Hollywood studios say they’re quitting Netflix – the truth is more complicated
al.com
al.com
People are probably going to switch from Netflix over to Disney+ once it is launched. Once Netflix is gone, Disney+ would then jack up its price to $40/month. I think we have all seen this movie too many times before.
There will be nowhere near the amount of content of Netflix. Additionally all content seems to skew family friendly, which isn't true of Netflix. Lastly, its clear given their recent takeover of Hulu (plus what was said in the Dinsey+ unveil) that Hulu will be their Netflix competitor.
Look at admissions over time. I only have UK numbers to hand [1] but despite an increasing population, we're still at barely a tenth of our 1950 numbers. MPAA stats [2] seem to show the US in decline over the last few years but I cant find a nice table to do an 84y comparison.
So again, cinema might be taking absolutely more money than ever before, but that's probably through higher ticket sales. Numbers of bums on seats is not breaking any records.
1: https://www.cinemauk.org.uk/the-industry/facts-and-figures/u...
2: PDF!! https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatri... (there are other reports for other single years but they're hard to grok out the attendance numbers).
(There's some common tropes in that category; PG-12, if that rating, has to feature at least one major Chinese city and one or two Chinese actors, and the Chinese are never the bad guys. These things also apply to the Americans. Basically, the two propaganda machines combined.)
Pretty cool.
None of the things you mentioned are required by the US like China requires things in its movies.
If you're going to make qualitative claims, where the price of a unit is largely fixed at a point in time, I think you have to compare quantity of sales, not gross.
It's all marketing wank. A way for producers to pomp around with their "record"-breaking titles. And at a financial level, sure, whatever... But that's not how these statements are used.
The problem with cinema attendance, at least here in the United States, is you can't trust the numbers anymore.
Take AMC, they have their A List that allows you to see 3 movies a week for a monthly fee, if you head over to /r/AMCsAList/ you will find a good number of people that will go see movies they have little interest in JUST to use all their 'free' movies each week so now you have someone that may have seen 2-3 movies a month, seeing 12 movies. Occasionally you'll even see threads over there where people brag about how many weeks long their streak of seeing all their movies is.
Similarly there was MoviePass (I think it's mostly dead now) that was allowing people to do the same for over a year.
Even the fact that the numbers are comparable in 2019 says about cinema's staying power ;)
Why not worldwide? Even the US numbers are rickety. There are multiple ways to account for inflation, multiple ways of record counting for sales, trying to factor in re-showings, etc. Adding on multiple currencies and economies is a power of extra complexity.
> There's tons more money out there now
Yes. Money. My whole thing here has been about weighing success by monetary takings. It doesn't necessarily track. The price of a ticket has far outstripped what retail indexed inflation. Tickets, after inflation, are eighteen times more expensive than their 1950s counterparts. You only a eighteenth of the 1950s audience to gross the same.
But while we're talking about bullshit headlines, looking up Endgame renders some gems [2]. Things like "Fastest to $1bn" aren't just historically incomparable because of inflation but because distribution has changed significantly. Movies in the US used to have months of lead-time ahead of the global market. There still is for many languages. Modern studios recognise the waste and damage in this. Endgame was globally available (to over half the population) within 4 days. "Highest Opening Weekend" grossses also have the same problem.
1: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set...
And your numbers are not accurate, I think. Inflation from 1950 to the present day has been 900% if this site is to be believed: http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1950?amount=100
So the 50 cent cinema ticket from back then would be 5 dollars now and instead it's around 9 dollars. Double, but not 18x.
Is that really true or is it just films like "Avengers" who make Hollywood's balance sheet look better than ever?
I'm not entirely convinced that the film industry can survive without giant blockbusters like that.
You might say that there's always been blockbusters, but although I don't have any data on this I imagine the proportion of $ that these films make up has only grown over time. Maybe leading to a reliance on a few big hits.
I consider this one of the reasons we've seen a proliferation of super-hero/comic adaptions (an endless supply of material here) and other giant movies tapping into an existing fanbase (Star Wars, Fast/Furious, etc).
A lot of films that would have US pull no longer get made. That's because the US is at most 300m people, and there's billions more that aren't reached. Whereas any movie made now needs to have international trends. So you end up with comic books made as movies and tv shows. They have been tested in print, work with other cultures, and make money hand over fist.
Tl;dr. Making movies for a country is last century. New movies need to capitalize on international sales.
This is also why Netflix will probably not die; for me personally, 90% of their original content is a bit shit, however I am also very aware that a lot of people enjoy that 90% I don't, e.g. my parents. And then there's the huge international market, each country, each region has its own preferences.
What I'm saying is there will be people that enjoy some content and keep their subscription for that show. Netflix doesn't need to optimize for one demographic.
Though I understand Hollywood has always been about about making profits, but in the end this will only lead to more movies simply being treated as a tool to generate revenue rather an outlet for creativity and great story telling, which was exactly what made them great in the past. In that perspective, there's no difference between a movie and a piece of commercial software.
Big explosions and FX effects are not elements that make a film great as they do nothing to connect deeply with the audiences on a human level. They are shallow, cool and awesome for five seconds but that's about it. The more you watch these films, the more you become like the population they want to target.
No wonder books are still selling so well today.
But, I don't disagree with OP. Movies are either Nth in a series are a remake of a remake or just meh.
Explosions are fun on the big screen, but that's about all.
Noooo not recycled garbage at all. /s
What do you consider "Hollywood"? Get Out and Us were both independent movies, were they not?
Hollywood has always been Hollywood.
They simply didn't advertise them as much as they did the blockbusters, because advertising is very expensive and most films are capable of making back their production budgets but not the advertising budgets (which can equal or even exceed the actual cost of making the movie, see e.g., Solo which was considered a loss because of the amount Disney spent advertising the film).
First is just unending deluge of comic book movies. Second is pretty much 90% self-produced TV series.
There's nothing wrong with producing TV series... there's something else you don't like, right? These particular ones? Or is it the fact that they are self produced?
I certainly don't disagree that they should embrace an open market and liberal distribution, but trying to draw performance outcomes from subjective qualities is silly.
The real threat to these services is that attention is finite, as is my money. I can't afford to have lots of services with low utility.
Yes, Disney can charge whatever they want and people will pay it even if they don't want to and/or can't afford it because economics do not apply...
...right?
Almost everyone in Australia pirated Game of Thrones -- the only streaming service provider was also the only major cable TV operator and not many people took the bait and signed up.
Game of Thrones and HBO is a great example. Until this year it was completely impossible to see Game of Thrones legally in Canada without a traditional cable/satellite subscription. And yet they'd send me a Notice and Notice email every single time someone on my IP address pirated an episode telling me about how HBO is now online and it's never been easier to watch legally... except you must have Bell/Rogers/Whatever subscription first.
We're finally seeing the old guard corporate decision makers with their obsolete understanding of their industry being dragged kicking and screaming into this millennium.
Either that or Netflix only has rights to the first couple of seasons (or in some cases the middle few seasons) so if you actually end up liking the show you're screwed since you won't be able to watch the whole thing.
Another annoying problem is that in some cases and in some countries Netflix only has the dubbed version of a movie or show and so you're again screwed if you want to watch the original version.
Segregation will just revert many back to piracy as you say, until some future round of consolidation.
I got it for the Hades early access and to play Transistor and Rime for free.
I had/have whole bunch of games both on other sites, but after having my cc info stolen several times when buying stuff from random sites, I limit my exposure.
I do have uplay, and ea store on my computer, but i did not buy any games on them (and they don't have my cc info), they were requirements for playing games i bought on steam.
I might eventually also get epic store, if it lives for couple of years, and doesn't get any breaches, and has games I am interested in (don't really care about shooters)
There might be better deals for developers in there, but that will undoubtedly change if the goal of market dominance is reached. It is an overall really bad choice for consumers on nearly every level. I don't really see them as serious competition to steam and GOG.
They're doing a better revenue split than Steam, and they're subsidizing many purchases to offer more attractive prices. And they're offering some previous PS4 exclusives on PC for the first time, like Journey/Flow/Flower and the Quantic Dream games.
How is this worse for either consumers or publishers than a total Steam hegemony? I'm not trying to be combative, but I don't understand the mindset.
"Alternate App Store for iOS" is never going to work, at least if someone doesn't break Apple monopoly.
But that's not the case for PC games. So alternate store that charges less is obvious optimization.
[0] - https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
It’s an interesting take, that you get to steal anything you like if it isn’t priced and sold how you want.
Nobody has to watch the content but they want to. You have fly-by-nights and unethical operations abounding that make everything only a google search away, sometimes with a single click. I agree that people should not be entitled to the intellectual property of others. However, like the war on drugs and sex education sometime the best answer is to recognize the reality and stop pushing teetotalism.
Content providers had a good thing going with Netflix and Hulu. Those two services had a recognized impact on content piracy. Yet here we are, repeating the mistakes of the past while the customer takes the path of least resistance. Right now if I pull up “Doctor Who” on my Apple TV I can watch all the episodes. I just have to switch between 3 different services, sometimes in the middle of a season, to do it. Yes I pay for those services, one included with my cable subscription.
But all of this is pretty silly to argue about to be honest. We’re absolutely spoiled with so much entertainment and media at our fingertips. The “us” of 20 years ago would wonder WTF were arguing about and pay out the nose for these capabilities.
Somebody uploaded the entire The Queen's Corgi on YouTube in pristine 720p quality (they must have had access to a BluRay to get this quality) and it's not even out in the USA yet (I am not even sure it'll even be released at all). No tricks, no visual artefacts to hide it, nothing. It's been up since May 28 and apparently noone cares.
> The “us” of 20 years ago would wonder WTF were arguing about and pay out the nose for these capabilities.
Maybe 20 years ago but not for long. In 2001 we had the xvid codec and boy, did movie piracy take off with xvid compressing DVDs to CDs. A slower burner already was under 100 USD and you needed a CD player anyways http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/news01m08/index.html also some combined DVD - CD-RW units were below 180 USD: https://books.google.ca/books?id=3uyMhR-uNRwC&pg=PA179&lpg=P.... Blank disks were cheap -- 30 cents wholesale. Pirated movies and TV collections were not only on CD-R disks but hard disks as well, in 2002 we had 200GB disks https://www.storagereview.com/articles/200210/20021018WD2000...
Online P2P networking also skyrocketed at this time. In 2001 we had eDonkey2000 with ShareReactor and DC++ for the Direct Connect network. In 2003, Demonoid and Pirate Bay launches.
Interesting rabbit hole, that one. Seems to be a movie to cash in on "The Secret Life of Pets" which itself was probably a movie made to cash in on whatever Pixar had at the time. Release dates are wonky - it's been out in Belgium for months, which is probably how it appeared online.
I hadn't heard about the movie before - but because someone pirated it maybe I'll watch it now.
The future I want looks like what GoG is for games, or Bandcamp is for music.
Amazon trying to battle Google results in chx's purchased hardware not being supported by Amazon's service despite the fact it's a very standard streaming device.
It by no means gives any rights to breaching intellectual property laws, but Amazon are making a commercial decision to leave out Chromecast support because they believe it'll make them more money overall, with the express knowledge that it could drive some potential customers to alternative methods, which includes breach of intellectual property laws ("piracy"). It's not like "piracy" isn't known to be a potential option when the likes of Amazon and Google and all the others make business decisions.
No, it's not a justification of illegality, but it's an understandable position to take as an offset.
Definitely interesting on both sides.
"...and sold how you want"
We're not debating the views of piracy from the parent -- that was already established.
It amazes me they seem to be completely oblivious that this will be the the result. A percentage of someone else's revenue is still a bigger number than a percentage of nothing...
Public torrents lead to getting piracy emails from your isp. Private torrents are annoying and difficult. In general you have to deal with shady organizations and without experience it’s hard to know what’s a scam and what isn’t.
And I suspect the vast majority of pirates never stopped. And wouldn’t stop unless the price was well below fair value. Winning over pirates is shitty business strategy.
Also Netflix’s 12 bucks a month isn’t enough to fund all the media that’s created. Netflix would have to charge a lot more (indistinguishable from multiple services that charge less) or less tv/movies would get made. Netflix’s larger catalog of old was subsidized by network and cable companies. They sold rights for pennies on the dollar. But Netflix is killing those networks. The business method isn’t viable.
True, I would pay 1 or 2 streaming services (as I do the right now) - but more? No thank you, this becomes cluttered, confusing and inconvenient.
Today, I still torrent stuff even if it's available on a streaming service I already pay for (which I don't see as piracy), for 2 main reasons: guaranteed quality and ease of use.
My Plex server is the go-to place for most of the better quality shows we follow, and Netflix is for a lot of the 'meh' content you browse when you're not sure what to see, or what I call 'throw away' content we would never watch a second time. I do want to encourage them to keep making good content however, so I don't mind paying for it.
So far, Netflix has been rather consumer-focused and as a company has - afaik - done nothing to damage my trust, but that's not something I can say about all those companies having or planning to offer streaming services.
I would gladly pay for an HBO subscription if it were available here, since they produce some serious quality content - but it isn't. I would however most likely still torrent their shows.
My current working rule is no more than two video services. Amazon Prime may be hard to dislodge because my whole family uses my account. So when we turn HBO on in a few weeks to close out GOT, we will shutdown Netflix for awhile at least.
Unless I can find 7 day free trial of HBO somehow
But I'll admit sometimes they try really hard to make a pirate out of us by brilliant moves like making 2 out of three LOTR movies available on Netflix or sending all except one single episode of a season of Deadliest Catch on my cable subscription.
Maybe one day I'll start downloading too thought, but usually I don't care and don't have time for movies anyway.
That being said, we do have Netflix free through T-mobile, Hulu mostly for my sons, Amazon Prime, and DC Universe for the few originals and the comics.
We also have DirecTVNow mostly for my wife.
Do you consider libraries to be facilitating piracy? If not, how do Causality1's examples differ?
But instead they check out the copies they’ve paid for OR are in some kind of paid arrangement with a streaming service.
In our age, these are values you cannot really find anywhere.
I would consider private data intellectual property and it is taken on every opportunity.
Not saying it is the right thing to do, but here we are.
Would anyone loose anything if instead of something else you ended up pirating the movie that you wanted to watch?
This aspect is often overlooked when people analyze the impact of piracy. People just look at the sales of the seller of the pirated item, and so if it costs $X and $X is more than I am willing to spend, my pirating won't cost them a sale because there was no scenario in which I was going to buy, and so no harm was done to that seller.
But in the case of entertainment products, if piracy is not available I'm probably not going to simply forego entertainment. I'll instead look for something that is within my budget and entertain myself with that instead.
The point about legality wasn't about Plex, however. It was about paying someone to torrent stuff for you, which is still copyright infringement.
When I travel to different countries and pull up Netflix, I see shows available in that country that aren't available in another. It's annoying.
Of course, a VPN takes care of this (to an extent).
This is, a lot of time, not Netflix fault (or only partially). Distribution contract with exclusivity clauses can have been signed before Netflix ultimately implanted in the country. It means, they cannot get the right to stream even if they wanted before X years. They also have to start competing against local company who are already well integrated in the local market and can have more leverage power / money to invest. At the end of the day, hen Netflix start in a country with X amount of user but a local TV station already have several time the viewer, there is less incentive for Netflix to spend big bucks to get a specific license until they reach a bigger amount of membership.
People just want to watch a show or movie, and it is easier to travel to another country to watch something, than procuring it in one’s own country?
Also, I highly doubt that traveling to an other country is more easy than getting the show in you own country. Unless it is banned in your country, the cost of a blue-ray is usually way cheaper than a flight ticket.
Disclaimer: I work there
Considering that this is going to require streaming services to really reduce the cost to the consumer, how can the streaming services have a sustainable business model over the long term to support themselves? The subscription model is one way, but the gaming industry may be ahead here: charge for each individual item, but make it really cheap. For example, a consumer might scoff at paying $3 per episode of GoT, but $1 or $.50 might be pretty nice... add that up for a season, and your streaming service has made almost as much as a subscription would have made. Of course, this requires streaming services to continue to offer new, good content to continue to entice consumers, which they might not like having to do.
Netflix is already iffy in terms of content/quality, without some blockbusters, then it's really kind of b-films and bad tv, the occasional great show.
Disney et. al. may not produce enough content to warrant $15 themselves.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
They should take note however, that we are 'done' with commercials.
And based on your operating system and browser. Even FullHD is hard (might still be impossible even) to get if you run a free software stack. Netflix wants you to run the heaviest DRM stack possible (even though their content is available in 4K from your local friendly neighbourhood torrent site).
Finding the right Usenet server and the correct alternative block accounts, and then just the right search provider. Ugh. But it’s magical once everything is setup.
Various usenet providers provide you with picture-by-picture guides on how to setup Sonarr and Radarr.
There are single-click Usenet and Torrent clients with VPN integration. Just upload the ovpn file as provided by your VPN provider and you're done.
This is all either single click or explained thuroughly and easy to understand on-site or in the products FAQ/Installation Guide.
Once you have it all, you can share Plex with others, which is even more easy than all of the above. Your friends and family have access to all the movies for very low cost (up to free).
Unless you have a block account on a separate network, most files you download will have missing articles.
Most articles are out of date and slightly wrong. Having to piece together bits from various places.
Single click installers are good when they work for your platform. For most people I agree that’ll be fine. On some NAS boxes, totally not.
Do you use sabnz? Radarr? Sonarr? Couch Potato? What’s an API key? Auth?
For technical people it might not seem complicated. It is miles away from being approachable for a large majority of people.
I'm new to all of that Sonarr/Radarr/Ombi stuff, but I torrented for along long time. It took me some time to set it up, granted I had to make it work with my torrent client and trackers that where already in place.
But before people can start with that they have to inform them self about usenet vs torrent, VPN yes / no and what provider, Plex/Emby or Jellyfin etc. It's a huge time commitment.
Then get it to work on your TV and phone.
Even if there is a guide to just tells you what is best, I doubt it can be done in the time most people want to invest.
Piracy was more complicated in the past and lots of people, even people with 0 technical knowledge did it. The only reason people stopped is because Netflix and friends made the legal alternative easier.
If piracy once again becomes easier than legal streaming, people will simply switch to piracy. It's as easy as that.
Now you also have to explain your non-technical guest how to use a VPN, pay for it and make sure it’s always running before starting popcorntime.
These are all things that are fun to "us" technical people and I don't mind doing them for myself but if you have to choose between relying on someone else to keep your setup running or just paying someone and have a hands off solution most people will do that. Don't forget that this is very biased community here, it makes comments like this sound a bit like the dropbox vs a pile of shell scripts post.
My wife uses plex without any problem and she can't stand technology. But besides an issue which comes up every couple of years it's as simple as click and play.
And you're 100% right most people would rather pay someone to take that off their hands. But if things get to the point where you need 15 $10/month subscriptions and can only buy certain shows from one of the 15 mobile apps which have varying levels of compatibility with casters, more people will start looking at other options.
If you set it up for someone it'll work very well but if you have to do it yourself, or ask someone else to do it for you and they don't already have their own setup and offer it to you it's not really an option for most people who don't like to tinker with these things in their free time.
I think we can agree on that it's great for people who'd like to tinker and maybe offer it to their family members, maybe even with something like http://plexrequests.8bits.ca but for "normal" people it's not really an option.
While legit streaming servers are a bit easier to use, illegitimate streaming websites are only just barely behind that and also contain pretty much every tv show or movie you could ever want to watch. The only real downside I see is the usual lack of closed captioning support. If my choice is to pay money for 4 different streaming services and having to hunt around through each one to find what I want to watch, versus clicking one extra link and closing a pop-up ad for an unlimited catalog, the choice doesn't seem that hard.
Or you don't want to have to weed through half a dozen ad-filled sites that claim to have the film, but don't, and end up with a 200 MB rip for your trouble.
Netflix is easier and quicker. Next comes kodi with an addon. Trying to watch a full series on demand from your cable company. The experience is so much slower to navigate between shows.. this is before we talk about ads.
Storage costs continue to decrease, while 1080p is good enough for most people.
A 4 TB drive is less than $100. 16TB drives are available.
Combined with h.265, that can hold a decent amount of movies and tv shows.
These costs continue to decrease, while capacity continues to increase.
On the other hand, we see little investment in US broadband deployments or upgrades, and these capacities continue to increase in price, without any benefit.
Additionally, the majority of the US that does have broadband, has nothing close to symmetric upload ability.
Maybe I agree with you!
I think affordable internet could be the straw that breaks the camels back.
If you are being charged for every byte transferred, it makes no sense to transfer the same data over and over again, because you enjoy watching it.
Store it once locally, and consume at will.
The whole idea of streaming is kinda dumb when you think about it, it is basically a poorly implemented remote file storage. It is really a product manifestation of IP laws, not technological possibilities.
Probably wasteful from an energy perspective, too.
Systems already exist to easily mirror between computers and tvs. I once installed an app called "popcorn time". This had a small button in the corner that I clicked on to find out what it did. All of a sudden, the movie was playing on my television through my blu-ray player. If I can do this on accident, a healthy portion of the less tech-inclined can do it on purpose.
That was once upon a time, when television was the only source of in-home entertainment. If you wanted more you needed to go to your local Blockbuster. Plus in 95% of America you have no choice between different cable providers. Now you have quite a lot of variety - I know literally no one my age who pays for cable. One or two subscriptions seems to be typical and will run you $20-$25 a month. Others share logins to these services with their friends. I don't see people paying $60 a month for entertainment any time soon, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
People also need to have internet and a lot of people have the two bundled. If people switch to all streaming services, the cable cartel will raise internet prices and finagle with their caps to gouge even more.
If they already have the streaming apps on their TV, installing the Kodi-app as well isn’t really very hard.
Especially with geo-ip restrictions still abundant, many places in the world plain old piracy is by far the easiest option.
Also: Why would you assume anyone use their PCs to hook up to the TV these days anyway? It’s not the 1990s anymore.
Very few, but they can get a portable drive via sneaker net, plug it into their TV (basically any TV made in the last decade) and have enough content to keep them going for months. Some of the slightly more advanced ones might be able to use a PC to copy shows from one drive to another for friends. Torrent streamers are a minority of pirates.
They’re going hard on the content gating and distribution channel diffusion. Literally to the point where Plex+Radarr/Sonarr has become the go to for content I’m already paying for through my cable/Netflix/Prime/HBO subscription.
Plex works on all my devices no matter where I am. Netflix doesn’t even do that anymore. Not to mention their latest B.S. of making un-skippable commercials so prevalent on these pay services.
I’d be fine paying for every channel I watch individually if they’d stop creating their own little fiefdoms of varying viewing experiences each of which is designed to turn the profit screws a little further. Plex puts it all in one place on all my devices and doesn’t fuck me with a commercial every time I rewind 30 seconds to see something I just missed.
> They’re going hard on the content gating and distribution channel diffusion. Literally to the point where Plex+Radarr/Sonarr has become the go to for content I’m already paying for through my cable/Netflix/Prime/HBO subscription.
I'm a longtime Plex+couch potato/sonarr user and wonder what you get from radarr?
Also not to mention having to click ten different apps and manage which app has which show - it can quickly get annoying
I just watched the first episode of When They See Us today: total crap. Ridiculous over-acting, awful writing that feels at every minute like a bad attempt to modify a true story into a cinematic exaggeration (despite the content of the true story it’s based on, which needs zero punch up), choppy editing that needlessly obfuscates character development and makes various scenes feel almost comically unnatural (especially the police interrogation scenes).
It was similar with Seven Seconds. I’m tired of feeling suckered into Netflix dramas that fall apart like a wet napkin.
Given that it's Netflix we're talking about here, I find this extremely depressing as it likely means the studios were right; people don't want nuanced thoughtful drama, they want mediocre predictable sitcoms and cop dramas.
Big Little Lies was probably the worst of that bunch, and is still lightyears ahead of any recent Netflix drama.
On Prime, The Man in the High Castle is a guilty pleasure despite its flaws. The bizarre spy drama Patriot is absolutely excellent.
I like that with Prime, I can subscribe to HBO within the app, and also buy seasons of some cable shows, like FX’s Legion, Fargo, What We Do in the Shadows.
I prefer that experience much more than Netflix. With Netflix, the original content has to be so good that it offsets the lack of being able to purchase non-Netflix content, and frankly Netflix originals have just not been good enough to cut it for a while.
I canceled Netflix a month or so back. I just use Hulu and Prime Video.
I replaced some popular shows with DVDs. They’re surprisingly affordable nowadays.
That’s exactly what Netflix is right now. There’s a dearth of new content besides Netflix’s own originals. Netflix routinely suggests titles from 10-15-20 years ago and rarely any newer titles (outside some of the bigger blockbusters like Star Wars).
Hope this link works. Took a while to figure out how to upload without downloading the app.
This is what I see in Singapore. Atleast on my phone. But I mostly browse the recently added or originals sections.