TIME movies

Native American Actors Leave Adam Sandler Movie Set After Complaints

The actors complained about the portrayals of Native Americans in the script

A group of Native American actors say they walked off the set of a new Adam Sandler movie for Netflix on Wednesday after taking issue with the script they deemed as offensive.

The actors, who were reportedly joined by the movie’s Native American cultural advisor, left after complaining about The Ridiculous Six costumes, which they say were stereotypical and inaccurate, and character names, which they say included “Beaver’s Breath” and “No Bra.” The movie is a spoof of the 1960 Western The Magnificent Seven.

“There were about a dozen of us who walked off the set,” Loren Anthony, one of the actors, told Indian Country Today Media Network. “I was asked a long time ago to do some work on this, and I wasn’t down for it. Then they told me it was going to be a comedy, but it would not be racist. So I agreed to it but on Monday things started getting weird on the set.”

Both Anthony and another actress, Alison Young, say that when they complained, producers told them the disrespect was unintentional but that the film was a comedy and the actors could leave if they were upset.

David Hill, one of the actors who left, said producers called back the actors and the consultant afterwards. “I hope they will listen to us,” Hill said. “We understand this is a comedy, we understand this is humor, but we won’t tolerate disrespect.”

In a statement to Vulture, a Netflix spokesperson said: “The movie has ridiculous in the title for a reason: because it is ridiculous. It is a broad satire of Western movies and the stereotypes they popularized, featuring a diverse cast that is not only part of—but in on—the joke.”

[ICTMN]

TIME Television

Aziz Ansari to Headline New Netflix Comedy Series

Aziz Ansari at "NETFLIX hosts premiere of Aziz Ansari: Live at Madison Square Garden" in New York City on March 6, 2015.
Nicholas Hunt—AP Aziz Ansari at "NETFLIX hosts premiere of Aziz Ansari: Live at Madison Square Garden" in New York City on March 6, 2015.

The Ansari-Netflix pairing continues on

Tom Haverford may have said that the four sweetest words in the English language are “You wore me down,” but “Aziz Ansari Netflix comedy” could be pretty sweet, too.

The Parks and Rec alum has landed another TV gig, starring in a Netflix comedy series that he co-created with Parks and Recreation writer-producer Alan Yang. The streaming service confirmed that it has ordered 10 episodes of the half-hour show, which also features H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers, Archer), Eric Wareheim (Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!) Noel Wells (SNL) and Kelvin Yu (Popular). There’s another Pawnee connection: Parks co-creator Michael Schur is serving as an executive producer. Netflix isn’t revealing the premise of the series, which is being filmed in New York City.

The Ansari-Netflix pairing makes sense, as the comedian has released two stand-up specials on the streamer, Buried Alive and Live at Madison Square Garden.

Netflix is already off to a busy week on the comedy front. Yesterday, it confirmed a revival of family comedy Full House titled Fuller House.

This article originally appeared on EW.com.

TIME Television

17 Burning Questions the Full House Revival Must Answer

The cast of FULL HOUSE.
ABC Photo Archives—ABC/Getty Images The cast of FULL HOUSE.

How does Danny feel about vacuum technology in 2015?

Pop culture touchstone Full House is back—and it’s about time. Were we really supposed to accept “Michelle doesn’t have amnesia anymore” as a satisfying conclusion to the epic eight-year mystery that is this show? Not likely.

Sure, on the surface, Full House was a turn-of-the-’90s sitcom about three men banding together to raise a family, but that squeaky clean exterior (cleaned by Danny Tanner himself) hid a labyrinth of riddles. For one: What’s with all the tragedy? Government conspiracy, or just the universe compensating for giving everyone really great hair?

EW has compiled the series’ most important loose ends and unanswered questions, all of which we hope to see resolved in Fuller House. Have mercy, Netflix.

  • How can a newscaster, a failed comedian, and a struggling musician afford one of the most expensive houses in the most expensive housing market in America?
  • Why did no one notice when Jesse Cochran’s last name suddenly changed to Katsopolis?
  • Have Nicky and Alex stopped buying matching clothes yet? Are they capable of independent thought?
  • How much did it cost to repair the kitchen after Stephanie drove a car through it—and how did a newscaster, a failed comedian, and a struggling musician afford to fix one of the most expensive houses in the most expensive market in America?
  • How did a man as paranoid and careful as Danny Tanner have a kid at 19 or 20? (It’s true. The season 4 episode “The Graduates,” in which D.J. graduates eighth grade, gives Danny’s age as 33. This is also when Danny dates a 21-year-old college student, which we have no questions about except how to erase it from our memories.)
  • How does Danny feel about vacuum technology in 2015?
  • Has he sought treatment for his OCD?
  • Is it really that easy to make the Beach Boys just appear? Don’t they have things to do?
  • What are Jesse and the Rippers doing?
  • What’s R.E.M. doing? (Not that R.E.M.—we want the 60-year-old triplets who opened the Smash Club.)
  • COMET WILL LIVE FOREVER, RIGHT?
  • Whatever happened to predictability Michelle’s super-cool identical cousin from Greece?
  • Who snapped, did the world a service, and burned Mr. Woodchuck?
  • Is Becky running every national news outlet by now?
  • If Duane is Kimmy’s husband, was his wedding vow “Whatever”?
  • Where is Steve, and why didn’t D.J. marry him?
  • What do the catchphrases mean? 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42, “You got it dude,” “How rude”? Suspicious.

This article originally appeared on EW.com.

TIME Television

Netflix, Full House, and the Temptations of Nostalgia

DAVE COULIER;JODIE SWEETIN;MARY-KATE/ASHLEY OLSEN;BOB SAGET;CANDACE CAMERON;JOHN STAMOS
ABC/Getty Images Full House—Cast Gallery—August 8, 1989.

Remaking something people liked is not the way to make something people will love.

If the folks at Netflix watch Netflix, last December they might have seen a chilling episode of the British sci-fi series Black Mirror, titled “Be Right Back,” a kind of high-tech version of the short story “The Monkey’s Paw.” After her significant other is killed in an accident, a young woman hears about a tech startup that promises to bring him back–an artificially intelligent simulacrum, anyway–first as a smartphone app, then as a clone. The imitation is perfect, practically perfect, almost perfect–so tantalizingly close to perfect that it’s maddening, because in the end, she can never get past the fact that it’s not him.

Maybe the higher-ups at Netflix skipped that episode, or didn’t really take it to heart, because we’ve just got the official announcement that it is bringing back the sitcom Full House for a full season. John Stamos will be back as Uncle Jesse. D.J. will be a pregnant new widow. You will be young again, safe and loved.

During the long, rich life that Full House lived on ABC, it was not a good show. But it was a well-loved show, and that was enough to bring it back, because that’s what we do now. We’re getting a new X-Files. We have a new Odd Couple. We may be getting more Arrested Development, and possibly another Twin Peaks, depending how things shake out after David Lynch’s departure. Networks are trying to revive The Muppet Show, Coach, Uncle Buck, and Duck Tales.

Everything you loved once is coming back! Did you have a beloved dog who died when you were a kid? Expect to hear a scratching noise at your back door soon.

Over at HitFix, Dan Fienberg says that if there’s a mania for reboots now, it’s because networks, and their new non-reboots, are failing us: “something is missing in today’s TV landscape that causes a certain probably large group of viewers to yearn only for the pablum of their youth and I blame TV networks, not those viewers.”

I think he has part of a point. A good, original family sitcom might appeal to what Full House fans are missing, and it might recapture some of them. But there’s one thing it will never have that Full House did: you, in your Ninja Turtles pajamas, happy and laughing with your whole life ahead of you.

That’s nostalgia. That’s nothing new. What’s new is having the outlets and the resources to enable it. The reboot craze is a new iteration of the old impulse to program what focus groups say they want to see. And increasingly, as more past TV is available on streaming, what they want to see is their own past.

I don’t want to pick on Netflix alone here, because it’s also the TV networks doing this. But Netflix has a particular ability to weaponize this nostalgic impulse. With the granular data it has on who watches exactly what, and how much, it can microtarget shows that are ripe for revival, becoming a kind of TV Lourdes where the dead are brought back to life, if you vote for it with your eyeballs.

And hey, why shouldn’t people get what they want? Why be a hater? It may seem sad to me, but I don’t have to watch. (Though I will in fact totally watch a new X-Files.) I don’t know if any given reboot will be good or not; even if it’s terrible, that will make the original no better or worse in retrospect.

The problem is the millions of dollars, the creative energy, the airtime that’s not spent on something else, something new. Great TV shows–including Twin Peaks and The Muppet Show–were not devised by algorithm. The danger of all this revivalism is that the shows could work, just well enough. Making a reboot could be the most foolproof way of putting on a show with a built-in audience, but one whose highest upside will always be less than the original.

That’s the problem with making TV shows based on what you already know your viewers once liked. You guarantee you will never make the next thing that they’ll love.

Read next: Do We Really Need a Full House Reboot?

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

MONEY stocks

My $505,845 Mistake

Netflix on phone and envelopes
Andrew Harrer—Bloomberg via Getty Images

This is why you have to "buy and hold."

Pull up a stool, and let me tell you a bittersweet tale about the one that mostly got away. It was 2002, and I finally got Netflix NETFLIX INC. NFLX -0.16% . I was skeptical when it went public in May of that year. I bashed it — viciously — a few weeks later, but my tune changed a few months later when I became a subscriber and an investor.

Netflix was starting to build out its network of distribution centers, and that means that the laughable weeklong roundtrip delivery cycle for someone on the East Coast between disc rentals could be shortened to as little as two days.

It also didn’t hurt that the same stock that I blasted when it was in the high teens in June had fallen into the mid-single digits by October. I bought in, wagering roughly $2,500 to pick up 500 shares. For once in my life I had actually nailed the bottom on a stock.

By the time that Netflix declared a 2-for-1 stock split two years later, my cost basis on what would have been 1,000 shares dropped to about $2.50 a share. The key nugget in that lesson is “would have been” because I had unfortunately sold most of my shares well before the split.

Ouch.

Hurts so good

Identifying great growth stocks is sometimes easier than mustering the patience to see that greatness play out. In my case, I got trigger happy when Netflix began to bounce back. I sold 80% of my stake too soon. It felt right at the time. It always does.

The only thing that makes this tale bearable is that I kept 100 of my original 500 shares. It didn’t seem right to punch out entirely, especially when Netflix was disrupting what was then a thriving DVD rentals market. Those 100 shares became 200 after the stock split in 2004.

However, I sold half of my remaining shares a few years later. Netflix was the biggest winner in my portfolio, but I wanted to raise some money to join a luxury destination club. That was another bad call, of course. The vacation club I went on to join would go on to file for bankruptcy, but seeing that get wiped out was no match for the regret that I have for cashing out in the first place.

The glass is a tenth full

One can argue that I shouldn’t complain. I still have 100 shares at a cost basis of $2.50. Some folks are lucky to see a 10-bagger or a 20-bagger in their investing tenures, and here I am as the proud owner of a 200-bagger following Thursday’s pop.

It’s hard to be resentful in knowing that I turned $250 — a tenth of my initial $2,500 investment — into more than the average person makes in a year. However, I can’t lie and say that there isn’t a bittersweet twinge whenever my stock moves higher the way it did on Thursday afteranother blowout quarter. The split-adjusted 900 shares that I sold along the way would be worth $505,845 as of Thursday’s close, and that obviously would’ve gone a long way toward retirement, dreaming, or giving my kids one less reason to be resentful.

TIME Media

Forget TV — This Is the Best Streaming Service for Movies

HBO vs. Netflix vs. Amazon Prime vs. Hulu Plus

In the ongoing hubbub about online streaming services replacing traditional television, it’s easy to forget that these digital platforms are also home to a massive number of movies. Netflix, after all, began as an alternative to Blockbuster for renting DVDs, and HBO was known for showing recently released films before it became the home of gangsters and dragons.

For the movie buffs out there, we’ve combed the offerings of HBO, Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant Video and Hulu Plus to see which has the best film library. We’re trying to assess quality rather than quantity, so we’ve ranked the four services in three different categories: recent blockbusters, all-time classics and independent films.

These stats only reflect a snapshot of the different platofrms’ offerings as they stood on April 14, 2015. Streaming services are constantly swapping movies in and out as licensing contracts expire and new ones are struck. However, the data provides a good general perspective on which services are best for different types of films.

Recent Hits

HBO has a clear advantage when it comes to showing recent, popular films. Almost a quarter of the 50 top-grossing movies of 2013 and 2014 are currently available on its streaming services HBO Go and HBO Now, including The Lego Movie and X-Men: Days of Future Past. The standings are even more lopsided if you only consider 2014—HBO has 12 of the 50 highest-grossing movies from that year currently streaming, while Netflix has two and the other services have none.

HBO is trouncing its competitors here because it has several long-term deals with movie studios for the right to show films during the so-called “pay-TV window.” That’s a period of around eight months after a film’s theatrical release when it hits premium cable channels but isn’t yet being played on broadcast TV or basic cable. Netflix’s first major pay-TV window deal with Disney begins in 2016, at which point the streaming service’s movie library should improve significantly. However, HBO still has deals with sister company Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox and Universal Pictures.

All-Time Classics

Some people use movie streaming services as a way to rewatch old favorites or view culturally important films they’ve never seen. On this front, Netflix is the best service available, if we use the American Film Institute’s list of the top 100 American films of all time as a proxy.

Thanks to the vastness of its library (and the affordability of nabbing licensing rights to old movies compared to newer ones), Netflix is a pretty good place to watch classic films. Hulu Plus is also a solid option thanks to its licensing deal to host the entire Criterion Collection, a selection of more than 800 classic films including Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times and The Gold Rush. You’ll have to be patient to watch old movies on HBO, which has a limited selection and focuses mostly on newly released films.

Independent Films

Again, the vastness of Netflix’s library gives it an advantage here. The service has almost a third of the 30 highest-grossing independent movies of 2013 and 2014. Still, the other services have some notable exclusives, with HBO carrying Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel, which is the highest-grossing film of the lot, and Amazon featuring both The Bling Ring and Spring Breakers.

MONEY

Global Expansion Drives Netflix Subscriber Growth

Netflix says it has more than 62 million subscribers worldwide. It added nearly 5 million in the last quarter alone.

MONEY stocks

Why Netflix Is Splitting Its Stock

Headquarters of Netflix, Inc., in Los Gatos, California
Tripplaar Kristoffer—Sipa USA Headquarters of Netflix, Inc., in Los Gatos, California

Netflix is asking shareholders to pave the way toward a drastic stock split. But it really doesn't matter -- with a few notable exceptions.

Netflix NETFLIX INC. NFLX -0.16% shares are about to split, probably in a drastic manner. The company is asking shareholders for permission to go as far as a 30-for-1 share exchange. It sounds very dramatic, but most investors really shouldn’t care at all.

Here’s why.

What’s new?

Netflix just filed a preliminary version of its 2015 proxy statement, asking shareholders to vote on seven proposed actions before the June 9 annual meeting. Among the typical issues, including approving Netflix’s chosen auditing firm and reelecting a tranche of directors for the next three years, is a more unusual request straight from the board of directors.

In Proposal Four, Netflix asks for a simple majority vote to approve a vastly expanded reserve of capital stock. This is an important first step toward splitting Netflix shares, which have looked rather pricey in recent years.

The board is currently authorized to issue as many as 160 million common shares. If the fourth proposal is approved, that limit will soar to 5 billion potential certificates.

This move could lead in many directions:

  • Some companies raise their share counts before selling a heap of additional certificates back to shareholders. That’s one way to raise capital — and dilute the stock’s value for current shareholders.
  • It could also go toward a generous stock-based compensation program, which would artificially boost bottom-line earnings, but with another helping of share dilution.
  • Netflix even said the extra shares could be used for share-based buyouts, paying off the target company’s current owners with fresh Netflix stock instead of cash. Again, dilution follows.

Netflix made no bones about the intended purpose, though. The company said it “does not have any current intention” to explore any of the activities I just listed, other than supporting the share-based compensation strategy that is already in place.

Sure, the board reserved the right to issue additional shares for these purposes at a later date, without asking stockholders for another share count expansion. But there’s no reason to expect any of these things to happen anytime soon.

No, this is all about powering “a stock split in the form of a dividend.”

Simmer down now

Now, just because Netflix is likely to get its wish doesn’t mean you should expect the entire 5 billion shares to hit the market right away.

For example, Netflix doesn’t use its entire 160 million share allotment today. The company only has 60 million shares on the market at this time, and could do a simple 2-for-1 split without even asking for shareholder permission.

In fact, it’s absolutely normal to have a large reserve of approved but unprinted shares. Netflix said it set the 5 billion share count to be “consistent with the number of shares authorized by other major technology companies.”

Following that trail of cookie crumbs, you’ll find IBM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. IBM -0.27% has 988 million shares on the open market but a shareholder-approved maximum allotment at 4.7 billion stubs. Microsoft MICROSOFT CORP. MSFT 10.22% is allowed 24 billion shares but has only issued 8.2 billion. Apple APPLE INC. AAPL 0.52% lifted its approved share count from 1.8 billion shares to 12.6 billion just before running through a 7-for-1 split last year, but has only issued 5.8 billion tickets so far.

All of these major tech stocks sit on approved share counts somewhere in the same ZIP code as the proposed Netflix target. They also have the power to execute a modest stock split anytime they like, or to put their share reserves to work in any of the other actions I mentioned earlier.

It’s just a nice buffer to have, and I expect the Netflix split to stop far short of the maximal 30-for-1 ratio. Something like a 10-for-1 split would leave plenty of future wiggle room while lowering Netflix’s share prices well below the psychological $100 barrier.

What’s the big deal?

In most cases, stock splits are nothing but a massive play on investor psychology. Buying 10 Netflix shares at $470 each serves exactly the same purpose as picking up 100 stubs for $47 each. In both cases, you built a $4,700 position with a single commission-spawning transaction.

But a $47 stock certainly looks more affordable than a $470 version, even if all the usual valuation ratios stay unchanged. And the move actually does make a difference every once in a while.

For example, Apple would not be a member of the Dow Jones Industrial Average today if it hadn’t performed a radical stock split first. On the price-weighted Dow, the pre-split Apple ticker would have overshadowed the daily moves of the other 29 members, and the Dow was never meant as a proxy for Apple investments.

Netflix isn’t exactly in position to snag a Dow spot anytime soon, but you never know. Extreme share prices can make for some strange and interesting situations. Keeping share prices low (but not too low!) can save Netflix some sweat if the company ever gets close to a Dow Jones seat — or any other price-based honor that could boost the company’s market status.

Finally, the single-share price might matter to very modest investors who could afford a couple of $47 Netflix shares but would have to save their pennies to get a single $470 stub. Options contracts also become more affordable at lower prices, since they often represent 10 or 100 shares each.

So when capital is tight, lower share prices actually matter. From that perspective, stock splits are shareholder-friendly moves.

NFLX Shares Outstanding Chart

Final words

I expect this proposal to pass, because such plans rarely meet much resistance. Investors tend to like stock splits, and it doesn’t hurt to give the company’s board and management some extra financial flexibility.

Then, we’ll see Netflix pay out a special dividend. For each current share, Netflix owners will receive another four to nine additional shares for a final split ratio between 5-for-1 and 10-for-1.

The move won’t change Netflix’s total market value. Nor will it affect the direct value of your current Netflix holdings. We’ll all get more granular access to the stock. So we can make smaller trades and have more control over the size of our Netflix investments.

This is a fairly nice move with no real downside. But it’s also no reason to break out the champagne bottles and order up fireworks.

It’s ultimately just another housekeeping item that won’t move Netflix stock at all. Or if it does, the change will be based on nothing but day-trader psychology and will fade quickly.

Feel free to buy or sell Netflix shares based on whatever happens in Wednesday afternoon’s first-quarter earnings report. But for all intents and purposes, you can ignore the upcoming stock split.

TIME Media

Why Investors Are So in Love With Netflix Right Now

The Netflix company logo is seen at Netf
Ryan Anson—AFP/Getty Images The Netflix company logo is seen at Netflix headquarters in Los Gatos, CA on April 13, 2011.

Nothing is ever straightforward about Netflix earnings–and last quarter was no exception: Netflix shares surged 12% in after-hours trading Tuesday after it reported earnings per share of 38 cents, a long way from the 63 cents a share that analysts had been expecting.

To explain that disconnect, you either have to conclude that Netflix investors have lost their minds or that there’s something else they saw and liked in the numbers. With Netflix, it can be both at once.

Because it’s as if there are multiple companies being analyzed here: the one poised to take over the world, or the one that is breaking the bank to get there. The stock that’s risen 4,000% over the past decade, or the speculative stock with the PE ratio above 160. In the case of Netflix, there’s plenty of room for both arguments.

One reason investors were willing to overlook the big earnings miss is that much of it was caused by the strong US dollar, which lowered international revenue 48%. Without the foreign-exchange losses, Netflix would have reported a 77-cents-a-share profit, above the Street’s expectations. As it was, Netflix reported a $14.7 million net profit, less than half the $35.8 million profit a year ago.

Investors, it seems, are willing to overlook that because of another metric, one that’s particularly scrutinized at Netflix these days: new subscribers. In the US, Netflix added 2.3 million new subscribers net of cancellations, which was well above the 1.8 million adds it had expected. Internationally, Netflix added 2.6 million net subscribers, also above the 2.25 million it forecast.

That was largely because of new original programming the company has creating, like the third season of House of Cards and the debut of new Netflix creations like Tina Fey’s Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and the star-studded drama Bloodline. Netflix has been cultivating series that can appeal in the US as well as abroad, and the new subscriptions suggest it’s working for now.

This quarter, the company is rolling out even more original content, such as the Marvel series Daredevil, released last Friday; a documentary series, Chef’s TableGrace and Frankie, a comedy starring four Emmy award winners; Sens8,a scifi series created by the Wachowskis; and the return of Orange Is the New Black. Those should keep new subscribers signing up, but they’re also adding to spending.

It’s the mounting spending that the Netflix bears often point to. Streaming content obligations (basically, licensing fees for titles coming in the future) rose to $9.8 billion in the last quarter from $7.1 billion a year ago. These figures don’t necessarily affect the current income statement as much as give an indication of how spending will happen in the future, but they are daunting numbers nonetheless.

For the last quarter’s spending, Netflix offers another home-brewed metric, contribution profit. It’s revenue minus content spending and marketing expenses, so it excludes tech infrastructure or administrative costs. It’s an unorthodox metric, but it at least shows how, as Netflix pushes into new markets, content and marketing are performing against revenue.

In the last quarter, the contribution profit from US streaming operations rose 55% year over year to $312 million, or 32% of revenue. International streaming, however, incurred a contribution loss of $65 million, up from a loss of $35 million a year ago. In the current quarter, the contribution loss will swell to $101 million.

On a video call discussing earnings (like its home-brewed metrics, Netflix has its own style of conference call, where a pair of rotating analysts ask questions on a Google hangout), CFO David Wells was asked about how long the spending would keep growing. He reiterated a warning Netflix has made before, that the losses could grow throughout 2015, thanks in good part to marketing in newer markets in Europe and Asia.

“We’ve said we are committed to running the business at global breakeven and we have ambitious plans for international growth,” Wells said. “We’ll have some bigger launches, and we’ve described them as meaningful and significant investments in back half of this year. So you should expect those losses to trend upward and into ’16, and then improve from there.”

The case Netflix has been making has been that it’s spending aggressively to take advantage of a global, long-term trend away from traditional broadcast and cable TV and toward TV streamed over the Internet. Others, like HBO, Hulu and possibly Apple are approaching the same market, but Netflix is racing less to compete with them today than to be ready as the audience and demand for Internet TV emerges.

To get there, Netflix has made it clear it will spend what it needs to, even at the risk of losses or shrinking profits this year. Future content obligations are growing, Wells said, but not faster than current revenue. The company’s big bet is the spending today will translate into faster growth and more profit starting in 2016.

This explains why subscription growth is so closely watched. It’s the clearest measure of whether the spending on new programs and new markets is actually delivering. The bulls believe this long-term growth will come as Netflix has promised.

What it doesn’t explain is why the stock sees such volatile swings whenever Netflix reports its quarterly earnings. For that, you need to look to the stock speculators, who have for years driven Netflix shares to euphoric heights that make its executives uncomfortable, if not themselves.

Netflix’s business may be as bullish as ever, but that doesn’t mean the stock price is fairly valued. It rose $56 to $531.50 on Tuesday’s earnings, making it worth 162 times the profit Netflix is expecting this year. Netflix is making some risky but realistic investments in its future growth. But that risk is nothing compared to what investors are taking on by buying at such a crazy valuation.

TIME Television

Netflix Makes Daredevil Accessible to the Blind After Complaints

Netflix Marvel's Daredevil

Show about blind lawyer was initially difficult for blind to enjoy

Netflix is planning to make its shows more accessible to the blind following complaints from customers. The issue came to a head because Daredevil, a new Netflix show about a blind lawyer with superpowers, didn’t initially include audio descriptions, which are spoken explanations for actions occurring onscreen.

On Tuesday Netflix changed course, writing in a blog post that it plans to add audio descriptions to Daredevil and other Netflix original series like Orange Is the New Black and House of Cards. Other shows and movies that are not original to Netflix will get the feature later.

Robert Kingett, who leads a group calling for improved accessibility features on Netflix, told The Washington Post that he’d like to see the streaming service include the audio descriptions already available on the DVD version of movies and TV shows in the future.

[Washington Post]

 

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com