Slashdot Mirror
Enemy Number One is Netflix: The Monster That's Eating Hollywood (business-standard.com)
From a WSJ report: Tara Flynn, a rising star at a TV production unit of 21st Century Fox, walked into her boss's office last August and told him she was quitting and joining streaming-video giant Netflix Inc. The news was not well-received. "Netflix is public enemy No. 1," said Bert Salke, the head of Fox 21 Television Studios, where Ms. Flynn was a vice president, according to a Netflix legal filing. When Netflix finalized Ms. Flynn's hire a few weeks later, Fox sued, accusing it of a "brazen campaign" to poach Fox executives. In response, Netflix argued Fox's contracts are "unlawful and unenforceable." The ongoing legal battle is just one sign of the escalating tensions between Netflix and Hollywood as the streaming-video company moves from being an upstart dabbling in original programming to a big-spending entertainment powerhouse that will produce more than 70 shows this year. It is expanding into new genres such as children's fare, reality TV and stand-up comedy specials -- including a $40 million deal for two shows by Chris Rock. The shift has unnerved some TV networks that had become used to Netflix's original content being focused on scripted dramas and sitcoms. Netflix's spending on original and acquired programming this year is expected to be more than $6 billion, up from $5 billion last year, more than double what Time Warner Inc.'s HBO spends and five times as much as 21st Century Fox's FX or CBS Corp.'s Showtime.
At least the majority of what Netflix is doing is actual original programming. Hollywood needs someone to kick them swiftly in the ass and stop doing remakes of old shows and movies (some of which aren't actually old, Matrix reboot?)
Their Marvel based offerings are quite good, and Stranger Things is phenomenal.
Amazon is creating some genuinely entertaining original content as well. I think it's time for a changing of the guard.
What did they think was going to happen when they seemed to go out of their way to cling to their outdated business/service models?
The film and TV industry have been in a stasis for decades. TV, in particular, hasn't really changed significantly since the early 1960s, and Hollywood has basically functioned the same way since the collapse of the Studio System. It's time for a big shake up and if companies like Netflix and Amazon can deliver that shakeup, then so be it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
*Voice of Smithers*
Imagine that, spend more on developing quality original content and consumers and producers will flock to you. Who would've thought... The legacy production houses had a huge leg up but never bothered, remaining content in their old, "good-enough-to-get-enough-eyeballs-for-advertisers" model. Looks like Blockbuster won't be the only giant getting taken down by Netflix.
"Public enemy #1" whereby "public" means "anybody I care about, everyone else can go get stuffed."
Netflix organized themselves around innovation. The studios did not -- they organized themselves around "wall building" techniques: Net Neutrality, DRM, Anti Piracy campaigns, political lobbying and more. Now Netflix is winning and what do the studios do? Whine.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
Every old business model fights to save itself, and accuses the new business model of some nefarious intent. Sears->Walmart Taxis->Uber/Lyft Barnes&Noble->Amazon Yahoo->Google Newspapers->Slashdot/Reddit/Blogs etc. etc. Business is best when new, healthy models overtake old, unhealthy businesses. It is called "creative destruction" and it has been going on for a long, long time.
Netflix is the monster that eats normal tv. And I'm fine with that. Being able to watch a movie/series/comic/whatever when you want WITHOUT commercials is so much better than what the normal tv channels have to offer.
Sure you can have discussions that not all the content that you want is on Netflix. Ok then watch normal tv. But I can't handle the burden of interruptions by commercials, news flash or moving widgets on my screen anymore.
Some cable companies already realize that: a internet plus phone subscription with my local isp is just as expensive as an internet plus phone plus tv subscription...
They should do a Firefly spinoff or actually do Firefly and then make it one of the most successful blockbuster shows in the 'verse.
A company whose employee retention plan is to call the lawyers likely isn't a great place to work anyways.
They make more shows than HBO does so you don't cancel your sub in between Westworld and Game of Thrones.
Go look at Hollywood movies and try to find one that is not:
1) a Remake
2) a Sequel
3) Based on a book/videogame or similar items.
And traditional TV isn't much better - Riverdale, Lethal Weapon, Supergirl, etc. etc.
Now check out Netflix's stuff.
Yes, Netflix is pumping money into it - because they are making more money than Hollywood because they are MAKING GOOD, ORIGINAL SHOWS.
Don't blame the winner for earning more money and reinvesting it. Blame the loser for losing their market share.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
They won't be after the talent responsible for those HBO originals flock to netflix because they pay better.
The only reason Netflix makes their own content is they were being squeezed by Hollywood for higher and higher licensing fees. Back in 2011, when Netflix had to raise fees for streaming and mail-in service to cope with raising licensing fees, their customers revolted. So Netflix did two things: 1) split their business into two with DVD mailing separate from streaming and 2) offer fewer and more outdated movies. However content stagnated. I suppose that Netflix could have shown TV shows in syndication but that would not distinguish themselves enough from other players or even cable. Creating their own content was the only to keep themselves relevant in the streaming business. Netflix started with TV shows like abandoned properties (Arrested Development) and original new TV shows (Orange is the New Black) which has brought in many new and returning customers. Now they are branching into films.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Besides making so many more shows than HBO you mean?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The article is based on one massive, ludicruous presumption that we all actually want Hollywood to survive.
Hollywood clearly have a stranglehold on the market, but the only output they can create is mindless, formulaic dross aimed at the lowest-common-denominator. They are also a breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists, scientologists, and talentless, shallow, manufactured "celebrities" that are famous just for their "lifestyle", not for actually achieving anything of real merit.
I say the world, especially the US, would be a MUCH better place totally without Hollywood.
Fairly priced competition that gives its customers what it wants AND has good customer service? FUCK THEM! /s
Finally a company ready to actually spend money and do the right thing by their customers.
Netflix is sending a message to all the old guard cable stations. They can and will cut out the middle man. They will not be extorted for content.
You keep trying to milk us more and more... fine, we'll make the shows ourselves.
It also wouldn't surprise me if netflix started up a sister company to cover and stream sports. More likely to partner with a company already in the biz though.
You could always buy physical media if you want to be able to watch them at any time without being encumbered by some company's decisions.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Some actors make $20mil for a movie - so it's high, but not all that outrageous. They are investing in things that will cause their subscriber base to grow. ++
I am all for it. Their original content has gotten better and better. Networks had better pay attention.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
We all know PIRACY is the one number enemy of Hollywood! No one else has done trillions of dollars in damages!
They've been trying to murder Netflix for years and replace them with their own (pay-per-play) systems. That's not escalating tensions, that's a life or death battle. You saw the same thing when the ACA threatened to bring single payer to the insurance companies here in the states. They're fighting for their life.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Then why are most Netflix shows such drivel, especially when compared to HBO's original offerings?
You have cited the two shows which are quality on HBO with Westworld being the best show I have ever watched but try to name another HBO show. After I watched Westworld I searched HBO for something else on that level and came up short for even anything else to watch.
IMO, Netflix has a much deeper catalog with more consistent/diverse offerings and it's only growing for here.
What Netflix original programming have you watched? I recommend the first seasons of Sense 8, Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Black MIrror and Bloodline.
Exactly so. The Law of Unintended Consequences in a nutshell. The networks and studios decided to shut down Netflix and monetize their old movies and TV shows on their own. And for a while, it worked. Netflix lost subscribers, and their movie selection was absolutely abysmal. But unlike the networks and studios, Netflix was able to adapt, and it became exactly the type of company that the networks and studios could no longer hurt.
It's such a pleasure to watch Hollywood being devoured by the monster it created.
All that money, time and effort and they got fooled. So fucking funny.
1. Turn out the rare movie worth watching in a theater.
2. Turn out the less rare movie worth watching when it gets to DVD.
3. Turn out a lot of movies that aren't worth watching. Period.
4. Go and whine to congress for legislation to protect them from "predatory competition."*
*Anybody who's eating your lunch is considered predatory, even if it's your fault.
Since they have about 95 million subscribers now $6 Billion would be around half their yearly revenue. If the new content brings in new subscribers it would be well worth it and they don't need to be cord cutters netflix service is still less per year than I paid for cable per month.
I would have loved for Netflix just to have become a place where I could watch recent and older hollywood movies, completely replacing video rentals. But I get to be frustrated that new movies aren't there to watch and old movies aren't there to be found.
But hey, whats this, its a Netflix original show? Hey it isn't half bad. Well I could watch more of this.
Hollywood, you had the chance to box Netflix in and have them just BE the rental market. You could have just banked fewer dollars from rentals but still retained a lot of control.
But nooooo, you had to block the access to your catalogs of movies to try and cripple them. Now they're creating content that is very often better than what you are coming up with.
Cry me a river, hollywood. You deserve to go down, hard. You've never really played fair with your customers and now we're buying entertainment elsewhere....
Nope, can't say it with a straight face.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Netflix is approaching 100 million subscribers; looking at it that way they find him $0.20/subscriber funny. That might not be an unreasonable amount if his shows get a lot of views.
I do think that video streaming has a problem of being very fragmented. If you subscribe to a music streaming service, chances of finding a particular album you're looking for on there are pretty high. If you subscribe to a video streaming service, you get access to more video than you could ever watch, but the chances of finding a particular show you're looking for are rather small, as many of the high profile shows are exclusive to different services.
Obviously some video series are more costly to make than a music album, so it may not be reasonable to expect to get access to nearly everything for $10/month. But then I'd prefer to pay per show rather than pay for a package that I'm only going to watch one or two shows of. And for a price that matches the fact that you're renting the video, not buying it, since - as you point out - you don't actually own it.
"Phonographs are killing the piano industry" screamed the piano makers, "Radio is killing the theater" screamed the performers. "Video is killing the radio star" Screamed the radio DJ's, "Netflix is destroying video rental stores" Screamed blockbuster.
And here i sit at my piano, practicing along with a 'how to play piano' video on youtube, produced by a musician/former radio star, whilst watching a London theatrical performance that was recorded and made available for viewing on streaming Netflix.
You nailed it! Netflix was forced into this position by the old-school content creators and their (sic) valuable content libraries. It's not hard to make a TV show and there are plenty of great writers, actors, and directors just waiting to make some great stuff.
This is a lesson is greed. Netflix wanted to charge customers a flat-rate and the studios wanted to eat Netflix's profit. There was a time where it looked like Netflix would collapse because the price of content was going up, but they raised prices just a bit, re-invested in original programming, and are now on track to becoming a legitimate move studio.
Thus when you apply enough pressure, *poof* you get a diamond :)
Kind of reminds me of when Netflix killed Blockbuster. No one shed a tear for Blockbuster.
Netflix is also buying Indie films at festivals and ... gasp ... showing them. I never understood the studios' predilection for buying up these movies and then never distributing most of them.
TV Broadcasters are the ones suffering from Netflix more than anyone. Netflix is still paying Hollywood for their content.
Drivel? I thought Santa Clarita Diet and Stranger Things were incredibly well-written, original shows. There are others that I thought have done really well, but those two stick out to me.
I know everyone wants to back the little guy, but Netflix is actually recreating the very monopolies we are trying to break-up:
The common complaint about cable was that they bundled everything together. You had to pay a monthly fee, you couldn't pick your channels a la carte, and if you wanted to watch "Game Of Thrones" you had to subscribe to HBO and pay monthly, even for just one show. In addition, nobody liked having to pay for cable TV & internet both, since it felt like the same service from the same company. Then to make matters worse, you had to buy HBO on cable just to stream the show on HBO's web site, which made no sense. (HBO might have fixed this, but the same goes for other channels, and sporting events.) This drove piracy mainstream.
But the bigger issue is that telecommunications companies are buying out content providers. This merging is dangerous, because a telecom company controlling say, a media news outlet, can't be unbiased. And there is nothing to stop them from offering certain content on their networks only.
Netflix threatened to break that all up. I could buy my internet from anyone, subscribe to Netflix, and have so much content we didn't need cable TV. We no longer paid for TV "channels" we didn't need. But then Amazon Prime came along, and then we needed to buy Netflix + Amazon. Oh, and buy Hulu for your TV watching. So now, we need to again buy all these services in order to have access to a full catalog of content. We are back to premium TV channels again. But at least we gained our a la carte stations!
But if Amazon and Netflix start to offer exclusive content, we get back to the media companies (Amazon, Netflix) being content providers too. I want to watch just one show, and I have to subscribe to Netflix. I's the HBO Game-of-thrones scenario all over again.
The solution is, and has been for 40+ years, to break apart the monopolies. We must separate content delivery companies from content creating companies. That no longer just means the telecom monopolies shouldn't be content providers, but it also means the streaming companies can't be content creators, and transitively, the telecom can't be either one. This gets us back to the ideal world where we choose our telecom company, choose our streaming service, and choose our content - all separately. Every streaming service should be able to provide all content, or nearly all of it. Competition comes back, we no longer have the zero-rating problem..
So cheer Netflix's success, but be careful what you wish for. At the present rate, we will all be paying $50/month for all these streaming services just to get the content we need.
P.S. We also need to stop each streaming service provider from using their own protocol. You bought a Roku box last year huh? Well, you can't access the newest coolest streaming service because they didn't make a firmware update for that service. If 20 years ago, you told people that their TV or cable-box needed a firmware update every time a new channel came-out, they would be attacking the telecom companies with pitchforks. Yet that is happening today and people accept it.
inb4 "Unable to authorize disc play, please check your connectivity or consult your network's administrator."
I think Peter Rosenthal sums it up nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
(nsfw language but hilarious)
No Hollywood, you've killed yourselves.
When's that Matrix reboot coming out again? Is that before or after Bladerunner 2?
-Styopa
Sopranos and Deadwood come to mind and I don't even have HBO
love is just extroverted narcissism
As things mature a bit more I would imagine Netflix and Amazon will syndicate each other's older shows. That's how the cable channels fill their timeslots, with old Friends reruns and so on. That's why the types of shows suitable for such syndication (half hour comedies) also are the least serialized, as it makes them more friendly for syndication. A channel surfer can pick up a random episode of Big Bang Theory more easily than Fringe.
We spent all that time and money monopolizing the production and distribution channels. We paid good money to lawmakers (or occasionally left a horse's head in their bed) to get legislation written to protect these shady business practices. And now some upstart finds a way to bypass us. And without even giving us a piece of da action. I mean its all ones and zeros floating around in the ether. There isn't even a warehouse or movie theater to burn down.
Have gnu, will travel.
Sopranos and Deadwood come to mind and I don't even have HBO
Yes, thank you for illustrating my point. Both those shows are more than 10 years old.
The Sopranos
Final episode date: June 10, 2007
Deadwood
Final episode date: August 27, 2006
This reminds of one of my favorite anime series that I think has some of the best writing of any show and that is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. At the beginning of every episode is labeled as either Stand Alone or Complex. They are mixed together from episode to episode, but the Stand Alone ones do just that as self contained episodes, and the Complex ones further the overall serialized season plots. I have always though it was a brilliant way to have the best of both worlds.
Now that we have a live action G.i.t.S movie coming out (all controversies aside) I wouldn't mind if Netflix came out with a G.i.t.S: S.A.C. like live action series.
Nevermore.
All Netflix needs now is a news and weather show, and they can kill TV as we know it.
Not sure where this thread is going... sure HBO isn't nearly as prolific but the quality is better.
love is just extroverted narcissism
And you'll note that both GOT and Westworld are those generally-despised things: "adaptions and remakes". As are the Netflix Marvel shows. It's all in how you execute.
Netflix is making content, but personally I wouldn't call it good. While I can't think of an example offhand, I've also noticed a number of things which they've labelled as an original but they've simply purchased regional exclusivity for.
The movie studios have brought this on themselves. They tried charging insane licensing fees thinking that Netflix couldn't live without them. See how that's working out for them now. The only recourse Netflix had was to start creating its own compelling content. Any business that takes advantage of its customers may reap the rewards short term, but you'll always pay the price in the long term.
You forgot......Silcon Valley, Veep, Last Week Tonight, The Night Of, Vice Principals, Band of Brothers, Pacific, Boardwalk Empire, Eastbound and Down, Flight of the Concords, The Jinx, The Larry Sanders Show, Mr. Show, Oz, True Detective (Season 1), The Wire. and I'm sure there's more I'm missing.
All of these shows/mini-series are fantastic...most of the movies they play are filler.
I like a lot of Netflix's offerings, but the quality of content HBO consistently puts out is on another level.
because if anyone can make a movie for $50k and show it to the masses and make 200mil then the studios would lose their controlled market. and since they have no way of knowing which indie film will be a success they can't justify marketing all of them and losing money on 50% of them.
if they buy all 100 movies and distribute all of them, only 20% will be successful, if they buy all 100 movies and only distribute 20 of them, they have a chance for 80% of them to be successful since there is that much less actual content for people to see.
makes sense from an accounting point of view right? well business is the only thing they really care about.
Like newspapers, are to the internet. You don't have to go to a movie theater, to enjoy a movie. You can stream it from your own home and, hollyWEIRD hasn't had any good scripts, that I'd want to waste my money on. Reboots, remakes, part 4,5,6 of the SAME thing. Hollywood has become BORING with what they come up with, not to mention paying zillions to these "actors" that without memorizing a script, can't string 2 sentences together. TV/cable is the same problem. You DON'T have to get it from the "big three" or cable/satellite anymore.
Point to examples of this happening with DVD or Blu-Ray.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Hollywood can die and be rebuild for all I care, it's slim pickings with huge cancerous tumors right now.
Netflix Marvel: First season of Daredevil...great! Second season...still pretty good. Both were soooooo much better than the original movie. Luke Cage...unique style, excellent. Jessica Jones...not bad. Ironfist...didn't really like.
ABC Marvel: Agents of Shield...couldn't get into it, despite Joss Whedon. I don't know, there was something about the writing, the casting that did not work for me. The production values just felt cheap, like any other boring network TV series. Netflix Marvel series feel more like movies. The cinematography, the fight scenes on Netflix were often very well done. Their series have a sense of atmosphere that is lacking in the big network's shows.
I cut my cable TV a while ago, and I will never go back. Commercials seem like a slap in the face now. I hate them hate them hate them! As far as I'm concerned, the big three networks can just die.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I hate it when i find an article that lists "10 cool netflix titles for your sunday night" and then i find only 2 of them in the EU version of Netflix.
What's up wit that? I use only 1 TV and i pay premium for 4 accounts (3 of which i don't use), and i still recieve a crappier service than if I was in the states.
I do however have super fast internet when compared to the US of A and local torrent sites like zamundanet and arenabgcom and global DHT seeding usually have literally ANY movie inside, even the stuff that is in the theaters nowadays (with Korean embedded subs though) - but i am too lazy to torrent after "entering the netflix and amazon prime era", even-though i have PLEX
I kind of prefer to be a part of the paid eco system and not be a "pirate".
So i would gladly pay premium for a beter service and to be able to find more movies but i am forced to search in external sites because netflix in Europe is different than the real US Netflix and the price is the same
Really? I thought Iron Fist was pretty good. Some of the characters were so well written that you didn't really know which side they were playing for. Harold for example.. Madame Gao, even Joy at the end..
I also thought the cinematography was done really well, too.
Also, I don't think there's a single ABC-produced show that I'd bother to watch. The way they write/produce the shows nowadays makes them too bland.
I will say though that FX has been producing some excellent shows, my favorite being The Strain, and I think Fox will have more luck with FX than it does it's other channels.
Non-compete agreements that limit the ability of people to take jobs at competing companies are standard operating practice in tech and media companies. But Netflix and the TV division of Fox are based in California, a state that bans most such agreements. California labor law should therefore in effect, and under that law those contracts are indeed "unlawful and unenforceable".
The corporate offices of Fox are in New York, so they are presumably trying to claim that their contracts are based on New York law. But I expect them to lose that battle because Ms Flynn worked in California, for a division of Fox that is based there.