Absence of pre 00s films on Netflix/Prime, etc

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It's a common feature of choosing a film on there of spending 20 minutes exhausting scrolling through shite. After enough times doing that you start to realise that the catalogue is largely films that came out in the last 10 years, half of which should have been deleted immediately due to their total absence of value added to art, storytelling or culture in general. That isn't a fuddy rant about modern films, the amount of instantly forgettable straight to stream dreck is unbelievable.

There are a few keystone 90s films and actually a few golden age classics too but the general lack of good 60s, 70s, 80s content is really telling.

I thought boomers were a key audience these days. Why aren't they getting the good stuff?

[sovietrussia]

My thoughts exactly.  I was trying to hypothesize this the other evening, following another fruitless hour of scrolling. The odd thing is that pre-2000 films are represented just enough to make it statistically unsound to suggest otherwise.  However my conclusion is that great (or even just interesting) films from the last 80+ years are either too expensive to licence or of little appeal to the governing focus group/demographic. Depressing.

[Blumf]

I've been watching the original Gundam films (1981-ish) on Netflix, but I think you're right. There's so many overlooked/forgotten films from the 70s, 80s, & 90s they they could have on. Seems like the people picking the content are just taking whatever is put in front of them, and doesn't have a clue about digging through various studio's archives.

[evilcommiedictator]

Is it a problem of digitizing them again, or is it just a legal pain about who owns the rights in a time when rights were only negotiated for VHS maybe?
also, yay torrents

[zomgmouse]

yeah it's pretty woeful really

[Zetetic]

It's just that the marginal cost of streams/plays/views isn't close to zero, I believe, in contrast to stuff that Netflix or Amazon make themselves or buy outright (i.e. with no ongoing licensing costs).

[Zetetic]

Elsewhere, for services trading on an existing non-shit back catalogue, it's about the sort of artificial scarcity and fear-of-missing-out that Disney is the most well-known proponent of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault

(But see also Nintendo for another recent high-profile example.)

[phantom_power]

Prime seem to be getting better at putting older films up but it is still annoying that they don't have as many classics as they do generic rubbish

[steveh]

Amazon's model is a bit different to Netflix, in that while they commission some films themselves and do distribution deals with some of the major studios, they also allow any distributor to make available films on Amazon Prime Video for a small revenue share. Some of the better films are also on channels rather than part of Prime so I tend to switch between them depending on what they have or when there's special offers.

These distributors have had some of the more interesting things I've found on Prime...

- Renown Films, Talking Pictures' film company, has a load of 1930s-1960s films that they rotate.

- Minerva Pictures has lots of Italian, French and some US genre stuff from the 1960s-1980s.

- Shameless Films did have a lot more on Prime but rotate some interesting Italian 1960s-1970s releases.

Searching via the distributor can be better than some of the other ways of locating stuff.

Also worth checking out the New on Amazon Prime site: https://amzprime.maft.uk/.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I find Netflix the best for new shit films, and Prime the best for old shit films. If I had to pick one I'd have Prime

[Sebastian Cobb]

I fucked prime off. Realised I wasn't using the films much and also amazon is a big faceless corporation so I don't mind downloading stuff instead of giving the pricks money. Same with Comcast-owned stuff, fuck 'em.

For a while when netflix was expanding it had a good few noirs in there, and maybe not prominent 70's films, but surprisingly Foxy Brown was on there for ages too. I think there's some 70's genre stuff on Prime now though, it's a bit of a mixed bag.

[Blumf]

Worth noting YouTube has a surprising selection of old stuff free to view. A lot of old 50s and earlier films, but also fairly modern things. Some of it seems semi-official, some of it's randomly uploaded and likely to disappear, but always consider a search there first if you're looking for a film ("<your film> full movie" usually does the job).

For example, here's To Live and Die in LA (1985), one that I'm surprised doesn't get much rotation on the usual TV channels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bseFRIXfRWM

Doubt that link will last, but the last time I caught it on YT, it stayed around for over a year.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Worth noting YouTube has a surprising selection of old stuff free to view. A lot of old 50s and earlier films, but also fairly modern things. Some of it seems semi-official, some of it's randomly uploaded and likely to disappear, but always consider a search there first if you're looking for a film ("<your film> full movie" usually does the job).

For example, here's To Live and Die in LA (1985), one that I'm surprised doesn't get much rotation on the usual TV channels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bseFRIXfRWM

Doubt that link will last, but the last time I caught it on YT, it stayed around for over a year.

Often the easiest way to find this (and youtube adjacent sites) is to search on google, click videos and filter the duration to long.

That also throws up Vimeo stuff which whilst not always free, is often a quid or so to rent for a really long time.

[olliebean]

Here's the graph of original release dates of Netflix content, in case anyone's interested (includes TV series):



from https://uk.newonnetflix.info/stats

[Replies From View]

I'm going to guess that it's to do with who can make money with new content vs old content



Jim from the US version of the Office won't make any fresh money from constant rereleases of Gus Van Sant's Psycho which you love.  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE JIMS FROM THE OFFICE (US VERSION)

[blisterman]

I don't understand it, because the free to air movie channels have almost exclusively old movies on them. I always assumed it was because they cost next to nothing to licence. You'd think for the cost of one big modern movie, Netflix could get thousands of old films on there. Niche appeal sure, but they could do with having more depth, because I find you quickly run out of movies you want to watch on Netflix.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

The relative lack of old stuff was one of the first disappointments I had with Netflix. Not long after I signed up, I watched Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for the first time on there. I thought, finally, I can catch up with all those classic films that never seem to be on the telly. Then I went looking for more like it, only to come up short.

I don't understand it, because the free to air movie channels have almost exclusively old movies on them. I always assumed it was because they cost next to nothing to licence. You'd think for the cost of one big modern movie, Netflix could get thousands of old films on there.

That's exactly what I thought. I guess maybe streaming rights are negotiated differently to telly.

I find you quickly run out of movies you want to watch on Netflix.

I have the opposite problem, with stuff I've bookmarked frequently disappearing before I get around to watching it. That was my second major disappointment with it. They do at least give slightly more warning before that happens now.

Having accepted those two disappointments, I'm generally happy enough with Netflix. The volume of stuff on there is such that there is always something I'm interested in watching - often recent films that I missed in the cinema for one reason or another. It's still better than Prime, from what I could tell when I had the month's free trial. My main complaint now is with their tendency to cancel shows without wrapping them up properly.

[MojoJojo]

This is a big thing the old postal DVD services were better than streaming over.

I can see that for netflix/prime, the cost of getting the rights to old films just isn't worth it when they could spend the same energy getting the rights to something newer which will get more views - even if the licensing cost is more for the newer film.

The BFI Player looks like it might be good, and they do have some free stuff and the monthly subscription is a pleasing £4.99. Not sure what apps they have available though.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

You'd think there must be a pretty sizeable audience out there for older films. I can't imagine my folks being interested in subscribing to Netflix as it currently is, but they might well do if it had a decent library of classic films.

[checkoutgirl]

However my conclusion is that great (or even just interesting) films from the last 80+ years are either too expensive to licence or of little appeal to the governing focus group/demographic.

I think even well regarded and loyally followed shows made by Netflix are still axed after 2 or 3 seasons. Apparently this is because the brand new shows draw more subscriptions and eyeballs. Not sure if true but sad if it is.

Also with all the other players coming into the streaming scene they will be sitting on their back catalogues for their own service. Why would a studio sell an old classic to Netflix when they can just keep it for their own platform?

I love films from the 60s, 70s and 80s but good luck finding them on Netflix. It's bullshit and Piratebay is the winner here.

[dissolute ocelot]

I'm sure it's technically easier to serve up the same program 1000 times rather than 1000 different films. Netflix has a technical system where most of their content is stored on lots of separate Netflix-owned servers located around the world in ISP/telecom/cable facilities, so it's not like they have one roomful of computers with all their films on - every movie will have to be distributed to all the servers before it goes to viewers.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

netflix and prime

a fucking waste of time

[olliebean]

I have the opposite problem, with stuff I've bookmarked frequently disappearing before I get around to watching it. That was my second major disappointment with it. They do at least give slightly more warning before that happens now.

Not to the extent of moving it to the top of your list, to flag up the fact that it's leaving soon, though. You still have to check everything on your list one at a time to be sure that nothing's due to vanish unexpectedly.

[MojoJojo]

I'm sure it's technically easier to serve up the same program 1000 times rather than 1000 different films. Netflix has a technical system where most of their content is stored on lots of separate Netflix-owned servers located around the world in ISP/telecom/cable facilities, so it's not like they have one roomful of computers with all their films on - every movie will have to be distributed to all the servers before it goes to viewers.

This is all pretty well developed now - and netflix is all hosted on amazon servers now. I think all the major streaming services run on amazon. The main limit of adding new films is the actual process of licensing - assessing what a film is worth, finding the rights holders, negotiating the fee, getting lawyers to sign contracts.

[Chedney Honks]

People these days are thick as fuck in general.

[letsgobrian]

Amazon's model is a bit different to Netflix, in that while they commission some films themselves and do distribution deals with some of the major studios, they also allow any distributor to make available films on Amazon Prime Video for a small revenue share. Some of the better films are also on channels rather than part of Prime so I tend to switch between them depending on what they have or when there's special offers.

These distributors have had some of the more interesting things I've found on Prime...

- Renown Films, Talking Pictures' film company, has a load of 1930s-1960s films that they rotate.

- Minerva Pictures has lots of Italian, French and some US genre stuff from the 1960s-1980s.

- Shameless Films did have a lot more on Prime but rotate some interesting Italian 1960s-1970s releases.

Searching via the distributor can be better than some of the other ways of locating stuff.

Also worth checking out the New on Amazon Prime site: https://amzprime.maft.uk/.

And their QC is non-existent so occasionally straight up pirates and bootleggers will upload onto Prime.

[Josef K]

Good thread to reccomend the Cinema Paradiso rental service - tenner a month for unlimited disc rentals, including 4k, and you can watch all the 70s action and 60s erotica your heart desires

[Sebastian Cobb]

This is a big thing the old postal DVD services were better than streaming over.

I can see that for netflix/prime, the cost of getting the rights to old films just isn't worth it when they could spend the same energy getting the rights to something newer which will get more views - even if the licensing cost is more for the newer film.

The BFI Player looks like it might be good, and they do have some free stuff and the monthly subscription is a pleasing £4.99. Not sure what apps they have available though.

Works through the browser on laptops/desktops, and there are Android and iOS apps. Unfortunately there is not a FireTV app, although they have a channel on Prime which means the money goes through Amazon (and I think it's either/or so you can't then watch on the BFI site).

Mubi is worth checking out if you haven't already, they've pretty much dropped the rolling 30 day thing now. They often have some good director retrospectives on there, I recently enjoyed working my way through Pedro Almodóvar's films. There's some early Hal Hartley on there at the minute too.