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.

64 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Good. by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh, poor Hollywood. Got some competition. The MPAA might have to change their draconian thinking.

      Hollywood hasn't had a new idea in decades. Whether it's Netflix, Amazon, whoever, I hope they eat Hollywood's lunch and burp afterwards. The sooner, the better.

      Then the TV networks will have to look at their tawdry monopoly and figure out how to compete with both the cord cutters and those that aren't going to use an antenna anymore. Oh dear. Here, let me see if my heart bleeds for them. Nope.

      Hollywood and the networks had a nice long run. Goodbye.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Good. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with the networks and cable channels is that they put out really crappy "reality shows" because it's cheaper and can't understand why people quit watching their shows and cut the chord and start getting their TV from places like Netflix.

      Meanwhile, Netflix, who have a much better pulse on who is watching what (they get better access. Direct access to the data) pick up shows that people actually want to watch. (it's not reality shows). Then they make sure they are done right. A lot of what Netflix produces is much better than the average from networks and cable.

      If you want to fight Netflix- create shows that people want to see and stop cutting corners producing reality shows.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Good. by number6x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Netflix's push for more original content is, partly, a result of the major studios effort to starve Netflix of content a few years ago.

      Netflix decided to use the money it was no longer spending on licensing to the studios to buy or finance Netflix 'original' content. Much of the original content is even made by the TV production departments of the very studios that are complaining about Netflix. If the major studios had financed these productions, they would have made the first pass profits and then licensed re-runs to Netflix.

      By breaking this model, the studios left a big chunk of the viewing (and paying) market un-served. Netflix stepped up to the plate and said "We'll take those profits that you are leaving on the table, thank you very much!"

      The studios bosses need to read pogo.

    4. Re:Good. by citizenr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      cable companies have fantastic metrics, there is a reason cable card died - they want you to use their spying always logged in cable box. It tracks every channel switch, every mute, every volume change.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    5. Re:Good. by D00MSlayer · · Score: 2

      Obviously they aren't appealing to the new content creators. Netflix is far-reaching and easily accessible. Same goes for Amazon. If 21st and the other network producers don't catch up technologically, they'll be left in the dust.

    6. Re:Good. by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know if it's so much that they're not appealing to new content creators or that they're afraid to take the risks investing in new IP.

      My guess would be a mixture of both. They're probably not actively seeking people looking to launch new properties, and when someone offers up something new and original those ideas are probably met with a mountain of skepticism and dread that they're going to lose their investment.

      Look at all the barriers that were put in the way of creating Deadpool. From a terribly screwed up version in Origins: Wolverine, to Ryan Reynolds having a terrible history in superhero movies (Green Lantern was...painful.) It took some serious fighting to get that movie made, and made right, despite the character himself having a relatively sizable fan base.

      Sometimes I think the creators think the battle isn't worth it, and sometimes the studios think the risk isn't worth it. Both combined have given us the situation we have today, but thankfully we have Netflix and Amazon willing to pick up the slack.

    7. Re:Good. by najajomo · · Score: 2

      "At least the majority of what Netflix is doing is actual original programming"

      I agree, Hollywood should stop making movies pitched at six to twelve year old. Just how low do you have to pitch it that a talking CGI midget racoon is the best thing about a movie.

    8. Re:Good. by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hollywood hasn't had a new idea in decades.

      You can thank the terms "Intellectual Property" and "Monetization" for that. Seriously - when creative works are locked-up tight in literal century-plus copyright term lengths, and are bought and sold like commodities under that condition? There's little wonder that Hollywood is trying to see some kind of ROI on the stuff they bought, as opposed to coming up with (or at least taking a risk on incorporating) original stuff.

      Drop copyright term lengths back to 25 years (retroactively, BTW), and I bet you'll see Hollywood get their shit together again... because then they won't have a choice but to do so.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re:Good. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Per the article:

      It is expanding into new genres such as children's fare, reality TV and stand-up comedy specials

      PLEASE Netflix, don't go down the route of fscking "reality tv"....please....

      If it gets overrun by reality crap, I"ll drop netflix.

      Hell, if they ever syndicate something awful like the existing kardashain shit out there, I"ll possibly pull the plug on NF.

      I like a lot of what NF is doing, I do wish they'd get back a little more of the commercial movie stuff, but in all I'm fairly happy with their offerings.

      But geez, "reality" tv type stuff has ruined what used to be good networks.

      DIY...dead to reality stuff, no longer DIY stuff.

      Cooking Channel and FoodTV...I rarely see a show on there where someone actually cooks recipes to show and educate the view...it is some fucking contest or reality type cooking thing.

      More and more seems to fall to this crap and it makes me sick.

      The latest victim I've heard about, is the show I really used to like to watch, Wheeler Dealers on the Velocity channel.

      The main part of the show, was with Edd China doing the mechanical work and explaining what was going on.

      Well, apparently a US company has bought them off, and was going to cut the actual "meat" of the show drastically....and I envisioned, having Edd and Mike argue like the fucking Tuttle's did on that chopper show...?

      I respect Edd...who QUIT the show. I'll not be watching it anymore.

      So, Netflix...keep up the good work and leave the CRAP reality/contest shows to the regular networks that are rapidly becoming non-relavent anymore to anyone that wants to view something worth watching.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Good. by gnick · · Score: 4

      Hell, if they ever syndicate something awful like the existing kardashain shit out there, I"ll possibly pull the plug on NF.

      With the latest Netflix app, you can pick and choose what you watch. If they produce something you're not interested in, you can watch something else. Amazing!

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    11. Re:Good. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      I not sure they do, I often leave my cable box on for hours on some random channel. I'm sure the cats change them at will too.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re:Good. by pr0t0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hollywood needs to get over itself, in a big, big way. For every soccer mom that wants to read about the custody battles between Brad and Angelina, there's someone who's just plain sick of it. Sick of actors grandstanding and talking about subjects they know nothing about (Tom Cruise). Sick of self-important over-inflated egos throwing phone books at a concierge (Russel Crowe), or denigrating a lighting guy on the set (Christian Bale) because he interrupted your "process". Get over yourself. You aren't half as believable as you think. And it would be great if people stopped interviewing Gwyneth Paltrow so we aren't subjected to whatever inane half-thought she vomits out.

      I'm sick of the "Hollywood Accounting" used to show movies that take in hundreds of millions of dollars have made no money. I'm sick of the over-paid, over-hyped, over-the-top everything actors, directors, producers, and everyone else right down to craft services. You're an adult man, wearing tights, speaking a fictitious language, and wielding a fake sword to tell a story for the purposes of entertainment. Or you're a "reality" television star who's only real talent came from a leaked sex tape (Kardashian). You people are not doing medical research, astrophysics, or materials science. At best, the only problem you may be solving is boredom.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    13. Re:Good. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do you mean no new ideas? What about beauty and the beast (now with newly GAY characters)?

      There...fixed that for you....

      There is many a chuckle to be had when peopel become enraged about some gay characters in a story about bestiality. P Looks like we see what the homophobes are actually into.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Good. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      I'd say "Who cares" but obviously you do.

      I get a bit upset when they tinker with a classic tale to just be politically correct, or controversial, etc.

      The old characters were just fine as they were.

      Hot woman fucks a bull. Yeah - a real classic.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:Good. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      One of my gripes with regular TV was that they replaced (relatively) good shows with their (un)reality & sitcom crap. I wouldn't give a !@#$ if Netflix had that crap, as long as they don't replace better stuff with it.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    16. Re:Good. by porges · · Score: 2

      I suspect that the person who made the joke you thinks that "chords" implies "vocal chords", except that it's "vocal cords".

    17. Re:Good. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      PLEASE Netflix, don't go down the route of fscking "reality tv"....please....

      They already did, but it seems you didn't even notice.

      My wife and I watched through their original series Ultimate Beastmaster a few weeks back, which is a reality TV show that knocks off American Ninja Warrior (and the shows it knocked off before it). The fact that you seem to have not been aware of its addition just goes to show why it's not a concern if they get into reality TV. Netflix can add content intended for me without displacing content intended for you. It's not a zero-sum game. My gain is not your loss, unlike with network TV, where my gain naturally comes at the loss of whatever show used to occupy that time slot.

      All of which is to say, I'm fine with Netflix adding more content of more varieties for more people. That I don't enjoy all of it is fine, so long as they keep adding the stuff I enjoy too.

    18. Re:Good. by Maritz · · Score: 2

      If they produce something you're not interested in, you can watch something else. Amazing!

      Witchcraft!

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  2. Good by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Good by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TV has changed though. TV seemed to have mostly avoided the serialized nature of shows from the movie houses and radio programs ending on a cliff-hanger, "Tune in next time to find out what happens!" to an episodic format where each individual program told a whole story that was reasonably self-contained. One could enjoy the show without having to know too much about what happened previously, so the threshold for new viewers was low. Unfortunately for the studio this also meant that it was easy for viewers to stop watching the show if the quality took a dip, as there was no need to find out where the plot or arc was going. Obviously not all TV followed this model (thinking of soap operas in particular) but if you look at shows like M*A*S*H or The Honeymooners or Star Trek or The Odd Couple you find most episodes are self-contained, and that it's fairly rare for most stories to directly span more than one episode. Even if characters change out it doesn't affect the ability to start watching.

      Sometime in the nineties this shifted, and TV became serialized like those old radio shows and old movie house pre-movie filler shows. There were some elements introduced and resolved in a single episode but a lot more of the plot, if not most of the plot, directly tied into a long-term direction that the season or the whole show was building toward. It's a lot harder to just pick up a show like this, but if the studio manages to attract an audience then that audience might stick around for more episodes even if some are subpar along the way because they want that conclusion that appears to be coming. PVRs and streaming the existing episodes helps make it easier for the viewer to get into the show in the first place.

      I prefer the episodic model, as I don't feel compelled to watch if I don't want to, and I don't worry if I miss an episode or if I watch them out of original order. Unfortunately this model is increasingly relegated to half-hour sitcoms, and anything with dramatic content is now serialized whether it needs to be or not.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Good by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The serialized shows are a double edged sword. They might encourage me to stick with a series, but they also discourage me from starting one, especially if I don't start until Episode #5.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:Good by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also Netflix seems to understand that their customers binge watch. They don't want to wait every week for a new episode. They will watch 4 or 5 in a row as their time allows.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Good by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I prefer the episodic model, as I don't feel compelled to watch if I don't want to, and I don't worry if I miss an episode or if I watch them out of original order. Unfortunately this model is increasingly relegated to half-hour sitcoms, and anything with dramatic content is now serialized whether it needs to be or not.

      Everything you say is a very valid concern for the old model. There are a number of shows i stopped watching because i missed enough episodes that i didn't feel like i'd know what was going on currently. Some of those i would try to catch up later on DVD, but that means you're now running at least a season behind, especially since back in the day it took forever for TV shows to come out on video.

      However Netflix actually does away with a lot of the downsides of such serialized content. If it's on Netflix (or Hulu, or Crunchyroll) you start the show when you want, watch as much as you want, and wait as long as you want between episodes without worrying about missing anything. (Well, barring breakdowns in license negotiation, but that's not an issue with their in-house content.)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    5. Re:Good by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 2

      I think the best example of this is comparing the British and US versions of Being Human.

      The British version was 6-8 episodes a season. And it was very hard to not binge watch it, as the story was very tight and kept things moving along.

      The American version was 26 episodes to a season, with the same story lines. IOW, a hell of a lot of filler. We tried watching it and gave up after 3 episodes because the story moved so slowly.

      Same with police procedurals. The British versions get a lot more story in a lot fewer episodes.

  3. Get What You Pay For by chew8bitsperbyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Innovation by Mindragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Innovation by mean+pun · · Score: 2

      Normal people don't hook up their PC tower or laptop to their big TV.

      I always knew I wasn't normal, but I don't see the point any more of buying a TV rather than a big monitor. It makes much more sense to me to have the intelligence in a separate box, be it a decoder box, a Raspberry Pi with Kodi, an Apple TV, something Android, an OSX/Windows computer, or whatever else will float to the top in a few years. Betting on the wrong platform is also not so painful if said box is roughly $100.

      I cannot recommend this kind of setup yet to my less tech-savvy mother, but it is getting close.

    2. Re:Innovation by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what would you have done instead? When Netflix launched their streaming service on browser in 2007, do you know how many TV appliances like AppleTV existed? Just AppleTV. That was it; there was no Roku, there was not Amazon Stick. There was no Chromecast. Sure they got themselves onto Blu-ray players and that took time as well. These days, the browser doesn't make as much sense as it did when Netflix first launched.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Innovation by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      [...] and so should your computer.

      The Netflix Win10 app does weird shit because those apps are written without multi-tasking in mind. It can make the machine sluggish, prevent other video sources form playing while it's running, not to mention just derping out and freezing up, or having the video go black while audio plays on. Watching on a PC the browser is much, much better than the native app.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    4. Re:Innovation by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Informative

      do you know how many TV appliances like AppleTV existed? Just AppleTV. That was it; there was no Roku, there was not Amazon Stick. There was no Chromecast.

      In fact, Roku began life as a Netflix streaming box idea that a group within Netflix had. Netflix eventually decided not to pursue the project and it was spun off as a separate company, albeit one with Netflix as the primary application draw. IIRC, early on Roku was boasting that they'd have 10 channels by the end of the year. They hit that number and then rocketed up in popularity soon after.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Innovation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      When I watch movies, I either sit in a train, a plane, sometimes a car, or in/on my bed.
      And as rule number one for a healthy sex life: no TV in the bed room.

      Oh, and BTW I don't own a TV and will very likely never buy one as I *only* watch movies on my laptops. However I conisered to buy 2 40" TVs and use them as computer screens ...

      Ah, just for the reference, I live in germany. There is nothing on TV worth watching anyway.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Innovation by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      And as rule number one for a healthy sex life: no TV in the bed room.

      Err...so, what do you do when you're *finished* fucking your woman....?

      Hell, I've often caught the scores on ESPN looking over her head while she was giving head...etc.

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Innovation by DrJimbo · · Score: 2

      And as rule number one for a healthy sex life: no TV in the bed room.

      Turns out, the number one thing you can do to get laid more often is to put your tv in your bedroom. According to a poll in Britain, couples with a tv in their bedroom have sex twice as often as couples who do not.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  5. Old business models don't die, they are killed by notes+rules · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Old business models don't die, they are killed by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's really amusing about the B&N/Amazon thing is that as B&N falters against Amazon(I will point out that TradPub is as big of a problem for B&N here as anything they're actually doing wrong) the tiny bookstores that B&N pushed out of the market are starting to come back. They won't thrive nearly as well as they used to of course, but they'll at least exist.

  6. Not just Hollywood... by simp · · Score: 2

    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...

    1. Re:Not just Hollywood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Once you are used to not having *everything* and realize you have *enough*, Netflix becomes the unquestionable leader.

      You just have to get over the idea that it is worth paying 15x as much to get "everything". After you have had Netflix you realize you can't watch everything so why pay for it.

  7. If they really want to piss Fox off.. by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They should do a Firefly spinoff or actually do Firefly and then make it one of the most successful blockbuster shows in the 'verse.

    1. Re:If they really want to piss Fox off.. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Use the 'verse and make an anthology series. The actors are less expensive if you don't keep them too long.

  8. Employee Retention by bano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A company whose employee retention plan is to call the lawyers likely isn't a great place to work anyways.

  9. Re:Netflix outspends HBO more than 2:1? by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Informative

    They make more shows than HBO does so you don't cancel your sub in between Westworld and Game of Thrones.

  10. Lack of originality did the deed. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Lack of originality did the deed. by MrLint · · Score: 2

      As a counter, recall the old adage "There are no new stories"

    2. Re:Lack of originality did the deed. by ravenshrike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Training Day was actually shaping up to be pretty decent, if formulaic. Then Paxton died.

    3. Re:Lack of originality did the deed. by Comboman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now check out Netflix's stuff.

      Daredevil? House of Cards? Fuller House? Arrested Development? All of them are reboots/sequels or remakes. What makes them good or bad is not whether they are remakes. Hollywood has been doing remakes from the beginning (The Wizard of Oz and The Maltese Falcon are both remakes of earlier, less successful attempts to adapt those books to the screen).

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    4. Re:Lack of originality did the deed. by gurps_npc · · Score: 2

      You have a point, but missed my point, which is also correct.

      Netflix (etc.) does do some remakes/reboots/sequels. - more than 10%. Hollywood always did some remakes. But modern Hollywood is 95% remake/reboot/etc. Hollywood used to be more balanced. Now, Hollywood insists on massive budgets for productions (superhero for example.) For this reason, they insist on a 'proven' subject, hence the remakes.

      The remakes, etc. are the SYMPTOM, not the cause of my subject Lack of originality has destroyed Hollywood.. I should also throw in "cowardly refusal to take risks, as it is another cause.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  11. Re:Netflix outspends HBO more than 2:1? by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

    They won't be after the talent responsible for those HBO originals flock to netflix because they pay better.

  12. Well blame Hollywood for creating their own enemy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  13. Re:Netflix outspends HBO more than 2:1? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    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.
  14. Massive presumption by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Massive presumption by CaptnCrud · · Score: 2

      I think you need to dial it down to a 5 and just watch indie movies....

  15. They have the audiance already... by BlueCoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:Dumb with their money. by TWX · · Score: 2

    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.
  17. BULLSHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    We all know PIRACY is the one number enemy of Hollywood! No one else has done trillions of dollars in damages!

  18. Escalating tension? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    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/
  19. Re:Netflix outspends HBO more than 2:1? by s1d3track3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Well blame Hollywood for creating their own ene by timholman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only reason Netflix makes their own content is they were being squeezed by Hollywood for higher and higher licensing fees.

    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.

  21. Re:Dumb with their money. by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

    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.

  22. Serves them right by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....

    1. Re:Serves them right by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Hollywood tried to strike Netflix down, but it became more powerful than they could have ever imagined.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  23. Boo hoo by jediborg · · Score: 2

    "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.

  24. This is actually dangerous by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This is actually dangerous by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      But that's the thing... you don't need any of the content. It is want only. If I was truly interested in originals to all the streaming services, Netflix and Amazon have already embraced binge watching. I enjoy Game of Thrones and will rejoin HBO Now when it comes back. In between episodes, I intend to binge Westworld, which sounds right up my alley, but HBO doesn't have enough content to keep me around the whole year. Once GoT is over with I'll drop HBO Now again. This makes it a hard market to break into. Amazon bundles their streaming with their shipping benefits to get you to keep it year round, Netflix has built a massive library so you don't run out of things to watch. Since they don't own the pipes it is easy to switch content provider, you don't have to wait for the cable man to switch you over.