Talk:List of Netflix original programming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

title

the title of this article is misleading, it makes it seem like it is a list of all the programs has to stream, it should be called List of ORIGINAL programs broadcast by netflix.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Red Envelope Entertainment?

I am not quite clear on this, but it seems like there might be some overlap between this new effort and the effor that was done by Red Envelope Entertainment in producing content for/by Netflix. Maybe there should be a link from this page to Red Envelope Entertainment as well. Hustvedt (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lilyhammer

How can it be original Netflix content when it first aired on NRK?94.145.236.194 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

From the Lilyhammer page: "commissioned by NRK from Norwegian Rubicon TV AS in association with Netflix and German-owned distributor Red Arrow International". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

18 may

hello, someone deleted a whole bunch of items; discussion about current or past?!; can anyone sort this out please?Super48paul (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

shotgun wedding

http://www.wherevent.com/detail/Todd-Luoto-Shotgun-Wedding-Premiere https://www.facebook.com/events/108610532642916/ insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.129.96 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

fair enough, didn't see the lilyhammer explanation.

still, though, might it be a good idea to mention the original premiere of arrested development's episodes 54 and 57? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.129.96 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC) and lilyhammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.129.96 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include a note about these in the article, if they premiered elsewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

i have utterly failed the markup, and can't see a way to fix it without overhauling the page's reference system. if anyone else wants to do it, the notes are still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.129.96 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I can't make them work either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

citation for splatter

the original location of splatter is defunct, and not archived anywhere; currently netflix holds only a version in which a) bellows and krule die (first episode); b) fiona dies (second episode); and c) mortis dies, then spencer cuts a deal with johnny. this matches IMDb's descriptions of episodes 1, 2A and 3C. hulu's former listing confirms the episodes' existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.129.96 (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

John Hodgman Ragnarok

I updated the Netflix premiere date for John Hodgman's Ragnarok comedy special. The premiere was recently moved from June 30 to June 20 according to Zap2it [3], CNET's The 404, and Hodgman himself.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've begun the John Hodgman: Ragnarok article. Please feel free to improve. I'm sure there will be a "Reception" section in its future.--DrWho42 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

house of bodies and percentage

what is insufficient about their citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.129.96 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC) ah, missed it. proof of their premature netflix releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.129.96 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Massive reverts without explanation

I separated number of episodes from episode duration, to increase sortability. IP editor 50.x reverted the improvements without edit summary, and, after being warned, reverted them again without explanation. Does anyone else have a problem with my changes? --Lexein (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with your changes. The IP editor should give a reason for doing this... --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 21:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with your changes.Falling End (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Running time is completely irrelevant here - that column needs to be removed, and "seasons" should be changed to "notes" (we have stand-up, TV series and films, etc, all in the table, so not everything has a season), and amended to include "season 4 only (15 episodes)" for Arrested Development, etc. This column then doesn't need to be sortable, as it doesn't contain that kind of information. I've WP:BOLDly made the changes... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's a lot of boldness (against 3 editors) for the middle of a discussion. I've reverted. Why is running time irrelevant, and why should #episodes not be sortable? I see no rationale. Both number of episodes and running time were in the list for quite a long time, rather uselessly intermixed. I think a good reason should be offered for removal. In fact, what you've done is an example of removal and reduction of usefulness without an explanation. --Lexein (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a list of programmes, not a comparison of running lengths. In any list of this kind, the running lengths are irrelevant. It is pertinent information at the individual programme articles but makes no difference here. If this was a list of CBS shows, would you expect to see the running lengths? We have a mixture of single-episode features/films, and multi-episode series (sometimes of variable episode lengths within the season), so the running lengths aren't comparable to each other anyway (or even correct), and the information is a muddle and is not useful. As far as seasons go, not all the programmes are episodic, so they don't all have seasons. Nothing is gained by adding sortability to the table, and by changing to a "notes" column, we can better explain that only certain seasons of a certain programme are exclusive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all lists are the same. Programs have attributes. One attribute is release date. Another attribute is one-off, or series. Another is run length. Another attribute is number of episodes. I'm not seeing any compelling argument for including only one and not the other. You can keep saying "irrelevant", and all you're proving is that it's irrelevant to you. The list doesn't have to be a "comparison" to justify inclusion of program length. Is it a 60 minute drama, an 11-minute kid's animation, or a 90-minute concert? Are you arguing that the information is confusing, useless, or unencyclopedic? I disagree on all counts. And that swipe about "correct", that was just uncalled for. Some series had episodes of varying duration. You're fighting awfully hard to drive out information that other editors have considered of value for quite a long time. What's driving this? --Lexein (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've popped something on the TV project page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, by your response it seems that you've taken offence, which wasn't my intention. If the series description was "feature-length film", "60-minute drama series" or "half-hour comedy" or similar, then I could get behind something along those lines (although I don't really think it's necessary), but to to try to compare exact running times (when such a thing is an impractical minefield) overcomplicates the issue for what should be a simple table. It doesn't matter in the scope of this table that Doug Stanhope: Beer Hall Putsch runs for an hour, but Kathleen Madigan: Madigan Again is four minutes longer. And I'm still unsure why anyone would want to sort by running time or by season. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been bold and separated "Series" and "Specials, miniseries, and films." The combined list was getting too lengthy for the casual reader. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

We don't start articles with "This is an article about..." so we don't start lists with "This is a list about..." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Derek

How can Derek be a Netflix original show when it was already fully commissioned before Netflix even picked it up. It was commissioned and aired by the UKs channel 4 over a year ago. That Netflix will debut the series in the US does not make it original Netflix content anymore than Netflix debuting the later seasons of Breaking Bad in the UK make that an original Netflix series. The definition of "Original content" should not mean "premiered in North America". A show that is commissioned by Netflix for Netflix is a Netflix original Show.90.245.49.97 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't. I've removed it before, but someone added it back in. I've removed it again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's listed as a Netflix Original here in the USA. If they bought it and own rights to it they air it in the USA where it's never been aired before they can put netflix original tag on it legally and it is legally a netflix original show here in the USA. If you want to despute legalities of that take it up with netflix, this website should show the facts, not what people believe it should or shouldn't be. Please add Derek back in as a Netflix Original (Add a note instead about it being originally aired elsewhere, that is what should have been done rather than a complete removal of it anyway) it is and has been a netflix original ever since it was streamed in the USA by netflix to all the USA fans. Also you don't know what Netflix's plans are for this series, maybe they plan to continue it on making it an actual Netflix Original after acquiring the rights to a show they can do whatever they want with it, & they have continued on a few series already, so it's not something that should ever be ruled out. Also you guys are missing The Fall & Borgia (Netflix Originals). --BluArtistEyes7 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluArtistEyes7 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

First Spanish language show

I see Netflix is doing its first Spanish language show: http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/netflix-to-create-its-first-spanish-language-original-series-1201162045/ . Someone should add this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Peaky Blinders

I noticed that "Peaky Blinders" isn't listed, but it shows up on Netflix as a Netflix Original Series from 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.54.134 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

50.185.54.134 Peaky Blinders is a BBC drama series, and is not a Netflix original commission, In this case (as with Derek, see above), Netflix is just the exclusive distributor overseas and is thus not counted as an original piece of programming (despite Netflix stating it is)Piandme (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

More References Required,

This article is a bit of a mess at the moment, with about half of the future programming not having sources available for verification as per WP:V. This needs to change, and editors should not be adding new infornation without including references as well. Piandme (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad Samaritans / Shotgun Wedding

I removed Bad Samaritans and Shotgun Wedding' from this list as I haven't seen any evidence that they are Netflix originals. From the sources I've seen (from Deadline and others) it appears that Netflix was simply the first distributor for each after they were commissioned by Fox Digital Studios. Bad Samaritans wasn't apparently even Netflix exclusive. Additionally, neither one is even available on Netflix anymore. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ive deleted this before for the same reason, I believe its not a netflix series, its not even available on the UK version of netflix, to me it falls under the same category as Derek, The Fall etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.23.25 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Zelda Netflix

According to Nintendo President Iwata, the WSJ article saying that Netflix is working on a The Legend of Zelda live-series is "inaccurate". http://time.com/3747342/nintendo-ceo-satoru-iwata/ --Prince Ludwig (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Notes

The "Notes" section contains errors at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix

Season 1 aired on Cartoon Network in 2011. Seasons 1 to 3 aired on Fox from 2003 to 2006; episodes 54 and 57 premiered on April 29, 2013 at the TCL Chinese Theatre.

   Episodes 1 and 2 premiered on January 29 at the Newseum.

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "h" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "g" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "e" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "b" is not used in the content (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.109.94 (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Some Assembly Required

Added this show with a citation. It's a "Netflix Original Series" as the main title sequence says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:60CB:A200:D89C:4BD2:40DD:53F9 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content

There are a few shows that keep being added in / removed, so we need to determine criteria as to what constitutes "original" programming. Really, I think any show that makes its debut on Netflix, or any that they were actually involved in the production of would make it onto the list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconded Orenwolf (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Between

Between is being added and then removed. Why is it being removed? Because the series isn't completely aired yet? If that's the reason it's not a valid one.12.3.236.130 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Between is a Netflix exclusive only in the U.S. It is a City original in Canada and they are the distributor. Mjs32193 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's content created by netflix. Partnership with another network should not mean it isn't a Netflix original. Further, there are several references to it being a Netflix Original Series: Orenwolf (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

References

"Original programming"

It would be good to clarify what that means for this list. Must the programming be commissioned by Netflix before production, or are productions which are distributed exclusively by Netflix qualified? Must those distribution deals be permanent? The mind wobbles. --Lexein (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added the following clarification: "Shows that had their original production run on Netflix, or were continued by Netflix." I haven't distiguished between partially or exclusively distributed because Netflix itself doesn't make that distinction. Orenwolf (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, I've again reverted a change that tries to suggest that the only true definition of exclusive programming is if it airs exclusively on Netflix. I see nowhere that Netflix itself makes this distinction, nor does the page itself list this requirement. As mentioned in my above comment, Netflix has referred to shows like Between_(TV_series) As original content, as they commissioned it, even though it is in partnership with another network. Orenwolf (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Exclusive" distribution seems to vary from territory to territory. Take Derek for example - A UK TV series, produced for and broadcast by Channel 4, but claimed as "original" by Netflix for other territories (See also Mako Mermaids). So to avoid national bias, we should only include commissioned programming. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. A show commissioned by Netflix should, IMHO, be valid "original programming", and Netflix itself refers to these as such. For shows extended by netflix (again, by commission), I believe the current method of listing seasons that are original is appropriate. For example, for The_Killing_(U.S._TV_series), Netflix places the "Netflix Original" onto the third and fourth season title scenes, even though they were in partnership with Fox for season 3, and only did season 4 exclusively. Orenwolf (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

An IP also keeps added the non exclusive series for Arrested Development and The Problem Solverz. As this list is for original programming only, we should not be including non-exclusive seasons/episodes in the count. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the prior produced series should be there only as a parenthetical, or (!) a footnote. Hm? --Lexein (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there are footnotes already in place! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Genius! You're welcome for someone anticipating my brilliant idea. -- John Hodgman 23:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) (no, not really --Lexein (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

The current system of showing commissioned seasons as "continuations" seems sound. Focusing on distribution seems unnecessary, since presumably the page is attempting to catalogue content that Netflix has commissioned for broadcast. In the unlikely and hypothetical event that event that Netflix commissioned a show that it did not air as a first run, would we seriously consider not consider that a show as an original program produced by Netflix? Commissioning appears to be what matters here, and Shows commissioned by network partnership are certainly claimed as owned by both networks in other instances. Orenwolf (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Consensus Needed

The page title here is clear - I believe there is a consensus needed that this page should be listing all content commissioned by, and distributed by, Netflix. If this page does not have the goal of cataloguing shows that are created by Netflix, then are we trying to say that a show, paid for and comissioned by Netflix, that happened to air somewhere other than the US, or a commissioned show only distributed in certain markets by Netflix, is somehow not a Netflix original, despite Netflix itself saying otherwise? These shows are not being created by immaculate conception here. If Netflix creates a season of Lilyhammer, then it is a Netflix season. If they decide to distribute it in part with another network, that does not make it a Non-Netflix season! To suggest otherwise is to deny the source of the content, and to deny Netflix's own communications on the matter. Orenwolf (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Reverted anonymous edits for a new collaboration section

Reverted anonymous, undiscussed edits Revision 676436331 (and others) that moved commissioned shows that were collaborations to their own sections. Rationale:

• The shows (or seasons) was/were commissioned by Netflix. Whether or not they aired elsewhere is not relevant to a list of original (commissioned) shows distributed (aired on) Netflix, just because they also aired elsewhere in some markets.
• The wording "Also aired on another network" is ambiguous and would end up including shows like Orange is the New Black, which now also airs on another network, despite the fact that it is clearly an original program distributed by Netflix.

Orenwolf (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Knights of Sidonia

Netflix claims this as original programing, though it was produced and aired in japan. However, the English localization is available only on Netflix. I presume that means they commissioned it, but I am unable to find any information if Netflix commissioned the localization or not. If they did, would localization/translation commissioning belong on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.37.222 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see the videos are only available for playback on Netflix, atleast in the US. Crunchyroll does not have it, and neither does Hulu. I vote that it be added to the page - I'm just not sure in which category it belongs. - Sandeep

Netflix commissioned it and has the streaming/"broadcast" rights for the world (except Japan and locations where Netflix does not operate). I'm putting it in as Sci-fi, as it's clearly not a kids show. --ip.address.conflict (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. However, I instead created an "Anime" genre, because we already have Sci-Fi shows added to other Genre headings, just as, for example, "Drama/Sci-fi", and I don't think we want to pull all of those out of their respective categories? Orenwolf (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Knights is still listed under Netflix originals with the "Netflix" designation [4] along with Seven Deadly Sins and Glitter Force. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Real Rob

Should Real Rob be included or not? It seems that it only airs on Netflix, so to all intents and purposes maybe it could be considered a Netflix show... Hmmm... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it isn't on this list with the Netflix Originals designation, but Ridiculous 6 is, but Netflix seems to be the only streaming service that picked it up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit of a blurred line I think. If this was a U.S. show bought exclusively by a normal broadcast U.S. network like CBS or something, then there would be no question of inclusion, but with Netflix it's new ground and I think we might have to treat this differently. It is premiering on Netflix in U.S., U.K., Canada, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand according to this source, but I'm not sure if that makes it an "original" program. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, it isn't included here either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Decider listed it in their Originals [6] but now I can't seem to remember if it had that tag sometime during its run. It does not have it currently when logging onto Netflix. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Netflix often lists shows that they haven't had any involvement in as "Originals" just if they have the exclusive rights. The Decider list follows this trend, but also adds Real Rob. I saw the link you added at Talk:Real Rob, describing how Schneider made it, then pitched it, so Netflix don't seem to have had any production/commission involvement. But like I said, if this was CBS or something, that wouldn't matter and we'd include it! At the same time, The Square was a film before Netflix came along, and we include that... It's also more of a Netflix show than anything listed in the Exclusive international distribution section, so it should at least be mentioned somewhere I think... --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Degrassi: Next Class

What about Degrassi: Next Class? I am being told it is a Netflix production, but I'm not convinced. As far as I can see, this is just a distribution deal. It remains a Canadian Family Channel production in my book. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why I got an email ..could be because of WP:CA...but WOW took me forever to find this post that Epitome Pictures was talking about...have no clue how they saw it.....but got an email today from ( DHX Television, which owns the Family Channel) talking about this post I guess.... They gave me a link that says "Degrassi: Next Class is produced by DHX Media’s Epitome Pictures, in association with Family Channel and Netflix." All the best hope this helps. -- Moxy (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your input - it looks like Netflix are part of the production/commission team then! I assume we should move it to the "In partnership" section. Wouldn't mind a couple more opinions, mind you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it. Seems from above it counts as a Netflix show. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Terrace House : Boys & Girls In The City

What about these show? It's a japanese reality show but it seems that it was commissioned by Netflix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulyen (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just added it under continuations. --occono (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Marsielle received an email, entered in my list. Tried to watch and was in "subtitle?"

The two most recent pics for me have been in "subtitle", I don't want to read and enjoy. Have I done something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF3B:89:5D7E:F633:ECAC:D55F (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a French show so the default audio is French. There does appear to be an English dub (along with German and Italian). How you would change the audio depends on what device you are using. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Little Prince

Pretty sure the film "The Little Prince" should be under "First-run films", not "New films" since it was released in 2015 in France and the distributor back then was Paramount Pictures, not Netflix. If nobody brings up something for leaving it under "New films" I will move it in the next couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyss Taucher (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What we need is a section like "Exclusive international distribution" but for movies. The Little Prince doesn't belong in "First-run films" as it is branded a Netflix original whereas that category is for non-Netflix-original films. (And actually thinking about it now, perhaps we shouldn't even have a "First-run Films" section since they aren't Netflix original programming which is what this list is). -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Just read that now. Good point. To be honest, if it were up to me alone I would probably delete the whole "Acquisitions" section. Netflix may brand this content as Netflix Original in certain countries, but it really isn't, it's Netflix Exclusive. This problem should be adressed somewhere on the page, but it really is a lost cause trying to list them all let alone trying to keep them up-to-date. The "In partnership" section is difficult enough. - We should have a general discussion about it, but my opinion is that the lists need to be simplified in one way or another. Abyss Taucher (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Justin Time: The New Adventures

So what was incorrect about the first news story that cited this? Why was the citation removed along with the actual information on the 10th by someone on the 11th? Was this done just to link to the Justin Time wiki page?

Stop Removing Shows

I came to this page looking for a list of Netflix exclusive shows, and from just scanning the list it appeared fairly obvious that this list wasn't all-inclusive because I noticed glaring omissions like Lilyhammer. I hopped over to the talk page only to discover that this list has some WikiNazi who has taken it upon himself to decide what a Netflix original is or is not based upon whatever his own arbitrary criteria might be, whether he has any criteria at all.

It doesn't matter if a show aired in Norway or Britain or Timbuktu. Netflix bought the rights and slapped the Netflix logo on it. Lilyhammer is now a Netflix original, agreed on by both Netflix and the shows creator. It doesn't matter if it hurts your little Viking heart. Quit taking Netflix shows out of the Netflix list.

As is, this Wiki page is worthless and serves absolutely no purpose other than agrandizing the WikiNazi who keeps deleting shit. Anyone who is searching for this page is looking for a list of ALL Netflix original content and they don't care if Channel 4 had a run of the show before Netflix.

Agree The important point here is that Netflix commissioned a show (or continuation) and is therefore their content. I concur that every effort should be made to include all content created by Netflix.

Sly Cooper Netflix

There is a listing for a show called "Sly Cooper: Thievius Adventures" slated for release in 2017. If the one who posted that is here, is there any kind of source on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC3B:A080:FD17:B790:BB09:3E4A (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. There's no source for it and there doesn't seem no record of it anywhere online. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

El Marginal

New branded Netflix original popped up on the US site "El Marginal" [7] coming September 30. I think it might be an acquired series from Argentina for global distribution, but I'm not entirely clear as I can't find anything in English discussing it. Some sources also mention another show "Stockholm, Lost Identity" coming to Netflix. Maybe someone else knows more about these shows to properly place them in the article. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Language Discussion

Not sure about the need for this category. It's also US-centric. I'm changing it unless someone can justify it.--occono (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Language should absolutely be it's own section. Netflix even lists a separate "foreign language" section on it's website. Even Blockbuster had such a section. Further, with numerous more original series about to be added over the next few years, the need for additional categories will be substantial. There absolutely needs to be a separate section for "Foreign Language" for the sake of organization. That is also acceptable because Netflix is an American company and the majority of their original programming reflects that. Because Netflix is incorporated in America, it is legally considered to be an American corporate for purposes of determining its jurisdiction holdings regarding principle place of business and incorporation. Thus, the "US-centric" critique flies in the face of its actual legal classification.

In fact, "Foreign Language" used to have its own category on this page until someone changed that within the past few months. I even tried to re-add it a few weeks ago and someone undid it without discussing it first. I'm glad that someone re-added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydangerx (talk • contribs) 23:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Can it be changed to "Non-English" or "Non-American" programming then? It's foreign programming from Netflix, an American company's perspective, but to a reader of an article who isn't American it might not be a "foreign" series. And I wasn't trying to overrule anyone, but I'd rather just do the edit and see if anyone objects instead of asking and not getting any response. --occono (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Was it not called "Foreign Language" not "Foreign Programming"? 'Foreign Language' would imply non-English is spoken (which is what you are arguing for), not anything to do with being American or not. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps we ought to compromise. How "Non-English Programming" or "Series Not in the English Language" or even "International Programming." I think I prefer "International Programming." We could even move other Non-English programming from other categories into that category. This addresses the concerns of those who would prefer to see a foreign language category but also those who disfavor the English-centric aspect of such a category title. It should probably also be moved further down the page to delineate from the English language programming. As more non-English series are added, we can further expand that section to make it easier to navigate for those who deliberately seek out such programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydangerx (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is short-sighted. What about international co-productions that involve both American and non-American producers? In my opinion, we should leave it as it was and add "country of origin" to the table, so anyone who wants to is able to sort the series by country/countries.80.131.12.83 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Having a country of origin column is unnecessary. The existing language column is all that is needed. People want to know if the show is in their language. It doesn't matter, for example, if it's in English by way of Canada or in English by way of the US. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be short sighted to not have an International Programming section; Netflix, themselves, has the category listed on their website. This is because many people enjoy foreign language programming and specifically seek it out. By including this category, those people who want to seek out such series will be able to easily identify them on this page. Otherwise, they would have to go searching through the various other section. As for the co-productions, I purposefully moved the International Programming section to just about that section so that both could be beside each other. The co-productions should definitely be kept separate from the Netflix exclusive series. A "Country of Origin" column is unnecessary as it would add onto every other category. Further, it would create confusion as some English language shows are made in other countries. Jaydangerx (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What about possible British Netflix Originals? i.e. English-language, but international programming. Which sections are those programmes supposed to be in? 80.131.21.11 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The section used to be titled "Foreign Language" but then someone complained it was too "US-centric." However, Netflix is considered to be a United States corporation because that's where it is incorporated and also where the corporation's principle place of business lies. Because of this this, the "U.S. centric" critique is particularly weak. However, someone complained nonetheless. I changed it to "International Programming" as a compromise although I still feel that "Foreign Language" is a more appropriate category title because it dresses language (the basis for the category distinctions) rather than country of origin (a less important distinction). As is, British Netflix Originals should be categorized with the American Netflix Originals because they are of like kind when it comes to the basis of distinction (language). Regardless of the name of the non-english based category classification, the category should absolutely exist. Jaydangerx (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In my current opinion, "Foreign Lanuage" is the better title because it's NOT US-centric (whereas "International Programming" is) and also because Wikipedia is divided by language, not country. So English readers from US, Canada, anywhere else, all come to this article where it is obvious that "Foreign Language" would imply non-English for everyone, but "International Programming would only be "International" for some readers and not others. I'm also of the opinion that the national origin doesn't matter much in this case. I don't think anyone really cares, as an example, if their English speaking Netflix original is technically "Canadian" (where it would have to go in the International section) or "American". -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll change "International Programming" back to "Foreign Language." That title is more appropriate because it speaks to the basis for distinction: language. Jaydangerx (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I just realized something else. This Wikipedia page is in English. Therefore, "Foreign Language" is the most appropriate category title because it refers to all original series that are conducted in the English language which is the language of the page and the language of the company's incorporation. Jaydangerx (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed my mind, so I agree with the change back.--occono (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing 'First-run films' and 'Timed-exclusive series' Sections

Should we remove the [Timed-exclusive series] and [First-run films] sections? The article is about "Netflix original programming" and these are not branded as such. Many of them aren't even exclusive - several of the TV series aren't on Netflix anymore while many of the movies (like Staten Island Summer and the Duplass Brothers Productions films) are available to watch other places like Amazon. Staten Island Summer, for example, was made available for digital download nearly a month before it came to Netflix. I'm not sure that a couple of them were ever exclusive at all. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I vote yes. It's difficult enough as it is to keep record of the different kinds of originals Netflix has and as you pointed out the stuff on these two lists isn't even branded "original" (that being said, in some cases I don't get why not, I was sure for example that Hush is branded as Netflix Original until I looked it up).

I would probably even go one step further and delete the whole "Acquisitions" section. Yes, the content under "Exclusive international television distribution" and "Exclusive international film distribution" is branded by Netflix as Original, but as the headlines correctly point out, they're not, they are Netflix Exclusives. Abyss Taucher (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Also vote yes, half the films are actually deals to have on Netflix, and have other distributors (White Girl, Other People, Under The Shadow for example) on all of their marketing materials they don't bear the Netflix logo. Vmars22 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean like the deals were just to have the films be available on Netflix, not as originals. Vmars22 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Alienist

According to this press release from Netflix: https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/bela-bajaria-joins-netflix-content-team "Netflix is co-producing series including Star Trek with CBS, The Alienist with Paramount TV"

Should The Alienist be added to the list as an upcoming original series ?

Armos (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly it mentions being co-producer on Designated Survivor as well. This definitely warrants further investigation as to how to properly list these three shows. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In partnership / Exclusive international distribution

From what I can tell there's no real difference between the production circumstances of the content in these two sections. Does anyone want to argue against merging the content into the latter section? With the exception of Terrace House, which is a global exclusive and belongs in Continuations instead. Also, should Narcos be moved to the foreign language section? It's moxed Spanish and English. --occono (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Shows in the "In Partnership" section have their productions directly funded by Netflix and Netflix is also involved in renewal/cancellation decisions. "Exclusive international distribution shows" are generally shows that have already been made and that Netflix simply buys a license (just as any other international broadcast network would do) to stream the show in certain countries (ranging from a single country to nearly globally). Netflix is also not involved in renewal/cancellation decisions for the show. That are certain caveats and examples that seem to blur the line a little bit, but for the majority there is the clear distinction. I think it'd be better to discuss any particular examples are believed to be categorized incorrectly rather than merging the two. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Could we get citations for that? I can't find any sources that explain this.--occono (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Cancelled by Their Original Network"?

Is it really accurate to say that all of the continuations were picked up "after they [had] been cancelled by their original network"? As far as I know, Star Wars: The Clone Wars was moved off Cartoon Network because of the Disney acquisition of Lucasfilm, not because Cartoon Network cancelled it; DreamWorks Dragons was moved off Cartoon Network by DreamWorks so that it could serve as part of the programming for their Netflix deal, not because Cartoon Network cancelled it; and Black Mirror was picked up by Netflix through some manner other than it actually being cancelled (given that Channel 4 wasn't happy about it, they obviously didn't cancel it). I'll admit that this info is just from memory, so it could be wrong, but it still might be better to give that section different header info. Alphius (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree and changed the wording. I don't know the details about the other two you mentioned, but "Black Mirror" is definitely an example of Netflix continuing a show that wasn't cancelled. Not only was it not cancelled, but Channel 4 actively wanted a third season and was rather angry that Netflix just outbid them. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And then they outbid the BBC for The Great British Bake Off, the hypocrites...anyway does Real Rob belong in upcoming continuations? It appears to always have been a Netflix show.--occono (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Real Rob is an interesting case. Season 1 was not a Netflix original. It was produced completely independently with zero involvement from Netflix - but happened to premiere on Netflix. With season 2, however, it became a Netflix original with Netflix getting involved in the usual ways they do for originals. So it's a continuation because Netflix picked up the show for its second season. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Frontier" Renewed for Season 2

No place to put this in the article since the show hasn't premiered yet, so I'm leaving it here as a reminder. [8] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You can add it to the row, in the last cell. Format like this: "2016; Renewed for season 2[ref]" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just did that. Also fir 'The Crown', imo there is enough evidance that season 2 is happening. Abyss Taucher (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dirk Gently

Shouldn't Dirk Gently be placed in the international distribution section? Netflix is distributing the series outside of the United States. Vmars22 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should, there is a lot of other shows on the upcoming section that are distribution only or exclusive, but they are being confuse like co-production which is different. I fixed "Pacific Heat" but they put it back as a co-production, it is only an acquisition. Andres balbuena (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Variety reported that Netflix joined as co-producer. [9] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it is weird, that Netflix is co-producing after the show it has already aired a couple of episodes, I understood it as maybe from then on, like the second season, but I guess that could still happen. Andres balbuena (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

When it was announced the show was still in productions for a week or two and after that of course comes post-production, Netflix had enough time to be an actual part of the production of season 1. - And lets not forget that "producer" can be a very flexible term. There are cases were the "producer" does nothing more than add money to the project. Abyss Taucher (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Divines

So I moved Divines from the Exlcusive International Distribution section to the regular films section. It was in the EID section listed as all territories except France. While it's true that it will be launching in all territories except France on November 18, that's not because they don't have rights to it in France as well. They do. But it's due to the weird French media laws that restrict the time frame for when films can be released that prevent Netflix from releasing it there until 2019.[10][11]. So it is a global original movie (unlike the other films in that section) - just a little time delayed in one country. When it releases we can add a little footnote explaining this. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Quite a lot of Netflix Originals aren't available in all regions for a variety of reasons. If 'Divines' is a true Netflix Original in a region and not on any other platform as Netflix somewhere then it should be on there imo. Abyss Taucher (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Divines is not a Netflix Original. It is a French-Qatari film, that has already been on general release in France. Netflix just has distribution rights for the rest of the world. Nothing at the article or at IMDB suggests that Netflix had anything to do with the production of this film, they are just distributor in a lot of territories. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It was theatrically released in France, Netflix is just distributing the film. Vmars22 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It won't be billed as an original in France, it wasn't distributed by Netflix in France. Vmars22 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

New Format Discussion

So Andres balbuena partially started implementing a new format for the page (see below for examples), moving some unreleased upcoming series from their place at the bottom of the page in the "Upcoming original programming" section to their individual genre tables under a heading of "coming soon". So I thought we should discuss the change and whether to fully implement these changes or not. (Note: I undid the changes since as they were only partially done there were duplicate listings, incorrect information, etc. While the idea may be a good one, it needs to be fully implemented as partially implemented leaves the page messy). -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea. I think it's useful for readers to view all appropriate information about series, both current and upcoming, in one central location. -RM (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

While I get where you're coming from, I'm for leaving it the way that it is. There is a bunch of 'coming soon'-series' and films (what exactly falls into that category would have to be defined, certainly not all upcoming content) and it is only going to be more. Abyss Taucher (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It'd have to be limited to any series/films with firm specific release dates, whereas anything with just a general time frame or year would stay in the other section. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, but still, does a date like March 17, 2017 on 'Iron Fist' really qualify as 'coming soon'? Abyss Taucher (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Netflix never gives dates too early in advanced I've never seen more than 6 months, which to me that still is soon, comparing to a 3 year waiting period. And by that time when they announce the date, we have enough information to move it up to their respective categories. Andres balbuena (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed that list, because it makes sense that once Netflix has an official date for those shows they should be in coming soon in their respective category (mind you there is like 8 different ones) as suppose to "Upcoming" content which could mean 3 years, remember Netflix is growing rapidly with a 250 new content alone schedule for 2017, and it is just too much information that has to be reorganized, I left the old one on the new content to not create confusion, but I think it is really simple to understand and even though its repeated then maybe we should come up with something different with the rewording of the "Upcoming original programming" to maybe "Future original programing" like Amazon has it. And just have the ones that have an official date in their respective category like I put it.Andres balbuena (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the format change on the following conditions: First, the heading should be "Upcoming", not "Coming soon" and span the whole table. Additionally, series should be added to these tables if and only if they have a release day, not just a year/timeframe, and the genre is known for sure (most likely from sources). If an upcoming series does not meet those two items, in my eyes, they should stay in a general "Upcoming" table, much like we have now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Favre1fan93. "Coming soon", in particular, doesn't sound right at all for a encyclopedia, so Upcoming is better. The only thing we would have to be careful about if these changes were implemented is making sure that other users/ips don't keep adding shows that are upcoming (but without a date) to the categories section. Overall though I do think it is a good idea as the current Upcoming section is far too large to easily read. Somethingwickedly (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It does make a lot of sense, and that is what I was afraid of that some users will not understand the transition, or when to move them up. Maybe we can put a small description so they don't do that. But I think after some time they will get how it works. Andres balbuena (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In the code where we type "Upcoming", a hidden note can be added after it, explaining how series are decided to be included there, over the larger "Upcoming" table at the bottom of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise! I like that idea. Andres balbuena (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead an makes these adjustments, I'm fine with it. Just be sure you don't lose any info we currently have in the process of shifting it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I already did the changes, can User talk:AnonWikiEditor revert the changes, I also need help with that, I'm not so good at editing, and I don't know how to do what User:Favre1fan93 suggested.

I've made the changes. Any series in the upcoming section, for the "Status" column should be N/a, not "Pending". Announced episode counts/runtimes can be added, since I didn't know all of them. I also added hidden notes, plus a new line of prose for the table below stating that these are all the upcoming series without specific release dates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For shows that have been moved from the "Upcoming original programming" table to their respective genre tables, do people still feel it is necessary to have sources attached to the name? Obviously for newly announced shows/films it serves as proof that the show/film was actually announced. But for those we've gotten to the point that a specific release date has been announced, it may no longer be necessary (and we remove such sources once they have actually been released anyway). The citation for the upcoming release date (which I would not get rid off) should be enough. Thoughts? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As an example, for "The Crown" there are two sources next to the name, another one for the release date, and then two more for it being renewed. I don't think five sources are necessary. If it has a cited release date and is cited as renewed, then I don't feel having another two sources that merely cite its existence is necessary. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I put two sources on the "The Crown" "Renewed" status, because none of the sources say a 100% that the show is renewed because it's not coming from Netflix, but if you have the 2 sources (one saying that season 2 is ready to start filming and one that 20 episodes have been written) it is save to say that season 2 is happenig. Abyss Taucher (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Those two weren't the ones I was questioning. I think sources for the release date and sources renewal status are fine. It's the other sources that I was saying I feel are no longer necessary. The ones cited next to each show's name that seem to be there to prove its existence (necessary for just announced shows, but I feel unnecessary once they've received a firm release date or even a renewal). -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

To make it clearer, I'm talking about [1] and [2] below (same for [6]). [3] is fine for the release date and [4][5] are fine for its renewal status.

I pretty much agree to leave them out. The only exception for me would be if the item don't has its own article (which should have sources naturally) already. Abyss Taucher (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Agree. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Title	Genre	Premiere	Seasons	Length	Status
Upcoming
The Crown	Historical drama	November 4, 2016	1 season, 10 episodes		Renewed
A Series of Unfortunate Events	Drama/Mystery	January 13, 2017	1 season, 8 episodes		—

References

Film Festival Acquisitions

This is a table of films that Netflix has "purchased" at various film festivals (like Sundance, Cannes, etc.). The majority will likely become global Netflix originals (like Tallulah and The Fundamentals of Caring have become), but some only have regional distribution rights right now (like Aquarius). It's possible that some could also be a situation like Hush where they aren't a "Netflix original" anywhere. So it's not clear where exactly to place them in our list (particularly if we soon delete the Other Films section).

Please add if there are others.

Title	Source
Aquarius	[12]
Little Boxes	[13]
Mercenary	[14]
The Day Will Come	[15]
Two Lovers and a Bear	[16]
Under the Shadow	[17]
Very Big Shot	[18]
What Happened to Monday?	[19]

Although alternatively we could just put everything into the new films section and deal with any updates or changes as they happen. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Under The Shadow is going to be billed as an original, Vertical Entertainment/XYZ Films logo appears on all posters, trailers, etc, Netflix logo is nowhere to be found. I think it could be removed? :) Vmars22 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Aquarius is going to be billed as an original, Vitagraph Films is distributing the film theatrically starting October 14, Netflix logo doesn't appear on trailer, it's probably just a SVOD deal like Other People, Under The Shadow, etc. Vmars22 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

'What Happened to Monday?' now has an original page on netflix.com so it is an original. Now it's just a matter of if it's global or only in select regions. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

'Mercenary' now has an original page on netflix.com so it is an original. Now it's just a matter of if it's global or only in select regions. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Foreign language group for films and 'Divines'

There is debate if we should have a Foreign language group for films (see edits). It was deleted, because of unimportance (at least for now). I changed it back, and it was changed again. Let me stess that I don't really care all that much if we have it at this point, I think we should, but I will not start an edit fight over it. ;) What is the general opinion on this? Abyss Taucher (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There's little point in splitting this out for such a small number of films. If Netflix start releasing a large number of foreign-language films then it could be discussed in the future. To be honest, I don't see the necessity to split "comedy" and "drama" films either, especially as there's a column for genre. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't split stand up comedy by language either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, 'Divines' was moved to 'Exclusive international film distribution' as it was a couple times before. I also vote against that since the Netflix Media Center lists it as a Global Original and no other provider has aired it (except a screening at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, but things like that are normal). Abyss Taucher (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"Global Original" seems only to designate exclusive distribution. Danger Mouse and The Expanse are also listed as a "Global Original". See also #Divines above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Brown Nation really a Netflix Original?

It has no branding on it on Netflix (at least in Germany), but from this source I would guess that it is one (also has branding in the picture). Abyss Taucher (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No branding on US Netflix either. It's also not listed on the originals release schedule. I say remove it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed it for now, if new information comes up we can always add it again. Abyss Taucher (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Marvel Cinematic Universe Discussion

The shows listed under the MCU are cohesive with one another and not at all with the rest of the "Drama' section. They are also superhero shows and warrant having their own independent category. This used to be the case until someone moved it. I think it's a lot cleaner for MCU to have its own section, rather than to be a sub-section. Perhaps down the road, "Drama" will have enough programs where sub-sections will be beneficial, but to use them for only one specific group of series seems silly. Jaydangerx (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It is formatted correctly. All of those series are Dramas, that happen to have further genre definition as superhero shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's formatted correctly to you, but that is surely not an objective universal standard. It used to be enmeshed with "Drama" but was later given its own section. I think the use of the sub-section is sloppy. In general, you should avoid using sub-sections if there is only one sub-section. Further, we already use genre columns so I don't see the logic in your reasoning. Jaydangerx (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• These should be merged back in with other TV series. Netflix don't differentate, neither should we. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Two Lovers and a Bear

Netflix bought the U.S. distribution rights to Two Lovers and a Bear with 20th Century Fox. Should that not be added to the list of upcoming films?

--LegerPrime (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It should and it was. I listed it under "Exclusive international film distribution", because there is no indication in the source that it will be an 'Netflix Original", but quite a lot that points to international film distribution. 1. It is only for one country, 2. The term 'Netflix Original" isn't used, 3. It didn't get much press, which from my experience makes an orginial less likely, usually the press jumps on that.

Now, I may be wrong. The reality is that we lack information quite regularly when it comes to Netflix's branding. If it turns out to have the magic words "A Netflix Original" attached to it, I'm more than happy to put it back. ;) Abyss Taucher (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you know if Fox is gonna release it theatrically in the U.S.? --LegerPrime (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The post only says something about "home entertainment rights", which from my understanding of the term would include streaming, but I guess they mean DVD and BD... We will find out what actually is the deal here when we get closer to release. I have found no source about a public theatrical release anywhere. Abyss Taucher (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope so. I'd hate to see another Canadian film waisted. If Netflix was looking for an Oscar contender, I assumed that's why they partnered with Fox. Then again, Beasts of No Nation was released simultaneously in select theatres and on Netflix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny was released simultaneously in select IMAX theatres and on Netflix. Both were boycotted by major theatre chains. A smart thing to do would be to give the film a one-week limited release in select theatres and then release it on Netflix afterwards. Also, I'm surprised 20th Century Fox themselves bought the distribution rights instead of their arthouse division, Fox Searchlight Pictures. It seems more like a movie they would release. --LegerPrime (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I read somewhere they're planning on a Valentine's Day 2017 release. --LegerPrime (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's getting a limited release starting tomorrow (December 16) with additional dates, can't find any information on VOD/Netflix release so far. It's probably a SVOD deal like Other People, White Girl, Aquarius, etc Vmars22 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to see it? --LegerPrime (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Plus on the MPAA website, it's listed for distributor as Fox's home entertainment division. Vmars22 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Netflix Presents vs. Netflix Original

Should 'Netflix Presents' be considered a Netflix Original? I noticed that for example 'Blue Jay' has the Netflix Logo at the beginnig, but it's branded as 'Netflix Presents' not as 'Netflix Original'. Abyss Taucher (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm leaning no, as it can also be rented from at least Amazon, if not other places. I'd be curious to know if it says "Netflix Presents" in the Amazon version... -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's on Netflix globally, but it's only exclusive to Netflix in countries where other services like Google Play, iTunes or Amazon don't sell movies.--occono (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

But, it's a Netflix original, it's part of a deal the Duplass Brothers have with Netflix. I bought the film on iTunes, it also states "Netflix Presents". It's an original, it bares the logo. Vmars22 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The post only talks about 'a brief theatrical release of unspecified length before becoming available exclusively on Netflix' (which, as we found out, isn't true). The logo alone isn't enough. The vast majority of the exclusive international distributions have the logo and the rest should probably get kicked. Hell, we even have movies like 'Divines' which have it and it is unclear if they should count as Netflix Orginals, because they had a public theatrical release in even just one country. And these movies don't just have the logo, they're actually branded 'Netflix Original'. Imo we only have 4 typs of content that are 'Netflix Originals'. 1. Full productions for Netflix. 2. Productions that were continued for Netflix, 3. Productions where Netflix is a co-producer and 4. Productions (so far only films afaik) where Netflix is the distributior in streaming and public theatrical release. - In that case they may or may not be an actual producer, hard to know, the term is very opaque, but since Netflix is the only outlet for these movies it's correct to call them 'Netflix Originals' imo. Abyss Taucher (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Continuations section

I recently moved made an edit that moved Fuller House from the Kids/teens/family live action section and Trailer Park Boys: Out of the Park: Europe from the Comedy section. Both were put into the Continuation section, where Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life is located. My edit was then quickly reverted. While I understand the logic behind the revert, I do not understand why Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life wasn't also moved into Drama afterwards. All three shows are basically sequels/continuations of previous series. Gilmore Girls wasn't moved to Netflix either. It's a continuation just like Trailer Park Boys: Out of the Park: Europe and Fuller House. So we have two options. Either we move Gilmore Girls to the drama section, or we expand the scope and definition of the Continuations section to allow sequels/spin-offs. I personally believe the latter works best because the three shows in question are basically a continuation of the story of the same characters from the original series.06:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Goldeneyed (talk)

I don't think Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life should be in the "Continuations" section either - It's not a continuation of a series, which is really only when for a series moves network. This should be considered a stand-alone "sequel", and a series in its own right. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Although the change is already done I wanted to voice my support for it. Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life is clearly seen as a sequel by Netflix, otherwise it wouldn't start with season 1 and wouldn't have it's own title. Abyss Taucher (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with the moves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Brahman Naman

Yesterday, Brahman Naman has been deleted from the original films section by an IP address… Is there any reason ? Armos (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Netflix exclusive region

The "Netflix exclusive region" header is not necessarily accurate, as for example Netflix does not seem to own exclusive rights to Shadowhunters according to their media center: it says "first run non-US". nyuszika7h (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be a few things which are not "Netflix Original" programming which have snuck in here. I've just removed Archer and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. There are probably others... --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In my mind, anything that has the Netflix logo on is an Original, because I think it's difficult (in some cases) to parse the difference between Global Original, Original, and First Run (non US). It is true, however, that there are a lot of series that are included on the list which do not have the Netflix logo on, and are not billed as Netflix Originals, and therefore should be removed like Rob Sinden did with the aforementioned shows. Shadowhunters has the Netflix branding; therefore it should remain. Somethingwickedly (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I've had another look through the the first part of the list, and compared it to Media Netflix. It seems there is a difference between Netflix merely being the first to show the program, and calling it Original. Breaking Bad, for example, is on the list, but does not have any Netflix branding, and will therefore be removed from the list. I think the best way to go about it is it to delete all titles that are not listed on the "Only on Netflix" page at Media Netflix as I feel that is the most reliable way of telling whether something is branded as original or not. I'm not too concerned with the countries available section, because I know of at least one error on the Media Netflix page, with Orphan Black only listing LATAM under markets. I know this show is branded as Original in the UK (but only became original last year), so they probably just didn't update it. I will go through the entire list later today if no one has any objections. Somethingwickedly (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This has now been implemented via information gleaned from Media Netflix and UNOGS. Everything that has Netflix branding was kept whether or not it is classed as a global original or First Run. After spending some time going through this list it seems that Netflix has the right to show some shows weekly, but not to brand them Original; these shows have been deleted. As not all Netflix branded shows were listed on Media Netflix (because I found one show on the actual Netflix which was branded as Original, but was not listed on Media Netflix) I used UNOGS for the remaining shows to check accuracy. However, the problem with this is that although you can find out whether the show is original or not, you cannot easily tell whether it is Original in all of the countries where it is available or not; indeed, it may have only been added to the library at a later point (and I'm sure this is the reality in some cases). Therefore, the country list is probably not 100% accurate. Any show that did not have a reference now does. Overall, the section should hopefully be better than before, but there is a reasonable amount of missing info (e.g. episode count), so it is a long way from being perfect, but I'm not personally doing that now, because it took a long time to go through that list, and I need a break from it. It will also be important to keep on top of the list, and maybe it would be wise to check the accuracy of shows when they are initially added to make sure they are Original, because it was totally out of control before I went through it (and I really don't want to have to do that again). Somethingwickedly (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Omitting Little Witch Academia

Their is no reason to remove the show if it was announced that Netflix will license the show!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Title (English localized title)	Genre	Original broadcaster/region	Netflix exclusive region	Seasons	Run	Language
Little Witch Academia	Anime	Tokyo MX/Japan	USA	TBA	2017–	Japanese

References

This page is about content that is branded 'Netflix Original', not about every licence of Netflix, even if, as it seems to be the case with 'Little Witch Academia', Netflix is the first place to air the content. We had a case like that before IIRC. 'Real Rob's' first season was payed by Rob Schneider himself, but premiered on Netflix. That doesn't make it a 'Netflix Original'. Netflix needs to be involved in the production in some way for that to be the case or at the very least have bought and used 'Netflix Original' branding rights. Netflix has a streaming license for a lot of content, if we would put all that on here the list would have about eight thousand items across the world. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But some of the other shows that were listed under International Distribution or In partnership were acquired by Netflix and listed some of them as "Netflix Originals", even though the vast majority of them weren't considered to be original series on Netflix!! Honestly, this was a dumb choice on removing it from the list, can't their be a section where it just list shows that Netflix acquired distribution but aren't considered to be TRUE "Netflix Originals"!!! This is just like "The Little Prince" situation all over again. ☹️--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

All the content listed under 'International Distribution' should have 'Netflix Original' brandinding (if you wanted to be stickler, you could say that they're really 'Netflix Exklussivs', but that's a problem with Netflix's branding). All that don't should be removed, imo. All The content listed under 'In partnership' should have 'Netflix Original' brandinding (they're true 'Netflix Original', because they're co-productions of Netflix and another Network(s) or person in the case of 'Real Rob' season 2). All that don't have 'Netflix Original' branding should be removed, imo. The case of 'The Little Prince' is different. It has 'Netflix Original' brandinding, but aired in France in 2015 before Netflix. Also, Netflix had nothing to do with the production, which is why it is under ' Exclusive international film distribution'. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it. Lastly it's not supposed to be YOUR POV on having to remove the show, as previous articles mentioned that LWA was acquired, the show barely got started and I'm expecting the show to air in some countries nationwide very soon!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't my POV, it's simply Netflix's branding. I was the one that put LWA on the list in the first place, because the source (same you linked here) pointed to it being a 'Netflix Original'. It turned out not to be (no branding) so I took it off. You put it on again and another editor took it off again. What you have to do now is proof that LWA is a 'Netflix Original'. That it was acquired means nothing for this list. Netflix acquires all its content, I really don't know why you point to that again and again. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it shouldn't be removed and it doesn't surprise me as to how their isn't a section for Anime, since Netflix announced that they will be crating Original Anima content, besides the ones they acquire!!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel like I don't get something here... Why shouldn't it be removed? Afawk 'LWA' isn't Netflix Original content (in any sense), which is what this list is about. Yes, Netflix will create original Anime, 'Perfect Bones' and 'Blame!' are the start of that, but 'LWA' doesn't seem to be. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We probably just need to wait and see if LWA the TV series pops up as a Netflix original or not when it's added. -Minion Max (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's out in Japan and from what I can tell from outside sources it's not branded 'Netflix Original' there, but yes, if it turns out that it is branded 'Netflix Original' in other countries should it aire there it would go under 'Exclusive international television distribution'. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe

These shows should not be listed as a subsection as there will soon be six of them. They are self-contained and the superhero genre is really its own thing at this point. Jaydangerx (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how the number of shows really makes a difference, but given that they're all listed as "Marvel's [title]," so they're easily discernible, and given the fact that there's nothing that truly differentiates them from other shows, I agree that they should be included in the dramas section, not in their own section. -RM (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Jaydangerx was advocating for merging them into the drama section. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what Jaydangerx meant now. House of Cards is a political thriller, and Stranger Things is science fiction. They're still both listed as dramas. The Marvel shows really don't need to be listed separately. They're all superhero shows, sure, they also have subgenres of their own (crime drama, psychological thriller, martial arts, etc.) so I'm really not seeing why they need to be separated. -RM (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I think there needs to be some clarity here. The MCU shows have been separated from the other Dramas for quite some time. The distinction here is whether or not they ought to be listed as a section or a subsection. This is not a discussion about whether or not they ought to be merged with the other dramas because that change was enacted a long time ago and is not considered to be controversial. I believe that the MCU shows ought to be listed as a section (as opposed to a subsection) because of the large number of them coupled with the fact that they cross-over into each as part of the same contained universe.Jaydangerx (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the Marvel shows should not be treated as a separate section. They should be merged in with the "drama" section (which I would also advocate being merged with the comedy series under a single "series" section). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that this opinion should be considered because you are advocating for an entirely different system that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not this section should be listed as a section or a sub-section. Jaydangerx (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't comment on the overall organization of the article but given how the bulk of rest of the "Original programming" section is organized, which is by genre, a MCU subsection makes no sense. As someone above pointed out, the MCU shows all fit a variety of subgenres, and their Netflix shows all fall broadly within "drama." If people want a list of MCU TV shows, they can just go to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, which conveniently has a Netflix section. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Different genres aren't the only categories by way which we list shows here (for example, "Continuations" and "In Partnership" are two categories that are not genres). One of the reasons for separating out MCU was that it was a notable franchise and collection of related and interconnected Netflix originals. So by having a distinct section it makes it easier for readers who come to the page to quickly and immediately find these shows that are all connected to each other. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be in the minority here. If so, I'll change it back to being a subsection. Jaydangerx (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved MCU back to being a subsection of Drama as it appears that that is where the consensus lies. Jaydangerx (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)