Forbes is at it again. This time talking trash about Netflix.

[Shadow Reaper]

Well lets look at the basic premise: "featuring great exclusive content is now far more important than anything else".

Is that true?

I doubt it. He immediately jumps into his illustratiion with Game of Thrones, but GoT is popular because it is very, VERY well done in every aspect. Great source material with an exellent prior fan base, great rewrite for the screen, great actors, great production values, excellent budget, turned out to be an excellent production. That is not true of all "exclusive" content, and there has been plenty of exclusive content that has flopped. Who recalls the Shannara Chronicles?

Shannara had an even bigger fan base that stretched back much further. What it did not have was a good cast, great writing, directing and production values. So it languished and no one knows about it.

Seems pretty obvious to me that the most basic premise of the author above is flawed, becasue it attempts ot deal with the issue without looking at any of the details. The facts matter. GoT is great and is being rewarded in the marketplace for its greatness, while no one is going to miss Shannara.

 

[Mich Angel]

Marketing is always the key to success... without it a success is just pure luck or bone hard never give up mentality.

I remember Shannara Chronicles I like it maybe a lot more than I should have but thought it was a great story.

CHEERS!

 

[Vavrik]

I remember Shannara Chronicles I like it maybe a lot more than I should have but thought it was a great story.

Honestly it probably wasn't a bad story, but it's delivery was all wrong for anyone who'd read the books - which was probably most of the original audience.
I agree with @Shadow Reaper for the most part. To me, if you ignore the final 3 episodes, GoT was really good, in most aspects true to the story even when they took a shortcut. I think a series of things affected the final season, including the story's long development time. It felt like HBO just wanted to end it, so they did. George R.R. Martin has said that he's going to continue the story, I look forward to that.

But I think the inclusion of GoT in the Forbes article is misleading. It's not a Netflix property, it's HBO. I think Netflix will grow despite and even because of Disney, and might even be accelerated.

Don't forget that Disney invested huge sums in theater movies as the public was moving to television. Then they invested in DVD's and failed in their management of the consumer market. Next, they invested heavily in cable distribution, as the audience for cable television was shrinking. You were late to the party again, Disney. Don't think you can just take over from an established service that fast, life doesn't work that way. What they might do though, is give Netflix a reason to look at their delivery model. Competition, I think, will do them some good. Everything needs a competitor to keep them sharp. That's good for entrepreneurship at all levels.

 

[Bruttle]

Shannara had an even bigger fan base that stretched back much further. What it did not have was a good cast, great writing, directing and production values. So it languished and no one knows about it.

That's pretty much the heart of the issue. So many shows and movies are created with the intent of getting views not out of quality, but of fandom. Video games do the same thing. Movie to video game translations are rarely anything other than a cash grab. Of course, that doesn't stop the media from transferring blame or diverting criticism to some random and un-associated thing.

For instance, look at all the naysayers that talked trash about how american viewers just couldn't support a female protagonist in an action movie. That was true when they kept pumping out crap like Catwoman with Halle Berry. They were silenced though when Wonder Woman came out. Remember when the media proudly claimed that superhero movies just didn't have the fan base? It's amazing how the story changes once a quality movie comes out.

The same goes for the Netflix issue. How can you even compare the drivel that cable puts out like "keeping up with the cardashians" to Netflix's "Marco Polo" or "The Colony"? Neflix has always been the future of TV. People just don't want to accept it. The truth of the matter is, people have been cutting the cable TV cord more and more each year. That is a one way street. Once you fully dive into streaming your TV rather than DVR'ing it, there's no going back. A million corporate sponsored article writers can't change that.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Honestly it probably wasn't a bad story, but it's delivery was all wrong for anyone who'd read the books - which was probably most of the original audience.
I agree with @Shadow Reaper for the most part. To me, if you ignore the final 3 episodes, GoT was really good, in most aspects true to the story even when they took a shortcut. I think a series of things affected the final season, including the story's long development time. It felt like HBO just wanted to end it, so they did. George R.R. Martin has said that he's going to continue the story, I look forward to that.

But I think the inclusion of GoT in the Forbes article is misleading. It's not a Netflix property, it's HBO. I think Netflix will grow despite and even because of Disney, and might even be accelerated.

Don't forget that Disney invested huge sums in theater movies as the public was moving to television. Then they invested in DVD's and failed in their management of the consumer market. Next, they invested heavily in cable distribution, as the audience for cable television was shrinking. You were late to the party again, Disney. Don't think you can just take over from an established service that fast, life doesn't work that way. What they might do though, is give Netflix a reason to look at their delivery model. Competition, I think, will do them some good. Everything needs a competitor to keep them sharp. That's good for entrepreneurship at all levels.

You say that competitio will do them good, but I have a baaad feeling about this. I see Disney as the EA of the movie world, with their latest movies being made for the shareholders not the fans.
They start their streaming sevice, then put in some ads, maybe implement a higher tier with no ads. If ppl keep paying for it, Netflix will go: look, they can get away with it and get way more money, why don't we do the same?

 

[Bruttle]

You say that competitio will do them good, but I have a baaad feeling about this. I see Disney as the EA of the movie world, with their latest movies being made for the shareholders not the fans.
They start their streaming sevice, then put in some ads, maybe implement a higher tier with no ads. If ppl keep paying for it, Netflix will go: look, they can get away with it and get way more money, why don't we do the same?

That's a risk with any company. There have been many companies that started by providing a great service, but evolved into typical corporate greed. It is a very popular story. It won't take Disney to show Netflix the profitability of greed. The only thing we can do is hope that it does't happen.

On the Disney front though, they aren't the EA of the movie world. They are much worse. They have been buying up rights since Bob Iger started steering. They have Mirimax, ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Marvel, Hulu, Lucasfilms, Maker Studios, Sphero, and most recently 21st Century Fox (which gave them 60% stock in Hulu and comcast agreed to sell them the remaining %) and much more. Their net worth is estimated at 130 billion. So they're not EA. If anything, they're about to buy EA...

 

[makute]

Netflix has 175 days left to pull off a miracle... or it's all over.

The similarities with the "90 days tops" bullshit are uncanny.

 

[ShakyWater]

Netflix: Come for the social engineering. Stay for the child porn.