Netflix Shows Are All Worldwide Hits -- Until They're Not (bloomberg.com) 193
An anonymous reader shares a report: On a conference call last October, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos described the hip-hop drama "The Get Down" as a success, like the booming streaming service's other popular shows. Eight months and 11 episodes later, "The Get Down" is history, a flop after one season on the world's largest paid video service. The sci-fi thriller "Sense8," another of the company's lavish productions, was scrapped after two seasons. The back-to-back cancellations caught Hollywood by surprise. Netflix has defied convention by offering no inkling of how many people watch its shows and claiming just about everything is a hit. That's vexed competitors worried about Netflix's growing customer base and influence in Hollywood. The streaming company will spend more than $6 billion on programming this year, a good chunk of that on about 1,000 hours of original shows. Cancellations are common for all TV networks -- even for Netflix, which has wrapped up most of its first crop of original shows. Without the need to attract advertisers, the company is shielded from the weekly audience ratings that determine the fate of most dramas and sitcoms. "One of the great things about Netflix is we don't have to release ratings," Chief Executive Officer Reed Hastings said in an interview this week on CNBC. "Each show gets to have its own audience because it is very personalized." That's great for Netflix and its 100 million customers, who pay up to $12 a month for the service. Without pressure to deliver weekly ratings, the company can give shows time to develop a following. "House of Cards," the thriller starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, just started its fifth season. It's not so great for competitors -- or producers who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough by the streaming service. With no data, they must rely on the positive remarks Netflix executives make for all their shows.
The Down Side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, with the show them mentioned, "The Get Down"...easy to figure why it flopped....its subject matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah...I just happen to think the terms "Rap" and "Music" happened to be mutually exclusive terms....
There is plenty of "black" music I enjoy, if that's what you are trying to imply...that I don't like rap because it is black?
Most of my favorite music is the blues or blues derived music, and that came directly from US black artists.
And...the link you quoted me, I didn't say anything there about any particular race, now..did I?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you been paying attention? Not agreeing with idiots 100%, makes you Hitler.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
There is plenty of "black" music I enjoy
The music equivalent of "But I have a black friend"?
I'm not racist - I watch The Daily Show. Just last week I had a black waiter and didn't use the n-word once.
Re:The Down Side (Score:5, Interesting)
very high
The value of a second one:
not so much
Likely they dumped the most expensive shows, hits or not.
Re:The Down Side (Score:4)
I feel that a lot of Netflix series, well may be well written, seem to not have rewatchability factor to it. These are shows that I normally flag, as I watched it, I was glad I watched it, but after that I am not interested in seeing it again. For me I find this common with "Smart" Shows. While engaging, and may make you think, after you have thought about it, rewatching it again, just boring, because there isn't much new in a new view.
Some shows have the right amount of smart in it, that rewatching over and over means you can get different angles, but also not make watching it again a chore.
Re: (Score:2)
There is so much good to great content now, than unless I run into someone who hasn't seen a great movie or show, and I watch it with them, I never rewatch anything.
A "gotta set it" is not the same for all people (Score:2)
Arguably, netflix probably can facilitate broader content... That said, it's still sad to see a future full of silos.
Re: (Score:2)
Most British programs change the stars every few episodes. Dr. Who calling it regeneration just made it easier to keep the same basic character. It's rarer for them to have both a long running show and a stable cast throughout the run.
Considering the typical British "season" is 6 to 8 episodes, I don't know why they burn through casting so quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Most British programs change the stars every few episodes.
I take it that Coronation Street and Eastenders mean nothing to you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Likely they dumped the most expensive shows, hits or not.
This is probably why Doctor Who still exists. No offense intended, but it's obviously not done on a huge budget, and they get rid of the starring actors/actresses about once every year or two.
I mean, sometimes it feels like I'm watching a tv show made by The Asylum.
They don't exactly "get rid of the actors". The actors chose to leave to pursue other jobs so they don't get too type-cast.
Re: The Down Side (Score:4, Interesting)
That's easy. Sense8 was a good sci-fi concept. I watched the first season hoping it would get better and drop the concentration on sex. Started watching season 2 and turned it off after 15 minutes. I don't consider myself prudish but I wasn't going to sit through a season of broke back mountain. The notion they seemed to be pushing was we are all gay if we just give it a chance.
Never even occurred to me me to watch the other thing whatever it was simply because I don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy. Sense8 was a good sci-fi concept. I watched the first season hoping it would get better and drop the concentration on sex. Started watching season 2 and turned it off after 15 minutes. I don't consider myself prudish but I wasn't going to sit through a season of broke back mountain. The notion they seemed to be pushing was we are all gay if we just give it a chance.
Never even occurred to me me to watch the other thing whatever it was simply because I don't care.
I have to agree. I did watch season 2 though and enjoyed it. But I did find myself fast-forwarding through all the crap (whichever gender on gender it happened to be).
Re: (Score:3)
The OP certainly comes off more than a bit homophobic.
The show of course wasn't trying to recruit anyone into the gay army, and really just showed the relationships (and sex) in a positive light. That said, I found the constant feelgood parties and orgies at the expense of plot development quite annoying, and eventually stalled around halfway through S2.
As for the reason it was canceled, it's simple - it must be expensive as fuck to make since they shoot a lot on locations all over the world. I remember see
Re:The Down Side (Score:5, Informative)
I've only watched a few of their series, and while Sense8 had a great premise, i can see some people having difficulty following it. The other mentioned i haven't seen, so no clue there.
Re: (Score:3)
wonder if they're getting paid enough (Score:2)
Netflix doesn't have to worry about syndication. (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix doesn't have to worry about that. Syndication has no meaning in an on-demand world. They can make a handful of episodes of, say, Marco Polo, and even if most people don't enjoy it, there will be enough people who do that Netflix can cancel the show early yet still get the benefit of the show in perpetuity. So for Netflix, pretty much anything they make is a "hit" as long as some people, now or in the extended future, are willing to watch it (and keep their Netflix subscriptions going).
Re: (Score:2)
"For the networks, there's an incentive to keep plodding on with a show until it hits 100 episodes, which is the magic number required for syndication. That's why Star Trek: Enterprise was allowed to stagger through its crummy fourth season."
OT, but the magic number for syndication is 65: weekdays for 1 quarter (5 days per week * 13 weeks)
Enterprise only had 98 episodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Enterprise only had 98 episodes.
Which is yet another token of how much contempt the network had for the show. Though maybe we should be glad they didn't extend the series finale into a three-part episode, in which Riker gets to bang T'Pol, beats Archer in a fistfight, kills Shran for calling him a "pink-skin," and more holodeck wish-fulfillment horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe 100 is a new metric for syndication, but there are plenty of old shows that were syndicated that didn't have near that number of episodes. Here's the first two I can think of:
The original Star Trek had about 80 episodes in its thee seasons.
The original Scooby Doo cartoon had 25 in two seasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Marco Polo was definitely in the top 10 shows I've watched in the last decade. Was very annoyed they cancelled it.
Re: (Score:2)
"... recovery of the sunken costs..."
Technically speaking, sunk costs can't be recovered. But you're point is well taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the major networks model, they lose all investment when a show fails to reach syndication. Heck, their smart move now might be to offer the shows to Netflix as freebies.
Why this obsession with a show being a "hit"? (Score:3)
...Netflix has defied convention by offering no inkling of how many people watch its shows and claiming just about everything is a hit....
Watch an episode or two or three of the show. If you like it, continue to watch it, and enjoy the show. If you don't like it, stop watching it, and move on. See how simple that is? No need to obsess over what everyone else is thinking about the show.
Re: (Score:2)
On regular TV, if I know that a show isn't a "hit", I'm less likely to try it because TPTB will probably cancel it in the middle, leaving me pissed off. That probably wouldn't apply to the NF originals, since they release a whole season at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It matters if you want the show to be longer than one season.
Whether a show lasts more than a single season is for the shows' producers to decide. They would know the viewership.
.
You're at the mercy of the show's producers.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the British "Netflix" original shows are just reruns of BBC, ITV, or channel 4 shows from Britain. They had nothing to do with the production, they just slap their name on when it comes to the US.
Hulu does the same thing too... as does Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
As a viewer, I agree. The main reason I'm interested in the success of a show is whether or not I might continue to see more of it. This can be important if they're employing story arcs or other forms of storytelling that go beyond the stand-alone episode format.
Re: (Score:2)
This latter, I suspect, is the reason show gets canceled. If the subscribers are putting their subscriptions on hiatus after binge watching, those subscribers are of no value. This is not like HBO who also gets carriage fees. Netflix is subscriber
Dear Netflix, a bit of advice (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no interest investing time to watch a show that goes nowhere. Gets cancelled. Or has no definite ending. Even worse, that ends on a cliffhanger.
Follow a formula like Babylon 5 used. A story with a beginning, middle and end. Having a definite ending where everyone lives happily ever after is important. In the last few episodes you can see the pieces being moved off the chessboard as everyone gets promoted or retires or whatever. It doesn't have to be a five year story arc. But it does have to be something that you can definitely pull off without cancelling it.
I've watched shows that had a well conceived first season. Obviously thought out by a single mind. Or maybe a small number of people. Excitement builds from episode to episode. It has a good season 1 ending. Then it gets a second season and goes off the rails. In season 2 the show has no planned story. The writers wander aimlessly. Eventually the writers turn to thinking about what outlandish twist can we do to a major character -- completely ruining the character's back story in previous episodes.
I know it is tempting to think that if you can drag a show on for more seasons that it makes more profit. That is true in the short term. Eventually your audiences get tired of being strung along without ever having a conclusion. Resolution. They just quit watching. Find other forms of entertainment that have a satisfying ending -- like reading a good book. In the long run, it is more profitable to have a limited pre-planned number of seasons with a story that winds up and makes everyone happy. This kind of show might be watched and re-watched for generations. Just like a good book.
Stop worrying about trying to make a show that everyone wants to watch. There is no such show. This thinking is what killed television, and later cable tv. Make a show that a certain audience will love dearly. Make another show that another audience will love. People who like particular types of shows will continue to appear as new viewers -- forever. There will always be new sci-fi viewers, for example.
Re:Dear Netflix, a bit of advice (Score:5, Insightful)
The world does not revolve around you. As a series, Law & Order has no beginning middle or end and premiered before current college graduates were born. People like different things and Netflix could not care less what *you* want. They are going to make shows to draw viewers. They know what you watch. They don't need Nielsen ratings. If you like a show, watch it. Enough people like you and it will continue. Too few and it will get the axe. If you want Netflix to know what you want, show them through viewing behavior. This is about as direct democracy as you can get. Just get on and vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I quit watching Law & Order in the late 1990's after seeing several years of it going now where.
It's a free country, people are absolutely allowed to watch trash. And critics, who are also free people, are allowed to claim that trash is high art.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I quit watching Law & Order in the late 1990's after seeing several years of it going now where.
It fell off the rails after Jerry Orbach died. Even though he had left the series by then, his death took the wind out of the show. It never really recovered.
It happens all the time on TV (Score:2)
All that said, what you're asking for is niche content. And you're not likely to get it. Japan gets a little of it with Anime, but it tends to be low quality because of the need to sell merch (think fan service). At the end of the day these are businesses and stuff costs money. They're either gonna need a product with
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really a great example? If you consider Seasons 1 - 4 and the last episode of seaso
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Babylon 5 is one of the best refutations of the Babylon 5 model.
“No operation extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main body of the enemy.” This holds true for television as well. Actors leave the show, either though illness (Michael O'Hare) or contract (Claudia Christian, Andrea Thompson) and renewals are not certain (season 4 to 5).
Re: (Score:2)
But the networks told him that it was going to get canned after season 4, so he had to scramble around to rewrite things to bring it to a close early. But then they said it got renewed for a 5th season, right after it was too late to change it back round. Hence why the 5th season was a bit of a mess in comparison.
Interesting. I hung out on his Usenet ng at the time, and IIRC his story was that he wanted to show that there's no "happily ever after". Just like when WWII ended there was a huge mess that had to be cleaned up, when the "Shadow War" ended there were still some of their allies running around causing havoc in the ensing chaos that had to be dealt with.
But that was his story. It could be that you are correct in the main, and this was just how he tried to spin it as a positive. Normally I'd take horse's mou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
^This!!! I tried 3 of those, and I thought they were good, until they got axed right in the middle! That's one thing that soured me on network TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you might enjoy Netflix's Jessica Jones. Oh, wait.
That is probably the single worst TV show ever made.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing worse than getting into a series, then having it abruptly end. For a while, every show I watched was getting cancelled.
The Event
Flash Forward
V (the new one)
The Player
Add Firefly to that mix! I'm still not quite sure what Fox was doing when they ran it.
Success can be cancelled (Score:5, Interesting)
I also tend to think they were running a bit low on ideas about midway through season 2. Oh, another scene were thugs randomly show up but using the power of Korean ex-CEO punching we can knock them out and escape! That said, they did keep the plotline moving at a good clip, commendable for a show like this that can so easily get sucked into the vortex of dealing with dead end sideplots and social moralizing and forget what it was supposed to be doing.
I would be quite happy with a special/movie to tie up the loose ends (like the people in the van at the end of season 2) and call it done, but I'm not going to be angry at them like I was at Fox for Firefly if they just decide to cancel it entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically both Babylon-5 and Sense8 had the same creator/show runner.
The difference was B5 was being created in a ratings-driven environment, and always had pretty good ratings, so it was able to survive (by the skin of its teeth some years), even in an environment that had turned hostile to independent productions.
Netflix, as this article mentions, just does not have the same incentives.
Re:Success can be cancelled (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At first. But - never *ever* bring back a character that you have demonstrably killed off. Do that and the viewer will then rightfully think that every closure, regardless of how small, is just a plot device to be demonstrated as a trick later. Lazy third grade story telling. No, sorry, not even an eight year old does that.
Jon Snow & The Hound?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they handled it in the show but in the books Jon Snows death was the huge cliffhanger at the end of the most recent book. It was left very open as to whether or not he'd be dead come the next book. Was his death more final in the show or something? I seem to remember The Hound being presumed dead because he was left in dire straits, but his body wasn't recovered. In both cases those are obvious setups for the character returning, or at least leaving the other characters and reader in suspen
Re: (Score:2)
It was obvious to me that both would return.
Jon Snow was definitively dead, corpse and all.
We had previously seen the dead be revived by magic-wielding followers of the Lord of Light (when Arya was semi-kidnapped by Robin Hood and his gang). And with the red bitch on the board it was obvious that she'd pull the same stunt on Jon Snow. This violates the "if you see a body" rule, but was clearly within the established rules of the universe.
The Hound was left dying by a rock with no one around. Arya even as
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking hell. I meant to type "maester", not "master". That's a typo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to talk about killing characters off, the most heartfelt death on the show is when Van Damme died. The replacement was just not the same.
I've mentioned this anecdote before; but (Score:3)
Back before Netflix did away with star ratings, they had always proven to be really reliable estimates of how much I'd like a show... EXCEPT when it came to Netflix-produced stuff. With those, the "best guess" they'd suggest for me was invariably 4.8 to 5 stars - but, once I watched them, it turned out to be a crapshoot whether I'd even like the show/movie at all. I can't think of a Netflix-produced show I'd give even 4 stars to (if that were even possible nowadays).
So, yeah, it doesn't seem surprising to see yet another piece of evidence that Netflix execs might be less than honest when it comes to their own shows.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of a Netflix-produced show I'd give even 4 stars to (if that were even possible nowadays).
Their animated shit is the best shit they make. Bojack Horseman, F is for Family, Voltron, etc.
Netflix is the opposite of shielded from ratings (Score:5, Interesting)
From the summary: Netflix is "shielded from the weekly audience ratings".
That is absurd. Netflix in fact is exactly the opposite of this statement; They have nothing BUT audience ratings to drive them. They don't have marketers clamoring for shows to be changed in a specific way. They don't have fights about a show not being able to exist because a timeslot it belongs in is full.
What they do have is pure, undiluted ratings. Is part of an episode boring? Netflix knows to the millisecond when you skipped or stopped watching. Show gets bad later in the season or after the pilot? Netflix knows you stopped watching, and on what episode... Netflix knows when you went back to watch something. Netflix knows when you binge-watched for fourteen hours straight. Netflix knows so much broadcast networks could only dream of knowing about the entire audience...
It makes perfect sense to me that Netflix would toss a show at the drop of a hat, if the audience is leaving in droves. I'm sure they give shows some leeway to find footing but even then Netflix probably knows exactly from data of every other successful show exactly what "finding footing" looks like from a viewing behavior perspective.
I'm pretty happy with the flood of new Netflix content. Yes a lot of it is and will be crap, but that's because 99% of everything is crap. So the more they produce the more non-crappy content will come to exist as well...
Re:Netflix is the opposite of shielded from rating (Score:4)
Even that is not so (Score:3)
I think the point was Netflix is shielded from making their audience ratings public.
The thing is, Netflix ratings are public [variety.com] - no not Netflix provided ratings but the same crappy estimates that all other networks get for ratings, you can get for Netflix also. So it's not like no-one else has any idea what ratings of popular netflix shows are.
Now what could be said I guess is that Netflix is shielded from having to ACT on these public ratings, because they have far more perfect data. But to me that is till
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true they can (and very much do) have niche shows. Netflix still has to justify the expense of creation, just because they can with no cost house a show that only ten people really love, doesn't mean it's worth $1 million to produce because they will never make a return... even thinking long tail.
TV Shows - ALL episodes at once (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the problem is that TV shows are being released all together. You have 10 episodes a season (for example) that just come out all at once. It's like a 10 hour movie. You binge watch it, and have no clue what happened on Episode 2 or Episode 4 - you can't tell when events occurred, you might just remember that they did.
I never understood why Netflix and Amazon release TV shows like this.
What happened to waiting?
Make people wait. Release 1 episode a week, like normal TV shows do. This will make people
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a problem? It seems more like desire for the status quo.
a) Plenty of people gab around me gab about Netflix's shows. The difference is that they can gab about the entire season rather than specific episodes. I heard way more talk about, say, Daredevil or Jessica Jones, than I do about Game of Thrones or American Gods.
b) With DVRs and other on-demand services for shows, even weekly shows no longer have the watercooler effect on Monday.
Some people binge watch them all at once, and that's fine,
Re:TV Shows - ALL episodes at once (Score:4)
The problem is with the production side, as the article says. Traditionally the stars and production company make a show and lowball the cost to get it on the air. They take lower salaries, cheaper locations, etc. Then if the ratings get big they renegotiate their contracts for better pay, more return per episode, better quality episodes.
With Netflix's attitude towards ratings, it makes it harder for production to do this. They still have to meet certain costs on production, but then if Netflix only says "It's a hit!" with no metrics, they can't judge what kind of leverage they have for renegotiation.
Then again, Netflix mostly skips the idea of pilot episodes and orders entire seasons, so less risk on the production side to start with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the 10 episodes and following the BBC/UK television production standards. They should be doing the 22-26 episodes common to the US market.
This thing alone is the thing I hate most about Netflix's series.
Re:TV Shows - ALL episodes at once (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, I don't like the way regular TV releases a few weeks, waits a couple of months in the winter, releases a few more, takes a spring break, then releases a few more and quits for the summer.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't want to wait, and thus Netflix is giving people exactly what they want. When I rewatched Enterprise on Netflix (well, I'd give up by season 3 in the original run) I actually enjoyed it more since I could watch the two part episodes in one go.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we're talking about TV. I pay Netflix so I have the luxury of having entire seasons at my disposal, and if I want to binge watch, that's no skin off of anyone else's back. If you like the way network TV rolls out series, then by all means, continue to use that medium.
Re: (Score:2)
This all at once system is silly.
I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're saying it's silly for the viewers or for Netflix. I'll assume that you're saying it's silly for Netflix, since viewers are almost universally going to prefer to watch on their own schedule, whatever that may be. Those that want an episode per week can do that. Those that want to binge can do that. Or anything in between.
But it's rather presumptuous of you to assume that you know what's good for Netflix better than Netflix does. I mean, they're investing b
What do YOU want? (Score:3)
Re:What do YOU want? (Score:4, Informative)
Well then, has Amazon got a service for you.
https://www.amazon.com/rent-or-buy-amazon-video/b/ref=sd_allcat_aiv_shop?ie=UTF8&node=7589478011 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd favor streaming where you get exactly what you want to watch, even if the price is per show.
Have you ever done the math on doing just that?
Keep a log of how many hour(s) per week you watch non-broadcast content and then just buy content you want to watch?
I'm mostly convinced that I could do this and I would break even over about a six month period compared to Netflix with a mix of used DVDs and purchased streaming.
not so great for competitors (Score:2)
Cry me a river (Score:3)
In other words, "They're making money and I'm not getting any."
Or really, they might be making money and not giving it to me.
I can almost see some justification for actors; their reputation is affected by how many people see their performance.
But for everyone else?
If you don't like it, make your own content and publish it yourself.
Brain melting. (Score:2)
The problem is that we have essentially raised a generation of people that would rather sit and watch a whole season of a tv show every day instead of getting up and trying to learn or better their self. I stopped completely watching TV about 3 years ago, my wife still watches TV, and occasionally ill turn around and watch a few minutes of a show if its something like South Park, Futurama, That 70's Show, something funny.. Or maybe when I'm half drunk and ready for bed ill watch 30 minutes of whatever she i
Re: (Score:3)
What about those of us that do both? It's possible you know. The world stops for the GF and I when House of Cards has a new season, for about 2 days, then we're back in our routine. We still "better ourselves" and know how to relax too.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never let a TV show do that to me, however I understand what you mean. It sounds as though you and your girlfriend use TV responsibly, you don't depend on it like so many people seem to be lately, also things like Facebook, and Twitter, Instagram.. They are letting it become their everything. It makes the the rare occurrence of the child temper tantrum over video games seem like, well child's play. Pun intended? Either way it doesn't seem to be mentally healthy.
No kidding??? /s (Score:3)
I'm reminded of a gag I once saw:
Welcome to the tautology club
The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.
Idiots (Score:2)
Or they could, you know, collect some data.
Do they think the data on traditional television viewership numbers just pops into existence by magic or something?
If Netflix is reading this: invest in writing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Season 1 of The Last Kingdom was interesting but not great. Everything after that was content mill writing. No amount of money spent on production can exceed the value of the writing.
Netflix had nothing to do with the first season. It was on BBC before it ever showed on Netflix. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon frequently brand things as "originals" if they are merely the first to show them in America, even if they had nothing to do with the production.
They were involved in the second season however. Both seasons though are based on the (excellent) books by Bernard Cornwall btw. The books are really good. The books themselves are also based around real history that was happening. (Utred
Re: (Score:2)
And for those who don't know, King Alfred in the son of Viking's Athelstan, so it's kind of like a sequel series. Not that Vikings has much real stuff in it.
Not getting paid enough? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Producers who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough by the streaming service."
Gee, maybe you should get paid for the ACTUAL work that you do, and not how many people view it? Just a thought... This is why I can't stand the entertainment industry. Residuals should be outlawed. No one deserves to be paid for not doing actual work. They should be compensated well up-front, paid by the hour, just like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Producers who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough by the streaming service."
Gee, maybe you should get paid for the ACTUAL work that you do, and not how many people view it? Just a thought... This is why I can't stand the entertainment industry. Residuals should be outlawed. No one deserves to be paid for not doing actual work. They should be compensated well up-front, paid by the hour, just like the rest of us.
Suppose there were no residuals like you want and creative people need to get compensated at the beginning for the value of their creation. How can they properly judge the value of what they are creating if they have no insight into how successful it has been? They will probably be inclined to go back to the media which supplies them with numbers so they do not feel cheated.
The way you have described it becomes like sale of a stock. The creators are selling the rights to distribute their creation for pro
Re: (Score:2)
Why was hollywood surprised? (Score:2)
Netflix puts out as many on the surface obvious bad shows as everyone else.
Who knows, with their new ratings system? (Score:2)
I actually liked the Get Down. It may have not had the viewership it needed, but it had enough stars and I gave it a shot. But once they did away with the stars and replaced it with thumbs/up and down, I no longer trust the recommendations. Especially on their in-house shows. I don't think I've given a new Netflix show a shot since then. Especially after seeing previously 1-star trash rise to "98% recommended" overnight (whatever that means).
Thumbs up/down isn't granular enough for me, so I don't even rate
How is this really different... (Score:3)
... from the constant barrage you can see on US networks (ABC, NBC, and especially CBS) with promo bumpers for "Watch our net HIT show...", and "On the NEW HIT SHOW this fall..." The thing hasn't even aired yet and it's a "HIT SHOW". Even if its crap, and it gets cancelled in half a season it's a "HIT SHOW". Garbage all...
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC correctly there are a few that stink so bad they never see daylight. From memory: Some Italian blue blood spent the entire family fortune making a movie about an animated, singing, dancing purple dinosaur (not Barny) starring Whoopi Goldberg, back when she was a 'star'.
Her people bought it, to save her career. Now that 'she's done' anyhow, they should release it for the luls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the luls!
Re: (Score:2)
It makes no sense. Both have an 8.4/10 on IMDb and seem to be very well received. Sense8 clearly has a larger following than The Get Down, which also makes its cancellation surprising. Sense8's recent episode got a very good rating as well.
I guess viewership may have declined or something, but when you've got a good show running, I think it's a mistake to cancel prematurely. Especially when the show is well-received and it was supposed to run five full seasons (as is the case with Sense8).
I don't know the cost of those shows. I know Marco Polo had a huge global audience but they cancelled it anyway because it was a very expensive show to make.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the cost of those shows.
Someone made a point earlier that is seems like Netflix cancels its most expensive shows regardless of quality.
Marco Polo - gone, expensive
Sense8 - gone, expensive (season 2, per episode price - 9 Million)
The Get Down - gone, expensive
I don't know the viewership of these shows but I know Sense8 had such a loyal and supportive following, that they finally pressured Netflix into producing a 2 hour final show to wrap up loose ends. (500K +) https://www.change.org/p/netfl... [change.org]
Re: (Score:2)