House of Cards (Netflix)

[Bob The Skutter]

Marc wrote:

---

Looking at IMDB it's going be 13 episodes.

The original was 4 episodes x 55 minus each so there could be a good deal of padding in then new.

Do people think Kevin Spacey can match the late Sir Ian Richardardson (and thought it was always a shame news of his death was overshadowed because some blonde bimbo OD'ed)

Oh, I guess it was 13 and 26 episodes.

[Temis the Vorta]

Are they going to follow the plotline of the original (which I never saw so it makes no difference to me)? Or just start with the characters and premise and then do their own thing?

As for releasing the original series on DVD, my hunch is they won't. Producing and malling DVDs costs Netflix more than streaming them, so they have a motive to discourage DVD-only subscriptions. And yes I know it's their own fault if people still get DVDs, like I do, because their streaming library continues in its general suckitude.

[J.T.B.]

Marc wrote:

---

Do people think Kevin Spacey can match the late Sir Ian Richardardson (and thought it was always a shame news of his death was overshadowed because some blonde bimbo OD'ed)

Spacey is good, but... no. Colin Firth didn't match him in the movie of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy either.

Justin

[Roger Wilco]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Are they going to follow the plotline of the original (which I never saw so it makes no difference to me)? Or just start with the characters and premise and then do their own thing?

From the trailer it looks like they are at least paying homage to the original. It starts in a similar scenario, and there seems to be something with a young, attractive female journalist as well.

[Temis the Vorta]

Out of curosity I checked on Lillyhammer - not available on DVD - if they were going to do it, it would make sense to do it at the same time as streaming. Nobody with streaming is going to opt for DVDs instead, so there's no risk of cannibalization (if that even matters).

Lillyhammer wasn't a big hit apparently so they lack of DVD might not have registered with netflix customers but if House of Cardsis a bigger hit, and my hunch is that it will be, I wonder if there's going to be another shitstorm if DVD only customers feel shortchanged/forced to add streaming.

[J.T.B.]

Roger Wilco wrote:

---

From the trailer it looks like they are at least paying homage to the original. It starts in a similar scenario,[...]

Yeah, it's hard for me to see the motivation as being on the same level in the US scenario. Wikipedia says that the Spacey character is peeved because he wasn't made Secretary of State. In the UK, the big cabinet jobs go to MPs just like Urquhart and he had good reason to expect one, too. But it's been a long time since a US Secretary of State has been even a former US Representative, let alone being appointed directly from the House.

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Lillyhammer wasn't a big hit apparently so they lack of DVD might not have registered with netflix customers but if House of Cardsis a bigger hit, and my hunch is that it will be, I wonder if there's going to be another shitstorm if DVD only customers feel shortchanged/forced to add streaming.

I don't see much justification for feeling shortchanged or forced. You want more, you have to pay for more, such is life.

Justin

[Temis the Vorta]

Netflix has had some trouble with unwise decisions causing customer furor. People don't need to be "right" in order to be angry, they just need to be angry. It's Netflix's job to figure out how to not create that situation again.

As for the motivation of Spacey's character, it looks to me that he's an antihero type - he's angry because he's egotistical and ambitious and he thinks he deserves the job. The audience doesn't have to agree - I don't give a flip if anyone in Washington gets any job - we just need to find him compelling enough that we're willing to go along with the ride, regardless of how odious a character he may be. And to accomplish that, it really helps to have an actor of Spacey's caliber. His personal charisma will be the reason the audience cares if some DC dickwad gets revenge for a supposed slight.

[Gaith]

Damn, it doesn't even show up as an eventual/unknown release in their dvd search!

Oh, well. There's plenty other discs to keep me busy...

[PsychoPere]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

And where's the advertising?

For most of January, it's been prominently displayed at the very top of their website when logged in.

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Lillyhammer wasn't a big hit apparently [...]

Netflix was apparently satisfied enough to continue with season two.

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I've been seeing it at the top of their site and on my PS3 app as well. Might be targeted because I watched the trailer?

I will give the show a shot because I want to support the business model. But it does have to be GOOD. I never finished the first episode of Lillyhammer. It screamed mediocrity.

[sidious618]

Early reviews for the show have been VERY good.

[Temis the Vorta]

I haven't seen a thing when I log onto their site. Oh Netflix. Was it something I said? Sometimes my reviews can be snide...

i'm really curious how they decide someone is or isn't worth advertising to. This is their only original show being released now, you'd think they'd just shove the ad at everyone.

[Temis the Vorta]

Variety thinks Netflix is making a biiiig mistake.

... let's not forget that the whole point of Netflix embarking on an original programming strategy is to bring in new subs by offering a different value proposition. These are consumers who didn't feel compelled to sign on to binge on library programming, but they're interested in seeing a buzzed-about new show like "Cards," and other originals still to come.

So when new subs polish off "Cards" in less time than the month they paid for, they'll quickly have to confront the issue of whether they are getting their money's worth. Netflix is betting to work its algorithmic magic on these subs by getting them hooked on other programs from its library. But that's a risk because that's not primarily why these customers signed onto Netflix.

It's not like another original series will be waiting for them as soon as they're done with "Cards." The next series on Netflix's slate of originals, Eli Roth's "Hemlock Grove," isn't due until April and the revival of Fox's "Arrested Development" doesn't begin until May. Thus, getting new subs to pay for a second consecutive month of services becomes at least a little less likely.

But if the 13 episodes of "Cards" were parceled out in the traditional weekly, installments, you could hook a viewer to pay for at least three months instead of just one.

Yes, the binge opportunity makes Netflix all the more addictive. But compelling the viewer to pace their programming consumption will generate more revenue.

I'm not so sure about this - Netflix has no competition for "instant binge viewing." The only other way you can legally do this is by buying DVD sets of old series, and that's not instant. Since there's no competitor for subscribers to compare Netflix to, why would they feel disgruntled not to have the next binge series in their face right away?

Also, why assume that everyone will do binge viewing, just because it's possible? I think many viewers are so accustomed to once-a-week viewing that they might just subconsciously follow that approach, or a speeded up version, maybe one episode every other night, with other stuff in-between. What Netflix offers is not just binging but choice. You can view this series at any pace you want, that's what's new.

[cylkoth]

Ugh...I really hate the designation ''binge viewing''. I don't binge view, but I will marathon shorter run series on occasion. Longer run shows I'll watch roughly 4-5 episodes a month. And I'll agree that Netflix's strategy of releasing the entire season of an original production is a mistake, but not for the hysterical reasoning offered in that piece. Netflix is denying itself the tremendous promotional bonanza that having an original series delivers. I've always felt that the best thing for them to do was-as mentioned in the article, release the episodes in 4 episode volumes. It gives you something to crow about, it can drive interviews for cast in the media each month...once an outlet covers the show the month it premieres, there's no further reason to go back. With volume releases, guest actors can be chatted up over upcoming appearances.

There can be a certain logic applied to putting the entire thing out at once. Instead of Hastings using the book example, he should have used theatrical films. You pay upwards of $8 to watch a new movie all at once, and likening Cards to an $8 movie ticket would've worked alot better for the Hollywood press.

Another fault of that article is omitting the reason behind all pay tv services turning to original programming. HBO and Showtime went to war with one another back in the early 80s. Out of that war came the advent of exclusive studio licensing, each channel locking the entire theatrical slates of studios down, blocking the other from access. Both suffered as the pool of films shrank. And that's when they turned to creating content, to help pad the schedules now deprived of the latest blockbuster from a studio the other had under lockdown. That same dynamic is now hitting Netflix. But instead of focusing on that, most media prefer reveling in the shrill ''let's obsess over doom and gloom'' where this company is concerned. It's tiresome.

BTW, Sony owned Crackle, an ad supported streaming service has also released an original series entitled ''Chosen''. Starring Heroes' Milo Ventimiglia, it's 6 half hour episodes, available at all once. Check it out sometime.
http://www.crackle.com/c/Chosen

[Bob The Skutter]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Variety thinks Netflix is making a biiiig mistake.

I'm not so sure about this - Netflix has no competition for "instant binge viewing." The only other way you can legally do this is by buying DVD sets of old series, and that's not instant. Since there's no competitor for subscribers to compare Netflix to, why would they feel disgruntled not to have the next binge series in their face right away?

Also, why assume that everyone will do binge viewing, just because it's possible? I think many viewers are so accustomed to once-a-week viewing that they might just subconsciously follow that approach, or a speeded up version, maybe one episode every other night, with other stuff in-between. What Netflix offers is not just binging but choice. You can view this series at any pace you want, that's what's new.

I thought in the US you had Amazon Instant and Hulu plus as well as Netflix on subscription, not to mention iTunes, PlayStation Store and Xbox Live for other paid on demand content?

Netflix certainly isn't the only option here in the UK on the subscription platform we have Netflix, LoveFilm and NowTV, with iTunes, BlinkBox, Xbox, Playstation, etc. for paid on demand. Though so far NetFlix is the only one with original content and it's managed to convince me to keep subscribing for that reason.