Netflix releases House of Cards | Hacker News Reader

Netflix releases House of Cards

movies.netflix.com

57 pointsstevewilhelm69 comments

Just listened to the NPR Fresh Air Interview with Kevin Spacey and David Fincher in regards to this show. The soundbites seem to indicate another brilliant performance by Spacey. I've been a huge fan of his for a long time and needless to say, I'll be tuning in.

Definitely worth listening to the interview, link below:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170465471/spacey-and-fincher-m...

I really enjoyed the first 2 episodes. I wasn't sold after the first episode but after the 2nd I became a fan. The character development and pacing is great. It has this sense of foreboding and everything is always moving quickly. Since they expect you to binge watch there are no catch ups. If you're a fan of breaking bad you'll love house of cards.

I'm all for original content but I wonder what the return on investment on this is compared to securing licenses for non original but popular content?

If this show ends up being the next big thing, will that really convince people who haven't subscribed to Netflix to finally join in? I would think that many of these people will be satisfied with just torrenting that one show.

OTOH, I would most definitely choose Netflix over Hulu, or vice versa, based on overall size of catalog...Finding torrents of the most popular show of the day is easy...finding torrents to a broad array of slightly older movies and tv shows is harder, and more work overall

> If this show ends up being the next big thing, will that really convince people who haven't subscribed to Netflix to finally join in? I would think that many of these people will be satisfied with just torrenting that one show.

Maybe this is a reflection of my personal priorities, but I will gladly pay $7.99 to watch a season of a show I enjoy (to say nothing of Netflix's other offerings).

Moreover, it's much easier to retain customers than to attract them in the first place, especially with such a relatively low subscription cost.

With a string of successful original shows, Netflix may gain a valuable weapon in the pricing war it wages with studios.

Or at the very least, one can hope that this becomes the case.

The problem for Netflix is that consumers flip the fuck out when they decide to raise the price $1 or $2, meanwhile cable is racking in 10-20x times the subscriptions revenue and no one bats an eye. This means that Netflix does not have the buying power that cable does, and hence the studios do not like Netflix. I mean sure it's great as supplemental income, but as Netflix becomes more popular the economics breakdown for studios and it becomes harder and harder for them to sign deals. So in effect, the pricing of content follows something like a power law distribution. Therefore the fixed cost of producing a great show is a no brainer for Netflix. In fact it may be their only out given the squeeze between consumers and studios.

I've been saying for years that Netflix ought to have a tiered product, where I can choose to pay 3 or 4 times as much a month and have a commensurate increase in selection. I could easily see paying cable TV prices for a service with a universal catalog, that lets me stream the movie or TV show of my choice instantly.

Agree completely. I am a Netflix/Hulu only subscriber and I would gladly pay 3x as much for more content.

> If this show ends up being the next big thing, will that really convince people who haven't subscribed to Netflix to finally join in?

I think the original content serves more to retain customers than to acquire them.

Netflix's licensing agreements gets them access to libraries of old content, and usually streaming rights to those studios' movie and TV releases only some months after they've come out on disc, so as not to cannibalize the retail disc sale revenue.

They get lots of new content when they sign a new agreement, but they rarely sign new agreements, as they're for hundreds of millions of dollars and last multiple years. In between, the Netflix site looks stagnant to long-time subscribers: few new movies or TV shows in the "new releases" list, with the occasional "new season" tag added to an existing series.

Producing their own content may be the cheapest way to keep the catalog feeling fresh for existing subscribers, since it's unlikely any network is going to license current season TV to them any time soon.

HBO saw a jump in subscriptions after Sopranos. Plus it gave them momentum for Curb, True Blood, Game of Thrones.

Netflix compared to HBO can introduce any number of original series and not hog up their programming schedule which I'd think makes it much cheaper for them. They could probably just sign deals on a royalty basis and have studios take on the investment risk.

"They could probably just sign deals on a royalty basis and have studios take on the investment risk."

I'm not sure what you suggesting makes business sense for either netflix or the studios.

A big part of the strategy seems to be exclusivity and having the whole season available on day 1. It's unlikely the studio will produce a full season without any upfront payment and with exclusivity...

Netflix is a subscription business they wouldn't sign deals based on number of views. When they get the right to show a movie, they can show it as much as they want and they need to keep it this way.

I don't think netflix is going after people who'd typically download torrents... but instead they want the HBO and other premium channel subscribers.

Many people probably would just torrent it, but there could be just as many people who have been on the edge about getting a Netflix subscription. This could push them over that edge, since they're not just getting the original content but also the entire Netflix library.

Additionally, on the flip side of the coin, original content could contribute to keeping existing subscribers.

Ok - only had time to watch the first 5 minutes this morning, but I'm hooked. I wonder if this will end up having an anti-sorkinization effect - http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/04/aaron-sorkin-west...

It's weird, I can't add it to my instant queue through the web interface or the android app. My desktops are all linux, so I usually add things to my queue through the web interface, and then watch them using the netflix client on my TV.

Finding shows through the TV interface is a pain; I wonder why they're not letting me add the show to my queue.

They built a special landing page for the show. If you do a search for House of Cards on Netflix.com, the button to add to your queue is there.

Thanks. It's weird, I restarted my phone and then I was able to add it to my queue through the android app. But before, I was clicking on the "instant queue" button and nothing was happening.

I can't get netflix to work on a Macbook Air due to a problem with Silverlight.

I get an error telling me to uninstall and re-install Silverlight, which doesn't fix the problem.

This issue makes me very angry at Microsoft and at Netflix for using them. Pity there's no linux support at all :(

I ran into the same problem. It requires deleting a file. Google for that error code and you'll find the fix.

HD > Library > Application Support > Microsoft > PlayReady > mspr.hds

Just delete the file. Fixes the problem.

Thank you I think I'd tried this before but given up once seeing no "Library" folder. Now I see it's just hidden in Lion! (I'm doing this on my gf's computer so I'm not too familiar with macs... about to get one for work so a good time to get used to it!)

Lilyhammer was actually Netflix's first original series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1958961/

The reports are that it was co-produced, and hence House of Cards is deemed the first original series, so the statement isn't entirely false.

From the Wikipedia link you posted: "The series has been commissioned by NRK from Norwegian Rubicon TV AS in association with Netflix and German-owned distributor SevenOne International."

What...so this is not a server infrastructure tool? Good name for one.

I love that Netflix is doing original content, but releasing them all at once seems weird. Part of what made Lost, BSG, etc, so addicting is having to wait to find out what happens next. And though it can be fun to come to a series late and blow through the whole thing, it kills a lot of the initial public excitement about the series, and the water-cooler talk that makes others want to come onboard.

Still: looking forward to watching this.

As someone who watched many episodes of LOST in a single sitting every night for weeks, I can guarantee you that waiting for the next episode is not what made LOST addictive.

edit: I agree though that it might kill some of the "watercooler-talk" or the "figure out the mysterious symbolism in last weeks episode" stuff. But those things are just gimmicks meant to keep you watching the show anyway. If they're releasing the whole thing at once, maybe there's no need for them to help market the show.

>" Part of what made Lost, BSG, etc, so addicting is having to wait to find out what happens next. "

In the NYTimes article they specifically mention how annoying that was for fans and that is why they decided to change it to an all-at-once release. It also mentioned similar trends with other shows. People are gravitating away from shows in a series fashion and do want to do it marathon-style instead.

I'm all for no arbitrary marketing delays for episodes. I'd rather rave about an excellent series I enjoyed on my own time.

Over/under on how long Netflix's DRM [0] will keep it from showing up on usenet or torrents?

I'm watching the British version, it's a pretty entertaining political drama. Something like Dallas set in the British government. Sadly, it's not widescreen.

[0] http://www.defectivebydesign.org/topic/netflix

That probably depends upon how good the series is.

DRM won't block screen recording.

Oh it tries...

Leaked on usenet after six hours.

I'll have to see if this is as good as the original british miniseries. Those btw, are excellent.

I'm curious about why this particular show is being talked about so much in tech circles. Is it just because its a Netflix original production? The premise isn't personally interesting to me, but I'll watch the first episode to give it a try.

Willing to wager that the HN archetype pays close attention to who is creating a project.

In this case, both novel 'long-tail' approach and David Fincher are possible draws?

“Netflix offered total creative control of the production,” says Media Rights Capital CEO and co-founder Modi Wiczyk. “Everybody believed in Netflix.”

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/02/creative-freedom-cord...

Two separate reasons:

1. It's one of the first times a content streamer has produced a high-profile series and premiered it online. Remember that "real" networks like AMC also wanted this show. So as a first, it's worth seeing how it pans out.

2. The BBC show it is originally based on is, for real, one of the finest pieces of television ever made. Anyone who got hoked by it is bound to be curious about this one.

>> The BBC show it is originally based on is, for real, one of the finest pieces of television ever made.

You might say so, but I couldn't possible comment.

Figured it would be worth a shot, signed up for the free trial. Doesn't work on linux. Guess I'll wait for the pirates.

Figured it would be worth a shot, went to the store. Doesn't accept AmEx. Guess I'll just shoplift.

So let's say I pay for netflix, then pirate the show anyway because it's easier for me to use than netflix. Any problem there? They released the whole thing at once, so as long as I watch it within this month, it's the same on their end as if I got it, went through an annoying wine process and then canceled my month trial. After-all, I'm following the whole point of a free trial. I tried it for 10 minutes, decided I didn't like it, and canceled.

Now you're making a completely different argument. Now you're doing the whole stealing versus theft thing, which was not your original comment. Originally you were going to try Netflix, but it didn't work on Linux so you decided to try to steal the shows instead. This is exactly like going to buy something in a store that doesn't accept AmEx, getting all pissy when they don't accept AmEx, and trying to shoplift instead of pulling out one of your other payment methods (because chances are, you don't only carry AmEx). Similarly, chances are your only computing device is not a Linux computer. Android, iOS, XBox 360, Wii [U], PS3, and all sorts of other TVs and set top boxes also stream Netflix.

Same argument, more context.

If I go to the store, pay with my AmEx to buy a DVD, then bring it home and pirate the show because I don't want to go through the process of ripping it to watch on my computer sans TV, it's the same thing since I've already "paid" for the free trial.

My justification is absurd and arbitrary because it's highly unlikely that this is all I will pirate, but no more absurd or arbitrary so suggest that it's equally immoral to shoplift if they don't take a credit card. It's at least marginally more moral because of the whole infinite copy thing. In both cases (shoplifting and downloading), the content creator suffers the same "loss" associated with creating something and losing a potential sale, but in the shoplifting case, they had to put materials into the DVD, shipping and stocking. I'm saving them money on bandwidth (torrent) and still "paying" with their free trial.

Or accept the fact that Netflix not working on Linux doesn't entitle you to their hard work?

I watch on Ubuntu using ppa:ehoover/compholio

I haven't even really looked into how it works but it looks like a wrapper around IE in Wine. Works pretty well on my 3 year old laptop although not being a native app, there are some weird interactions related to window switching and resizing.

they actually ported it to linux, let me find it for you.

edit: here it is http://lifehacker.com/5963726/netflix-finally-comes-to-ubunt...

The show is excellent, IMHO. Delightfully wicked and intriguing.

This is an AMAZING show

Doesn't seem to be available through my Apple TV app.

I had the same problem with my blu-ray player. I had to go online and add it to my instant queue. Then I was able to access it on blu-ray player through my queue. I don't know why it doesn't show up on other interfaces besides web. Anyone else having this problem with other interfaces besides blu-ray and apple tv?

It does show up on my Apple TV now, though. Maybe they always roll new releases out in tiers of devices.

I can't help but find Netflix's choice of original series puzzling. They look so bland†. I would expect a service like Netflix that wanted to make a name for itself as a content producer to go for something higher-concept. Over the past couple of decades, the shows that have established networks as contenders in original programming have been things The X-Files (for Fox), Buffy (for The WB), Dexter (for Showtime), The Sopranos and True Blood (for HBO). These are all splashy, quirky shows. So why would Netflix go for something as seemingly subdued and "safe" as House of Cards?

† A lot of people seem to misunderstand my point, so just to clarify: I haven't watched House of Cards and can't say whether the show itself is bland, but it lacks a strong hook to grab people. That's what I mean by "bland".

Haven't watched it yet, but I don't see how it being a political drama automatically makes it "bland"?

Bland might be the wrong term. It lacks a clear hook for those who haven't watched it (other than "has Kevin Spacey") as compared to "serial killer of other serial killers" or "blonde cheerleader fights vampires".

They don't need it to be an instant hit out the gate, so if it's good enough, the word of mouth will be the hook.

It's a fundamentally different paradigm than network broadcasting, where numbers for the initial broadcast are so important for ad revenue. (It also helps that Netflix has incredibly detailed data on exactly who watches it and when; so they can more easily judge whether its a success in the long run.)

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you. I don't know a better word to describe "lacks a colorful distinguishing characteristic" than "bland," but if anyone has one, I'd be happy to edit.

Pedestrian?

I tried to illustrate with the rest of my comment, but I guess I didn't do a good job. When I say "bland," I mean "does not stand out from other shows at a glance." In the sense I'm using it, shows are "bland" by default unless they do something to make themselves stand out.

It's not the fact that it's a political drama, but the fact that there's nothing immediately remarkable about it. It's not obviously quirky. This doesn't mean it's bad, but it strikes me as an odd way to try and build your brand given that historically quirk seems to win out.

Your statement does not make sense unless you have never watched or heard about House of Cards until now. I highly recommend investigating it before passing judgement -- it's not just another political drama.

> Your statement does not make sense unless you have never watched or heard about House of Cards until now.

Yes, that is precisely the standpoint I'm approaching this from — it's the position that most people are in at the moment. A new show from an unproven network can't depend on an existing audience to carry it.

> I highly recommend investigating it before passing judgement

You appear to be under the impression that I'm judging the show. I'm really not. I'm questioning whether the show is a good launching point for a fledgling network.

Although I can't speak for the new Netflix version. The original British version is anything but bland.

I've watched the UK series and the first episode of this new version. It's more risque than the UK version (violence and sex), and more stylish visually.

I would say it was on par with a David Fincher movie (who directed the first couple episodes). Maybe that's not cutting edge, but it's not bland. Lilyhammer was bland, though, I agree.

The shows most people consider the best shows made: The Wire (HBO) and Mad Men (*edit AMC) both seem bland at first glance...

A great show can be set in any setting.

Mad Men is AMC.

The Wire I will agree is "bland" in the sense I'm using here. And indeed, I don't think the The Wire would have been a good show to establish a network, even though it was good. That's a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about here. I really don't mean the show is bad. I mean that shows that "make" networks tend to be obviously quirky, and this show doesn't seem to have that trait.

But IMO Mad Men was actually a pretty high-concept show. It was readily identifiable even to people who weren't very familiar with it. (I say this as someone who actually didn't watch Mad Men for several years and thus was actually in that position.)

Interesting, I, like you, didn't get to Mad Men until very late since it seemed like a mundane concept. Of course I was converted by word of mouth cajoling and one episode did the trick. I guess Netflix hopes for the same kind of thing here

I'm not sure I understand your use of the terms 'original' and 'bland'. Many 'splashy and quirky' shows have totally bombed, while many cliched topics have been turned into hugely successful shows.

It seems to be that you're saying "Why doesn't Netflix pick a successful show?". You might as well ask "Why doesn't Joe pick the winning lottery numbers?".

I don't think "Why doesn't Netflix pick a successful show?" quite captures what I'm getting at. If you want to boil it down to a simple question like that, a better one would be: "Given that network-making shows are almost invariably quirky series with clear hooks, why would Netflix choose to base its brand on a more reserved series without a clear hook?"

Yes, splashy shows sometimes bomb and more traditional series do often work. But my observation has been that shows that put networks on the map are almost always in the former category. I can't think of any network in the past three decades that has established itself without any splashy "hook" shows. House of Cards is not that kind of show; it presents itself in a much more subtle way than that. So I find it curious that Netflix, in trying to attract attention, would bet the farm on something that is possibly quite good but not at all flashy.

I agree that House of Cards is unlikely to get the great unwashing masses desperately enabling Netflix. Perhaps because because Netflix is not just another network, it's targeting early-adopting geeks with the kind of show they tend to like. Or maybe this is just a case of 'nobody gets fired for commissioning a remake of a successful political drama'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com