Discussion in 'Movies' started by CJ, Mar 21, 2019.
Netflix Reaches Tipping Point As Originals Now Outpace Acquired Titles – Study
Not everyone is thrilled by their "originals".
And which traditional studio only makes good movies? ;)
Meanwhile I have spent about 100x time watching Netflix originals vs. either network or movie studio content over the past few years.
In some ways, and you've said it before CJ, this is bad for consumers. When the creators are the providers, you need multiple subscriptions to get varied content. Two is pretty much my limit, currently Netflix and Amazon, so we'll see where the pieces fall.
Does America even HAVE anti-trust laws any longer?
Yes but I would argue that disintermediation and concomitant effect on pricing structure is not a bad thing for consumers. Now, I have more choices in smaller increments. Whereas the problem in the past is the distribution system robbed me of that choice (think channel packages on cable or satellite).
I agree with David's sentiment.
Here are some of the TV series I am into and in parentheses the subscription that I have to maintain to do so legally:
Game of Thrones (HBO Go)
Westworld (HBO Go)
The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (Amazon Prime)
Man in the High Castle (Amazon Prime)
The Handmaid's Tale (Hulu)
Star Trek: Discovery (CBS All Access)
Stranger Things (Netflix)
Black Mirror (Netflix)
Up until recently:
Ash v Evil Dead (Starz)
And soon to come:
Any Star Wars/Marvel/Disney (Disney Streaming)
This isn't better than cable....it's much much worse and more expensive. And I don't watch a tenth of what the average consumer does, guarantee it...
I ditched DTV recently so I'm now officially a cord cutter. I went with Hulu Live and save a ton from what DTV cost me. I also have Prime and Netflix. I don't do any of the premium channels. I'll see how Disney pans out. Chances are I may go with it. Also, I do the yearly plan for ESPN+. I love the UFC fights. As for Netflix, I do like several of their originals. But the price increases due to all of them has been a bit frustrating.
Laws are for poor people.
I'm not sure what anti-trust has to do with a thread complaining there are too many options but inset Kermit drinking tea here.
25 years ago Bruce Springsteen said there were 57 channels and nothing on. Today the song would be 570 channels...
I am finding this thread hilarious. I swear I could dig one up from less than 5 years ago where everybody is up in arms about channel packages and how they have no choice and they are too broad instead of tailored to personal taste, and therefore expensive relative to the perceived value. Now we have the choices we wanted and we don’t want to deal with it? If packages make a comeback on different digital platforms, fine. But it just moves the same customer problem to a different place in the distribution chain.
Well, as was already recognized by Barry above, I predicted this a LONG time ago and in fact it was one of the reasons I stuck with Cable so long.
I'ts not the "Packages" per-say, it's that I went to streaming to save money. I used to get good variety with 2 subscriptions, now I'll need 3 or 4 subscriptions to keep that same variety, and bringing my expenses up again...
Not really, I was doing Cable, Prime, and Netflix. I have Prime for shipping and actually have never watched anything on it. Cable was pushing $200 a month. Now I'm doing YouTube TV, Prime, and Netflix. My internet bill went up from unbundling but I'm basically saving $100 a month and I've taken zero meaningful hit to variety. The only reason I would need to add Hulu and Disney and X and Y is keeping up with the Joneses on watching stuff. I literally can't keep up with the shows I watch already. I don't NEED more services.
You should check out "Man in the High Castle"...
There are a few I'm aware of (Mrs. Maisel being another) but my wife and I are trying to get through Shameless at like 2 episodes per week and there are 7-8 seasons.
"The Highwaymen" suggests they might be. At least for me. YMMV.
Separate names with a comma.