The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by philistine » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 6:54 PM UTC

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.…

I think Canadians use JustWatch way more than Americans simply because the English Internet only talks about availability of shows in the US.

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

#322

Post by mock-possum » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 7:26 PM UTC

santiagobasulto wrote: post #244

> Soon after he signed the contract, Mr. Rinsch’s behavior grew erratic, according to members of the show’s cast and crew, texts and emails reviewed by The New York Times, and court filings in a divorce case brought by his wife. He claimed to have discovered Covid-19’s secret transmission mechanism and to be able to predict lightning strikes. He gambled a large chunk of the money from Netflix on the stock market and…

Somebody was having a manic episode…

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

#323

Post by TMWNN » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

rightbyte wrote: post #23

livinginfear wrote: post #15

Since we're discussing the economics of film/TV studios, and their weird decisions. I'd like to understand why the studios are still making Star Trek shows. Each one seems to be more poorly received than the last. That's costing studios far more than $55M. Picard alone cost ~$9M per episode according to Wikipedia.

It is strange they can fail so bad, since Star Trek is essentially a setup to make any story at all each episode. I mean, McFarlains comedy-as-an-excuse Not-Star Trek Star Trek is so much more Star Trek than the new series ... at a way lower budget. Imagine if they gave him the job instead.

>It is strange they can fail so bad, since Star Trek is essentially a setup to make any story at all each episode.

The early slash fiction writers (almost all women) in the 1970s more or less viewed the science fiction elements like the Enterpise and the Federation as distractions, and got Kirk/Spock away from them as soon as the could to focus on their relationship. In other words, they were inspired by the close, John Ford-like camaderie between the two characters (or, if you choose to believe so, saw the clear sexual subtext below their heterosexual veneers) and used it as a springboard to tell the stories they really wanted to tell.

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

#324

Post by Ntrails » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 7:36 PM UTC

rvba wrote: post #289

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…

It is very easy to be a monopoly, especially one that was first in a certain market, or which can use various tactics to make you use their service. You dont remember how Apple would upload some album into your device without your consent? I find it fascinating how many people allow monopolies for just laziness: "Steam is so great because I have all games in one place - I dont need 20 shortcuts on my desktop". Then S…

The point is that 20 streaming services with all the shows would be _fine_. They could compete on UI, delivery and price, not on exclusive content.

Steam having every game is great for me. I am happy for loads of other game stores to exist and sell me stuff and store my saves and let me download infinitely etc.

I don't want no competition, I want no exclusive games and high fragmentation

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

#325

Post by rurp » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

gretch wrote: post #63

askonomm wrote: post #59

I wish they'd make another Altered Carbon season. And bring back Joel Kinnaman. The first season was amazing.

I really liked S1 and went into S2 bright-eyed and bushy tailed. Woe, it wasn't the same at all... Hope they bring back Joel and the S1 formula for success

Same, I was pleasantly surprised by the first season and thought it was really good. Season 2 felt like a totally different show and was pretty much a generic bad action show.

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

#326

Post by btown » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 8:13 PM UTC

rootsudo wrote: post #248

santiagobasulto wrote: post #244

> Soon after he signed the contract, Mr. Rinsch’s behavior grew erratic, according to members of the show’s cast and crew, texts and emails reviewed by The New York Times, and court filings in a divorce case brought by his wife. He claimed to have discovered Covid-19’s secret transmission mechanism and to be able to predict lightning strikes. He gambled a large chunk of the money from Netflix on the stock market and…

unrelated but this is why whale hunter companies exist. Why bother with volume when if you position a product to extract the most value from someone that can make one purchase $$$$ vs hundreds/thousands of smaller ones.

Not to mention F2P games, which make a small amount of money on their “monthly pass” IAPs, but make tremendously more on the “whales” who will buy $99 pack after $99 pack to stay competitive/max-out the characters they love.

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

#327

Post by nvm0n2 » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 8:16 PM UTC

augustulus wrote: post #319

nvm0n2 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> if you don’t have to pay for it ... the BBC isn’t funded through taxes, the consumer has choice ... just don’t pay for it. watch something else ... vote with your feet like you can do with any other streaming service

You keep talking as if the license fee is a normal TV subscription. Are you British because there seems to be a really deep misunderstanding here?

The license fee is a tax. You have to pay it if you watch or record any TV broadcast and that includes streaming, any live TV at all in the UK, and that applies even if you never watch the BBC and don't want to. Got a Sky TV or cable subscription? Doesn't matter, you still gotta pay the BBC. There is no just watch something else and don't pay. There is no vote with your feet. That's why it's called a TV license and not a BBC license.

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

#328

Post by rcxdude » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 8:29 PM UTC

rvba wrote: post #289

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…

It is very easy to be a monopoly, especially one that was first in a certain market, or which can use various tactics to make you use their service. You dont remember how Apple would upload some album into your device without your consent? I find it fascinating how many people allow monopolies for just laziness: "Steam is so great because I have all games in one place - I dont need 20 shortcuts on my desktop". Then S…

The point is there isn't actually competition on the streaming services: there's competition between the media companies on the production of content, who then restrict the availability of said content to a subset of services. Instead of the situation with music where it's normal that an album is at the very least available on the big 3, if not many others. And there's generally not a shell game where things start and stop being available as well. An actually competitive market would separate the streaming services from the content production and the incentive would be for the content to be available on as many platforms as possible and the platforms would compete on quality and features instead of how much of a catalog they can license this month.

(similarly with steam: the blowback on epic was due to exclusive games, not the mere existence of it. Steam-exclusive games are also a problem, but generally one which comes naturally from its market position and not artificially through contracts)

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

#329

Post by livinginfear » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #193

livinginfear wrote: post #15

Since we're discussing the economics of film/TV studios, and their weird decisions. I'd like to understand why the studios are still making Star Trek shows. Each one seems to be more poorly received than the last. That's costing studios far more than $55M. Picard alone cost ~$9M per episode according to Wikipedia.

> Each one seems to be more poorly received than the last. Only to a certain subset of "fans" who have made hating Star Trek a part of their identity politics, and a grift on Youtube. They've even started to hate Strange New Worlds, even though it should be everything they wanted. In actual objective reality, each of the new Trek series has been highly successful.

> made hating Star Trek a part of their identity politics...

...The only reason anyone could dislike modern Star Trek: Because they want to . No, I actually want to like the new Star Trek. I just found that to be prohibitively difficult.

> They've even started to hate Strange New Worlds, even though it should be everything they wanted.

Except that it wasn't. It feels like a modern Marvel film masquerading as Star Trek. With sassy Mary Sue characters that just quip back and forth sarcastically. The dialogue is honestly terrible.

> In actual objective reality, each of the new Trek series has been highly successful.

On Rotten Tomatoes Picard has an audience score of 57%. Discovery has 37%. About what I expected. Strange New Worlds is doing well though. I'm not upset that other people like it. I'd consider giving SNW another go, but I won't waste any more time with Picard or Discovery.

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

#330

Post by n3dm » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 10:39 PM UTC

davely wrote: post #285

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…

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…

Funny because I'm using Spotify paid and I'm getting closer and closer to cancelling that with all the bugs and advertising. Using a web player the music just mites itself for 10 seconds at a time, skips tracks on its own. Pauses. The mobile app hits you with full screen ads and big banner ads at the top that you can't disable. It's the most annoying service I use for streaming.