Netflix (DVD Delivery Discussion Only)

[swo17]

Does anyone remember how Netflix used to send discs that were listed as a "wait" in your queue as bonus discs in addition to whatever your monthly plan covered? Well, they've been doing that again for me lately, quite a few times actually over the past few weeks. So see, I don't only use this thread for complaining.

[warren oates]

This happened to me too, twice in the last month. I don't get it. At this point I'm reflexively suspicious of any attempt at exemplary service or goodwill from Netflix. I feel like they are going to change rates or plan terms or something on us again soon. I'm guessing those "wait" discs that nevertheless can be sent out to us relatively quickly are only "waiting" because there are one or two copies in some other distant geographic area where no one else cares to see them. So it almost certainly costs Netflix nothing to do this.

[Perkins Cobb]

The "short wait" bonus disc never stopped completely for me, although (like everything else about Netflix) it became more sluggish and unpredictable over time. The major change I have seen is in availability reporting: lots of titles without any messaging get skipped without warning, and only then does the "Short Wait" (or "Long Wait") notice pop up.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Half of my Netflix streaming queue is disappearing May 1st, according to their website. Decimated. Did some massive licensing relationship just dissolve/expire? I've never seen this many disappear all at once. Most of them are old programmers.

[Ishmael]

I've noticed this too. As far as I can tell, all of the titles were licensed from MGM. Maybe it just means they were all licensed at the same time so are expiring at the same time. Still sucks, though.

[Noiradelic]

NYT: Netflix Looks Back on Its Near-Death Spiral

[Ishmael]

In addition to a shitload (maybe all?) of the MGM titles disappearing from streaming, I noticed that 15 or 20 other titles dropped off my streaming queue recently with no warning whatsoever, not even an end date listed in the queue. I'm having trouble figuring out which ones they were, though The Last Laugh and Private Hell 36 were definitely two of them. So, you know, Hastings can spin whatever PR bullshit he wants, his company still specializes in breaking balls.

[Black Hat]

I noticed this as well but if they're disappearing from Netflix shouldn't they be going somewhere else?

[mfunk9786]

I've found that if you have the big 3 (Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu), when something disappears from one service, it tends to turn up somewhere else pretty quickly

[Black Hat]

In this case tho, as in with a couple of the Bergman films I've noticed they're going off Netflix & Amazon.

[lefeufollet]

I've seen it mentioned on Twitter that MGM has signed an exclusive streaming deal with Warner Archive Instant, leading to the broad loss of titles. I still haven't found an article confirming this, but I'll post a link if I do.

[Black Hat]

That would make sense. Has Warner Archive Instant made it on to Roku yet?

[jwd5275]

Yes.

[albucat]

The real problem with Warner Archive streaming is the unavailability of HD-streaming aside from the roku. Who knows when this will be changed.

[lefeufollet]

According to Warner Archive Instant, the reports of their involvement in this Netflix purge are unfounded:

https://twitter.com/warnerarchive/statu ... 5438478336" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@WarnerArchive: We aren't involved in Netflix’s business decisions & our content is drawn solely from WB's library & aren't streaming Universal/MGM content

[Black Hat]

Well that stinks, was hoping to be able to see these films somewhere.

[Props55]

Well as mfunk pointed out these films are likely to turn up at another streaming venue sooner or later. Like you I've been enjoying the full breadth of the old UA/AIP catalogue from late Hammer to Woody Allen. I certainly never thought I'd see Lester's THE BED SITTING ROOM streaming in HD! And these films seemed to be pretty constantly rotated in and out of circulation so they never seemed to be gone for long. At least this seemed to be the case in the last year or so. They will certainly be missed in the short term though and there were about a dozen or so that I would have liked to see again.

Netflix, on the other hand, seems to be hell bent on morphing into the streaming equivalent of HBO/Showtime and (providing they actually stay the course for more than a few months) may eventually relie on less and less on traditional theatrical conglomerate libraries.

[captveg]

Netflix, on the other hand, seems to be hell bent on morphing into the streaming equivalent of HBO/Showtime and (providing they actually stay the course for more than a few months) may eventually relie on less and less on traditional theatrical conglomerate libraries.

Which makes sense, as those libraries are becoming more expensive to license for streaming as the major studios look to create their own unique subscriber streaming channels.

The way of the future for TV and rentals is the same - the large companies have their own unique channels which is the only place to find their specifically owned content. In 10-15 years we'll have the streaming equivalent of the Warner Channel, the Universal Channel, etc. And they'll be $6.99/month each.

Just look at the four major US sports - all have their own streaming channels. I have MLB.TV for $129.95 a year, which if you watch a lot of baseball is a great deal. It's certainly better for me to have 3-4 streaming channels for TV Shows/Movies and Sports than it is to have cable (which I haven't had in nearly 8 years now). Between Netflix, Amazon.com and MLB.TV I pay about $300 a year for my TV/Movie Rental Streaming content without the 300+ channels I don't give a damn about. That's a mere $25/month. Of course the major studios want a piece of that action.

[Perkins Cobb]

Well that stinks, was hoping to be able to see these films somewhere.

Well, you can -- many of them are on Blu-ray, DVD, MOD, or, worst case, the MGM HD channel (and recordings thereof).

[warren oates]

Netflix, on the other hand, seems to be hell bent on morphing into the streaming equivalent of HBO/Showtime and (providing they actually stay the course for more than a few months) may eventually relie on less and less on traditional theatrical conglomerate libraries.

Which makes sense, as those libraries are becoming more expensive to license for streaming as the major studios look to create their own unique subscriber streaming channels.
The way of the future for TV and rentals is the same - the large companies have their own unique channels which is the only place to find their specifically owned content. In 10-15 years we'll have the streaming equivalent of the Warner Channel, the Universal Channel, etc. And they'll be $6.99/month each.

God, I hope not. If distribution were this Balkanized for digital music or ebooks, for instance, everyone in the world would be almost justified in pirating the content. Instead, for now, we can pay reasonable rates at a few portal sites. But to have to sign up for a separate service for dozens (if not scores or hundreds) of separate corporate streaming video services makes zero sense to me. And, being highly motivated to seek out an endless variety of obscure films, I'm not even remotely the typical consumer. My parents have Netflix. And they hated, hated, hated even the idea of the Netflix/Qwikster split. If the studios want any of our money they'd better figure out a way to make it easy for us to give it to them, preferably all in one place. The studio exclusive model might barely work with a la carte/PPV pricing (with rentals of older, less in demand content priced accordingly), but even then the annoyance of dealing with so many different services would trump the convenience of having more titles available. Imagine if every publisher had a different bookstore. Or if you had to subscribe to a magazine that only had one or two articles you felt like reading a year because there was no way to buy a single issue. HBO Go is all right, but only because it's a supplement to a cable subscription. The whole appeal of a service like Spotify for music lies in the fact that it has access to content from more than one corporate music library. Like Netflix, cable or HuluPlus for movies.

[Perkins Cobb]

But but but but, streaming is so darn convenient!*

* until someone randomly takes it all away

[vsski]

Netflix, on the other hand, seems to be hell bent on morphing into the streaming equivalent of HBO/Showtime and (providing they actually stay the course for more than a few months) may eventually relie on less and less on traditional theatrical conglomerate libraries.

Which makes sense, as those libraries are becoming more expensive to license for streaming as the major studios look to create their own unique subscriber streaming channels.
The way of the future for TV and rentals is the same - the large companies have their own unique channels which is the only place to find their specifically owned content. In 10-15 years we'll have the streaming equivalent of the Warner Channel, the Universal Channel, etc. And they'll be $6.99/month each.

God, I hope not. If distribution were this Balkanized for digital music or ebooks, for instance, everyone in the world would be almost justified in pirating the content. Instead, for now, we can pay reasonable rates at a few portal sites. But to have to sign up for a separate service for dozens (if not scores or hundreds) of separate corporate streaming video services makes zero sense to me. And, being highly motivated to seek out an endless variety of obscure films, I'm not even remotely the typical consumer. My parents have Netflix. And they hated, hated, hated even the idea of the Netflix/Qwikster split. If the studios want any of our money they'd better figure out a way to make it easy for us to give it to them, preferably all in one place. The studio exclusive model might barely work with a la carte/PPV pricing (with rentals of older, less in demand content priced accordingly), but even then the annoyance of dealing with so many different services would trump the convenience of having more titles available. Imagine if every publisher had a different bookstore. Or if you had to subscribe to a magazine that only had one or two articles you felt like reading a year because there was no way to buy a single issue. HBO Go is all right, but only because it's a supplement to a cable subscription. The whole appeal of a service like Spotify for music lies in the fact that it has access to content from more than one corporate music library. Like Netflix, cable or HuluPlus for movies.

I'm with Captveg on this one. Studios are desperately looking for new areas of revenue and streaming is one of the key revenue streams (pardon the pun) of the future, so each studio will look to review their licensing agreements more tightly as streaming becomes big business and having their own channel is clearly one way they will consider, Warner just being more advanced as usual than some of the other studios.
While streaming has always been praised as the medium/technology that will ultimately allow consumers to see anything they want in their living at the push of a button and technology analysts praising the possibility of having these gigantic content libraries with every imaginable piece of music, film or TV content available in one place, I find this not realistic, if for no other reason than licensing cost. I do, however, believe that some of today's cable networks will offer bundles of various streaming channels like they do today with movie or sports bundles. So while there likely will be a Warner and Universal channel, there will be also be a consumer option of bundling these into one package instead of having to pay for every channel separately.

[warren oates]

As long as studio exclusive subscription streaming doesn't become the only delivery vehicle for home video. As long as there is still a way to purchase/own high quality physical media or downloads and to rent pretty much the same array titles a la carte (that is, no premium titles are deliberately held back from individual/a la carte/PPV pricing in order to force consumers into streaming subscriptions). Imagine the kind of exclusivity windows Disney uses to creative buzz around its various home video releases transposed onto subscription plans and you'll throw up in your throat a little too. Hopefully none of the majors will be dumb enough to try and remove options we're all used to already (or the market will quickly correct them if they do). And streaming will be -- as it should, as it is already with the WB service and Criterion's HuluPlus -- a supplemental option to deepen the back catalog of viewable content. But still, like Perkins Cobb's footnote says: streaming is so darn convenient for consumers, until it suddenly isn't, because it's equally convenient for greedy studios to suddenly and summarily change the terms of their agreements.

[Black Hat]

Man this thread is just full of bad news.

The way I see it the music business is very different than film. Personal music consumption has a much broader consumer base than film, it also has a strong base in exploration and discovery. Film for the most part you know what you want. Now for most people these days the tv available on Netflix & Hulu are a lot more important than the films. Our culture these days is far more dominated by television than film but if they happen to see a film they like and watch it that's an added bonus. Movies in my opinion are a lot like sports in the way they have their fans over a barrel. These studios are catching on to what the sports leagues have figured out, it's fans are addicted to their product and will pay for it because we can't help ourselves.

I mean right now I already pay for Netflix, Hulu and Prime and am most likely, unless they completely suck, going to subscribe to Warner Archive & Fandor. And it's only going to get worse because the studios know there are people like me, people like us, who will pay.

It's a sad state affairs where I'm just glad that on top of the 8 dollars a month I'm not paying taxes on these services but I know eventually Uncle Sam is going to want his cut and like cigarettes, they are going to tax the hell out of these services because they know we're addicts.

Everyone's happy, making money hand over fist, except as usual, the mass public consumer struggling to make ends meet who's looking for something fun to do to distract themselves from the stress of life.

Yay capitalism!

[warren oates]

Black Hat, you're still the exception when it comes to the market.

Five years from now when my father feels like breaking in his new TV by watching his favorite movie -- The Great Escape -- in glorious 8K or whatever the standard is then, if it's easy enough he'd be willing to pay a service like Netflix, Amazon, iTunes or his Internet/cable provider a reasonable fee for the privilege. But if he had to sign up for, say, a completely new thing like Fox Streaming (even to pay a la carte), he just wouldn't bother. They'd lose his money and he'd either go with an inferior format, probably the older Blu-ray that he already has, or not watch the thing at all. Make streaming too hard and it's lose-lose for most customers and for the corporate media owners. On the opposite edge of the spectrum is my younger cousin, who would pay if the model were more like iTunes -- all in one place, reasonably priced -- but who'd just as soon pirate the content if every next film he wants to see is ghettoized at separate exclusive subscription streaming services. Either way he'll watch what he wants. But the company only gets his money if they make it truly convenient and price it fairly.

I'm not sure cable sports packages are a good analogy either. The NFL having its own network is distinctly different from a studio with its own streaming or cable channel. That is to say: an Eagles game is more like a 49ers game than -- to use two Disney films, for example -- Snow White is like The Insider.