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

Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

streamingobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 548 posts

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#261

Post by Diederich »

dilap wrote: post #182
Diederich wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Being the 'chaotic good' person that I am, my family stopped trying to view entertainment content the normal legal way many years ago. I've been using a torrent friendly VPS in eastern Europe for quite a few years now to avoid any complications. That, plus a little web service that presents youtube videos without commercials, gives us pretty reliable access to most anything we ever want to watch. The downside…

Lately youtube has been hitting me with multiple-minute-long prerolls to watch 30 second clips. What's the webservice? (Or is it a homegrown thing?)

Homegrown.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#262

Post by pbhjpbhj »

muninn_ wrote: post #31
Y-bar wrote: post #15

And of these 31 remaining almost half are missing in the Swedish Netflix: 5. Back to the Future 6. Gladiator 7. Sunset Boulevard 8. Cinema Paradiso 9. Django Unchained 12. Reservoir Dogs 13. Braveheart 17. Amadeus 21. Trainspotting 24. There Will Be Blood 25. Spotlight 26. The Princess Bride 27. Zootopia 29. Jaws 31. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl And yet Netflix want the same monthly cost for…

Well, it's most likely some sort of licensing issue. If Netflix could show you all the same content that it does in the U.S. for the same price they absolutely would.

I doubt it, they'd sell it at higher cost because in other countries there are often few alternatives.

Shows established in the USA become part of the global culture, USA is very good at exporting its culture. Once established, in order for people in other countries to buy in to that culture then exported media can be sold at higher value.

This is one of the reasons for regional encoding. You don't want to let outsiders buy in to something that's established as cool

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#263

Post by Diederich »

executesorder66 wrote: post #206
Diederich wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Being the 'chaotic good' person that I am, my family stopped trying to view entertainment content the normal legal way many years ago. I've been using a torrent friendly VPS in eastern Europe for quite a few years now to avoid any complications. That, plus a little web service that presents youtube videos without commercials, gives us pretty reliable access to most anything we ever want to watch. The downside…

> plus a little web service that presents youtube videos without commercials Why not just use an adblocker like uBlock Origin? If you don't want to see ads, I assume you use an adblocker anyway, so you might as well use one that doesn't suck.

I actually am not aware of uBlock Origin. I'll take a look at it, thanks!

Believe it or not, I don't use an ad. blocker, I never have.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#264

Post by bisRepetita »

Because of that, I feel that the value proposition of a video rental store next block is becoming quite good again. Cheaper than renting/buying from Prime or Play.

Too bad they're all dead now.

I am not sure the new video movie world is better now than it was 10 years ago for consumers.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#265

Post by brassic »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #202
sgeisenh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy and larceny are entirely different crimes. Nobody "stole" anything, in this particular situation. In order for something to be "stolen", the victim must lose something that they already had. You might try to argue that streaming services lost a sale, but they never had the sale and they make the process so arduous that they would never get the sale. To be clear, I am not promoting piracy, it does pose ethical…

The 'book value' of items in the corner market is negligible. The real value is in having that soda available, cold and ready for you. And in marketing that fact. So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

The problem faced by the original poster is that the corner store didn't have the soda available, cold and ready, but the spiv outside did.

The corner store lost nothing.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#266

Post by mattferderer »

gdulli wrote: post #104
SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

I like the idea of having one bill for 200+ channels, a single remote/device, no need to change (ugh) apps or inputs on the TV when I go from one service to another. It seems like consolidation was a lesson we learned a few decades ago and are in danger of forgetting. I may only watch 10 channels out of 200+ but from month to month it's not always the same 10. A service like Netflix that would augment real, current T…

Many people prefer the opposite though. There have been people requesting a la carte cable options for years.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#267

Post by Fogest »

roboguy12 wrote: post #85
SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

Last weekend my wife and I wanted to watch the movie Goat. It was pretty recently in theaters, so we didn't expect it to be on Netflix. We searched HBO Now, Hulu, Starz, and all of the other video streaming services that we have (and pay money for!). We found two options - rent it on Google Play Movies, or rent it through Amazon Prime. Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not…

The only service I pay for is a VPN. It allows me to access any tv show or movie I could dream of without any problems ;).

No but seriously, it is sad that with my setup I can search something and stream it instantly, or have it download and automatically be renamed and organized ready to watch on Plex. TV shows can be grabbed automatically and alert me when they are ready. I can use Plex and stream them anywhere in the world right from my own server, and now they even have beta for streaming from amazon cloud so you don't even need your own server.

I hate that my most convenient option is the illegal one. I'd gladly pay. I have no problem paying the $10 a month for Spotify. I never illegally download music anymore because of it. I used to do so before, but now it is so easy and accessible with Spotify that I see no need to.

The Canadian version of a service like Netflix has even less content than the American versions. We barely would find anything we wanted on it, and ultimately got rid of it pretty fast. Just wasn't worth the cost. We had to resort to no longer searching for things we wanted as they rarely had them, and instead just viewing what they DID have.

Edit: I should also add that I am a student on a fairly tight budget, and despite this I am willing to pay for a service monthly to get access to these things. That is why I pay for Spotify. However, I am definitely not going to spend money at multiple video streaming services, and then have to go on some wild hunt to find the content I'm interested in.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#268

Post by z0r »

roboguy12 wrote: post #85
SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

Last weekend my wife and I wanted to watch the movie Goat. It was pretty recently in theaters, so we didn't expect it to be on Netflix. We searched HBO Now, Hulu, Starz, and all of the other video streaming services that we have (and pay money for!). We found two options - rent it on Google Play Movies, or rent it through Amazon Prime. Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not…

I agree with your post. Had a bad experience with the chromecast recently, but I managed to figure out that it required an update (through the android cast app) even though it did not indicate it anywhere else. I guess they assumed that it would automatically update frequently enough that my problem would be a rare edge case, but I'd had it unplugged for about a year and wanted to use it for a new TV. Haven't had a TV for ages, I learned a few days later it had the cast protocol built into it out of the box...

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#269

Post by jmilloy »

sgeisenh wrote: post #148
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm not sympathetic. The alternative to finding (and failing to find) a service to watch the show could possibly be - not watching it? The conclusion 'naturally we then had to steal it' isn't entirely justified. Shoplifting is easy and convenient too. Next time you forget your wallet at the corner store. Just sayin.

Piracy and larceny are entirely different crimes. Nobody "stole" anything, in this particular situation. In order for something to be "stolen", the victim must lose something that they already had. You might try to argue that streaming services lost a sale, but they never had the sale and they make the process so arduous that they would never get the sale. To be clear, I am not promoting piracy, it does pose ethical…

> The metaphor to stealing simply fails to illuminate any of them.

I think it illuminates that you got to have/experience something without paying for it, despite the fact that the distributor wanted you to.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#270

Post by TarpitCarnivore »

Retric wrote: post #176
bandrami wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really funny thing is that people seem to assume a la carte would be cheaper, but there's no economic reason it should be. I get 200 channels from Xfinity, and I watch about 5 of them. My neighbor also watches 5, though a different 5. That is, I've already proven to Xfinity that I'm willing to pay my monthly cable bill for those 5 channels, so if they offer them a la carte, those 5 will cost about what my monthly…

Honestly, it's a classic capitalism vs. communism argument. Economically: Many channels will die, which would lower production costs, which in a competitive market lowers consumer costs. More importantly, channels will actually need to fight for consumers. Which means they are not going to soft ball ultra cheap reality TV that most of their core demographic hate. cough syfy

I can't tell if you're arguing for or against bundling, but bundling is what can allow some channels to be given a chance. If I remember correctly Disney/ABC, Viacom, Time Warner, etc use bundles as a way to introduce new channels. They negotiate a price down on a popular channel, say ESPN, provided the service carries a newer station like Comedy Central or Viceland.
Post reply on HN