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

The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 366 posts

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#261

Post by omnimus »

gopher_space wrote: post #226
kadoban wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand all the love for Dune. I read it, it was ok, and that was it. 3 underwhelming film adaptations is more than enough. It's the Count of Monte Cristo meets Star Wars, with great world building, pretty good plot and characters and a lot of interesting philosophy, sociology, strategy and tactics. What's not to love? The scifi miniseries was decent. The 1984 one was...barely Dune, though I enjoyed it.…

1984 Dune captured the strangeness of that universe in a way the modern version does not.

I agree so much. The new dune is expertly made but it washed of so much of the trippy stuff from books. Even the aesthetics are playing it on the very safe side.

Then again this is the directors style. It would be probably end up worse if they would bend too much out of their comfort zone.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#262

Post by omnimus »

c0pium wrote: post #232
safety1st wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Dune can certainly stand on its own as a great work, it's best appreciated as a critical response to the utopic techno-determinism of Asimov's Foundation series. The discourse between these two series contains some of the most interesting ideas ever penned in science fiction. I think you'd need to read at least the first three Foundation books and the first four Dune books to get a handle on it, but this is a g…

The main difference is that Foundation is great and Dune is mediocre.

The great thing is that many people think exactly the opposite.

Dune is in many ways antithesis of Foundation. And in makes sense being written after it.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#263

Post by dsr_ »

Zircom wrote: post #240
bmelton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that nobody wants to acquire Dune to be a critical success. It needs to be a commercial success. This of course implies the addition of much lazier exposition than The Wire, which IIRC never had more than about 4 million viewers. I'm sure it's different in the streaming era, but more and more, audiences are making it clear that they are definitely not tuning in to shows that require thought.

If anything streaming makes shows like The Wire more accessible and viable as commercial successes. It's hard to keep details in your head when the show airs an episode once a week, and if you're tuning in for the first time you've got no idea what's going on and find something else to watch. Neither of those issues he to exists with streaming, although more and more they're switching back to an episode a week model,…

We are still in the early days of figuring out what works.

One issue: media execs don't know anything except "that was profitable, so let's do it again". Have you noticed that Netflix now has fifty cooking shows, split between one-shot game shows and tournaments/"reality" dramas? "Iron Chef" worked and "Top Chef" worked, so they get cloned and slightly modified. All of these sink.

For a long-form SF/F show, what hasn't been done?

- two 1 hour chapters weekly

- dropping 2-4 1 hour chapters at a time, rather than either single episodes or the whole season

- irregularly sized episodes matching the plot

- six episodes of rising tension, a flashback episode to explain backstory, and then a finale that begs for a second season (just kidding, Netflix seems to think that's optimal already)

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#264

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

supermatt wrote: post #222

They (all major streaming services) throw away millions on series they never release, they reduce spending on new series, and yet they still manage to increase the cost of the service - and some are even adding pre-roll advertising? I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, but with the unjustified pricing hikes, ongoing georestriction of content, and the addition of advertising into a paid service, it has…

I agree with the sentiment, but the entertainment industry is largely built on a spread of various more or less risky bets. Usually from a single giant budget of a studio, and focused on ensuring a constant release timeline.

And this isn’t a Netflix or streaming thing - the big 5 studios and tv industry have always had cases just like this one. We would have to take a look at the rest of that spread to figure out whether this is more or less business as usual.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#265

Post by augustulus »

ekianjo wrote: post #253
supermatt wrote: post #222

They (all major streaming services) throw away millions on series they never release, they reduce spending on new series, and yet they still manage to increase the cost of the service - and some are even adding pre-roll advertising? I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, but with the unjustified pricing hikes, ongoing georestriction of content, and the addition of advertising into a paid service, it has…

> I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, It was always going to go this way. Once you have a captive audience the next strategy is to milk it to death

as usual the stock market is to blame. in the 100 years or so it’s existed, the BBC has never really had a sustained drop in content quality, and yet its model is somehow taboo

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#266

Post by selcuka »

ekianjo wrote: post #253
supermatt wrote: post #222

They (all major streaming services) throw away millions on series they never release, they reduce spending on new series, and yet they still manage to increase the cost of the service - and some are even adding pre-roll advertising? I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, but with the unjustified pricing hikes, ongoing georestriction of content, and the addition of advertising into a paid service, it has…

> I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, It was always going to go this way. Once you have a captive audience the next strategy is to milk it to death

> Once you have a captive audience the next strategy is to milk it to death

Netflix (or any streaming service) users are not captive audience. The network effect for such services is next to nil.

If I don't like what Netflix offers, I will simply cancel my subscription. There is nothing that would keep me paying other than quality content.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#267

Post by matheusmoreira »

supermatt wrote: post #222

They (all major streaming services) throw away millions on series they never release, they reduce spending on new series, and yet they still manage to increase the cost of the service - and some are even adding pre-roll advertising? I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, but with the unjustified pricing hikes, ongoing georestriction of content, and the addition of advertising into a paid service, it has…

> some are even adding pre-roll advertising

Never fails.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#268

Post by mike_hock »

santiagobasulto wrote: post #244

> Soon after he signed the contract, Mr. Rinsch’s behavior grew erratic, according to members of the show’s cast and crew, texts and emails reviewed by The New York Times, and court filings in a divorce case brought by his wife. He claimed to have discovered Covid-19’s secret transmission mechanism and to be able to predict lightning strikes. He gambled a large chunk of the money from Netflix on the stock market and…

> He predicted that [the article] would “discuss the fact that I somehow lost my mind … [...]"

Well, he was right about that.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#269

Post by robertlagrant »

augustulus wrote: post #265
ekianjo wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, It was always going to go this way. Once you have a captive audience the next strategy is to milk it to death

as usual the stock market is to blame. in the 100 years or so it’s existed, the BBC has never really had a sustained drop in content quality, and yet its model is somehow taboo

The BBC's content quality varies a bit, and generally production values are worse.

The acting is better than most US shows IMO, but that's not the BBC. The directing, cinematography aren't nearly as good; often very formulaic (e.g. Sherlock), and special effects are 30 years behind many US equivalents.

In other words, the bit that the BBC don't control the creation of, the raw acting talent, is often the best bit. And writing, which they do control some of, is also generally of a reasonable to extremely good standard.

Having said all that, the BBC's model is "create a law that says we must be paid". I don't think that's taboo in any shape or form, but it is quite a tricky thing to pull off in 2023 with the sensitivity around rent seeking.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#270

Post by anfogoat »

supermatt wrote: post #222

They (all major streaming services) throw away millions on series they never release, they reduce spending on new series, and yet they still manage to increase the cost of the service - and some are even adding pre-roll advertising? I was a huge advocate for these streaming services, but with the unjustified pricing hikes, ongoing georestriction of content, and the addition of advertising into a paid service, it has…

> ... the return to torrents is inevitable.

The only reason I ever paid for Netflix, HBO and Prime was because I felt less bad about never leaving in the first place.

The UIs are atrocious, yes, but the absolute worst part of them all is that you have zero control. Content is there one day, gone the next.

Post reply on HN