3 ms·

I can't help but find Netflix's choice of original series puzzling. They look so bland†. I would expect a service like Netflix that wanted to make a name for it

by chc 14y ago

I can't help but find Netflix's choice of original series puzzling. They look so bland†. I would expect a service like Netflix that wanted to make a name for itself as a content producer to go for something higher-concept. Over the past couple of decades, the shows that have established networks as contenders in original programming have been things The X-Files (for Fox), Buffy (for The WB), Dexter (for Showtime), The Sopranos and True Blood (for HBO). These are all splashy, quirky shows. So why would Netflix go for something as seemingly subdued and "safe" as House of Cards? † A lot of people seem to misunderstand my point, so just to clarify: I haven't watched House of Cards and can't say whether the show itself is bland, but it lacks a strong hook to grab people. That's what I mean by "bland".

danso 14y ago
Haven't watched it yet, but I don't see how it being a political drama automatically makes it "bland"?
- lukifer 14y ago
  Bland might be the wrong term. It lacks a clear hook for those who haven't watched it (other than "has Kevin Spacey") as compared to "serial killer of other serial killers" or "blonde cheerleader fights vampires".
  - shardling 14y ago
    They don't need it to be an instant hit out the gate, so if it's good enough, the word of mouth will be the hook. It's a fundamentally different paradigm than network broadcasting, where numbers for the initial broadcast are so important for ad revenue. (It also helps that Netflix has incredibly detailed data on exactly who watches it and when; so they can more easily judge whether its a success in the long run.)
  - chc 14y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you. I don't know a better word to describe "lacks a colorful distinguishing characteristic" than "bland," but if anyone has one, I'd be happy to edit.
    - biot 14y ago
      Pedestrian?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- chc 14y ago
  I tried to illustrate with the rest of my comment, but I guess I didn't do a good job. When I say "bland," I mean "does not stand out from other shows at a glance." In the sense I'm using it, shows are "bland" by default unless they do something to make themselves stand out. It's not the fact that it's a political drama, but the fact that there's nothing immediately remarkable about it. It's not obviously quirky. This doesn't mean it's bad, but it strikes me as an odd way to try and build your brand given that historically quirk seems to win out.
thesnider 14y ago
Your statement does not make sense unless you have never watched or heard about House of Cards until now. I highly recommend investigating it before passing judgement -- it's not just another political drama.
- chc 14y ago
  > Your statement does not make sense unless you have never watched or heard about House of Cards until now. Yes, that is precisely the standpoint I'm approaching this from — it's the position that most people are in at the moment. A new show from an unproven network can't depend on an existing audience to carry it. > I highly recommend investigating it before passing judgement You appear to be under the impression that I'm judging the show. I'm really not. I'm questioning whether the show is a good launching point for a fledgling network.
oseibonsu 14y ago
Although I can't speak for the new Netflix version. The original British version is anything but bland.
brnstz 14y ago
I've watched the UK series and the first episode of this new version. It's more risque than the UK version (violence and sex), and more stylish visually. I would say it was on par with a David Fincher movie (who directed the first couple episodes). Maybe that's not cutting edge, but it's not bland. Lilyhammer was bland, though, I agree.
redwood 14y ago
The shows most people consider the best shows made: The Wire (HBO) and Mad Men (*edit AMC) both seem bland at first glance... A great show can be set in any setting.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Mad Men is AMC.
- chc 14y ago
  The Wire I will agree is "bland" in the sense I'm using here. And indeed, I don't think the The Wire would have been a good show to establish a network, even though it was good. That's a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about here. I really don't mean the show is bad. I mean that shows that "make" networks tend to be obviously quirky, and this show doesn't seem to have that trait. But IMO Mad Men was actually a pretty high-concept show. It was readily identifiable even to people who weren't very familiar with it. (I say this as someone who actually didn't watch Mad Men for several years and thus was actually in that position.)
  - redwood 14y ago
    Interesting, I, like you, didn't get to Mad Men until very late since it seemed like a mundane concept. Of course I was converted by word of mouth cajoling and one episode did the trick. I guess Netflix hopes for the same kind of thing here
blowski 14y ago
I'm not sure I understand your use of the terms 'original' and 'bland'. Many 'splashy and quirky' shows have totally bombed, while many cliched topics have been turned into hugely successful shows. It seems to be that you're saying "Why doesn't Netflix pick a successful show?". You might as well ask "Why doesn't Joe pick the winning lottery numbers?".
- chc 14y ago
  I don't think "Why doesn't Netflix pick a successful show?" quite captures what I'm getting at. If you want to boil it down to a simple question like that, a better one would be: "Given that network-making shows are almost invariably quirky series with clear hooks, why would Netflix choose to base its brand on a more reserved series without a clear hook?" Yes, splashy shows sometimes bomb and more traditional series do often work. But my observation has been that shows that put networks on the map are almost always in the former category. I can't think of any network in the past three decades that has established itself without any splashy "hook" shows. House of Cards is not that kind of show; it presents itself in a much more subtle way than that. So I find it curious that Netflix, in trying to attract attention, would bet the farm on something that is possibly quite good but not at all flashy.
  - blowski 14y ago
    I agree that House of Cards is unlikely to get the great unwashing masses desperately enabling Netflix. Perhaps because because Netflix is not just another network, it's targeting early-adopting geeks with the kind of show they tend to like. Or maybe this is just a case of 'nobody gets fired for commissioning a remake of a successful political drama'.

by chc 14y ago

danso 14y ago

Haven't watched it yet, but I don't see how it being a political drama automatically makes it "bland"?

lukifer 14y ago
Bland might be the wrong term. It lacks a clear hook for those who haven't watched it (other than "has Kevin Spacey") as compared to "serial killer of other serial killers" or "blonde cheerleader fights vampires".
- shardling 14y ago
  They don't need it to be an instant hit out the gate, so if it's good enough, the word of mouth will be the hook. It's a fundamentally different paradigm than network broadcasting, where numbers for the initial broadcast are so important for ad revenue. (It also helps that Netflix has incredibly detailed data on exactly who watches it and when; so they can more easily judge whether its a success in the long run.)
- chc 14y ago
  Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you. I don't know a better word to describe "lacks a colorful distinguishing characteristic" than "bland," but if anyone has one, I'd be happy to edit.
  - biot 14y ago
    Pedestrian?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
chc 14y ago
I tried to illustrate with the rest of my comment, but I guess I didn't do a good job. When I say "bland," I mean "does not stand out from other shows at a glance." In the sense I'm using it, shows are "bland" by default unless they do something to make themselves stand out. It's not the fact that it's a political drama, but the fact that there's nothing immediately remarkable about it. It's not obviously quirky. This doesn't mean it's bad, but it strikes me as an odd way to try and build your brand given that historically quirk seems to win out.

thesnider 14y ago

Your statement does not make sense unless you have never watched or heard about House of Cards until now. I highly recommend investigating it before passing judgement -- it's not just another political drama.

chc 14y ago
> Your statement does not make sense unless you have never watched or heard about House of Cards until now. Yes, that is precisely the standpoint I'm approaching this from — it's the position that most people are in at the moment. A new show from an unproven network can't depend on an existing audience to carry it. > I highly recommend investigating it before passing judgement You appear to be under the impression that I'm judging the show. I'm really not. I'm questioning whether the show is a good launching point for a fledgling network.

oseibonsu 14y ago

Although I can't speak for the new Netflix version. The original British version is anything but bland.

brnstz 14y ago

I've watched the UK series and the first episode of this new version. It's more risque than the UK version (violence and sex), and more stylish visually. I would say it was on par with a David Fincher movie (who directed the first couple episodes). Maybe that's not cutting edge, but it's not bland. Lilyhammer was bland, though, I agree.

redwood 14y ago

The shows most people consider the best shows made: The Wire (HBO) and Mad Men (*edit AMC) both seem bland at first glance... A great show can be set in any setting.

jlgreco 14y ago
Mad Men is AMC.
chc 14y ago
The Wire I will agree is "bland" in the sense I'm using here. And indeed, I don't think the The Wire would have been a good show to establish a network, even though it was good. That's a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about here. I really don't mean the show is bad. I mean that shows that "make" networks tend to be obviously quirky, and this show doesn't seem to have that trait. But IMO Mad Men was actually a pretty high-concept show. It was readily identifiable even to people who weren't very familiar with it. (I say this as someone who actually didn't watch Mad Men for several years and thus was actually in that position.)
- redwood 14y ago
  Interesting, I, like you, didn't get to Mad Men until very late since it seemed like a mundane concept. Of course I was converted by word of mouth cajoling and one episode did the trick. I guess Netflix hopes for the same kind of thing here

blowski 14y ago

I'm not sure I understand your use of the terms 'original' and 'bland'. Many 'splashy and quirky' shows have totally bombed, while many cliched topics have been turned into hugely successful shows. It seems to be that you're saying "Why doesn't Netflix pick a successful show?". You might as well ask "Why doesn't Joe pick the winning lottery numbers?".

chc 14y ago
I don't think "Why doesn't Netflix pick a successful show?" quite captures what I'm getting at. If you want to boil it down to a simple question like that, a better one would be: "Given that network-making shows are almost invariably quirky series with clear hooks, why would Netflix choose to base its brand on a more reserved series without a clear hook?" Yes, splashy shows sometimes bomb and more traditional series do often work. But my observation has been that shows that put networks on the map are almost always in the former category. I can't think of any network in the past three decades that has established itself without any splashy "hook" shows. House of Cards is not that kind of show; it presents itself in a much more subtle way than that. So I find it curious that Netflix, in trying to attract attention, would bet the farm on something that is possibly quite good but not at all flashy.
- blowski 14y ago
  I agree that House of Cards is unlikely to get the great unwashing masses desperately enabling Netflix. Perhaps because because Netflix is not just another network, it's targeting early-adopting geeks with the kind of show they tend to like. Or maybe this is just a case of 'nobody gets fired for commissioning a remake of a successful political drama'.