20 ms·
Netflix Earnings Are Driven by Investment in Original Content
- aetherspawn 10y agoI'm constantly bummed out they don't have classics like Top Gun or nearly any DC series like The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow etc. But there will always be someone bummed out. Edit: apparently at least not within Australia.
- michaelchisari 10y agoI just checked, and in the US, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, Arrow and Supergirl are all on Netflix streaming right now. You're right about Top Gun, though.
- aetherspawn 10y agoDamn! We don't have them in Australia.
- SyneRyder 10y agoArrow is on Netflix Australia, as is Gotham, but I think a rival streaming service has the rights to The Flash (Stan? Presto?)
- kittiepryde 10y agoIf you mean the CW series, they have them. They release seasons after they have aired. http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/netflix-cw-streaming-licensing-deal-1201808624/ http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/netflix-cw-streaming-licensi...
- matthuggins 10y agoThey have all of the DC series, including the ones you mentioned.
- stcredzero 10y agoOld media tried to kill them by cutting them off from content. Instead of letting it happen, they proceeded to replace old media as a source of content.
- hackits 10y agoGranted Old media did have the funds and backing to purchase Netflix out or offer competitive alternatives.
- vogt 10y agoThey had the chance to do both, and squandered it.
- notatoad 10y agoThey did have the funds, but i don't think they do anymore. and that's why we call them "old media" and not just "media"
- cryptoz 10y agoBlockbuster declined to buy Netflix for $50M in 2000. Now Blockbuster is gone and Netflix is worth a lot more than $50M. Edit, source: http://www.businessinsider.com/blockbuster-ceo-passed-up-chance-to-buy-netflix-for-50-million-2015-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/blockbuster-ceo-passed-up-cha...
- 10y ago
- Queue29 10y agoTIL Netflix (1997) has been around longer than Google (1998)
- nas 10y agoI had Netflix around 1999 and I lived close to one of their shipping centers. The turn around time was about two days and I could request three DVDs at a time. It was glorious. Huge selection of awesome DVD movies. All sorts of stuff you would never find in a rental store. Sad that you can't stream those great movies now but I'm still a Netflix subscriber.
- helthanatos 10y agoWhat's even more sad is they are blocking VPNs and have more of the actually good shows only available in the UK. I'd like to see them fix their multinational deals better. Going to have to find alternative means soon.
- engx 10y agoThat service still exists for $5-12/month (dvd.netflix.com) for 1-2 discs at a time.
- ghaff 10y agoAnd unfortunately, now that they've killed the local DVD rental business (Redbox aside), they're letting their own DVD rentals steadily decline with more and more titles no longer available to rent. It's pretty much gotten to the point where, if there's an older/less popular movie you may want to watch, there's a good chance you'll need to just buy it.
- WaxProlix 10y agoNot in its current incarnation - it was more of a DVD rental delivery service with banner ads on warez sites. The streaming/cloud tech company sort of came later.
- shiro 10y ago
- ReganKoopmans 10y agoTo me the deal breaker is ads. I think as a society we have begun to grow out of ads, I personally cannot stand them. I can only just tolerate the 5 second YouTube ads.
- hackits 10y agoI have nothing wrong with ads, though my viewpoint of ads is they need to target `me` instead of `them`. Eg... 6700K Is now for sale for $200AUD or 1080p is for sale for bargain prices! Though most of the ad's I see have a handsome margin added to the product that I neither want nor if I did I could find somewhere on ebay cheaper.
- naibafo 10y agoMy problem (not a problem for me though) with ads is, that I do not trust them at all anymore. Even if I would see an interesting looking ad advertising a cheap 6700K I would think to myself, that they must have paid for the ad somehow and I can probably find it even cheaper somewhere else.
- hackits 10y agoI have to agree I've had exactly the same situation. Wish I could say otherwise. The only thing today that directed me to specific products and services are sites like hackernews, youtube channels like Eli the Computer Guy, and Louis Rossmann. I've donated about $500AUD to different youtube gaming review channels (because I like their content). I've donated to schools and donated my time with teaching programming. Though do I trust a advertisement GIF or Ads in the middle of a youtube video (hell no!). Deep down I do want advertisement to get better and I DO want them to target me with meaning full advertisement. Though it still is a game of pop-ups in the middle of the screen of Skype, News, Web-sites all wanting to TELL me about how special they're.
- deepGem 10y agoSpot on. The concept of advertising is completely outdated. If you look at how advertising began in the first place, it began as a way for for people to discover new products. Back in the day, that was not bad. Not today. Today there is absolutely no need to hammer you with information. There are easy and affordable means to get whatever information you want. So yeah, advertising is another 'inherited money making crap' that we are just living with. I really hope Netflix disrupts this in some way and not become another engine for bombarding users with ads.
- zantana 10y agoNow that net neutrality is history doesn't it seem like netflix (and by extension Amazon) extremely vulnerable to the lack of competition in the ISP space in the US? Google at least had something of a workaround with their various efforts to provide access, but I don't see how they are going to circumvent the tollbooths which are popping up on the last mile.
- flukus 10y agoIf anyone throttles netflix then they can put up a message telling their users that their ISP is responsible, similar to youtube.
- notatoad 10y agoNetflix addressed this in their recent earnings call: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/netflix-is-so-big-that-it-doesnt-need-net-neutrality-rules-anymore/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/netflix-is-so-big...
- yen223 10y agoOn the flip side, is no one worried about the seeming lack of a viable competitor to Netflix?
- RhodesianHunter 10y agoAmazon Prime, Hulu, Google Video, HBO is online now, Vudu... I'm not sure what you're saying.
- donarb 10y agoAnd CBS now has "All Access", $9.99/mo commercial free, includes broadcast shows, NFL football as well as exclusive content.
- phaemon 10y ago> HBO is online now Sounds good! <goes to Google> > "HBO GO. It's HBO. Anywhere." Awesome! > "To access HBO GO℠, you must reside within the fifty states of the United States of America." Oh. That anywhere.
- ProAm 10y agoI wish their streaming catalog was better, I can never find movies I really want to watch so I still get blu-rays because it actually has a lot of content.
- eplanit 10y agoThis is interesting in the larger context of Broadcast Media w.r.t. news, too -- their power and relevancy are ever declining.
- Mikeb85 10y agoI agree, Netflix is killing it. First of all, their selection in Canada is amazing, despite what anyone says. Second, I'm pretty sure I watch more of their original content than anything. They have great taste, fund the right people, they've progressed well beyond what I ever expected. Third - great app, can download content for offline. Anyhow, they're killing it on every front, and it costs what, $10/month? I'd pay much more. Anyhow good job Netflix.
- joezydeco 10y agoThis comment from Reddit user SmegmataTheFirst really nails it: "tl;dr: Advertising ruins everything, which is why netflix originals are better than cable TV shows." https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5ou7px/netflixs_gamble_pays_off_as_subscriptions_soar/dcmczmz/ https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5ou7px/netflixs_...
- Joeri 10y agoWhy are there ads on cable tv? Why can't they just charge tv subscribers the whole amount and get rid of ads on tv? If netflix can do it, why can't tv do the same?
- nerfhammer 10y agoCable originally didn't have ads. They just discovered they could put ads in and nobody cancelled their subscriptions.
- rchowe 10y agoThis is actually a common myth. Cable initially was a service where the feed for certain terrestrial broadcast stations was transmitted over a cable for users who could not receive a clear signal. Since the same feed was used, it had the ads the broadcast affiliate put into it.
- gozur88 10y agoThe original microwave pay channels didn't have commercials. But cable always did.
- sametmax 10y agoWhich basically means it's the consummer fault again. I mean, yes, they are evil. But just like disease, it's useless to blame it. There will always be diseases. It's our responsibility to cure current ones and create environments to avoid future ones. Which means for businesses, if you want them to stop misbehave, you should stop rewarding them when they do. Just like in politics. Which amazingly we don't do.
- kinofcain 10y agoWhat's interesting to me is that while Netflix is often the primary financier, the traditional studios are still the ones producing the content. If Netflix has found a worldwide market for content, that's good news for the studios they're hiring to produce that content. I'm curious if the additional revenue from Netflix, and presumably Amazon, Hulu, and a nervous HBO will be enough to offset the declining revenue from broadcast TV.
- beezischillin 10y agoNetflix is such a great service, I'd say they are the ones that are truly represent the disruption Silicon Valley dreams of so often in, in the positivest sense. Shame the world around them is less than great. Their existence in the US is being hampered by petty, extortionist ISPs who couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it and by dumb licensing and copyright laws. Their catalogue abroad is often less than 10% of the American one (my country has 12% of it! - according to https://www.finder.com/netflix-usa-vs-world-content https://www.finder.com/netflix-usa-vs-world-content). I remember, when they finally expanded to my country, I quickly signed up and the first thing I did was search for House of Cards, just to see no results. It was very disappointing, because their original content is really good, in fact good enough that they created the market in which everybody wants to be Netflix, so they are all trying to create quality original programming, and that's a competition I love seeing. I used to be a Netflix subscriber via VPN, before they officially opened here, but it just became cumbersome and risky to connect (remember the controversy surrounding sketchy Chrome VPN plugins?). Unfortunately, right now I don't have an active subscription at the moment, sadly, because I finished watching most of the things that interested me from their catalogue in 4 months. Kind of a shame because the company that cracks international expansion first is usually the one to stay in those markets. On the streaming music front, aside from some sketchier ones, Apple Music was one of the first to open up shop here, and I'm still using it with no plans to ever abandon it because it's a great service -- not only that, but Apple decided to offer regionalised pricing, so their is priced very fairly (to compare and contrast, their subscription costs a little more than twice the amount than here, but the country I live in being a poorer one, I think it's perfectly acceptable). On top of that, they have their original content. Even if Spotify managed to come to this market, I wouldn't switch. There was a time when I desperately tried to pay for their service but they did not let me, now I wouldn't, because I already have superior service. Edit: I can't stand advertising on services, the ads on most American TV channels and services are so bad that I have to stop using them from time to time. It's not exactly the norm in my country, but there was a time when I thought our ads were crazy annoying! Some of it is extra annoying, like YouTube's, I would love to get YouTube Red, but it's not available here, even tho Google introduced some really crappy business practices to try and steer users towards it.
- caseysoftware 10y agoRemember this from four years ago: "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." [0] In that entire article, there's not a single mention of HBO Go. Looks like Netflix succeeded. 0: http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster-than-hbo-can-become-us http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo...
- RangerScience 10y agoI met a then-CTO of HBO on a train once, talked for a few hours from NYC to upstate. I (digitally) followed the news about him for a bit - it seemed pretty clear from the time we spent talking, and what I saw digitally subsequently, that he tried and failed to get HBO to understand streaming and the web. HBO content is still amazing, and HBO isn't bad, but... It's certainly not as good as Netflix. It occurs to me that it's a lot easier for Netflix to become HBO, than for HBO to become Netflix - You don't need to build up a tech base, or a talent pool, to make an amazing show - it's all rented or hired per thing, so if you can pay for the talent, it's available, and can start making magic immediately. Not trying to imply the creation of amazing content is easy, more that the lead time is waaay less than for the creation of tech like Netflix's.
- chetanahuja 10y agoIt's more like there was always a lot of pent-up supply of amazing content available. The reason the supply was not finding an outlet was because of the problem that such content doesn't have the mass appeal required to be a hit show on non-premium cable (or, god forbid, a theatrical release movie). So the outlets were limited. HBO was one such premium outlet but it was always limited by the number of primetime hours in the day because of the cable based business model (still is). Netflix comes along and starts ordering shows where they know the target audience is going to be very limited, say only 10% of all college graduates from big metro areas. That's enough for a show to be Netflix success. Some of them they contract with US production companies (House of Cards, OIT New Black etc.), others they source from non-US TV networks (Sherlock, Black Mirror etc.) If they have enough of these shows, they can cover most of their target audience and make sure that most people have at least a few original shows keeping them hooked to the $10/month subscription. There's no limit on airtime since Netflix is all on-demand. So now there are dozens (or who knows, even hundreds) of these shows and all they need for you is to get hooked on one or two of those. And a few of them have been legitimate breakout hits like House of Cards, Stranger Things, OITNB etc. Maybe individually none of those shows is as big as Game of Thrones, but combined, they're obviously doing a great job for Netflix. For HBO to truly compete with Netflix, they'll have to break their "Cable first" model and truly start thinking in terms of unlimited online hours. We'll see when they release their first online only show.
- shmerl 10y agoSo, when are they going to release their films and shows DRM-free?
- freshyill 10y agoWhy would they want to do that? You're not buying their content. You are leasing it for as long as you are a subscriber. This isn't a DVD that you physically own and can make a strong case for format shifting to watch on other devices.
- shmerl 10y ago> Why would they want to do that? Why wouldn't they want to do that? When they were pushing EME garbage into HTML standard, their main excuse was that it's not because they want DRM, but because without it, major film studios won't release anything through them. That was before they started making their own stuff. And now that they do, where is it DRM-free? > You're not buying their content. What stops them from selling it? It's theirs, they can do whatever they want.
- SyneRyder 10y agoThey do sell it... on DVD & Blu-ray. If you don't mind spending $120 you can get all four seasons of House Of Cards on DVD. But that would also buy a year of Netflix, and most people would see the Netflix subscription as the better deal.
- shmerl 10y ago> They do sell it... on DVD & Blu-ray. Who needs obsolete physical media these days? Where are they selling files?
- ultra2d 10y agoYes please. Let me automatically download episodes in the highest quality and watch them the way I like it, in Kodi: always full screen, 24p, CEC. In short, give me a legal usenet alternative.
- Twisell 10y agoThey just understood the basic, that people can drop 10 bucks a month for an unlimited pass. Meanwhile some other company still try to sell you downloadable 15 years old movies for $15 each ...
- yabatopia 10y ago"In 2016, Netflix spent $5 billion on original programming. Netflix plans to spend $6 billion creating 1000 hours of new content this year, more than doubling its 2016 lineup." That's a little bit worrying : double the content, with only a slightly higher budget. I wonder what impact this will have on the quality of the shows. No advertising is great but meaningless when the content is rubbish.
- cwp 10y agoThey double the content because they still have all the shows they made last year. That's what makes this model so powerful: new subscribers haven't seen House Of Cards, season 1 yet, so the value proposition keeps getting better.
- cosmie 10y agoFor additional seasons of their existing shows, they already have sunk costs for sets, props, and all that jazz. I don't know much about the economics of production, but I'm sure there's some sizable cost savings from leveraging those existing assets during subsequent seasons (same for movie sequels). They've also been pumping out animated kids shows quite heavily. Those are almost certainly less expensive per hour than a lot of their blockbuster hits, and would easily allow for a 66% increase in content-hours with only a 20% budget increase. And, anecdotally, are the types of shows that keep subscriptions active long after parents stop actively watching things. Kids get attached to characters easily, can watch the same season repeat dozens and dozens of times, and benefit from consistency (i.e. not app hopping between Amazon Video, Netflix, Hulu, etc). And the value of Netflix during times like extended traveling and running errands is not to be underestimated. My subscription would have gone long ago if my daughter weren't so attached to some of their Originals. They're really good at making spinoffs of popular movies (like the Puss in Boots spinoff from Shrek) and popular toys (like Ever After High, based on the Monster High dolls).
- 1123581321 10y agoI'm concerned, but optimistic overall. I see Netflix benefitting from all these factors: - existing shows which reduce set/CG/marketing costs; - lower production costs as shortage of sets and filming equipment is lessened by new supply entering market; - less need to higher huge stars to sell the idea that the programming is high quality, and with more huge stars willing to do TV, paying not quite as many million dollars to get them; - expanding into lower cost TV (similar to the Tesla strategy to move downmarket.) Sadly, this means people who enjoy a lot of the existing shows won't have twice as many shows targeted towards them, but it shouldn't affect their perception of Netflix.
- RangerScience 10y agoI started to feel this after House of Cards; the feeling progressed through Sense8 and Stranger Things, and has finally come a head with The OA: As a developer, I want to make something as beautiful as a Netflix original. I'm not really sure how, tho...
- RangerScience 10y agoOn further thought, I think my best bet is a framework...? Languages are much harder to get off the the ground, but the true beauty* lies in the amazing ideas in which / with which one thinks while programming. * As opposed to, eh, merely aesthetic beauty - that code looks good.
- Crespyl 10y agoIf you are ever interested in pursuing aesthetic beauty as a developer, you might enjoy generative/procedural art. Tools like Processing[0] are very accessible even to those with minimal programming experience, and can be very powerful and fluid environments if you have any familiarity with Java or similar languages (or clojure[1]). It's very easy to iterate rapidly (even some live-coding elements) and have a lot of visual feedback, such that it almost feels more like sculpting than a normal programming workflow. [0]https://processing.org/ https://processing.org/ [1]https://github.com/quil/quil https://github.com/quil/quil
- RangerScience 10y agoThank you! But not the thing. I don't want to use software to make something beautiful, or make software that is used to make beautiful things; I want to make beautiful code. Does that make sense? (Unless you think the codebases of these projects are themselves beautiful? Then they might be a The Thing)
- pmontra 10y ago> Very few people will join Netflix for just one title, Obviously, because it would cost too much. However with enough customers paying monthly for the full service maybe they will start thinking about video on demand. I'd pay 1 Euro (not more) per episode.
- SyneRyder 10y agoAm I the only one who feels "Netflix Original" became a negative this year? When I first signed up, Netflix Original meant high quality shows produced/funded by Netflix itself, like House Of Cards & Orange Is The New Black & Daredevil. Netflix Original meant the best TV you've ever watched. Now Netflix Original often means terrible unfunny stand-up comedy, or made-for-TV movies by big name stars phoning it in. Much of the new Netflix Original content is rated one-star - on my account I see Wet Hot American Summer, XOXO, Easy, Chelsea, A Very Murray Christmas, The Ranch, Mascots, Chewing Gum, Richie Rich, Lost & Found, all with one star. And there's a ton more. Worse is that it keeps pushing those as recommendations to me, even though it thinks I'll only rate them 1 star. I can't see myself cancelling my Netflix yet, but there have been times when I've been tempted to pause it for a month or so.
- divanvisagie 10y agoI love it when people complain about suggested content based on their preferences as if the results are the same for everyone.
- TomMarius 10y agoHe's not complaining about the compilation, he's complaining that every single Netflix Original movie from the compilation has one star. It doesn't matter if the results are different from everyone, you can access this content on your account.
- freyir 10y agoNetflix is in a growth phase and, no surprise, they're catering a much bigger audience now. Besides all the shows you listed, it's recently aired Stranger Things, Narcos, The Crown, Longmire, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmitt, The OA, etc. These shows aren't going to appeal to everyone, but they're going to be somebody's favorite show. Daredevil never really did it for me. I thought their Wet Hot American Summer reboot was really entertaining. Go figure.
- DanBC 10y ago
- charlieflowers 10y agoNetflix original content is amazing. IMO, they are the foundation of a new golden age of television. Honestly, if you browse Netflix originals and choose one with 5 stars, and give it 3 episodes, you're most likely going to be hooked and start binge watching into the wee morning hours. I speak from very recent experience -- first with Stranger Things, then Travelers (it's fantastic), and now Lovesick (possibly the funniest comedy I have ever seen and also my wife's new favorite show).
- ultra2d 10y agoAlthough I really like Lovesick, it is only an original since the second season. That might be a really good strategy though, just buy up the best (cancelled) gems and let the original crew create more of it. They should have done that with Party Down too.
- shawabawa3 10y agoIt also used to be called "Scrotal Recall", in what is possibly the worst TV show naming disaster ever and probably the reason it got cancelled. Netflix quickly changed the name
- DanBC 10y agoTravelers is brilliant. I've been wanting a Sliders (but better) reboot for some time.
- erikb 10y agoThere is basically a line break between talking about the results and drawing conclusions. Nothing explains why the success should come from original content. Sure, it's a factor, but calling it The Reason is awkward. Also I don't think Netflix has won the streaming wars, already. I use both Netflix and Amazon (with two more competitors I don't use, in my country). And they are actually different enough to both survive together. Netflix is the everybody solution: cheap, broad, but certainly not covering all corners. Amazon is the "rich" solution: You can have nearly everything there is, but for some of it you need to pay premium (i.e., buy/rent the movie despite paying for prime already).
- dschuetz 10y agoWired.com is adblock-walled? How ironic.
- izacus 10y agoWell, the fact that they're the only TV service that doesn't shove you "We don't want your money, go away" screen to most of the world is helping their subscriber count. And since they're a monthly billed service, adding a few 10 millions subscribers at 10EUR a month does help a bit with bottom line. Meanwhile, HBO Now and other cable fossils still show "We refuse to accept your 15EUR/month" screens to most EU and world countries. Serves them right.
- Freak_NL 10y agoTrue. Last year the number of non-US subscribers overtook the number of US subscribers of Netflix. They are now starting to invest in non-English content as well. Should be interesting, as long as they keep offering their own content globally. Netflix still suffers from a fragmented back catalogue though, where non-Netflix Original content can only be viewed in certain geographic regions.
- flurdy 10y agoIt makes me happy as a Norwegian living in the UK that the major Norwegian language series (Lillyhammer, Occupied, Nobel) are now available on Netflix in the UK. I still hope they can go even further and offer globally their back catalogue of kids shows in Norwegian language currently only available in Netflix Norway. I noticed some UK shows are available with Norwegian subtitles but for the smallest it would be good to have the audio track as well. This is probably all down to what ever rights agreements they have signed with the local publishers. And would apply to every countries catalogue and agreements, so not an easy negotiation.
- yuchi 10y agoCan you please change the title in something more clear for non native speakers? ”killing it” is not a positive statement for foreigners! It looks like they are dismissing their content creation department!.
- beloch 10y agoAs Hollywood discovered in the 30's and 40's, controlling both production and distribution simultaneously can be very profitable. However, they also discovered that anti-trust lawsuits suck[1]. Refuse to show your competitors' movies in your theaters and millions of voting consumers begin to grumble. Netflix's execs have some serious cajones to go where Hollywood went almost a century ago. They're going to need to be very careful in order to avoid government interference. Showing even a hint of favoritism towards their own content could land them in heaps of trouble. Maybe online distribution will be viewed differently than cinemas were, or maybe it won't. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
- massysett 10y agoHouse of Cards is available for purchase on Comcast.
- rebootthesystem 10y agoInteresting. At home we've grown increasingly dissatisfied with Netflix. It takes forever to find anything good to watch. There was a time when they had reasonably current good movies. Now it can take us 30 minutes of clicking around to find something decent and, more often than not, we give up. Let's put it this way, we are finding that we are recording dozens of movies shown on the FX channel an end-up watching these recordings, even though FX is great about ruining the experience with pointless commentary and tons of commercials (thankfully fast-forward on the DVR takes care of that). FX (and others) have had better content for at least a year. Not sure why we keep paying Netflix. I need to have a serious look at Amazon video and other options.
- Yizahi 10y agoYeah. Amazon released Prime internationally recently. And it has 7 day free demo period, so I thought I'll try it. I open app and see - aww, it's like 15 TV shows and a hundred movies? Come on... Then - ok, lets check what they actually have available. The Man in High Castle? Looks promising... And I'm still subscribed :) . Need to check Netflix too, hope they have a bigger content selection.
- puranjay 10y agoAmazon Prime Video just launched in India. While it doesn't have the show quality of Netflix, it is significantly cheaper at a reported Rs. 1000/year (against Netflix' Rs. 600/month or Rs. 7200/year) They'll have to figure out their pricing if they want to do well in these markets
- GFischer 10y agoThey also launched extremely cheap in South America, but they basically have no content, so they can't compete with Netflix here.
- WhiteSource1 10y agoClearly everyone is watching Fuller House
- Nexxxeh 10y ago>He expects Netflix to monetize existing subscriptions by doing things like adopting higher pricing tiers for 4K content. They already do, in the UK at least. 4k is only on the top tier 4 stream subscription. The standard subscription is 2 stream and tops out at 1080p.
- Tiktaalik 10y agoFor me what I'm really enjoying about Netflix right now, is not their original, exclusively for Netflix, content, but the foreign content they're bringing in, such as "Trapped" and "Occupied", which are shows from Iceland and Norway respectively. The BBC has done a pretty good job of buying and airing foreign TV, but in North America a lot of this stuff hasn't come over. I really appreciate the effort that Netflix has done to air this sort of thing and I hope to see a lot more. Independent of their foreign nature, these are really good shows, but their foreignness makes them even more interesting as you get a bit of a glimpse into a different culture without having to travel yourself.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoSeconded. I really liked Fauda - an Israeli show.
- lobster_johnson 10y agoOne of their better shows last year was Marcella [1], the British show from the guy who wrote the original The Bridge (Broen/Bron). (If you liked Trapped, make sure you check out Baltasar Kormákur's [2] other non-Hollywood work. 101 Reykjavik and Jar City are particularly good. I also liked The Sea.) I love that they're pulling in quality indie/foreign films such as Rams [3], but these are few and far apart. There are so many superb "arthouse" films out there that they could offer. I wish someone would sponsor the digitalization of older "out of print" works that now only survives on old, out-of-production DVDs or on VHS. I wanted to find a few of Icelandic director Friðrik Þór Friðriksson's films (Children of Nature is one of my all-time favourites), but they're not available anywhere. I was hopeful for Filmstruck [4], but their selection is very limited. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5269594/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5269594/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Kormákur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Kormákur [3] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3296658/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3296658/ [4] https://filmstruck.com/ https://filmstruck.com/
- flycaliguy 10y agoWatching The Crown recently got me thinking about the current massive production of Western media content. You know how a tree over produces seeds in the final phase of it's life? One last push to spread it's genes? What if the decline of global western hegemony is producing art in much the same way?
- jmelloy 10y agoThe evolution of Netflix is impressive. It became an 'international' company when it opened up the streaming service to Canada in 2010, and now they operate in over 190 countries.