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

The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

theatlanticwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#21

Post by hnriot »

geuis wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of political shows. That said, I decided to watch House of Cards last night. It's not bad. Having Kevin Spacey as the lead is good. There's a good cast of supporting actors too. The writing is a bit mundane, but not terrible. I know the show is somewhat of a remake of a BBC show from a while back, but I never watched it so my take is purely on this experience. I plan on watching the rest of it. It was i…

I agree that house of cards is a great show and casting Spacey was an excellent choice. The American Beauty Kate Mana really works well too. If you're thinking of the bbc's Yes Minister, then this is nothing like that show. Maybe you had something else in mind.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#22

Post by bobjane »

metalsahu wrote: post #6

I don't think its just a matter of economics, Netflix doesn't have a choice if they have to survive long-term. Thanks to the internet, the power is shifting from content providers to content creators and they risk turning into a dumb pipe at the mercy of whimsical broadcasters who can choose to stream their show directly to their viewers. Reed Hastings has said that it is a race for how fast Netflix can become HBO be…

"...they risk turning into a dumb pipe".

That's their problem, they don't own the pipes either. They don't own the pipes and they don't own the content (before House of Cards). Up to now they provided...well...a useful cute little UI, but it's hard to make a lot of profit for a prolonged period of time on that. So they either go into pipe building or content building. Content building has the better leverage to the large customer base they've got, and in that context producing House of Cards makes perfect sense. I hopes it works out for them.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#24

Post by alaskamiller »

Netflix accomplished two things:

1. They muscled into the "prestige television" club for $100MM. It may be overpriced, or it may be underpriced, either way it's very good for consumers.

2. They validated television is the new book. You gorge on 13 hours of good television the same way you gorge on 13 chapters of a good book. This is very good for show creators.

A triple win aligning interests while getting to say f-you to existing preconceptions. This is what "disruption" looks like. Now I'm just sad I didn't buy NFLX after people freaked out over Qwikster.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#25

Post by gyardley »

hnriot wrote: post #21
geuis wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of political shows. That said, I decided to watch House of Cards last night. It's not bad. Having Kevin Spacey as the lead is good. There's a good cast of supporting actors too. The writing is a bit mundane, but not terrible. I know the show is somewhat of a remake of a BBC show from a while back, but I never watched it so my take is purely on this experience. I plan on watching the rest of it. It was i…

I agree that house of cards is a great show and casting Spacey was an excellent choice. The American Beauty Kate Mana really works well too. If you're thinking of the bbc's Yes Minister, then this is nothing like that show. Maybe you had something else in mind.

He had in mind the BBC's House of Cards.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#26

Post by joubert »

geuis wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of political shows. That said, I decided to watch House of Cards last night. It's not bad. Having Kevin Spacey as the lead is good. There's a good cast of supporting actors too. The writing is a bit mundane, but not terrible. I know the show is somewhat of a remake of a BBC show from a while back, but I never watched it so my take is purely on this experience. I plan on watching the rest of it. It was i…

Anyway, check out HoC if you have Netflix. Hopefully we'll see more shows from them.

If you don't have Netflix, you can watch the Premiere without signing up for the usual first free month.

And the other originals launching this year (in addition to the new Arrested Development season) are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distr...

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#27

Post by geuis »

alaskamiller wrote: post #24

Netflix accomplished two things: 1. They muscled into the "prestige television" club for $100MM. It may be overpriced, or it may be underpriced, either way it's very good for consumers. 2. They validated television is the new book. You gorge on 13 hours of good television the same way you gorge on 13 chapters of a good book. This is very good for show creators. A triple win aligning interests while getting to say f-y…

Hmm, television as a book. I get the analogy. It's kind of like applying book serialization to video. You quickly read a book and as many sequels exist when you first pick it up. Then you have to wait for the next season, i.e. book, to come out.

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#28

Post by azernik »

hnriot wrote: post #21
geuis wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of political shows. That said, I decided to watch House of Cards last night. It's not bad. Having Kevin Spacey as the lead is good. There's a good cast of supporting actors too. The writing is a bit mundane, but not terrible. I know the show is somewhat of a remake of a BBC show from a while back, but I never watched it so my take is purely on this experience. I plan on watching the rest of it. It was i…

I agree that house of cards is a great show and casting Spacey was an excellent choice. The American Beauty Kate Mana really works well too. If you're thinking of the bbc's Yes Minister, then this is nothing like that show. Maybe you had something else in mind.

He's talking about the BBC's 1990 House of Cards (http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0098825/), starring Ian Richardson as Francis Urquhart, the Conservative Party whip in the House of Commons.

You should check it out - it's available on Netflix :-P

Re: The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

#29

Post by alaskamiller »

geuis wrote: post #27
alaskamiller wrote: post #24

Netflix accomplished two things: 1. They muscled into the "prestige television" club for $100MM. It may be overpriced, or it may be underpriced, either way it's very good for consumers. 2. They validated television is the new book. You gorge on 13 hours of good television the same way you gorge on 13 chapters of a good book. This is very good for show creators. A triple win aligning interests while getting to say f-y…

Hmm, television as a book. I get the analogy. It's kind of like applying book serialization to video. You quickly read a book and as many sequels exist when you first pick it up. Then you have to wait for the next season, i.e. book, to come out.

New normal are streams of everything.
Post reply on HN