Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of Netflix's $100 Million Show

theatlanticwire.com

31–40 of 114 posts

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

#31
post #27

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.

I get the analogy and see the value in it, but I'll point out where the TV isn't like a book:

1. Books are obviously composed of text, and, when you read, you're also imbibing the rhythms of the language you're reading (see http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071... for more on this).

2. Related to number one, many more of us need to write than need to shoot and edit videos. Reading skill is related to writing skill.

3. You'll read far more words in a given block of time than you'll hear in video. Reading is much more information dense in this sense (whether a minute of video is worth a thousand words can be debated elsewhere).

4. It's easier to quote and store text than it is video. Notice the word "easier:" I'm aware that it's possible to quote and store video. Related to this, I use the scheme Steven Berlin Johnson describes here: http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/movabletype/archives/0002... .

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

#32
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bring back firefly!

Its been ten years. Let it go. Seriously.

Summer's still got it. You could pick up the universe 10 years later, and nerd-dom would flock to it. Joss Whedon could make it work, if he wanted. Doesn't though. It would be a different show, with maybe a few actors from the old one, but it would still have the benefit of the franchise.

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

#33
As an Australian who can't get Netflix without breaking the Netflix Terms of Service I suspect there's going to be an awful lot of downloading going on here, even moreso than the game of thrones situation we had where we were only just behind.

Now it's just 'off limits' entirely.

legally, anyway.

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

#35
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…

>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.

This is a tangent, but HBO and Showtime appear to have noticed that there's a deep pool of talent actors with skills equal to famous, expensive actors. The cable networks realized that these lesser-known but very good actors can be hired to create very compelling shows that spend less on actors and more on the surrounding stuff that makes actors more effective.

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

#38
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get the analogy and see the value in it, but I'll point out where the TV isn't like a book: 1. Books are obviously composed of text, and, when you read, you're also imbibing the rhythms of the language you're reading (see http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071... for more on this). 2. Related to number one, many more of us need to write than need to shoot and edit videos. Reading skill is rela…

I'll defend.

1. House of Cards was 13 "chapters" that have definite rhythm and flow. Every hour was a mini three act play and it would make sense considering at the end of the day, video is just scripts brought to life by an accomplished playwright, accomplished director, accomplished talent, and accomplished cast.

2. We don't live in that world anymore. We're a civilization on an escalating need for input stimulation. It's an addiction, you're either the pusher or you're user. We've transitioned on the web from merely just hypertext to multimedia and real time, like how we've transitioned from typing in boring text updates to photo updates, and how we've moved from just merely chatting to video chatting.

3. But you experience much more in a given block of time than just pages on a book. And look at the movie industry versus the print industry. And the impact of a well crafted moment in a show, I posit, is much more powerful sometimes than a page can deliver.

4. Surf Tumblr for a few hours and you'll understand how things are done these days. Kids don't just share quotes anymore, kids share GIF screen caps of their favorite moments in the movie or show they like. And there are better and better tools each season to make screencapping creation/sharing easier by the day. Look up what IntoNow is doing with their community and how they're getting people to interact in real time to individual shows.

Writing's on the wall: People don't read anymore, quoth Steve Jobs.

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

#40
post #33

As an Australian who can't get Netflix without breaking the Netflix Terms of Service I suspect there's going to be an awful lot of downloading going on here, even moreso than the game of thrones situation we had where we were only just behind. Now it's just 'off limits' entirely. legally, anyway.

According a "friend";

Game of thrones gets downloaded by many tens of thousands in the first 24 hours. Episodes appear about 15 minutes after screening.

House of cards didn't make it to the torrents until 2 days after release and the numbers are nothing like game of thrones. Only half the episodes are available at this time.

As an Australian you could wait for it to be on TV, then it might be shown out of order, at all different (non-scheduled)times and episodes missed and cut.

Post reply on HN