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

511–520 of 548 posts

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

#511

Post by ethanbond »

bogomipz wrote: post #443
pkulak wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm... there are about 100 services that will rent/sell you a movie online. I use Amazon for all my movie rental needs. Works great.

Could you recommend some that have deep catalog? I find the that iTunes and Amazon don't have anywhere near the deep catalog that I once enjoyed at my local video store. For a real film buff being able to go rent F. W. Murnau's "Noseferatu", Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blowup" or Polanski's "Knife in the Water" was really important to me and something I took for granted. Almost every large city had a least one such fil…

If you don't mind going out, your local public library might be a surprisingly rich resource depending on where you live.

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

#512

Post by Klathmon »

bogomipz wrote: post #476
manachar wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Nosferatu-Silent-Max-Schreck/dp/B001O... https://www.amazon.com/Blowup-Vanessa-Redgrave/dp/B000I157KO https://www.amazon.com/Knife-Water-Leon-Niemczyk/dp/B004D22R... Amazon + Netflix + Blueray player has become my perfect combination. The few titles that I can't get streaming I just buy the discs.

Ha, wow. OK I guess I need to give Amazon another look then. I think I maybe looked for these or similar ~ 1 year ago and went away disappointed. This is great. Thanks.

Just be warned that Amazon actively goes out of their way to block you from streaming movies to devices they don't like. So don't expect to play them on a Chromecast or something.

Make sure you try it first with a free or test movie before buying.

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

#513

Post by rjbwork »

turc1656 wrote: post #493
gregmac wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My willingness to deal with physical media, let alone the postal service (any more then I am forced to, anyway) disappeared a few years ago. How is Netflix able to get rights to send physical media, but not stream? It seems to me that literally the only real difference is physical media means there is a limit on number of concurrent viewers.

I understand the desire for instant gratification, not to mention the desire to be free of the money pit called the USPS. That being said, physical media has far superior audio and video quality. A Bluray disc vs streaming 1080p ( especially a Netflix stream) is a world of difference. Streaming media is usually bit-starved to near death. If you care about quality (and you very well may not), it's the only way to fly.…

By this logic, torrents are then the best of both worlds. :/

An unfortunate situation.

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

#514

Post by novaleaf »

Larrikin wrote: post #472
novaleaf wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote, but... well, honestly this is a bit of a strawman, if you consider that most of the internet using public is able to legally view the content in question. That a small percentage of people can't... OK that's true. but bringing that up as a reason why piracy can be justified doesn't really seem conductive to a cross-discussion.

What is a small percentage to you? Its extremely frustrating that there is basically no way to access large swaths of Japanese media because the companies don't think there is much market outside the country. They even go so far as to block their biggest stars on youtube. I thought it was extremely ironic that AKB's Fortune Cookie video was not watchable in the US on youtube, when the entire premise of the video was…

for what it's worth, i use torrents regularly, I just don't see this reason to be conductive to the argument.

If a title is not available in a region, the copyright holder implicitly doesn't care at all. They care about piracy of their goods in regions where it's legally available for purchase. So sticking to arguments that revolve around that seem to make more sense, otherwise you are "preaching to the choir" as it were.

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

#515

Post by rjbwork »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #380
sp332 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binge-watching is putting on a show and leaving it on for a good chunk of the day. Think watching a whole season of a show over a weekend, so at least 4 hours per day. And you can do this with every original Netflix series from the first day the show is launched - you don't have to wait a week per episode.

I'm really surprised that this model works for them. I simply get bored! I love the Marco Polo series, but I've only once watched more than two episodes back to back. Likewise for Jennifer Jones. Guess I'm just not a binge watcher. OTOH, I have no problem watching a 2:20 long movie or even two of them back to back. Movies simply draw me in more than episodic TV does.

Funny, I'm the exact opposite. I binged on Mr. Robot recently, and did similar for some of the other netflix/prime shows in the past. It's something akin to that Civilization "just-one-more-turn" phenomenon.

But i hardly watch movies at all anymore.

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

#516

Post by prodigal_erik »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #370
bandrami wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really funny thing is that people seem to assume a la carte would be cheaper, but there's no economic reason it should be. I get 200 channels from Xfinity, and I watch about 5 of them. My neighbor also watches 5, though a different 5. That is, I've already proven to Xfinity that I'm willing to pay my monthly cable bill for those 5 channels, so if they offer them a la carte, those 5 will cost about what my monthly…

Cable started as a way of people to not have to fool with an antenna. Then it evolved "cable only" channels. That means that cable operators are sort of duty-bound to offer local stations. I will bet that those local stations are much less likely to be in your list of 5. So what's mainly driving up your cost is local stations charging for carrying them. You'll see the odd game of chicken between local stations and ca…

By federal law, US broadcasters can demand being retransmitted for free, or they can negotiate a price (and black themselves out if the cable operator doesn't agree to pay it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry#United_States

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

#517

Post by gozur88 »

caleblloyd wrote: post #510
oldmanjay wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really a flaw of netflix, is it? If you believe it is, I'd love to understand your reasoning.

I used to love going to blockbuster to rent a flick, because I could do it on a whim (near-instant gratification). Because of streaming services like Netflix, blockbuster went out of business. I don't plan for movie night days in advance. I'm not going to rent that shit in the mail. So after a few years of not touching my DVD player, I threw it out. The content owners are the real ones losing out here. I'd pay $4 to…

Isn't that about what the cable PPV channels charge? Or am I out of date?

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

#518

Post by gozur88 »

seattlefreeze wrote: post #394
paol wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.

The other option is not watching the films -- this would prevent consuming a good without paying for it.

I suspect if the studios had to choose between people not watching a film at all and people using torrents, they'd probably want the torrents, particularly if they could document it for the companies paying for product placement.

Though obviously they'd much rather have you pay for it and watch it.

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

#519

Post by fluidcruft »

pmoriarty wrote: post #501
fluidcruft wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We stopped DVD service because we moved. After the move 4/5 disks came unplayably scratched. And it somehow took two weeks for the next disk to come in the mail. So you can imagine we found we were getting zero value for our subscription fee.

Maybe I've just been lucky, but my Netflix history shows I've watched close to 100 DVDs, and only one of them was unplayable for me. For that one, they shipped me a replacement right away and it worked fine.

Yes. That was our experience before we moved. Customer service kept blowing us off, too. So very likely where we are now is not a priority market or something. Which is sad because serving rural america was supposedly part of the whole long-tail thing.
Post reply on HN