Great Society

Children of the Sun => TV => Topic started by: nacho on March 22, 2011, 05:07:45 PM

Title: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 22, 2011, 05:07:45 PM
We're all following the development of House of Cards, yes? Netflix's foray into providing original content. The blogs are buzzing about it, subscriptions are on the rise, and there are lots of theories about the role of Netflix both in terms of providing new content and reviving old content/cancelled series.


Quote
Netflix has changed the way the US rents films, putting the likes of Blockbuster out of business with its online disc rental and streaming offerings, and it now looks set to do the same for television. The company has announced that House of Cards, a new television series staring Kevin Spacey, will debut exclusively on its streaming services.

While television programmes are a long-standing element of Netflix's content, both on disc and streaming, this is the first time it has contributed to the costs of production in exchange for "first rights" to the content. The change in strategy suggests Netflix is now trying to gain new subscribers by providing content that can't be found anywhere else, and with big names like Spacey and executive producer David Fincher (director of The Social Network), it's likely to succeed.

If Netflix can then add more original programming, subscribers will start wondering whether they still need to pay an expensive cable television bill as well. That's when things get interesting, because the cable companies also provide the very internet services that Netflix requires to stream their content.

With the debate over net neutrality still raging on, could cable companies start charging more to handle Netflix's vast levels of data? A study last year found that Netflix accounts for 20 per cent of all peak-time US internet traffic - a figure that seems set to rise if the company pushes forward with original programming. Blockbuster rolled over and died when faced with Netflix's success, but the cable companies are sure to put up more of a fight.

And they aren't pulling any punches here. This isn't a mini-series like the original 90's show... They're going all out. Season one is 26 episodes!

Quote
Hi, Ted Sarandos, Netflix Chief Content Officer here. We’re delighted to tell you that in late 2012 Netflix will be bringing to our members in the U.S. and Canada exclusively “House of Cards,” the much-anticipated television series and political thriller from Executive Producer David Fincher and starring Kevin Spacey. We’ve committed to at least 26 episodes of the serialized drama, which is based on a BBC mini-series from the 1990s that’s been a favorite of Netflix members. Originally written as a novel by former UK Conservative Party Chief of Staff Michael Dobbs, “House of Cards,” explores the ruthless underside of British politics at the end of the Thatcher era. Reset against the backdrop of modern-day U.S. electoral politics, this new one-hour drama follows Spacey as an ambitious politician with his eye on the top job. Fincher, the Oscar-nominated director of “The Social Network” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” will direct the pilot written by Beau Willimon (“Farragut North” and the upcoming George Clooney-directed “The Ides of March.” )

The TV shows and movies that you are able to watch instantly are licensed from movie studios, TV networks, distributors and sometimes directly from the producers of the films and TV shows. “House of Cards” is unique, as it is the first exclusive TV series to originate on Netflix. Typically, we license TV shows the season after they run on a broadcast network or cable channel and occasionally, we have episodes from a current season, as is the case with “Saturday Night Live” from NBC, “Spartacus” from Starzplay and “Wizards of Waverly Place” from Disney Channel. In all of these cases, the shows are produced before we bring them to Netflix. “House of Cards” represents a slightly more risky approach; while we aren’t producing the show and don’t own it, we are agreeing to license it before it is successfully produced.

We’ve found the gripping, serialized one-hour drama, such as “Heroes,” “Lost,” “Dexter” and “Weeds,” has become a very important part of the Netflix experience and over the years, we’ve been able to add these shows from many different channels, with the notable exception of HBO. With David Fincher’s unique vision, the incredible acting skills of Oscar winner Kevin Spacey, and a great and timeless story of power, corruption and lies, we think “House of Cards” will become a big hit among Netflix members and thus, represents a manageable risk.

Our goal remains to constantly expand our selection of previous seasons of popular TV shows and we may bring more exclusive series to Netflix in the future, if an opportunity arises that has the key elements a show needs to be successful; great storytelling and great storytellers. We are really excited to be bringing you “House of Cards” and will keep you informed about the premiere date closer to that time.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 22, 2011, 06:38:22 PM
Netflix is taking over the world.

Are the reasons for my recent trails and tribulations coming in to focus?
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on March 22, 2011, 06:39:40 PM
I still think the internet's a passing fad.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 22, 2011, 06:42:53 PM
That damned noisy horseless carriage too.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2011, 02:17:39 PM
Well, with the revolution still pending, the big news this week is the massive rate increase. If you want to keep receiving physical DVD's, Netflix doubled their rates.

However...if you go to streaming ony (or just physical DVD only), then the rate is $8 for each.

The subscribers have freaked the fuck out... Check out the Netflix FB page for a good time. I think they got something like 30,000 angry posts within a 12 hour period or something.

The backlash across the board is violent and crazy.

Here's the thing, though... My physical queue has six movies on it, and I'm forcing it at this point simply because I think it would be a waste of money to have an empty queue. I'm going to work out the last of the queue and then switch to streaming only.

If something isn't available for streaming, I'll just pirate it... Which, really, I've been doing anyway. Waiting for discs in the mail is charmingly anachronistic these days.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2011, 02:53:17 PM
Yeah, we're going just streaming as well. What do you bet that Netflix makes less and less available through streaming though.

Also, it's worth noting the lack of competition. What are your alternatives if Netflix pisses you off? Blockbuster Online? Amazon Streaming? iTunes? Netflix knows they're the only game in town.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2011, 03:37:48 PM
Netflix claims the cost increase is because the studios are pressing them for more money. But, for years now, they've been very vocal about getting out of what they call their "legacy business" -- DVD's in the post. I bet streaming is going to get better, and we're going to see more of it, simply because Netflix would dearly love to eliminate the red envelope DVD's entirely.

So I see this not as an attempt to get more money out of us, but instead an attempt to simply price out enough of the old-style customers so they can make the leap to streaming-only.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2011, 03:46:35 PM
If it gets my movie to stream, I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on July 14, 2011, 07:26:03 PM
So, I signed up for Netflix streaming on the PS3...the selection was atrocious...250 choices only? Am I missing something?

I cancelled it immediately.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2011, 07:55:29 PM
You must be missing something... Unless the PS3 has some weirdo rules I don't know about. But, hell, most of the catalog is streaming these days.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on July 15, 2011, 09:07:57 AM
I talked with a friend about this today. They have limited offerings if you only look on the PS3, but one of the options is your watch instantly queue(?) that you can set-up online. So I may have to give it another whirl...
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 15, 2011, 10:27:48 AM
That's weird to have a browsing limitation on the PS3. Must be some sort of proprietary conflict going on, eh? Because I can browse through, you know, a zillion watch instant movies on the Droid!
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 19, 2011, 08:42:10 AM
Wow... So, today, there are all these reports about how it's more "green" to get DVD's in the mail than watch them online. Then there are all the stupid measurements about the carbon footprint of all the computers required for streaming, and the Netflix servers, and blah blah. Like people don't have computers anyway, and like half the planet isn't doomed to be covered in Borg-like Google servers eventually.

I love watching this backlash. I keep waiting for people to start demanding that Netflix deal in VHS tapes instead of DVDs.

Meanwhile, I'm bleeding off the last of my physical queue -- 10 more to go -- then I'll switch to streaming only. And...I don't care! Glad for the savings, actually.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 19, 2011, 09:36:18 AM
We're switching to streaming only too.

And that "Green" DVD argument is self-serving bullshit.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 26, 2011, 11:29:24 AM
House of Cards is still a ways off, but it looks like Netflix has decided to just take the plunge.


Quote
Deadline Hollywood via Afterdawn is reporting a rumor that Netflix is bidding on a new show by Weeds creator Jenji Kohan. 

While details are still shaky, the show will allegedly be based on the Piper Kerman memoir 'Orange Is the New Black: My Year In a Women's Prison.' Kerman spent a year in a minimum-security prison in Connecticut for a small part in a money laundering scheme and met a number of colorful characters.

Netflix recently licensed the rights to House of Cards, so it looks more and more like Netflix is looking to offer exclusive original programming like HBO.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 27, 2011, 05:23:17 PM
Quote
The MSNBC Technoblog cites a study by The Diffusion Group of 500 Netflix subscribers that predicts 12-15% of Netflix subscribers will quit the service.

But now, this targeted report from TDG appears to show some compromise on the part of Netflix members, while still registering their disappointment over the new pricing plans: 70 percent of the respondents said as much when asked.

Due to the price increases (i.e. a plan that included both DVDs and streaming went from $10 to $16), TDG found that 44 percent of the report's participants were likely to cancel their DVD subscription, while keeping streaming; 34 percent would do the opposite. At least in this questionnaire, streaming seems to have the edge.

Those who said they'd ditch Netflix entirely named "a rental kiosk like Redbox" as the number one replacement option (42 percent), while 17 percent were prepared to check out streaming alternatives, such as Hulu Plus and Amazon.

Such retards... So if you go to another streaming service, it'll cost the same as streaming only at Netflix. And Netflix owns Redbox, right?

I guess it's just the protest.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on August 09, 2011, 11:46:14 AM
The last three physical discs! Dead Poets Society (watching now), and then two discs for the short lived sit-com based off of Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential.

I'm keeping the account open till the deadline -- September 1st -- and may add some more titles just for the sake of my weird and bizarre principles and then I'll switch to streaming only!

How exciting... After obsessing over my Netflix queue since December of 2002, an era comes to an end.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on August 09, 2011, 11:53:31 AM
PS: Do you know when you feel really old? When you realize that (a) Dead Poets Society was made in 1989 and (b) It stars the guy who plays Wilson on house as a teenager.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on August 12, 2011, 02:17:20 PM
Of course, the Netflix shift to streaming only plays into a discussion about the Post office's eventual demise.  Today's news is that they're going to try and cut 20% of their workforce -- 120,000 jobs.

Not that Netflix is anything but a pebble in the ocean in the bigger picture, but it's one of those signs of the times things. Trending away from the mail.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 13, 2011, 01:26:43 AM
95% of my mail goes directly to recycling. The other 5% are wedding invitations and invitations to kids' birthday parties.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on August 13, 2011, 08:07:11 AM
I keep all my mail in huge piles around my house surrounding the long-dead corpses of cats and dogs and have no running water.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on August 13, 2011, 10:50:51 AM
Well, they got their wish. 185,000 jobs to be cut between now and 2015, and they're pulling out of Federal health insurance and retirement to "seek cheaper options."

Whew boy!
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 02, 2011, 05:41:18 PM
Oh-ho-ho!


Quote
Starz announced that they have ended formal renewal negotiations with Netflix, and Starz President & CEO Chris Albrecht issued the following statement:

"Starz Entertainment has ended contract renewal negotiations with Netflix. When the agreement expires on February 28, 2012, Starz will cease to distribute its content on the Netflix streaming platform.  This decision is a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging of our exclusive and highly valuable content.  With our current studio rights and growing original programming presence, the network is in an excellent position to evaluate new opportunities and expand its overall business."

Netflix's Steve Swasey told CNET in response to the announcement:

"Starz has been a great content partner since 2008 and we are thankful for their support. While we regret their decision to let our agreement lapse next February, we are grateful for the early notice of their decision, which will give us time to license other content before Starz expires."

The current Starz deal, estimated to be worth about $30 million per year, gave Netflix streaming hit movies from Sony & Disney, and contract renewal discussions were rumored to be in the $300 million range.

It'll be interesting to see if Netflix and Starz are able to get back to the negotiating table in time to rewew the agreement in one form or another, or if Netflix will cut new deals with the studios directly.

The timing of this deal couldn't be worse -- the price increase is just starting to impact customers who are already thinking about the value of their Netflix subscription.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on September 02, 2011, 10:11:26 PM
As a new Netflix customer, this is all very interesting!
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 02, 2011, 10:36:12 PM
It's a nasty hit...we could be seeing the end days of Netflix.

Then again, they do have lots of time to cook up something to soften the blow. Like, maybe, finally cracking the HBO nut.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 02, 2011, 11:35:15 PM
You were saying?

Quote
Dish Network spending spree part of plan to revamp its business

By buying Blockbuster and paying almost $3 billion for broadband spectrum, the nation's third-largest pay-TV service provider plans to become a Netflix rival and a player in wireless communications.

Reporting from Englewood, Colo. — It seems like an odd strategy for a company in a mature business with limited growth to buy another with even dimmer prospects.

But that's what satellite broadcaster Dish Network Corp. did in April when it acquired bankrupt video store chain Blockbuster in a deal valued at $320 million.

Purchasing Blockbuster, and embarking on an almost $3-billion spending spree for broadband spectrum, are part of Dish's ambitious plans to turn the company from a pay-television service with about 14 million subscribers into a competitor of Netflix Inc. and a player in wireless communications.

"We are putting together the building blocks to be able to provide a whole suite of services to the customer," Dish President and Chief Executive Joe Clayton said. "Wireless voice, broadband, video, mobile … we're going to have the capability to do all of the above."

The former chairman of Sirius Satellite Radio who earlier was instrumental in the development of satellite broadcaster DirecTV Inc., Clayton was recruited two months ago to take over day-to-day operations of Dish from co-founder Charlie Ergen, who remains chairman.

Ergen is now free to focus on big-picture strategy at a time when the pay-television business faces mounting challenges, as consumers increasingly turn to the Internet or services such as Netflix to watch their favorite shows rather than paying for cable or satellite service.

"What Dish has basically done is bought itself a lot of options to keep itself more relevant," Wells Fargo securities analyst Marci Ryvicker said.

In an interview at Dish's Colorado headquarters, Clayton made clear that he has big ambitions for Blockbuster, including the launch of a subscription streaming service to rival Netflix, which has a 20-million-subscriber head start.

"Everybody's enamored with Netflix. Who's to say we can't do the same thing?" Clayton said. "We have access to the studios, we have access to huge movie libraries."

Hollywood, he added, would welcome another bidder for content. "Don't you think they would encourage us to get into this business?"

Clayton wouldn't put a timeline on when a Blockbuster streaming service would launch except to say, "Sooner is always better."

As for the rental chain's stores, the plan is to keep 1,500 of the 1,700 outlets open. But Clayton is not deluding himself that the traditional DVD rental market is going to make a comeback. He sees the stores as not only DVD rental and sales outlets but also as a promotional platform for Dish and the Blockbuster streaming service, as well as whatever wireless business the company pursues. He doesn't rule out selling consumer electronics at the chain either, an approach known as a store within a store that has proved successful for RadioShack Corp.

"I will predict that we will have a lot of hardware manufacturers coming to us and saying, 'Hey, is there room for us?' " Clayton said.

Clayton bristled at the notion that the purchase of Blockbuster was illogical.

"I have heard a lot of people say, 'That was a stupid acquisition.' That's crazy," he said, adding that the Blockbuster brand alone "was worth over $320 million dollars."

Branding experts say the Blockbuster name still has some value.

"They're not starting in their own end zone," noted Allen Adamson, a managing director at brand consultants Landor Associates. "It has the potential to be a strong brand again, but they have to build out an online experience that delivers."

Still, some Wall Street analysts worry that the company may be biting off more than it can chew with its recent spending spree.

"It sounds ambitious, innovative and expensive," said Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, who last month issued a report on Dish calling the stock a "leap of faith."

Dish stock has been on a tear, jumping more than 60% from a year ago and 45% since the Blockbuster purchase. It has outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500 index by about 40% over the last six months.

Although some of those gains can be attributed to Dish's settling of a long legal battle with digital video recording company TiVo Inc., the strong performance is also seen as a vote of confidence in Ergen, a savvy but secretive entrepreneur who built Dish into the nation's third-biggest pay-television provider after cable giant Comcast Corp. and rival satellite broadcaster DirecTV.

Ergen, 58, who rarely talks to the press and usually addresses analysts only on earnings calls, has not been subtle about his doubts about the long-term growth of his core business.

"My kids think I'm crazy for being in the pay-TV business because they don't pay for TV," Ergen told analysts in November. Noting the competition from not only cable and DirecTV but also Netflix and the Internet, Ergen said, "The world is changing" and Dish has to "figure out how we can do things differently and how we can compete."

Clayton's folksy, outgoing manner stands in sharp contrast to his seldom seen and rarely heard boss.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 03, 2011, 12:40:37 AM
My Spidey Sense says that Netflix is doomed. It'll take two or three years, though.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on September 03, 2011, 10:18:50 AM
Something will fill it's place. I'm all for competition if DirectTV gets its act together.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 03, 2011, 11:01:47 AM
I hate change. I've been with Netflix since 2002 and everything was fine! Everything was just fine! It automatically charged my credit card, movies magically appeared in the mail. I didn't have to think about anything.

But noooo... Now everything's better, faster, and more awesome. How sad.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 03, 2011, 03:30:12 PM
Something will fill it's place. I'm all for competition if DirectTV gets its act together.

What he said!
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Cassander on September 05, 2011, 11:06:30 PM
Actually, you'll probably more than likely see a Dish makeover, maybe even dropping that name.  Saying they're the third largest pay-TV provider is a bit like saying the XFL was the third biggest professional football organization. 

We all really need to get ready for the next ten years of Big Business finally settling the wild west of the internet, from licensing to content to tiered access.  We're all going to suffer slightly.  At least, inasmuch as watching mindless dreck on a screen is suffering.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 05, 2011, 11:11:50 PM
We all really need to get ready for the next ten years of Big Business finally settling the wild west of the internet, from licensing to content to tiered access.  We're all going to suffer slightly.  At least, inasmuch as watching mindless dreck on a screen is suffering.

As much as I feel it should be otherwise, I'm forced to agree with you. The movie big boys have certainly learned a small lesson from the music big boys. They're looking to control the new medium instead of fighting it.

I guess the big question is who will be the Apple to Netflix's Microsoft.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 05, 2011, 11:13:39 PM
I'm just going to stay on the pirate ship until they sink us off the Carolina coast. Then, legless and missing an eye, I'll sing bitter shanties in the bar.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Cassander on September 05, 2011, 11:15:14 PM
Or you could always, you know, move to Thailand.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 05, 2011, 11:17:29 PM
Then I have to trade in the three mast frigate for a junk.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Sirharles on September 16, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
Quote
Netflix's decision to raise prices by as much as 60 percent is turning into a horror show.

The customer backlash against the higher rates, kicking in this month, has been much harsher than Netflix Inc. anticipated. That prompted management to predict Thursday that the company --the largest U.S. video subscription service-- will end September with 600,000 fewer U.S. customers than it had in June.

Here's the full article.  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Higher-Netflix-prices-equals-apf-1466852939.html?x=0&.v=8
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 16, 2011, 02:21:58 PM
Lesson: Never think you're stronger or smarter than the big bear that can eat you.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 16, 2011, 02:22:18 PM
From the piracy angle -- my activity will increase. Especially when Starz pulls the plug. You'd think people would be talking about that.

Unless...Netflix has something up their sleeves.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 19, 2011, 02:37:16 PM
The BIG news of the day is the open letter from Netflix's CEO announcing separate services for streaming and DVD.

http://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some-reflections.html

Quote
An Explanation and Some Reflections

I messed up. I owe everyone an explanation.

It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology. I’ll try to explain how this happened.

For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn't make the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at something – like AOL dialup or Borders bookstores – do not become great at new things people want (streaming for us) because they are afraid to hurt their initial business. Eventually these companies realize their error of not focusing enough on the new thing, and then the company fights desperately and hopelessly to recover. Companies rarely die from moving too fast, and they frequently die from moving too slowly.

When Netflix is evolving rapidly, however, I need to be extra-communicative. This is the key thing I got wrong.

In hindsight, I slid into arrogance based upon past success. We have done very well for a long time by steadily improving our service, without doing much CEO communication. Inside Netflix I say, “Actions speak louder than words,” and we should just keep improving our service.

But now I see that given the huge changes we have been recently making, I should have personally given a full justification to our members of why we are separating DVD and streaming, and charging for both. It wouldn’t have changed the price increase, but it would have been the right thing to do.

So here is what we are doing and why:

Many members love our DVD service, as I do, because nearly every movie ever made is published on DVD, plus lots of TV series. We want to advertise the breadth of our incredible DVD offering so that as many people as possible know it still exists, and it is a great option for those who want the huge and comprehensive selection on DVD. DVD by mail may not last forever, but we want it to last as long as possible.

I also love our streaming service because it is integrated into my TV, and I can watch anytime I want. The benefits of our streaming service are really quite different from the benefits of DVD by mail. We feel we need to focus on rapid improvement as streaming technology and the market evolve, without having to maintain compatibility with our DVD by mail service.

So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are becoming two quite different businesses, with very different cost structures, different benefits that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently. It’s hard for me to write this after over 10 years of mailing DVDs with pride, but we think it is necessary and best: In a few weeks, we will rename our DVD by mail service to “Qwikster”.

We chose the name Qwikster because it refers to quick delivery. We will keep the name “Netflix” for streaming.

Qwikster will be the same website and DVD service that everyone is used to. It is just a new name, and DVD members will go to qwikster.com to access their DVD queues and choose movies. One improvement we will make at launch is to add a video games upgrade option, similar to our upgrade option for Blu-ray, for those who want to rent Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 games. Members have been asking for video games for many years, and now that DVD by mail has its own team, we are finally getting it done. Other improvements will follow. Another advantage of separate websites is simplicity for our members. Each website will be focused on just one thing (DVDs or streaming) and will be even easier to use. A negative of the renaming and separation is that the Qwikster.com and Netflix.com websites will not be integrated. So if you subscribe to both services, and if you need to change your credit card or email address, you would need to do it in two places. Similarly, if you rate or review a movie on Qwikster, it doesn’t show up on Netflix, and vice-versa.

There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!). Members who subscribe to both services will have two entries on their credit card statements, one for Qwikster and one for Netflix. The total will be the same as the current charges.

Andy Rendich, who has been working on our DVD service for 12 years, and leading it for the last 4 years, will be the CEO of Qwikster. Andy and I made a short welcome video. (You’ll probably say we should avoid going into movie making after watching it.) We will let you know in a few weeks when the Qwikster.com website is up and ready. It is merely a renamed version of the Netflix DVD website, but with the addition of video games. You won’t have to do anything special if you subscribe to our DVD by mail service.

For me the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy. The new envelope is still that distinctive red, but now it will have a Qwikster logo. I know that logo will grow on me over time, but still, it is hard. I imagine it will be the same for many of you. We’ll also return to marketing our DVD by mail service, with its amazing selection, now with the Qwikster brand.

Some members will likely feel that we shouldn’t split the businesses, and that we shouldn’t rename our DVD by mail service. Our view is with this split of the businesses, we will be better at streaming, and we will be better at DVD by mail. It is possible we are moving too fast – it is hard to say. But going forward, Qwikster will continue to run the best DVD by mail service ever, throughout the United States. Netflix will offer the best streaming service for TV shows and movies, hopefully on a global basis. The additional streaming content we have coming in the next few months is substantial, and we are always working to improve our service further.

I want to acknowledge and thank our many members that stuck with us, and to apologize again to those members, both current and former, who felt we treated them thoughtlessly.

Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to regain your trust. We know it will not be overnight. Actions speak louder than words. But words help people to understand actions.

Respectfully yours,

-Reed Hastings, Co-Founder and CEO, Netflix
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on September 19, 2011, 10:31:43 PM
Yeah, but really he's just saying. "Wouldn't have done anything different except explained it better!" And I don't think people are upset about the way it was explained.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Cassander on September 19, 2011, 11:38:01 PM
I think it makes a lot of sense.  Usually you wouldn't get word one from a CEO about why the Thing that is Slowly Dying is getting the axe. 
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 20, 2011, 08:44:44 AM
Yeah, but it took a stock collapse and a mass exodus to get this word one. And, as Reggie says, we understood what was happening. Who cares if he says it or the intern running the blog says it?

Though, again, I don't see the problem. The DVD-by-mail service is more of a nuisance these days than anything else. Got to -- must -- carve out time to get my money's worth. Take it to work and try to watch it before the mail pick-up. I'm surprised by the blowback. Most people I know need a week or two to plan two hours free.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Cassander on September 21, 2011, 12:42:38 AM
Well, you don't know most people.  Most people spend 20 minutes acquiring and shoveling dinner into their mouths and then have nothing to do for five hours.

I think all this hullabaloo is just the media taking advantage of low-hanging fruit.  People have forgotten that they used to spend $50 or more a month at Blockbuster, not including gas money.  and that was on top of movie tickets.  Now prices go up "60%"--but still less than ten dollars---and everyone acts like it's time to storm the Bastille. 

This CEO's real mistake was engaging at all in the first place.  If you give customers an inch, they'll take a mile.  I'd love to bitch out the CEO of Shell, but guess what? He doesn't really care about how the end consumer feels about his price structure.  He just believes in his product and vacuums up the money.

At the end of the day we're a spoiled bunch caught in an odd moment in history: we've been given the promise of having everything at our fingertips, but we just haven't found a way to ensure that every show or movie produced can be streamed immediately.  Boo fucking hoo. 
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 21, 2011, 09:06:00 AM
Man, and yesterday was the big day. I missed the switchover.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 22, 2011, 06:09:31 PM
Oh-ho!


Quote
It seems every few months a rumor goes around about Amazon wanting to buy Netflix, but the sales tax issue (Netflix has shipping centers in most states) has prevented the deal so far. However, Michael Pachter (I know, I know...) thinks that Netflix has split the company to enable Netflix to sell the streaming division to Amazon. From Forbes:

“Upon reflection, it appears to us that the driver for the separation of Netflix into two businesses—Netflix.com (for streaming) and Qwikster.com (for DVD rentals) —was to position the streaming business for sale to Amazon.com,” he writes in a research note. “In our view, Amazon has always wanted to be in the streaming business, and has been constrained from buying Netflix due to tax considerations. The split up of Netflix’s business addresses the state sales tax issues raised for Amazon in having a ‘nexus.’ If Amazon were to acquire only Netflix’s streaming business, it could triple the size of its content library, and gain traction as an industry leader. Netflix streaming has current content deals that provide it with access to movie content during the premium cable TV window, and Amazon has the financial resources to secure additional streaming rights, including Starz content. Netflix’s financial flexibility is quite limited, while Amazon’s is virtually unlimited.”
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 26, 2011, 10:36:04 AM
And...a dollar cheaper than Netflix's monthly streaming service. I'm actually quite tempted to switch, just simply for the savings each month. Every dollar counts. But I think Netflix really will soon be part of Amazon, anyway.

Quote
I have big news for Amazon Prime members - we've just signed a deal with FOX to add a broad selection of movies and TV shows to our unlimited instant streaming service later this fall. The new additions from the FOX library include 24, Arrested Development, The X-Files, Ally McBeal, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and - available on digital video for the first time - The Wonder Years. We now have deals with CBS, NBCUniversal, Sony, and Warner Bros, and adding FOX will bring the total to more than 11,000 movies and TV shows available for unlimited instant streaming.

Since launching earlier this year, we have now doubled the number of titles available in Prime instant videos, and there's still more to come. Prime membership remains $79 a year, and of course features our unlimited free two-day shipping on millions of products. Prime is one of the best values anywhere.

Prime instant videos can be played on more than 300 HDTVs, Blu-ray players, and set-top boxes.

Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 26, 2011, 10:51:43 AM
And my movie is on Amazon.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 26, 2011, 11:16:46 AM
Oh!

I'll stick with Netflix through the year, probably. See if any magic happens here in the Days of Darkness. But, with 2012, and if there's nothing to replace Starz...yeah...
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Sirharles on September 26, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
See the way I read it, is you still need to pay for most things.  For instance Mad Men is $1.99 an episode, where on Netflix it's free.  Unless I'm reading it wrong Netflix is still the better way to go.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on September 26, 2011, 05:16:22 PM
Well, we've discussed this on gchat... But also useful to keep it going here for the public record!

I signed up for the free month. Their catalog is 11,000 titles. I can't find how many are on Netflix because everything Netflix is blocked at work...

My first impression is that it's not very user-friendly. It's set up for people buying episodes and normal customers, with the Prime members as a sort of tacked on feature. Oh, and, you all get it for free.

I don't know...it feels primitive compared to Netflix. And I get a sense that the catalog isn't at all what Netflix has online.

But, of course, Netflix is losing, what, half their catalog when Starz pulls out, right? So that'll even the playing field.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on September 26, 2011, 07:14:02 PM
Oh but Netflix signed a massive agreement with DREAMWORKS*!!!



*Dreamworks Animation Studio, that is. They have 28 titles or so. Also, Netflix is offering $30 million per title? That seems....high.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Sirharles on October 10, 2011, 10:03:24 AM
That didn't take long.
Quote
Abandoning a break-up plan it announced last month, Netflix said Monday morning that it had decided to keep its DVD-by-mail and online streaming services together under one name and one Web site.

The company admitted that it had moved too fast when it tried to spin-off the old-fashioned DVD service into a new company called Qwikster.

"We underestimated the appeal of the single web site and a single service," Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman, said in a telephone interview. He quickly added: "We greatly underestimated it."

Full article...http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Netflix-Abandons-Plan-to-Rent-nytimes-4287150265.html;_ylt=At2cgrFxReiyG_0rie9qnQm7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1OWM0ajJ0BHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNuZXRmbGl4YWJhbmQ-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on October 10, 2011, 10:10:43 AM
Oh, man. Now they're just being embarrassing.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on October 25, 2011, 01:00:41 PM
Well, the reports are in... The anti-Netflix people are raving about how 800,000 subscribers left "in protest" over the plan change.

Of course, big picture -- this means Netflix is left with 23.79 million customers. So... Yeah. Who cares about 800k?  Oh, and, over 1.6 billion in revenue.

And, of course, they're expanding into the UK.

But, investors aren't happy! Wah-wah. But I think the results pretty much show that the whole backlash thing is nothing serious.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 01, 2012, 11:33:37 AM
Well... This starts up in a week:

Quote
E Street Band guitarist and "The Sopranos" actor Steven Van Zandt has Olympic-size dreams for his new Netflix Inc. original series, "Lilyhammer."

Mr. Van Zandt, who also co-wrote and executive produced the hour-long drama, will star as Frank "The Fixer" Tagliano, a mobster who enters federal witness protection after testifying against his boss. Frank is relocated from New York to Lillehammer—or as he calls it "Lilyhammer"—the Norwegian town that hosted the 1994 Winter Olympics, to begin his new life.

"Lilyhammer" is the first of five original series Netflix is developing as exclusive content for its 23.5 million streaming subscribers.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 01, 2012, 11:35:27 AM
I'm interested to see how this goes. I won;t be watching the show persay, but I'll be watching to see whether this succeeds or fails.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 01, 2012, 11:52:41 AM
Well...you know it'll succeed. Mainly because those 23.5 million subscribers can't get away from it!

Like I posted in the other thread re Amazon -- not only does Netflix have a captive audience, but they have a PAYING captive audience.

House of Cards is getting 26 episodes. This show is getting eight. Arrested Development is getting a full season.

Oh, and...here's the trailer... The show looks like some sort of demented experiment in surrealism. I can't wait!

Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 01, 2012, 11:57:31 AM
Oh, and...the Arrested Development announcement (just 10 episodes, not a full season...):

Quote
The entire original cast of "Arrested Development" -- Jason Bateman, Will Arnett Jeffrey Tabor, David Cross, Michael Cera, Portia De Rossi, Tony Hale, Alia Shawkat and Jessica Walter -- will be back for the new season on Netflix, according to writer Dean Lorey.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 03:04:00 PM
It's an interesting choice for Netflix to put all eight episodes up at once... But, they did. Lilyhammer -- the entire series -- is live.

I'll probably dive into it tonight.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 09:04:55 PM
Well...episode one is pretty awesome. Sopranos meets Northern Exposure, except in place of the comedy the overall tone is more...uh...well, Let the Right One In. These fucking grim Scandinavian countries...

The humor parts are well balanced, which is nice. There were two possible mistakes -- too much mafia guy in the country humor a la My Cousin Vinny and too much fish out of water nonsense. The latter is hardly an issue. The man guy a working understanding of Norwegian and he's there by choice. It's his dream locale.

Onward!
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 09:55:14 PM
Episode two keeps me going. Nice.

In terms of charting piracy -- looks like the show also aired tonight on normal Norway TV as a series. Episode one hit the pirate boards at 3pm. So...the usual time for a prime time show.

Nobody has ripped the entire series off of Netflix.

We'll see, but Netflix might have just solved the piracy problem, eh?
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 10:22:04 PM
So it's not getting pirated because it's available for "free" on Instant Watch? Is that your thesis?
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Tatertots on February 07, 2012, 04:32:58 AM
Oh, everything will be pirated to some degree. But I think a large part of piracy is convenience. Studios and networks are making it so fucking difficult to watch things legally. When you have pirates who let you start watching something within minutes or studios that want you to install horrific programs and sign up for bullshit and watch ads, you're going to go for convenience. It's why when I want to watch something, I go Netflix --> iTunes --> Hulu --> pirate --> slit my wrists --> Blu-Ray / DVD.

The only way to beat pirates is to offer more convenience and a better product. Netflix gets that. You sign up for the subscription and you get a safe, high-quality stream. There's no reason to pirate Lilyhammer because Netflix is so much better than Torrenting it and worrying about the usual pirating bullshit.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 07, 2012, 08:13:03 AM
There's my thesis, RC!
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 07, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
Still pushing through. Up to episode six... It meanders a bit, and is getting a little bit silly. They're trying to squeeze a whole lot into eight episodes.

What I'm realizing is that this really is a normal Norway TV show and Netflix has taken it and slapped a label on it... Like the Beeb and The Killing and that Spiral show. As in, this wasn't made for Netflix, they just partnered up with Norway's version of the Beeb and got the foreign rights. Consequently, we get a show that's on a little bit of a strange footing. Which seems a touch daring when you make it your first foray into shaking up the entertainment world. We get this subtle, slightly skewed storytelling style.

But, hey, it's kept me watching. And I'll go through to the end.

Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Tatertots on February 08, 2012, 12:16:10 PM
Got the first episode in me. I don't know -- I like it, but I'm not hooked enough to marathon it or anything. I'll keep at it, but yeah, it feels more like foreign television to me (which is, of course, fine). The storytelling's just different.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 08, 2012, 01:02:02 PM
Got to the end this morning. I'm not let down by it, but it certainly isn't all that. Just a bit of candy.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 09, 2012, 10:50:56 AM
Quote
Deadline.com posted Netflix's Chief Content Officer Ted Sarando's memo on why they won't post viewership number for the new Lilyhammer series.

Many of you have asked us to disclose day-after viewership numbers for our new original series “Lilyhammer,” which Netflix members in the U.S., Canada and Latin America could watch instantly beginning yesterday.  Let me explain why we won’t.

We have over 23 million streaming members and they’ll have the opportunity to discover Lilyhammer not just yesterday, today or this week, but over the course of several years.  Some members have loved the show so much that they’ve already watched the entire eight-episode first season; we put all the episodes up at once for that reason. Over time, other members will hear about Lilyhammer from their friends or discover it through our recommendation engine, based on the shows and movies they’ve enjoyed in the past.

At Netflix, we are all about giving people choice in the way they enjoy TV shows and movies. They can watch one episode or all eight back-to-back. They can start in the living room on their Smart TV and end in the bedroom on their iPad. We don’t show commercials so we don’t have to deliver audience numbers to advertisers. We do have to deliver a great experience to our members.

We’re confident Lilyhammer will build a sizeable audience on Netflix and we’re excited to be at the forefront of change in the way consumers get their entertainment.

The story also notes that a second season of Lilyhammer has reportedly been ordered.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 09, 2012, 11:43:38 AM
Read: Nacho, Tyson and some chick in Des Moine watched it.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Tatertots on February 09, 2012, 02:33:56 PM
You gotta start somewhere, I guess.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 09, 2012, 02:43:52 PM
Hey, T-Bird, are we gonna double-team that Des Moines chick?
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 13, 2012, 10:44:32 AM
Heh...


Quote
Netflix unveiled Lillyhammer, its first original series, to unwaveringly mixed reviews last week. The problems with the series seem to be threefold:

 1. It’s about a gangster living in Norway. Very few TV show premises are improved by adding “in Norway” to the end.

2. “Lillyhammer” sounds like the name of an all-female post-metal band.

3. Lillyhammer doesn’t speak to me as a user of Netflix.

I think I can solve all three problems at once. If Netflix wants to get attention, it should make shows that appeal specifically to the lifestyle of its subscribers. Unless Netflix has courted a large demographic of Nordic mafiosi, I think the company is hitting wide of the mark.

Here are my pitches for more-appropriate Netflix series:

Years Behind

Matt Renter is a man with a problem: He lives out of sync with the timestream, always at least a year behind the rest of society. While his friends are discussing the latest episodes of Breaking Bad, he can only discuss what happened in previous seasons. While everyone at work is getting excited about The Avengers movie, he’s still waiting for Thor to be released. Can Matt find love and survive the Temporal Eradication and Postal Delivery Squad?


Djinn and Tonic

When Derek Tonic bought a fancy bottle at an antique shop in a generically Middle Eastern part of town, he never expected it to contain a djinn! (A djinn is a genie, except you spent too much time playing D&D in junior high.) While the djinn is willing to grant his every wish — for instance, to see a popular movie on DVD — Derek never knows if his wish will be granted immediately or be put “on hold” for some undetermined period of time. The laughs come so thick you can cut them with a comedy knife and spread them on hilarity toast!

Stop and Go

In this tense psychological thriller, Mark Quagga is a private detective with a serious mental problem: When an activity bothers him, he can complain about it, but he can’t stop doing it. Whether it’s driving in rush-hour traffic or subscribing to a video-rental-and-streaming service that makes baffling and irrational price changes, Quagga whines about it publicly, and sometimes even stops doing it briefly, but always goes back to it. Can he stop posting hypercapitalized screeds to internet message boards long enough to stop a killer?

The Pop-Up Contingency

Nicaea Wallet was a typical genius high-school computer hacker and part-time erotic dancer before something happened to forever change her life — forever! A mysterious stranger known only as “Mr. N” comes into her life, and before she knows it, everywhere she goes, someone pops up and gratingly offers her a chance to hook into a network of downloadable and postal-delivered entertainment, free for 30 days. But there’s no such thing as a free-for-30-days lunch … or is there?
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on November 08, 2012, 11:42:24 AM
I like how this has become the Fall of Netflix thread...


Quote
Call it the Carl Icahn pill.

Netflix on Monday said it has adopted a stockholder rights plan to block a hostile takeover by the activist investor, who last week acquired a 10% stake in Netflix, the online entertainment company that has more than 30 million subscribers around the world.

The company said the move was "intended to protect Netflix and its stockholders from efforts to obtain control of Netflix that the board of directors determines are not in the best interests of Netflix and its stockholders."

For decades, Icahn been a thorn in the side of many media companies, including most recently movie and television studio Lionsgate.

The plan, known to investors as a "poison pill," would kick in if an individual or group tried to buy a sizable chunk of the company without approval from Netflix's board. If that happened, Netflix can now use a technical maneuver to flood the market with new shares and make a takeover attempt extremely expensive.

Netflix said it would issue a dividend distribution of one right for each outstanding share of common stock, which would only be exercisable should a hostile suitor or investor acquire 10% or more of the company. The plan will be in place for at least three years.

Icahn has said he invested in Netflix because he believes its stock is undervalued and that the company is well-positioned to play a leading role in the media landscape of the future.

“All the habits are changing. You’re going to have distribution changing the whole entertainment business, and they have the greatest platform," Icahn told the Los Angeles Times.

Icahn, however, has a history of trying to exert influence on companies and their board of directors in hopes of either motivating a merger or, in the worst-case scenario, having his stake bought out at a premium.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 04, 2013, 07:53:15 AM
The big problem with the new House of Cards is that it's trying too hard to be like the (classic and incomparable) original. House of Cards does the Shakespearean thing where the lead speaks to the audience and, of course, the whole story is basically just Richard III.

When we take that, transfer it to DC, and have it told by Spacey playing a southern cracker, it doesn't quite hold the same sort of weight. It seems like they kept the whole speaking to the audience thing, but didn't understand why the original was doing that.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2013, 08:39:31 AM
I know we have a few Netflix threads...but the fact that the promises that started this thread years ago have not been realized makes this the right place... 11 years later, and it's time for me to cancel Netflix. Mainly because I'm getting the same coverage as an Amazon Prime member... And that coverage is zilch! Netflix is turning into what Cinemax was in the early 90's, and that includes the weird softcore European-import stuff from the 70's.

While that would, normally, appeal to my nostalgia, it seems weirdly insulting in 2013...especially when you're paying for it.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 12, 2013, 02:28:30 PM
We've been without Netflix for well over six months and haven't missed it.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 10, 2013, 12:08:54 AM
We just cancelled last night. I'd rather pay a couple bucks to watch something specific on Amazon's service...that they will actually have, than to sift through the tiny selection that Netflix has. And we don't watch enough to justify the monthly cost anyway.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 11, 2013, 10:14:23 AM
The Netflix exodus continues!
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on April 11, 2013, 10:23:35 AM
The Netflix exodus continues!

I've hijacked NOLA girl's HBOgo and Comcast on demand and...well...wow. I'm now debating cancelling my Prime membership. Netflix is a dinosaur, isn't it? Like one of those dead-end evolutionary chains.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: monkey! on April 11, 2013, 10:24:43 AM
Poor Netflix.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 12, 2013, 09:15:23 PM
Netflix is a dinosaur, isn't it? Like one of those dead-end evolutionary chains.

Video Stores, Tivo, Netflix.

The cable companies have taken their best and done it better.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 15, 2013, 03:46:50 PM
This has causes major waves in circles I travel in. While I certainly think a sea change in on the horizon for the movie industry, I'm not sure this is the model is moving towards.

Plus, I wonder if they're just pissed off that they have to hustle like the rest of us.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/4425486/steven-spielberg-george-lucas-usc-film-industry-massive-implosion (http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/4425486/steven-spielberg-george-lucas-usc-film-industry-massive-implosion)

Quote
Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predict ‘massive implosion’ in film industry
Movie theaters may be left behind for the living room

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg think the film industry is heading towards a cliff. The pair behind some of the most successful franchises in movie history think that conservative programming choices and rapidly evolving distribution schemes have set the stage for a massive upheaval — and internet-based services may become the dominant medium when moviegoing as we know it crashes and burns.

The duo were joined during a panel at the University of Southern California by Microsoft's president of interactive entertainment Don Mattrick, who played backup with the occasional Xbox reference as Lucas and Spielberg took center stage. While the focus was ostensibly on the future of the entertainment medium — USC just opened a new building for the school's Interactive Media department — the topic quickly pivoted to the state of film distribution in a world where everything from games to television are competing for consumers' attention.

People simply have a limited amount of time, said Spielberg. "We can't expand the week. We can't expand the 24-hour cycle. So we're stuck with so many choices." The enormous amount of available content has pushed movie studios to be more conservative, banking on the power of event films to break through the white noise of a crowded marketplace. "You're at the point right now where a studio would rather invest $250 million in one film for a real shot at the brass ring," he said, "than make a whole bunch of really interesting, deeply personal — and even maybe historical — projects that may get lost in the shuffle because there's only 24 hours."

"There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground," Spielberg said, "and that's going to change the paradigm again."

Barreling from opinion to opinion throughout the discussion, Lucas presented a clear vision of this post-crash entertainment landscape: a world where going to the movies is no longer a casual outing, but a high-end experience more in line with Broadway. "What you're going to end up with is fewer theaters," he said. "Bigger theaters, with a lot of nice things. Going to the movies is going to cost you 50 bucks, maybe 100. Maybe 150." It will be more in line with sporting events, with films playing in these high-end cinemas for as long as a year. "And that's going to be what we call ‘the movie business.' But everything else is going to look more like cable television on TiVo."

"It's not going to have cable or broadcast," Lucas said. "It's going to be the internet television."

As Lucas painted it, the shift will present new opportunities both for consumers and filmmakers. Viewers will have access to a wide variety of programming, "usually more interesting than what you're going to see in the movie theater. And you can get it whenever you want, and it's going to be niche-marketed, which means you can really take chances and do things if you can figure out there's a small group of people that will kind of react to it."

That kind of niche focus has already paid dividends for cable networks like HBO, he said, which have lower thresholds for success than a movie studio or traditional network — and are able to produce less-conventional programming as a result. "All you need is a million people," Lucas said. "Which in the aggregate of the world is not very many people. And you can actually make a living at this. Where before you couldn't."

Spielberg offered a softer touch — even turning wistful when discussing the increasingly narrow theatrical window movies have to deal with today. "It used to be, when I first started making movies it was really cool, my movies stayed in theaters for one year," he said. "If it was a hit, it was a year long. Raiders [of the Lost Ark] was in theaters for a year. E.T. was in a theater for a year and four months... That was an amazing situation, back then."

Today's movies are in hotels two weeks after they hit theaters, he said. "There's going to be eventually day and date with movies" — when films are available on demand at home the same day they hit theaters — "and eventually there's going to be a price variance. You're going to have to pay $25 to see the next Iron Man. And you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln."

Lucas jumped in: "I think eventually the Lincolns are going to go away and they're going to be on television."

Spielberg smiled, saying, "And mine almost was! This close. Ask HBO — this close!"

Despite the chaos, both men see the changes as something the industry will overcome, with Lucas taking particular relish in the opportunities the disruption is providing — adamantly stating that "now is the best time we can possibly have."

Comparing the industry's panic over fleeting DVD sales and crumbling business models to the 2008 economic crash, he stressed that now is the time to look forward. "It's a mess. It's total chaos," Lucas said. "But out of that chaos will come some really amazing things. And right now there are amazing opportunities for young people coming into the industry to say, ‘Hey, I think I'm going to do this and there's nobody to stop me.'"

"It's because all the gatekeepers have been killed!"

Lucas and Spielberg also had thoughts on the convergence of storytelling and videogames — and whether such a mix is even possible.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 12, 2013, 08:14:07 AM
Oh wow... "Orange is the New Black" is actually good. Production quality, good acting, interesting writing... unlike all the other Netflix series.

Negatives: It's from the people who made fucking Weeds, so it has that surreal saccharine thing going on. Like Weeds, it's almost insulting in that misplaced comedy way. Like, you're 30 years too late if you want to do a drug cartel and/or prison sitcom.

I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it, but it's less offensive than House of Cards, Lilyhammer, season 4 of AD, and whatever the fuck Hemlock Grove is trying to be. 

Edit: Oh, and Netflix seems to have edited out ALL racist comments. Which is odd if you're committing to a prison show. I'm talking simple stuff like a spanish girl saying, "What are those crazy white bitches doing?" is subbed as saying "What are they doing over there?"

Okay...hmmm.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 16, 2013, 03:56:03 PM
Still watching Orange is the New Black. I feel bad for doing so, but am strangely invested...
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Tatertots on July 17, 2013, 01:53:23 AM
Oh wow... "Orange is the New Black" is actually good. Production quality, good acting, interesting writing... unlike all the other Netflix series.

You shut your whore mouth. House of Cards was awesome.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 17, 2013, 07:47:14 AM
Oh wow... "Orange is the New Black" is actually good. Production quality, good acting, interesting writing... unlike all the other Netflix series.

You shut your whore mouth. House of Cards was awesome.

At the risk of being that guy (I am) who compares it to the original, I have to say that House of Cards is a particularly egregious example of not getting the original yet trying to copy it. The original is Shakespeare, the remake is Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes doing Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: Tatertots on July 22, 2013, 01:56:49 PM
But Netflix's audience doesn't care about the original. And even if they did, no one wants to see a remake that's just an updated version of the original.

Netflix's new business model is all about taking the massive amounts of data they have about people's watching habits and turning them in to (supposedly) sure-fire TV series. They knew people liked David Fincher, Kevin Spacey, and political dramas. Pump the numbers into the tv show making machine, and out comes a sustainable business. (They hope...)
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on July 22, 2013, 02:15:53 PM
I worry that the average Netflix subscriber's watching habits are going to land us a Sharknado TV series.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on October 02, 2013, 12:24:43 AM
So the fact that Netflix used this on their blog as a description for the flick makes me want to reup with them:


Quote
Paranormal Activity 4 (available October 11): This is the one with the neon green Xbox Live dots.
Title: Re: Netflix 2.0 -- The House of Cards Remake Revolution
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2014, 05:01:07 PM
So House of Cards and Orange is the New Black has paid off in spades for Netflix. But Amazon's shotgun approach is much more frightening... They haven't quite hit the mark yet, but they fire ten rounds at a time...




Quote
While Amazon works to perfect its new system of implanting the sensations of being entertained directly into your brain while you’re sleeping, it continues to make do with the primitive technology of streaming original TV shows. Ten new pilots went up today, in the service’s second round of allowing its users to vote on what it would like to see more of—a process that last time yielded full series orders for Alpha House and Betas, and lots of bitter drinking around here after the rejection of Onion News Empire.

Once again, the new series are evenly split between kids’ shows and adult comedies and dramas, with lots of impressive talent behind them, including new efforts from The X-Files’ Chris Carter and The Wire’s Eric Overmeyer, and stars like Titus Welliver and Jeffrey Tambor (who’s determined get an Amazon series one of these years). Here’s a quick rundown of the grown-up shows:

The After: Chris Carter’s return to supernatural thrillers is an apocalyptic tale concerning eight strangers “thrown together by mysterious forces and who must help each other survive in a violent world that defies explanation.” (Said explanation may or may not be “aliens.”)

Bosch: Titus Welliver stars in the adaptation of Michael Connelly’s detective series, playing the titular character as he investigates the killing of a 13-year-old boy, while also standing trial in federal court on charges of killing a suspect in a different investigation. It comes from The Wire’s Eric Overmyer, so add an extra layer of corruption and heartbreak to all that.

Mozart In The Jungle: A comedy-drama written and produced by the Coppola-Wes Anderson nexus of Roman Coppola and his cousin Jason Schwartzman, directed by About A Boy’s Paul Weitz, and starring Malcolm McDowell, Bernadette Peters, Saffron Burrows, and Gael Garcia Bernal. While plot details seem superfluous, considering, Mozart concerns the behind-the-scenes goings-on of a symphony orchestra, and early reviews say it’s bizarre and amazing.

The Rebels: Justified and The Following star Natalie Zea escapes to yet another TV show by getting into what sounds like an update of HBO’s 1st & Ten, playing a widow who inherits her husband’s professional football team—even though she doesn’t really know anything about football and is a woman!, etc. etc., shenanigans and misunderstandings, etc. Ice Cube co-produced with former Giants player/Live With Kelly And Michael co-host Michael Strahan, The Break-Up writer Jeremy Garelick handled the screenplay, and Billy Dee Williams got an acting job, at least.

Transparent: A dark comedy from Six Feet Under writer Jill Soloway, this show concerns another L.A. family whose members each have their own deep, emotional issues. If that’s not reason enough to check it out, the parents are played by Jeffrey Tambor and Judith Light. Welcome back, Judith Light! Who’s the boss? Existential angst, that’s who.

We’ll have our own takes on these pilots eventually, but in the meantime you can watch them and share your thoughts. And if you don’t like any of them, well, Amazon already has new pilots in development with Marc Forster, Ron Perlman, Whit Stillman, Shaun Cassidy, and Lie To Me’s Sam Baum, so—like a package drone-delivered to your doorstep before you even ordered it—you won’t have long to wait for Amazon to bring you something else.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Note -- thread title changed to include all the players and thread moved to TV.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2014, 05:57:55 PM
Crazy. I just finished reading this article for class.

http://variety.com/2014/voices/news/indie-filmmaking-is-surging-despite-the-odds-1201075113/ (http://variety.com/2014/voices/news/indie-filmmaking-is-surging-despite-the-odds-1201075113/)

Quote
After all, new platforms beckon. The majors may disdain indie product, but Netflix and Amazon are ablaze (looking for hits). And there are success stories. “Tiny Furniture” may have grossed less than $400,000 at the domestic box office, but it propelled Lena Dunham into a bountiful HBO deal. “Don Jon,” starring Joseph Gordon Levitt, found an optimistic distributor in Relativity after its Sundance bow, went on to gross $24 million domestically, and got Levitt a TV show too.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2014, 08:02:58 PM
Quote
The After: Chris Carter’s return to supernatural thrillers is an apocalyptic tale concerning eight strangers “thrown together by mysterious forces and who must help each other survive in a violent world that defies explanation.” (Said explanation may or may not be “aliens.”)

Oh, man. What a mess. RC's been talking about the "save the cat" approach to screenwriting and, holy fucking shit, this has a "save the cat" moment every 12.8 seconds. What a mess.

This is what post apocalypse sci-fi was trying to do in the mid-90s, as well. The same sort of casting and storytelling. Except it benefits from the modern day's much more enhanced apocalypse canon...but not for the better.

From what I can tell, the "aliens" are Chris Carter-standard Earth spirits/angry Amazon gods/I read too much Bradbury when I was 12.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 07, 2014, 07:16:54 AM
Carter was a one hit wonder. It shames me to admit that.

Although, Milennium...
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 07, 2014, 08:07:58 AM
Carter was a one hit wonder. It shames me to admit that.

Although, Milennium...

That was his one hit, in my opinion. X-Files is terrible!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 07, 2014, 12:52:09 PM
Vulture's reviewing the pilots... They deep-six most of them, except for some pretty severe Chris Carter apologism ("He's engaging even when his work is terrible!"), but there's one they love. I'll probably watch it this weekend:

Quote
Transparent
The setup: Siblings Josh, Ali, and Sarah are each wading through their own brand of L.A. ennui: Sarah’s the married mom wondering if her life is too boring, Josh is the hipster music producer cheating on his revolving door of musician girlfriends, and Ali has sort of a failure to launch. Their dad, Mort, calls them over to have dinner, though he can’t quite work up the courage to tell them his big news. (I won’t spoil it.)

The cast: Amy Landecker (The Paul Reiser Show) plays Sarah, although you’ll be forgiven if you keep thinking she’s Amy Brenneman. Jay Duplass is Josh, Gaby Hoffmann is Ali, Jeffrey Tambor plays the dad, and Judith Light plays the mom. The show is written and directed by Jill Soloway (Six Feet Under, Sundance darling Afternoon Delight).

How is it? Wonderful. Transparent is my favorite pilot in years, and by a lot. “Boy, it is so hard when someone sees something you do not want them to see,” Mort tells Ali in a moment of candor, and that’s the thesis of the show, that we hide some things and disclose other things but maybe not as well as we think we do. (Or maybe, accidentally, too well.) Transparent has that sibling intimacy that made Six Feet Under so compelling, and like Afternoon Delight, has characters who are trying to figure out who they are by trying to figure out who they are in bed. Sex, gender, gender presentation, how we see ourselves, how we see each other — a thousand times yes.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 11, 2014, 06:03:35 PM
Comcast has to be dismantled.

http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03/comcast-bites-netflix-snagging-big-show/ (http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03/comcast-bites-netflix-snagging-big-show/)

Quote
Comcast Burns Netflix Again by Snagging House of Cards

House of Cards may have made Netflix’s name as a source of must-see original content, but millions of Comcast customers aren’t going to need Netflix to watch the show anymore.

In a deal with Sony, Comcast will now sell its subscribers access to the first season of the political drama through its own Xfinity Store, Variety reports. In Hollywood terms, the arrangement might not be anything remarkable — just a new way of syndicating reruns. But cutting Netflix out of the picture for its signature show sends a clear signal that the entertainment and cable industries aren’t about to let some Northern California tech company change television without exacting a price.

Thanks to the company’s aggressive marketing, House of Cards is known as a Netflix show just as much as The Sopranos was an HBO show. But even the $100 million it reportedly spent didn’t buy Netflix all the rights to Frank Underwood’s Machiavellian rise. Apparently, that money gave Netflix only the exclusive right to stream two seasons online first, and it didn’t even cover the total production costs of the first 26 episodes. The rest of the costs fell on Media Rights Capital, the independent studio that actually made House of Card, and it is free to sell other rights.

To make its money back, the studio has a deal with Sony to handle distribution of House of Cards internationally and for “home video,” a term that in the Netflix streaming-video era seems meaningless. In practice, it means Sony gets to sell House of Cards DVDs and other ways for couch surfers to pay a la carte for the show, such as on Amazon Instant Video. That appears to be the kind of agreement Comcast struck with Sony, which also lets the cable provider offer access to Sony movies such as American Hustle ahead of other video-on-demand services.

For Comcast, the movies seem like the meat of the deal, while the House of Cards arrangement is more about sending a message to Netflix and the general public. The rise of Netflix and other streaming services have encouraged the rise of “cord-cutting,” which threatens the cable business, and Comcast isn’t taking this laying down. Recently, Comcast exercised its own leverage by getting Netflix to pay for more direct access to Comcast’s network, and now, the cable giant to making another move with its House of Cards deal, showing that it can cannibalize Netflix’s business right back.

Not that a swarm of Comcast customers are about to go out and spend money to watch House of Cards somewhere other than Netflix — or at least they shouldn’t. It’s not clear how much Comcast plans to charge. But on Amazon, for instance, high-definition episodes are $2.99 a piece, or nearly $39 for the whole season. That’s almost as much as five months of Netflix, which also includes season two, as well as Orange Is the New Black, another Netflix hit coming to Comcast soon. But just by making House of Cards an option, Comcast is eating into the brand identity Netflix is trying to establish for itself as the only place to watch “its” shows.

Original programming has become crucial to Netflix’s business model. By getting House of Cards, Comcast sends a subtle signal to Netflix non-subscribers that maybe they don’t need to spend that extra eight dollars a month after all. They might not actually pay Comcast to watch House of Cards either, but just knowing they could get the show there might be enough. On the other hand, if anyone does watch the first season of House of Cards on cable, Netflix still has a powerful advantage: the siren song of season two.

Marcus Wohlsen
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2014, 08:24:14 AM
Wait... Isn't it worse to have a show be exclusively available through Netflix with no other option to watch it outside of piracy? Isn't it good to break down that exclusivity?

Or should we kill Comcast so Netflix can retain a ruthless stranglehold on TV's next steps? Besides, sounds like the more evil partner is Sony -- so this is yet another example of how the studios will seemingly do everything to murder their own product.

This article is a little skewed, as well. What is this? A real life Game of Thrones? Netflix was just as involved, I assure you, and profited.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 12, 2014, 09:39:11 AM
I'm going to side with anybody but Comcast at this point. They're evil and need to be destroyed.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2014, 10:33:35 AM
I'm going to side with anybody but Comcast at this point. They're evil and need to be destroyed.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

In which case, you are now pro-Google, right? Because Google Fiber be comin' laddie...
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 12, 2014, 11:06:49 AM
I'm going to side with anybody but Comcast at this point. They're evil and need to be destroyed.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Plus, Google basically runs my life now. And at least they offer the illusion that their acting in humanity's best interest while they cocoon us as a power source.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2014, 11:18:45 AM
I will agree on that point... Because I do often get the feeling that Comcast kind of would like to kill everyone.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2014, 12:16:12 PM
Quote
The After: Chris Carter’s return to supernatural thrillers is an apocalyptic tale concerning eight strangers “thrown together by mysterious forces and who must help each other survive in a violent world that defies explanation.” (Said explanation may or may not be “aliens.”)

Oh, man. What a mess. RC's been talking about the "save the cat" approach to screenwriting and, holy fucking shit, this has a "save the cat" moment every 12.8 seconds. What a mess.

This is what post apocalypse sci-fi was trying to do in the mid-90s, as well. The same sort of casting and storytelling. Except it benefits from the modern day's much more enhanced apocalypse canon...but not for the better.

From what I can tell, the "aliens" are Chris Carter-standard Earth spirits/angry Amazon gods/I read too much Bradbury when I was 12.

This fucking shit got greenlit.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on March 12, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
Man...
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Sirharles on April 23, 2014, 12:49:30 PM
Amazon just bitch slapped Netflix.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140423005395/en/Amazon-HBO-Ink-Exclusive-Multi-Year-Deal-Bring#.U1ffCFVdVth
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 23, 2014, 01:25:02 PM
Yeah...that's a major victory. Poor Netlfix just can't get off the ropes no matter how hard they try...
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Sirharles on April 23, 2014, 04:31:06 PM
Poor Netlfix just can't get off the ropes no matter how hard they try...

I wouldn't cry to hard for them, they just announced they are increasing their streaming price for new customers and their stock jumped.

It did take a bit of a hit after the Amazon announcement but it's still doing pretty well over a year average.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 23, 2014, 04:55:15 PM
Old school Netflix apologist talk!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 23, 2014, 05:22:58 PM
I do not miss Netflix. At all.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 23, 2014, 05:28:43 PM
Nor do I! And, of course, their one original show that I watch (Orange is the New Black) is pirated even before they have it!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2014, 06:29:44 PM
More bad news for Netflix...


http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-29/netflix-unhappily-signs-another-deal-for-faster-access-to-verizons-broadband-customers
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 12, 2014, 03:51:46 PM
The Netflix-Verizon War is really heating up.

http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/06/netflixs-response-to-verizons-cease-and-desist-is-a-lesson-in-killing-with-kindness/ (http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/06/netflixs-response-to-verizons-cease-and-desist-is-a-lesson-in-killing-with-kindness/)
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on June 12, 2014, 04:18:39 PM
I love some of the comments. I can't imagine anyone defending Verizon unless they're sitting at their computer in full SS regalia.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on November 17, 2014, 05:25:03 PM
So it looks like Starz garbage...but...I'm excited for it!

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 15, 2015, 11:04:54 AM
How did this escape my notice? The latest round of Amazon pilots includes an adaptation of The Man in the High Castle -- PKD's dystopian Nazi nightmare -- with Ridley Scott as the showrunner. It's already getting mega-buzz.

Quote
The Man in the High Castle, adapted from the Philip K. Dick novel of same name and executive produced by Scott, goes back to 1962 to see what America would look like had the Allies lost World War II. In this alternate universe the United States has been split three ways: the Nazi-controlled east coast, renamed the Greater Reich, the Japanese “Pacific States” on the west coast, and the “neutral zone” in the center of the country.

Written by X-Files veteran Frank Spotnitz and directed by Heroes’ David Semel, The Man in the High Castle manages to evoke a suitably unsettling tone while also introducing a large cast of characters in a way that, while not perfect, makes it easy to follow their storylines and make the last-minute cliffhanger have suitable weight. (Don’t worry, that’s not spoiling anything.) It’s so good you might even forgive Scott for Exodus: Gods and Kings.

The show succeeds not only through the strength of its high concept, but also through its execution of it. It’s the kind of show that’s just familiar enough—World War II-themed dramas are hardly rare—that it’s easy to get into, but also a unique enough so as not to feel trite or old hat. Even if you have seen nearly every “America in the 1960s” show out there, along with every take on WWII, The Man in the High Castle is a compelling enough—and character-rich enough—alternate version of that time to make you want to see where this thing is going.

There are problems—there’s some dodgy CGI in the opening sequence that pulls you into the uncanny valley just as the show is trying to introduce Nazi New York for the first time—but there’s also an integrity and understated quality that reads like confidence, like this show knows what it is. It’s an assured stride compared to Amazon’s other pilots, which feel desperate for love or attention at times.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 15, 2015, 06:48:32 PM
So this begs the question: Is Netflix the new HBO?
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 15, 2015, 07:02:47 PM
Well, between them and Amazon they've changed everything, eh?

We'll talk about the future of HBO when GoT goes off the air...
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 20, 2015, 05:05:23 PM
How did this escape my notice? The latest round of Amazon pilots includes an adaptation of The Man in the High Castle -- PKD's dystopian Nazi nightmare -- with Ridley Scott as the showrunner. It's already getting mega-buzz.

Quote
The Man in the High Castle, adapted from the Philip K. Dick novel of same name and executive produced by Scott, goes back to 1962 to see what America would look like had the Allies lost World War II. In this alternate universe the United States has been split three ways: the Nazi-controlled east coast, renamed the Greater Reich, the Japanese “Pacific States” on the west coast, and the “neutral zone” in the center of the country.

Written by X-Files veteran Frank Spotnitz and directed by Heroes’ David Semel, The Man in the High Castle manages to evoke a suitably unsettling tone while also introducing a large cast of characters in a way that, while not perfect, makes it easy to follow their storylines and make the last-minute cliffhanger have suitable weight. (Don’t worry, that’s not spoiling anything.) It’s so good you might even forgive Scott for Exodus: Gods and Kings.

The show succeeds not only through the strength of its high concept, but also through its execution of it. It’s the kind of show that’s just familiar enough—World War II-themed dramas are hardly rare—that it’s easy to get into, but also a unique enough so as not to feel trite or old hat. Even if you have seen nearly every “America in the 1960s” show out there, along with every take on WWII, The Man in the High Castle is a compelling enough—and character-rich enough—alternate version of that time to make you want to see where this thing is going.

There are problems—there’s some dodgy CGI in the opening sequence that pulls you into the uncanny valley just as the show is trying to introduce Nazi New York for the first time—but there’s also an integrity and understated quality that reads like confidence, like this show knows what it is. It’s an assured stride compared to Amazon’s other pilots, which feel desperate for love or attention at times.

This is a great adaptation... By people who didn't read or understand the book!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 14, 2015, 07:14:29 PM
Tina Fey's The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt -- which benefits from surprisingly exhaustive research with real life apocalypse cult survivors -- is hilarious and amazing. We love it.

And, without further ado, here are some earworms:

#1: The titles (which the TM and I walk around humming to ourselves all day):



#2: The original Unbreakable autotune from the pilot episode:


#3: Pinot Noir!

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 15, 2015, 11:58:24 PM
Wow... Other Space is good! I went in expecting horrors, but it's actually funny and fun. Basically the American version of Hyperdrive with a dash of Red Dwarf.

https://screen.yahoo.com/other-space-official-trailer-165500645.html
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 25, 2015, 09:26:49 AM
Wow... Other Space is good! I went in expecting horrors, but it's actually funny and fun. Basically the American version of Hyperdrive with a dash of Red Dwarf.

https://screen.yahoo.com/other-space-official-trailer-165500645.html

Okay. Finished Other Space. It really is the spiritual successor to Red Dwarf.

I had thought that Red Dwarf was the sort of thing that could only happen once, and at the specific time that it did happen. A lightning strike -- gritty sci-fi in the TNG era bizarrely set in a sitcom satire format.  So insane you have to love it... And self-aware of its insanity, so there were no real storytelling rules.

It is hard to recreate, and Other Space, really, draws its rules from Hyperdrive (and the other sci-fi comedy show from the 70s, Quark). But while the premise, look, feel and characters are Hyperdrive, the storylines are Red Dwarf -- zany aliens, laugh out loud self-aware mockery of the tropes, bathroom (or...alien goo) comedy...

It's the handling of the tropes that amazed me. One episode is the tried and true planet that exists at a different rate of time trope, so two characters are on the planet for a year but it's just 20 minutes for the ship. Every sci-fi show has done this, and it even consumed the second act of Interstellar.

In this case, the two crewmembers stuck on the planet fall in love, build a house, journey through a rocky marriage that turns dark and evil, end up hunting each other, and are finally beamed up to the ship (seemingly 20 minutes later) looking like cave men while one is cannibalizing the other. I think I laughed for the whole episode without stopping... Meanwhile, on the ship, a robot revolution led by the coffee maker was plaguing the rest of our crew. (Homicidal sentient kitchen appliances is what makes this show more Red Dwarf than Hyperdrive.)

It's worth checking out if you want some sci-fi comedy candy.

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 25, 2015, 09:28:41 AM
That sounds great!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 25, 2015, 11:28:46 AM
It's a Yahoo show, right?
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 25, 2015, 01:03:57 PM
Yahoo TV shows... *shudder*
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 25, 2015, 02:53:31 PM
Yeah. I didn't know Yahoo made shows.  weird.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 12:40:34 PM
So Hulu just bought exclusive streaming rights to Seinfeld for a whopping $180 million.

More importantly, this summer, they will also be the exclusive streaming service for AMC -- starting with the Walking Dead spinoff.

In a normal world, where the entertainment industry isn't some weird Wild West frontier, such a hand would tell me that Hulu just became King of TV 2.0.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 29, 2015, 12:44:41 PM
Surely everybody already has Seinfeld on file, or DVD by now?

AMC would be fun.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 12:45:51 PM
Surely everybody already has Seinfeld on file, or DVD by now?

AMC would be fun.

Or we can just tune the TV to...any channel, really.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 29, 2015, 12:46:25 PM
If people still buy TVs.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
You must be one of those people who don't have access to a beautiful HD TV and wonder why people still go to movie theaters.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 29, 2015, 12:52:26 PM
My broker friend has a 60 inch 4K 3D LG TV with a 4K TV subscription on France's "FREE" TV/Mobile services. It's very nice.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2015, 01:34:24 PM
AMC is the top of the television food chain, so yes, I'd say an exclusive deal with Hulu makes them the new kind of the mountain... until AMC launches it's own streaming service like HBO has.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 01:37:28 PM
AMC is the top of the television food chain, so yes, I'd say an exclusive deal with Hulu makes them the new kind of the mountain... until AMC launches it's own streaming service like HBO has.

Which....why haven't they done that? They could use TWD to Paramount Network their way into the arena.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2015, 01:44:35 PM
AMC's business model is advertiser based where HBO's is subscription based. HBO-Go is simply part often package you get when you pay for HBO on cable.

AMC is beholden to their advertisers. You get AMC with your basic cable package. Could this change? Not anytime soon. Breaking Bad is over and while The Walking Dead barely edges out GoT as the biggest thing on TV, AMC would need a whole slew of hits to make the jump to subscription and absorb the drop in viewership they'd incur. And no one will pay for a subscription to something they can DVR.

So they partner with Hulu who's developing original content the same as everybody else is. That's where the future is. Netflix is banking on it because they have to, and because everybody started playing their game when they got cocky.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 01:48:05 PM
As a quick aside -- I'd like to comment on how your phone really is slowly taking over your identity. I'm seeing it in the auto-correct struggles that have recently plagued you. A year from now, I'm going to get the "Rotting Corpse is no longer here -- I AM RC PRIME!!!" message.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2015, 01:48:53 PM
As a quick aside -- I'd like to comment on how your phone really is slowly taking over your identity. I'm seeing it in the auto-correct struggles that have recently plagued you. A year from now, I'm going to get the "Rotting Corpse is no longer here -- I AM RC PRIME!!!" message.

Ethos ends is combing.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 29, 2015, 01:50:06 PM
MonkeyNET eagerly awaits.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 01:50:59 PM
Kill it before it finishes morphing!!!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2015, 01:51:56 PM
I AM ULTRON!!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 01:53:06 PM
Shoot it! Shoot it now! You have to do it now!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 29, 2015, 01:54:55 PM
*mounts*
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Wow...I can find every single scene from The Final Battle on Youtube except the one where Diana gets in Juliet's head and escapes.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on April 29, 2015, 02:18:26 PM
MonkeyNET enters RC ULTRON from behind.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2015, 07:13:39 PM
RC ULTRON gets the numbers on Netflix...

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/data-on-netflix-original-programming-reveals-everyone-is-watching-daredevil-not-tuning-into-bloodline-20150429 (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/data-on-netflix-original-programming-reveals-everyone-is-watching-daredevil-not-tuning-into-bloodline-20150429)

Quote
Data On Netflix Original Programming Reveals Everyone Is Watching 'Daredevil,' Not Tuning Into 'Bloodline'

Perhaps even more closely guarded than the plot details of a Christopher Nolan movie, Netflix has long been known for withholding any data regarding the streaming numbers of any programming on their service, particularly their own original content. But Luth Research has cracked the code and shared the data with Variety, and it reveals some interesting information.

Taking a look at how many subscribers tuned into an episode of a new Netflix show within the first 30 days of launch, the numbers reveal that Marvel's "Daredevil" drew in a pretty significant 10.7% of viewers catching at least one episode in its first eleven days. Now factor that against thirty day figures like 7.3% for the new comedy "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt," 6.7% for the third season of "House Of Cards," and perhaps most disappointing of all, only 2.4% for "Bloodline." (Seriously people, you should be watching this show). But, as always, the numbers don't tell the whole story.

Overall, the three seasons of "House Of Cards" is still the most watched Netflix show, and it was the most binged in March. Additionally, these numbers don't account for anyone streaming Netflix onto a television. Moreover, the company has long said that since they have no advertising, they aren't dictated by the traditional rules of television. They can draw upon different sets of data to determine demographic numbers, when and how people are watching certain programming and more. So, even something seemingly "low-rated" like "Bloodline" has been renewed for a second season, but we're sure Netflix is more than happy to see their Marvel deal is paying off in a big way, and of course "Daredevil" will be back as well.

It's an interesting window into the world of Netflix nonetheless, and it'll be interesting to see how the company's bolder steps into features will compare. What are you watching? What programming are you looking forward to? What do you think they should do next? Check out the infographic and let us know below.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 30, 2015, 12:51:11 PM
I was interested in how "Luth Research has cracked the code".

Oh guess what, they just have people that they ask. There is no exciting hacking caper or data that I can write a program to validate and verify.  :fajwat:
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 30, 2015, 12:58:51 PM
Also, that's information that Netflix released themselves. So I think Luth Research just changed the letterhead on the press release.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on June 12, 2015, 09:26:19 AM
So...Orange is the New Black. It's the worst thin ever. Even the fan sites that love it are bitter and hateful about the show.

So why is it in season three? And why does it have so many fans who also hate it? I have no idea...but I'm one of them. All week, I've had the theme song ear worming its way through my brain as I've anxiously waited for season 3 to drop. And now it's up. Time for a weekend binge! I will despise every single moment...and yet I will watch it.

In short: Don't start watching this show. Please. I beg you. Because you'll never stop.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on July 07, 2015, 02:20:32 PM
Here we go... A small, rocky start, but this Elba movie has been catching my eye.


Quote
Netflix is getting into the feature-film business, and today the streaming giant announced release dates for the films that it hopes will lead the company into its next awards-laden stage. First up is Cary Fukunaga's Beasts of No Nation, which stars Idris Elba as a West African warlord who mentors a young child soldier — it will debut on Netflix on October 16, the same day it opens in American theaters for a crucial Oscar-qualifying run. Following that is Adam Sandler's The Ridiculous Six, a comic Western that made headlines when its Native American actors walked off the set in protest. Six will start streaming December 11 — appropriately, two weeks before Quentin Tarantino's similarly titled The Hateful Eight — and with an awards run seemingly out of the question, Netflix gave no word about its possible theatrical release.

2016 brings Netflix's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon sequel, which was pushed back to the first quarter of next year after having been previously scheduled for August. It will also be released simultaneously in Imax theaters in America and normal theaters in China. Finally, Judd Apatow's Pee-wee Herman film will premiere on Netflix in March. The streaming service also has three more Sandler films in development but declined to announce release dates for them crazy far in advance. That's one way to separate yourself from your new cinematic competitors!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 07, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
I wish I had a Netflix contact.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on July 07, 2015, 02:52:22 PM
I wish I had a Netflix contact.

Just torrent your movies online! The pirates rip Netflix within minutes of the video becoming available for streaming.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 07, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I tried that. Nobody wants my movie.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 16, 2015, 11:49:39 AM
If Billy Joel wrote "We Didn't Start the Fire" today, "Cola Wars" would be "Streaming Wars."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/01/amazon_blocks_sale_of_apple_tv_and_google_chromecast_to_boost_its_own_prime.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/01/amazon_blocks_sale_of_apple_tv_and_google_chromecast_to_boost_its_own_prime.html)

Quote
Amazon Will Stop Selling Google and Apple Streaming Devices at the End of the Month

Once upon a time, people were worried about Amazon and censorship. As part of its prolonged and public war with big-five publisher Hachette, Amazon had made certain books from the publishing house difficult or impossible to obtain. Hundreds of authors joined together in protest while Amazon maintained that their concerns were overblown. That was in the spring and summer of 2014, but eventually fall rolled around and the two reached a truce. And a year later, which is a very long time on the Internet, the feud and those censorship concerns were all but forgotten.

Until today, that is! On Thursday, Amazon brings us denizens of the Internet a terrific reminder of why, for all that we love its service, we also might worry about its dominance in the online shopping world. From Bloomberg:

Amazon.com Inc. is flexing its e-commerce muscles to gain an edge on competitors in the video-streaming market by ending the sale of devices from Google Inc. and Apple Inc. that aren’t easily compatible with Amazon’s video service.
Amazon apparently broke this news to its marketplace sellers in an email, informing them that it will cease allowing new listings for Apple TV and Google Chromecast and remove existing posts for those items as of Oct. 29. But why?

“Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime,” Amazon said. “It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion.”
Yes, Amazon would much prefer that people looking to stream video and shopping on Amazon buy only devices that easily support streaming Amazon content. “Roku, XBOX, PlayStation and Fire TV”—all of which work well with Prime Video—“are excellent choices,” an Amazon representative advises. Of course, there’s the minor catch that not everyone who shops online is an Amazon Prime customer with a vested interest in easy access to Amazon’s streaming content. Fewer than 20 percent, in fact. But where those consumers might see an inconvenience, Amazon has surely identified a conversion opportunity—prevent them from purchasing Apple TVs and Google Chromecasts, and maybe more will switch their loyalties to Prime.

It will be interesting to see whether Amazon’s move with regard to streaming content raises any antitrust flags. Generally speaking, a company has breached antitrust laws when it has a monopoly and uses that monopoly to stifle competition. Amazon blocking sales of Apple and Google streaming devices would certainly suggest competition stifling, but is Amazon’s chunk of the market great enough to make that illegal? What even is the market here? Is it the market for stuff that gets sold online? Or the market for sales of streaming devices in particular? These are some of the questions that regulators will have to weigh. In the meantime, order your Apple TV on Amazon while you still can.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 19, 2015, 12:13:56 PM
Article is overblowing its point here. Today there are many other reputable online brokers, especially for tech items. Newegg, tigerdirect, etc.

If they did continue selling items incompatible with their own service? People would be mad at them for that! "I bought this sweet Chromecast thing and it can't stream Amazon instant video??"

Also, article is wrong. You don't have to be a prime member to use Amazon's streaming service. Just have an Amazon account.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on October 19, 2015, 12:22:48 PM
Yeah...this is terrible reporting from Slate. Maybe they had a 95 year old write it?
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 07, 2016, 11:54:33 AM
Oh!

Quote
Today, Netflix announced that it will be releasing several new series from Dreamworks animation in 2016. Among them are a reimagining of the mid-eighties giant robot cartoon Voltron
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 07, 2016, 04:25:24 PM
Better be lions not vehicles.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 07, 2016, 06:44:37 PM
Better be lions not vehicles.

Quoted for justice!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 08, 2016, 10:52:19 AM
Currently the most expensive TV series yet produced:

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 10:32:47 AM
Better be lions not vehicles.

Lions confirmed. But little else is known...

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 10, 2016, 03:11:56 PM
Better be lions not vehicles.

Lions confirmed. But little else is known...

Little else matters.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 10, 2016, 05:53:12 PM
It's animated, yes?
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2016, 07:43:58 PM
Of course.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on February 11, 2016, 11:34:45 AM
Gay.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 15, 2016, 05:32:25 PM
So...James Franco and Hulu are doing Stephen Kings 11/22/63. It's really good! It's the perfect time travel show... And history itself/the Yellow Card Men trying to keep history straight is really well done. If the Yellow Card Men don't get you, then history itself will just conspire to drop a chandelier on you.

Meanwhile, Franco is deep into conspiracy-land with the CIA and all that juicy JFK shit. It's great.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 15, 2016, 05:48:23 PM
I keep meaning to read the book, because it's King and JFK, but I always seem to forget to pick it up.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 16, 2016, 02:42:05 PM
We've started into Season 1 of "House of Cards". I love Kevin Spacey.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 17, 2016, 08:32:39 AM
I hate House of Cards. Watch the UK version!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 20, 2016, 10:42:58 AM
Yay! The best show of TV 2.0 comes back in April:

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on February 22, 2016, 08:48:45 AM
Really? It was a piece of shit.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 22, 2016, 10:12:48 AM
I loved it! I'm also an Ellie Kemper apologist.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on March 03, 2016, 10:11:21 AM
Now that Netflix have become dicks regarding VPN usage, I've used a VPN to sign up for HBO Nordic because fuck you Netflix.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 03, 2016, 10:40:39 AM
But how are you going to watch their collection of Z grade horror movies and TNG episodes?
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 25, 2016, 12:55:17 PM
Voltron update:

Quote
The premise itself is similar, but it does have a few tweaks—instead of the five galactic military troopers and and an alien Princess, this time the team is made up of human teenagers: Five young boys named Keith, Lance, Hunk, Pidge and Shiro (the first four taking their names from the American adaptation of Voltron, while Shiro is named after Takashi Shirogane, the character from GoLion turned into Sven Holgersson in the West). The heroes are thrust into a conflict to save the planet Arus and its Princess Alura, and countless other worlds, from a villainous space empire. So far, so Voltron.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 28, 2016, 12:12:16 PM
Here we go, kiddies!

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 28, 2016, 03:56:23 PM
Sure! Let's do it!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2016, 11:11:27 AM
This sounds fun...


Quote
If you’ve been jonesing for a time-travel series with the spirit of some old-school Stargate SG-1, this could be just the ticket.

Netflix has picked up Travelers, a new sci-fi time-travel series from longtime Stargate SG-1 producer Brad Wright (he also worked on Atlantis and Universe, for the record). The series follows a team of time travelers who go back in time via body-jumping to try and avoid a terrible future. So, kind of like Quantum Leap meets 12 Monkeys, from the creative mind of a Stargate SG-1 alum. Yeah, color us intrigued.

Here’s the official synopsis:

Hundreds of years from now, the last surviving humans discover the means of sending consciousness back through time, directly into people in the 21st century. These "travelers" assume the lives of seemingly random people, while secretly working as teams to perform missions in order to save humanity from a terrible future. Armed only with their knowledge of history and an archive of social media profiles, the travelers discover that 21st century lives and relationships are as much a challenge as their high-stakes missions.

The cast is led by Eric McCormack (Perception, Will & Grace), who will play FBI Special Agent Grant MacLaren. The rest of time-travel team includes Marcy (Mackenzie Porter), a young, intellectually disabled woman in the care of her social worker, David (Patrick Gilmore); Trevor (Jared Paul Abrahamson), a high school quarterback; Carly (Nesta Marlee Cooper), a single mom in an abusive relationship; and Philip (Reilly Dolman), a heroin-addicted college student.

It’s an interesting pitch, to be sure, and looks to be a very serialized concept. The contrast of having these characters trying to dive into modern-day lives should be ripe for drama (Again, see 12 Monkeys as a great example).

The series is entering production now and will debut on Netflix later this year.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2016, 03:07:29 PM
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2016, 04:00:44 PM
I'm all for Netflix reviving this old stuff.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on June 30, 2016, 11:06:29 AM
The secret is to go with the mood of the first season -- where Doctor Smith was a bad guy. The movie tried to walk that line, and failed horribly. But that first season was interesting. Smith started to morph into something of an antihero -- no choice but to throw in his lot with the Robinsons and embark on the show's larger adventure, but always with a twist of self-preservation and self-interest that made him more like Avon from Blake's 7.

But then all that was dropped for the campy bullshit.

Quote
The campy, iconic scifi show Lost in Space is making a comeback. Eight months after Netflix first purchased the rights to remake the show, they’ve officially given the series a 10 episode commitment with an eye on new episodes airing in 2018.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, this version of the show “takes its cues from the original series and centers on the Robinson family, who is forced to come together in a time of crisis. Stranded light years from their intended destination, they find themselves battling a strange new alien environment and also their own personal demons.”

“The original series so deftly captured both drama and comedy, and that made it very appealing to a broad audience. The current creative team’s reimagining of the series for Netflix is sure to appeal to both fans who fondly remember the original and to create a new generation of enthusiasts around the world,” said Cindy Holland, the VP of original programming at Netflix.

That creative team includes showrunner Zack Estrin (Prison Break) and writers Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless (the new Power Rangers movie, Gods of Egypt, Last Witch Hunter). Neil Marshall (The Descent, Game of Thrones) will direct some of the series.

Lost in Space will be a family drama, a scifi adventure, and Netflix is calling it “a survival story for the ages.” The franchise is certainly that.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on August 02, 2016, 11:56:06 AM
Stranger Things! Netflix gives us nostalgia and scares. A boy goes missing in a small town, a mysterious girl with otherworldly powers stands in as E.T., evil scientists hunt some sort of bog monster X-Files Alien, Winona Ryder has multiple nervous breakdowns. All lovingly set in 1983.

What wooed me was when the internet went crazy that the kids were playing with a 2016 Millennium Falcon toy and not a 1980's one. Got me thinking, hmmm, might be a show for me!

They're pretty good with the 80s thing. It feels like Goonies meets X-Files meets Stephen King meets E.T. meets Fright Night meets The Lost Boys.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 03, 2016, 12:25:21 PM
It's on my list because everybody won't shut up about it.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2016, 01:06:56 PM
It's on my list because everybody won't shut up about it.

I plowed through it all at once. It was like watching all of my favorite scenes from all of my favorite sci-fi shows and Spielberg kid movies from the last 30 years! Oh, and, like, something else was going on and people seemed upset sometimes.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on August 20, 2016, 04:33:52 PM
I thought we had a thread for JCVD the movie -- Jean Claude Van Damme's very direct, atomic bombing of the fourth wall to accuse all of us, the viewers, for fucking up his career.

He's turned that into a comical "I am a fallen god" series for Amazon that's...awesome... (JCVD was awesome, as well).

Trailer for the series:



And here's the amazing JCVD monologue to get us all back in the mood:

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on December 15, 2016, 10:15:12 AM
Gender-swapping Dr. Smith only works if you go with Gay Dr. Smith as opposed to (what they should do) season one's villainous Dr. Smith.

The best Lost in Space was when they were marooned on a hostile world with a homicidal maniac but were all too good to just execute him. Meanwhile, Smith Ver. 1.0 had to cope with the idea that he was marooned with all these people he'd just tried to kill and now he needed to function with them in order to survive.

One of the greatest lost-to-the-studio-wonks storylines in sci-fi, really. You could argue that all modern anti-hero sci-fi has been trying to recapture the first season of Lost in Space ever since. (Especially the BSG reboot where Baltar was a part of the crew.)

Quote
The premise of the remake will be the same as the original. Lost in Space follows the Robinsons as the family is forced to work together when they find themselves stranded light-years away from their original destination. Being essentially “lost in space,” they have to fight both their new alien surroundings and their personal demons. The original series was set 30 years in the future (with the action taking place in 1997) and revolved around an attempt by the U.S. to colonize deep space by sending one single family on a five-and-a-half-year journey to another planet, until enemy agent Dr. Zachary Smith sabotages the mission, sending the ship off course.

Ignacio Serricchio (Witches of East End, The Wedding Ringer) will star alongside Toby Stephens (Black Sails), who plays astrophysicist and family patriarch John Robinson, Molly Parker (Deadwood) as his wife and brilliant aerospace engineer Maureen Robinson, Taylor Russell (Falling Skies) as Judy Robinson, Mina Sundwall (Maggie’s Plan) as Penny Robinson, Max Jenkins (Sense8) as Will Robinson and Parker Posey (Superman Returns) as a gender-swapped Dr. Smith.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Sirharles on December 15, 2016, 01:37:57 PM
Netflix has revamped the old Mythbusters with the trio of helpers from the original.  I've only watched two episodes and they've clearly kept the campy writing and "acting" from the old show.  However, you can also see where Netflix has dumped some money into it.  I find this stuff kind of interesting,  but you need to watch the episode on crazy WWII weapons.  I think it's the second one.  If for no other reason than to see the dramatization of Hitler being secretly dosed with estrogen.

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on December 15, 2016, 02:30:41 PM
You didn't have to do such a hard sell, Sirharles. You should have just posted:

"Kari Byron. Netflix show."

And I would have dropped everything and found it.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on December 16, 2016, 01:25:06 PM
Netflix has revamped the old Mythbusters with the trio of helpers from the original.  I've only watched two episodes and they've clearly kept the campy writing and "acting" from the old show.  However, you can also see where Netflix has dumped some money into it.  I find this stuff kind of interesting,  but you need to watch the episode on crazy WWII weapons.  I think it's the second one.  If for no other reason than to see the dramatization of Hitler being secretly dosed with estrogen.


Yeah...this is addictive.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 04, 2017, 03:32:54 PM
Netflix rebooted One Day At A Time...and the whole game has changed. It's getting universal acclaim as relevant and powerful. Bizarre! I'll have to watch it, because... Huh?

WaPo's review went ahead and led off with the bold statement that this changes sitcoms forever.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 06, 2017, 10:54:12 AM
And...we're back!

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 06, 2017, 12:08:22 PM
But will we get spaceship Voltron? I always liked spaceship Voltron better,
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 06, 2017, 03:37:56 PM
But will we get spaceship Voltron? I always liked spaceship Voltron better,

 idisagree!

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 10, 2017, 03:25:30 PM
So the One Day At A Time reboot is good. It has the usual billion dollars an episode that Netflix throws at all of their episodes. It's very interesting and watchable.

But does it "change sitcoms forever"? No, not at all. In fact, given the original subject material, it's actually a step backwards.

The original One Day At A Time was a daring entry into a distinctly anti-daring market. The day-to-day struggle of a single woman and her two female children in the era of Archie Bunker and The Waltons was, really, insane. It paved the way for the "dominant single female shows," very quickly gaining peers in Alice and other sitcoms. Notably, it was a step away from dominant woman sitcoms like Maude who, despite her outspoken liberal views, was still tied to her husband and life and family. It steps away from the Mary Tyler Moore phenomenon, as well. Though Mary Tyler Moore was TV's first single, independent woman in 1970, she was also well off. Even husbandless, she (and spinoff Rhoda) were really upper-middle-class.

One Day At A Time is pointedly lower class. The working poor. A stratum of society that, as far as 1970s prime time television was concerned, did not exist unless you were (a) Black or (b) Salt of the Earth Archie Bunker types who were subversively put up for mockery's sake. 

So you would think that, in 2016, these concepts would not only be easier to portray and deal with, but also very topical and "now." Certainly more so than the original.

But the remake is, like so many remakes, too informed by the fact that it's a remake. It somehow loses the independent woman narrative. It's hard to describe. Perhaps independent, single women are no longer shocking creatures, sure. But I think they're missing the larger picture of the original -- the struggling underclass.

Or maybe my whole life revolves around young Valerie Bertinelli. I don't know.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 20, 2017, 11:19:28 AM
Voltron returns! And it's awesome as ever! Yay!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: Sirharles on January 31, 2017, 12:08:25 PM
This sounds fun...


Quote
If you’ve been jonesing for a time-travel series with the spirit of some old-school Stargate SG-1, this could be just the ticket.

Netflix has picked up Travelers, a new sci-fi time-travel series from longtime Stargate SG-1 producer Brad Wright (he also worked on Atlantis and Universe, for the record). The series follows a team of time travelers who go back in time via body-jumping to try and avoid a terrible future. So, kind of like Quantum Leap meets 12 Monkeys, from the creative mind of a Stargate SG-1 alum. Yeah, color us intrigued.

Here’s the official synopsis:

Hundreds of years from now, the last surviving humans discover the means of sending consciousness back through time, directly into people in the 21st century. These "travelers" assume the lives of seemingly random people, while secretly working as teams to perform missions in order to save humanity from a terrible future. Armed only with their knowledge of history and an archive of social media profiles, the travelers discover that 21st century lives and relationships are as much a challenge as their high-stakes missions.

The cast is led by Eric McCormack (Perception, Will & Grace), who will play FBI Special Agent Grant MacLaren. The rest of time-travel team includes Marcy (Mackenzie Porter), a young, intellectually disabled woman in the care of her social worker, David (Patrick Gilmore); Trevor (Jared Paul Abrahamson), a high school quarterback; Carly (Nesta Marlee Cooper), a single mom in an abusive relationship; and Philip (Reilly Dolman), a heroin-addicted college student.

It’s an interesting pitch, to be sure, and looks to be a very serialized concept. The contrast of having these characters trying to dive into modern-day lives should be ripe for drama (Again, see 12 Monkeys as a great example).

The series is entering production now and will debut on Netflix later this year.

Have you watched any of this?  I'm two episodes in annnnnd...meh.  Nothing spectacular but nothing horrible either.  Written by Brad Wright though!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on January 31, 2017, 12:39:24 PM
I started it and lost interest after a few episodes. It's kind of dwarfed by the majesty that is 12 Monkeys and the sheer fun that is Timeless.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on April 01, 2017, 12:35:32 PM
The latest round of Amazon pilots all suck...except for Oasis.

So Earth is a wreck in the near future and a bunch of wealthy people are setting up a colony on a new planet, which is a barren wasteland with an atmosphere. The colony has just been established and a crew of indentured servant-style workers (they're working off prison sentences) are up there getting it ready.

The founder of the colony calls for his old buddy, a priest, to come to the colony because this brave new world needs God.

When the priest arrives, he finds his buddy missing and discovers that his identity and purpose have been hidden from the other colonists. Mystery ensues.

It's a little bit like that other colony show that failed a while back...can't remember the name. With a touch of Alien 3 and Dune. And maybe a little bit of planet-side Firefly. And The Expanse. And, you know, everything else. But it also has a very old-school sci-fi feel. It's like something you'd read in the 60s or 70s. And it's well acted.

You get the tiny teaser at the 1:06 mark:

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on December 27, 2017, 01:57:04 PM
So I watched Bright...and I enjoyed it! Quite a bit, actually. I mean, it's stupid. This isn't a major movie that'll change your life. It's good, dumb fun. It's entertaining, the world building is well balanced and interesting, it hits the right comedy notes, it hits the right action notes, everyone's acting is up to par.

Basically, it's Alien Nation meets Prophecy set a few thousand years after the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And it sort of works. I sort of wish it was a series.

So, again, it's just dumb fun. But the hatred being heaped on it is astounding. This isn't a bad movie. And the critical claim that it feels like it was "Written by algorithms"? Jeez... I think we have to go back to the 30's to find a movie that wasn't written by algorithms.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 27, 2017, 03:47:52 PM
I'm just going to start replying to every post with "The Internet has ruined everything."
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on October 24, 2018, 12:09:04 PM
Haunting of Hill House is insanely complicated and weirdly good... Worth the effort of binging.

Also, RC, you and Mrs. RC need to get The Curious Creations of Karen McConnell in you stat.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 05, 2019, 11:04:28 AM
Russian Doll was very, very good. It's basically Lost (and the theory of Constants) by way of the Langoliers and Groundhog Day.

Nothing short of brilliant, but you don't quite realize that until the credits roll on the final episode.

It's also short, thank god. And nicely open and shut. So no commitment. It's basically just a four hour movie.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 05, 2019, 05:56:13 PM
On my list!!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 30, 2019, 05:36:40 PM
Confession: The Dark Crystal is fine... I guess. I don't exactly remember the story all that much, so what does hat say?

Also, how many streaming services do I have to sign up for now. If only there was a way to get all these services in a bundle... like, you know, a cable package.

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on May 31, 2019, 10:50:12 AM
Dark Crystal was amazing and shouldn't be fucked with. Though...I kind of like this idea.

Since Amazon and Netflix control about 90% of the streaming market, those are the only two you really need. Hulu you can watch without a subscription and it looks like CBS is going to give in and let Amazon stream them.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 01, 2019, 02:12:23 PM
I'm the last person in America finally watching 'The Terror,' but man is it good. Perfect speculative historical fiction because there's just enough bad bones history to build a story foundation, but the writers can come to any conclusion they want.

The older I get, the more weird historical horror like The Terror and The VVitch become my bag.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 31, 2019, 12:50:19 PM
Every thread should just be a Netflix thread now, right?

Anyway... Deniro, Pacino, JOE FUCKING PESCI, Keitel, and Scorcese. Somebody from Netflix just come to my house and fuck my wife already.

t=4s
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on August 06, 2019, 01:04:46 PM
Careful what you ask for...
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on August 06, 2019, 06:06:29 PM
Careful what you ask for...

*cough*
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on December 04, 2019, 08:59:47 AM
I cannot get enough of The Toys That Made Us and, now, The Movies That Made Us!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 04, 2019, 11:48:21 AM
I cannot get enough of The Toys That Made Us and, now, The Movies That Made Us!

We did the TMNT and My Little Pony episode last night. Nacho, you told me it was uplifting but the broken friendship of Eastman and Laird got me weepy at the end. Their reunion was so bittersweet.

This show is amazingly edited. The quick cuts to random reactions as various interviewees are talking about each other is comedy gold. Super well produced.

Is the Power Rangers episode worth it? It kind of feels like homework to me.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on December 04, 2019, 12:54:06 PM
I found the reunion uplifting!

They do the same editing style with movies That Made Us and it's great. I love them trying to get everyone to say "motherfucker" in the Die Hard one.

I skipped Power Rangers too. It wasn't a toy that made me!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2020, 09:52:56 AM
So, I watched three episodes of The Witcher and was lost and confused. Then Netflix posted their timeline and guide and everything snapped into place. I started again and plowed through it and it was amazing. But, Jesus, you can't just sit down and watch this show without any of the background knowledge.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 10, 2020, 11:46:13 AM
My students are al raving over The Witcher. I realize I'm quickly becoming that guy in 1929 who got confused by talkies because they didn't have title cards anymore.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2020, 12:00:11 PM
My students are al raving over The Witcher. I realize I'm quickly becoming that guy in 1929 who got confused by talkies because they didn't have title cards anymore.

Well, The Witcher is properly confusing. Not just for old people. The secret: Everything with Princess Ciri on the run is the "present" and everything else is the past until the penultimate episode when the two timelines connect.

That's really all you need. It also helps if you played the games or read the first two books, but that's not really a requirement.

What's kind of awesome about this timeline fuckery is that all the stuff in the "past" is just The Witcher's amusing monster-of-the-week battles while the ancillary characters build this insane amount of background that you don't always realize you're being fed. Very well done, from a writers room POV. By the time the past storyline catches up with the present storyline you are 100% informed and immersed in the background.

Structurally, I'm very impressed with the Witcher. It's timeline fuckery done right (as opposed to Westworld).
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on February 10, 2020, 12:01:16 PM
The Witcher was great... and boobies.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2020, 04:38:49 PM
The Witcher was great... and boobies.

Oh, my, yes!
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 25, 2020, 03:43:38 PM
We're all watching Letterkenny, right? I've watched all eight seasons and as far as I'm concerned, it's hands down the funniest thing going.

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on March 25, 2020, 04:22:37 PM
No! Will give it a try. We're looking for a new marathon.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on May 31, 2020, 10:02:38 AM
COVID Binge roundup!

THE GREAT: A baby Fanning plays Catherine the Great. Luckily, I read about this before I watched it so I went into it without expecting any history and instead settled in for the tragicomic fantasy that this show really is. And it was great. It's very chick-flicky at times, but it also made me think of season 3 of Blackadder. In fact, some things seemed directly lifted from that show.

HIGH FIDELITY: The gender swap with Zoe Kravitz isn't a problem here since Rob's character -- a misguided, underachieving Gen Xer -- is fairly interchangeable. Switching that out for a misguided, female Millennial is very interesting from the social studies side of things. The problem here, though, is the show's obsession with the movie. They play the same songs, they're lockstep with the script (sometimes scene for scene). All that does is make you want to stop watching the show and put the movie on instead. This obsession with the movie extends to setting, place, and sense of time. Our new Rob is walking so strictly within John Cusack's footsteps that this almost feels like a high school play based on the movie and set during the same time as the movie, which is the sort of thing that could work except that we are being asked to believe that this is 2019. I can't help but think that the character of Rob would be different today than (s)he was 20 years ago. I don't demand that everyone in a fantasy be in touch with our world, but I do think 1999 and 2019 are very different. The real problem here is that they do this gender swap, okay, fine, but then they make her beholden to every single man she meets. She's weak and, at times, subservient to them. This is the sort of gender swap that is keenly aware of gender, which defeats the purpose of a gender swap. Worse, that gender awareness clearly comes from a #writersroom full of men.

DEVS: There's something afoot at the off-brand Google campus! Devs is fascinating, and good. I helps if you have a working knowledge of the "technology" behind Quantum Leap, which is fun. But Devs isn't really straight up sci-fi. It's murder mystery, intrigue, action, fantasy, and everything in between.

CATCH-22: The remake is beautifully shot, well acted, and has great potential...which is wasted on weird gimmicks and attempts to simplify and play up the humor. Instead of a very black social satire, we just get straight up zanyness. All in all, the show feels like the showrunners are so taken with their clever idea to redo Catch-22 that they just couldn't get enough of themselves, you know?

DAS BOOT: This is how you do reboots. Though, it's not really a reboot. Different sub, different crew, and a different mission. The story is told in two sections: First, we have the sub crew trying to survive at the turning of the tide for the Wolf Packs. So we know that they're doomed. On the sub is a green captain and a seasoned first mate who don't get along, and that fractured relationship sort of infects the entire crew and the mission. Also on board is a radio operator who is working for OSS, trying to get them the codes to Enigma which.... Back on land, in occupied France, that radio operator's sister is thrust into the machinations of the resistance and the OSS because she's the one who has the Enigma plans. So the second section of Das Boot is a straight up spy thriller. Heavy stuff, but enjoyable.

THE LOOMING TOWER: An in-depth and beautifully acted story about how the intelligence servies fucked up in the years leading up to 9/11, from the boots on the ground all the way up to the cabinet level. This is a fascinating study that's very much in line with the book (and intercuts occasionally with actual footage showing scenes that were just acted out). Loved everything about this, but it's not for you if you're moody.

Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: monkey! on July 19, 2020, 08:05:32 AM
I’m tempted to give Netflix das boot.
Title: Re: TV 2.0 (Netflix vs. Amazon vs The Old Gods)
Post by: nacho on July 19, 2020, 09:02:07 AM
I’m tempted to give Netflix das boot.

They are beginning to get outpaced a bit.

That said, we're loving Cursed. It's about a young Lady of the Lake and her rise to power, with all the usual Arthurian characters hanging around. It's kind of what Tom Cruise wanted Legend to be, I think.

It's a little gay, but people's heads get chopped off and Merlin's a funny drunk guy.