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

481–490 of 548 posts

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

#481

Post by veridies »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #332
wyldfire wrote: post #4

Netflix is clearly making heavy investments in what we've tended to call "Television" programming. It's often deep dramas that are very engrossing, much more so than TV offered a decade or two ago. Netflix likely sees higher returns here. Movies are quickly becoming the "short story" of the cinematic world, IMO (though those countless sequels and prequels are an exception). When done well they have a strict beginning…

I couldn't agree more. I think about "Daredevil" season one: 13 episodes, each almost an hour long. We saw more character development in a single season (of both the titular character and Vincent D'Onofrio's excellent Kingpin) than in years of Marvel movies. If an episode's story needs to run a bit longer, it runs longer. Commercial breaks don't affect pacing. Nobody has to worry about sponsors being upset about cont…

This is off topic, but I recently watched Hornblower, a late 90s British series based on Forester's novels. It was surprisingly good, and it has basically the exact same setting as the Aubrey/Maturin novels. I'd definitely recommend it if you're in the mood for that kind of thing.

(And, relatedly, it's not available for streaming anywhere that I can see. I had to buy the DVDs.)

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

#482

Post by blakeyrat »

ftrflyr wrote: post #105
roboguy12 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We really, really tried to do it the legal way and pay money for the content we wanted to watch, but it was far too complicated to even find a place to watch it, let alone actually successfully watch it. Hey @Google, @Amazon, @etc., you have UX designers (tons of them). If this problem isn't fixed soon, more will do the same.

There is no way Google has UX designers. I simply do not believe it.

(Probably not Amazon, either.)

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

#483

Post by oldmanjay »

caleblloyd wrote: post #453
pmoriarty wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/

Their DVD service may still exist, but my DVD player does not.

That's not really a flaw of netflix, is it? If you believe it is, I'd love to understand your reasoning.

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

#484

Post by oldmanjay »

gnicholas wrote: post #427
cybernytrix wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renting a movie is less than what you will spend in Starbucks (most of them).

Some rentals are cheaper than Starbucks, but many new releases are $5-$6. Also, I frequently find that a movie I'm looking to rent on iTunes is only available for purchase ($15). I understand why studios push for these sort of arrangements, but since there aren't any brick and mortar rental locations anymore, it means there isn't a way to check out that movie for less than $15.

It's hard to argue with the convenience of free and immediate, that's for sure, but it's really hard to care that a person craves entertainment so strongly that they feel their unwillingness to pay for it is somehow a compelling argument to take it.

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

#485

Post by zeveb »

imglorp wrote: post #191
epistasis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two issues here, the fragmentation of the services, and poorly implemented services. I have really really tried to use Google Play for video because it seems to work on the broadest array of devices, but the service itself is a second rate experience. Too many clicks, laggy unresponsive UI, silly JS driven pages that require reloading in order to start working again... I too really want to do things the way…

Another sub-aspect of the poor implementation is oppressive DRM and player restrictions. Netflix and Prime are finally acceptable on Linux thanks to Pipelight but that solution's not for everyone. If you want a single settop box, you might run PI with XBMC/Kodi but you can't get DRM'ed things on there. So you need a Roku or AppleTV for your DRM, a chromecast for things coming from a PC, and you still need a Kodi for…

> Netflix and Prime are finally acceptable on Linux thanks to Pipelight but that solution's not for everyone.

What's weird is that Amazon Prime worked fine on Linux in 2010 without any trouble, and now it requires Pipelight.

And Hulu, too, used to work but no longer does.

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

#486

Post by _csoo »

caleblloyd wrote: post #453
pmoriarty wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/

Their DVD service may still exist, but my DVD player does not.

Do they do blu-ray?

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

#487

Post by sqeaky »

jmilloy wrote: post #269
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 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.

Why pay for something which requires no resources to acquire?

If I hire a programmer I get software from the programmer's time. The programmer's time is an expended resource.

If I buy a Coke I get a bottle full of liquid. There was a loss of resources to get it me.

Once that programmer has already written the software there is no cost to duplicate it infinitely. Same with movies.

Since it requires no resources why is there a distributor? A middleman has to work hard to provide his value. Netflix does with impeccable service and high reliability. In this case Google failed. Torrents use otherwise unused bandwidth (ie no resource) and are the baseline for value that these middlemen must compete with.

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

#488

Post by sqeaky »

Jtsummers wrote: post #431
esharte wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $5 isn't going to the content creators.

A portion of it is. But regardless, via pirating nothing goes to the content creators. Not one penny. If you actually like content, at some point you need to pay for it or you won't get more of what you like.

The creator's are often paid and out of the equation. In the most common case the $5 literally does not go the creators.

You might argue that publishers and distributors will hold their portion of the $5 for the next piece of content.

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

#489

Post by sqeaky »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156
andybak wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the comparison is objectionable is because 'theft' is not the same as 'failing to pay a fee'. Theft implies a non-duplicatable object has passed from the possession of one entity to the possession of another thus depriving the first entity of any use or advantage from it. While we might disagree on the moral shading of copyright infringement can we agree that piracy and theft are different things?

...and there's the convenient, highly abstract argument. When wanting free stuff, no mental gymnastic is too hard. I'm a pragmatist. I see folks wanting to avoid disappointment (can't see favorite show) suddenly becoming theoretical philosophers. Like a 12-year-old deciding their older brother's belongings really belong to everybody, because socialism or whatever.

Here is simple no abstract argument:

Pirates don't deprive distributors or content producers of anything. No harm has been done.

Post reply on HN