Slashdot Mirror


New Data Shows Netflix's Number of Movies Has Gone Down By Thousands of Titles Since 2010 (businessinsider.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider: If you thought Netflix's movie selection had been lacking lately, you're right. The streaming service's amount of movies has dipped by over 2,000 titles since 2010, while its number of TV shows has nearly tripled. Third-party Netflix search engine Flixable compiled data that shows a dramatic shift in Netflix's priorities in recent years. In 2010, Netflix had 530 TV shows compared to 6,755 movies. Now, in 2018, the amount of TV shows has nearly tripled to 1,569, and the amount of movies offered has decreased to 4,010. It's no secret that Netflix has focused more on TV shows and less on movies in recent years, but now we have a visual representation of just how significant that focus has become.

117 comments

  1. This isn't Netflix's fault by xevioso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The major movie studios and content owners did not want to see Netflix become another Apple iTunes, which would allow them to set the prices of movies and have control over content distribution, so raised the licensing fees to astronomical levels. And of course, players like Disney saw how controlling the content distribution in this way could be very profitable, and they have no intention of making those sorts of deals again. the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in.

    But that's fine. The original offerings from Netflix are often amazing, so it's no big loss.

    1. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      It's Netflix's intent. Lower costs, higher discoverability, more hours of content for people to binge.

      Meanwhile, good video stores are topping 50,000 titles

    2. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nevermind that, serialized (TV) shows have massively improved in content quality. Even if they had the money and the technology, they wouldn't have done shows like they're doing now, rather the studios would have just saved that talent for feature length content.

      Meanwhile, most high budget movies have been big disappointments over the last 5 years.

    3. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, good video stores are topping 50,000 titles.

      Blockbuster is dead man. Remember when they were ubiquitous? Now...they're karate studios and nail salons.

    4. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by rmdingler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meanwhile, most high budget movies have been big disappointments over the last 5 years.

      This. Although it's true audiences have gravitated toward the binge afforded to Netflix users, there has been a considerable dearth of quality movies of late, with Hollywood productions long on sequel, and short on innovative, thought-provoking releases.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by josquin9 · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen a video rental store in some time, though. Just Redbox with their few dozen titles at most of the grocery stores around here. I'm sure there still are video rental stores somewhere, but most of the small ones were bought out by the big chains, and then the big chains closed most of their stores when Netflix and Amazon prime became popular. The "long tail" is gone in many areas. It's almost impossible to find DVD's to rent that are more than a year old. Amazon offers some older titles, but charge two to three times what the local stores used to. Sure, you can watch a movie in minutes, but your microwave popcorn doesn't show up for two days.

    6. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      hadn't noticed, since I canceled Netflix at least a year ago.

    7. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer TV shows to full movies 90% of the time anyway, as I can enjoy them in a bite-size amount of time versus allocating 1.5 to 2.5 hours.

    8. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by hondo77 · · Score: 2

      Are you kidding? Have you seen what Disney charges for their movies on iTunes? They charge premium prices for their Marval, Lucasfilm, and animated hit movies and they are rarely on sale (and their sale prices are still not deeply discounted).

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    9. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by pots · · Score: 1

      Yeah, some part of it is Netflix's fault at least. Good on Netflix. More to watch and better quality too - those thousands of movies that they used to have were mostly crap anyway. They're being replaced by Netflix's own mostly excellent content... and also more crap. So that part is a wash, but still: overall good.

    10. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Cederic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whether it's their fault or not, it cost them my subscription a few years ago and I'm seeing nothing that justifies signing back up.

      I don't want 'original content', I want access to all content, at a reasonable price.

    11. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I would like to see the movies though. I will never pay Disney directly though. And it's not just a Netflix problem, other streaming services feel the pinch. They do have DVD/bluray movie content though, just like any rental store.

    12. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There is a weird supply of streaming movies, it's hit or miss about what's available or not. My Roku lets me search by title and it will show what supported streaming service has it. So, no streaming service apparently has Age of Ultron except for a very high "rental" price, whereas you can get the relatively new Guardians of the Galaxy 2 on Netflix. Other movies I want to see are a premium service on Amazon (ie, first buy the expensive subscription, then add an extra few dollars for the movie).

      So movies are declining on any subscription service. Hollywood hates streaming services unless they own them.

    13. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, a large part of how they lost their bargaining power is that they decided that they wanted to be an online only service. Another part of it was that they decided that they wanted to expand into other countries.

      When Netflix still had a massive catalog of DVDs available, it was harder for the studios to demand increased royalties as Netflix wasn't required to pay anything beyond the retail cost of the discs. And I bet they were able to negotiate a discount with the middlemen in exchange for the quantity.

      Netflix used to have a great selection of DVD movies and they should have maintained that. Doubling the price and then offering the choice of DVDs, streaming or both was incredibly foolish. The only reason I have a subscription at all at this point is that I get it free through T-Mobile. Rarely, do I find things worth watching, and then I tend to binge watch them because there's not much in the way of selection, so I'll watch one series until I've finished.

      Really, Netflix doesn't have to be so helpful in the studios' quest to destroy their own industry.

    14. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except it's not really working out that way. I watch significantly less Netflix these days because I can't find anything good to watch. I'll watch one program or another over a short period of time, not because I want to, but because I couldn't find anything else to watch.

      The interface is terrible, the suggestions bite and there's no way of just scrolling through long lists of movies on my Roku or PS3, which means that I'm completely at the mercy of either luck or 3rd party sites that catalog the netflix catalog.

      And increasingly it's TV shows because even a short run program with only 30 episodes is still at least a week of TV if I'm not sick.

      The only reason that I have a Netflix account is that T-Mobile is paying for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother as the amount of content is pitiful compared with what they had when they were still doing large amounts of DVD rentals.

    15. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix movies are amazing ? What a joke, a large number are total crap. They even used to show almost silent movies. I spend more time finding something thats not totally crap than actually watching somethinb worthwhile. netflix has always been about numbers and not quantity. How many of the best 100 movies are on netflix now, prolly less than 5, and its getting worse.

    16. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by SNRatio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's Netflix's intent. Lower costs, higher discoverability, more hours of content for people to binge.

      Meanwhile, good video stores are topping 50,000 titles

      How are you defining discoverability? Netflix's app seems ruthlessly dedicated to limiting the number of titles anyone sees.

    17. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Meanwhile in the bargain bin you can find $4 Blu-ray copies of the very same Disney movies.

    18. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Nevermind that, serialized (TV) shows have massively improved in content quality. "

      Exactly! Also, lately movies just suck.
      My wife and I begin watching a movie and after 10 minutes we give up, because either the script sucks or the actors.

      Netflix sees that people abandon watching movies.

      Give me a good series any time over a movie.

    19. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone considers the drama-laden, high-paced, addicting cliff hangers to be an improvement in quality. Some people watch TV to relax and enjoy the story, not to have their body internally swamped with stress hormones.

    20. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe, give me a series made of standalone TV movies, exactly like Columbo.

      It can be daunting having to watch fifty 52 min episodes.
      Meanwhile all US movies past 2006 are unwatchable, or should have two soundtracks, one for theater and people with a $2000 5.1 system and no neighbors, one for people who just want to hear things.

      So, TV movies or non US movies would do.

    21. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by turp182 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Netflix is changing the "interest dynamic" (plot speed).

      About 50% of Walking Dead episodes are filler, pushing commercials, not plot. I won't comment on show timing or season length (Netflix understands this perfectly).

      HBO seems to do this as well with Game of Thrones. I'm not sure why.

      But Netflix shows like Stranger Things and Luke Cage, move the plot along a lot every single episode. It's simply better entertainment.

      And yeah, studios are waking up but Netflix is spending more than any of them on original content.

      But they still have recent stuff by other production companies (for now), Rouge One, Moana (kids), Planet Earth 2 (this is recommended to me because I watched Stranger Things...), American Horror Story, etc.

      Disney's service will be successful, because... kids. But Netflix will win, they show the Human Centipede and Phineas and Ferb (for kids). The whole gamut.

      And offline download is freaking awesome! I don't pirate anymore.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    22. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Streaming on demand a drama for 100 minutes onto a TV.

      Streaming on demand a drama for 40 x 6 minutes onto a TV.

      What difference is there, other than the length and that one is called a "movie" and the other a "box-set" ?

      The distinction between a TV show and a film is vanishing. They use the same technology. The same actors. The same costs.

    23. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile, most high budget movies have been big disappointments over the last 5 years.

      I agree with the TV shows bit, but that has always been the norm for the film industry. Sturgeons law is very conservative in that context (80% of everything is crap), I'd say 95%+ of everything the film industry produces is dross and it's paid for by the less than 5% of stuff that isn't. The difference is that hollywood cant control the internet as it used to control movie reviews, so average people are able to find out a film is crap before seeing it. India, Nigeria and China which are now bigger industries than the American film industry, have at least compensated for this by making cheaper movies.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    24. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      It's Netflix's intent. Lower costs, higher discoverability, more hours of content for people to binge.

      Meanwhile, good video stores are topping 50,000 titles

      How are you defining discoverability? Netflix's app seems ruthlessly dedicated to limiting the number of titles anyone sees.

      Limiting titles overall adds to that. Less to index, fewer possibilities to show in any one category, etc.

    25. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Try your local library. Ours has tons of DVDs available to rent for free. Well, you pay for it in your taxes, but you'd pay that anyway and I don't mind paying to support my local library. My library can even get titles from other libraries if they don't have the specific DVD I'm looking for.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    26. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the "pirating" world then. Only in torrent sites you will have access to all content. The price is zero... couldn't be more reasonable.

    27. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by azadrozny · · Score: 2

      Shows like the Walking Dead have to fit into a very specific box due to legacy broadcasting paradigms. The network orders a specific number of shows and expects them to fit neatly into a 30 or 60 minute time slot. You might only have enough story for 12 episodes, but you have to make 20. And too bad that you don't have time to show that epic fight scene, or long character speech. You can't go over 44 minutes divided into 4 acts for commercial breaks.

      The Netflix model allows the show producer to write the exact number of episodes it takes to tell the story. Episode lengths can vary, to allow the writers the opportunity to tell a proper story, while keeping the length manageable to the viewer. Given what I have seen with most Netflix and HBO series, they probably start with target of 10 one hour episodes per season, and adjust as they map it all out.

    28. Re:This isn't Netflix's fault by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      I want access to all content, at a reasonable price.

      Sadly that is unlikely to ever happen. With everyone wanting to start their own streaming system, like Disney intends, and regional deals, it is going to be worse than cable.

      While I don't like the idea of any one company being in control of everything, I don't want subscriptions to a half dozen (or more) services.

      I'd be willing to bet that illegal downloading has been reduced by offerings like Netflix. I'd also bet as things become fractured, and the cost goes up due to the increased number of subscriptions required, that piracy will increase quite a bit.

    29. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      The network orders a specific number of shows and expects them to fit neatly into a 30 or 60 minute time slot. You might only have enough story for 12 episodes, but you have to make 20

      Lost got a lot better when they pushed back against the network requirements for 23 shows/year and trimmed down to 16-episodes or so. Granted, the plot eventually got torpedoed anyway, but the first three seasons have a TON of filler and slow-moving plot.

      I had hoped that Game of Thrones would get better by cutting back from 10 to 7 episodes in the season, but it was not served well by the change. The overall writing took a dip in quality, but the rushed nature of the storytelling also hid how much time passed and made some developments feel like they happened too quickly.

    30. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by azadrozny · · Score: 2

      I think the Game of Thrones TV series is suffering the same problem as the books. There is a lot of material, and a lot of characters. It is very difficult to tell such a complex story, allowing the reader/watcher to connect the dots. I applaud the epic nature of the story, but think they need to drop a bunch of the subplots.

    31. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Game of Thrones has killed off enough characters that there aren't that many left! The books have more of a problem, since the show never adapted some of the characters and plotlines that were introduced later.

      For instance, I don't have much of a problem with Jon and Dany falling in love, but simply due to the episode count, it's difficult to realize that Jon's been sitting at Dragonstone interacting with Dany for months and months. Since less real world time has passed, it feels "rushed. Think of how it might have played out in a previous season. Jon likely would still have reached Dragonstone in Episode 3 or so (being able to skip a character for an episode greatly contributed to the necessary feeling of time passing during travel, something they can't do anymore), but a good six episodes could have passed before he declared himself rather than the three which passed in Season 7. That makes their courtship more properly feel like a season-long development rather than a mid-season blip.

      I hate to say it, but now Game of Thrones's seasons are too short. For most other serial TV shows I've seen, their seasons are too long.
      Breaking Bad is maybe the only TV show I've watched where the season length was just right.

    32. Re: This isn't Netflix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not care who's fault it is crappier content record profits recently announced about the same time as another price hike. I lowered my subscription to one viewer and SD as there is so little that I have not seen already or that is interesting to me. Hope things improve before I see no value and cancel.

  2. Most was crap that won't be missed by many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My interest in their content peaked (massively!) early on with their DVD service, hit a big soft patch for a few years, and now their own-branded content is at least worth the few bucks it costs for a streaming account.

    And they don't try to fuck me over a barrel like Comcast tries to every single day with junk mail - 4 kinds. Netflix will get my money until they can fuck Comcast over that same barrel.

    1. Re:Most was crap that won't be missed by many by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that it's the crap that's staying. While Pacific Rim disappears, Atlantic Rim stays. Just look in any of the genre categories: mountains of garbage and few, if any, remaining gems. The main reason I even have a subscription anymore is that my wife watches a few programs on it.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    2. Re:Most was crap that won't be missed by many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I agree but by your own admission it's worth it just for your wife finding "a few" things a la carte for the money compared to just about any other service, right? That's all my criteria was, some ok shit for reasonable $, done.

      MOST movies I will never be able to watch, my time is worth more than their entire production value / writing content and my brain kicks it out. Seen network television lately, Seal team 6? We are.. in a world... of shit..

      At least Netflix is pushing some new directions. It's something. I'm glad it exists and wish there were more. Early subscribers made it what it is today, what might it be tomorrow? It's already better than what we have, per $.

    3. Re: Most was crap that won't be missed by many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a severely over inflated sense of worth. I'd give your life just to see Green Lantern 2.

    4. Re:Most was crap that won't be missed by many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just too bad piracy is the only thing pushing in a direction I want to go.

  3. Old News by dodgerfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is old news. This same headline pops up every year. Netflix has to find it's own way with original content.

    --
    Work smarter, not harder.
    1. Re:Old News by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I've watched all the 'old movies' i care to have watched on NF, which wasn't really a grand selection to begin with. I am happy to pay what I do for the new content I get.

    2. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, they could go back to having a decent DVD catalog.

      This is self-inflicted idiocy. They're losing more and more titles to rising royalties in part because they lost their leverage. When they were primarily buying their own DVDs and renting those, the IP holders had to play nice in order to get a chunk of the action for the streaming. If they didn't, then Netflix wouldn't stream the title. The title would be available via DVD and the studio would lose out on the extra money.

      Netflix has good original content, but not anywhere near enough to justify a subscription and ultimately, it leaves those of us that were with them from near the beginning with nowhere to go as none of the other options are much better.

    3. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like last year, slashdot doesn't get why Netflix does this. Its because according to their analytics data, people are binge watching shows instead of watching movies. Why would Netflix spend a bunch of money on content people aren't as likely to watch?

    4. Re:Old News by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Just like last year, slashdot doesn't get why Netflix does this. Its because according to their analytics data, people are binge watching shows instead of watching movies.

      People are switching to the shows because either they've already seen the movies, or because every time you look for a specific movie it's not there. Netflix's streaming selection has always sucked hard, because the movie studios are actively hostile to Netflix's pricing model.

      You need to actually have a quality movie catalog for someone to use it.

  4. You kniow by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd trade every Disney movie for more Daredevil and Jessica Jones.

    The best thing Netflix did was oicking up Longmire.

    I wish they'd do it for other shows that were abruptly cancelled that ended on cliffhangers and needed a lot more episodes to finish their story arcs...

    1. Re:You kniow by xevioso · · Score: 2

      Except Daredevil and Jessica Jones are Marvel, and so are owned by Disney. Disney can't just remove it to their own streaming platform when it debuts, presumably, but they probably won't license any new shows with characters they own unless it will appear exclusively on Disney.

    2. Re:You kniow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care about Daredevil and Jessica Jones (and that was below mediocre), but I would like them to pick up Dark Matter, Continuum and Killjoys.

    3. Re:You kniow by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Is it that hard to make up new super heroes?

      I mean, I am not a comic book person so they are all unknown characters to me already.

      Just start a new comic book line and make up some characters. Build it up over time.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    4. Re:You kniow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making new superheroes isn't super hard, the problem is getting an audience quickly enough to justify the expense. I loved The Cape when it was on years back, unfortunately, it got canceled shortly into its run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cape_%282011_TV_series%29

      Then there's the myriad obscure comic book heroes that aren't necessarily any worse than the mainstream, just not mainstream and as such not pre-sold.

    5. Re:You kniow by houghi · · Score: 1

      I'd trade every Disney movie, Daredevil and Jessica Jones and what not for original content. And no, a new Marvel or DC movie is not original content.

      I would even give up the few good equals we have had in the past if it would kill off all the others. I would even sacrifice the whole LotR if it would mean no more remakes, prequels, sequels and the lot.
      (And I really, really, REALLY like the LotR series)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:You kniow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longmire was fantastic. Amazing that he played a Priest on BallyKissAngel. The actor was top notch and the writing was well crafted.

    7. Re:You kniow by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Just start a new comic book line and make up some characters. Build it up over time.

      Not really the way it is working. These aren't just characters, but rather characters with decades of storytelling behind them with fan feedback. The TV series aren't just starting at the beginning and going through the comics in sequence, but rather each of these series is a particular fan favorite story that has already survived the test of time. Even the movies are largely a product of Mavell's Ultimate experiment of updating all their classic superhero stories and then combining what worked with both. Hell, with the comics already written and published, they even have storyboards done.

      New characters and stories are going to slog through the same 90% of crap that established characters have the advantage of discarding before making a movie or TV series.

  5. How much of that is crap...? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    How much of that decrease is Netflix dropping a bunch of junk that nobody watches? Netflix tracks this, which is why a really popular movie is streamed from a local point of presence, while a title that nobody watches is streamed from some POP far away.

    1. Re:How much of that is crap...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be 'crap' but low volume shows. I moved BACK to DVD only. The selection was better.

    2. Re:How much of that is crap...? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      If it's junk that nobody watches then it has no commercial value, resulting in Netflix having bugger all costs to provide it.

      Sure, NPV on one junk movie might only be a few dollars but NPV on 50,000 junk movies adds up - and that's before you take into account the additional user base that broader catalogue will attract.

    3. Re:How much of that is crap...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure 100% of those 2,000+ movies they dropped were shit. I know that's true because, back then and to this day, 99.9% of all streaming movies on Netflix are shit. That's really the problem.

    4. Re:How much of that is crap...? by rworne · · Score: 1

      I'm sure 100% of those 2,000+ movies they dropped were shit. I know that's true because, back then and to this day, 99.9% of all streaming movies on Netflix are shit. That's really the problem.

      You sure about that?

      Disney is going away soon. Netflix already lost The Criterion Collection, MGM, Universal, and Warner Bros. 4-5 years ago.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  6. Yes, the concept is dead. Back to local rentals. by Optic7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Netflix initially gave us the dream that we could pay $10, even $20 a month and have access to most (or even just a significant number) of the movies that we would be interested in watching. That has effectively come true for most music, but not for movies. It was unfortunately not to be once the movie content owners decided to hike their licensing prices or outright deny Netflix in favor of starting their own streaming services.

    It's kind of understandable, once everyone realized that Netflix was a threat to the content owners (too much power over them, similar to what iTunes had over music companies back in the day - the movie companies learned their lesson from the music companies). Netflix also realized this and that the content owners were also a threat to them and started investing massively in producing their own exclusive content as a defense.

    The result, at least for us, was our rejoining our local DVD/Bluray rental store. We were very lucky that they were still around and had a great selection of the movies we wanted to watch. The selection of movies is night and day - Netflix has 10% of the movies we want to watch and the local store has maybe 80% or more.

    Before you say that we could also do the Netflix disc rental service, we used to have that but ended up paying through the nose for each individual rental because of how long we kept them. Also, I don't think even Netflix disc rental selection compares to the local store anymore. Besides, it feels better (and it's in our best interest) to support a local small business rather than a multinational corporation.

  7. Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all of their shows are shite.

  8. Not just streaming by markdavis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This isn't just streaming. I use disc service also and now have over a dozen moves waiting in my queue with "Unknown" as the availability. Some for over a YEAR NOW. Most aren't even obscure, like Matrix Revolutions and Gladiator. Really? Some dork broke/lost/stole a disc and now Netflix won't even replace it with at least one copy???

    1. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I had the same thing. So I compared my unwatched DVD list to the local library online catalog and 98% were there! So I rented the missing 2% and cancelled DVD rental. The city library catalog is just ok but the Santa Clara County Libraries are terrific. AND they take requests for new purchases,. Up to 20 DVDs at a time, crazy

    2. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird. You must mean Gladiator from 1992, because the Russel Crowe one is available.

      I have 20 titles in my "Saved" queue but it is weird stuff like "The Demon Seed" and "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

    3. Re:Not just streaming by luther349 · · Score: 2

      the issue is those older movies are out of print so they cant order replacement disk from the studio. rember they dont buy there disk from Walmart they pay a fee for the studios to provide the disk and to replace lost and stolen copys. it sounds like as i said the studio isnt holding up there end of the deal.

    4. Re:Not just streaming by Mousit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't just streaming. I use disc service also and now have over a dozen moves waiting in my queue with "Unknown" as the availability.

      I currently have about 80 movies in the "Unknown" availability section, and you're right, plenty of them are not in any way small or obscure. Several of them have literally been "Unknown" for over five years. I even have one that was released in 2005 and it's still unknown availability.

      However, it's even worse than that. Since the beginning of 2018 (almost on the dot, Jan 1st), even the movies that ARE in the supposedly-available part of the disc queue, they all list as "Short wait" on my queue, rather than actually available to ship immediately.

      I don't know what Netflix's definition of a "short" wait is, but I haven't received any of those since the start of the year. It reached the point that, if I wanted to actually GET any disc service I'm fucking paying for (yeah, even if they don't ship you anything, you still pay), I had to review my streaming queue and add all those movies to my disc queue too. Wouldn't you know, streamable movies are all available for immediate-ship as discs too. No "short wait" on any of those.

      The timing of this right at the start of the year makes me feel like this was something deliberate, their latest attempt to sabotage the disc service to justify ending it. I mean I can see a lot of people having that thought, "Why pay for disc service when all I'm receiving are movies I could just stream anyway?" I don't know if it's different for anyone else, but I sure can't get any non-streamable movies in the last two months.

    5. Re:Not just streaming by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Weird. You must mean Gladiator from 1992, because the Russel Crowe one is available."

      Yes, the original mega-hit.

    6. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Streaming is far worse though. There are what, hundreds of thousands of movies made? I don't know how many on disc, but probably in the upper tens of thousands. Vs only 4000 that can be streamed.

    7. Re:Not just streaming by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would guess that Netflix has closed a lot of distribution centers for discs and has drastically changed their disc acquisition and replacement rates, which results in a smaller number of discs available to remaining disc customers.

      IMHO, the dream was the entire movie universe was available -- you were no longer limited by the local stores limited inventory. Now I guess that's over.

    8. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most aren't even obscure, like Matrix Revolutions and Gladiator.

      Yeah, Matrix was awesome, too bad they never made a sequel...

    9. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a good thing movies are luxury items.

    10. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back around the time the streaming service started, when it was free if you had a standard disc membership, the disc title selection was fantastic. We used to order all sorts of obscure films. The first time I asked for something relatively recent and common and they didn't have it, that was the handwriting on the wall for me. It wasn't too long afterwards that I switched to getting stuff at the library. I mean, if you're captive inside a limited universe of just what they're willing to buy/license, why pay for it? I'm not into funding the creation of new content, most of which is garbage and not worth paying for. (I realize I'm in the minority in that opinion.)

    11. Re:Not just streaming by adolf · · Score: 1

      I would guess that Netflix did in fact do this, in part due to the USPS consolidation of sorting operations a number of years ago.

      In Ohio during Netflix's disc peak my mail carrier looked like a Netflix delivery agent, with an armload of red envelopes every day.

      Netflix opened new centers to reduce turn-around time (it worked, too). The one nearest me was in Toledo.

      Now all of Ohio's mail is sorted in Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinatti. There's no reason to maintain any Ohio facilities outside of these locations.

      http://www.cleveland.com/open/...

    12. Re:Not just streaming by mrbester · · Score: 1

      What's weird about Faster Pussycat... ? Thelma and Louise probably wouldn't have happened if not for that flick.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    13. Re:Not just streaming by swb · · Score: 1

      I think it's just frustrating nobody can seem to make decent money *and* provide a comprehensive video library (on disc OR streaming).

      I had high hopes for Netflix's big push into content creation, but so far it's been lower quality than I had hoped. There are a few gems, but there's a lot of minor cable network level stuff, too.

      I just don't understand how or why the collective back catalog of motion pictures is so darn hard to view at any price. I realize there are the usually greed-based licensing issues, but IMHO the catalog owners and potential residual earners are making much LESS off those titles than they would had they come up with a much more generous licensing system.

    14. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Hollywood know about your library?

    15. Re:Not just streaming by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      My library does DVD rentals also. Hollywood can't stop them because once they buy the disc, they are free to do with it as they please. They can rent it out for free to thousands of people without giving Hollywood a single extra cent.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    16. Re:Not just streaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fabulous distribution model, really. I wonder why this isn't more widespread.

    17. Re:Not just streaming by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I have had no problems getting the movies I wanted to watch (Except for Vampire's Kiss, which I have a morbid curiosity of).

      My problem has been with broken discs, and you don't find out about the breakage until half-way through the movie. In fact, the last FOUR discs I have gotten from Netflix have all had playback errors. I tried on multiple devices too, since if a player suddenly can't play back a lot of discs, then the player is often at fault. Nope, it's just Netflix.

  9. Having TV shows is better than movies by qzzpjs · · Score: 1

    This is probably a good move. I'd rather watch older TV shows than movies any day. Usually, I already have the bluray of a movie or I've seen it in a theater long before Netflix gets it on their network. And if I like a movie, I'll spend the $20 to have a permanent copy of it. I would never trust Netflix or any streaming service to keep it around forever.

    Older TV Shows however are almost impossible to find to buy or are horrendously expensive to get all the seasons. Having them on Netflix makes it very easy to find and watch them any time you like instead of relying on your cable networks to decide to play them at bad hours and with tons of commercials.

  10. If you're paying, get the larger selection., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix's DVD / Bluray selection is HUGE. They have almost everything ever released. Old films, weird foreign films, foreign language films, not to mention everything new that's ever been released on physical media.

    The streaming service is shite. Use the physical media service. WAY larger selection.

    Of course, that means you might have to delay your gratification for a few days, which I guess is a lot to ask of people nowadays. Attention spans are goldfish like now.

    1. Re:If you're paying, get the larger selection., by luther349 · · Score: 1

      the issue with that is wile they say they have a such a large selection you will quickly learn even some of those most common films will be on back order forever.

    2. Re:If you're paying, get the larger selection., by luther349 · · Score: 1

      the issue is even there dvd service has taken a hit. wile they say they ave a huge library you quickly learn even the most common films are on backorder until the end of time.

    3. Re:If you're paying, get the larger selection., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh - I guess it must depend on what kind of movies you fancy. I've always received everything I ordered within a few days, max. But then I don't go much in for the latest blockbusters, so maybe those are in higher demand -> longer backorder times.

    4. Re:If you're paying, get the larger selection., by PPH · · Score: 1

      I've had a list of about 20 movies in my 'Saved' list that have unknown availability dates. And I've had that same list (more or less) for a few years. Every once in a while, I just go online and buy my own DVD/BluRay.

      I have run into a few movies that genuinely have never been released to DVD in the USA. Oddly, they were available from European sources. And with a region code hacked player, that's fine with me.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  11. That's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...not a lot. I have almost half that many movies in my personal (legal!) archive. If Netflix keeps removing movies and I keep adding more, then I should have more movies in my collection than Netflix in about 5 years. Mildly interesting.

  12. Poor quality movies by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Most of the movies they have left are pretty poor quality movies that you'd find in the bargain bin at Walmart.

    I think the movie studios may be shooting themselves in the foot on this -- most of the recent movies i've seen on Netflix suck, which makes me less likely to even venture to a theater to see a first-run movie. Since I watch Netflix instead of TV, I don't see ads for new movies, and I don't see them in the theater so I have little idea what new movies are out.

    So I'm kind of living in a Netflix movie wasteland, watching crappy movies and lamenting the quality of movies these days.

    On the other hand eBooks have more than filling in the gap, Smashwords has been a great (and inexpensive) place to find new authors.

    1. Re:Poor quality movies by luther349 · · Score: 1

      they relly are. see netflicks was a commercial hit of course all the content owners saw this so now the greed kicks in and everyone wants to be the next netflicks. why your seeing disany jump in and buying everyone they can so they can put there content on there own paid streaming network. why cbs pay walled star trek in a sad attempt to save there total fail attempt at a paid streaming service. the sad part is you cant have 50 netflicks people just get angry seeing its just a trend to going back to cable tv prices and return to what they did before and just get the movie from free sources.

  13. Trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Disney would have to offer more than Netflix and cheaper for me to consider them. I like Netflix and I am totally against the way the movie cartels are trying to recreate the very thing I hated and the very thing Netflix disrupted - packaged silos of content requiring multiple channels for huge subscription rates. I've got a mortgage, I need a new car and many other things I need to spend my money on before I go into this frivolous bullshit and make multimillionaires, who pander to social causes without helping, richer. The entertainment industry is a fucking parasite of professional liars and perverts. Fuck them.

    1. Re:Trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Disney's problem is that they made a handful of good cartoons 50 years ago, and are still coasting on that reputation.

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

      Disney hasn't made a decent movie since the '70's. Good riddance.

  14. True, but I wish we'd stop letting Disney by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    buy everything. The complete lack of any anti-trust enforcement combined with the out of control levels of wealth at the top means the 1% just keep buying up everything. It's not big loss now, but in 10 years I could see Disney buying out Netflix. Bring enough money to the table and anything's possible. And we seem to be letting them have that money.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:True, but I wish we'd stop letting Disney by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Anti-trust died on the cross of Dixiecrats and the Electoral College.
      As the brits used to say "Lay back and think of England"

  15. Who would have tought by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let me predict the future again. Netflix will raise prices, and offer crappier content. This will happen as long as they win more market share. If they become a dominant player, they will be just as ugly as cable and satellite.

    1. Re:Who would have tought by Calydor · · Score: 2

      And as it gets more and more difficult to obtain a movie through legal means, people will pirate more and more as the pirates ONCE AGAIN deliver a superior product.

      Or, you know. A product.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Who would have tought by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      > Let me predict the future again. Netflix will raise prices, and offer crappier content. This will happen as long as they win more market share. If they become a dominant player, they will be just as ugly as cable and satellite.

      When you have entities that exist purely to make profit, of course that will happen. What a prediction man!

  16. DVD, BluRay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go old school. Lots more choice.

    1. Re:DVD, BluRay by PPH · · Score: 1

      Lots more choice.

      This. Lots more choice at Netflix. Even more at the public library. Netflix's streaming movie catalog sucks.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  17. Building my own Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Problem is finding content for sale I give two shits about. Will gladly pay for DVD or Blu Ray of anything worth watching. I've spent hours ... days of collective time browsing through Netflix/Blu Ray/DVD indexes and the overwhelming majority of it I couldn't give a shit about.

    Paying for new content after it's generated is way cheaper for me than a Netflix subscription and I get to keep it forever without availability/streaming/quality bullshit.

    As it is I'm finding myself applying algorithms to clean up videos and TV series released on DVD and Blu Ray by people who clearly didn't give a shit. Currently I'm working on a single 120 minute Blu-ray feature. It will be another two weeks on a quad i7 to defuck. It's either removing really shitty interlacing that makes it thru to the display, obscene amounts of noise or chroma and ghosting artifacts from tape transfers.

    With DVD/Blu Ray I get to keep my shit forever.
    Access it instantly.
    Never have to deal with Internet streaming bullshit.
    Zero recurring fees, zero worrying about who has what when.
    Better video quality than anything available from any streaming service.

    Bifurcation of content availability makes "streaming" less and less compelling with each passing day.

  18. Re:Yes, the concept is dead. Back to local rentals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Multinational corporations become multinational corporations by serving their market extremely well. Its in your best interest to support whomever is serving your interests the best. There are few cases where that's a local business.

  19. Re: Yes, the concept is dead. Back to local rental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Why go to a video store and pay for a DVD...when you can get the same thing for free at a library.

  20. Fuck the entertainment industry and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither deserve your money. These entities have done nothing other than limited the spread of cultural and artistic works. Copyright was sold to the public as a temporary 7-year suspension of your freedom to promote the arts and sciences for the public benefit.

    The industry has intentionally limited the availability of content and worked against access. Back in the 80s when VHS rental stores started popping up the industry fought it tooth and nail too. A long court battle ultimated resulted in thousands upon thousands of rental shops opening and wider access to the industries content becoming available. Humorously this helped the industry. It's humorous that the entertainment industry has essentially gotten what it wanted with the advent of the internet- more control of the market and it's now bitching that Netflix owns the market and piracy flourishes. WTF did you think was going to happen when when you make it near impossible for there to be lots of competing distribution outlets? Somebody is going to fill the market demand and this is exactly how black markets get created. The industry has made it near impossible for there to be competing distribution channels and I would advocate the abolish on of copy"right". It doesn't do what it was suppose to do and has even gotten to a point where it is beginning to undermine democracy. It won't just be child porn that is censored soon enough. The industry has been lobbying for filters around the world. Both of domains and content. These are the tools that are being utilized in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

  21. Lack of content???? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    Hardly, I find plenty to watch and have a hard time lowering my backlog of things to watch - it tends to keep growing.

    That said, yeah - there's fewer movies, but it's hardly noticeable though.

    As far as TV-series goes, really wish they'd bring all of Star Hunter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starhunter) back.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  22. Netflix Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix used to have an awesome list of foreign movies to stream several years ago. Then they all vanished overnight 4 or 5 years ago.

    They even deleted my movie list so I had no record of what I wanted to watch so I can't even search for those titles elsewhere.

    What a pain.

  23. Plex to the rescue by VMaN · · Score: 1

    But I WANT a one stop shop like itunes or other streaming services.
    If they won't take my money I'll make my own using Plex.

  24. and no sync issues with win10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 10 and sync issues has been common on a lot of recent forced updates.
    Google it.

    Some say its 24bit/96k issues (shit code by 457s)

    Or its the new CPU patches that are fucked up the timing every 2-3 mins. Since its perfect for a while, then
    suddenly BANG, its 100ms out. And thats with 5% bandwidth usage, less than 10% cpu and even on content
    from the SSD. Whether its optical out, or audio by HDMI. 44khz helps a bit.

    Are todays modern coders so shit? 1000 layers of OOP ? No idea what a us time stamp is ?

    Win7 worked flawlessly.

  25. size by ohgary · · Score: 1

    Number of shows is a poor indicator of a services quality or usefulness, must the way cable telling me they have 500 channels, yet you only watch 10 channels. At the onset of online content size did mater, now its quality. I take new netflix orginal content over re-runs of shows from the 70s anyday.

  26. Ya...Kinda is.. by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Did you see their latest "new" movie?

    "Black Panther Guy"

    Not to be confused with the block buster, Black Panther from Marvel....

    So just more of their Grade B knock offs.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Ya...Kinda is.. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Thank you! Something to look forward to after work... Is it still okay to make a black buster pun?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  27. Re:Yes, the concept is dead. Back to local rentals by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

    I find little of what I want to watch on Netflix, but most of the movies (albeit not TV shows), on YouTube, for about what it used to cost to rent.

  28. Stargate SG1, Warehouse 13, Eureka, etc. by Greg+Wright · · Score: 1

    None of these are available any longer. If they do have 3x the number of TV shows that they used to, they don't have the ones I want. :-(

    --
    --greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
  29. Analytics driven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like last year when a similar article came up, Netflix does this because they know what people are watching, and its not movies. People binge watch TV series.

  30. That's only a streaming problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that so many people equate Netflix with streaming? I get the DVDs. I love it and have no interest in streaming. Why? Because I want to see really good movies sometime, not any old thing right now. Last I saw, streaming titles were, indeed, dropping steadily. Here's a report that's 2 years old:

    https://upnext.reelgood.com/ne...

    And here's one from last year stating that, counting the TV shows, Netflix has about 93,000 disks available:

    https://thenextweb.com/insider...

    Streaming will never offer a good selection because it's basically a volume and convenience offer. It's the same reason the all-you-can-eat buffet seems to keep running out of beef but has plenty of macaroni and iceberg lettuce. If you insist on only streaming then you're going back to the pre-VHS days and will have to accept the tradeoff.

  31. English 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't an amount of movies, it is a number of movies. You don't measure movies, you count them. The same goes for TV shows. This public service announcement is courtesy of your local grammar nazi.

  32. I came for the movies... by grahamtriggs · · Score: 1

    ... if Netflix keeps moving in the direction it's going, I won't be staying for the TV.

  33. Buy them... by gosand · · Score: 1

    Seriously. My daughter started watching Men in Black on Netflix.... she went to resume it the next day, and it was gone. Poof. Not on Netflix anymore.

    I looked online and found the trilogy brand new on DVD for $8 shipped. Done deal!
    You can also go to used bookstores/craigslist/garage sales, etc. Lots of people dumping DVDs for cheap. Don't forget your public library!

    I don't subscribe to the whole "bragging rights" of seeing latest and greatest movies. I don't miss anything by being patient.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  34. Analytics by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    It's almost like they know what the overwhelming amount of the audience wants.

    I like to walk around walmart and bitch about how terrible the customer service is too, so I get it.

  35. Not Just streaming by masstamilan · · Score: 1

    Disney's service will successful for kids. But Netflix will win, they show the Human Centipede and Phineas and for kids). And Netfix's offline download is really awesome. masstamilanz

    --
    https://masstamilanz.com/