Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies From IMDB's Top 250 List (streamingobserver.com)
According to Streaming Observer News, the quality and quantity of Netflix's movie library has declined over the last two years when cross-referenced with IMDB's Top 250 movies list. From the report: Well, it's a pretty common fact at this point that Netflix's library is shrinking. Of course, what Netflix needs to do as it shrinks its licensed movie library is make sure that movies it does have are good ones. But according to our analysis, it's going backwards, unfortunately. A while back we noticed a post from this Reddit member who, two years ago, cross-referenced the IMDB (Internet Movie Database) top 250 movies list with Netflix's movie library to find out how many of the top movies Netflix carried. When u/clayton_frisbie posted his list on Reddit, Netflix had 49 of the Top 250 movies on the IMDB list. That's just under 20 percent, which isn't terrible. But we wondered how that number has held up over the last two years in the face of a quickly shrinking library. So we reran the analysis. How many of the top 250 movies does Netflix now have? As of September 2016, that number has dropped to 31, or about 12 percent. [You can view the list via Streaming Observer News.]
People blame Netflix for this like it's something they want, which is untrue.
Fact of the matter is that the studios that own the rights to these films won't sign with Netflix because it competes with the cable companies that own them both for on demand streaming and cable channels, as well as studio owned fronts like Hulu.
This is what happens when content providers consolidate with the content delivery companies. Collusion, false monopolies and fixed markets.
It's time for the government to step in and break up the cable/studio/isp's into their separate pieces again.
I still have not subscribed to the streaming part of netflix.
I still get the dvds.
The original series are the reason I subscribe, the other stuff is just an added bonus.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Or there is not a difficulty in turning a profit without paying the license costs, so they don't pay them.
Or maybe Netflix's algorithms show that we've all seen these movies already and don't watch them again. I mean, Amelie and Inception were interesting, but I would never watch them again.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
For most newer movies or deeper movies...I still have my Netflix DVD/BluRay subscription...and you have a wider choice of titles there....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This is exactly why I dropped Netflix 5 years ago. It was obvious then that they weren't going to spend the money to maintain their current movie collection and I am a big movie fan. I couldn't care less about TV series.
The few TV series that I do like I watch on TV/DVR since I have to pay for the movie channels. Amazon Prime is slowly getting there. But they haven't gotten to the point where their library is big enough.
There's also the fact that IMDB's top 250 simply ain't what it used to be. I mean seriously... Deadpool? Zootopia?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
I agree. There is no way deadpool should be at 234. It is easily a top 50.
or Stranger Things. Or any of the original shows that Netflix is creating to try and survive. It's tough to argue for compulsory licensing to improve competition when competition is resulting in more content. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to your idea, I just don't think it'll fly in the the face of what we're seeing.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yeah, it's not only that Piratebay and friends obviously offer the bigger catalogue of content. It's also that you get a DRM-free version you can play anywhere, anytime without being online.
Do sites like Netflix really expect to be paid for worse service? I'd still be willing to pay for a service (monthly, or per-content) if it allowed the ease of use and freedom of pirating sites. Not that I really use those, I essentially stopped watching TV shows and movies, except for one or two shows hosted via Amazon Prime, Netflix wasn't at all worth it because I only was interested in one or two shows, but since I don't binge-watch, finishing one might take months, which makes this service much more expensive than a box set of Blurays.
But sadly Blurays are shit and insulting. I have to sit through minutes of shitty menus and anti-piracy shit, even though I paid €15 for a movie. I cannot play Bluray on my PC without buying some software for playback, like the now-defunct AnyDVD, or MakeMKV. I certainly won't buy a shitty special player software, which locks me in even further.
Streaming sites are shit. Ever changing catalogues, small amount of content and the fact that sometimes they only offer half the seasons of a TV show (Amazon, I'm looking at you). Add to that that I am forced to be online. So it is unusable on business trips on the plane or in hotels with bad WiFi, a situation where I'm more likely to just watch a movie or show than at home. On top we have DRM playback software, which forces me to use Chrome.
Offer me a way to get the content onto my PC DRM-free, without jumping through hoops, and we might have a deal.
So, I want to see a particular movie tonight, let's see, it's not on Netflix... iTunes will only sell it but not rent it... what other services are there... ah, found it, Bittorrent.
Why does the MPAA keep trying so hard to push us into piracy? Jeez, I actually switched from being a pirate to wanting to rent movies fair and square, and then I get all this "not available in your area" bullshit. OK, you got your chance, bye!