Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

streamingobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 548 posts

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#81

Post by jccalhoun »

jhbadger wrote: post #5

While I'm sure it's not entirely Netflix's fault (media companies realizing their back catalog has a value), it seems to be a common evolution for movie services to move to providing their own content. Look at HBO. In the 1980s, it was all about showing movies (the name even meant "Home Box Office"). Now it is all about Game of Thrones and what not. With things like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc., that…

I have noticed a lack of black and white movies on netflix. I know Hulu has the Criterion Collection which has some prestige black and white movies but there are tons of them that seem like they should be cheap for netflix to license.

Has TMC bought them all up and refuse to license them to netflix or does netflix think no one wants to watch black and white movies?

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#82

Post by chiph »

dmalvarado wrote: post #76

My younger colleagues at work simply can't believe that I still have a DVD plan with Netflix. I'm not that old! In response, I can't believe THEY are satisfied with what's available on streaming. Netflix isn't interested in paying royalties for blockbuster films. In house content makes so much more sense.

Netflix is decontenting their DVD catalog too. My "Saved" list is as long as my queue. (I'm another dinosaur that prefers the guaranteed bitrate of a Bluray/DVD)

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#83

Post by caractacus »

draugadrotten wrote: post #72
SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

> Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again. Lawyers are the primary reason why Netflix is becoming less convenient, and by pure coincidence, lawyers will benefit from an increase in piracy. Money talks.

So why doesn't this happen in the music industry? And a few exclusives here and there doesn't count. Spotify / Apple / Amazon / Tidal / Deezer have 99.9% of the same content with a few high profile albums that are only found on one or another service.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#84

Post by snewk »

pmontra wrote: post #78
TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I know people hated it, but there is something to be said about traditional TV and how it's consumed. Having a centralized menu/guide of all the content you can view makes it much easi…

A la carte means that I pay $1 for that episode of that series. If I don't want to see anything else that month I don't pay anything else. What Netflix sells is a subscription. Same as for phones back into the times voice only no data services: pay as you go vs subscription. I want watch as I go.

one bonus with Netflix et. al. is that I don't have to spend 1/3 of my time sitting through mindless commercials for junk I would never buy.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#85

Post by roboguy12 »

SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

Last weekend my wife and I wanted to watch the movie Goat. It was pretty recently in theaters, so we didn't expect it to be on Netflix. We searched HBO Now, Hulu, Starz, and all of the other video streaming services that we have (and pay money for!). We found two options - rent it on Google Play Movies, or rent it through Amazon Prime. Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not allow you to do that, presumably because they want you to buy their Fire TV instead.

So, we spent the $6 to rent the movie on Google Play. About 10 minutes into the movie, the quality plummeted and playback stopped with an error code. We called customer support and they talked us through possible solutions for ~35 minutes before we gave up and asked for a refund. It wasn't a problem with our Wifi, since Netflix/Youtube and other services worked just fine, it was a problem with Google Play streaming to the Chromecast.

After searching and trying for over an hour to watch a movie legally using paid services, we went to putlocker, plugged an hdmi cable into my computer and streamed it just fine. We really, really tried to do it the legal way and pay money for the content we wanted to watch, but it was far too complicated to even find a place to watch it, let alone actually successfully watch it. I was reminded a lot of this comic http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones throughout the whole thing. All of this fragmentation is going to become a huge problem again, when piracy is just so easy and convenient.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#86

Post by teekert »

arbitrage wrote: post #69
TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I know people hated it, but there is something to be said about traditional TV and how it's consumed. Having a centralized menu/guide of all the content you can view makes it much easi…

There's nothing wrong with à la carte offerings. The failure is charging $10/month for every service.

Yeah, perhaps a Blendle model would be better. I recently got Netflix as a present, one show I like is not on there, we generally watch one show at a time, something like 2-3 episodes a week. So now I won't use it for months, apart from the occasional (once every 3 weeks?) movie. I pay (if it wasn't a present) the same as someone who watches 4 hours of Netflix per day.

My son used to watch Thomas the Tank engine occasionally. Guess what recently got removed...

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#87

Post by dorfsmay »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #58
SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I know people hated it, but there is something to be said about traditional TV and how it's consumed. Having a centralized menu/guide of all the content you can view makes it much easi…

Is it à la carte if you have to pay 10$ to five different providers in order to be able to choose what you want to watch?

I'd be happy with a service that charge me 1$ per show but with real choice.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#88

Post by chewyfruitloop »

yaegers wrote: post #64
jug wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, also in Sweden and when I once tricked Netflix into showing the US library I kind of wanted to cry. Now I'm tempted to make a pretty graph of "Movies and TV shows per dollar" for the countries they're established in. Should be pretty interesting. I expect major differences.

Not a "per dollar" graph but still a graph just how big the different catalogs are: http://cordcutting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/netflix-ca...

hummm.... i wonder why jersey and gurnsey have 1 different in their numbers... considering they're both channel islands... thats a fairly odd chart

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#89

Post by 2T1Qka0rEiPr »

As a UK resident, with access to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Sky, I actually applaud Neflix's conscious move away from blockbuster content.

Netflix has created some of my favourite shows in the past few years (e.g. House of Cards and Narcos) and I'd rather have that original content given my access to the other services - Sky is better probably better able (through it's Fox parent company) to deliver the blockbusters should I want to watch them.

The obvious cost is that we have to subscribe to multiple services, and that necessitates cost both in money and in time to find content legally as you have to go through each in turn. If Amazon and Netflix both move further towards unique content then we'll also have reduced competition in the blockbuster space, which might increase prices and encourage a move back to privacy.

(Finally, I have major respect for Netflix as a developer, and so I probably view everything with a certain bias).

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#90

Post by humanrebar »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #74
arbitrage wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with à la carte offerings. The failure is charging $10/month for every service.

So what should HBO, Netflix, FX, ESPN, et al be charging then? Creating content isn't cheap.

No but the supply of content keeps going up and the demand can't keep growing. At some point, the price for a generic hour of entertainment has to drop. The cost of producing content is mostly irrelevant.
Post reply on HN