Oscar contenders like Roma and Beast of No Nation (a bit early for it's time if you ask me).
Partnerships with foreign content makers to act as an international distributor (BBC produced, Golden Globe Winner, The Bodyguard for example).
Top quality original TV: The Crown for example, fueled by contracts with big name show-runners and writers to produce them (Shonda Rhymes).
And finally, high value syndication targets (Friends, Mad Men, The Office).
Netflix's content allocation seems pretty clear, the next few years will be optimization at the margins.
Disclaimer: I watch a lot of animes since most tv shows don't come even close to their plots, soundtracks and epic moments.
I loved Violet Evergreen. It was very well done as an animation. The others are “your lie in April”. That legit made me sob. I usually don’t get that emotional. (Although not a Netflix original).
Be careful with FUMOFFU, leads to death due to laughter
They cover a wide variety of range, not all of them might be of your taste. You also need to get used to some things that are Japanese culture in animes (their way of being fun, their way of being embarassed by stuff that is not in your culture and so on).
Insane plot (like REALLY incredible): - Code Geass - Death Note - Steins; Gate - Shingeki no Kyojin (not completed, season 4 coming soon) - Made in Abyss (not completed, season 2 coming soon)
Epic (you feel hyped): - Sword Art Online - Full Metal Panic - Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (this anime is amazing, but I recommend watching it only after you've watched quite a few animes. Rewatching it leads to improvement. It's like when you try wine for the first time and it sucks, then it turns great) - No Game No Life - Boku No Hero Academia - Accel World
Laugh: - Full Metal Panic FUMOFFU (requires watching the season 1 first)
This list is purely based on my taste, but I watched over 200 animes (lot of bad stuff too, sadly), so for a beginner it's a good baseline.
Good plot (not like the insane ones, still good): - Psycho-Pass (AMAZING soundtrack) - Ga-Rei Zero - Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood
The plot was interesting, I love castlevania, but the quality is still incredibly low from my point of view.
I think of Shingeki no Kyojin, that destroys Castlevania quality by so many levels...
For castlevania in particular, the art and animation really declined between the first and second season, the tone and atmosphere seemed totally different and the story just kinda went offs the rails.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first season, it was one of the best video game adaptations i've seen but the second season just didn't quite do it for me. It just felt rushed and cheap.
Bird box has an excellent premise, which turns out to just be a hook on which to hang some character development (I did quite enjoy it though).
Death note has a really derivative premise, and then goes nuts drilling down in to the exact mechanics of how such a thing would work - there's no deus ex machina (apart from the literal god of the plot), instead it plays within it's own rules very exactly and never cheats the audience, instead introducing very clever "hacks" to its own system.
Yes they can do it but, not without consequences. I thought Bird Box was pretty lame and given a dozen experiences like these, it'd completely destroy their reputation for putting out decent content for me, and I'd unsubscribe in a world where non-original content was an important factor. (and looking at the media landscape, with content companies creating their own platforms, or publishing on competing platforms, that world is becoming more and more a reality).
It's a bit like saying that Apple can create a big software hype by pushing an iOS 13, just by pushing it as a notification on 1.3 billion iOS devices. But if iOS 13 is complete rubbish, they can only perform that 'trick' a few times before they lose customers.
That plus, one can wonder if they can actually do it. Bird Box indeed took on meme status, me and my gf only watched it because it showed up as a joke on our feeds about 20 times and we had nothing better to do one night while eating food and decompressing from work. There's plenty of netflix content that pretty much bombed, despite showing up for weeks on end on the Netflix front page whenever I logged in. This felt more like the Flappy Bird of movies, a gimmick, a meme, not the next Harry Potter or Game of Thrones that turns people into long-lasting fans of your content.
Is digital content streaming that simple that there is no value in creating defensible IP? Or is it more a function of dumb data pipes which do not favor the smartest content distribution so there’s no need for that investment?
In other words, I’m saying that yes, Netflix can fairly easily promote a film and get millions of people to watch it, but that doesn’t mean they have a magical sustainable model. If they were to consistently flex this muscle with content people don’t like, it’s pretty obvious things will turn out badly for them.
the article you're commenting on makes a pretty thorough case for why it is a box office hit.
It seems like the real magic is the capability to make a particular piece of content the “thing that prople talk about”, and so you watch it just so that you’re able to talk about it in conversation, because it’s part of the social consciousness.
Netflix's goal is quite distinct from much of its competition. In simplistic terms, their goal is to release enough compelling content to keep existing subscribers subscribed and then hopefully entice new users to sign up more than old users quit. These "flexes" I would assume are primarily for the second category. If you make something enough of an event, with subscribers talking about it all the time, maybe non-subscribers will think they are missing out and take the plunge. If that fails, however, they only really lose out on the marketing costs, since it's very unlikely to affect the existing subscriber base at all.
I switched to amazon video... I can't say I'm always thrilled with the video quality, but amazon video usually has what I want to watch, and they make watching it low effort (They usually charge me a few dollars to watch it, but if I'm going to take two hours to watch something, a few dollars is the least of the cost.)
I mean, one could argue that I'd be better served by the netflix disk service, but I can't reliably predict what I'm going to want to watch ahead, and I don't have a convenient device for watching disks in the gym. (I know they exist, and I used to have one. But the kindle fire is a lot more convenient.)
Netflix on the other hand has their tech together. Beautiful streaming and lightweight responsive app.
Please Amazon, pay your Engineers well and make an app that doesn’t crash at the least.
You seem to be forgetting the downright user hostile UX, though maybe not as user hostile as Hulu and Amazon and everyone else
Netflix, on the other hand, has almost everything in English with English subs (exceptions are foreign language shows and most anime)
Of course, it doesn't help Amazon that their interface is atrocious and that they have ads. (Well, I mean Netflix is working towards making their interface worse, but for now, they are still miles ahead)
If I wouldn't get Prime Video for free with my normal prime subscription for shipping, I'd never use it. I barely ever use it as is.
I mean, I can get an amazon.co.jp and amazon.fr and amazon.es account, and tie them to different kindles, but each time I want to switch kindles, i have to wipe the thing, and get rid of my english books.
I'm totally willing to pay a premium for kindle convenience, and deal with not being able to loan books so easily, etc, etc, the kindle walled garden actually works really well for me in English but once you move out of English, it's just not convenient anymore.
English books work fine, but for some reason, I can't add skills while Alexa is in English. I need to switch it to German, add skills, switch it back to English for it to work.
> "...if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself."
birdbox isn't the first promoted original content. it certainly drives success, but ultimately to get 45 million views, probably more than 2x all of who have ever seen game of thrones (16 million is their highest rating ever), is big.
I did think the movie was kinda derivative, a mix of the happening and vanishing on 7th street, but its still a must watch if you are into horror.
every game in town is 2nd guessing their models, because they are extremely outdated. Comcast's (NBC etc) entire model is based around market share - broadcast television. Hollywood is around big box office high spending action movies to make global sales. These is fine in some senses, but it means there are types of content we havent seen much, and while Netflix could satisfy niche customers, it was generally thought that it couldn't compete with large budget content producers. Now maybe it can, and that requires content providers to re-think.
>"The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. That's crazy. The result, as we see in the article, is a tidal-wave of Bird Box achieving near-meme status. How does that feel to someone who does not have a Netflix subscription? What big joke/story are they missing out on? For only $14.99 a month, they can win social acceptance by being "in the know" of the current big thing."
for the longest time, ironically this has been hbo, especially with game of thrones. i feel like they must be paying reporters lots of money to go on about it so much, because its not really watched by that many people - compared to how much its talked about.
> probably more than 2x all of who have ever seen game of thrones (16 million is their highest rating ever)
I don't think that's an accurate measure for GoT as it's probably the most pirated TV show ever, that 16 million figure you quoted is people watching on HBO only. Those of us outside of the US either watch it on a different network (e.g. Sky in the UK) or just pirate it.
Slip it in? I feel like Netflix beats me over the head with their own content even when I'm looking for something else.....
How is a film with literally $0 at the box office and “instant box office smash”.
Sure, if as many people as watched it paid for full-time tickets at a theater it would have been a stunning box office, but all that proves is that more people will pay a $0 marginal cost than the cost of theater tickets. Which we already knew.
A "masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder.
A masterpiece to some is not to another.
Roma is one example: it clearly is masterfully done. Film critics love it. I loved it and it resonated with me. Have you seen it yet? Maybe you think it's "mediocre".
I liked Bird Box because it was apocalyptic and dealt with the downfall of society, a common theme in this genre. I don't care if anyone else liked it or didn't, the film was made for me. I see Netflix just released Kingdom. I have loved it so far.
I could list dozens of shows and movies that I have been extremely thrilled with. Will everyone else? I. Don't. Care.
As long as Netflix keeps pumping in the fantastic content, people will continue to subscribe.
I think you just need to look harder in Netflix. Try some British shows like Marcella or The Bodyguard.
Netflix only has to make a crap load of content available to cover all the content space. The average quality according to any particular user doesn't have to be good if their recommendation engine can find your niche. Think what the average quality of YouTube is.
I've been very happy with Netflix's originals and think they're top-notch. They have actually solidified my subscription--if they continue to produce shows at the rate and quality they have been, they have a customer for life in me.
- None of the blockbusters are available,
- Instead, you’ll find a pale B-series copy, oftentimes with plain cringy actors.
Seeing memes on facebook/9Gag, this impression is quite popular in teenagers too. And that’s a very, very bad reputation to have.
You may be getting bored of this trope (DON'T USE THIS SENSE OR YOU DIE) but that doesn't make the individual films terrible.
I believe this is has a huge portion of Netflix's ability to get tons of people to watch their content. Fish in a barrel, trapped audience, whatever cliché you prefer. Of course I agree with the hype machine and self-promo within their apps as you've described as well. Combined together, it's a powerful marketing/promotion result.
What definition of 'coerce' are you using? I'm a Netflix subscriber. I saw this thing popup in my feed. Had a glance. Read some articles about it. Doesn't sound overwhelmingly compelling to me. I've added it to 'My List' but keep finding other stuff to watch ahead of it. I suspect it will end up getting removed from my list without having been watched. I guess I'm in the other half of Netflix users?
How is this different from any other Netflix show/film? They can pay for marketing and force it to be recommended for all users, but that's about it. The difference is that Bird Box had a lot of viral potential and turned into a meme because of its content, not external factors.
Conversely, Bird Box is about robbing us of one of our senses. In one movie, you have to be quiet - you are robbed of a form of expression. But you can still see, you can still hear, you are attempting to hide. In the other, there is no attempt to hide, at least from the monsters or force or whatever you want to call it. You just have to deny yourself one of your most important senses to be safe.
They're both set in a post-apocalyptic world, or at least partially so, but that's hardly unique to them or something A Quiet Place invented.
I thought A Quiet Place was a bad movie with a flawed premise that prevented suspension of disbelief due to just how ridiculous the premise was, and then totally failing to subvert the ridiculousness. I saw it long before I saw Bird Box. I didn't think Bird Box was a great movie, but I did think that it was significantly more enjoyable than A Quiet Place.
Bird Box was one of the best horror movies I've ever seen.
All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a derivative film with a 66% on Rotten Tomatoes.
That's a huge "flex". Big studios could pump hundreds of millions into a decent film and still have it flop. Netflix can take a B-movie and make it a sensation with relative ease. No wonder every game in town is trying to break into this model. Why invest millions on a potential flop when you can engineer one with 75% accuracy whenever you wish?
(though maybe I'm being just a bit too paranoid here. I have to admit some of the Bird Box magic stems from its intriguing concept. guerilla marketing doesn't work so well if what you're selling doesn't seem too interesting)
edit: people are debating the idea of "box office smash" here. I didn't use that phrase to emphasize direct earnings as a result of the film (which is "free" to watch if you pay for a subscription). The article addresses this:
> Secondly, and relatedly, Netflix is counting on subscription revenue. To that end, producing a piece of content that 58% of its subscriber base viewed in a single month is by definition a triumph (and yes, worth ~$700 million).
The idea is that Netflix was able to coerce more than half of its subscribers to watch this film. That's crazy. The result, as we see in the article, is a tidal-wave of Bird Box achieving near-meme status. How does that feel to someone who does not have a Netflix subscription? What big joke/story are they missing out on? For only $14.99 a month, they can win social acceptance by being "in the know" of the current big thing.