PDA

View Full Version : "Once waiting is history, will quality television still pack the same cultural punch?"



number8
01-30-2013, 07:16 PM
The strategy may gut some media conglomerates along the way and could prove too costly for even a cash-rich company like Netflix to sustain, but one thing is certain: It will make a lot of viewers—bingeing on brand-new shows made by the hottest writers, directors, and producers—deliriously happy. "This is the direction that storytelling is evolving, where you're going to have the most interesting story lines, the most interesting characters," says Spacey, who is also an executive producer of House of Cards. "What a company like Netflix is doing is the ultimate expression of individual control, proof of what people's attention span really is."

The heady rhetoric, of course, masks a few nagging questions: Once waiting is history, will "quality" television still pack the same cultural punch? Would Tony Soprano be Tony Soprano if we had been able to gorge on his life in a single weekend? How important are episode recaps and live-tweeting and the shared experience of everyone watching together?

"I don't know," says Spacey. "But I guess we'll find out really soon."

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix-founder-reed-hastings-house-of-cards-arrested-development?currentPage=all

Great stuff. Really looking forward to how this will, if not change, at least scatter the game.

number8
01-30-2013, 07:22 PM
People love you when you're handing out the cash, and Sarandos, who looks the part with pressed jeans and a crisp white shirt but has one of the weirdest résumés in town (graduate of an Arizona community college, worked his way up in the DVD business from video-store clerk, landed at Netflix in 2000 to run distribution), has $6 billion to dole out over the next three years. Most of that is for licensing content from networks, cable companies, and movie studios, but about $300 million is for original programming. "There's not a lot of really great, deep, serialized television," he says, "and we can see from the data that that's what people want."

He hopes to make at least five new shows a year, he says, leaning back on a sofa in his Beverly Hills office in an anonymous-looking suite. His dream project: a Netflix series created by Warren Beatty. "He's great in long form," Sarandos says. "His only problems have been when he's constrained." Sarandos is also warming up Jodie Foster, who directed an episode of Orange Is the New Black. "The goal," he says, "is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." His seductive pitch to today's new breed of TV auteurs: a huge audience, real money, no meddlesome executives ("I'm not going to give David Fincher notes"), no pilots (television's great sucking hole of money and hope), and a full-season commitment.

This just sounds absolutely crazy risky. I really hope it pans out, but man, it's kind of a nail biter.

This part, though, is why everyone should be excited:


Sarandos is hoping his big tent will attract creators who want to explore the boundaries of storytelling. Binge viewing obviates the need for recaps and other clunky narrative devices. He isn't even wed to uniform episode lengths. What's so magical about twenty-two minutes or even a hour? "I really think we have the chance to radically change the depth of character connectivity," he says. "I mean, a meaningful shift. It's going to further blur the line between television and movies."

Skitch
01-30-2013, 07:31 PM
This is exciting stuff. I don't know that I really care one way or the other how the media is released (I'm patient for shows to hit Netflix), but I love there being multiple avenues or mediums for artists to stretch or for new artists to be revealed.

Dukefrukem
01-30-2013, 08:04 PM
Even though in STEP 3 they fail to mentioned the PSN and XBL which are great PPV options too.

http://www.gq.com/images/entertainment/2013/02/next-hbo-netflix/gq-intelligence-infographic-big.jpg

Irish
01-30-2013, 11:37 PM
This just sounds absolutely crazy risky. I really hope it pans out, but man, it's kind of a nail biter.

It is crazy risky.

Netflix streaming is great for TV. It sucks for movies. I suspect their numbers back that up. Since the studios are already fucking them, this seems like a smart move.

The weakness in the strategy is that Netflix has no inherent "stickiness," either real or manufactured. Canceling an account and restarting it later is trivial to the enduser and costs that user nothing. That might be a problem for them, quarter on quarter, if they're releasing entire seasons at the same time and facilitating "binge viewing."

Platform exclusive content is always something of a short-term win. HBO can't become Netflix in the short-term, but then they don't really need to. They've got decades of experience producing their own content and they've got a revenue stream to support them regardless of how well any individual show does on their network.

That's an advantage Netflix doesn't have. Hastings has to rush now because he's very quickly running out of options.

Irish
01-30-2013, 11:46 PM
Sarandos is hoping his big tent will attract creators who want to explore the boundaries of storytelling. Binge viewing obviates the need for recaps and other clunky narrative devices. He isn't even wed to uniform episode lengths. What's so magical about twenty-two minutes or even a hour? "I really think we have the chance to radically change the depth of character connectivity," he says. "I mean, a meaningful shift. It's going to further blur the line between television and movies."

I like how this quote ignores the presence of both advertising, ratings, and piracy.

Television is hobbled as a dramatic form because of the need for advertising. Nielsen drove the need, in part, to have shows at a certain length. Pirate versions of television shows have been doing what he's describing for the last ten years or more.

These are areas where HBO has had an ongoing advantage over more traditional broadcast television.

number8
01-31-2013, 01:46 AM
Huh? But that's what he's saying. Netflix has no advertising and no Nielsen schedule, so they have the freedom to let creators set their own pace. If Fincher decides that episode 7 needs to be 2.5 hours long and episode 8 can be told in 20 minutes, he's free to do so. Current TV creators have to trim or pad running time because of the standard form of scheduling not present on Netflix.

Irish
01-31-2013, 02:44 AM
Huh? But that's what he's saying. Netflix has no advertising and no Nielsen schedule, so they have the freedom to let creators set their own pace. If Fincher decides that episode 7 needs to be 2.5 hours long and episode 8 can be told in 20 minutes, he's free to do so. Current TV creators have to trim or pad running time because of the standard form of scheduling not present on Netflix.

They could do 20 minute episodes and 2.5 hour episodes or whatever, but my guess is that they won't. It would be far too confusing on the consumer end, and more importantly to Netflix, it would limit this content's appeal in secondary markets. (On the creative side, I've long felt that constraints, in either time or budget, are what makes things interesting and what produces good work. Nothing turns into a clusterfuck of self-indulgence faster than a creative project removed from constraints).

The rest of it ('meaningful shift,' 'character connectivity', 'blur the line') smells like PR bullshit, and I'm objecting to his positioning of the situation as something unique to Netflix.

MadMan
01-31-2013, 02:58 AM
I watched all of Season 4 of Lost online because I worked the night it aired, and it still packed a punch. I do agree that this is more interesting in terms of how it affects Netflix and network TV, especially since the latter is losing heavily to cable TV, which despite its own limitations is still satisfying overall since it has fewer limitations. I will say I'm for anything that enables the FCC to lose power and not be able to censor the shit out of TV like they've done for decades.

number8
02-08-2013, 05:33 PM
Here's a great article from AVClub about this subject.


But it still seems as if any artistic success Netflix achieves will be wholly accidental, rather than as part of a twinned artistic and business strategy. Create a show a lot like the serialized, dark dramas its viewers like, then pick up the fourth season of a beloved cult sensation? Easy enough to do. It’s when it comes time to green-light the Enlighteneds and Wires of the world that things become more difficult, and that’s where HBO has always excelled. I have less faith Netflix would take a chance on something bracingly uncommercial, yet artistically necessary. (Though that’s because HBO has always had the spare cash to pursue such a strategy; like many online companies, Netflix is operating on an imagined future of huge profits that haven’t arrived yet.)

http://www.avclub.com/articles/netflixs-programming-strategy-kill-golden-age-tv,92230/

Lucky
02-08-2013, 05:39 PM
I completely agree with the last phrase. And I predict they won't see the magnitude of profits that they expect.

Sycophant
02-09-2013, 01:52 AM
Let me know when they release their shows on DVD. Lol.

Irish
02-09-2013, 01:38 PM
Here's a great article from AVClub about this subject.

Eh. It's a bit hysterical in its conclusions, especially:


The show neatly splits the difference between being just good enough and never trying anything risky enough to turn off large portions of its audience.

Congratulations. You've just described 99% of commercial television.

(The Andrew Leonard article about 'Big Data' (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers _into_puppets/) is worse. He posits that predictive algorithms will be the death of creative television. I'd say we've already been there for a long while. Leonard overlooks the fact that most of what Netflix knows about you, your cable company, and likely local theater, know about you too.)

Edit: These guys, and apparently the marketing bozos at Netflix, are overlooking the promotional downside. Netflix is getting an enormous boost on "House of Cards" because of the novelty of it. That won't be the case several series and a few years down the road.

number8
02-09-2013, 02:30 PM
Yes, he said that in the article, comparing it to the likes of NCIS. That was his point.

Lucky
02-09-2013, 02:59 PM
Netflix is getting an enormous boost on "House of Cards" because of the novelty of it.

Have you seen numbers? Everything I've seen says Netflix hasn't commented on this.

Irish
02-09-2013, 04:53 PM
Yes, he said that in the article, comparing it to the likes of NCIS. That was his point.

No. You've misunderstood. He was making the argument that Netflix won't take risks, and this is exemplified in "House of Cards." He's also saying that cable networks like HBO will 'take a chance on something bracingly uncommercial, yet artistically necessary.'

I'm saying he's wrong. Nobody in commercial television takes any risks at all. HBO doesn't, unless we're considering "Game of Thrones" and "True Blood" somehow necessary and 'risky.'

Note that counter programming against broadcast TV isn't necessarily risky. It's filling a market.


Have you seen numbers? Everything I've seen says Netflix hasn't commented on this.

I was talking about the marketing. Every publication is writing about "House of Cards," and across different verticals. That will happen with less frequency going forward, once the novelty wears off. A year from now and five shows later, you won't see this kind of coverage.

number8
02-09-2013, 05:26 PM
HBO most definitely take risks commercially, though obviously they're banking on the awards/press to recoup the loss by earning them their critically acclaimed rep. Nobody only monetarily concerned would give The Wire 5 seasons and Treme 3 seasons, and also continually renew Enlightened, a show that virtually nobody is talking about other than at niche forums.

What VanDerWeff said is that HBO is good at dependable shows like GoT and Boardwalk Empire and such, and Netflix is mimicking that capably enough, but he is asking if Netflix's current model would encourage them to make decisions that led to HBO's aforementioned more eccentric output. We'll see what happens down the line, of course, they may very well do that, but of the 5 shows on Netflix's slate this year, certainly none of them sound as out there as Oz and Sopranos were when HBO first broke into public consciousness—especially Oz, I think, which was a real experiment in TV format—or Treme and Tell Me You Love Me did later on.

EyesWideOpen
02-09-2013, 05:33 PM
I've seen most of the HBO shows you're talking about and I don't find any of them to be really high risk. Most of the HBO shows I would consider high risk they cancel after a season or two.

Irish
02-09-2013, 06:23 PM
HBO most definitely take risks commercially, though obviously they're banking on the awards/press to recoup the loss by earning them their critically acclaimed rep. Nobody only monetarily concerned would give The Wire 5 seasons and Treme 3 seasons, and also continually renew Enlightened, a show that virtually nobody is talking about other than at niche forums.

HBO is letting shows find their footing and not axing stuff right out of the gate. That's a business risk, not a creative one (and not much at that given HBO's financial advantage). Years ago, broadcast networks did that too (eg: "MASH," "Cheers," "Seinfeld," etc).

HBO has a big subscriber base (four times the size of Netflix). They're able to sell their shows overseas almost immediately (some shows syndicate for $800K per episode), and DVD sales bring in huge revenues (a single season of "True Blood" costs around $50MM, while that season's DVD box set will generate half that almost immediately).

Granted, HBO shows cost a little more ($6MM per episode for the genre stuff), but not by much. "NCIS" and "Fringe" cost around $4MM (which would be, oddly, the same rough cost as "House of Cards").


We'll see what happens down the line, of course, they may very well do that, but of the 5 shows on Netflix's slate this year, certainly none of them sound as out there as Oz and Sopranos were when HBO first broke into public consciousness—especially Oz, I think, which was a real experiment in TV format—or Treme and Tell Me You Love Me did later on.

Yeah, Van&c was kinda skipping over the 15 years that HBO was producing original shows before "The Sopranos" hit the air.

Out of the last ~10 years, I could probably count on one hand the number of times cable was risky: "The Sopranos" for buying into a genre everybody thought was dead, the first ten minutes of the first episode of "The Shield," and "Deadwood's" use of language.

Other than that? Ehhhh .. not so much. Producing different genres (based on highly popular prior art, natch) doesn't make them creatively 'risky.' If it does, then USA has been equally 'risky,' at least in the sense that they're counter programming against the broadcast networks just like HBO is.

number8
02-09-2013, 06:32 PM
First ten minutes of The Shield? You mean the last, where the twist happened?

Also, Tell Me You Love Me showing explicit ejaculation during a handjob was probably a risk—not sure what kind of a risk exactly, but no other show has really done it since (Californication showed female ejaculation, that was the closest).

Irish
02-09-2013, 06:37 PM
Dammit, I knew I forgot one:

"Breaking Bad" for actually showing a little kid getting shot on screen. The only people crazy enough to do that in the past, in a similar way, have had names like 'Leone' and 'Peckinpah.'

Re: "The Shield" No, when Vince (?) shoots somebody in the face, point blank, right at the start of the very first episode. That's an enormous creative risk as you can seriously put off your entire audience before they know anything about your hero. It's almost like they were daring people to change the channel.

number8
02-09-2013, 06:43 PM
Re: "The Shield" No, when Vince (?) shoots somebody in the face, point blank, right at the start of the very first episode. That's an enormous creative risk as you can seriously put off your entire audience before they know anything about your hero. It's almost like they were daring people to change the channel.

You're misremembering, which is not a surprise, since you got the main character's name wrong. :lol:

Vic doesn't shoot anyone at the beginning. The pilot begins with the Strike Team chasing a drug dealer, then they corner him, and Vic (in front of women and children watching) pulls the guy's pants down, they laugh at his dick, then Vic beats him.

You're thinking of the ending to the pilot, where he shoots Terry in the face, and that was a huge twist (and certainly a creative risk, I think), because Spike originally misled people, including the press, by promoting the show as a "good cop takes down corrupt cop" show, with Reed Diamond billed as the lead in the marketing. When they screened it to critics, Spike begged them to not spoil the surprise in their write-ups. They wanted people to go WTF at the fact that they killed the main character of the show in the first episode.

Irish
02-09-2013, 06:45 PM
You're misremembering, which is not a surprise, since you got the main character's name wrong. :lol:

:lol: Bite. How many years ago was this?

Also, I think "Vince" might be his character's name on "Vegas," haha.

number8
02-09-2013, 06:53 PM
BTW, who else has read Alan Sepinwall's book?

amberlita
02-09-2013, 07:14 PM
BTW, who else has read Alan Sepinwall's book?

I've read most of it. I skipped the chapters on shows I haven't seen, like FNL and Deadwood.

number8
02-09-2013, 08:38 PM
I've read most of it. I skipped the chapters on shows I haven't seen, like FNL and Deadwood.

I found that it got slightly repetitive after the HBO era, and I think the Mad Men and Breaking Bad inclusions might be a misstep. Still a really good read, though, to hear firsthand accounts from writers and especially network execs.

number8
02-09-2013, 08:45 PM
I remember thinking in FX's early days that their model was basically "take the most popular TV genres and make them eeeeeeeeeeeedgy." Their first three shows were The Shield, Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me: cop show, medical drama, fireman show. Three of the most overdone TV genres. They positioned themselves between network and HBO.

ledfloyd
02-09-2013, 10:35 PM
I haven't picked up Sepinwall's book yet, but I intend to. And Amber, watch FNL and Deadwood.

ThePlashyBubbler
02-09-2013, 11:40 PM
I read Sepinwall's book, and agree with your take, 8. I wish even more of the book was dedicated wholly to the interviews with the showrunners, as they consistently were the most insightful -- too often I felt Sepinwall would fill the remaining space with extensive descriptions of plot threads... for shows that the reader has hopefully already seen if they're reading the chapter.

With regard to HBO's "riskiness" in programming, I think it's more about their willingness to stick with shows that are artistically viable (in terms of their critical response/prestige) as opposed to those that draw big ratings. It's not so much a business risk as it is an acceptance that there's value beyond the numbers once a show has established itself as a ratings failure.

Ezee E
02-11-2013, 02:30 AM
I remember thinking in FX's early days that their model was basically "take the most popular TV genres and make them eeeeeeeeeeeedgy." Their first three shows were The Shield, Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me: cop show, medical drama, fireman show. Three of the most overdone TV genres. They positioned themselves between network and HBO.

What other firemen shows are there?

amberlita
02-11-2013, 02:54 AM
I haven't picked up Sepinwall's book yet, but I intend to. And Amber, watch FNL and Deadwood.

I seriously doubt I'll ever watch Deadwood. Don't have a reason, really. Just doesn't interest me.

But I did start watching FNL a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the handheld nature of the show's camerawork viewed 8 feet from my 52" left me with a splitting headache. I'll get back to it but I'm going to have to sit and watch it from my dining room to keep from getting nauseated. I'm liking what I've seen but haven't been blown away by the reported awesomeness.

Milky Joe
02-11-2013, 04:35 AM
I seriously doubt I'll ever watch Deadwood. Don't have a reason, really. Just doesn't interest me.

Huge mistake. I have shown it to many people who "just weren't interested," and they loved it.

Dukefrukem
02-11-2013, 11:29 AM
I seriously doubt I'll ever watch Deadwood. Don't have a reason, really. Just doesn't interest me.



That's because it's a terrible series where nothing happens.

number8
02-11-2013, 12:00 PM
That's because it's a terrible series where nothing happens.

Viewing comprehension: 0.

[ETM]
02-11-2013, 12:13 PM
I can understand not being interested in Deadwood. It's like me and, say, Boardwalk Empire - the setting and the story doesn't appeal to me enough to allocate viewing time to it, even though I recognize the good buzz.

Dukefrukem
02-11-2013, 12:14 PM
;465060']I can understand not being interested in Deadwood. It's like me and, say, Boardwalk Empire - the setting and the story doesn't appeal to me enough to allocate viewing time to it, even though I recognize the good buzz.

I don't even recognize the buzz. I watched the pilot and erased it from my memory of existence.

transmogrifier
02-11-2013, 12:31 PM
So when you say its a terrible series, you are basing this on one episode?

Dukefrukem
02-11-2013, 12:41 PM
So when you say its a terrible series, you are basing this on one episode?

Aren't you one of the people on MC that shuts off a movie before it ends?

transmogrifier
02-11-2013, 12:59 PM
Aren't you one of the people on MC that shuts off a movie before it ends?

Whether I am or not, that has no bearing on you claiming that a show is a "terrible series" after having seen one episode.

I've seen two or three episodes of Big Bang Theory, and though I didn't like them at all, and have no desire to see any more, I wouldn't feel comfortable walking around claiming it is a "terrible series". How would I know?

transmogrifier
02-11-2013, 01:01 PM
I mean, if I watched 2% of a movie, how could I definitively claim that nothing happens in it? I could claim nothing happens in the 2% I saw, but I guess that's not attention-grabbing enough?

Dukefrukem
02-11-2013, 01:47 PM
So yes is the answer to my question. Thx.

ThePlashyBubbler
02-11-2013, 02:05 PM
Stuff happens in the pilot for Deadwood. Stuff happening is far from the main appeal of Deadwood. Deadwood is great bordering on brilliant. Duke is wrong.

[ETM]
02-11-2013, 02:54 PM
I don't even recognize the buzz. I watched the pilot and erased it from my memory of existence.

Everyone I know loves Dea... hold on, I'm having deja-vu of a deja-vu here.

number8
02-11-2013, 02:57 PM
Why bother arguing? He only saw the pilot.

number8
02-11-2013, 03:53 PM
What other firemen shows are there?

Hmmm... Third Watch, Emergency!, Code Red, Firehouse... Maybe there aren't as many as I originally thought. Must have been thinking of movies too.

Lucky
02-11-2013, 04:37 PM
Chicago Fire.

Ezee E
02-11-2013, 05:11 PM
Certainly plenty, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of a network requirement, considering every network has their cop drama, political drama, etc.

I haven't even heard of Third Watch, Code Red, and Firehouse, so I'm a little uninformed also.

Chicago Fire just started. I heard Ivan Drago really likes it, but haven't heard a peep from anyone that isn't a firefighter.

number8
02-11-2013, 05:28 PM
I thought about posting this on the House of Cards thread, but it's probably more appropriate here.


Netflix’s data indicated that the same subscribers who loved the original BBC production also gobbled down movies starring Kevin Spacey or directed by David Fincher. Therefore, concluded Netflix executives, a remake of the BBC drama with Spacey and Fincher attached was a no-brainer, to the point that the company committed $100 million for two 13-episode seasons.

“We know what people watch on Netflix and we’re able with a high degree of confidence to understand how big a likely audience is for a given show based on people’s viewing habits,” Netflix communications director Jonathan Friedland told Wired in November. “We want to continue to have something for everybody. But as time goes on, we get better at selecting what that something for everybody is that gets high engagement.”

The strategy has advantages that go beyond the assumption of built-in popularity. Netflix also believes it can save big on marketing costs because Netflix’s recommendation engine will do all the heavy lifting. Already, Netflix claims that 75 percent of its subscribers are influenced by what Netflix suggests to subscribers that they will like.

“We don’t have to spend millions to get people to tune into this,” Steve Swasey, Netflix’s V.P. of corporate communications, told GigaOm last March. “Through our algorithms we can determine who might be interested in Kevin Spacey or political drama and say to them, ‘You might want to watch this.’”

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers _into_puppets/

This isn't new, of course, a lot of network shows are made based on market testing and focus groups, but I find it interesting that the same algorithms being used to recommend me "Dark Mind-bending Foreign Sci-Fi Show with Female Lead" is also used to fund hundred million dollar projects.

Dukefrukem
02-11-2013, 05:34 PM
I thought about posting this on the House of Cards thread, but it's probably more appropriate here.



http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers _into_puppets/

This isn't new, of course, a lot of network shows are made based on market testing and focus groups, but I find it interesting that the same algorithms being used to recommend me "Dark Mind-bending Foreign Sci-Fi Show with Female Lead" is also used to fund hundred million dollar projects.

Heh, sometimes my recommendations are way off too. I generally don't watch stuff on Netflix based on their tool. I come here for that. (except when it comes to Deadwood)

Irish
02-11-2013, 06:59 PM
I thought about posting this on the House of Cards thread, but it's probably more appropriate here.

:confused: That's the same article Todd VanDerWerff referenced in the AV Club article you linked to (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?4525-quot-Once-waiting-is-history-will-quality-television-still-pack-the-same-cultural-punch-quot&p=464571&viewfull=1#post464571) three days ago, and the same article I referenced and talked about two days ago (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?4525-quot-Once-waiting-is-history-will-quality-television-still-pack-the-same-cultural-punch-quot&p=464728&viewfull=1#post464728). We even came to similar conclusions about it.

Anyway. Felix Salmon wrote a pretty good rebuttal: Why the quants won't take over Hollywood (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/09/why-the-quants-wont-take-over-hollywood/).

number8
02-11-2013, 07:01 PM
I don't click links.

Irish
02-11-2013, 07:27 PM
I don't click links.

:lol:

You're an idiot. ;)

Dukefrukem
02-11-2013, 07:29 PM
:confused: That's the same article Todd VanDerWerff referenced in the AV Club article you linked to (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?4525-quot-Once-waiting-is-history-will-quality-television-still-pack-the-same-cultural-punch-quot&p=464571&viewfull=1#post464571) three days ago, and the same article I referenced and talked about two days ago (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?4525-quot-Once-waiting-is-history-will-quality-television-still-pack-the-same-cultural-punch-quot&p=464728&viewfull=1#post464728). We even came to similar conclusions about it.

Anyway. Felix Salmon wrote a pretty good rebuttal: Why the quants won't take over Hollywood (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/09/why-the-quants-wont-take-over-hollywood/).



The House of Cards remake is perfectly good, but it’s not that good. And, in turn, that’s why we, the viewing public, will never be puppets, dangling on the end of some TV quant’s strings

It takes a lot to grab my attention. I don't think I'm a simple minded viewer despite what people here may view me as with my love of Family Guy, Ugly Americans and American Dad.... but I was hooked on House of Cards after the second episode. Much like I was after the first episode of Game of Thrones, 24, Lost, the Walking Dead and Shameless. My question is... how good is House of Cards? I think it's pretty damn good.

number8
02-11-2013, 07:33 PM
Anyway, I definitely don't agree with Leonard's assessment. I just think it's a curious (but inevitable) way to make TV shows. If there are more mes in the world using Netflix streaming, they would be now making a British sci-fi noir starring Sarah Michelle Gellar and directed by Koreans.

Lucky
02-11-2013, 07:46 PM
...I'd watch that.

transmogrifier
02-11-2013, 07:58 PM
So yes is the answer to my question. Thx.

I've done it about three times in the last five years (Funny People, April Snow, Airport) and I haven't gone online and acted like an expert about any of them. But if it makes you feel better, I'm glad to be of assistance.

Winston*
02-11-2013, 09:23 PM
The issue I have with Duke's assessment is that the pilot of Deadwood is fucking fantastic.

Irish
02-11-2013, 10:18 PM
In Duke's defense, having seen more than half of "Deadwood's" run, his assumption bears out.

The problem with the show was that it presented itself as belonging to a specific genre and then made a point of ignoring that genre, and even ignoring traditional narrative structures. It felt like a bait & switch. I found that aggravating, to say the least.

But: It's use of language was bold, and there were aspects to the characterizations that were brilliant.

PS: We can quibble over whether or not Duke jumped the gun, but seriously: Who doesn't do that? After watching thousands of hours of movies and television, you should be able to tell within 5 minutes whether you're in good hands.

number8
02-11-2013, 10:31 PM
The problem with the show was that it presented itself as belonging to a specific genre and then made a point of ignoring that genre, and even ignoring traditional narrative structures. It felt like a bait & switch.

This is usually a positive for me.

Irish
02-11-2013, 10:39 PM
This is usually a positive for me.

I'm a little skeptical of that, coming from you as you love genre so much. Examples?

ThePlashyBubbler
02-11-2013, 10:54 PM
The problem with the show was that it presented itself as belonging to a specific genre and then made a point of ignoring that genre, and even ignoring traditional narrative structures. It felt like a bait & switch. I found that aggravating, to say the least.


I don't get the desire from some people that things need to adhere to a specific genre, when those genres are really nothing more than descriptors. I'm not a big fan of "westerns," but I'd like to think that even if I was, it wouldn't bother me if one decided to structure itself in a unique way.

transmogrifier
02-11-2013, 11:51 PM
I don't get the desire from some people that things need to adhere to a specific genre, when those genres are really nothing more than descriptors. I'm not a big fan of "westerns," but I'd like to think that even if I was, it wouldn't bother me if one decided to structure itself in a unique way.

Remember, you are about to enter into a conversation with someone who doesn't like it when things he decides are kids films contain things that kids won't be able to appreciate. Irish is a sticker for "the rules"

number8
02-12-2013, 12:32 AM
I'm a little skeptical of that, coming from you as you love genre so much. Examples?

Deadwood? :P

I'm a big fan of movies and TV shows not doing the things they're supposed to do. Especially if it ignores traditional narrative structures. I'm not sure why you're skeptical, since that's like, 90% of our past arguments.

ledfloyd
02-12-2013, 12:35 AM
Why would you want to watch something blindly adhere to traditional narrative structures? If you're not going to be surprised what is the point?

Irish
02-12-2013, 01:35 AM
I don't get the desire from some people that things need to adhere to a specific genre, when those genres are really nothing more than descriptors. I'm not a big fan of "westerns," but I'd like to think that even if I was, it wouldn't bother me if one decided to structure itself in a unique way.

Even if genres were mere descriptors (which I don't think they are), those descriptors still need meaning in order to be useful.

Commercial television is the fast food of film art. People are not looking for coq au vin or edamame. They want burgers and fries, same as they had before. "Justified," for example, might be great television right now but it's also not all that removed from "The Rockford Files" or "Have Gun, Will Travel."

"Deadwood" presented itself like a Western, but the producers weren't at all interested in telling a Western story.


Remember, you are about to enter into a conversation with someone who doesn't like it when things he decides are kids films contain things that kids won't be able to appreciate. Irish is a sticker for "the rules"

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reply I made about "ParaNorman." Try harder, trans.


Deadwood? :P

Wiseass. :D


I'm a big fan of movies and TV shows not doing the things they're supposed to do. Especially if it ignores traditional narrative structures. I'm not sure why you're skeptical, since that's like, 90% of our past arguments.

I'm skeptical because I don't think there's too many examples out there of commercial television shows that go against the grain. The stuff you tend to like -- "Buffy," "Doctor Who," "Sherlock" -- all have conventional structures.


Why would you want to watch something blindly adhere to traditional narrative structures? If you're not going to be surprised what is the point?

You're confusing formula with structure.

Edit: Now, all of you, don't post for awhile. You knuckleheads are taking me away from "Friday Night Lights" and the Panthers are in the playoffs. ;)

number8
02-12-2013, 02:20 AM
You are correct that there aren't a lot of them. Which is why I really appreciate them when I can find em.

Oz is another example. It completely throws away the 5 act TV structure, has an almost non-linear narrative, and treats the ensemble like an anthology. And I think it's brilliant.

ThePlashyBubbler
02-12-2013, 02:41 AM
Even if genres were mere descriptors (which I don't think they are), those descriptors still need meaning in order to be useful.

Doesn't "genre" exists in contextualizing the work against other similar/dissimilar works, giving us a shorthand to understanding how they might operate before watching? I'd be interested to hear what you determine the value of using it to inform how a story should be told.


Commercial television is the fast food of film art. People are not looking for coq au vin or edamame. They want burgers and fries, same as they had before. "Justified," for example, might be great television right now but it's also not all that removed from "The Rockford Files" or "Have Gun, Will Travel."

"Deadwood" presented itself like a Western, but the producers weren't at all interested in telling a Western story.


I don't have any interest in talking about tv from a business or commercial standpoint, which may be our disconnect here. "People" also want endless hours of reality programming, but that doesn't mean I want it to inform the shows I watch. From an artistic standpoint, I find it interesting and thrilling when shows like Deadwood skew away from familiar tropes. Not to say that the familiar can't be done well (Justified, as you point out), but I, and I think many others here, gravitate to series that aren't easy to pin down with a simple genre tag.

Also, how did the Deadwood creators "present" it as a Western? By merely setting it in the old West? Obviously, as you say, Milch has thematic concerns that are atypical to the "Western genre," but I don't see why you're reading it as some sort of deceit on his part to explore his concerns in that setting.

Irish
02-12-2013, 03:08 AM
Oz is another example. It completely throws away the 5 act TV structure, has an almost non-linear narrative, and treats the ensemble like an anthology. And I think it's brilliant.

Would you recommend it, overall? I've only seen one episode, had no idea what was going on, and then the show flashed Chris Meloni's ENORMOUS penis at me. I got scared and never went back. This last post though has my interest piqued.

Milky Joe
02-12-2013, 03:37 AM
David Milch certainly had higher aims than wanting to just tell a good ol' fashioned Western story, so you wouldn't be wrong. He originally pitched a show about St. Paul, but HBO already had Rome in production, so he transferred the themes he wanted to express into a Western setting. That said, your dismissal of the show is really narrow-minded. If you want to watch a formulaic Western go watch, I don't know, any of the thousands made in the last 100 years.

Lucky
02-12-2013, 03:42 AM
Ah yes, Rome. I need to rewatch that one of these days. If for no other reason than to hear the theme song regularly again.

Irish
02-12-2013, 03:52 AM
Doesn't "genre" exists in contextualizing the work against other similar/dissimilar works, giving us a shorthand to understanding how they might operate before watching? I'd be interested to hear what you determine the value of using it to inform how a story should be told.

From your wording, I'm not sure I follow, but: The primary need is to move. It's plot. It's pacing. It's not Al Swearengen's colorful monologues to a captive audience.


I don't have any interest in talking about tv from a business or commercial standpoint, which may be our disconnect here. "People" also want endless hours of reality programming, but that doesn't mean I want it to inform the shows I watch. From an artistic standpoint, I find it interesting and thrilling when shows like Deadwood skew away from familiar tropes. Not to say that the familiar can't be done well (Justified, as you point out), but I, and I think many others here, gravitate to series that aren't easy to pin down with a simple genre tag.

It's almost impossible to talk about television without acknowledging its commercial aspects. Other art forms have limitations imposed on them by the financial side. But those needs don't necessarily determine the structure or content of the work, just its size and scope (eg: the modern comic book and the pop novel). With television, though, everything is effected.

To put it a cruder way: Television doesn't exist to show you this week's episode. It exists to show you ads. The episode content is just the filler. The commercial need defines the medium. That doesn't mean that great television is impossible, but I think we're deluding ourselves if we ignore that context.


Also, how did the Deadwood creators "present" it as a Western? By merely setting it in the old West? Obviously, as you say, Milch has thematic concerns that are atypical to the "Western genre," but I don't see why you're reading it as some sort of deceit on his part to explore his concerns in that setting.

I heard awhile back that "Deadwood" was originally pitched to HBO with ancient Rome as its setting. The producers were interested in telling stories about a society that was still developing and defining itself (which is, I think, a good subject). The network turned it down, because they already had "Rome" in development. So the producers changed the setting to the American West.

From a pre-production standpoint, that's something of an easy switch. From a thematic standpoint, it's a nightmare. 'Sword and sandal' stuff hasn't been popular in decades, and it never carried the same emotional weight for Americans as the Western does. Those pictures also didn't have the share the Western's long history and rigid definitions. There are few genres here with more weighty expectations. Unlike other genres, this one is part of our cultural DNA at a deep level.

The first few episodes of "Deadwood" present a world that looks and feels like it could be taking place in the same universe as Eastwood's "Unforgiven" and follows a hero who looks like he stepped right out of the second reel of a Gary Cooper picture.

It does this consciously and on purpose, presumably playing into audience expectations. But then "Deadwood" turns around and ignores that hero, skips over plot elements it took pains to set up, and drops others for no good purpose. It does all that with a peculiar and glacial pacing. And that was just the first season.

In ancient Rome, I would have almost no problems with any of that. But Westerns are really proto-action pictures. They require movement, specific and well timed story beats. They require crescendoes of falling action and they require resolutions. They require an adherence to tradition and an acknowledgement of the past, both the mythic past and the past that exists in the movies. If you watch most Westerns carefully, from "Stagecoach" through "Unforgiven," the really big ones, the great ones, are all referencing each other.

I don't think that's necessarily 'bad,' as if "Deadwood was somehow inept. It wasn't. But it's the kind of creative choice that makes me wince and is usually roundly punished on commercial TV. I think that's why more people didn't watch, and why "Deadwood" only last three seasons on arguably the most permissive network out there.

Ezee E
02-12-2013, 03:57 AM
Oz is brilliant... for a while. Then it takes a hell of a nosedive that's also worth appreciating.

number8
02-12-2013, 03:57 AM
Would you recommend it, overall? I've only seen one episode, had no idea what was going on, and then the show flashed Chris Meloni's ENORMOUS penis at me. I got scared and never went back. This last post though has my interest piqued.

I like it a lot, although it wears its subtext on its sleeves and the acting are almost deliberately hammy—it's a very stage-inspired tone—so that turns people off.

Like I said, its episodic structure is nuts. The rule that it employs is that it doesn't tell an A story interspersed with B and C stories. Instead, because there are no commercial breaks, they just treat it like an ongoing anthology where the episode would start with one character's story for that episode, tell that story to completion, and then move on to another character's story, and so on until they've hit one hour. Then they do it again the next week, could be with the same characters, or could be others from their huge ensemble. There's no telling how long each story lasts in the episode too; the division is completely random. The A story could be 20 min, then a 5 min B story, then a 15 min C story, etc. Next week it's all different again. Because of this and the fact that the stories would often span weeks or months in order to tell it to completion (like a story about a guy waiting for his execution on death row, which lasts several months—they didn't cut away and come back to him in future episodes, they just jump ahead and then show the execution in the same story block), the show's sense of continuity is all over the place and a bit difficult to follow. There's a very chaotic and fly-by feel to the writing and I loved the shit out of it.

Irish
02-12-2013, 04:03 AM
the stories would often span weeks or months in order to tell it to completion (like a story about a guy waiting for his execution on death row, which lasts several months—they didn't cut away and come back to him in future episodes, they just jump ahead and then show the execution in the same story block), the show's sense of continuity is all over the place and a bit difficult to follow. There's a very chaotic and fly-by feel to the writing and I loved the shit out of it.

Wow, holy shit. I'll definitely be checking that out then (after I work my way through "Friday Night Lights," haha).

number8
02-12-2013, 04:05 AM
Btw, I find it extremely easy to separate my assessment of a show's commercial standing and what I think of it as an artistic pursuit. When I'm in the mindset of the latter, the concepts of ratings, visibility and expectations literally do not exist. The only thing that matters is if the show achieved its merits in its artistic pursuit. In the case of Deadwood, it's one of the most complete explorations of an idea that I've seen achieved, so it gets a super big yes from me.

ThePlashyBubbler
02-12-2013, 04:26 AM
Btw, I find it extremely easy to separate my assessment of a show's commercial standing and what I think of it as an artistic pursuit. When I'm in the mindset of the latter, the concepts of ratings, visibility and expectations literally do not exist. The only thing that matters is if the show achieved its merits in its artistic pursuit. In the case of Deadwood, it's one of the most complete explorations of an idea that I've seen achieved, so it gets a super big yes from me.

Fully agree with all of this.

I guess I see where you're coming from, Irish. But while I can logically acknowledge that tv programming exists as a vessel for advertising, my viewing experience and appreciation for the medium have nothing to do with commercial success. Maybe I have an aversion to "business," but I prefer to approach tv (and film) from the perspective of its artistic content. Most of the people who create (what I find to be) the best shows are, I think, concerned with telling their stories first and foremost. Of course, the nature of the process means they have to consider commercial factors to some extent, but I believe (particularly with HBO shows) that their ultimate goal is for the product to be judged on its artistic merit.

Irish
02-12-2013, 04:27 AM
Btw, I find it extremely easy to separate my assessment of a show's commercial standing and what I think of it as an artistic pursuit. When I'm in the mindset of the latter, the concepts of ratings, visibility and expectations literally do not exist. The only thing that matters is if the show achieved its merits in its artistic pursuit. In the case of Deadwood, it's one of the most complete explorations of an idea that I've seen achieved, so it gets a super big yes from me.

I think that's mostly an intellectual exercise.

The problem is that the commercial market permeates the entire medium, and always has. There is no 'alternative' TV. There is no 'punk' TV. There is no 'DC Vertigo'-style TV. NBC has never aired "The Stan Brakhage Story Hour" and it never will. It's all mainstream. There's a great deal of play within these restrictions, but the restrictions still exist and make it nigh impossible to make the kind of separations you're talking about on a meaningful level.

This is a medium that only changes and grows when the financial needs change and grow (witness: HBO).

ThePlashyBubbler
02-12-2013, 04:31 AM
That's right, it's an intellectual exercise. But I'm watching TV as a leisure, entertainment activity. Nowhere does the need come in to alter my emotional/intellectual response based on the financial reality of a show's production process.

number8
02-12-2013, 04:32 AM
I think that's mostly an intellectual exercise.

Obviously. The end goal is to talk about it on movie forums or write an essay on it.

Irish
02-12-2013, 04:39 AM
Most of the people who create (what I find to be) the best shows are, I think, concerned with telling their stories first and foremost.

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest that there weren't real artists working in the medium. David Simon and Louis CK are two of them; they both have something urgent and specific to say and they say it wonderfully.

Doing what they do is all fine & good, but it also means a necessarily smaller audience ('Louie' would not survive 10 episodes on a broadcast network, for instance).

So part of the other problem with the medium is that it doesn't support a narrower focus and smaller audiences very well at all. If you're concerned with 'Art' with a capital-A, that's mildly alarming and kinda disappointing.

Milky Joe
02-12-2013, 04:40 AM
What is Irish even arguing? I don't understand. He is talking about TV shows as if they are all produced the exact same way by a bunch of robotic, invisible "producers" to make money. This just isn't always true, particularly when it comes to David Milch. Also, HBO doesn't have commercials.

ThePlashyBubbler
02-12-2013, 04:47 AM
Sure. I didn't mean to suggest that there weren't real artists working in the medium. David Simon and Louis CK are two of them; they both have something urgent and specific to say and they say it wonderfully.

Doing what they do is all fine & good, but it also means a necessarily smaller audience ('Louie' would not survive 10 episodes on a broadcast network, for instance).

So part of the other problem with the medium is that it doesn't support a narrower focus and smaller audiences very well at all. If you're concerned with 'Art' with a capital-A, that's mildly alarming and kinda disappointing.

Right, so all I'm saying is that it's the work of those artists that garners my interest and I think merits discussion on its own terms. I gauge my response to films/tv based on how the work affects me, thereby making it an audience of one. The knowledge that certain shows I find affecting aren't commercially viable doesn't alter my response.

Are we arguing different things here? I don't disagree with the things you're saying about the business of television. The "problems with the medium" are worth talking about, sure, but I'd be interested how many people watch shows for reasons that have anything to do with their commercial viability.

Irish
02-12-2013, 05:14 AM
Are we arguing different things here?

I don't know. We might be. Feels like we're drifting a bit.


I don't disagree with the things you're saying about the business of television. The "problems with the medium" are worth talking about, sure, but I'd be interested how many people watch shows for reasons that have anything to do with their commercial viability.

I sometimes watch shows that have a certain buzz ("Better Off Ted"), to see how they approached the same old narrative problems ("Sex and the City"), or to try and get a read on a certain demo or perspective (I used to watch a lot of 'black' television). But, like you, the stuff I get really wrapped up in doesn't have anything to do with that.

My initial arguments were really about how (1) television takes no chances and that (2) "Deadwood" made a fatal mistake by expressing its themes by using a rigid genre in a commercial medium.

I'm not sure where that leaves us at this point. :D

ledfloyd
02-12-2013, 12:16 PM
Commercial television is the fast food of film art. People are not looking for coq au vin or edamame. They want burgers and fries, same as they had before.
So you're criticizing Deadwood for not being burgers and fries? For aspiring to something greater? Because that's kind of bizarre.


Westerns are really proto-action pictures. They require movement, specific and well timed story beats. They require crescendoes of falling action and they require resolutions. They require an adherence to tradition and an acknowledgement of the past, both the mythic past and the past that exists in the movies. If you watch most Westerns carefully, from "Stagecoach" through "Unforgiven," the really big ones, the great ones, are all referencing each other.
They only require these things because you insist they require these things. One of my favorite westerns, Rio Bravo, is basically three guys hanging out for two-and-a-half hours. Sure, the willingness to go against convention may have been a reason Deadwood wasn't financially successful, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's a good show.

But I can't get too irked by all of this because you're enjoying Friday Night Lights.

ThePlashyBubbler
02-12-2013, 06:31 PM
I sometimes watch shows that have a certain buzz ("Better Off Ted"), to see how they approached the same old narrative problems ("Sex and the City"), or to try and get a read on a certain demo or perspective (I used to watch a lot of 'black' television). But, like you, the stuff I get really wrapped up in doesn't have anything to do with that.

My initial arguments were really about how (1) television takes no chances and that (2) "Deadwood" made a fatal mistake by expressing its themes by using a rigid genre in a commercial medium.



Fair enough. The constrictions of television definitely mean that the vast majority of the product is either rote, shitty, or both. In that context, it only makes me appreciate something singular like Deadwood even more. Like led says, we seem to have opposite responses to those shows that try to aspire to something greater than the same old.

Irish
02-12-2013, 07:42 PM
So you're criticizing Deadwood for not being burgers and fries? For aspiring to something greater? Because that's kind of bizarre.

I'm criticizing them for not respecting the audience and ignoring the genre, yes. Intellectually, I can admire the attempt. Realistically, watching "Deadwood" makes me yell and throw things at the TV.


They only require these things because you insist they require these things.

Much as I'd like to take credit, these ideas did not originate with me.


One of my favorite westerns, Rio Bravo, is basically three guys hanging out for two-and-a-half hours. Sure, the willingness to go against convention may have been a reason Deadwood wasn't financially successful, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's a good show.

Three guys 'hanging out' is a weird way to describe "Rio Bravo." Contrary to your point, "Bravo" has a traditional structure, several narrative arcs, and at least one major character arc. It may have a unique setting and story, but the way it's written is extremely traditional (and that's good).


But I can't get too irked by all of this because you're enjoying Friday Night Lights.

:D

Irish
02-12-2013, 07:49 PM
Fair enough. The constrictions of television definitely mean that the vast majority of the product is either rote, shitty, or both. In that context, it only makes me appreciate something singular like Deadwood even more. Like led says, we seem to have opposite responses to those shows that try to aspire to something greater than the same old.

I think my problem is that I don't always view 'different' as automatically being 'greater.' It can be, but most of the time it seems more ego driven than anything else, and can come off as amateurish.

Milky Joe
02-12-2013, 09:51 PM
So, respecting the audience would be to give them the same easily-digestible crap they're already pre-conditioned to want, while it's disrespectful to give them something that challenges artistic norms and encourages the audience to think for themselves. Got it. I'll think of that the next time I'm reading, say, William Faulkner or Herman Melville, and be sure to throw the book down in disgust.

Realistically, reading Irish's posts in this thread makes me want to yell and throw things at the computer. I'd still like to know what hero Deadwood supposedly ignores and what plot points it supposedly skips over. I think he has me on ignore though, so whatever.

ThePlashyBubbler
02-12-2013, 10:08 PM
I think my problem is that I don't always view 'different' as automatically being 'greater.' It can be, but most of the time it seems more ego driven than anything else, and can come off as amateurish.

Yeah, I'm almost the opposite. With the number of shows on tv that adhere to the familiar model, almost anything that distinguishes itself as different at least draws my interest. Maybe it's ego-driven, but those shows that bare the unmistakable mark of their creators (Mad Men, Deadwood, Community, The Wire, to name a few) seem to resonate with me the most. I've got a thing for creative ambition, even if it doesn't hit the mark every time.

When I hear that a new CBS procedural has "really perfected the format" or something, I couldn't care less.

number8
02-14-2013, 05:12 PM
Add two more new shows on Netflix's plate:

Turbo F.A.S.T: A series that will continue where the upcoming Dreamsworks movie Turbo leaves off.

Narcos: A drama about Pablo Escobar created by Jose Padilha. Looks like they want this to be their Sopranos.

Lucky
02-14-2013, 05:15 PM
Narcos: A drama about Pablo Escobar created by Jose Padilha. Looks like they want this to be their Sopranos.

Or they're taking a page from the new Republican strategy and trying to appeal to the Hispanic demographic.

number8
02-20-2013, 03:04 AM
By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

Irish
02-20-2013, 03:11 AM
By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

Hulu's masters always seemed deeply ambivalent about its existence, and that conflict has only gotten worse in the last few years. Didn't Hulu give away its shows for free? At the time, it made those shows feel too similar to the stuff on YouTube like "The Guild." Or Canadian TV.

Also, Netflix's first attempt at original content went largely unnoticed last year ("Lilyhammer"). Maybe that's a star or director problem, or maybe just bad PR.

EyesWideOpen
02-20-2013, 03:56 AM
By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

Nothing netflix releases is going to compare to The Booth at the End.

number8
02-20-2013, 12:21 PM
Nothing netflix releases is going to compare to The Booth at the End.

That's not made by Hulu. They just have the exclusive US broadcast rights.

EyesWideOpen
02-20-2013, 06:34 PM
That's not made by Hulu. They just have the exclusive US broadcast rights.

I was under the impression that's how all hulus exclusives worked.

number8
02-20-2013, 07:41 PM
I was under the impression that's how all hulus exclusives worked.

They have actually made several of their own original shows. A Day in the Life, Battleground, Up to Speed, that stupid Kevin Smith show...

EyesWideOpen
02-22-2013, 09:34 PM
They have actually made several of their own original shows. A Day in the Life, Battleground, Up to Speed, that stupid Kevin Smith show...

Didn't know that. I just figured those shows didn't get deals elsewhere or fell through and hulu picked them up.

DavidSeven
02-22-2013, 10:31 PM
By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

I don't think Hulu had the market share to pull it off. Netflix has access to an insane number of eyeballs.


Netflix captured 33 percent of prime-time Web viewing based on Internet traffic in September, eclipsing Amazon.com Inc., Hulu LLC and Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s HBO Go by a multiple of at least 18, Sandvine Inc. said in its “Global Internet Phenomena Report” released today. By comparison, Amazon (AMZN)’s market share amounted to 1.75 percent in September, while Hulu garnered 1.38 percent and HBO Go had 0.52 percent, according to the study.

Hulu also didn't have Spacey, Wright and Fincher working on the same show. That mix of talent in itself was going to generate more interest than anything Hulu has ever produced. As Irish mentioned, even at Netflix, this model didn't get much attention until marquee talent became involved.

Irish
02-22-2013, 10:45 PM
I don't think Hulu had the market share to pull it off. Netflix has access to an insane number of eyeballs.

This depends on how you look at it.

Hulu is in the top five video sites on the web (behind Google, Fox, and Yahoo). About 30 million people watch their streams every month. Only 3 million of those are Hulu Plus subscribers.

By contrast, Netflix has around 25 million members.

DavidSeven
02-22-2013, 11:00 PM
This depends on how you look at it.

Hulu is in the top five video sites on the web (behind Google, Fox, and Yahoo). About 30 million people watch their streams every month. Only 3 million of those are Hulu Plus subscribers.

By contrast, Netflix has around 25 million members.

I'm guessing those numbers are skewed in favor of sites that offer shorter video clips that can be embedded throughout the web. Google (via YouTube), Fox, Yahoo and Hulu are such sites. Netflix obviously is not.

People pressing play on a video embedded on a Huffington Post story probably aren't as captive an audience as those who specifically seek out full-length TV/movies on the web. I think subscriber levels and viewing times on source sites are a better measure in this discussion.

Irish
02-22-2013, 11:08 PM
I'm guessing those numbers are skewed in favor of sites that offer shorter video clips that can be embedded throughout the web. Google (via YouTube), Fox, Yahoo and Hulu are such sites. Netflix obviously is not.

True. These numbers are also largely self reported, which adds another wrinkle. But: The average time on site for Google and Yahoo etc might be 15 minutes. For Hulu, unsurprisingly, it's around 60. So I think Hulu definitely had the traffic, and eyeballs, to make a real go of original content and compete with Netflix and Amazon.

Hulu's problem has always been one of perception. The ambivalence of their corporate masters is reflected in the kind of press Hulu receives. Nobody in tech or entertainment seems to think that Hulu will be around in five years, and throughout their existence they've always been perceived as hanging by a thread.

That makes it a lot harder to get a positive message out and attract new viewers and paying subscribers to the service.

number8
03-27-2013, 03:52 PM
The Wachowskis and J. Michael Straczynski are teaming up for a sci-fi series on Netflix.


Netflix will bring Georgeville Television's Sense8, a gripping global tale of minds linked and souls hunted, exclusively to its members to watch instantly in late 2014.


The 10 episode season one of Sense8 marks the first foray into television by the Wachowskis, the creative geniuses behind Bound, The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, V for Vendetta, Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas, and is the latest project from veteran show runner J. Michael Straczynski , creator of the Hugo Award-winning Babylon 5 TV series and whose film credits include Changeling, Thor and Underworld Awakening,

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/only-on-netflix-sci-fi-giants-the-wachowskis-and-j-michael-straczynski-team-up-to-create-sense8-200215501.html