Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Will Explore Mobile-Specific Cuts of Its Original Series (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the better-serve-your-needs dept.

An anonymous reader shares an article: Netflix chief product officer Neil Hunt said in a briefing today with journalists in San Francisco that the company plans to explore streaming mobile-specific cuts of its original movies and TV shows, to satisfy what he said was a growing audience of mobile Netflix watchers. "It's not inconceivable that you could take a master [copy] and make a different cut for mobile," Hunt said. To date, Netflix hasn't been delivering different cuts for different viewing platforms, Hunt said, but "it's something we will explore over the next few years." The idea would be to create a version of the content with scenes or shots that are more easily visible or immersive on a mobile phone, since certain shots can be hard to see or can appear diminished on a relatively small phone screen.

80 comments

  1. Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you want to lose subscribers? Because that's how you lose subscribers.

    1. Re:Do not want by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I hate this idea but at the same time it would be really nice if you could pick which edition of the movie you wanted to watch like the 1989 version or the 2017 remastered 1989 version or just between the rated and unrated versions.

      That and things like commentary are some of the only features i'm still looking for with netflix.

      I like watching really good movies a second time with the commentary on but I won't mess with discs and the pre-roll ads anymore for the privilege.

      Oh and keep like the last 1-10 minutes or so in buffer so I can go back without it having to rebuffer that would be great too.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case in point: VHS. Every VHS movie was modified to fit TVs of the era with a message "This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit this screen.".

      I'm old enough to have lived in the VHS era and I can assure you, no one had movie collections. No one wanted to actually buy a VHS cassette of a favourite movie because it was modified and cut to fit a TV.

      Do you see VHS around today? Of course not. Because no one accepted a compromised viewing experience.

    3. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better visuals on mobile devices without a price change. How is this going to lose them business? I literally cannot understand what you're thinking.

    4. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bullshit. Everyone had a collection of VHS movies.

      Maybe the neighborhood AV snob would insist on laser disc, but everyone else went with the basics. They bought into the technology that gave them a decent experience at an affordable price. For 10-20 years, that was VHS.

    5. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your childhood was very different from mine, we had lots of VHS tapes (and even some Betamax) and so did everyone else I knew.

    6. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOOSH

    7. Re:Do not want by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I think the people that object to this are going to prefer to watch on a decent sized screen.

    8. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most people I know understand what a joke is too

    9. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only mobile viewing option I'd love is an Audio-Only streaming one. I *listen* on the go, rather than watch, and don't need to use the video bandwidth.

    10. Re:Do not want by Serenissima · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread understands what a joke is... except you.

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    11. Re:Do not want by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Bullshit my family had Betamax until the mid 90'S

      Still though even that had issues. You know the scene in return of the Jedi where the saucer dish breaks off? I didn't know that was in there until the mid 2000's when I finally watched the Betamax versio. I had and then the new restore version Lucas put out.

      That shit changes story line and editing for devices will change the story today with Netflix too.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Do not want by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I had lots of movies and I sought out letterboxed editions. They were hard to find but did exist. I still have a good number of them, and still have two S-VHS VCRs I have in my AV rack but haven't connected or powered on in quite a few years. Also, I seem to remember there was a huge company which littered the landscape that was full of VHS tapes to rent. Perhaps you've heard of "Blockbuster?"

      The reason VHS went away was the same as cassettes, and 8-tracks before them; relatively poor quality and sequential access vs. random access, and then you consider that magnetic tapes degrade with every pass over the heads, and if there is anything wrong with EITHER the cassette OR the player, or if the humidity is just a hair too high, the tape will get "eaten" by the player. Then, there are tracking issues; the last-generation VHS players autotracked well, but previous generation VHS players were mostly equipped with manual tracking adjustment. Finally, VHS can only record or play at a given time, while DVRs can record multiple shows while playing one (or more if you stream to another device!) back. You can make a VCR eat or jam a tape quite easily; fast forward just a little, stop. Fast forward a little, stop, Rewind a little, stop. Repeat the cycle until the tape is uneven on the spool. Now play it - if it's just a little too humid, or if the VCR's tape path isn't pristine, the tape will either jam or get eaten. To correct this, when you notice the spools are not level, is to fully fast-forward the tape to the end, and fully rewind it.

      It was an awful medium and very unreliable compared to both optical disks and solid state storage.

      When DVD came out, VHS and VCR sales slowed down. When DVD recorders and DVD camcorders came out, VCR sales slowed even more. When DVRs went mainstream, and camcorders went solid-state storage, and streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) picked up steam, the few remaining VCR sales dried up instantly and movie rental chains vanished.

      At all. In fact, many people used to complain about letterbox DVDs, because "it doesn't fill my screen" so the actual buyer preferences are quite the opposite of what you're saying. In fact one time while browsing for DVDs at I talked to one such idiot at Wal*Mart because she was complaining about letterboxed movies. I mentioned to her "You do realize that pan & scan hides about half the scene from your view, right?" She didn't want to hear it. She was convinced pan & scan is the superior experience and showed you more of the scene. (Yes, she is an idiot)

      There's a million reasons vhs died, but it wasn't the reason you cited.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:Do not want by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Except there's no mention of it being inescapable forced onto mobile users. The sky isn't falling here.

    14. Re:Do not want by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to have lived in the VHS era and I can assure you, no one had movie collections. No one wanted to actually buy a VHS cassette of a favourite movie because it was modified and cut to fit a TV.

      Taking your point (which some people apparently missed) and co-opting it for my own purposes...

      This used to drive me nuts. I've always liked movies, so when people would ask me for a birthday/Christmas list there would always be movies on the list. And, alongside that, I've always included the caveat "please do not buy the 4:3 version that was cropped for television!"

      I must've received a good two dozen 4:3 movies (both VHS and DVD) as gifts, over the years...

      Thank goodness TVs are all widescreen now, and the only movies which are 4:3 are the old ones which actually were shot at that aspect ratio!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    15. Re:Do not want by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      In fact one time while browsing for DVDs at I talked to one such idiot at Wal*Mart because she was complaining about letterboxed movies. I mentioned to her "You do realize that pan & scan hides about half the scene from your view, right?" She didn't want to hear it. She was convinced pan & scan is the superior experience and showed you more of the scene.

      I got an even better story. Funnily enough it also happened at Walmart. I was looking at the new consoles, it was around the Wii/PS3 launch. I was talking to someone about how the new graphics were better, processor speeds were faster, etc.

      The question he asked me will last forever burned in my memory: "why don't they release the maximum fastest machines right now instead of only releasing marginally-faster consoles every few years?"

      (Yes, he was an idiot)

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    16. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen to The Princess Bride... Mainly when they are escaping down into the swamp is great.

    17. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, it does not break the story line. The 'not a scratch' dish break is at best a chance at pacing for the audience to catch up with the events of import actually going on, the Emperors trap, Luke's temptation, the Ewok rebellion.

      Slightly different cuts happen for different reasons, not the least of which is image or sound quality. It is highly possible that copy of the film was damaged at the scene and unable to be digitized at the time. If a purest like you had your way, then AV might not have gotten made, depriving the public of a piece of art for lack of a brushstroke.

    18. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it that way too but the end of the article makes it sound more like they'll just be fixing specific scenes that don't show up well on mobile which would require a new cut to achieve. Because otherwise I agree 100% that's how you lose subscribers.

    19. Re:Do not want by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I mentioned to her "You do realize that pan & scan hides about half the scene from your view, right?" She didn't want to hear it.

      Of course, that's not necessarily true. Some P&S movies were originally shot on a larger frame, but with physical mattes on the eyepiece so the camera operator could see what would actually show up on a widescreen setup. In those cases, sometimes you got more content in the P&S version of some scenes, because they went back to the original negatives. And in other cases, they shot two different versions of certain shots, one for P&S and one for widescreen, such as doing a two shot on widescreen, alternating between two over-the-shoulder shots for narrowscreen. Usually P&S was just a cropped version of the full movie, but in some cases, it was an entirely different visual experience. And that's what they're talking about doing here, I think.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re:Do not want by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      It's a book, just get the audiotape.

    21. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving customers the option of having an easier to view show on small devices will lose them customers?

    22. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, not literally "everyone" had VHS, but it was by far the dominant home video technology.

      The fact that your family went with a format that lost the war (much HD-DVD compared to Blu-ray) doesn't even touch the main point.

      The only reason VHS isn't around today is because it was supplanted by DVD, which brought high definition and surround sound to the masses.

  2. Here's some hot insider tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As someone on the inside
    Comcast is looking to buy Tmobile / Sprint
    They are also looking at what they can do to invest / partner / eventually take over Netflix
    The ultimate goal is to bundle like ATT is trying to do with direct TV
    Vertical Monopolies and all that, and the FCC chair will allow it all in Trumps' america
    Expect a leaked powerpoint soon

    1. Re:Here's some hot insider tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect a leaked powerpoint soon

      Wow, that is quite possibly the most exciting phrase I have ever read in my life.

  3. Opt out option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They better have a opt out option!

    1. Re:Opt out option by ninthbit · · Score: 1

      What this guy said...... And it better be persistent not a per viewing option.

  4. David Lynch's take on things is interesting by Maritz · · Score: 1

    I don't think he's that big a fan of watching films on mobile devices.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  5. What about less-crappy content on all platforms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I applaud Netflix for trying to make original content. It takes a lot of guts and risk to do that these days. But what they have created has been pretty bland. Half of it is them taking stuff that was successful in the past, and trying to update it. The updates never really match the spirit of the original, though, even when many of the original cast and crew are involved.

    Take the House of Cards series. I had a major erection for the original British series. It was some top notch work. But the Americanization that Netflix has released? I got about 15 minutes into the first episode before I lost interest. I think they got the underlying idea, but the execution just wasn't there!

    It's like they're trying too hard and it really seems to hurt the quality of the content. It's like they're going for some weird Millennial Generation understanding of "edgy" which ends up just being awkward instead of entertaining.

  6. Dumb.... by xession · · Score: 1

    This is a stupid idea that makes little sense. Netflix, you are not a video game, trying to cater to different platforms to make more money. Sure, getting new viewers by making it easy to use whatever platform the audience prefers, is a very intelligent and well rounded concept that has long since shown to be effective. However, this idea seems to stand in opposition to that sentiment, creating unnecessary virtual barriers to content. I shouldn't have to have a smart phone or be forced to watch content on something that is not my preferred device, just to see these different cuts.

    Did EA buy Netflix sometime in the past and I missed it? Come on Netflix...

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

      The different cuts are designed to address limitations of the device, not to "make more money".

      How would that even work? You pay Netflix a flat monthly fee to view their entire streaming library. If you want to watch multiple cuts of their shows, it costs them more bandwidth. That's on top of the money to make the new cuts in the first place.

      This is 100% about giving mobile customers a better experience, and it exactly what every company should do if it can. Due to copyright, this is probably only possible for videos they created themselves, which is unfortunate.

    2. Re:Dumb.... by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Not yet Netflix basic features are still included with the sub.
      If it were owned by EA the netflix app would be $2.99 and if you want to watch HD on mobile that would be an extra $10 "HD VIDEO DLC" in addition to the monthly subscription fee.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:Dumb.... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. Imagine if Amazon removed paragraphs from the eBook versions to make it easier/faster to read? Different cuts of TV shows and movies that depends on the viewing device is a bad idea.

      However, if all they're talking about is different cropping for smaller devices, i.e. to make it easier to see details/action/characters on the small screen, then it's not really that different from a 16:9 movie cropped to 4:3. Sure you're missing parts of the image, but it's not a different cut.

      I'm 40 and the only time I've noticed cropping removed important information was the ending scene of The Fifth Element, where you see the moon in the 16:9 version but not in the 4:3 version. The implied information was that our current moon was another evil sphere that was stopped thousands of years ago and the new now-also-dead evil sphere became a second moon. Removing that bit of information kind of ruined the ending for those who watched in 4:3.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re: Dumb.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix already has an HD fee. For me, it's 69/99/129 SEK for SD/HD/4K. So almost twice as much money for higher quality on some of the content (Note: some older movies are "1080p", but has more artifacts and lower quality than the DVD version)

    5. Re:Dumb.... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Imagine if Amazon removed paragraphs from the eBook versions to make it easier/faster to read?

      I believe that would have the opposite effect. Paragraphs are not designed to impede reading.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    6. Re:Dumb.... by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      I see it like the mobile optimised versions of websites.
      When they make something for mobile it's way butchered and has way less functionality than the full site.

      While device manufacturers and mobile browser programmers are going in the opposite direction entirely (with exception of plugin support like flash and java) trying to make their browsers work with the desktop version of websites and most of the time /. included the desktop version works way better on mobile than the "mobile" version does.

      What will likely happen is your friends will see a different version of the movie you saw so both of you will be out of the loop "what did you think of the scene were they flew the car into the bank?" and you get to say something like "that wasn't a bank it was a dry cleaner you were looking at it from the wrong angle"

      I already have this problem with the multiple editions of movies

      Lets see you've got the 2017 1989 remastered edition, the 1989 directors edition, the 2014 25th anniversary edition with 15 minutes of never before scene content, the 1989 unrated edition, the 1990 the cast wanted to have another edition edition, the 1989 theatrical edition, the 1992 US release (25 minutes shorter) and the 2007 smoky bacon edition.

      This would just be a new edition that's exclusive to netflix and then exclusive to netflix users watching on mobile devices.

      Again if we are given the ability to chose which version to watch i'd be fine with it but what will likely happen is you will get to watch the version netflix wants you to or not watch it at all like we have now.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    7. Re:Dumb.... by WallyL · · Score: 1

      I believe that would have the opposite effect. Paragraphs are not designed to impede reading.

      Ever read Les Misérables?

    8. Re:Dumb.... by nasch · · Score: 1

      In Mission: Impossible, Hunt had his back to the camera and was doing his sleight of hand trick with the disc*. In 4:3 his hands were not visible so you couldn't tell what he was doing. Not that it ruined the movie or anything but probably made the scene a little more confusing for someone who hadn't seen it before.

      * he was in the safe house with Claire, Krieger and Luther after the heist

    9. Re:Dumb.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are these things called 'abridged books'...

      This is not a new thing, and has existed for a while for various reasons.

    10. Re:Dumb.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I've only ever seen the film in 4:3 and never knew that. Interesting!

    11. Re:Dumb.... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Yes, my favorite chapter was the Intestine of the Leviathan... because it didn't involve any character that was part of the story but instead went about describing the sewers of Paris based off the tales from various real figures.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    12. Re:Dumb.... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean paragraphs as in formatting, I meant removing whole paragraphs - i.e. remove text - from pages.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  7. Roku, Amazon Fire, etc? by cashman73 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So are they going to consider the Roku and Amazon Fire and similar devices to be "mobile devices"? Because a lot of people use these devices to output via HDMI to their TVs. That doesn't seem right to give these users different content just because they're not using a computer as their primary output device.

    1. Re:Roku, Amazon Fire, etc? by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      So are they going to consider the Roku and Amazon Fire and similar devices to be "mobile devices"? Because a lot of people use these devices to output via HDMI to their TVs. That doesn't seem right to give these users different content just because they're not using a computer as their primary output device.

      If you actually RTFA, you would see the very first thing in the article is a picture of handheld devices. In the article at the very bottom it even says:

      “mobile screens are the majority consumption device.”

      "mobile screen" != HDMI output

      --
      We'll make great pets
    2. Re:Roku, Amazon Fire, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Those are not mobile devices and no-one (except perhaps you) have ever considered it that. They're set top boxes for anyone without a smart TV or whose smart TV is EOL. They're talking about people watching on tablets or phones, probably usually while commuting.

  8. My cell phone is "larger" than my TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My TV is on the other side of the room. My cell phone I hold close to my head when watching TV. Guess which fills more of my vision?

    1. Re:My cell phone is "larger" than my TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My home theater projection. I need to slightly turn my head to see the edges.

    2. Re:My cell phone is "larger" than my TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the phone has better resolution. The solution to this non-problem is to hold the screen closer to your face.

    3. Re:My cell phone is "larger" than my TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither, it's your wife or your neighbor's wife who will fill most of your vision.

  9. Re:What about less-crappy content on all platforms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OITNB, Narcos, The OA, all of the Marvel series, Stranger Things...just rattling those off the top of my head. And a lot of people LOVE House of Cards. Whether they lost you or not (I feel like you haven't given it a chance) they are hitting home runs left and right. Yes, they have also struck out a few times, but their successes in the original content area far outweigh those. Yes, they have taken many aged properties that were canceled elsewhere and breathed new life into them. Some worked, some didn't. If you didn't like a series on regular TV, you probably won't like it on Netflix.

  10. Optional... by aicrules · · Score: 1

    Make it optional and go for it. I don't mind. And separate completely making a scene visible on a mobile screen versus making it "more immersive" on a mobile device. You pop some x-ray type shit up in my face and I will cancel my account.

  11. Re:What about less-crappy content on all platforms by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry you'll have to wait a few hundred years for "Ow My Balls!".

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  12. Devil's advocate by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    My gut feeling tells me recutting for mobile will lead to no good.
    However; how is this any different from movies cut to 4:3 a few decades ago, and (re-)cut to 16:9 somewhat more recent?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  13. VHS by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    VHS movies were cut for a different ratio (4:3). TVs and phones have very similar ratios (usually 16:9) so why bother making different versions?

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

      I think they're talking about re-blocking shots.
      Things like zooming in on the actors' faces a bit more so you can actually see their expressions on a tiny screen.

    2. Re:VHS by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      TVs and phones have very similar ratios (usually 16:9) so why bother making different versions?

      Well, screens are different. Most TV screens are barely sRGB, while most smartphone screens are 100% sRGB, and some are even pushing DCI-P3. But few TV screens are fully Rec.2020 (aka BT.2020, or "HDR" or 4K Wide Color Gamut (WCG)). So color mixing might have to be adjusted. This can be important for HDR movies - if you know your display is WCG, then you can use a full HDR scene. But if it's just SDR (Rec.709/BT.709 for HD) then perhaps brighten the dark areas and dim the bright areas to avoid losing details. Same on mobile screens.

      Also, on mobile screens, due to size, if a scene relies on being able to read a headline on a newspaper, or read a piece of paper, then you have to cut it differently - it may be completely illegible on a mobile screen and thus you lose a vital plot point. So for mobile, you might want to zoom into the item and make it fill the screen so it's easier to read. If it's a long block of text, you may have to zoom in and then scroll it. The larger TV screen may just show it in its entirety

      This can also apply to small details - you can zoom-cut to them to make it easier to see

    3. Re:VHS by zlives · · Score: 1

      and what if you are streaming to a projector or a tv that accepts video streaming from your device... does the app then renegotiate and publish the "right" version.
      or do you realize that this is a loosing battle and let the end devices scale it.

  14. Out of context? by macwhiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Buried in the original article is a mention that these statements were made during a two-day event Netflix held together with Dolby Laboratories, centered around High Dynamic Range video (e.g., Dolby Vision).

    Maybe these out-of-context statements really mean "If we're filming a show in Dolby Vision and it has a lot of really dark scenes, maybe we should make a mobile version that brightens up the shadows a bit so that it's not a murky mess on a glossy mobile-phone screen under who-knows-what lighting conditions?" The Dolby Vision spec can adjust the dynamic range to meet the capabilities of the viewing device... if the device has a Dolby-manufactured ASIC. It sounds like Netflix is considering how to offer mobile users the option of a server-side tweak to do something similar.

    That would actually be a good thing, especially if the user had the option to select "normal" or "mobile optimized" versions.

    I have a Dolby Vision-equipped TV. Netflix has several shows filmed in Dolby Vision. Many, like Daredevil, have very dark cinematography. It looks incredible on a Dolby Vision TV under controlled lighting... but you're definitely missing stuff on an iPhone under commercial lighting. Bumping the darks up a notch or two to compensate would not be a terrible thing.

    1. Re:Out of context? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Hey, this is /., you're supposed to just crap on ideas, regardless of their actual merits. Also, no fair reading the article. 2 demerits!

    2. Re:Out of context? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I think it will be great. Just show it side-by-side and people will probably love it. Leave it as an option for the people who don't want to be able to see details in dark scenes.

  15. Do you know they are already doing this? by Snard · · Score: 1

    Yes! If you watch a streaming version of a movie on Netflix, it is usually different than the same movie on DVD or Blu-ray. That is because the streaming version has been cropped to 16:9, while the disc version may have been 2.35:1 or something different. It's one reason I usually opt for discs on recent movies, instead of streaming.

    --
    - Mike
    1. Re:Do you know they are already doing this? by nasch · · Score: 1

      This isn't talking about a different format on Netflix vs. Blu-ray. If you even read the headline, let alone the summary or article, you could see it is talking about Netflix on a TV vs. Netflix on a phone.

    2. Re:Do you know they are already doing this? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I haven't bought many movies from iTunes - not since Requiem went away - but those I did buy generally kept the original aspect ratio. So a movie shot as 2.35:1, purchased from Apple, would be letterboxed on my widescreen television.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  16. Relativity of Truth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 2016 US Presidential Election and its aftermath has just started showing us how badly a society can fracture when its constituents can't agree on a version of reality.

    This move by Netflix would only push us further down that relativistic hole.

  17. Re:This would upset me... by Maritz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anything else you don't care about you'd like to tell us all about?

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  18. David Lynch explains mobile movie viewing the best by nawcom · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Seriously anyone here claiming that watching a movie or TV show on your mobile device is better than a good sized TV screen with quality audio is insane.

  19. Are you crazy? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    This is suicide. I need to be watching the same thing as friends or people in online forums, or how am I going to discuss things with them? And the less I can discuss, the less I am immersed. Stupid idea.

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  20. Too Small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is bullshit that a phone screen is too small. Sit in your usual seat in front of your TV. Now take your phone and hold it in front of you and move it until the screen appearance is equal to the TV. You'll probably find that you actually hold it closer than that distance when using it to view a show. It's all relative.

  21. Could we remaster TV shows instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We watch a bunch of TV shows, and I'd really appreciate if they were remastered to take the ad breaks out. Seriously, I don't need to watch 30 seconds of catching up on what I didn't forget during 3 minutes of ads. In fact, if they would add content that was cut from the "reality" shows, they'd have a better product than TV.

  22. My netflix rant by mpercy · · Score: 0

    I like netflix, have been a subscriber for a very long time.

    But I hate trying to find something to watch on Netlix streaming.

    I *really* don't want to wade through 800 old TV shows. Or the 100 or so Netflix Originals.

    I'm primarily interested in movies. Or, rather, when I do want to watch old TV show or Netflix Original, there's already pre-defined Menus for those: "Netflix Originals" and "TV Shows" (although the latter tends to include all of the former too). I have watched several Netflix Original series and enjoyed them.

    But there's not a corresponding inverted search--show me *only* movies, esp. show me *only* movies released in last year.

    All the Genre menus load up Netflix Originals and TV shows.

    I'd love an adequate search that at least would allow me to distinguish movies from TV shows from Netflix Originals.

    The DVD search is hardly much better, but tends to have a lot more movies already, and I keep a 2-disk membership mostly for movies. I'd probably do better to reduce my Netflix to streaming only and use the Redbox at the grocery store.

    1. Re:My netflix rant by nasch · · Score: 1

      I went to a genre and got all movies, no TV shows. That isn't what happens for you?

  23. Time. Do you have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who in the fuck has the time to watch or play anything when you're either A: a slave to your job. B: don't have a job and thus no money.

    Work/Life balance you say? GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU LYING COCK SUCKER! that motherfucking shit don't exist.

  24. America's Funniest Home Videos by tepples · · Score: 1

    "Ow My Balls" premiered in 1989, and I'm guessing it's part of the reason Tourette's Guy shouts "BOB SAGET!"

  25. 9:16 (Vertical) by Comboman · · Score: 1

    You misunderstand. They're cropping them to be viewed vertically so people don't have to rotate their phones.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:9:16 (Vertical) by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  26. Re:David Lynch explains mobile movie viewing the b by nasch · · Score: 1

    Depends what "better" means. On a phone, I can watch a show in bed before I go to sleep without bothering the spousal unit. If I watch on the TV when I'm done I have to turn everything off and get up and go to bed. So there are advantages and disadvantages.

  27. Hopscotch, a novel with appendices by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then perhaps Hugo's Les Misérables might benefit from an approach akin to that of Julio Cortázar's novel Hopscotch : the main story at the front, with the rest relegated to appendices. Readers could then choose to read the main story first or read with the appendices inserted before each related chapter.

  28. Re:This would upset me... by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    I am sure I speak for millions upon millions when I say that we will be able to sleep much better tonight, now that we know that you do not care about movies and TV shows.

  29. The problem with this is use case by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Just because I am watching Netflix on my Phone does not mean I am looking at it on its 6" screen. I might have it plugged into the HDMI port on the TV in my hotel room. Do that a lot actually.

    I am cool with this but only if there is a way to select the standard version.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html