Netflix's Movie Catalogue Is About to Get a *Lot* Smaller

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Netflix's Movie Catalogue Is About to Get a *Lot* Smaller

Hunger Games netflix

Netflix's contract with Epix expires at the end of the month, meaning the last chance to catch some of your favorite flicks is rapidly approaching.

While most of us know Epix simply as a hybrid premium cable and satellite television network headquartered in New York City (No, I didn't rip that description straight from Wikipedia. Why do you ask?), it turns out that their video on demand service actually holds ownership in Lionsgate, MGM and Paramount Pictures. And for the past few years, Epix has also been one of the biggest providers of movies to Netflix's arsenal.

That is, until the end of the month, when Netflix's contract with Epix will expire and see the streaming service drop hundreds of well-known titles from its catalogue.

World War Z, The Hunger Games, Wolf of Wall Street, and the entire Rocky series (among others)...all gone in the blink of an eye.

But according to their Chief Content Officer, Ted Sarandos, Netflix losing hundreds upon hundreds of movies from their movie streaming service is not that big of a deal, because most of these movies are already available on "other platforms."

"While many of these movies are popular, they are widely available on cable and other subscription platforms at the same time they are on Netflix and subject to the same drawn out licensing periods." said Sarandos in an interview with BBC.

Following up in a blog post, Sarandos wrote, "We know some of you will be disappointed by the expiration of the Epix movies. Our goal is to provide great movies and TV series for all tastes that are only available on Netflix. We're confident you'll enjoy our ever-improving catalogue."

With Netflix focusing their efforts more and more on original content like this year's Narcos and the upcoming Beasts of No Nation, it isn't exactly shocking to learn that they aren't as willing to pay top dollar for movies they have been streaming for upwards of a year. Netflix did, however, reportedly pay Epix $1 billion in licensing fees for the now-deceased deal, which allowed for Epix titles to hit Netflix 90 days after premiering on the premium cable network. Let's hope they got their money's worth.

But fret not, for hope is not entirely lost for those of us hoping to see Leonardo Dicaprio blow cocaine up a stripper's butt without having to go to a Redbox. As it turns out, the titles being dropped from Netflix will actually be transferred over to Hulu, the *other* streaming movie and TV service, starting on October 1st. So as long as you already have one of those accounts as well, all will be hunky-dory.

Still though, it's decisions like this that make you understand Netflix's ever-falling company stock, which dropped 2.25% last year alone. Also unfortunate for Netflix is the news that Hulu will be expanding its offline-viewing capabilities for Amazon Prime (who are also tied into the Epix deal) members to access movies and TV shows on Apple iOS and Android devices.

"By creating a network-first, true TV Everywhere experience, consumers can now download a movie from our library and watch it anywhere, anytime, even without a Wi-Fi connection," said Epix president and CEO, Mark Greenberg.

So basically, you can now watch Friday the 13th while on a camping trip, or Airplane! while waiting at the airport, all for the same price as a Netflix subscription. "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue," said Netflix CEO Reed Hastings in an exclusive follow-up interview with The Escapist that never actually happened.

Source: Variety

Permalink

So translation, "Uhhh a bunch of major movies are going away but don't worry guys...PR catchphrase!"

I still use netflix but more and more it's focus on original content is really starting to piss me off, I'm fine with it existing and alot of it is really good but when it starts causing stuff like this to happen I will start getting angry...if it keeps up I guess I'll go over to Hulu, since they seem to know what they are doing, while Netflix are dropping shows Hulu is picking them up, I'm not at that point yet since I still prefer Netflix's UI but they are really walking on eggshells now

Well... I guess I'll see what Netflix has left after the end of the month, and if it is worth continuing to pay for. It'll be a shame if it isn't worth it, since I watch quite a few things on there by using rabb.it.

now you'll know how it feels to be a UK netflix customer.

thewatergamer:
So translation, "Uhhh a bunch of major movies are going away but don't worry guys...PR catchphrase!"

I still use netflix but more and more it's focus on original content is really starting to piss me off, I'm fine with it existing and alot of it is really good but when it starts causing stuff like this to happen I will start getting angry...if it keeps up I guess I'll go over to Hulu, since they seem to know what they are doing, while Netflix are dropping shows Hulu is picking them up, I'm not at that point yet since I still prefer Netflix's UI but they are really walking on eggshells now

I wouldn't call it a PR catchphrase, but more an actual mission statement. Rather than focusing on selling quick and cheap streaming for old movies and tv shows that made them so much money, they're going to focus on producing original content like every other cable network.

And surprise! That's not making much money, because the cable networks already do that better than Netflix. Hulu's loving this though I'm sure. They at least know what their niche is. Reminds me of Syfy, actually.

Isn't the digital era grand? I mean, what's the point anymore in having physical copies of our entertainment when we can just go online and hope some studio conflict hasn't gotten dozens of movies removed watch it?

Meh, I will still do a Netflix Hulu Amazon combo over paying for cable. Its still cheaper (in my area at least) and I choose when I want to watch stuff.

-Ezio-:
now you'll know how it feels to be a UK netflix customer.

As a Canadian Netflix user I concur, time the Yankees feel the pinch the rest of us have.

Though then again, I guess it's not all bad up here since Disney made a deal where all its movies are on the service 8 months after theatrical release, though I'm not 100% sure about weather that applies to their subsidiaries like Marvel or Lucasfilm. I know Iron Man 1 is on the service, but that's Paramount's, and it's the only MCU movie up at the moment.

Will see what happen but might push me to cancel and returning to paying for crunchyroll instead for a while, got a year of anime worth of anime on my backlog anyway.

Xeorm:

thewatergamer:
So translation, "Uhhh a bunch of major movies are going away but don't worry guys...PR catchphrase!"

I still use netflix but more and more it's focus on original content is really starting to piss me off, I'm fine with it existing and alot of it is really good but when it starts causing stuff like this to happen I will start getting angry...if it keeps up I guess I'll go over to Hulu, since they seem to know what they are doing, while Netflix are dropping shows Hulu is picking them up, I'm not at that point yet since I still prefer Netflix's UI but they are really walking on eggshells now

I wouldn't call it a PR catchphrase, but more an actual mission statement. Rather than focusing on selling quick and cheap streaming for old movies and tv shows that made them so much money, they're going to focus on producing original content like every other cable network.

And surprise! That's not making much money, because the cable networks already do that better than Netflix. Hulu's loving this though I'm sure. They at least know what their niche is. Reminds me of Syfy, actually.

Yeah PR catchphrase probably isn't the right word for it, though as you pointed out, this "business" strategy is failing cable networks even though they (arguably) have better shows, I'll wait until the end of the month, but if it's not worth it, I'll take my business elsewhere, maybe I'll get Hulu, they seem to understand what their customers want

Physical media is dead? HA!

Not so long as the so called future of films and TV shows is streaming services which only have access to content for a short time.

How is this any different than waiting for a repeat on TV when the streaming service of your choice may lose the content you want?

JaredJones:
"I guess I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue," said Netflix CEO Reed Hastings in an exclusive follow-up interview with The Escapist that never actually happened.

Sorry I know you are trying to make a joke, but it comes off badly. The rest of the article was fine, but ending on this note makes the entire thing seem unprofessional. Feel free to make jokes, but quoting someone who you didn't actually talk to just strikes me as tacky, even if you mention you never talked to him.

Of course everything above was my personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.

This is how it happened. This is how Netflix died.

That's too bad, but I'm just catching up with shows at the moment and many movies I care about I've already watched so. No large loss for me, but it's too bad for others.

So these companies don't like money? because I don't rent movies anymore, and I don't pay for any sort of cable service, nor do I go to the movies.

That moment when you have no idea what Netflix is... :P ...

Xeorm:
I wouldn't call it a PR catchphrase, but more an actual mission statement. Rather than focusing on selling quick and cheap streaming for old movies and tv shows that made them so much money, they're going to focus on producing original content like every other cable network.

And surprise! That's not making much money, because the cable networks already do that better than Netflix. Hulu's loving this though I'm sure. They at least know what their niche is. Reminds me of Syfy, actually.

It's giving me flashbacks to a lot of the early social media stuff like Digg; the came first, built up a business before anyone really knew they could make money there, then became so enamoured with 'moving forward' and 'being innovative' that they didn't notice the opposition creeping up behind them, picking up all the customers that were getting dropped in the rush to do something new.

I'm too old to leave my cable behind, and I'm not going to pay for more than one streaming service when I've still got a shelf of movies; time to go re-evaluate the market and see whether Netflix is still the best option.

Sorry I know you are trying to make a joke, but it comes off badly. The rest of the article was fine, but ending on this note makes the entire thing seem unprofessional. Feel free to make jokes, but quoting someone who you didn't actually talk to just strikes me as tacky, even if you mention you never talked to him.

Of course everything above was my personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.

You get that that joke was an Airplane! reference, right? As in the movie mentioned in the line the preceded it. I can't see anyone confusing that with something Hastings actually said, but in either case, duly noted. This is probably one of the most level-headed criticisms I have ever received. Cheers.

The problem with this is that Hulu sucks. Blocking your views if you're running Adblock, and their Plus plan doesn't even get rid of the ads. I tried watching Stargate SG-1 on my sister's Hulu Plus account, but couldn't because of the stupid, unskippable ads that I assumed would be removed SINCE I'M PAYING FOR THE SERVICE. (To clarify: I was thinking of getting my own account, so I tried out my sister's for a while) Ads are there to make money off of free users, not to mooch more money off of people who are already paying for it.

The damn point to paying for a streaming service is so that you don't have to deal with ads. If Netflix is losing a huge chunk of their content to fund shows that I probably won't watch anyway, what's the point of paying for it?

Am I going to be made to start my own streaming service? With blackjack and hookers?

Frankly, Netflix has always been a pretty awful service in the UK. They're forever dropping content (even the little they had in the first place), their UI is utter rubbish making it absolutely impossible to browse for new things to watch - the only practical way to watch stuff on Netflix is to know the name of the thing you want to watch, search for it, and oh! nope. They don't have it anyway. To top it all off, they're push for original content... I've yet to come across a single one of their original contents that was actually any good.

Way to go Netflix.
- Rubbish UI
- Poor selection
- Poor quality inhouse content

Right now, the ONLY thing stopping me from cancelling them is that I'm still watching my Red Dwarf Marathon (and even thats an indulgence since I do actually own the entire DVD set, its just in the wrong county right now)

Didn't like any of those movies personally, but I'm not happy to see them go.

Hulu probably is, though.

SlumlordThanatos:
The problem with this is that Hulu sucks. Blocking your views if you're running Adblock, and their Plus plan doesn't even get rid of the ads. I tried watching Stargate SG-1 on my sister's Hulu Plus account, but couldn't because of the stupid, unskippable ads that I assumed would be removed SINCE I'M PAYING FOR THE SERVICE. (To clarify: I was thinking of getting my own account, so I tried out my sister's for a while) Ads are there to make money off of free users, not to mooch more money off of people who are already paying for it.

The damn point to paying for a streaming service is so that you don't have to deal with ads. If Netflix is losing a huge chunk of their content to fund shows that I probably won't watch anyway, what's the point of paying for it?

Am I going to be made to start my own streaming service? With blackjack and hookers?

Preach on, my brotha. Preach on.

I really think sites need to quantify which netflix they mean in articles, Or I need to take into account whether a site is US or UK based. I'm leaning towards the former.

I really hope only US Netflix will be affected by this (I doubt it) since those of us outside the US don't actually have access to Hulu.

Since I'm in Canada we're still better off than places like the UK but depending on how much content might be removed it might just not be worth it to pay for the service anymore. There's few enough decent movies as it is.

However, I can see why Netflix would do it as well partially because of their new focus on original content along with the fact that, no matter how you spin it, $1 billion is a lot of money. Still disappointing but I can see why.

Hopefully in exchange they'll try and bring more BBC content to Canadian Netflix. Hey, I can dream!

SlumlordThanatos:
The problem with this is that Hulu sucks. Blocking your views if you're running Adblock, and their Plus plan doesn't even get rid of the ads. I tried watching Stargate SG-1 on my sister's Hulu Plus account, but couldn't because of the stupid, unskippable ads that I assumed would be removed SINCE I'M PAYING FOR THE SERVICE. (To clarify: I was thinking of getting my own account, so I tried out my sister's for a while) Ads are there to make money off of free users, not to mooch more money off of people who are already paying for it.

The damn point to paying for a streaming service is so that you don't have to deal with ads. If Netflix is losing a huge chunk of their content to fund shows that I probably won't watch anyway, what's the point of paying for it?

Am I going to be made to start my own streaming service? With blackjack and hookers?

It's not ideal that *all* the ads are unskippable by paying customers, but I don't necessarily see the problem with serving paying customers some form of advertising, since it's a revenue stream that (presumably) keeps the cost to customers down by subsidizing part of the cost of the service. If that business model allows a service like Hulu to pay more license fees to keep a larger content collection online, I think ads are pretty fair, and no different from what cable does, really, except that the cost is, ideally, less and the customer, again ideally, isn't beholden to a network's program director to decide what they want to watch and when.

Let me put it this way: if Netflix said they were going to make their customers watch advertisements in exchange for a catalog of titles that's not in flux as it is now, believe me, I'd be more than happy to put up with ads. There would, of course, be better and worse ways to implement such a thing, but I don't reflexively blanch at the idea of ads on a pay-to-stream service. It depends on whether and how the customer benefits from the arrangement.

Casual Shinji:
Isn't the digital era grand? I mean, what's the point anymore in having physical copies of our entertainment when we can just go online and hope some studio conflict hasn't gotten dozens of movies removed watch it?

You know, back in the 1990s, I had a teacher who made this shit sound so cool. He said once the infrastructure was common enough, we'd be seeing on demand TV programming, potentially even in real time. He gave all sorts of examples, and it sounded super cool. A pity then, that he forgot to mention the need to subscribe to several different services, hoping at least one would carry them. Or that "on demand" really meant the studio's whim. Or that there would be commercials on paid services.

JaredJones:

You get that that joke was an Airplane! reference, right? As in the movie mentioned in the line the preceded it. I can't see anyone confusing that with something Hastings actually said, but in either case, duly noted. This is probably one of the most level-headed criticisms I have ever received. Cheers.

I loves me a good Zucker Brothers reference, but I don't think the bit where it's a Lloyd Bridges joke was the problem. They specifically reference attributing it to a third party, which does come off as unprofessional (even in the context of then saying the interview never happened).

SlumlordThanatos:

The damn point to paying for a streaming service is so that you don't have to deal with ads. If Netflix is losing a huge chunk of their content to fund shows that I probably won't watch anyway, what's the point of paying for it?

The problem is, Netflix has been losing content since well before they decided to do original programming. I suspect that their change in focus has more to do with their options. They've bee losing business because you can get more money out of Hulu Plus users who both pay and watch ads than you can from Netflix subscribers. It seems like they think their only option is to provide something that can't be picked up on a competitor's service.

And it's just a damn shame they're so terrible at it.

This will mildly inconvenience Americans, but it is absolutely going to gut Canada and other smaller Netflix providers.

hahahahahah.....hahahhahha

And this is my first month of watching Netflix. If this is the case, they won't actually be getting to the paid portion from me.

It begs the question; is this a US-only deal or not? Because Epix is moving to Hulu apparently, and Hulu is US-only. That and a spokesman already said the movies will still be available in the UK. So what about the rest of us?

Maybe it's an idea to make this news article a little more complete.

Casual Shinji:
Isn't the digital era grand? I mean, what's the point anymore in having physical copies of our entertainment when we can just go online and hope some studio conflict hasn't gotten dozens of movies removed watch it?

Thanks to this kind of news I too get more and more worried about the 'Data Dark Age' we seem to be getting into. More and more cultural products seem to become so very...throw-away. Yeah I don't like it, I don't like it one bit. I hope that, later in life, I can actually acquire a good physical collection. But with my tastes and passion for anything media, that'd be neigh-impossible to finance.

And I just finally, properly started watching the Rocky movies. I'd better get on with it then.

Charcharo:
That moment when you have no idea what Netflix is... :P ...

...

How?! I mean sure not having it I get but, having no idea what it is?! In this day and age?! Man that boggles my mind.

frizzlebyte:

It's not ideal that *all* the ads are unskippable by paying customers, but I don't necessarily see the problem with serving paying customers some form of advertising, since it's a revenue stream that (presumably) keeps the cost to customers down by subsidizing part of the cost of the service. If that business model allows a service like Hulu to pay more license fees to keep a larger content collection online, I think ads are pretty fair, and no different from what cable does, really, except that the cost is, ideally, less and the customer, again ideally, isn't beholden to a network's program director to decide what they want to watch and when.

Let me put it this way: if Netflix said they were going to make their customers watch advertisements in exchange for a catalog of titles that's not in flux as it is now, believe me, I'd be more than happy to put up with ads. There would, of course, be better and worse ways to implement such a thing, but I don't reflexively blanch at the idea of ads on a pay-to-stream service. It depends on whether and how the customer benefits from the arrangement.

I have to agree with this. Ads are annoying, true but in the case of Hulu they're fairly well timed, do not take up a lot of the time in-between viewing and are easy to ignore plus they do not break up movies. I haven't watched cable TV for a while until quite recently and found myself extremely annoyed at the sheer amount of time spent on ads alone. I do hope that Hulu realizes theirs is the best policy for a streaming service that is partially subsidized by ad revenue and does not increase the amount of ads and time spent watching said ads.
The only Cable network I ever found was at least sane with their ad breaks was Adult Swim as they tended to do 1/2 the show and an ad break then show the other half. Or in the case of an 11 minute show, the full show with no stop, then ads then another 11 minute show.

SlumlordThanatos:
The problem with this is that Hulu sucks. Blocking your views if you're running Adblock, and their Plus plan doesn't even get rid of the ads. I tried watching Stargate SG-1 on my sister's Hulu Plus account, but couldn't because of the stupid, unskippable ads that I assumed would be removed SINCE I'M PAYING FOR THE SERVICE. (To clarify: I was thinking of getting my own account, so I tried out my sister's for a while) Ads are there to make money off of free users, not to mooch more money off of people who are already paying for it.

The damn point to paying for a streaming service is so that you don't have to deal with ads. If Netflix is losing a huge chunk of their content to fund shows that I probably won't watch anyway, what's the point of paying for it?

Am I going to be made to start my own streaming service? With blackjack and hookers?

Two things that might interest you.

First off, for 5 bucks more a month you can buy the ad free Hulu Plus version. Its not totally ad free, as there are like...4 shows that have some sort of weird deal with networks that they have to run ads on, but other than that you're golden.

If that's not your cup of tea then Amazon Prime also has all the Epix movies on it, totally ad free. Its a tad cheaper overall too, and you get the awesomeness that is 2 day shipping for free.

On topic!

I really only use Netflix for their original programming anyway. When I want anime I use Crunchyroll or Hulu. When I want movies I use Amazon Prime. When I want current TV I use Hulu.

"We're confident you'll enjoy our ever-improving catalogue."

An ever-improving catalogue that is apparently getting dramatically smaller? Look...electronics are "improving" when they get smaller, because it means you can have flat screens and more convenient phones and clever stuff like the iWatch (even if nobody bought it its a pretty cool piece of kit). Satellites are "improving" when they're getting smaller because it means it becomes increasingly easy to launch them into orbit. Bills are "improving" when they're getting smaller because it means you save money.

But the catalogue of a consumer-based service for entertainment getting smaller does not count as "improving". Its actually the exact opposite of "improving". Its pretty much a definitive example of something getting worse.

In any case I don't have a Netflix account. I've got friends with subscriptions and the fact is we get godawful service here in the UK compared to across the pond so I've never seen a need for it. Its never seemed worth it to me. What I DO have is a Crunchyroll subscription and an anime backlog list roughly the length of the Bible.

frizzlebyte:

SlumlordThanatos:
The problem with this is that Hulu sucks. Blocking your views if you're running Adblock, and their Plus plan doesn't even get rid of the ads. I tried watching Stargate SG-1 on my sister's Hulu Plus account, but couldn't because of the stupid, unskippable ads that I assumed would be removed SINCE I'M PAYING FOR THE SERVICE. (To clarify: I was thinking of getting my own account, so I tried out my sister's for a while) Ads are there to make money off of free users, not to mooch more money off of people who are already paying for it.

The damn point to paying for a streaming service is so that you don't have to deal with ads. If Netflix is losing a huge chunk of their content to fund shows that I probably won't watch anyway, what's the point of paying for it?

Am I going to be made to start my own streaming service? With blackjack and hookers?

It's not ideal that *all* the ads are unskippable by paying customers, but I don't necessarily see the problem with serving paying customers some form of advertising, since it's a revenue stream that (presumably) keeps the cost to customers down by subsidizing part of the cost of the service. If that business model allows a service like Hulu to pay more license fees to keep a larger content collection online, I think ads are pretty fair, and no different from what cable does, really, except that the cost is, ideally, less and the customer, again ideally, isn't beholden to a network's program director to decide what they want to watch and when.

Let me put it this way: if Netflix said they were going to make their customers watch advertisements in exchange for a catalog of titles that's not in flux as it is now, believe me, I'd be more than happy to put up with ads. There would, of course, be better and worse ways to implement such a thing, but I don't reflexively blanch at the idea of ads on a pay-to-stream service. It depends on whether and how the customer benefits from the arrangement.

What if I use Netflix over Hulu because I really, really hate ads? Honestly I would probably prefer Hulu's selection, but I get visibly pissed when I have to wait even 3 seconds to watch what I actually want to watch.

That reminds me: I got a free month of Netflix to try out and NOT RENEW.
That in turn reminds me: I have laundry to fold and no streaming service to help pass time with.
That in turn in turn reminds me: I don't have time to keep at this, because it's late and I have work in the morning.

Double A:

frizzlebyte:

SlumlordThanatos:
snip

snip

What if I use Netflix over Hulu because I really, really hate ads? Honestly I would probably prefer Hulu's selection, but I get visibly pissed when I have to wait even 3 seconds to watch what I actually want to watch.

Would you be willing to pay an extra $3-5 to go ad-free? I suppose I might be, which is why I'm asking.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.