Netflix In-House Movies Discussion Thread

[Sin Agog]

Why d'you reckon they're all so naff?  Even the sort of alright ones, like that Paul Rudd carer mov-ee, are pretty soft-serve and lifetimey.  Is it their anything goes policy?  Deadlines and restrictions can result in great art, but then all those Raging Bulls and Easy Riders were allowed to take over the shop, and that resulted in legions of quality material.  Are they using the same TV-quality writers and TV-quality crews with film budgets with the expectation it will be something more than TV quality?  Do they give too many opportunities to long past their prime Hollywood refugees like Ricky Gervais, and not enough to bright new ingenues?  And yet...The Bad Batch.  Is Netflix just catering to their audience of undiscerning transplanted Sky Moviemax watchers who lap this shit up?  Answer every single one of these questions now please thanks.

[Shit Good Nose]

I think it's just because it's still relatively early days in this "online content provider making movies" being a thing - 3 or 4 years is it?  Assuming more and more people turn to this (and Amazon) and cinema attendances continue to drop, there's going to be a point where a Netflix/Amazon/whomever film becomes a serious world contender.

As it is, I don't think they've ALL been naff - I've seen several that appealed to me on a purely subjective level (Pee Wee's Big Holiday as just one example), and a few that are genuinely good (Beasts of No Nation is fucking brilliant).

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Okja was good, as was Gerald's Game (except that she could have easily escaped without waiting three days and mutilating her hand). I keep meaning to watch Beasts of No Nation, but the running time is a bit offputting.

[greenman]

Honestly I'd still a cinema/DVD viewer who dislikes the idea of constant paying to view content so I'm rather glad its stayed mediocre.

[Shit Good Nose]

Okja was good, as was Gerald's Game (except that she could have easily escaped without waiting three days and mutilating her hand). I keep meaning to watch Beasts of No Nation, but the running time is a bit offputting.

My reasons for going with Netflix are that my nearest half decent cinema is half an hour away, so it's petrol and parking before I even look at the £12 cinema ticket, plus I don't have Sky or Virgin.  Netflix then becomes a reasonably valued sub.

I keep meaning to watch Beasts of No Nation, but the running time is a bit offputting.

Don't let the running time put you off.  It's excellent.

[colacentral]

Honestly I'd still a cinema/DVD viewer who dislikes the idea of constant paying to view content so I'm rather glad its stayed mediocre.

I'm the same, and I think the reason for mediocrity and why it will never improve is that there is no incentive for any of it to be good as no one is paying for individual titles. You're already a subscriber so it makes no difference if you watch Okja or not, it's just publicity so they can say in addition to having episodes of this and that we also have exclusively produced stuff.

Bit of a tangent here, but on this point: Red letter media's latest contrarian opinion is that cinemas are bad and a future of all films going straight to Netflix is something they'd prefer. Utterly disingenuos smug cunt thing to say, purely for attention and under the false impression its a cool, funny thing to say, and as wrong as anything they've ever said for several reasons: quality standards being the big one, as already mentioned, especially as Netflix would essentially have a monopoly over the industry, with only some mild competition from Amazon; and the fact that, despite what RLM say, the experience of watching a film in the cinema can't be replicated at home for most people, most people who don't bother with their picture and sound settings, who aren't going to sound proof their living rooms and get black out curtains, etc. If there were no cinemas, details in sound and picture would become less important as most people would be seeing things in bad living room conditions or on tablets, and aesthetic qualities on the whole would lower to the standard of straight to video crap. Why would studios waste money on that stuff when it's not going to be blown up to a huge screen and blasted through high quality speakers?

[Sin Agog]

I don't know if Netflix movies will get better.  It's usually in the early wild west days of a medium/channel's existence when the adventurous stuff goes down, until the dust settles and things become safe and musty.  Netflix are long past the wild west and into the light bulbs in every room and primitive vacuum cleaner era of their lifespan at this point.

By the way, Amazon did put out Manchester By the Sea, which I guess was the closest one of these things have come to gaining true critical props.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I quite like some of the indie stuff they have on there. Never watched any of their films starring washed up hollywood folk though.

[Z]

There isn't a single Netflix originals show I rate especially much, or Netflix film, and I think it's largely by design. It's all very light easy to watch garbage, people go on about how it's the best time ever for new scripted television in the US but there isn't a single show on right now I'd consider a serious top-tier all-time great. There's a fuck ton of those Joe Swanberg-esque indies up there that cost nothing, are wholly inoffensive and, outside of an interesting performance or two, are utterly totally forgettable
The times they've attempted to pick up something at all more complex they've largely fell flat on the arse (how many people even know Noah Baumbach put out a film featuring Adam Sandler and Dustin Hoffman last year?).

I tend to be a bit of a judgmental asshole when someone refers to Netflix as if it's all film and television. It more often than not seems to be a big signifier for pretty vanilla tastes.



Amazon, perhaps just realising Netflix have largely caught the easier group, are much more intent on being a serious film distributor. Possibly playing more of a long game in that owning one Manchester by the Sea is perhaps gonna be worth more than several Brights, and the way they've treated such releases gives directors assurances that they'll make an effort to show some kind of interest in presenting them well. If I made a film and I felt like it was a good work, I'd be very concerned about depending on Netflix to release and promote it correctly.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Why d'you reckon they're all so naff?  Even the sort of alright ones, like that Paul Rudd carer mov-ee, are pretty soft-serve and lifetimey.

I thought the Paul Rudd / Craig Roberts one was superb. I'm not a fan of things like that as I hate the disabled, but I found it incredibly endearing and funny a movie.

There isn't a single Netflix originals show I rate especially much, or Netflix film, and I think it's largely by design. It's all very light easy to watch garbage, people go on about how it's the best time ever for new scripted television in the US but there isn't a single show on right now I'd consider a serious top-tier all-time great.

It's all about Bojack Horseman for me. I fucking love that show to pieces. And whilst not an all time great I did love Lady Dynamite, and only wish that Maria had been a larger part of the writing side of things. And American Vandal was great too. And Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. I do agree with you that they produce a lot of average fare but I don't think it's as bad as you make out.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Better Call Saul's a netflix original innit? That's quite good. The French Cold War comedy A Very Secret Service is also fantastic. Dear White People was quite good too. Bojack Horseman seems like a bigger risk than most adult cartoons... seems to have paid off.

I find prime, in the uk at least, just sticks to films that did alright at the box office. It's a modern day blockbuster video. Netflix has some alright cult classics and indie films in it. I haven't watched all that many of the originals. There's plenty of bland drek on Amazon Prime as well.

I think the only tv I've seen that amazon have commissioned themselves was Sneaky Pete, that was decent.

[colacentral]

Saul is made by AMC. Netflix just bought the rights to it in the UK so get to slap "a netflix original" on it over here.

[bgmnts]

Yeah, Arrested Development isn't a Netflix Original either.

[olliebean]

Yeah, Arrested Development isn't a Netflix Original either.

Series 4 is, isn't it? In the sense that it was commissioned by Netflix and exclusively shown on Netflix.

[Shit Good Nose]

There isn't a single Netflix originals show I rate especially much, or Netflix film, and I think it's largely by design. It's all very light easy to watch garbage, people go on about how it's the best time ever for new scripted television in the US but there isn't a single show on right now I'd consider a serious top-tier all-time great. There's a fuck ton of those Joe Swanberg-esque indies up there that cost nothing, are wholly inoffensive and, outside of an interesting performance or two, are utterly totally forgettable
The times they've attempted to pick up something at all more complex they've largely fell flat on the arse (how many people even know Noah Baumbach put out a film featuring Adam Sandler and Dustin Hoffman last year?).

I tend to be a bit of a judgmental asshole when someone refers to Netflix as if it's all film and television. It more often than not seems to be a big signifier for pretty vanilla tastes.



Amazon, perhaps just realising Netflix have largely caught the easier group, are much more intent on being a serious film distributor. Possibly playing more of a long game in that owning one Manchester by the Sea is perhaps gonna be worth more than several Brights, and the way they've treated such releases gives directors assurances that they'll make an effort to show some kind of interest in presenting them well. If I made a film and I felt like it was a good work, I'd be very concerned about depending on Netflix to release and promote it correctly.

All of which sounds largely like complaints about Netflix you hear from people who don't have and have never had Netflix.  As Sebastian Cobb says, Netflix has a lot more variety and culty stuff than Amazon (this is the non-Netflix produced stuff I'm talking about here), and it has an infinitely better selection of documentaries.

As for their own original content, there is quite a lot of stuff which isn't just mainstream vanilla - your own example of The Meyerowitz Stories being a good example, given that it's pretty fucking great and easily the best thing Baumbach has done.

I don't think streaming/subscription sites will ever fully replace the cinema, or even be a true alternative to seeing a spectacle on the big screen, but I think they'll get more serious as time goes on and they'll start producing a lot of decent original content.

[asids]

The real test will be the release of The Irishman next year, I think. Scorsese directing his favoured style of crime film, with De Niro and Pacino. Obviously both their stars have faded over the last number of years (De Niro blighting his career with some truly awful films that were clearly done just for the paycheck and Pacino being consigned to the DTV world), but it's the kind of film with a real mass audience appeal that could potentially be another Oscar contender for Scorsese. If it is successful and gets that kind of acclaim, then suddenly people are gonna take a lot more notice of Netflix's films. If it gets trashed like the Cloverfield Paradox, then it could be a massive dent to Netflix's hopes of breaking into the film market. And it's got a budget of about $130 million, which exceeds anything they've done before and is comparable to the higher end of Hollywood blockbusters - it's definitely a risk.

[Shit Good Nose]

it's definitely a risk.

A risk, but about as safe a risk as you could take given the talent involved.  It's one of those films that screams "can't possibly be NOT good" (although, equally, it would be no surprise at all if it was mediocre at best - although Scorsese's in the middle of a bit of a golden period at the moment and certainly has a mojo that he didn't have for a long time).  Having said that, I suspect it will get a proper cinema release (again given the talent, and the money) in advance, rather than simultaneous limited cinema release and streaming a la most of their other original films.  But it does at least show they're serious and making a go of it.  By comparison, let's not forget the sort of original chaff that HBO were slinging around right up until the mid 90s, before anyone started to take that channel seriously.

[greenman]

There isn't a single Netflix originals show I rate especially much, or Netflix film, and I think it's largely by design. It's all very light easy to watch garbage, people go on about how it's the best time ever for new scripted television in the US but there isn't a single show on right now I'd consider a serious top-tier all-time great. There's a fuck ton of those Joe Swanberg-esque indies up there that cost nothing, are wholly inoffensive and, outside of an interesting performance or two, are utterly totally forgettable
The times they've attempted to pick up something at all more complex they've largely fell flat on the arse (how many people even know Noah Baumbach put out a film featuring Adam Sandler and Dustin Hoffman last year?).

I tend to be a bit of a judgmental asshole when someone refers to Netflix as if it's all film and television. It more often than not seems to be a big signifier for pretty vanilla tastes.

Perhaps as mentioned down to the nature of the service who's advantage is going to be for people who preffer watching large amount of average content over smaller amounts of higher quality content.

[newbridge]

Bit of a tangent here, but on this point: Red letter media's latest contrarian opinion is that cinemas are bad and a future of all films going straight to Netflix is something they'd prefer. Utterly disingenuos smug cunt thing to say, purely for attention and under the false impression its a cool, funny thing to say, and as wrong as anything they've ever said for several reasons: quality standards being the big one, as already mentioned, especially as Netflix would essentially have a monopoly over the industry, with only some mild competition from Amazon; and the fact that, despite what RLM say, the experience of watching a film in the cinema can't be replicated at home for most people, most people who don't bother with their picture and sound settings, who aren't going to sound proof their living rooms and get black out curtains, etc. If there were no cinemas, details in sound and picture would become less important as most people would be seeing things in bad living room conditions or on tablets, and aesthetic qualities on the whole would lower to the standard of straight to video crap. Why would studios waste money on that stuff when it's not going to be blown up to a huge screen and blasted through high quality speakers?

I don't think their position is everything-going-to-Netflix is good, they just did a video making fun of Netflix for putting out shit and trying to trick people with Cloverfield. I think their position is more that "going to the theater" is not necessarily the greatest way to consume movies, which I 100% agree with.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Bit of a tangent here, but on this point: Red letter media's latest contrarian opinion is that cinemas are bad and a future of all films going straight to Netflix is something they'd prefer. Utterly disingenuos smug cunt thing to say, purely for attention and under the false impression its a cool, funny thing to say, and as wrong as anything they've ever said for several reasons: quality standards being the big one, as already mentioned, especially as Netflix would essentially have a monopoly over the industry, with only some mild competition from Amazon; and the fact that, despite what RLM say, the experience of watching a film in the cinema can't be replicated at home for most people, most people who don't bother with their picture and sound settings, who aren't going to sound proof their living rooms and get black out curtains, etc. If there were no cinemas, details in sound and picture would become less important as most people would be seeing things in bad living room conditions or on tablets, and aesthetic qualities on the whole would lower to the standard of straight to video crap. Why would studios waste money on that stuff when it's not going to be blown up to a huge screen and blasted through high quality speakers?

Generally speaking, it's the shitmunchers who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing that also watch tepid shite as well though, it's almost like they're not very discerning. Although that's the same shite that fills cinemas.

I think there's definitely some value in going to the cinema. It's a more immersive experience because the a/v equimpent is superior, but nevermind that; the fact you've both had to allocate earned resources and time to go there makes it more immersive as well, not to mention it's so easy to distract yourself in your own home. Like most things the more (time, money and attention) the more they're going to have an effect on you, the more they stand a chance of changing you on some (macro) level.

Then again Mubi (ironically I got a years membership free for becoming a member at the cinema) has helped my cinema discovery a lot. The limited nature of the stuff sort of forces you to dive in and keep tabs on it. I like netflix a lot and think the old distribution models (of treating each country differently) were really shit, the eu are stepping in and making netflix treat the EU as one bloc I think, which will massively benefit places like Poland that had small libraries, but also might work in the other direction and widen the pool. Just as Britain actively tries to narrow it for itself. Ah yes, my fact was that because assets on netflix rarely change that much, I've considered them 'always there' and haven't used it in months.

[zomgmouse]

I mean it's kind of like made-for-TV films in a sense.

[greenman]

Generally speaking, it's the shitmunchers who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing that also watch tepid shite as well though, it's almost like they're not very discerning. Although that's the same shite that fills cinemas.

I think there's definitely some value in going to the cinema. It's a more immersive experience because the a/v equimpent is superior, but nevermind that; the fact you've both had to allocate earned resources and time to go there makes it more immersive as well, not to mention it's so easy to distract yourself in your own home. Like most things the more (time, money and attention) the more they're going to have an effect on you, the more they stand a chance of changing you on some (macro) level.

Then again Mubi (ironically I got a years membership free for becoming a member at the cinema) has helped my cinema discovery a lot. The limited nature of the stuff sort of forces you to dive in and keep tabs on it. I like netflix a lot and think the old distribution models (of treating each country differently) were really shit, the eu are stepping in and making netflix treat the EU as one bloc I think, which will massively benefit places like Poland that had small libraries, but also might work in the other direction and widen the pool. Just as Britain actively tries to narrow it for itself. Ah yes, my fact was that because assets on netflix rarely change that much, I've considered them 'always there' and haven't used it in months.

I'd agree the cinema viewing experience can actually play to more average content as well, the lack of distraction from someone I'd probably view much more casually at home.

One big advantage of the shift to online sales is that DVD's/BR's have dropped in price very considerable if your prepared to wait a few months(which is easier if you''ve seen it at the cinema first given how fast home releases are now). At the kind of prices we were looking at 10 years ago I'd probably have been much more tempted by Netflix, these days paying £4 or less for DVD's and £6 or less for bluerays the vast majority of the time makes sticking with physical copies much easier.

Honestly I'v tended to find my own viewing taste has shifted onwards cinema I want to view considerably more often as well in the last couple of years, the days of buying something, viewing it once and then filing it away forever more aren't nearly as common.

[phantom_power]

I mean it's kind of like made-for-TV films in a sense.

I have never seen a $90 million TV Movie. Bright was a bag of shit but it wasn't for want of lack of ambition.

Netflix has produced loads of good stuff. Isn't one of their central conceits that they let the talent get on with it without interference. I suppose that can work both ways in terms of the end product

[steveh]

Netflix Originals covers several different kinds of content - shows or films they have commissioned from a production company, shows they've been brought pilots for by a production company, films they've picked up the exclusive rights to at festivals, shows they've co-financed which other partners make and have the rights to in different territories, probably some other combinations too. It's the direct film commissions that have probably been the weakest and the comedy ones of those possibly the worst of the lot.

[Z]

All of which sounds largely like complaints about Netflix you hear from people who don't have and have never had Netflix.  As Sebastian Cobb says, Netflix has a lot more variety and culty stuff than Amazon (this is the non-Netflix produced stuff I'm talking about here), and it has an infinitely better selection of documentaries.

Fair point, I'll have a look through their database later. I didn't mean to put them on a like for like comparison either, netflix's whole business is vod, Amazon are just using it as one part of a different thing entirely.

RE documentaries, i don't think they've  produced any really amazing ones but I might be wrong. They have, however, basically killed off a certain kind of theatrically released documentary that had absolutely no business being in a cinema and moved them to an infinitely better format.
I've no clue why anyone ever went to an Alex gibney style documentary on a cinema

[Sin Agog]

What kind of Netflix acquisition was Herzog's Into the Inferno?  Really liked that.  It may not have had some of the contrived but magical moments of a lot of his other docs, like the transplanted Caribbean guy looking at the upside-down waterfall through a water droplet, but it was still clearly a Herzog work, and a good one.  Wish they'd fund a new Herzy venture every year.

[Z]

How accurate is this list? https://www.allflicks.net/uk/
72 films from before 1970 can't be right, can it? Nearly a third of them seem to be WW2 documentaries too.

[Sin Agog]

Cheers for that link.  Yes, that's a shite number, but at least it let me know that a few things like Johnny Guitar were on there.  Oh, and Star Trek The Animated Series.  Always been a mythical, not quite real thing in my mind, but I just started watching it and at least the first episode is way more in line with my tastes than most of the other Treks.  Feels very Fantastic Planetty.

[buzby]

I don't think their position is everything-going-to-Netflix is good, they just did a video making fun of Netflix for putting out shit and trying to trick people with Cloverfield. I think their position is more that "going to the theater" is not necessarily the greatest way to consume movies, which I 100% agree with.

Yes, it was specifically prompted by the screening of Thor: Ragnarok Mike went to where he was in a theatre packed with idiots and sat next to a large sweaty smelly man loudly eating for the entire film. I don't think his problem is going to the theatre per se, it's specifically going to a megaplex to see mass-market films and the audience they attact.

I was at a gig last night with a pissed couple having a domestic behind me and the people in front watching through the now-standard sea of smartphones and at points I was thinking I'd prefer to be watching this on TV.

[Shit Good Nose]

How accurate is this list? https://www.allflicks.net/uk/
72 films from before 1970 can't be right, can it? Nearly a third of them seem to be WW2 documentaries too.

Accurate.  But improving all the time - there was a time, not so long ago, when the oldest film they had was from the early/mid 60s.  They've had stuff from the 20s since.

It should be noted that list doesn't include films that have been removed, mind.