Netflix

[Lucky Planet]

I haven't gotten far (have Stranger things to finish as well...too many dam shows)

But its weird, my friend is watching it and says it gets really good...which is the opposite of what I have heard and makes sense because I find that story good but also has some boring spots and it being the longest "arc" I can understand why most get bored.
I'll weight in more once I can watch it, but at least we have the Audio verion. That is basically perfect

Maybe I am biased in that I only wanted to see sandman (Morpheus) and I don't know anything about the comic but sandman is a pop culture icon for 30 years. Sandman and Death are iconic by now.
And after episode 6, they just kinda disappeared into the background. I was shocked.

Having seen sandman in shirts and posters and stuff for 30 years, I was fully on board to follow his story. But I really Hate all the humans this had, so much.

Constantine here was awesome. Really great. But too short. Again, very tiny appearance. Death, tiny appearance.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Maybe I am biased in that I only wanted to see sandman (Morpheus) and I don't know anything about the comic but sandman is a pop culture icon for 30 years. Sandman and Death are iconic by now.
And after episode 6, they just kinda disappeared into the background. I was shocked.

Having seen sandman in shirts and posters and stuff for 30 years, I was fully on board to follow his story. But I really Hate all the humans this had, so much.

Constantine here was awesome. Really great. But too short. Again, very tiny appearance. Death, tiny appearance.

Yeah, this might not be for you

Sandman like many great shows (Stranger things, GOT, West World etc) has kinda a main character but its about the world and they do this a few times where the Sandman is not the main focus because (and I have not finished the series yet since the audio version is not compete yet) because these events are leading to something bigger. Without spoilers its hard to say but basically most events in someway are apart of the main story but takes until the end for all the pieces to fall together.

But even without watching the show I know the first stories are much stronger then what follow it for a little while. Now this is not to say their aren't amazing parts later on but for sure the first arc is hard to top but they have some cool stories in season 2 as well...and if its structured like the audio version that season will also be front heavy with the best stuff and then go into side stories you either love or hate.

 

[Lucky Planet]

Yeah, this might not be for you

Sandman like many great shows (Stranger things, GOT, West World etc) has kinda a main character but its about the world and they do this a few times where the Sandman is not the main focus because (and I have not finished the series yet since the audio version is not compete yet) because these events are leading to something bigger. Without spoilers its hard to say but basically most events in someway are apart of the main story but takes until the end for all the pieces to fall together.

But even without watching the show I know the first stories are much stronger then what follow it for a little while. Now this is not to say their aren't amazing parts later on but for sure the first arc is hard to top but they have some cool stories in season 2 as well...and if its structured like the audio version that season will also be front heavy with the best stuff and then go into side stories you either love or hate.

People keep saying that the comic is much better ( even the non sandman parts) a lot of people keep recommending the comic. I guess I really need to read it. Everyone keeps saying how amazing it is.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Sorry I literally can't find a link but most likely on the app on the tixr app you can find this

Tixr is hosting Cobra Kai Season 5 Premiere At LA State Historic Park next Wednesday, its free.

 

[Jerroddragon]

After what feels like 5 years....Dragon Prince is back

 

[Jerroddragon]

Finished Cobra Kai newest season

Big Focus on the adult characters this season (not saying others didnt get the spotlight) but hoping next season ends this right. Its been a super fun show but don't want it to get bad,

 

[TheGentTrent]

Zack Snyder's sci-fi epic 'Rebel Moon' will apparently hit Netflix in two different parts

Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon is apparently so ambitious, that it can't be contained in just one movie.

www.syfy.com

This sounds like it will be the most Snydery thing ever.

 

[Nick]

 

[Jerroddragon]

They will make more money but also pirating will go way up

 

[Nick]

They will make more money but also pirating will go way up

I mean, Netflix needs more revenue streams so it was just kinda inevitable.

Although I’m continuously amazed at how a company like Netflix who could use new revenue streams just decides to release movies that cost $200M to make exclusively for streaming instead of giving a theatrical run.

 

[Tbad556]

It would be less disappointing if the content justified the costs. The constant cancellation of shows, underwhelming quality of original movies, and just overall degradation of content selection over the years makes this move enough to push me into "I'll subscribe once every 3-6 months when something of value is added and then use that month's subscription to catch up on other content I missed before canceling at the end of the month" rather than just perpetually keeping a subscription. But hey, if a ton of people sharing accounts all do this, the move is probably justified financially, so I get it. Just a blah situation as a user.

 

[Grabnar]

I mean, Netflix needs more revenue streams so it was just kinda inevitable.

Although I’m continuously amazed at how a company like Netflix who could use new revenue streams just decides to release movies that cost $200M to make exclusively for streaming instead of giving a theatrical run.

All of these streaming services need to shift their metrics to customer retention rather than endless growth. They’ll continue to boom-bust otherwise.

 

[Nick]

All of these streaming services need to shift their metrics to customer retention rather than endless growth. They’ll continue to boom-bust otherwise.

And what would help retain viewers? Netflix Original Films that play in theaters, make a solid amount of money and have a lot of hype or buzz around them. Think Amazon's Air for example or any of the many Netflix originals that come and go. They don't all need to be theatrical no should they, but they should have a 8-12 movie slate every year and they could do that easy with their "big" films or awards contenders.

Why do I bring theatrical into this when it comes to retention? Because it has been proven that movies that are given a theatrical release are seen as higher quality (whether that's fair or not) and it also allows the studios to recoup costs or even make money, and THEN benefit from the film once it hits streaming. Think of the many Sony licensed films that end up blowing up big on Netflix simply because people had heard about them from being in a movie theater and they were interested to check it out or to check it out again. It happens all the time.

I do think that your point is why you are seeing Discovery+ content now in Max and Hulu content going into Disney+ soon though. Retention. By putting a bunch of stuff in one place, it gives viewers more variety, which hopefully keeps them on the app longer, which then in turn leads to more ads being seen, so on and so forth. Disney+ getting Doctor Who and other licensing agreements like that are also focused on engagement AND growth. But realistically, until middle america gets good and reliable wifi, there's only so much growth that can be done stateside at this point.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

And what would help retain viewers? Netflix Original Films that play in theaters, make a solid amount of money and have a lot of hype or buzz around them. Think Amazon's Air for example or any of the many Netflix originals that come and go. They don't all need to be theatrical no should they, but they should have a 8-12 movie slate every year and they could do that easy with their "big" films or awards contenders.

Why do I bring theatrical into this when it comes to retention? Because it has been proven that movies that are given a theatrical release are seen as higher quality (whether that's fair or not) and it also allows the studios to recoup costs or even make money, and THEN benefit from the film once it hits streaming. Think of the many Sony licensed films that end up blowing up big on Netflix simply because people had heard about them from being in a movie theater and they were interested to check it out or to check it out again. It happens all the time.

I do think that your point is why you are seeing Discovery+ content now in Max and Hulu content going into Disney+ soon though. Retention. By putting a bunch of stuff in one place, it gives viewers more variety, which hopefully keeps them on the app longer, which then in turn leads to more ads being seen, so on and so forth. Disney+ getting Doctor Who and other licensing agreements like that are also focused on engagement AND growth. But realistically, until middle america gets good and reliable wifi, there's only so much growth that can be done stateside at this point.

Picture this…let’s say you’re a streaming service and your total potential market is five families of four.

Scenario A.) You spend your $100 budget on three theatrical movies in one year. Not all of your market is interested in each of them…3 families are into Movie 1, 2 are interested in Movie 2, and only 1 is interested in Movie 3. So you collect (at $10/movie ticket) in total $240 in ticket revenue (which you have to split with the theater but let’s just assume you keep it all).

Now, you’ve roped in some of your audience to the streaming service because of these theatrical runs…but not everyone who saw the movies liked them. It encouraged two of those families to subscribe to your streaming service at $10/month. So add an additional $240 for that year for a total revenue of $480. On average, let’s say half will forget they have the membership and keep it after they’ve gotten all use out of it, so throw in another $120 for the one family that forgot and extends to next year. $600 over two years yielded from three theatrical runs.


Scenario B.) You spend your $100 budget on 10 originals for streaming. They’re eclectic enough that every single family is interested in watching, and since it’s a low fee for the whole family (compared to the theater) everyone is willing to give them a try. There’s $600 in subscription fees right off the bat (which you DONT have to share with any distributors). Now, to your point, these originals are of lesser quality than the theatrical versions, so even less customers like them than the theatrical movies….but they’re already signed up for the platform and have 9 other originals to take a stab at. So they stick around anyway (as opposed to the families in the theater who, after not liking it, don’t have to take any action besides simply not subscribing to your service). And then the same stat as above applies (50% forget they even have the service and just keep paying). So in addition to that $600 from Year 1, there’s another $360 in Year 2. A $960 revenue take from your 10 crappy originals.



This is obviously just back-of-napkin math and the real numbers change the scale, but do you see now why it’s attractive to keep things in-house? It’s ALL about casting as wide a net as possible so more users forget they’re subscribing to you (or don’t bother taking the action to cancel because it’s just an easy auto-payment every month). If you run movies for theaters, you’re sacrificing potentially years of membership fees for one-time ticket revenue that could potentially serve as a discouragement to sign up for the service.

 

[rageofthegods]

Picture this…let’s say you’re a streaming service and your total potential market is five families of four.

Scenario A.) You spend your $100 budget on three theatrical movies in one year. Not all of your market is interested in each of them…3 families are into Movie 1, 2 are interested in Movie 2, and only 1 is interested in Movie 3. So you collect (at $10/movie ticket) in total $240 in ticket revenue (which you have to split with the theater but let’s just assume you keep it all).

Now, you’ve roped in some of your audience to the streaming service because of these theatrical runs…but not everyone who saw the movies liked them. It encouraged two of those families to subscribe to your streaming service at $10/month. So add an additional $240 for that year for a total revenue of $480. On average, let’s say half will forget they have the membership and keep it after they’ve gotten all use out of it, so throw in another $120 for the one family that forgot and extends to next year. $600 over two years yielded from three theatrical runs.


Scenario B.) You spend your $100 budget on 10 originals for streaming. They’re eclectic enough that every single family is interested in watching, and since it’s a low fee for the whole family (compared to the theater) everyone is willing to give them a try. There’s $600 in subscription fees right off the bat (which you DONT have to share with any distributors). Now, to your point, these originals are of lesser quality than the theatrical versions, so even less customers like them than the theatrical movies….but they’re already signed up for the platform and have 9 other originals to take a stab at. So they stick around anyway (as opposed to the families in the theater who, after not liking it, don’t have to take any action besides simply not subscribing to your service). And then the same stat as above applies (50% forget they even have the service and just keep paying). So in addition to that $600 from Year 1, there’s another $360 in Year 2. A $960 revenue take from your 10 crappy originals.



This is obviously just back-of-napkin math and the real numbers change the scale, but do you see now why it’s attractive to keep things in-house? It’s ALL about casting as wide a net as possible so more users forget they’re subscribing to you (or don’t bother taking the action to cancel because it’s just an easy auto-payment every month). If you run movies for theaters, you’re sacrificing potentially years of membership fees for one-time ticket revenue that could potentially serve as a discouragement to sign up for the service.

This analysis is based on assumptions that don't really play out in real-life. For one, it assumes that those ten movies directed at different niches are hits within that niche 100% of the time, which just isn't the case in practice.

Netflix's content strategy in its early days actually resembled your Scenario B quite closely, but it ended up being super inefficient because you ended up with a whole bunch of $20m movies that were theoretically designed to be hits with different "taste clusters" (e.g. comedy, fantasy, horror, sci-fi fans, etc) but just like with any studio, a lot of them just didn't end up working. It also had a huge impact on quality; there's just no way a single division is going to oversee and ensure quality across 50, 60, 70 different movies a year. Netflix's hit-rate with films is abysmally low compared to other studios, and part of that's a consequence of its quantity-focused "one film for every niche" approach.

Netflix films head Scott Stuber actually admitted defeat on that strategy a few years back, and the whole division's been restructured to focus on "fewer, better" movies. Essentially, they've restructured to be closer to a traditional studio, which makes fewer movies but spends more time on each. And if you're already doing that, why not just release them in theaters?

 

[Nick]

Picture this…let’s say you’re a streaming service and your total potential market is five families of four.

Scenario A.) You spend your $100 budget on three theatrical movies in one year. Not all of your market is interested in each of them…3 families are into Movie 1, 2 are interested in Movie 2, and only 1 is interested in Movie 3. So you collect (at $10/movie ticket) in total $240 in ticket revenue (which you have to split with the theater but let’s just assume you keep it all).

Now, you’ve roped in some of your audience to the streaming service because of these theatrical runs…but not everyone who saw the movies liked them. It encouraged two of those families to subscribe to your streaming service at $10/month. So add an additional $240 for that year for a total revenue of $480. On average, let’s say half will forget they have the membership and keep it after they’ve gotten all use out of it, so throw in another $120 for the one family that forgot and extends to next year. $600 over two years yielded from three theatrical runs.


Scenario B.) You spend your $100 budget on 10 originals for streaming. They’re eclectic enough that every single family is interested in watching, and since it’s a low fee for the whole family (compared to the theater) everyone is willing to give them a try. There’s $600 in subscription fees right off the bat (which you DONT have to share with any distributors). Now, to your point, these originals are of lesser quality than the theatrical versions, so even less customers like them than the theatrical movies….but they’re already signed up for the platform and have 9 other originals to take a stab at. So they stick around anyway (as opposed to the families in the theater who, after not liking it, don’t have to take any action besides simply not subscribing to your service). And then the same stat as above applies (50% forget they even have the service and just keep paying). So in addition to that $600 from Year 1, there’s another $360 in Year 2. A $960 revenue take from your 10 crappy originals.



This is obviously just back-of-napkin math and the real numbers change the scale, but do you see now why it’s attractive to keep things in-house? It’s ALL about casting as wide a net as possible so more users forget they’re subscribing to you (or don’t bother taking the action to cancel because it’s just an easy auto-payment every month). If you run movies for theaters, you’re sacrificing potentially years of membership fees for one-time ticket revenue that could potentially serve as a discouragement to sign up for the service.

I mean I’m not quite sure I buy this. Say they were to start small and just do 2-3 big theatrical releases per year and they get a full theatrical run. Those are then just seen as theatrical movies and there’s still (literally) hundreds of other original movies Netflix releases per year.

Also, people can just wait until the movies are on Netflix if they truly want. Air only made $50M for example, but it was great exposure for the film before going on Prime Video and they recouped some costs. It was a win-win for them. Amazon for example has said they will be moving to a theatrical slate of about 12 movies per year with Apple doing something similar.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

This analysis is based on assumptions that don't really play out in real-life. For one, it assumes that those ten movies directed at different niches are hits within that niche 100% of the time, which just isn't the case in practice.

Netflix's content strategy in its early days actually resembled your Scenario B quite closely, but it ended up being super inefficient because you ended up with a whole bunch of $20m movies that were theoretically designed to be hits with different "taste clusters" (e.g. comedy, fantasy, horror, sci-fi fans, etc) but just like with any studio, a lot of them just didn't end up working. It also had a huge impact on quality; there's just no way a single division is going to oversee and ensure quality across 50, 60, 70 different movies a year. Netflix's hit-rate with films is abysmally low compared to other studios, and part of that's a consequence of its quantity-focused "one film for every niche" approach.

Netflix films head Scott Stuber actually admitted defeat on that strategy a few years back, and the whole division's been restructured to focus on "fewer, better" movies. Essentially, they've restructured to be closer to a traditional studio, which makes fewer movies but spends more time on each. And if you're already doing that, why not just release them in theaters?

Well, it’s obviously meant to by hypothetical but this general idea absolutely comes from real life (source: did consulting work for a competitor of Netflix’s).

I think where you hit the nail on the head is Netflix’s poor hit rate. It is bad…and that’s why theatrical releases don’t work for them. For a consumer, there’s more “risk” associated with buying four tickets to a movie theater than paying a single fee to watch something at home. Unless you’re producing surefire hits (which, as you’ve established, Netflix doesn’t) then why risk the potential of limiting your audience exposure and possibly using the theater as a negative advertisement for your streaming service?

In other words, it’s a lot easier to sell “hey pay $10 to sit at home and watch a movie that could be crap but might interest you,” and then count on the fact that that subscription revenue will continue coming in months after the fact…vs. “hey, drive out to the theater and pay for everyone to watch this one movie that could be crap but might interest you” and then have no guarantee of seeing any additional dollars from that customer.

Also, people can just wait until the movies are on Netflix if they truly want. Air only made $50M for example, but it was great exposure for the film before going on Prime Video and they recouped some costs. It was a win-win for them. Amazon for example has said they will be moving to a theatrical slate of about 12 movies per year with Apple doing something similar.

If the goal is for people to just wait for the movies to be on Netflix, then sending them out for mass distribution is kind of a waste of money. As for Apple and Prime…
1.) they actually make quality content that’s more likely to encourage subscribers
2.) Air was meant to go straight to streaming but went to theaters after positive test screenings…so I dont know if we can be sure this is a sure fire strategy because even they don’t seem to know exactly how to commit to it just yet
3.) Apple and Prime specifically are major enterprises where streaming/movies are just a fraction of their revenue. They can afford to mess up every now and then. For Netflix, streaming subscriptions is IT.

 

[rageofthegods]

Well, it’s obviously meant to by hypothetical but this general idea absolutely comes from real life (source: did consulting work for a competitor of Netflix’s).

I think where you hit the nail on the head is Netflix’s poor hit rate. It is bad…and that’s why theatrical releases don’t work for them. For a consumer, there’s more “risk” associated with buying four tickets to a movie theater than paying a single fee to watch something at home. Unless you’re producing surefire hits (which, as you’ve established, Netflix doesn’t) then why risk the potential of limiting your audience exposure and possibly using the theater as a negative advertisement for your streaming service?

In other words, it’s a lot easier to sell “hey pay $10 to sit at home and watch a movie that could be crap but might interest you,” and then count on the fact that that subscription revenue will continue coming in months after the fact…vs. “hey, drive out to the theater and pay for everyone to watch this one movie that could be crap but might interest you” and then have no guarantee of seeing any additional dollars from that customer.

Sure, and I don't think anyone expects Netflix to give full wide releases to every one of their movies. There's always been direct to broadcast, direct to cable, and direct to HBO movies, and I suspect . But they do have movies that feel like they'd warrant a theatrical release (e.g. Adam Project, Slumberland, The Perfection, Day Shift, Lift, some of their indie movies, etc), and they have an executive at the top who's worked at a traditional studio and knows how to recognize theatricality. At a certain point, their refusal to chase success with any of their titles starts looking irrational, especially with Apple and Amazon giving big pushes to select titles. Surely it's strictly better from a P&L perspective, as long as they can cover marketing expenses.

What gets me is the library value. When a movie like Slumberland or the upcoming Wes Anderson movie gets dumped to streaming in its initial release, how much is it actually driving retention or new subs past the "opening weekend?" Does a movie that people half-remember watching on their couch actually create any value for the platform past the first month? It's something HBO execs in the 90s and 00s wrestled with - no matter how many stars they put in their original films, they never got the same ratings as their theatrical Pay 1 films. Contrast that with something like Moana or Encanto, which has been showing up regularly on the Nielsen charts for months and months now.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Does a movie that people half-remember watching on their couch actually create any value for the platform past the first month?

Yes…because these platforms are counting on you to not go through the hassle of unsubscribing after that month. A perfectly rational consumer would say, “Okay, I’ve watched everything I want to watch this month on Netflix…I’m cancelling.” But consumers aren’t rational. If they were, you’d have people sign up for Netflix one month, Max the next month, Hulu the next month, etc., cancelling each one they’re not using and replacing it with the next platform in the rotation til the end of time.

Not only is there the small glimmer of hope that more interesting content will come on board that’s worth sticking around for, but there’s also a legitimate barrier to exit. These companies uses subtle UI designs, marketing language, promotional offers, etc. to keep their customers subscribed because it’s infinitely easier and cheaper to keep a customer than it is to get a new one.

Of course, there will be people who sign up, watch what they want, and leave. Netflix will never fully combat that. But there will also be people who sign up and just stick with it. Knowing that, you gotta capture as many people as possible to make that number of retained users as high as possible. And it’s easier to capture as many users as possible by asking for a few bucks to show your whole family a movie at home than it is to say “please come pay for your whole family to watch this once at the theater and hopefully pay more when you get home if you liked it.”

 

[Nick]

Can't believe Disney was dumb enough to just let this movie go: