen Corporation. Replacing this ratings system with directly metered content plays is the only thing that gives internet content an advantage.

  13. Every Dog's Day by JimSadler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NetFlix is wonderful. Every dog has its day and back when theaters were being crushed by cable and over the air stations were dropping like flies the cable industry could have cared less. Now cable TV is in serious trouble with no way to fight back except the one very obvious way. NetFlix delivers a ton of entertainment for $8. per month. Hint to cable : Deliver more for $8 than Netflix instead of charging hundreds per month.

    1. Re:Every Dog's Day by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      The solution is that standard terrestrial cable TV should get replaced by channels and services over the internet. You're starting to see this now, not just in Netflix, but with HBO Go, and others that are likely to follow. There's no quality advantage anymore, nor any particular reason to prefer using the old broadcast model to on demand streaming - no reason for the customer, that is.

    2. Re:Every Dog's Day by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      The ace that cable has up its sleeve is that your $8 Netflix subscription is riding on a cable internet pipe. In my area, the local non-Comcast provider actually publishes a real pricing scale, and 50 cable channels is a $10 add-on for internet access: http://www.tvcconnect.com/wp-c...

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    3. Re:Every Dog's Day by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hint to cable : Deliver more for $8 than Netflix instead of charging hundreds per month.

      Like US car companies, it is very hard to admit when the fat years are over. Give them time; I suspect they will come around a bit.

    4. Re:Every Dog's Day by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 0

      No, they won't - they will raise rates to make up for lost revenue and offer their TV services for a buck or two over that.

      While I hate the gubment being everywhere in the public life, I'd support them stepping in and regulating a basic cost to connect.

      Everyone who "cut the cord" learns that content is relatively cheap. Forcing those that "Cut the cord" to pay anyway is tantamount to robbery.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    5. Re:Every Dog's Day by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Like US car companies, it is very hard to admit when the fat years are over. Give them time; I suspect they will come around a bit.

      Like anything in the US, all the big players wants to keep status quo. In many ways I experience the US as being hopelessly stuck in the 70'ties...
      Granted I've only lived here for a little more than a year now, nor was alive in the 70'ties :)

    6. Re:Every Dog's Day by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Cable TV can't lower their bills much -- the licensing fees for the premium cable networks are spiraling out of control.

      Netflix doesn't have the money to license cable networks like Starz. Netflix philosophy is "if we can't afford to license the content, we'll simply make our own." They really don't have much of a choice.

      Cable TV isn't in any trouble (yet). They have a near monopoly on content.

    7. Re:Every Dog's Day by xhelmboyx · · Score: 1

      There is a quality issue in what CDN server your content is streaming off and if your provider engages in traffic shaping tactics. The only issue with broadcast quality is when a station or cable co. tries to cram too many channels down by reducing bitrate and/or resolution, which in the analog days they couldn't do to the same extent.

    8. Re:Every Dog's Day by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Worse than content, they have a near-monopoly on Internet access - a total monopoly in some areas. If I want wired, broadband Internet access, my one and only choice is Time Warner Cable. If TWC decided tomorrow that my Internet access without cable TV costs $100, has a 10 GB limit, and a $10 per GB overage fee, there would be nothing I could do. That's admittedly an extreme example, but some cable companies are pricing their no-TV Internet packages higher than their TV+Internet bundles to force people to keep cable TV. Many are also setting bandwidth caps with overage fees to limit Internet video use (while their own video services remain cap-free).

      If I don't like something Netflix does, I can go to another Internet video provider (even if it means not seeing a Netflix-exclusive show). If I don't like something my ISP does, I have no other options. The cable companies know this and are trying to exploit it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Every Dog's Day by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Cable TV can't lower their bills much -- the licensing fees for the premium cable networks are spiraling out of control.

      This is why I think cable companies SHOULD move to a la carte programming options. If they can show a cable network that only 2% of their customer base is willing to pay $2.50 per month to subscribe to their channel, then maybe the price should come down a little.

      As all of this shakes out, I don't believe the cable companies will be the big losers. After all, they own the physical wires that will be used to deliver content to the customer. In whatever form that is, the cable companies will be in a position to monetize that position. What is more likely is that a good two thirds of cable networks will out and out disappear, and no one will care. Broadcast medium is still effective for some kinds of content, so networks showing current event programming, news, live events, and the handful of TV programs that garner millions of simultaneous viewers will still broadcast over traditional mediums. If they want to survive, cable networks should stop burdening themselves with trying to fill time with reruns and infomercials and focus on producing good original content they can sell to the likes of Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, and local cable companies for video on demand delivery.

    10. Re:Every Dog's Day by antdude · · Score: 1

      Too bad Netflix doesn't do sports, live stuff, new non-Netflix episodes, on demand payments (no subscriptions), etc.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    11. Re:Every Dog's Day by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If my ISP were to traffic shape netflix I'd dump the and go with one of their competitors -- and I'm pretty sure they know that.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    12. Re:Every Dog's Day by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So there's no anti monopoly laws where you are?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    13. Re:Every Dog's Day by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Having a monopoly isn't actually illegal, but abusing it is.

      Unfortunately, try getting the government to actually move against the giant cable companies. They donate large sums of money to political officials and, in return, have laws written which favor them. There is a near-zero chance that any action a cable company takes (short of outright blocking competitors like Netflix) would result in any legal action. Even if it did, the cable companies have enough legal might to either a) tie up the case for years until the political climate shifted back or b) settle for a slap-on-the-wrist and meaningless concessions.

      In short, the cable companies have enough power that they can do nearly anything they want to do and they know it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    14. Re:Every Dog's Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the seventy-ties?

      That's a very strange construct.

    15. Re:Every Dog's Day by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Worse than content, they have a near-monopoly on Internet access

      Yes, that's a second, but related problem.

      > Many are also setting bandwidth caps with overage fees to limit Internet video use (while their own video services remain cap-free

      Yup -- they "claim" they don't cap "competitors" like Netflix but that is hard to prove. Regardless they definitely give preferential treatment to their own data streams.

    16. Re:Every Dog's Day by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      I used to think that TV a la carte was the solution too but after talking with someone in the cable business I'm convinced this "cure" would be worse then the original "disease".

      The cable companies would run the numbers so they are even _more_ profitable. Here's an example of how the cable companies would spin it:

      They know that you can get basic for $80, tier 1 for another $40, tier 2 for another $40, so your current bill is $160.

      Since people will want to lower their bill they will just charge more per channel. i.e. They would offer the channels at outrageous prices, say $50/channel, because they know you don't want to pay for the bundles. You want 2 channels you are already up to $100. You want 3 channels, that is $150. You want 4 channels that is $200. They are basically figuring out what the average consumer "needs". Sure they will make less money on a few people that have the discipline to order just 1 channel, but the majority of people won't.

      The wildcard in all this is still Google and Apple. They just don't have the infrastructure to support "the last mile."

      So the cable companies have no motivation to give the customer better deals -- they also can't afford to with the way the licenses costs. Some analysts estimate there is a ~5 .. 10% increase in license costs per contract.

      > After all, they own the physical wires that will be used to deliver content to the customer. In whatever form that is, the cable companies will be in a position to monetize that position.

      Ironically, that is actually a sore point for the cable companies. They have millions invested in copper wire -- that "last mile to the house." They charge people for internet access but people can easily saturate it by a competitor say Netflix. To use a car analogy, they charge for a driveway to access the (internet) highway. They also offer vehicles (TV shows) but people are able to use a different vehicle (netflix) that puts wear and tear on the road (traffic).

      They kind of made their own bed. They _could_ deploy fiber but they don't want to invest in their future.

      Definitely an interesting time.

    17. Re:Every Dog's Day by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > try getting the government to actually move against the giant cable companies. They donate large sums of money to political officials and, in return, have laws written which favor them

      You the hit the nail right on the head. This is the fundamental problem with politics. Politics will stay corrupt until the people demand:

      * Remove money from politics

    18. Re:Every Dog's Day by jopsen · · Score: 1

      In the seventy-ties?

      That's a very strange construct.

      checks... phones... physical mail... standing in line at public offices...
      I'm from Denmark where I would apply for university, student housing, educational support, taxes, housing support, birth certificate, chance of address, all digital; any interaction with public sector was digital... All money transfers were digital...

      Over here it's in my experience mainly paper.. paper and more paper... I've never used a check before...No automatic bill payment system, etc. my bank offers to send a check by mail from their website (I honestly thought the teller was joking when he told me this)..

  14. Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's probably a good thing that companies like Netflix are making good original programming, but I've noticed that their catalog of classic films has shrunk significantly.

    What I really want is a service like Netflix that is more Spotify-like, with an enormous catalog of old films, classic foreign films, art films, shorts, animation, etc.

    I guess the fact that copyright trolls are scrambling to take old movies out of the public domain and congress has seen fit to extend copyright to ridiculous lengths makes that a problem. So even though I subscribe to Netflix, I find myself looking to torrent sites and the Internet Archive to scratch my film noir, King Vidor, Vittorio De Sica and Busby Berkely itch. Because sometimes Jack Lemmon and Catherine Deneuve in "The April Fools" or Lee J Cobb in John Boorman's "Point Blank" is just what the movie doctor ordered. Sometimes, a creepy-as-hell Richard Widmark in the 1953 Sam Fuller classic, "Pickup on South Street" is preferable to watching Ryan Gosling try to create an expression on his face.

    Hell, a little while ago, I just wanted to sit back and enjoy the 1973 blaxploitation classic, "The Mack" and learned that Netflix doesn't have it available for streaming (but you can get a DVD if you still use that legacy format). I mean, what the fuck. Who's gonna mess with physical media and snail mail just to watch a movie? Not only that, but they don't carry "Trouble Man" at all, and that has one of the greatest soundtracks ever by Curtis Mayfield.

    In case you aren't familiar with cinematic masterpiece "The Mack", here's the scene where Goldy and Pretty Tony face off. Check the very young Richard Pryor: https://youtu.be/sdR_t5nsZqI

    I'm spoiled because back in my university days, I worked as a projectionist at a revival house for seven years and got the most thorough education in film history one could ever hope for. But some of you younger folks might not know what came before The Avengers and Fast and Furious 7, and that makes me sad. Hell, the 1970s were a veritable golden age for independent films and hardly anybody gets to see those movies today. Even the "classic movie" channels on cable only play the same top forty old movies over and over again, never digging deep into back catalogs. There is so much cinema to be discovered. Don't fear the black and white or silent.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Oh shit. I just realized I made a grievous error, in attributing the "Trouble Man" soundtrack to Curtis Mayfield instead of its true creator, Marvin Gaye. Curtis Mayfield did the soundtrack for "Superfly" (which by the way, is also unavailable to stream from Netflix, those bastards). If you are unfamiliar with the Trouble Man soundtrack, go check it out on Youtube right now. You will come away understanding why Pharrell Williams is a punk ripoff.

      I just stuck myself in the leg with a pen knife to atone for this terrible mis-attribution.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I made a grievous error, in attributing the "Trouble Man" soundtrack to Curtis Mayfield instead of its true creator, Marvin Gaye.

      I don't think anyone actually noticed.

    3. Re:Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past by swb · · Score: 1

      I'm spoiled because back in my university days, I worked as a projectionist at a revival house for seven years and got the most thorough education in film history one could ever hope for.

      Minneapolis had a theater like that, the Uptown. New schedule came out every month, and a good chunk of the month was different movies on different days, sometimes even different movies at different showings. Occasionally there would be a theme (eg, Tommy and Quadrophenia in one evening) and once in a blue moon a movie would span a weekend if it was new/popular. The movies were all manner of genres, from foreign to documentary to arthouse (Jim Jarmusch, etc) to revival showings. Quite often the films shown were unobtainable on VHS. Rocky Horror at midnight on the weekends.

      And it was a great theater, interior-wise -- very art deco and with a balcony you could still use (my favorite spot, the railing was a great footrest). The audio was just OK but the projection was good.

      The theater is still there, but its kind of the first run theater for an arthouse chain and shows usually one movie for a week or so, usually a bigger release film.

    4. Re:Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past by turp182 · · Score: 1

      One of the coolest movie experiences I've ever had was watching Hot Water (1924) starring Harold Lloyd in a church with live organ accompaniment.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    5. Re:Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      It's not that Netflix doesn't want to show these old movies/TV shows, it's that the content owners often give Netflix scraps hoping to starve them out of existence. They see Netflix as a threat to their old business model and want them gone.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's not that Netflix doesn't want to show these old movies/TV shows, it's that the content owners often give Netflix scraps hoping to starve them out of existence. They see Netflix as a threat to their old business model and want them gone.

      Yeah, we seem to have passed the point where our intellectual property laws encourage artists and innovators and have moved into an age when IP does little but hurt cultural development and future generations.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. This is an effective strategy... by CokedUpStripper · · Score: 0

    ...when you can have your customer pulling the freight on maintaining the infrastructure through their ISP as we do today. When net neutrality splits the Comcast network from the Comcast/NBC/Universal content, and Netflix has to compete for bandwidth on a level playing field, the money to create original content is going to dry up quickly.

    1. Re:This is an effective strategy... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      When net neutrality splits the Comcast network from the Comcast/NBC/Universal content, and Netflix has to compete for bandwidth on a level playing field, the money to create original content is going to dry up quickly.

      Don't you have that exactly backwards? "Net Neutrality" has been the default. The new neutrality laws don't create a level playing field, they preserve it. Why would Net Neutrality and having Comcast separated from the content creators make it harder for Netflix? They're already paying for bandwidth. And Netflix users are already paying for bandwidth. And with the incestuous relationship severed, what would Comcast's incentive to screw with Netflix be?

      Or do you believe we've reached peak bandwidth?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:This is an effective strategy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When net neutrality splits the Comcast network from the Comcast/NBC/Universal content

      Ok. That is amazing. You have an entirely fictional model of the world inside your head.

      Comcast is being given incumbency by way of the most tragic aspect of the FCC's Net Neutrality; no last-mile unbundling. A permanent monopoly over the medium they control and no obligation at all to disentangle their content holdings.

      In what universe does this set of circumstances have Comcast walking away from its content assets? Just how badly must one's mind be damaged to even postulate something as incredibly moronic as that?

      Either I am being trolled or you need to be put in restraints before you hurt someone.

  16. $30 per month by tepples · · Score: 1

    I do however have an issue with paying a service to stream TV and still having to watch ads.

    Would you prefer a choice between Hulu Plus with ads at $10 per month and ad-free Hulu Plus Plus at $30 per month? Because the operators of these services would argue that only the combination of ad revenue and subscription revenue is enough to pay the royalty bills.

    1. Re:$30 per month by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think they're getting that much for the ads. After all, netflix manages to offer ad-free stuff for $8/month, same as Hulu+. It's probably closer to the difference between $8/month and $12.

      I think the ultimate reason Netflix is creating it's own content is that the more content it controls, the more influence it has over the other media copyright holders. If Netflix can legitimately argue that if copyright holder X doesn't play ball, that it's average subscriber won't sign up to site Y for $Z revenue because the subscribers will simply watch something else, such as one of Netflix's exclusive shows, then they're leaving money on the table, and they don't like doing that.

      Sort of like a backwards HBO. HBO does great shows, but are really exclusive about them. If you want to see Netflix's shows, you have to sign up, but it's not nearly as expensive as a cable package + HBO.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:$30 per month by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The other big advantage Netflix has is that it releases its shows world-wide simultaneously. Traditional TV is getting slightly better at that, but there is still a long way to go.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:$30 per month by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      HBO does have an online only subscription now from what I understand. However, it's $15 a month, which I consider to be quite expensive. At least they are starting to get the idea. If ESPN did the same, you would see huge swaths of people cancelling cable. The only problem I see in the future is that people will end up paying almost as much as they are with cable once they've signed up for all the content they want. If it's all ad free, then it's probably still a plus to the consumer, but it still doesn't mean any extra money in my pocket.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:$30 per month by Holi · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should ask Netflix how to not show ads.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:$30 per month by tepples · · Score: 2

      Netflix would answer thus: "Show older shows so you don't have to pay as much in royalties."

    6. Re:$30 per month by afidel · · Score: 1

      ESPN essentially is available ala cart, ESPN, AMC, and TNT (for NASCAR) are the main draws in the sling tv offer at $20/month and AMC wasn't part of the initial offering so it was basically ESPN and TNT for $20/month.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:$30 per month by netsavior · · Score: 1

      If Hulu plus actually worked, I would still pay for it and still watch the stupid ads, even at double the price. As it is I had to drop it, because we couldn't actually use the service we paid for. Netflix works bug-free on all of my devices. Hulu plus crashes on every platform I have used it on except PC (where you don't even need to pay for it). It is crappy software, and they think they can get away with it because they are the gatekeepers to "precious" content.

      Netflix, on the other hand, is a better experience than piracy. Netflix gets my money (and more from me than the average person because I pay for an account with more simultaneous screens since my household has so damned many devices that work flawlessly with netflix).

    8. Re:$30 per month by schlachter · · Score: 1

      The $8/month is sort of a subsidized rate as they attempt to build out the business and run at a loss or near break even point. I'm sure that long term growth and profitability of their service will come with monthly fees of $15+/month...and people will happily pay it. It's worth that much even now.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    9. Re:$30 per month by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're getting that much for the ads. After all, netflix manages to offer ad-free stuff for $8/month, same as Hulu+. It's probably closer to the difference between $8/month and $12.

      Netflix doesn't offer next day viewing of content, Hulu does. I can't find a link now, but IIRC, a viewer is worth at least $0.60 per hour for broadcast TV.

    10. Re:$30 per month by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

      Netflix loses money on streaming. The DVD side of the business subsidies the streaming side.

    11. Re:$30 per month by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      HBO only has an online only subscription if you are using Apple TV or iOS devices, or are a subscriber for Optimum Broadband Service. I'm still waiting for a true stand-alone offering like Netflix has.

    12. Re:$30 per month by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think they're getting that much for the ads. After all, netflix manages to offer ad-free stuff for $8/month, same as Hulu+. It's probably closer to the difference between $8/month and $12.

      I think the ultimate reason Netflix is creating it's own content is that the more content it controls, the more influence it has over the other media copyright holders. If Netflix can legitimately argue that if copyright holder X doesn't play ball, that it's average subscriber won't sign up to site Y for $Z revenue because the subscribers will simply watch something else, such as one of Netflix's exclusive shows, then they're leaving money on the table, and they don't like doing that.

      Sort of like a backwards HBO. HBO does great shows, but are really exclusive about them. If you want to see Netflix's shows, you have to sign up, but it's not nearly as expensive as a cable package + HBO.

      Hulu however has current TV a day later. Netflix doesn't get it for months. Hulu's also sponsored by the content networks who are trying to basically regain their ad revenue.

      Netflix is creating original content because it can - its business model depends on subscribers and growing that subscriber base. Showing unlimited movies that have been out for months, or TV seasons that everyone else has seen months ago doesn't grow subscribers, especially since OTA TV will get them for free too, just on a less convenient schedule.

      Instead, Netflix has to basically create content or inherit content that the networks can't justify carrying so subscribers have something new to watch.

      Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, etc., they get the latest TV within hours of airing which is why they generally cost more because their first-run. Netflix picks up the rest.

      In the lifecycle of a movie, it first comes out in theatres. Then it comes out as a digital rental (CinemaNow, Vudu, etc). Then it comes out as purchase - either digital (iTunes, Ultraviolet, etc) or physical (DVD/Blu-Ray). Then general rentals, then Netflix, and finally, regular free TV. This takes around a year or two to fully execute.

      The lifecycle for a TV program is first airing, then digital sales (Amazon, iTunes), and Hulu. Then months later, season box sets on DVD, and Netflix.

      If you're not fussy about waiting, Netflix is a great service. Most people though can't wait that long for their TV, so there are options. And Netflix knows once they have the people who don't care or who don't mind waiting, their subscriber base is saturated. They need to have new content to attract new subscribers who may not watch much of the catalog, but will catch the exclusives and pay for it.

    13. Re:$30 per month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has a 90 day exclusive. It will be out before you know it. In, you know, less than 90 days.

    14. Re:$30 per month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the lifecycle of a movie, it first comes out in theatres. Then it comes out as a digital rental (CinemaNow, Vudu, etc). Then it comes out as purchase - either digital (iTunes, Ultraviolet, etc) or physical (DVD/Blu-Ray).

      Actually, lately I've noticed content owners have finally "got wise" and figured out you do "for purchase" first, then "for rental". A number of movies are now starting to be available to buy before they can be rented (at least digitally) because the revenue is greater.

    15. Re:$30 per month by nofx911 · · Score: 1

      The $8/month is sort of a subsidized rate as they attempt to build out the business and run at a loss or near break even point. I'm sure that long term growth and profitability of their service will come with monthly fees of $15+/month...and people will happily pay it. It's worth that much even now.

      I am not sure how much you want Netflix to make, but they are definitely not running at a lose or breakeven! Net income for 2014 was $266,799,000:
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?...

    16. Re:$30 per month by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --This is because Apple signed a 3-month exclusivity agreement with HBO for the HBO Now service - after it expires, HBONow should be available on Android and other devices.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    17. Re:$30 per month by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Netflix is creating original content because it can - its business model depends on subscribers and growing that subscriber base. Showing unlimited movies that have been out for months, or TV seasons that everyone else has seen months ago doesn't grow subscribers, especially since OTA TV will get them for free too, just on a less convenient schedule.

      That's pretty much what I was saying, in a more round-about fashion.

      By creating it's own fresh content it attracts subscribers for that alone. I know of people who consider the seasons of various TV shows it's created worth the $8 easy. And as time goes on, that library only grows.

      If it keeps producing shows of the quality it's managed thus far, at about the same rate, while it'll never 'catch' the major producers, it won't matter as much as the oldest shows aren't generally worth that much anyways. Even long-standing shows like MASH eventually lose their appeal.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:$30 per month by DedTV · · Score: 1

      But to get most next-day content on Hulu comes through "TV Anywhere" meaning you need to be paying a cable company and Hulu to get it. If I'm paying the cable company, why bother with Hulu at all?

    19. Re:$30 per month by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      HBO does have an online only subscription now from what I understand. However, it's $15 a month, which I consider to be quite expensive.

      Last I heard, it also required you to have a cable package with HBO on it, or certain other 'gateways'. Checking the HBO go site, it's free, but you have to have HBO cable...
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      But then, it looks like that's changing. Interesting...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:$30 per month by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I did some checking, at least one site mentioned $1 per estimated viewer per hour, but that's with 20 minutes of advertising.

      So I guess it'd depend on how much Hulu++ viewers watched, on average, to determine how much it would cost to replace that revenue - while remembering that it costs money to serve ads, especially video ones.

      Last time I tried regular Hulu I got pissed off because it kept serving me the SAME two ads, both with obscenely high sound levels(As in I'm turning down the volume because they were YELLING), about something I didn't care about.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    21. Re:$30 per month by Linsaran · · Score: 1

      I find that hard to believe, to quote wikipedia, "Citation needed".

      I don't know anyone who still uses the DVD service they offer, but everyone I know has their streaming service.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
    22. Re:$30 per month by vilanye · · Score: 1

      I year or two ago I looked at one of their public reports

      DVD's by mail brings in more revenue and has a higher profit margin than streaming. Like 800% more.

      If you notice how little they charge for streaming and the size of all their content-rights contracts it isn't surprising.

      That is why I was shocked that they tried to spin off their DVD service.

  17. Online blackouts by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the only TV I watch anymore is Netflix and Amazon.

    That's fine for people who don't watch live political news (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-SPAN) or live sports. Because the leagues still sell exclusive rights to particular matches to traditional TV networks, the leagues' streaming subscription services black out any match shown on broadcast, cable, or satellite TV in your area

    1. Re:Online blackouts by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      'Live political news' can generally be had OTA(over the air) or via free internet sites(with some advertising if you must absolutely listen to the talking heads). You have a point about the live sports, but that's getting pricier and pricier for more people. Not just from rate increases, but from reduced usage outside of watching said live sports.

      If you sit there and realize that you're spending $100/month for a cable plan you're not using except as a carrier for a $100 premium sports package, suddenly you're looking at said sports package costing you $200 month, which is more dear than a $100 sports package riding on the back of a $100 cable plan that justifies itself.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Online blackouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but that's getting pricier and pricier for more people

      Pro sports is for rich suburbanites now. The masses can't pay enough to fund the wages of the athletes and the leeches they feed.

    3. Re:Online blackouts by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine watching news when I can read so much faster and from so many more sources. Live sports are my kryptonite, even with NFL gamepass there are blackouts where I wouldn't be able to watch until the games were over.
      If I could just cheer for Minnesota instead of the Pats, that would solve the prime time game problem ;)

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    4. Re:Online blackouts by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's fine for people who don't watch live political news (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC,

      When are you going to list channels with news, and not bullshit entertainment?

      C-SPAN)

      .250 ain't even good in baseball.

      or live sports

      More and more of which will come to the internet over time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Online blackouts by sinij · · Score: 2

      Why would any sane, rational individual want to watch live political news? It is all spin and FUD.

    6. Re:Online blackouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Live political news' can generally be had OTA(over the air) or via free internet sites(with some advertising if you must absolutely listen to the talking heads). You have a point about the live sports, but that's getting pricier and pricier for more people. Not just from rate increases, but from reduced usage outside of watching said live sports.

      If you sit there and realize that you're spending $100/month for a cable plan you're not using except as a carrier for a $100 premium sports package, suddenly you're looking at said sports package costing you $200 month, which is more dear than a $100 sports package riding on the back of a $100 cable plan that justifies itself.

      Sports is the whole reason I left cable. I paid for the "HD Deluxe" package and all I got were my local stations and about 30 sports channels. Other than that, I had to subscribe to services like HBO or Stars to get their HD channels. Just plain stopped subscribing to cable. Turns out that when I watch the occasional football game, it looks better over the air than it ever did on cable. Doesn't matter since MLB and the NFL will all be cable as soon as everyone gets their new stadiums. Then the plebs can watch 2nd tier sports like soccer (in the USA anyway) and NASCAR.

    7. Re: Online blackouts by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      This. This is why NBA League pass is garbage. Why ESPN streaming is not enough. Why cable still has a long life left in it. All local market college football and NBA games are shown on Fox Sports 1. Only available via cable.

    8. Re:Online blackouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long game though, people will stop caring about "Live" news or sports if they aren't exposed to it. have you seen teens "watching" tv these days? They ll have their cell phones out and they are doing something else.

      The truth is the next generation will care far far less about that and will get what they want through streaming.

      I know, I actually do this already. Most "Live" news sucks so I get all of my news online. I have done so for the better part of a decade. I'm far more plugged in to the outside world than any "News watchers".

      Kids these days just aren't sitting around and watching a big TV these days.

      The next generation of media consumption will look far far different.

    9. Re:Online blackouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get plenty of news with my Roku including my local news. I don't get any OTA here.

      ABC, NBC and CBS News all have Roku channels. So do Fox, Fox Business, WSJ Online, CNBC, Sky News and RT.

      MHz Worldview broadcasts a variety of newscasts from around the world.

      I also get the PBS News Hour, McLaughlin Gtoup, BBC World News, Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera America, CNN International, France 24 (in English), euronews, C-SPAN, CCTV News, CNC World, Desutsche Welle, i24 News, NDTV, NHK World, Press TV, RTE News and some lesser known ones.

      There are even clips from MSNBC though I can't watch entire shows

      And all of that is free.

      Al-Jazeera English is my "go to" news channel (AJA has annoying commercials), but I skip around to different sources. Sometimes it's interesting to see how differently the same news story is treated by different sources

  18. I hate these blurred lines by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is "Trouble Man" by Marvin Gaye in the same way that "Blurred Lines" is by Marvin Gaye?

    1. Re:I hate these blurred lines by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Is "Trouble Man" by Marvin Gaye in the same way that "Blurred Lines" is by Marvin Gaye?

      Yes. Yes it is.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. Do you really want 6 different boxes to get 6 diff by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Do you really want 6 different boxes / accountants to get 6 different shows? this sounds a little like the old C-band days before the videochiper ii.

  20. Is it wrong if... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

    Is it wrong if, for a moment there, I was expecting a discussion based on a custom programming language or something?

    ...

    I need to take a vacation.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  21. OK, Netflix by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    You want my credit card number? Just convince Neil Gaiman and Joss Whedon to have a netflix-exclusive video lovechild. Boom. Done. Don't need to know anything about it. Do this, and I'm sold.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:OK, Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just wait for the dvd/bd release.. because, it will happen, even for 'netflix originals'.. that's a revenue stream only someone with their head in the sand and a crowbar up the ass will ignore.

  22. Great differentiator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense with other streaming businesses starting up they need to provide something that others doesn't have. That could be exclusive content from outside party which will get prohibitively more expensive as more bidders come on board or create original content they own. Another bonus with owning original content is that they can use them as bargaining chips to get more content. Netflix chooses a distributor for their content in other channels in exchange for access to that distributor's content on Netflix.

  23. Why even bother to bring up christians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck cares about people who believe their fairy tales should be the standard by which everyone exists? They are a dying category of person.

    Even most people who claim to be Christian really aren't. The only difference is they lie to themselves in order to feel like they have some moral high ground while they do all the same crap everyone else does.

    1. Re:Why even bother to bring up christians? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Are you fucking insane? Your saying 247 million Americans don't matter. What only Atheists matter? A pathetic 5% of our population as compared to the 67% of Americans who claim to be Christian.

      It's more likely you will be long dead before Christianity loses influence in this country.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Why even bother to bring up christians? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Your saying 247 million Americans don't matter

      Don't confuse being raised going to church with actually believing that bullshit. Very few people actually believe in an invisible friend with magical powers.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:Why even bother to bring up christians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must assume you don't live in the US. Actual religious belief is quite common here. Yes, some of those who self-identify as Christians only pray when something terrible is about to happen to them, and many do not practice their faith's ideals in everyday life, but a large chunk of our population does hold an actual belief in God/Jesus (and a few in Allah, and so on), though it varies quite a bit by region and even locality.

      - T

  24. At least it's not a new programming paradigm by istartedi · · Score: 1

    When I read the headline, my first thought was that it was some new programming paradigm. Horrific visions of pundits at the EPcon briefly formed and then vaporized as I realized the phrase had a different meaning.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  25. Spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the feck happened to Slashdot? This post is paid-for advertising. Don't read it.

    1. Re:Spam by Holi · · Score: 1

      Uhh, hasn't that been like 90% of Slashdot articles since the beginning?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  26. Brand by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    What's the value of a brand if it means something else to everyone? It would become a non-brand like "water", that's something else to each one, too. Or if "CocaCola" suddenly to some one would mean "orange juice".

    --
    bickerdyke
  27. I prefer yet another option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm poor as fuck, so piracy is my route. Private trackers are superior in about every way:
      * Free (but you are encouraged to donate a small amount, e.g. 5 bucks)
      * No ads
      * No DRM
      * Lots of content (Netflix has about 10,000 - 20,000 titles? There's a movie tracker that has 113,000 movies and a TV tracker with 20,000 series - all neatly indexed and searchable (e.g. by actor, genre, ...))
      * Excellent support (volunteer staff is very quick and friendly)
    Only downside is that you can't stream (it uses Bittorrent), but download speeds are about as fast as your connection can handle.
    You don't even need a super-fast connection, I'm seeding everything from my home.
    It's not that hard to get invited if you're willing to put in a bit of effort.

  28. A might God is Netflix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She who tore down the false idols of our parents! The once high Blockbuster is no more, as are its lesser brethren, Hollywood Video and countless Independent Video Stores. But She is not satisfied with cutting off convenient access to movies that cater to secondary demographics, oh no! She, having thrown off the mighty temptations of the Qwikster, now seeks to recreate network television in Her own image! Watch any program you like... but displease her, and you will be forced to face the Premium Service! And there are no other gods to hear your prayers.

  29. BoredDevil by tomxor · · Score: 1

    Netflix is awesome for stirring up the system, but I don't get the hype about DareDevil... and i like a bit of action, I just thought it was overall shit, wouldn't watch any more even if it was free.

    I can imagine it being popular with children, but then it is a comic book hero, maybe i shouldn't have expected more from a live action comic book hero... Or maybe i just wanted something original, dark and unusual with at least half decent acting like Dexter instead of rehashed shit.

    1. Re:BoredDevil by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Though I happen to like Daredevil, I definitely WOULDN'T recommend it for children. At least, not younger children. There's a large amount of bloodshed that even the Marvel movies don't have. Without getting too spoilery, the Fisk "car scene" in Episode 4 alone would make this not for kids.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  30. Sports by DrYak · · Score: 0

    Or you know, you could *actually DO* sports instead of standing in front of a light box and shout at picture of sportsmen.

    Common, we're ./ here. We're notoriously sociopathic. We don't have the needs to root for a team or other such pointless ritual to reinforce social identity.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Sports by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      I don't think sociopathic is the word you are looking for there. Although I can't find the right word to replace it.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    2. Re:Sports by tepples · · Score: 1

      We don't have the needs to root for a team or other such pointless ritual to reinforce social identity.

      We don't, but a lot of us live with people who do.

    3. Re: Sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antisocial

    4. Re:Sports by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      non-social?

    5. Re:Sports by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      a-social.

      Which is of course bollocks.

      Ok, slashdot is pretty crappy social interaction, but its still social interaction.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  31. Multitasking by tepples · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine watching news when I can read so much faster and from so many more sources.

    Can you read a wide variety of sources while doing other housework? Because that's what my roommate ends up doing. She plugs cordless headphones into the TV's audio out, puts on MSNBC or C-SPAN, and listens to the talking heads while doing housework in another room.

  32. Years later by tepples · · Score: 1

    After all, netflix manages to offer ad-free stuff for $8/month, same as Hulu+.

    It also gets the ad-free stuff months or years later (except for its own productions), when licensors are willing to license the works at a rate acceptable to Netflix.

    If you want to see Netflix's shows, you have to sign up, but it's not nearly as expensive as a cable package + HBO.

    Likewise, if you currently subscribe to only cable TV and not wired Internet, Netflix is expensive because you have to add cable Internet to your package.

    1. Re:Years later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise, if you currently subscribe to only cable TV and not wired Internet, Netflix is expensive because you have to add cable Internet to your package.

      Nowadays how many Americans have no Internet service?

    2. Re:Years later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the stupidest non-ac post I have read in a long time (Yes, I am posting AC, the irony is not lost on me). Just who the heck do you think is getting internet for Netflix only? You may as well include the cost of getting indoor plumbing because people pause the show to go to the bathroom sometimes (yes, that is an idiotic example, I'm illustrating a point).

      Anyone that gets a Netflix subscription already had internet & on the outside chance someone fell into the 'I got internet for Netflix' category, The internet can be used for a darn sight more than cable TV can be used for.

    3. Re:Years later by tepples · · Score: 1

      Nowadays how many Americans have no Internet service?

      That depends on whether having only cellular Internet counts as having Internet.

    4. Re:Years later by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It also gets the ad-free stuff months or years later (except for its own productions), when licensors are willing to license the works at a rate acceptable to Netflix.

      Which is why I mentioned $12 rather than $8. I recognize that it has the more expensive stuff.

      Of course, I'm a fairly typical slashdotter, which means I'm an atypical individual, in that I have internet but not cable TV. Haven't turned the thing on in months.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  33. Re:Do you really want 6 different boxes to get 6 d by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Who needs 6 different boxes? I have a Roku box connected to my TV. With it, I access Netflix, Amazon (both Prime and VOD), Hulu Plus, Google Play, and various other services. I can switch between services effortlessly.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  34. Exclusive programming? by famebait · · Score: 1

    How does exclusive programming compare to extreme programming and functional programming?

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  35. College Student's Programming by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

    and, for a 20-year-old New York college student, it should be all tits

    I'm sure that's what they meant to say.

  36. Re:Do you really want 6 different boxes to get 6 d by Holi · · Score: 1

    My Roku has no problem handling Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, and HBOgo. Why do I need a separate box for each service?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  37. Come full circle by Dareth · · Score: 1

    And if there are multiple providers each with "hit shows" someone might want to bundle them all together so they can negotiate the licensing rights in bulk and let people get everything at a reasonable rate.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Come full circle by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      See, that's the problem....EVERYONE wants a piece of the streaming pie, but people aren't going to pay $100+ a month for every streaming service. They WILL have to pair up and we'll probably end up with 3-4 main services for probably around $10-$15 per month, per service.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  38. Ahem, screw the conservative Christian family by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

    I want more shows like Rake (the Australian version), The Fall (UK), and Wire in the Blood.

    There's already plenty of sweetness and light and pre-digested pap for the masses who only want something to fill their mind between stuffing their faces and going to bed.

  39. All it does is encourage me to read more by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    One of the draws of network television was if I sorta liked a show, I would 'make time' to watch it when it came on. Especially back in the old days when if you missed a show you had to wait months to see it again on reruns. It was easy to sit in a chair at 7pm and watch whatever shows were one. Even more compelling if they had a story-line that required seeing every episode. I remember making time to watch every episode of Heroes (the first season only) and Babylon 5.

    Now that so many shows are streaming, I find that I'm more likely to pick up my tablet and go outside and read. I can always catch a show later if I really want to.

    And I find that I rarely really want to. There are a few shows that I watch regularly. And a whole lot that, because they are on Netflix or Hulu, I would like to watch. But I'm really tired of ads and if a show isn't all that good (which most aren't), I find myself more and more just reading. Or playing games on my tablet. Or watching YouTube videos.

    Some of my friends just go on and on about their favorite shows and how I should watch them. I'm finding that it just isn't that much a part of my life anymore. I'm getting really tired of paying for satellite and Hulu and Netflix and if my wife didn't watch them, I'd cancel the lot. I've tried to convince her we don't need satellite, but there are about 5 channels that we do watch and she isn't willing to give that up.

    Thank you Internet Netflix, and Hulu for encouraging me to read me. And thank you Chromecast for giving me all kinds of free stuff to watch when I do want to.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  40. XM Radio by schlachter · · Score: 1

    I use XM Radio @ $5/month for audio access to all the live political and news TV shows you mention. I don't get to "watch" them, but I get to listen to them on my daily commute. Occasionally they reference a video or an image they are displaying, but 95% of the time, I don't feel like I'm missing anything with just the audio.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  41. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would of been better if Netflix dropped all TV shows including originals in favor of spending more money on streaming quality A+ movies and just leave hulu service with the TV Shows. TV shows tend to get boring overtime(running out of stories) but with movies you end up watching them over and over again.

  42. Wholesome? by StikyPad · · Score: 2

    I take issue with the idea that conservative entertainment is inherently any more "wholesome" than any other. Conservatives aren't the authority on morals, at least not the sole authority, as much as they would like us to believe that they are.

  43. TV studios are scared shitless by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    The decades long crap-opoly that the TV networks have enjoyed is crumbling down before them. Netflix IS the future of TV. The networks know this. But like every other monopoly they are trapped by their business model. If they try to pivot towards the streaming trend they risk losing revenue from their current business model. CEO's, and shareholders, are rewarded based on current earnings. CEO's, despite what they might say, are concerned about this quarter not what is happening 5 years from now. If they fail to deliver THIS QUARTER they are out on their ass. So they continue to milk the monopoly cow and let someone else deal with 5 years from now.

    The only real remedy they have is the court system. They will litigate and litigate and litigate until the little guy gives up.

    But Netflix isn't going to give up. Even after the shakedown from Verizon (forced to pay up so that Verizon won't slow them down) they are still doing fine. The original content is brilliant - right out of the HBO playbook. And you know what? Their original programming is excellent. I think that House Of Cards is the best show on TV. That alone is worth the $9 a month.

    Compared to what the networks charge per month a Netflix membership is an absolute steal. Not only do they have excellent choices but it is geared towards what I want to watch, not the slop served up by network TV.

  44. Re:Wait! I can get dvds to my door? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    What's a DVD?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  45. So more bundles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you want to watrch these you've got to sign up for Netflix, for others you've gtot to sign up with Amazon, and it'll be the same for other companies.

    Welcome to the future of unbundled channels where you've got to subscribe to multiple companies to get the pogrammes.

  46. Just following HBO and Showtime's lead. by Pontiac · · Score: 1

    The major networks don't make many big hot shows anymore.. It's a vast sea of low cost reality TV crap with a few good shows in the mix..
    HBO, Showtime and Netflix have stepped in to fill a void the major networks left plus they control the copyrights, content and distribution..

    HBO and showtime learned years ago that producing edgy shows that go beyond what the FCC allows for broadcast TV pulls in and keeps subscribers.
    Netflix is just following that successful model.

    Lets face it.. Orange is the new black wouldn't be half of what it is edited for broadcast TV.

    The new twist netflix offers is binge watching a whole season at one time.

    --
    If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
  47. Capped Internet by tepples · · Score: 1

    Anyone that gets a Netflix subscription already had internet & on the outside chance someone fell into the 'I got internet for Netflix' category, The internet can be used for a darn sight more than cable TV can be used for.

    There's a difference between having an Internet connection at all and having an Internet connection sufficient for sustained Netflix use. A lot of Internet providers, especially satellite and cellular, impose data transfer quotas of 5 to 10 GB per month.

  48. Search still sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Netflix customer and it's worth the money. However, despite spending millions of dollars improving their search feature, it still stinks. Predictive algorithms can only do so much. And let me completely wipe out certain shows/genres from my display. I'm really not interested in texas chainsaw massacre or anything like it.

  49. I disagree by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Fax machines have always sucked. Even in their day.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  50. TV as relaxing background noise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny. Now that I can watch anything I want to, I no longer care. It feels like a chore.

  51. Rapture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your saying 247 million Americans don't matter

    Don't confuse being raised going to church with actually believing that bullshit. Very few people actually believe in an invisible friend with magical powers.

    And of even that small number I'd doubt many are TRULY devout. For instance; the Rapture already happened and no one noticed..

  52. Cable authentication by tepples · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that a lot of the channels you mentioned had moved to an "authentication" mechanism similar to HBO Go. If your cable modem's IP lease is associated with an account that also subscribes to cable TV, you can watch. Otherwise, you need to use your Roku device's remote control to key in credentials issued by your participating cable or satellite TV provider. C-SPAN, for example, has announced a move to a model with clips for everyone and live video only for authenticated cable TV subscribers.