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

311–320 of 366 posts

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

#311

Post by evulhotdog »

1000100_1000101 wrote: post #300
davely wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where services like Rdio (sigh), Spotify and Apple Music have done really well, in my opinion. If I want to listen to some music, it’s practically guaranteed to be right there in the one music service I’m paying for. If I want to watch a show or movie, there’s now a bunch of cognitive overhead going going on. - Which app is it in? - Do we have that one? - Do we have a subscription? - Wait, how do we navigate…

I like JustWatch. Search for a show, it will show you where it's available for free, where it's available with subscription, and where you can buy it... and not just the major services, but TV channel sites, too. (Note, I'm Canadian, and it's showing Canadian TV, like CTV. No idea if they just happen to be Canadian, or they show what's available elsewhere.) Shows what's trending across services. Also has a "new" tab.…

A google search of a show or movie often provides some results about where you can watch content, although I’m sure it is not as comprehensive.

I think the root of the problem still exists though, that everything is so incredibly fragmented that you’re nickel and dimed to death.

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

#312

Post by augustulus »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #286
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 has never really had a sustained drop in content quality The article is about a Netflix sci-fi show. The BBC just point blank refuses to make those despite the enormous popularity of the genre; the history of BBC sci-fi is so tiny it would fit on a postcard. What little it has made is either meant for kids, or is a comedy, which nicely sums up the Beeboid attitude to the sort of people who like it. You can'…

>quasi-communist

I must have been asleep the day paying for things became communist. the BBC has the same payment model as netflix, except you pay yearly instead of monthly, and it’s done on an honour system instead of at the door. total communism, man

>no sci-fi

Doctor Who? Life on Mars? Red Dwarf? Doctor Who is arguably the biggest or second biggest sci-fi show of all time. it’s certainly the biggest to remain under one name

>the most popular kind of tv show

it may be the most popular in your circle, or your mind, but this is demonstrably, obviously untrue

>ideological reasons

what ideology is against sci-fi? are you trying to claim the BBC are luddites? or that sci-fi is inherently… right-wing? or what?

>bias in news reporting

why not just cut to the chase?what you really mean is “I’m compromised intellectually by my political position”

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

#313

Post by evulhotdog »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #243
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…

Honestly despite paying for netflix, I never stopped using torrents, even for netflix shows. Their UI is terrible and the geographic limitations are annoying, your watch list is unusable and the suggestions keep getting in your way. It's like their are not using their own product, and netflix is the least bad of the streaming services. Much easier to use the stremio app for most things.

Streamio in conjunction with real debrid and there’s little risk, with the library of the world at your fingertips.

It’s the one stop shop that you would hope that all the streaming services could be, if they teamed up and split profits based upon views.

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

#314

Post by evulhotdog »

beAbU wrote: post #254
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly despite paying for netflix, I never stopped using torrents, even for netflix shows. Their UI is terrible and the geographic limitations are annoying, your watch list is unusable and the suggestions keep getting in your way. It's like their are not using their own product, and netflix is the least bad of the streaming services. Much easier to use the stremio app for most things.

I use Netflix to discover things I might be interested in, and if I want to keep watching I go to the high seas. I have all the other mainline streaming apps installed, sans a login. I use it purely for discovery. I have to say that the frequency of finding something worthwhile on netflix is decreasing...

I personally use Trakt.tv to see popular and trending content. Then you don’t have to pilfer through each individual app or service.

The other plus side is that this is content that people are actually watching (via marking as watched for tracking or scrobbling) so you also get the positive benefit of seeing what people are watching, not just things that Netflix or other providers want you to watch or who has paid the top dollar for your eyeballs.

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

#315

Post by nvm0n2 »

augustulus wrote: post #312
nvm0n2 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the BBC has never really had a sustained drop in content quality The article is about a Netflix sci-fi show. The BBC just point blank refuses to make those despite the enormous popularity of the genre; the history of BBC sci-fi is so tiny it would fit on a postcard. What little it has made is either meant for kids, or is a comedy, which nicely sums up the Beeboid attitude to the sort of people who like it. You can'…

>quasi-communist I must have been asleep the day paying for things became communist. the BBC has the same payment model as netflix, except you pay yearly instead of monthly, and it’s done on an honour system instead of at the door. total communism, man >no sci-fi Doctor Who? Life on Mars? Red Dwarf? Doctor Who is arguably the biggest or second biggest sci-fi show of all time. it’s certainly the biggest to remain unde…

License fee evasion is one of the top traffic sources in the British court system, the idea that it's done "on the honour system" is mendacious. There are people in prison right now for not paying it. The BBC is at its most foundational level a state-backed company built on state power.

Doctor Who is a children's show and dates from the 50s. There have been reports for years that BBC executives hate it and would love to kill it, prevented only by its popularity [2]. Red Dwarf is a comedy and hasn't been made for decades. It was greenlit only because the BBC had spare budget left over from some other show, not because they actually wanted to do it. As I said: the BBC thinks sci-fi is for children or to laugh at, and barely even that.

> it may be the most popular in your circle, or your mind, but this is demonstrably, obviously untrue

It's a few years ago now but e.g.

https://tbivision.com/2018/04/25/netflix-ordered-more-sci-fi...

"following the success of flagship series like Stranger Things, sci-fi and fantasy was the most popular genre on Netflix"

If you look at the list of the top shows on Netflix then sci-fi, fantasy and horror are consistently amongst the most popular shows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-watched_Netflix_o...

The BBC just doesn't do these, at all.

> what ideology is against sci-fi?

The BBC was fundamentally founded on a deeply classist Reithian ideology and it has never fully discarded this culture. It thinks its primary role is to improve the public and TV/radio production is just a means to that end. Given a choice of making an expensive period drama (what it calls "culture"), an expensive lecture on climate change or an expensive sci-fi/fantasy show they will never pick the latter, it just culturally displeases their executives at a very fundamental level to do so. Netflix also has problems with ideology [1] but it doesn't hold them back to the extent of neglecting whole genres of TV/movie output (with the possible exception of news, but you could argue that combining entertainment and news isn't natural and only an artifact of bandwidth constraints in earlier eras). Netflix's primary mission is just to give people what they want to watch.

[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/netflix-blackwashing-parodies

[2] https://www.sfcrowsnest.info/bbc-hates-sci-fi-a-little-less-...

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

#316

Post by Terretta »

chris_wot wrote: post #172
Terretta wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And? That’s not why Netflix gave him the money. They could have done that themselves.

And, he didn't "blow" it. He speculated, and came out ahead overall.

Not saying that was a good idea or appropriate, but from the bank account point of view, the production balance ended up ahead.

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

#317

Post by Terretta »

fastball wrote: post #178
Terretta wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Making more back doesn't really change the misappropriation. Martin Shkreli went to prison for doing effectively the same exact thing.

Completely agree doesn't change misappropriation.

But his misappropriation came out ahead, instead of "blowing it".

So in the end, probably no lesson was learned.

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

#318

Post by renewiltord »

jedberg wrote: post #83
nradov wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. You can't write off "lost profits". The US corporate income tax code contains no such provision. Don't believe anything you read in the entertainment press, it's mostly fake news or at least not fact checked. Go ask your own income tax accountant if you don't believe me.

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.

Usually cash flow is the benefit, and perhaps a tax-year thing. Better to realize your losses next to your gains. Because if you can realize losses on profits you can estimate, you should start a startup that does this for LLCs.

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

#319

Post by augustulus »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #315
augustulus wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>quasi-communist I must have been asleep the day paying for things became communist. the BBC has the same payment model as netflix, except you pay yearly instead of monthly, and it’s done on an honour system instead of at the door. total communism, man >no sci-fi Doctor Who? Life on Mars? Red Dwarf? Doctor Who is arguably the biggest or second biggest sci-fi show of all time. it’s certainly the biggest to remain unde…

License fee evasion is one of the top traffic sources in the British court system, the idea that it's done "on the honour system" is mendacious. There are people in prison right now for not paying it. The BBC is at its most foundational level a state-backed company built on state power. Doctor Who is a children's show and dates from the 50s. There have been reports for years that BBC executives hate it and would love…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/drama/scifiandfantas...

it’s not communism if you don’t have to pay for it. it makes me so angry that politically compromised right-wingers choose to misunderstand this. if I go to the supermarket and just walk out with my shopping, that’s a crime in the same way that it’s a crime if I get on the train without paying or turn on the BBC and watch without paying, this isn’t some authoritarian communistic impingement upon your rights, it’s just goods and services. and before you repeat that “state-owned, state-backed” nonsense, publically-owned bodies are not communism. the military is not communism. the NHS is not communism. the BBC is so far from communism it’s a joke.

you would think that right-wing people would love the BBC’s model. the BBC isn’t funded through taxes, the consumer has choice, it’s constantly being restricted in order to maintain private competition, but no. why no? because “BBC bad” is constantly pushed through the right-wing media because they have a literal direct profit motive for you to see it as bad.

if the BBC doesn’t fit your incredibly specific ideas for what content it should pursue, how about this? just don’t pay for it. watch something else. vote with your feet like you can do with any other streaming service. send them a letter telling them why. you can be damn sure they’ll pay more attention to it than Netflix would.

finally, “mendacious” means lying, I’d make sure to understand my words before I use them, if I were you

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

#320

Post by eslaught »

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 early, cheap phase of streaming was funded on the back of overpriced, bundle cable subscriptions. I think it's underappreciated how much streaming gutted this business model. Not that it was justified per se, but streaming went from a nice bonus on top to an "oh shit, we killed the golden goose" for the content industry.

Therefore, I think what we're seeing is inevitable. Higher prices, more silos, and a possible return to bundling or similar. And probably with less content to go around. That will push some into piracy, but we all know that never made up a substantial fraction of users in the first place.

Post reply on HN