NETFLIX - A DARK CRYSTAL SEQUEL (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

Whenever I see the word "Netflix" attached to a new film release, I want to vomit. I have come to despise this company with its proprietary streaming-only business. MUDBOUND, OKJA, THE IRISHMAN, and a dozen more are not coming to Blu-ray in the foreseeable future. I refuse to pay for a streaming service so that I can watch an inferior-quality image of these films. Unfortunately, I guess this is working for the company, drawing people into their subscription program. But don't directors like Martin Scorcese, The Coen Brothers, Bong Joon-ho, etc. have any clout here -- don't they want their movies to be available to the masses for whom Netflix is either not an option or is simply inferior to HD Blu?

 

[Edwin-S]

You had better get used to no BD releases as Disney and other big players are moving toward streaming and will be doing exactly what Netflix does.

 

[ScottJH]

It's a prequel not a sequel.

 

[Tino]

an inferior-quality image of these films.

Most of their proprietary films are 4K/Dolby Vision/HDR which have a superior image quality to Blu Ray.

I have no issues with the visual quality of Netflix streaming, But I agree I wish they would release these great films on physical discs.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Whenever I see the word "Netflix" attached to a new film release, I want to vomit. I have come to despise this company with its proprietary streaming-only business. MUDBOUND, OKJA, THE IRISHMAN, and a dozen more are not coming to Blu-ray in the foreseeable future. I refuse to pay for a streaming service so that I can watch an inferior-quality image of these films. Unfortunately, I guess this is working for the company, drawing people into their subscription program. But don't directors like Martin Scorcese, The Coen Brothers, Bong Joon-ho, etc. have any clout here -- don't they want their movies to be available to the masses for whom Netflix is either not an option or is simply inferior to HD Blu?

Netflix has over 60 million subscribers in the US and nearly 150 million world wide. That's a mass audience. Besides, Netflix is the one paying the freight, Scorsese couldn't get The Irishman financed without Netflix.

And I agree with Tino, Netflix should strike a deal to release their stuff on disc as well, even if it's a year or two after the Netflix premiere.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Most of their proprietary films are 4K/Dolby Vision/HDR which have a superior image quality to Blu Ray.

I have no issues with the visual quality of Netflix streaming, But I agree I wish they would release these great films on physical discs.

I just don’t see what incentive they have to do it.

If it’s only on Netflix, then a person wishing to view it has to subscribe. If it’s somewhere else, then they don’t have to subscribe, and that means the property no longer has value to Netflix as a potential subscription driver.

I’m not condemning or condoning the practice but I don’t think it’s likely to change. And with a month of Netflix priced at less than what a single blind buy for a new release disc would cost, I don’t think they’re being unreasonable in what they charge.

For better or worse, this is the way of the future. If this is what Netflix feels they have to do in order to feel protected when financing things like a $100 million Scorsese project, well, I want that project to happen more than I care about what particular platform I see it on.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

But don't directors like Martin Scorsese, The Coen Brothers, Bong Joon-ho, etc. have any clout here -- don't they want their movies to be available to the masses for whom Netflix is either not an option or is simply inferior to HD Blu?

The answer is they really no longer have much/any clout. Directors are not the reason a picture gets made anymore and it seems few people care about "director driven" pictures now. I mean there are still some great directors working but, as you mentioned with Scorsese, outside of the Netflix or Amazon model...nobody much cares to finance their pictures.

Recently, I was reading an article and a director stated "The movie business is now the super hero and Star Wars business. There is nothing else." and that's it in a nutshell. Those two "brands" have slaughtered everything else. The finance people and the theater owners want those pictures and as many as they can get. If you are a Martin Scorsese, a Paul Thomas Anderson, one of the Coen Brothers...well...funding now will be a giant part of your battle to get a picture made.

Scorsese talked about all this years ago. Saw the writing on the wall. Directors are just hired hands now, that's really where the business side has wanted things to go since the 1980s. I mean you can make a film, nobody is stopping you, but you need to find the money on your own. There is no more "Hollywood" there are a bunch of bean counters and the weirdest part to me is the public has somehow begun to cheer for the bean counters.

I know I am in a minority when I say these super hero pictures (most of what followed Nolan's Batman films) have become dreadful bland, boring, mush...and wow, have I found the Star Wars stuff awful following the first Abrams film. The thing is though, the worse the picture is seems to indicate the more tickets it sells. The more a picture follows a formula, the more people seem to want to pay to see it.

You don't need directors for these films. You don't want a director that is putting his stamp on what is up there on the screen. You don't want to risk something being interesting, daring, unique...because that's not what sells.

You want boring and the same. And we've got it.

So don't be angry at Netflix...for those of us that still love the art of filmmaking they are keeping it alive. They are getting out work from the Coens, from Scorsese, from a guy like Dan Gilroy...everybody else wants to tell these guys to take their art and shove it where the sun don't shine. They want a bad bland movie based on a comic with a guy in a stupid suit.

Hooray!

 

[Worth]

Filmmakers like Scorsese and the Coens can still get things made, but funding is a time-consuming, laborious and annoying process. Netflix offers them creative freedom, a fair bit of money and a large potential audience. And in the case of all the films mentioned above, a theatrical release, albeit a limited one, which feature film directors still prize far more than a home video release.

As for the streaming quality, that's going to vary according to your connection and equipment. With a fast internet connection via Apple TV at 1080p, Netflix looks very good to me. Not quite as good as blu-ray, but 80-90% there. Only once or twice per viewing do I notice something I probably wouldn't on disc, and it's definitely superior to DVD or cable/satellite.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Netflix offers them creative freedom, a fair bit of money and a large potential audience.

I saw a great interview with Dan Gilroy where he talked about making his last picture with Netflix, he LOVED working with them. He said when they finished the cut and set the meeting to show it to the Netflix team he was expecting what typically happens with financial backers...you show them your cut, they give you notes for changes and/or ask a bunch of questions and tell you they don't understand stuff.

The Netflix team watched it and just said "Great!" that was it. No notes, no questions, he was allowed to shoot and create the movie he wanted to make end of story.

How great is that?

 

[Cranston37+]

I would rather a film be financed, made, then reside on the service that took the risk, than have the screenplay remain in a drawer.

Blame the studios that wouldn't finance it traditionally, not the company that would.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Sadly, Target took a beating with their Stranger Things Blu-ray releases. Heck, I was able to pick up Season 2 for $10 there not long ago. I doubt we'll see many physical releases of Netflix properties, which is a shame. The upside is that, since Netflix owns the films and shows, you don't have to worry much about them being removed from the service anytime soon. Still, I'm a fan of physical media and would like to actually own physical copies of many of the streaming-service-owned properties. Hulu puts a few of theirs out, but not many.

 

[Craig Beam]

CBS All Access released the first season of Star Trek: Discovery on both DVD and Blu-ray, and I'm really hoping they do the same for the new Twilight Zone series.

 

[PMF]

Whenever I see the word "Netflix" attached to a new film release, I want to vomit. I have come to despise this company with its proprietary streaming-only business.[...]

Today's Wall Street Journal is carrying a front page story which addresses Apple's plans to distribute their feature films theatrically; and weeks before becoming available for streaming. So, vomit no more, Dick. Apple is coming to the rescue; and, might I add, as a direct action of competition against Netflix. Enjoy.

 

[Dick]

Most of their proprietary films are 4K/Dolby Vision/HDR which have a superior image quality to Blu Ray.

I have no issues with the visual quality of Netflix streaming, But I agree I wish they would release these great films on physical discs.

Well, not all of us live in areas where hyper-speed internet is available (for higher monthly fees), and that is part of the rub here. Those in rural areas where internet companies refuse to lay down their cable do not have access to these services that feature the bandwidth and speeds necessary to enjoy Netflix movies (etc.) at optimal viewing quality without constant buffering. This is not a fair playing field.

 

[Tino]

Well, not all of us live in areas where hyper-speed internet is available (for higher monthly fees), and that is part of the rub here. Those in rural areas where internet companies refuse to lay down their cable do not have access to these services that feature the bandwidth and speeds necessary to enjoy Netflix movies (etc.) at optimal viewing quality without constant buffering. This is not a fair playing field.

True. But that's not Netflix’s fault.

The fact is the majority of the Netflix produced films are of excellent visual and audio quality.

 

[Dick]

True. But that's not Netflix’s fault.

The fact is the majority of the Netflix produced films are of excellent visual and audio quality.

I agree that Netflix continues to produce excellent movies -- better, in fact, than most of the tripe our theaters are showing. But that just makes it more frustrating that I can't acquire these movies from such directors as Scorcese, the Coens, and Joon-ho on physical disc.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I agree that Netflix continues to produce excellent movies -- better, in fact, than most of the tripe our theaters are showing. But that just makes it more frustrating that I can't acquire these movies from such directors as Scorcese, the Coens, and Joon-ho on physical disc.

This is actually a prequel as someone mention and a TV series not a movie. 10 episodes Season 1. If successful which it appears to be there will be more seasons.

 

[Chris Will]

Blame the studios that wouldn't finance it traditionally, not the company that would.

Blame audiences who refuse to pay for a ticket for anything other than Comics and Jedi.

I know we all like to pile on the big bad studios but, if the smaller films made money, they would finance more of them. I mean, it is a business in the end and I can't blame studios for not wanting to finance movies that audiences refuse to see.