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

271–280 of 366 posts

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

#271

Post by echelon »

selcuka wrote: post #266
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

> 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.

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

Their moat is in the content and licenses they've acquired.

You can't watch Stranger Things anywhere else. They make a lot of original content to widen their moat and keep eyeballs returning to their platform.

Netflix also currently has (I believe) exclusive streaming access to Breaking Bad (though you can "purchase" episodes on other platforms). And they maintain lots of these licenses to bolster their in-house content.

There will be more industry consolidation and eventually the content you want will live under one platform (when not sublicensed).

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

#272

Post by constantly »

crooked-v wrote: post #116
jedberg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, well then why didn't they release the movie? Why did they say it would be more profitable to not release it? You're either smarter than the entirety of Warner Brother's finance department, or wrong.

Possibly because Zaslav, the new boss, hates cartoons (not hyperbole, he's said things to that effect himself) and that colored any judgment on the release of the film.

I hate Hallmark holiday movies (I don’t, but let’s be hypothetical for a second — i.e. not real), but if that were a way to make profits and I was the Hallmark CEO I would be releasing them daily during holiday season. It seems a little silly to think that the boss Zaslav would forego profit because he personally “hates cartoons.”

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

#273

Post by selcuka »

echelon wrote: post #271
selcuka wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Netflix (or any streaming service) users are not captive audience. The network effect for such services is next to nil. Their moat is in the content and licenses they've acquired. You can't watch Stranger Things anywhere else. They make a lot of original content to widen their moat and keep eyeballs returning to their platform. Netflix also currently has (I believe) exclusive streaming access to Breaking Bad (thoug…

That's my point. They have to continuously invest in content to keep you as a subscriber. They can't simply enshittify [1] their service and expect customers to stay, unlike, say, a social media platform.

[1] https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/

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

#274

Post by astura »

Terretta wrote: post #168
fastball wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the money is gone without anything to show for it, after (allegedly) spending lots of it on... not TV show stuff. You don't see a problem with that? Did we read the same article? I don't know about you, but if someone gave me $55m to make a TV show, I'd like to think I wouldn't blow $6m of that betting on the stock market. If even one of these allegations are true (and honestly I don't really see a reason to…

> I don't know about you, but if someone gave me $55m to make a TV show, I'd like to think I wouldn't blow $6m of that betting on the stock market. The article does claim he lost that, but then claims he made more back. It claims Netflix transferred him $11M, he tried played markets and lost then speculated crypto and more than doubled the money, then bought toys, and was still up: Netflix wired Mr. Rinsch’s producti…

Doesn't matter if he's up or down - that wasn't his money to gamble with.

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

#275

Post by ekianjo »

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

> BBC has never really had a sustained drop in content quality,

because it was always at zero?

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

#276

Post by bhpm »

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 just wait until I can buy it on the Apple TV store or I don’t watch it. Torrenting and maintaining the software to play movie files on my TV takes time and it just isn’t a priority for me.

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

#277

Post by augustulus »

robertlagrant wrote: post #269
augustulus wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. An…

writing and acting are basically all that matter. acting is reliant on direction, so the idea that the direction is bad is out. writing is also massively influenced by the broadcaster, special effects are irrelevant if you’re not a child, and what cinematography can you point to in American TV that’s better? maybe you’re confusing films with TV

ITV and Sky manage to find plenty of poor actors, so clearly having good actors is not just some inherent unearned feature of British TV

besides all this, the BBC is much more than just dramas. it has the best documentaries bar none; some of the best and earliest sports coverage; probably the highest quality tv news and interview work; probably the best late night show; BBC radio 4; a hundred great podcasts; they literally invented TV streaming. etc etc etc.

>“create a law that says we must be paid”

this is a misconception. if you don’t want to pay for the BBC, you don’t have to. it’s just a crime to use it without paying. the same as its a crime to use the train without paying. and presumably if you found some way to hack netflix and use that without paying, that would be a crime too

I’d say there’s far less sensitivity around rent-seeking than there ever has been since WW2, as long as it’s for private interest. there’s murdoch sensitivity around setting up new public bodies that benefit society, if that’s what you mean

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

#278

Post by rgblambda »

bhpm wrote: post #276
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 just wait until I can buy it on the Apple TV store or I don’t watch it. Torrenting and maintaining the software to play movie files on my TV takes time and it just isn’t a priority for me.

>Torrenting and maintaining the software to play movie files on my TV takes time

I've never thought either of those things took much time or effort. Though admittedly I've never timed myself doing it.

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

#279

Post by duxup »

neilv wrote: post #121

> Netflix executives grew so concerned with Mr. Rinsch’s behavior that they consulted with the Los Angeles Police Department’s threat management unit, a person with knowledge of the matter said. A Police Department psychologist reviewed Mr. Rinsch’s texts and emails and concluded that he didn’t seem like a threat to himself or others. Were executives concerned about possible risks to people, or were they trying to us…

As I read the article I thought there was reason to be legitimately concerned about him.

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

#280

Post by adamsb6 »

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

Its model is government agents knocking on your door to verify you’re not watching without a license.
Post reply on HN