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

531–540 of 548 posts

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

#531

Post by auno »

gozur88 wrote: post #517
caleblloyd wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Or am I out of date?

Then you'd have to get cable first, with whatever that entails. I don't have any kind of TV connection to my apartment at all.

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

#532

Post by Nadya »

Someone wrote: post #527
Nadya wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The culture surrounds the media. Changing the media changes the culture and even within sub-cultures those sub-cultures themselves have niches. Sometimes cultures even rise out of a singular media. You can't just replace "Vocaloid Music" (Miku, Rin, Luka) with "other synthetic vocals". It's "similar" but it is not "the same". The cultures around Gumi and other Megpoids differs from that around Miku and other Vocaloid…

Yes, _we_ can. If some group, by the way they choose to distribute their product, indicates it doesn't want to be part of culture, culture can easily adapt to include other music. When a billionaire buys a Van Gogh or it is sold to some museum far, far away, we look at other van Goghs. If all van Goghs were to get out of reach, some other painter would be brought to the spotlight and become _the_ painter. (And edit o…

>by the way they choose to distribute their product, indicates it doesn't want to be part of culture,

That isn't how that works. Cultures get built around things - those things don't "choose" their culture. Even creators do not get to "choose" the culture their work belongs to. For example, Pepe the frog. Contrast the popular 4chan/pol/ usage of Pepe the frog with the viewpoints of the creator of Pepe the frog. Even the artist recently drawing Pepe taking a piss on Donald Trump won't stop or change the culture that has built up around the meme. Sometimes trying to not be part of a culture backfires. Ben Garrison learned that the hard way. The more he asked 4chan to stop - the harder 4chan pushed. Eventually it seems like he has given up fighting against it.

>When a billionaire buys a Van Gogh or it is sold to some museum far, far away, we look at other van Goghs. If all van Goghs were to get out of reach, some other painter would be brought to the spotlight and become _the_ painter.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Not too big into art culture and don't really care if I have a cheap $30 copy or the $30mm original of the painting. If I wanted a van Gogh I'd get a van Gogh. Even if it weren't an original.

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

#533

Post by wtetzner »

pmoriarty wrote: post #503
wtetzner wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the OP, but I'll give it a shot :) The value Netflix provides is primarily convenience. There are other ways to watch movies and TV shows, the reason to use Netflix is that it's more convenient than the alternatives. Having to deal with physical media (and wait for them to be delivered) is less convenient than other alternatives to Netflix. Therefore, it's a flaw of Netflix.

Streaming is definitely more convenient, but since Netflix's streaming selection is atrocious, it's not worth my time or money. I'd much rather put up with the minimal hassle and a bit of a wait to get a great selection of DVDs. The "hassle" amounts to me opening up an envelope, putting the DVD in to my DVD player, putting it back in to the envelope when I'm done and throwing it in to a mailbox on my way to work. Sur…

> Streaming is definitely more convenient, but since Netflix's streaming selection is atrocious, it's not worth my time or money.

Which was exactly my point. It's a flaw of Netflix that it's streaming collection isn't as good as it's DVD collection.

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

#535

Post by Nadya »

Nadya wrote: post #532
Someone wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, _we_ can. If some group, by the way they choose to distribute their product, indicates it doesn't want to be part of culture, culture can easily adapt to include other music. When a billionaire buys a Van Gogh or it is sold to some museum far, far away, we look at other van Goghs. If all van Goghs were to get out of reach, some other painter would be brought to the spotlight and become _the_ painter. (And edit o…

>by the way they choose to distribute their product, indicates it doesn't want to be part of culture, That isn't how that works. Cultures get built around things - those things don't "choose" their culture. Even creators do not get to "choose" the culture their work belongs to. For example, Pepe the frog. Contrast the popular 4chan/pol/ usage of Pepe the frog with the viewpoints of the creator of Pepe the frog. Even…

I can't edit any longer - but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I do not think you can change the focal point of a culture without changing the culture itself - as the focal point is what defines the culture.

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

#536

Post by JoeAltmaier »

mbesto wrote: post #285
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'book value' of items in the corner market is negligible. The real value is in having that soda available, cold and ready for you. And in marketing that fact. So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

> So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different? But again, stealing a soda voids the ability for someone else to obtain the good. "Stealing" a movie via piracy doesn't neglect someone else from obtain the good. This is the GP's point - stealing implies there is something of loss.

...only if they run out. Read my comment again.

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

#539

Post by bcrescimanno »

IshKebab wrote: post #338
bcrescimanno wrote: post #304

TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that…

People may spend more time binge watching TV than watching films on Netflix. But they should be concentrating on customer satisfaction, not racking up viewers. My girlfriend already jokes that if you search for a film on Netflix they realise and immediately remove it. Then you get the dreaded "Films related to X" search result. It's really really bad if Netflix gets a reputation for having a small catalogue, even if…

> But they should be concentrating on customer satisfaction, not racking up viewers.

I assure you; they are.

Despite the very vocal people around the HN community to talk a lot about hating the selection, the data says that most people are pretty happy with it--and only getting happier.

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

#540

Post by bcrescimanno »

wtetzner wrote: post #499
jackfrodo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the definition of "binge-watching"? For me, that would be three episodes of Bojack Horseman, or about 75 minutes of content. On the other hand, I would happily watch a Tarantino film, say 140 minutes, in one sitting. I guess it doesn't count as a "binge" but it keeps me in front of Netflix longer than a television show.

Isn't it more expensive for Netflix if people are spending more time watching it? Obviously they need to watch it enough to be willing to continue paying the subscription, but it seems like movies might be enough to do that.

Bandwidth costs for Netflix, despite the insanely high usage, are a drop in the bucket compared to the licensing of the content (which is not priced per view or per viewer--so the more people watching more of the content, the less the "cost per stream")
Post reply on HN