The Entertainment Industry's Dilema

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Nolan is not the right messenger for this with his earlier "I want to release Tenet no matter what happens to the theatres or the theatregoers so I make a lot of money" stance.
Does anyone care about Tenet? The fans are still talking about his Batman series.
 
Which is impressive because Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, Peacock and even Tubi all have better content than Netflix, but people are creatures of habit.

I told my 6 year old that if he wants to keep Netflix he needs to get a job. I'm tired of paying for that shit.

Seconded! Netflix is utter crap.

Right now, I'm subscribed to Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, CBS All Access, CuriosityStream, Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu (commercial-free), and YouTube Premium. Even the YouTube Premium original content is better than Netflix.
 
Seconded! Netflix is utter crap.

Right now, I'm subscribed to Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, CBS All Access, CuriosityStream, Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu (commercial-free), and YouTube Premium. Even the YouTube Premium original content is better than Netflix.

I'm subbed to CBS All Access, Netflix, Prime, Disney+/Hulu (commercial free), HBO Max, Youtube Premium, Showtime and that Masterpiece/PBS/BBC. Netflix has become for the most part a place to watch reruns. Their original programming is fraught with cancellations, and they've become the new SyFy to me.
 
Nolan is not the right messenger for this with his earlier "I want to release Tenet no matter what happens to the theatres or the theatregoers so I make a lot of money" stance.

That's the exact opposite of his stance.

Nolan had first-dollar financial participation in the box office for Tenet. From a monetary standpoint, the thing that would have been in his best interest would have been to delay Tenet until normalcy had been restored. Nolan pushed hard for Tenet to be released because he believed (accurately) that movie theaters needed films to show if they were going to survive.

You can argue the ethics of risking theater-goers health for this, but the idea that Nolan was focused on his own pocketbook is simply false. He sacrificed his own personal interests (literally millions of dollars) for what he believed was good for the industry and the art form.

I'm subbed to CBS All Access, Netflix, Prime, Disney+/Hulu (commercial free), HBO Max, Youtube Premium, Showtime and that Masterpiece/PBS/BBC. Netflix has become for the most part a place to watch reruns. Their original programming is fraught with cancellations, and they've become the new SyFy to me.

Yeah. It's kind of inconceivable to me that Netflix doesn't understand that any "cancellation" of their original programming should come in the form of an order for a 4-episode season or a film to provide a satisfactory conclusion to the series. They are constantly torpedoing the value of their own catalog.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. It's kind of inconceivable to me that Netflix doesn't understand that any "cancellation" of their original programming should come in the form of an order for a 4-episode season or a film to provide a satisfactory conclusion to the series. They are constantly torpedoing the value of their own catalog.
Oh, I'm sure they know. A lot of the 'cancellations' are various cable companies trying to pull back their content from Netflix for their own much more limited streaming options.

Netflix's greatest strength before Disney decided to try to do the Netflix thing, which is what triggered this mass exodus of content, was the varied catalog. All sorts of shows from all the cable companies were there. But once Disney pulled out, the rest of them followed. Disney leads, everyone else follows (Which is why the WB movie dump on HBO Max caught a lot of them off guard. They were watching what Disney was going to do.) And they're going to find out that they're going to fail in some fashion.

Remember the whole point of the Fox acquisition was so that Disney had more content, because they knew that their catalog alone wasn't enough to support it's own service.

And by fail, I don't mean CBS All Access' failure, but rather forcing people to go back to the original cable style, where the customer had to buy multiple cable packages to have all their favourite channels shows and got a lot of cancellations, or what happened before Streaming happened, and what is spiking back up again, Piracy. Simply because people don't want to pay about 120USD a month for maybe 8-10 shows they binge regularly.
 
1c8ace8f-every-company-disney-owns-13_pageversion-lg.jpg
 
Oh, I'm sure they know. A lot of the 'cancellations' are various cable companies trying to pull back their content from Netflix for their own much more limited streaming options.

Netflix's greatest strength before Disney decided to try to do the Netflix thing, which is what triggered this mass exodus of content, was the varied catalog. All sorts of shows from all the cable companies were there. But once Disney pulled out, the rest of them followed. Disney leads, everyone else follows (Which is why the WB movie dump on HBO Max caught a lot of them off guard. They were watching what Disney was going to do.) And they're going to find out that they're going to fail in some fashion.

Remember the whole point of the Fox acquisition was so that Disney had more content, because they knew that their catalog alone wasn't enough to support it's own service.

And by fail, I don't mean CBS All Access' failure, but rather forcing people to go back to the original cable style, where the customer had to buy multiple cable packages to have all their favourite channels shows and got a lot of cancellations, or what happened before Streaming happened, and what is spiking back up again, Piracy. Simply because people don't want to pay about 120USD a month for maybe 8-10 shows they binge regularly.

Or just not watch TV. I do Netflix and YouTube. We dumped satellite in 2012 when we moved be cause over the years it had crept up to more than $200 a month (in 2012 money, we would probably be paying $300+ today). We found we mostly watched Netflix so it just wasn't worth having. We will not be going down the multiple pay services rabbit hole.
I watch more you tube than anything, mostly educational videos of various subjects. History, and how to do stuff mostly.
 
Or just not watch TV. I do Netflix and YouTube. We dumped satellite in 2012 when we moved be cause over the years it had crept up to more than $200 a month (in 2012 money, we would probably be paying $300+ today). We found we mostly watched Netflix so it just wasn't worth having. We will not be going down the multiple pay services rabbit hole.
I watch more you tube than anything, mostly educational videos of various subjects. History, and how to do stuff mostly.
Hence why they're trying to take over streaming.
 
I wouldn't be too quick to declare radio 'in decline.' It has been years since I was on top of industry developments like I was when working in the industry but the much discussed decline of radio due to the net, etc. kept failing to arrive. Radio thrives on being local and a relatively cheap but effective form of advertising for local businesses.

...

Longterm there certainly seems grounds for concern but I'm starting to wonder if the death of radio will become like the death of the novel, one of those things much discussed that never seems to happen.

I think Radio is in decline, but it is a very long, slow, decline--and decline doesn't mean it won't exist. It's just that new technology like the Internet has taken over. We've gone from having Boom Boxes to smart speakers that get radio from feeds (even from the local radio stations), and from a traditional ad based model of music to being able to have more narrowly focused music as well as models like Pandora and Spotify. And now the Internet can do local advertising, I've heard and seen local targeted ads on some of these radio feeds. New technology that was supposed to take over, like Satellite and Digital "HD" radio, never took off on a large level. Old style stereo systems are not that big anymore.

To me, the biggest thing keeping radio relevant is the Automobile. WiFi and even Cellular Service is less reliable than the FM spectrum for sending over a wide reaching audio system, and it's an easy system for users to use an remember. I think if we come up with a wireless distribution format that can replace this, or if we get some form of ubiquitous widespread wireless Internet--then you'll see it sharply drop off. Supposedly, a lot of Sirius / XM revenue comes from deals they have with the auto manufacturers as well.

Sirius XM bled money for a very long time, it only started to turn a profit around when I left the industry which was 4-5 years ago.

It is doing alright but is not the monster its various investors banked on replacing terrestrial radio.

Of course commercial radio sucks aesthetically, a great book on why that is, is the classic Hitmen, which tracks how vibrant and culturally relevant radio was drowned like a kitten in a bathtub.

Hitmen is a good book, but I would also recommend a book that specifically covered the biggest radio conglomerate, Clear Channel, which goes into how they got big and what practices led to radio stagnation.

Amazon product

I agree with your assessment of Satellite Radio. Around 2005-2006, I splurged and subscribed to XM Radio. I loved it for a few years, but after the merger I saw it starting to fall into the trap of regular radio -- XM had a little more progressive and experimental culture and larger playlists. I think I got rid of my Sat radio around 2012 or 2014. But there was a lot of weird "fans"...I noticed there were two types of enthusiasts--people who really liked the service and variety--but there were a significant set of fans who were fans of the "stock". They came more from the Sirius side, but there were people writing blogs and articles that seemed to prop up things, but it didn't turn out to be that great of an investment for folks (or at lease a good short term one). Heck, somebody even did a documentary called "Stock Shock", which was the SXM investors complaining about folks shorting the stocks and ruining their investments. Satrad was a good idea, but for music fans we have a lot more options that are better now.
 
You can argue the ethics of risking theater-goers health for this, but the idea that Nolan was focused on his own pocketbook is simply false. He sacrificed his own personal interests (literally millions of dollars) for what he believed was good for the industry and the art form.

Nolan is a iconoclast who specifically is a true cinephile who does not want to see the movie going experience end. He's a big defender of old style Film (he dislikes the rise of Digital recording), large formats like IMAX and 70mm film, etc. He clarifies his perspective in a new interview.

 
Oh, I'm sure they know. A lot of the 'cancellations' are various cable companies trying to pull back their content from Netflix for their own much more limited streaming options.

And by fail, I don't mean CBS All Access' failure, but rather forcing people to go back to the original cable style, where the customer had to buy multiple cable packages to have all their favourite channels shows and got a lot of cancellations, or what happened before Streaming happened, and what is spiking back up again, Piracy. Simply because people don't want to pay about 120USD a month for maybe 8-10 shows they binge regularly.

I think there are two flaws in this analysis.

Hollywood has seen the damage that can be done when one vendor ends up "revolutionizing" something. It happened with iTunes becoming for a long time the only digital player which weakened all the music labels, as well as to a lesser extend Steam becoming the de factor platform leader--the latter even evoking a cult-like following where people won't buy games if they are not on Steam. Netflix is not really the underdog here. But in my opinion, simply from an economic standpoint, I don't believe they should be the only distributor out there. And both sides knew that going into their deals. Netflix ramped up original content knowing they would eventually get their own services, while the studios starting looking into this long term.

The second flaw is the last paragraph. If people were paying $120 USD for a month for cable, it was completely unrealistic to expect the entire thing to collapse and only end up paying $15-20 for the same variety of content. All this content costs money. Nobody does this for free. As I've said, I believe the cost of a household for entertainment will be reduced. There is now more freedom. We can start a show when we want once it is released, pause and come back. Our systems remember where we left off. We are no longer beholden to long contracts anymore. We can choose price levels with some services, like Hulu or Peacock. Ads or no ads. I think people will end up having 2-5 streaming services depending on their likes and desires, and you'll probably see people drop and pick up stuff. I think on average we'll end up paying about half of what cable used to cost (the TV part, the Internet part is always a factor).
 
I watch more you tube than anything, mostly educational videos of various subjects. History, and how to do stuff mostly.

I like Youtube for some short form content. But then again, that may not be a good alternative depending on what happens in the future. You don't pay for YouTube, and it's not a big profit maker for Google. They've given up on funding original content with YouTube Red (so things like Cobra Kai moved to Netflix). Additionally, we're going to see more intrusive ads based on their terms. I've been a big fan of CNBC's short subject videos (8-12 minute videos about a company), and now YouTube is injecting ads at random points during the viewing--and even doing this during some live feeds of news. (It's jarring because it doesn't have a planned break like traditional TV, sometimes running in mid-sentence.

What's happening with YouTube is why I don't want Netflix to be the only distributor of commecial video content.
 
I like Youtube for some short form content. But then again, that may not be a good alternative depending on what happens in the future. You don't pay for YouTube, and it's not a big profit maker for Google. They've given up on funding original content with YouTube Red (so things like Cobra Kai moved to Netflix). Additionally, we're going to see more intrusive ads based on their terms. I've been a big fan of CNBC's short subject videos (8-12 minute videos about a company), and now YouTube is injecting ads at random points during the viewing--and even doing this during some live feeds of news. (It's jarring because it doesn't have a planned break like traditional TV, sometimes running in mid-sentence.

What's happening with YouTube is why I don't want Netflix to be the only distributor of commecial video content.

Yes the ads on youtube are awful, but the content is something nobody else offers. Where else can I get good quality instructional videos on an immense range of subjects.

Agree with your comments about more competition, I wish some of these youtube wannabes would gain some traction. The main thing I don't like with the way streaming is currently headed is it seems like it will be a lot of uncompetitive streaming services, maybe it is time to go back to the studios not being able to be directly connected to distribution. I recently saw an interview that blamed the downturn of television programming on the removal of prohibitions from networks directly producing the shows they aired. Once the TV networks started making their own shows the execs started to get involved, pushing cheap and broad demographic appeal over good.
There was an interview with John Cleese that kind of went along the same path. He said the reason Monty Python was able to be made was because at that time BBC execs, hired talent, and then they went to the pub and allowed the talent to do what they were hired to do. He said that changed in the 1970s and the execs started thinking they knew better than the directors, writers and actors with a resulting decline in quality and risk taking.
 
I think Radio is in decline, but it is a very long, slow, decline--and decline doesn't mean it won't exist. It's just that new technology like the Internet has taken over. We've gone from having Boom Boxes to smart speakers that get radio from feeds (even from the local radio stations), and from a traditional ad based model of music to being able to have more narrowly focused music as well as models like Pandora and Spotify. And now the Internet can do local advertising, I've heard and seen local targeted ads on some of these radio feeds. New technology that was supposed to take over, like Satellite and Digital "HD" radio, never took off on a large level. Old style stereo systems are not that big anymore.

To me, the biggest thing keeping radio relevant is the Automobile. WiFi and even Cellular Service is less reliable than the FM spectrum for sending over a wide reaching audio system, and it's an easy system for users to use an remember. I think if we come up with a wireless distribution format that can replace this, or if we get some form of ubiquitous widespread wireless Internet--then you'll see it sharply drop off. Supposedly, a lot of Sirius / XM revenue comes from deals they have with the auto manufacturers as well.



Hitmen is a good book, but I would also recommend a book that specifically covered the biggest radio conglomerate, Clear Channel, which goes into how they got big and what practices led to radio stagnation.

Amazon product

I agree with your assessment of Satellite Radio. Around 2005-2006, I splurged and subscribed to XM Radio. I loved it for a few years, but after the merger I saw it starting to fall into the trap of regular radio -- XM had a little more progressive and experimental culture and larger playlists. I think I got rid of my Sat radio around 2012 or 2014. But there was a lot of weird "fans"...I noticed there were two types of enthusiasts--people who really liked the service and variety--but there were a significant set of fans who were fans of the "stock". They came more from the Sirius side, but there were people writing blogs and articles that seemed to prop up things, but it didn't turn out to be that great of an investment for folks (or at lease a good short term one). Heck, somebody even did a documentary called "Stock Shock", which was the SXM investors complaining about folks shorting the stocks and ruining their investments. Satrad was a good idea, but for music fans we have a lot more options that are better now.


Oh yeah I do think radio's days are numbered but that may be further off than we think.

People listening to radio in their cars is definitely keeping commercial radio alive (public and college radio listeners are more likely to listen to them at home) that's one of the reasons why playlists became so tight and repetitive, the assumption is that most are listening for approx. 15 minutes while driving.

If the internet gets into cars it could kill radio although these days it is really easy to listen to things on the net in your car by using one's phone and a phone dock but that doesn't seem to have had the impact one would expect. People are far more creatures of habit I guess. But the younger generations have lost the 'habit' of radio, you'd think that would concern those running radio but you're never met a more delusionally confident person than a radio executive, they are a next level combo of ignorance and arrogance.

...
There was an interview with John Cleese that kind of went along the same path. He said the reason Monty Python was able to be made was because at that time BBC execs, hired talent, and then they went to the pub and allowed the talent to do what they were hired to do. He said that changed in the 1970s and the execs started thinking they knew better than the directors, writers and actors with a resulting decline in quality and risk taking.

The same thing happened in radio and with record labels, used to be a bunch of old men who didn't pretend to understand the crazy music the kids liked so they'd sign lots of bands, more or less leave them alone as long as they produced a few singles and see what stuck, but once you had people in there who think they 'get' the music they interfere and refuse to see how out of touch and square they really are.
 
Last edited:
The second flaw is the last paragraph. If people were paying $120 USD for a month for cable, it was completely unrealistic to expect the entire thing to collapse and only end up paying $15-20 for the same variety of content. All this content costs money. Nobody does this for free. As I've said, I believe the cost of a household for entertainment will be reduced. There is now more freedom. We can start a show when we want once it is released, pause and come back. Our systems remember where we left off. We are no longer beholden to long contracts anymore. We can choose price levels with some services, like Hulu or Peacock. Ads or no ads. I think people will end up having 2-5 streaming services depending on their likes and desires, and you'll probably see people drop and pick up stuff. I think on average we'll end up paying about half of what cable used to cost (the TV part, the Internet part is always a factor).
Part of the problem is that those 120USD packages had channels and stations that customers didn't want. We're talking hundreds in each bundle when at most, the majority of the customer base watched maybe 10 total? And there was a lot of redundancies in programming as well, as in the same CSI episode on the 6 different channels in the same package because it was broadcast over several differing parts/timezones of the U.S. or Canada.

Netflix comes along with a wide variety of shows and movies, all in one convenient package for the low, low price of about 7USD (It's increased since then.) Worse, it had FULL seasons, that you could watch in one go! This was the death knell of the cable industry as we knew it.

Although, Streaming does have it's issues.
 
Part of the problem is that those 120USD packages had channels and stations that customers didn't want. We're talking hundreds in each bundle when at most, the majority of the customer base watched maybe 10 total? And there was a lot of redundancies in programming as well, as in the same CSI episode on the 6 different channels in the same package because it was broadcast over several differing parts/timezones of the U.S. or Canada.

Netflix comes along with a wide variety of shows and movies, all in one convenient package for the low, low price of about 7USD (It's increased since then.) Worse, it had FULL seasons, that you could watch in one go! This was the death knell of the cable industry as we knew it.

Although, Streaming does have it's issues.

Sports is the worst. Every package includes a substantial number of sports channels and they are a high dollar item. I saw somewhere that sports channels account for something like 40% of the cost of basic packages and you have no option to not have them. Some deal with the devil every cable network and dish service have agreed to.
 
To me the best thing about streaming is the ability to cancel and return at any time. I now default to cancelling a service anytime I get bored and returning whenever I want. They make returning easy and cancelling easy so it's easy to take a $120 annual bill and turn it into $60.
 
Part of the problem is that those 120USD packages had channels and stations that customers didn't want. We're talking hundreds in each bundle when at most, the majority of the customer base watched maybe 10 total? And there was a lot of redundancies in programming as well, as in the same CSI episode on the 6 different channels in the same package because it was broadcast over several differing parts/timezones of the U.S. or Canada.

Netflix comes along with a wide variety of shows and movies, all in one convenient package for the low, low price of about 7USD (It's increased since then.) Worse, it had FULL seasons, that you could watch in one go! This was the death knell of the cable industry as we knew it.

I agree. Cable's business model was flawed once the concept of On Demand transmission started.

What I am saying is realistically, you were never ever going to get all the content you ever wanted from TV and Movies for $10 a month. That's simply unrealistic. What you are seeing is not so much the industry's greed but the market correcting itself. (There are time when prices can get too cheap rather than too expensive). One vendor should not dominate the market--plus the production companies are likely getting more vertically integrated. And companies need to make money.

Again, we're going to probably need multiple streaming services, and people with tighter budgets will have to pick and choose a bit. But that's no different that those families who once chose to get HBO or Showtime and those that didn't. We've got more control and choice now, and that's a good thing.
 
I agree. Cable's business model was flawed once the concept of On Demand transmission started.

What I am saying is realistically, you were never ever going to get all the content you ever wanted from TV and Movies for $10 a month. That's simply unrealistic. What you are seeing is not so much the industry's greed but the market correcting itself. (There are time when prices can get too cheap rather than too expensive). One vendor should not dominate the market--plus the production companies are likely getting more vertically integrated. And companies need to make money.

You're right. Here's the thing. All these streaming channels are trying to go BACK to the Cable System model, because it used to 'work'. They were a monopoly made of many parts so they bypass the laws, but they had a no compete pact. (A lot of other business do the same, like internet providers.) and because they were, they controlled the method of delivery. Then Netflix happened, and they were losing their control.

So now, they're trying to use the new tech to retain their control. And they're finding it doesn't work.

But damn if they're not trying.

Again, we're going to probably need multiple streaming services, and people with tighter budgets will have to pick and choose a bit. But that's no different that those families who once chose to get HBO or Showtime and those that didn't. We've got more control and choice now, and that's a good thing.
You're right and the problem is? It's not going to work. There's an increase in piracy going on right now. In fact, it started around the rumour (This was before Disney unveiled anything) of Disney and CBS were starting their own services. People don't want to pay premium prices for multiple services for one or two shows. Right now Disney is the Mandalorian Channel. Most of their reveals have not left the creative stage, the Ahsoka show is listed for 2024, for example.

Remember for the last year California has been locked down, so very little could be done, most sets still haven't been built.

There is no Streaming 'War', it's already over and Netflix has already won. The problem now is how long they're going to drag this out until there's the three major channels back again. Which includes Amazon's service.
 
Last edited:
Amazon Prime is more like that dirty indy video rental shop out of the way and in a converted house or the basement of a mall where all the VHS tapes have painted covers and an air of sleeze drifts through the musty shelves...
 
Amazon Prime is more like that dirty indy video rental shop out of the way and in a converted house or the basement of a mall where all the VHS tapes have painted covers and an air of sleeze drifts through the musty shelves...

It definitely has a surprisingly good selection of Shaw Bros. kung fu flicks, 70s exploitation and Italian sleaze. I assume by accident. It is only topped by the free stream-with-ads Tubi.com for fans of B-movies.
 
You're right. Here's the thing. All these streaming channels are trying to go BACK to the Cable System model, because it used to 'work'. They were a monopoly made of many parts so they bypass the laws, but they had a no compete pact. (A lot of other business do the same, like internet providers.) and because they were, they controlled the method of delivery. Then Netflix happened, and they were losing their control.

So now, they're trying to use the new tech to retain their control. And they're finding it doesn't work.

But damn if they're not trying.

Cable TV was a "monopoly" only because of the complexity of putting up the wires in a town. There was always over the air TV, Satellite TV, etc. They were not a monopoly. The economics of cable was pretty complex, but they involved things like negotiation over fees for channels and bundling was a result of economics -- if people really had A La Carte choice by channel, each channel would have cost $5 or more.


You're right and the problem is? It's not going to work. There's an increase in piracy going on right now.

We have to wait and see if it is going to work. I do think no matter how you or others wish it, you still won't get everything in one service for $9.95 a month, nor will there be a single winner. Basic economics alone will overrule the "wishes" of the public, and losses from piracy only goes so far.

There is no Streaming 'War', it's already over and Netflix has already won. The problem now is how long they're going to drag this out until there's the three major channels back again. Which includes Amazon's service.

I don't think Netflix has "won". They are dependent on content and their original content seems to be suffering, as others have noticed--they are becoming quick to cancel things and I think they might not understand their audience like some of the Hollywood companies do from years of experience. A lot of stuff will be leaving Netflix. And even before the studios got involved, we had other alternatives.

Again, while Netflix may be strong because they were first to market, I don't believe they have an Amazon, iTunes or Steam position -- mostly because enough business people learned their lessons from that and were already making their plans as Netflix was starting. They could eventually be in a Tivo position--Tivo invented the DVR but their premium product was eclipsed by the clones that were established and purchased by the transmission companies.

Again, Interesting times. I'm prepared to pay anywhere from $25-50 for my streaming services, and I'll bet that's what many Households will end up budgeting, all based on content, disposable income, and interest. Some of the new services will thrive, some will not.
 
It definitely has a surprisingly good selection of Shaw Bros. kung fu flicks, 70s exploitation and Italian sleaze. I assume by accident. It is only topped by the free stream-with-ads Tubi.com for fans of B-movies.

Amazon probably has more stuff because of their rental business that didn't follow the streaming services. They digitize content from other studios, and they have the "long tail" markets because of that. I've been surprised by some of the stuff I've found -- last Christmas I found some old Andy Williams specials that must have been imported from a DVD collection.

I think the streaming services, where you pay a flat fee per month, has less flexibility because they want to spend their time creating or buying hits to pull interest, and they can only spend so much for licensing rights.

That being said, I wish some of these services would get better at putting old classics on their services. Disney, for instance, could put more old stuff up there--I purchased two collectors DVDs from Disney for my best friend over the years -- one was the Zorro series with Guy Williams, the other was The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh, where Patrick McGoohan played Dr. Syn. Neither are on there. I'd like to see them also put the original Muppet Show up there, as they have the rights to it.
 
The same thing happened in radio and with record labels, used to be a bunch of old men who didn't pretend to understand the crazy music the kids liked so they'd sign lots of bands, more or less leave them alone as long as they produced a few singles and see what stuck, but once you had people in there who think they 'get' the music they interfere and refuse to see how out of touch and square they really are.

I saw an interview with Frank Zappa and he said the same thing. The older execs in the 60s would just shotgun things and see what happened so you could try things. When execs thought they were hip, you had to stay in the lines.

With only a few owners of most of radio, most of it is pretty boring now. I listen only ~15 minutes/week, when others are in the car. I listen to books in the car when alone (Thank you library and Overdrive). I'm not surprised that it's slowly dying.
 
Yeah. It's kind of inconceivable to me that Netflix doesn't understand that any "cancellation" of their original programming should come in the form of an order for a 4-episode season or a film to provide a satisfactory conclusion to the series. They are constantly torpedoing the value of their own catalog.

This.

I don't care if a series is 8 episodes and finished, as long as it feels like there was a resolution. Canceling everything on a cliffhanger means I don't want to waste my time with anything new, because I don't have reason to believe the story will be told.
 
Go my route - be horribly behind on shows and games. By the time I get to something, there's usually consensus on whether it's worth it. Games are cleaner with all the DLCs thrown in for for <$20.

Dude.

Show I've watched the most recently? Hill Street Blues. When people were freaking out about the effect the pandemic was going to have on entertainment, I was like "eh, I got decades of stuff to watch".
 
Dude.

Show I've watched the most recently? Hill Street Blues. When people were freaking out about the effect the pandemic was going to have on entertainment, I was like "eh, I got decades of stuff to watch".

Where are you watching HSB? Would love to revisit.
 
We have to wait and see if it is going to work. I do think no matter how you or others wish it, you still won't get everything in one service for $9.95 a month, nor will there be a single winner. Basic economics alone will overrule the "wishes" of the public, and losses from piracy only goes so far.

Exactly. Virtually everyone had a cable TV subscription pumping dozens or hundreds of dollars per month into the content creation pipeline. It was always a ridiculous conceit to believe that everyone would be able to pay a fraction of that cost into the system and somehow not only fund the exact same content creation but ALSO get access to every movie ever made + every TV show ever made.

You're right. Here's the thing. All these streaming channels are trying to go BACK to the Cable System model, because it used to 'work'.

The cable model involved everyone paying for a giant package of content decided by an aggregator (the cable company). The system you're bemoaning is everyone being able to choose which content creation companies they pay. Those aren't even remotely the same system.

What we more or less have right now is the a la carte system everyone always claimed they wanted. It just costs a little more in the real world than in the pretend version people liked to fantasize about because you don't get to continue having your entertainment subsidized by other people while refusing to subsidize theirs.

Right now Disney is the Mandalorian Channel.

If the only thing you like is Star Wars, I guess. But Disney is a lot more than that.

And if you don't like all that other stuff Disney offers, then Disney+ is probably a bad option for you. But, checking my notes here, I see that -- like I said before -- their paid domestic subscriptions already rival Netflix's and the current estimate is that they will outstrip them in global subscribers by 2022.

There is no Streaming 'War', it's already over and Netflix has already won. The problem now is how long they're going to drag this out until there's the three major channels back again. Which includes Amazon's service.

We'll see. I think it's far more likely we'll see 6-10 major streaming services each clustered around the major legacy content studios (Big 4 + TV networks) + Netflix, Apple, and Amazon. And then there'll be a penumbra of highly specialized services (Shudder, Hi-Yah!, that sort of thing). And then an even larger penumbra of minor channels using Youtube, Twitch, or similar platforms to monetize small scale production.

The interesting question for me is, once things start calming down, whether the major content studios will discover that licensing a subset of their content to the specialized services can be done without compromising their primary streaming service. (So, for example, WB might license its horror movies to Shudder in addition to having them on HBO Max.)
 
Last edited:
The cable model involved everyone paying for a giant package of content decided by an aggregator (the cable company). The system you're bemoaning is everyone being able to choose which content creation companies they pay. Those aren't even remotely the same system.

I'm not bemoaning it. I don't care. But the executives at ABC/Disney, NBC and all the rest, are trying to go BACK to their original model. THEY want to go back, because that model they understand. This streaming stuff? Garbage, because they don't control it. So they're trying to change it to something they can control.

What we more or less have right now is the a la carte system everyone always claimed they wanted. It just costs a little more in the real world than in the pretend version people liked to fantasize about because you don't get to continue having your entertainment subsidized by other people while refusing to subsidize theirs.
And that's why Disney and AT&T and the rest are pulling back their own material. To remove that choice, to force the customer to give THEM the money 'directly'. They do NOT LIKE this model, they do not understand it, they don't care TO understand it.

If the only thing you like is Star Wars, I guess. But Disney is a lot more than that.

And if you don't like all that other stuff Disney offers, then Disney+ is probably a bad option for you. But, checking my notes here, I see that -- like I said before -- their paid domestic subscriptions already rival Netflix's and the current estimate is that they will outstrip them in global subscribers by 2022.
The reason they bought FOX was to expand their catalog. Why? Most people already HAVE everything Disney already! Most of the animation catalog has been purchased decades ago on video/DVD. It has nothing to do with 'liking' Star Wars, it's all about having stuff when Mandalorian is finished.

We'll see. I think it's far more likely we'll see 6-10 major streaming services each clustered around the major legacy content studios (Big 4 + TV networks) + Netflix, Apple, and Amazon. And then there'll be a penumbra of highly specialized services (Shudder, Hi-Yah!, that sort of thing). And then an even larger penumbra of minor channels using Youtube, Twitch, or similar platforms to monetize small scale production.

The interesting question for me is, once things start calming down, whether the major content studios will discover that licensing a subset of their content to the specialized services can be done without compromising their primary streaming service. (So, for example, WB might license its horror movies to Shudder in addition to having them on HBO Max.)
This is the most likely end point. The problem now is that we're waiting to get there.
 
And that's why Disney and AT&T and the rest are pulling back their own material. To remove that choice, to force the customer to give THEM the money 'directly'. They do NOT LIKE this model, they do not understand it, they don't care TO understand it.

Other than AT&T, none of the major streaming services are run by former cable companies. Disney was never paid directly by cable consumers.

There's just no reality to any of your "factual" claims.
 
Other than AT&T, none of the major streaming services are run by former cable companies. Disney was never paid directly by cable consumers.

There's just no reality to any of your "factual" claims.
You're not understanding the point. The Network companies, ABC (which is owned by Disney), NBC, CBS and the rest are used to the cable model. It made them rich, it was stable and reliable. This new Streaming Model is NOT what they're used to. It's new. But it's making a fair amount of money on paper. So they want in, but they want it in the way they're used to.
 
It's not that I don't understand your point. It's that your "point" isn't factually true. None of the major streaming services are attempting to replicate the cable business model in which they licensed their content to an aggregator who then collected money from the consumer. They are, in fact, doing the exact OPPOSITE of that.

'Nuff said.
 
It's not that I don't understand your point. It's that your "point" isn't factually true. None of the major streaming services are attempting to replicate the cable business model in which they licensed their content to an aggregator who then collected money from the consumer. They are, in fact, doing the exact OPPOSITE of that.

'Nuff said.
Sure, they're they're not. They're DEFINITELY NOT creating new channel packages of their own exclusive content that people will have to buy separate to other companies content. Right, Disney +, Peacock (What a name), CBS All Access, nope, definitely NOT trying to replicate the system, with alterations to fit the 'new' market, so it resembles the old one they understand and know how to manipulate. No siree.
 
The short version: people are on their couches more and need more to watch. There’s not enough on one service to satisfy their needs. Therefore, everyone did better than expected in 2020.
 
Another link to the article that might be readable, sometimes WSJ is aggressive with their paywall.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...en-2020-lifted-netflix-and-others-11609338780

Some interesting Takeaways.

  • The General Market has doubled, with the number of folks watching.
  • All the new services have found their niche, so they aren't taking away from others.
  • The Average number of Streaming Services people subscribe to is increasing, from 2.7 to 3.4 I believe.
  • They had a chart showing how many of these services are comps. Some here argued Disney had a lot of growth from Verizon and other comps, but that is less than 20%. The one where comps are the most is Apple TV+
  • Netflix still rules in terms of how much original content they produce--for now.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top