Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Arrested Development' Comes Exclusively To Netflix

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the on-probation dept.

Media 201

First time accepted submitter Xondak writes "The cult series 'Arrested Development' is being resurrected and brought exclusively to Netflix streaming subscribers. This marks the first time a major studio has produced first-run content for the streaming service and perhaps this will afford other opportunities for cancelled Fox series. Firefly, anyone?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'll pass. (4, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38108982)

I'm allergic to giving money to corporations that sponsor bills like SOPA.

Re:I'll pass. (5, Insightful)

Bradmont (513167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109058)

Do you have a reference for that?

Re:I'll pass. (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109288)

What, do you seriously think that Fox isn't sponsoring the bill AND getting money from this resurrection?

Re:I'll pass. (4, Informative)

Bradmont (513167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109514)

Oh, I thought you were saying Netflix was sponsoring SOPA.

Re:I'll pass. (0)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109774)

I'm allergic to giving money to corporations that sponsor bills like SOPA.

Do you have a reference for that?

You want a doctor's note? Or would a violent unexpected sneeze be enough?

Re:I'll pass. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109114)

Would Slashdot's favorite president sign it into law?

Re:I'll pass. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109184)

I seriously doubt it will be signed into law. Obama knows he is on thin ice and there's nothing better than standing up for freedom right before the next election.

As for the topic, Firefly stopped running in 2002. It's dead, and it's not coming back. To put this in perspective, high end home computers at the time typically touted Pentium 4 processors.

I took the liberty of looking some things up, and it may surprise you to learn that the cast of TV shows does indeed age with the passage of time. Firefly was nearly 10 years ago, so everyone is now 10 years older. It's funny how that works isn't it. A quick look at wikipedia indicates that all parties involved moved on to other things a long time ago.

Re:I'll pass. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109264)

You know what else is dead and not coming back? The Space Age. To put this in perspective, high end home computers at the time either didn't exist, or were sold as kits to people who smelled about as bad as you think. Or were simply called "mainframes" and took up the entire basement. Of a university.

Re:I'll pass. (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109390)

Cool. Everyone's aged 10 years so we can have a 29 year old Jewel Staite trying to pass herself off as Kailey. Imagine similar scenarios for all actors involved. Surely nobody will notice the 10 year seam.

Re:I'll pass. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109430)

Cool. Everyone's aged 10 years so we can have a 29 year old Jewel Staite trying to pass herself off as Kailey. Imagine similar scenarios for all actors involved. Surely nobody will notice the 10 year seam.

Hell, if they can make Johnny Depp look like a chameleon [imdb.com] , then ILM can make Jewel State look 20 years old again.

(Goes back to dreaming).

Re:I'll pass. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109442)

Oops. Jewel Staite. Sorry there.

Yeah. (1)

warrax_666 (144623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109754)

Never mind that rampant objectification, it's the fucking spelling of her name that really gets my goat.

Re:Yeah. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38110022)

u mad bro?

Re:I'll pass. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109320)

As for the topic, Douglas stopped manufacturing the DC-10 in 1988. It's dead, and it's not coming back. To put this in perspective, the average American household at the time typically consumed 12 pounds of honey a year.

durrr.

Re:I'll pass. (3, Informative)

John Bresnahan (638668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109396)

I took the liberty of looking some things up, and it may surprise you to learn that the cast of TV shows does indeed age with the passage of time. Firefly was nearly 10 years ago, so everyone is now 10 years older. It's funny how that works isn't it.

That didn't stop the original cast of Star Trek!

Re:I'll pass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109438)

The difference is those movies took place well after the events of TOS. This would be making Firefly Season 2 picking up where Season 1 left off.

Re:I'll pass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109768)

Fuck the age discrepancy. Firefly was my favorite sci-fi TV show and I wouldn't want it resurrected because the actor chemistry would be awkward as hell.

Re:I'll pass. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109344)

What we need is a congressman to stand up against SOPA. The next step would be for that congressman to run for president of the United States, I bet that candidate would be tied for first in Iowa, and a strong second in New Hampshire by now. Just to add icing to the cake, he should be a veteran, hell make him a doctor too.

Them? (1)

benbean (8595) | more than 2 years ago | (#38108996)

Well, thanks a bunch.

Love, The Rest Of The Not United States World.

Re:Them? (-1, Troll)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109170)

Torrent it, like the rest of the world. "exclusive" in this case translates to a bullshit marketing trick.

Re:Them? (0, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109190)

Lol, oh my God! You figured them out! Netflix isn't getting Arrested Development for the good of the world, it's a "bullshit marketing trick!". You've really got me thinking now, I wonder if _every show made_ isn't a "marketing trick".

I'm kidding, of course. You didn't make me think at all and in fact your post tried to make me dumber but I fought through it.

Re:Them? (0)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109550)

Given that you don't think at all It's unlikely anything can make you dumber.

Re:Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109736)

Zinger! Nice one, Corky! Tell him he's a poopy-pants, too!

Re:Them? (1, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109750)

How did this fucking numbskull get modded up? What exactly is the "marketing trick" in making new episodes of a show so that people will subscribe to your service? If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".

The stupidity around here sometimes makes my fucking face hurt.

Re:Them? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109806)

If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".

And what did you think all those shows were?

"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (2)

ProfM (91314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109000)

Gee ... there's just too many to choose from.

Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109036)

Unfortunately, Bruce Campbell is too old to play Brisco again. Similar for most of the other series that Fox has cancelled prematurely. Not that I begrudge any fans of whatever shows Netflix can resurrect.

Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (5, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109210)

Also, Bruce Campbell might have contractual obligations to the show he's currently working on...

Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109294)

Yes, but that's rather a moot point as I doubt very much that he has the energy to spend 12-16 hours every day working on the show and promoting it. The show itself was rather the impressive feat as they were basically filming a new movie every 2 weeks which is just absolutely insane as far as pacing goes.

Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (4, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109314)

For those reading this, "Burn Notice" is really good, by the way.

Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (1)

nigelo (30096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109920)

But *why* is it called 'bum notice'?

Now, where's me specs?

Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109982)

No it's not. It's incredibly bad actually. None of the characters are remotely believable or likeable. It's hard to get into a spy show when you're rooting for the protagonist to get shot. And the premise? "When you're a spy, you don't get fired, you get sent to Miami." WTF is that? I watched a half dozen episodes of this with family and it was completely and utterly without any merit whatsoever.

Very Cool, but... (4, Informative)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109006)

I closed my Netflix account during all the price-hike hoopla and really haven't missed it at all (started reading a lot more). So I guess I'll do what I do with TV shows (since we don't own a TV) and wait until they're out on DVD or streaming somewhere else for free online. I'm patient enough to do this with Futurama, so I can wait for more episodes of this awesomely twisted show.

Re:Very Cool, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109044)

Here you go:

http://thepiratebay.org/search/arrested%20development/0/99/0 [thepiratebay.org]

Seriously, the headline is absolutely incorrect. It's on all the good bittorrent sites. And it's free there.

Re:Very Cool, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109134)

I'm missing the part where BitTorrent has the new exclusive episodes slated to be released in 2013...it's likely they'll show up in some form, but not entirely guaranteed.

The stuff you linked to has been on Netflix for years now. Congratulations on not reading the article or having anything interesting to add to the discussion.

Re:Very Cool, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109162)

Consider a Netflix DVD by mail subscription as a way to participate in a national distributed off-site backup system aimed at bypassing SOPA.

Re:Very Cool, but... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109466)

Consider a Netflix DVD by mail subscription as a way to participate in a national distributed off-site backup system aimed at bypassing SOPA.

I sold my station wagon decades ago.

My gosh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109028)

Who would really give a flying fuck about this?

Several thoughts on this rather positive trend (3, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109040)

1) "Firefly" or "SGU" or whatever your sci-fi poison is can't and won't be retrieved this way - because it is too expensive and Netflix subscribers simply won't do all the lifting;
2) As someone already pointed out, Netflix and other streaming services which streams tv series are kinda useless in big picture, because they won't be allowed in the rest of the world due of syndication/greed/whatever is new reason for MAFIAA to restrict their product to be available for rest of us;
3) And I'm alergic to bulshit like SOPA too - so I see less and less initiative to play by the rules. If they think that threatening everyone like wannabe criminals, why I should try to change their mind? There is lot of other things to really worry about, like hunger, economical stagnation, or even existence of capitalism itself. I will try to get myself into more independent stuff and support them - as I already do using open source and free software for 11 years.

Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109086)

Trend? One show gets picked up by a subscription only service from a company that's losing customers by the droves and taken a hammering by the stock market?

Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109728)

If SOPA does ever pass, the day might come when inmates chant Ni, when people first arrive in prison. Smiling at the warden gets an invitation to play D&D, the guards have credit card sized security badges that double as calculators, and all the cells are cubicles with no doors, bars or locks.

That's how most prisons would be if 99% of the inmates were non-violent offenders.

However, you still wouldn't want to drop the bar of soap. Unless you want the brown one-eyed pirate to get plundered, Yar!

and you can get less time by shoplifting movies an (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109904)

and you can get less time by shoplifting movies and games from the store.

HBO / show / MAX / Stars is the better way to go (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109862)

More people can them then streaming. But why not move the show to FX or some other channel?

Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109876)

they won't be allowed in the rest of the world due of syndication/greed/whatever is new reason for MAFIAA to restrict their product to be available for rest of us;

The same as if it was NBC or HBO, Netflix will own the international copyright and will most probably sell the rights to broadcast elsewhere. At the very least they'll wait a while and put out a DVD.

And yes. You don't like copyrighted products so you use free software, great. Similarly, there is a huge amount of freely available music and videos, follow those. You aren't obligated to follow big studio entertainments, just as the studios aren't obligated to make their products freely available to you.

Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110130)

Most Free Software is copyrighted. GPL, BSD, Apache are all copyright licenses.

Hate It (5, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109064)

This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor - limited selection. I can get show X or album Y on service 1, but not on service 2.

I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

I've long thought that digital media should be like the Internet, with individual Music Service Providers competing based on their interface, features, etc., and not on their catalog. In other words, all content available through everyone and that's not why you choose one over the other.

iTunes, Google Music, Netflix, etc. are simply recreations of the record company distribution monopoly. At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.

Re:Hate It (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109116)

More or less, but it's been that way for ages. I remember Apple using that as a way of damaging competing brands of MP3 player. They would have tons of DRMed ITMS exclusives that couldn't be played on other players without degrading the sound quality. All because Apple refused to license its DRM to competitors and wasn't willing to license MS' DRM.

These days it's not about the player but about making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible to get access to the entire catalog. In this case rather than Netflix, Hulu et al., being responsible it's the industry wanting to receive payment multiple times for the same consumer's access to the work.

Re:Hate It (4, Informative)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109160)

More or less, but it's been that way for ages. I remember Apple using that as a way of damaging competing brands of MP3 player. They would have tons of DRMed ITMS exclusives that couldn't be played on other players without degrading the sound quality. All because Apple refused to license its DRM to competitors and wasn't willing to license MS' DRM.

And instead of licensing their DRM, they encouraged the music industry to allow all music to be sold DRM free.

http://www.apple.com/de/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ [apple.com]

The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs havenâ(TM)t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. Thatâ(TM)s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109256)

So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free? Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (2, Interesting)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109330)

So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free? Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.

i thought the reframe was that people wanted DRM free media to "use their media anyway they want to and on any device". What other device besides an iOS device could apps be used on and how does it hurt the consumer? How does DRM on apps prevent you from doing anything you want to with it besides illegally distribute it?

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109434)

DRM on apps prevents me from using my device as if I owned it. I can't install products of my choosing or use formats of my choosing. I am not free to backup and restore my device free of some other proprietary entanglement.

It's the same problem as video.

The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

I can play a Harry Potter disk in any brand of player. Can't say the same of the "digital download" that came with it.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109940)

Er? By your low ID, I would hope you know that buying an app for one platform is not likely to work very well on another platform. For instance you can buy Office for Windows but unless you run virtualization that copy isn't going to work on a Mac.

The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

You are under no obligation to buy only Apple media. The problem is DRM on the media limits the platform. It exists under the insistence of the copyright holder.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110106)

For instance you can buy Office for Windows but unless you run virtualization that copy isn't going to work on a Mac.

That's what Wine is at least supposed to be for. If iOS apps didn't have DRM, someone could take GNUstep and in theory build it into a binary-compatible execution environment to run iOS apps.

The problem is DRM on the media limits the platform. It exists under the insistence of the copyright holder.

On the other hand, some other copyright holders insist on no DRM, and Apple won't let them distribute their apps that way. I can link to a prior Slashdot article about this if you're interested.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109636)

What other device besides an iOS device could apps be used on and how does it hurt the consumer?

If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

And if iOS apps were DRM-free, people wouldn't have to pay $600 plus $99 per year to run applications that a friend developed on a device that they bought.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109966)

If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

That's assuming that the application developer allows you to do so. Not everyone wants you to run their applications for free.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110132)

That's assuming that the application developer allows you to do so. Not everyone wants you to run their applications for free.

Nor do the major record labels want you to listen to their recordings for free, yet Apple managed to get them to agree to iTunes Plus. Besides, why does Apple use DRM for the paid apps and the same DRM for the freeware apps instead of DRM for the paid apps and no DRM for the freeware apps?

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109378)

So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free?

Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM. Those are basically break even enterprises Apple uses as a way to make money selling hardware. Anything that makes it easier and more common for people to get more movies or apps also gives users more reason to buy Apple devices and that is where Apple cashes in. The one caveat being, Apple doesn't want other distribution networks for applications on their mobile devices because they are worried about quality, development practices that will limit future improvements, and malware tarnishing the brand. DRM free movies are prevented by the MPAA, although maybe some day Apple will be able to pressure them as it did the RIAA.

Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.

umm, half a percent of the shares of Apple isn't going to give Jobs's estate a lot of sway in major strategic decisions at Apple. Apple does have a close partnership with Disney, but I think they'd be more than happy to go DRM free for movies simply because i makes good business sense for Apple.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109452)

> Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM.

You've just got to love how the fanboys will speak for a corporation as if they have any standing to do so. It's pretty arrogant really. It also flies in the fact of the fact that they clearly benefit from the arrangement.

They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1, Funny)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109910)

Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM.

You've just got to love how the fanboys will speak for a corporation as if they have any standing to do so. It's pretty arrogant really. It also flies in the fact of the fact that they clearly benefit from the arrangement.

You've got to love how people can present the logical fallacies of ad hominem and implicit statement in a single paragraph. It's wonderful how initially a poster presented as fact that Apple was leveraging DRM on music to make money as their business model, then when that was shown to be completely wrong, someone else asserts how, with a nearly identical business model Apple is benefiting too much from DRM on movies so they would not abandon it. I mean, did you even read the thread or can you not make that simple of a connection? And clearly anyone who thinks Apple is a corporation with a razor business model instead of a blades business model makes then a "fanboy".

They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

Sure, but it would make for worse battery life on the hardware, leading to the brand being diminished. That's the whole point you seem to have missed, Apple makes money on the hardware. If you don't understand that you'll constantly be making incorrect predictions and assertions about their motivations and actions.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109984)

They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

So you are saying it's Apple's fault that they don't want to allow 3rd parties access to the DRM they created. They've already stated the reasons they don't want to. Hey if you want to create a DRM system with 3rd parties go right ahead. If you want to deal the with Hollywood, that's your dilemma.

Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109906)

Whenever the copyright holders agree to it. Apple could force DRM-free music because they were the #1 music store and music labels realized they gave Apple leverage by insisting on DRM. With movies, you can get them on netflix, RedBox, Hulu as well as outlets. As for applications, an application is not media. Buying an iOS app to work on your Android is not likely to work very well.

Re:Hate It (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110120)

Right, they encouraged the industry to go DRM free after they had gotten all the mileage that they were going to get out of abusing their ITMS to harm the competition. Don't make Steve out to be something he's not, he was every bit as vicious and arrogant as MS, it's just that early on he got booted from Apple when he could have been building up a dominant market position in computers.

Re:Hate It (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109826)

Its been that way even further back, in ye olde times of ancient television. A single station might produce a show, and that was your basic option for seeing said show. (Unless you wanted to purchase the VHS).

Re:Hate It (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110144)

Yes, although I don't really consider that to be the same thing as in those days there was a really good technological reason for that. VHS was expensive as was the means of setting up another station. It was less about control and more a matter of pragmatics back then.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if they wouldn't have pulled this sort of crap, but the technology didn't really require it at the time.

Re:Hate It (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109216)

And of course, every one of those services wants to be the only one you can get it from. It's what they all want.

Re:Hate It (1)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109244)

I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

Quest had a cute commercial about this type of thing, way back in 1999:
A tired man goes into a cheap motel in the middle of nowhere and asks about amenities. When he asks about entertainment, the girl responds "all rooms have every movie ever made in any language anytime, day or night."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ9qcp6Lcno [youtube.com]

The technology exists, heck, a payment system probably could be worked out without too much technical difficulties. The political/legal rights issues are probably intractable.

Re:Hate It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109280)

iTunes, Google Music,

Seeing as to how these aren't subscription services (at the moment), what difference does it make that you have to check multiple stores? I don't know about you, but I was alive and buying stuff in the 90s, and having to shop around was a regular thing, and it wasn't really all that bad. You got more choice. Also, you left out Amazon's MP3 store, which has damned near everything.

Netflix, Hulu

Subscribe to both? Still cheaper than cable. Honestly, the "techie" crowd comes across as really whiny in this whole thing. If you want every show on Netflix that you can get on cable, then Netflix will have to cost at least half as much as cable instead of the 20% (if you're cheap with your cable subscription) that it costs now. But no, we want it for $10/mo.

Re:Hate It (1)

zaphod8829 (754076) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109318)

I couldn't agree more. I hate it when I have the ability to choose which groups I give money to, and what they obtain/produce. It's so much better when you have the choice of only a few providers, each of which pumps tons of channels at you, most of which you wouldn't pay for if given the choice.

Netflix is becoming the equivalent of a channel at this point. They're stepping from the archive space into producing their own sitcom. It happens to be one I love dearly, and the last couple episodes clearly gave the impression that the actors wanted to find someone to do it. That part's just icing on the cake, though. I'm happy that a streaming service is actually paying for new content to be produced.

The FCC couldn't do it by mandating that satellite/cable/fiber optic/etc. television providers offer a la carte pricing. It looks like it's being done from the other side, though. The market is producing options for us. I'm happy about that.

Re:Hate It (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109564)


I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally.

I believe that exists. It's called "The Pirate Bay".

Honestly, how can such a system exist in a capitalist economy? Any store that sells anything competes partially on the product selection they have. What store in the world has every available version of a product, across the globe? Amazon has a huge collection of books available, but it sure as hell isn't everything.

Re:Hate It (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109704)

what is this 8-track you speak of? and will it play in my disc player?

....well, so much for that one format for all devices argument

Re:Hate It (1)

nigelo (30096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109892)

Disk player? Wassat?

Re:Hate It (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109928)

This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor

Of the four services you mentioned, three don't work where I live (Europe). Unfortunately, the fourth one requires a piece of proprietary software that I can't run without buying even more proprietary software or hardware.

On the other hand, there is this one service that works everywhere in the world, has a lot of different clients (many of them free), and even supports interoperability between providers. And on top of that, you don't have to risk your credit card details getting stolen.

Gob makes anyone think they could do magic.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109088)

I am a big fan of his magic shows and always using "The Final Countdown" as his theme song. Don't get me wrong, I know nothing about magic and I could do it better than him.

Not exclusively (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109104)

Amazon provides Arrested Development to prime members for free and others can rent/buy episodes or seasons.

Re:Not exclusively (2)

dead_user (1989356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109150)

Read the caption again. This is for NEW material. Not old seasons.

Re:Not exclusively (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109686)

Headline is poorly written. Add "NEW" to the beginning. Ah, being specific... feels so good.

Late arrival spoiler (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109262)

And all these older seasons shown on Amazon Prime are probably going to be spoiled [tvtropes.org] by Netflix's advertisements for the new season.

Jericho... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109142)

Bring back Jericho and I will happily subvert all my principals.

Re:Jericho... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109166)

Nuts!

Re:Jericho... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109340)

My god, how many high schools did you kidnap principals from? You sound like someone who has no principles, or at least can't spell it.

Re:Jericho... (2)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109798)

Jericho reboot is currently on AMC. They wanted to mix it up a bit from "Internal terrorists" and went with "Zombies" instead as the main plot.

More or less remains unchanged.

Not from Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109198)

But I'd like to see new episodes of Better Off Ted. They absolutely need all the original cast, too.

The scene with the lie detector test from one of their episodes was hilarious.

There are a few. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109200)

I wouldn't mind seeing Firefly, Dark Angle, and Terminator - The Sara Connor Chronicles get revived. I'm not sure why Breaking In disappeared. It looked like it had potential.

Lord knows they're squinters (4, Funny)

shoppa (464619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109240)

And that's why you don't use a one-armed man to scare someone.

Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (5, Insightful)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109342)

Netfix surely could have gotten the content cheaper if it was non-exclusive. The price hike everyone was griping about isn't being spent (entirely) on bringing more content to Netflix subscribers. Part of it is being spent on keeping content away from subscribers of other content delivery services, i.e. exclusivity. You're happy to pay more to help Netflix shut out its competitors, right?

Note: I'm not arguing about whether or not Netfix is a good deal for the price. I'm arguing against exclusivity as a matter of principle -- it's an abuse of customers to make them pay more in order to make the market less competitive (which ultimately hurts consumers).

Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109632)

Maybe Arrested Development would still be dead if Netflix didn't pay enough to be the exclusive distributor.

Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109694)


I'm arguing against exclusivity as a matter of principle -- it's an abuse of customers to make them pay more in order to make the market less competitive (which ultimately hurts consumers).

Businesses have principles? This reminds me of a friend of mine who recently told me that business exist to serve customers, not make a profit. I sat in shock for a moment, wondering how anyone could think that. You actually bring up a great counterpoint to his assertion, in that the exclusivity is merely a means to increase profits, and in no way serves the customer.

You're right, exclusivity is terrible for consumers. But the only way you're going to eliminate it is if you can prove that Netflix is a monopoly, and exclusivity is an abuse of anti-competitive behaviour of a monopoly.

Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109836)

Maybe, or maybe it's an exclusive because no one else wanted it. No one was exactly racing to pick up the show until now.

Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109880)

Since the dawn of television, TV shows were available exclusively on the network on which they aired. Syndicated TV shows often air exclusively on one channel per market. Most movies are available exclusively in movie theaters for a limited time.

Are you opposed to those forms of exclusively-distributed content? Is this much different?

Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110006)

Hold on. The point of exclusivity is to draw more customers to your service. If you're drawing more customers, that's more revenue. If you have more revenue, you can use that to pay for the exclusivity. If you're not expecting to make enough from new customers to pay for the exclusivity deal, then making the deal doesn't make economic sense for your business. There's absolutely no reason to raise rates on existing customers to pay for an exclusivity deal.

Bleh. (1)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109382)

Farscape was better.

Of course, I already own both that and Firefly on DVD, so the whole streaming thing is moot for me.

As it is, I am not a fan of streaming media from the net. My ISP (Rogers) charges a not inconsiderable amount for a, in my opinion, pitiable bandwidth quota. Their overage charge is even worse. I would rather purchase the physical media and watch whenever I please, as often as I please.

Re:Bleh. (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109468)

A simple file has all of the advantages of streaming media and none of the downsides. When it also represents the cheaper option, it really makes no sense to shun physical media.

Re:Bleh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109868)

I think people are missing the point. Netflix is paying for continued production of AD episodes. Netflix already had AD available for streaming. For 6-12 months now.

Unless I'm missing something, and Farscape production has resumed. Because that would be awesome, as Farscape is indeed the better show.

Waaaah Waaaah Waaaah (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109542)

Yeah, but they'll probably stream all the Firefly episodes out of order. That's what ruined it. (whine whine whine). God, those Firefly whiners just won't die, no matter how many bullets you put in them.

Sarah Connor Chronicles. (-1, Redundant)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109566)

Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Firefly, anyone? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38109642)

No Just You.

WTF is Arrested Development? (0)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38109946)

Is sounds like an insecticide they use on cockroaches that prevents them from reaching puberty and, therefore, unable to breed.

Cult? (2)

kogut (1133781) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110036)

Can a 4-year-long series with established talent be considered "cult?"

A shot across the bows (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38110092)

The studios bankroll, they do not create. If the creative types jump ship to streamers, the traditional companies have nothing to offer. Damnatraiggt the should be scared.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?