|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Feb 10, 2024 4:57:04 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Feb 10, 2024 18:52:56 GMT 1
Disney is run by people who have a lot of money--but ZERO comprehension of culture and art.
The best era for Disney--certainly the era that is best remembered--is when Walt Disney ran it. And people who knew him said he was the company.
Disney is just too big to be a cultural vehicle of any affectionate regard by the public--certainly not the public that Disney aimed for originally.
The only solution would be to sell it--maybe to someone in Europe or Japan--who would likely be more in line with Walt Disney's philosophy than any of the people mentioned. They want to make money but they also want to preach--for them culture is a means of transmitting propaganda. Bob Iger has said it--his job is to preach on social causes even if most people don't agree with the message. They don't understand art and culture and entertainment at all.
Too much money means out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 10, 2024 21:35:32 GMT 1
Disney is run by people who have a lot of money--but ZERO comprehension of culture and art. The best era for Disney--certainly the era that is best remembered--is when Walt Disney ran it. And people who knew him said he was the company. Disney is just too big to be a cultural vehicle of any affectionate regard by the public--certainly not the public that Disney aimed for originally. The only solution would be to sell it--maybe to someone in Europe or Japan--who would likely be more in line with Walt Disney's philosophy than any of the people mentioned. They want to make money but they also want to preach--for them culture is a means of transmitting propaganda. Bob Iger has said it--his job is to preach on social causes even if most people don't agree with the message. They don't understand art and culture and entertainment at all. Too much money means out of touch. But then… how'd they get all that money in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Feb 10, 2024 21:56:55 GMT 1
But then… how'd they get all that money in the first place? From their Wall Street operations.
When Eisner and the original group bought Disney--they had immediate monetary riches--they weren't some poor slobs looking for a business to use. They stated it in the 1990s--the goal was to be "entertainer for the globe."
The reason they are now claiming that they have financial hardships is only because so many people are turned off to the expanding wokeness and or they are fretting for the sake of fretting. They have a total monopoly-it seems like they are more concerned that people may not be looking at them enough--and yet something tells me their deliberate efforts to alienate people and the reaction is also what they wanted. A strange group, ultra-billionaires.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 10, 2024 22:48:45 GMT 1
Why you never post these on Knowhere? You can get much better discussion from it by simply not having primemover around.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA KEN! on Feb 10, 2024 23:09:48 GMT 1
That Apple merger is probably going to happen. It's practically Apple's birthright.
|
|
|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Feb 11, 2024 1:44:53 GMT 1
Why you never post these on Knowhere? You can get much better discussion from it by simply not having primemover around. To annoy you and cbf
|
|
|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Feb 11, 2024 1:51:27 GMT 1
Disney is run by people who have a lot of money--but ZERO comprehension of culture and art. The best era for Disney--certainly the era that is best remembered--is when Walt Disney ran it. And people who knew him said he was the company. Disney is just too big to be a cultural vehicle of any affectionate regard by the public--certainly not the public that Disney aimed for originally. The only solution would be to sell it--maybe to someone in Europe or Japan--who would likely be more in line with Walt Disney's philosophy than any of the people mentioned. They want to make money but they also want to preach--for them culture is a means of transmitting propaganda. Bob Iger has said it--his job is to preach on social causes even if most people don't agree with the message. They don't understand art and culture and entertainment at all. Too much money means out of touch. Disney is not even the problem. It's the guys who own stock in a lot of big companies. BlackRock and Vanguard. Their dumb woke agenda. You even have the blackrock guy saying it on record. And yes ultra billionaires are weird. They think they know what's best for everyone, us, the unwashed masses..
|
|
|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Feb 11, 2024 1:58:14 GMT 1
Anyway, streaming costs a lot of money across all the companies. I dont think much profit has been made on this front just yet.
You have bad executives. It travels throughout the company unfortunately. Im not sure Bob Iger is doing that well with Disney..
I would like to see Peltz make a go of it and what his vision could be. His daughter is also in Transformers
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Feb 11, 2024 2:14:06 GMT 1
Disney is not even the problem. It's the guys who own stock in a lot of big companies. BlackRock and Vanguard. Their dumb woke agenda. You even have the blackrock guy saying it on record. And yes ultra billionaires are weird. They think they know what's best for everyone, us, the unwashed masses.. "The enemy of art is an absence of limitations." Orson Welles
|
|
|
Post by WOLVERINE JACK! on Feb 11, 2024 8:00:32 GMT 1
Anyway, streaming costs a lot of money across all the companies. I dont think much profit has been made on this front just yet. You have bad executives. It travels throughout the company unfortunately. Im not sure Bob Iger is doing that well with Disney.. I would like to see Peltz make a go of it and what his vision could be. His daughter is also in Transformers Isn’t it crazy that all these streaming services have been bleeding cash? Makes you wonder what it’s all for. How long can they play the long game before it’s no longer worth it?
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Feb 11, 2024 18:14:07 GMT 1
WOLVERINE JACK! that’s why I am waiting for the streaming bubble to burst. There’s too much content, it costs too such, and eventually they’re gonna run out of subscribers. Hell, the subscribers they got now are not going to be happy about paying more if they believe they are getting less.
|
|
|
Post by WOLVERINE JACK! on Feb 11, 2024 19:39:01 GMT 1
WOLVERINE JACK! that’s why I am waiting for the streaming bubble to burst. There’s too much content, it costs too such, and eventually they’re gonna run out of subscribers. Hell, the subscribers they got now are not going to be happy about paying more if they believe they are getting less. I wouldn’t be surprised if these all come to an end and cable dominates again. Hell, even when Netflix had the entire market they were somehow losing tons of money.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 12, 2024 4:27:40 GMT 1
WOLVERINE JACK! that’s why I am waiting for the streaming bubble to burst. There’s too much content, it costs too such, and eventually they’re gonna run out of subscribers. Hell, the subscribers they got now are not going to be happy about paying more if they believe they are getting less. Have you ever wondered why such a seemingly sound economic model like streaming is tanking so severely? After venturing into streaming, multinational conglomerates are dragged to the bottom of the ocean to hang out with the Titanic. If you think about it, you'd have to be an idiot to mess up streaming. There's not much to it. As a studio - you gather all your content into one digital space and offer a low to moderate subscription fee for uninterrupted access anytime and anywhere (there is power and an internet connection). If you want to spice things up, you could lease some content from another studio and stream it on your service; a performance-based revenue-sharing model would make sense here. Why pay for a show if no one watches it or it fails to attract new subscribers? So, how exactly does such a relatively simple economic model fail so spectacularly - to the tune of billions of dollars lost quarter over quarter, over and over again? You could say it's overspending on new content, and you'd be half right with that. The other half is the indirect cause of the destruction of the streaming industry. It's Hollywood accounting. When streaming's largely simple, unsexy, and innocuous business model comes into contact with the arcane and opaque art of financing and producing a movie, you get nothing but chaos. Look at the niche services like Criterion, Arrow, and Shudder that appear to be doing well. They're built around a theme; cult movies, horror, international, etc. Building around your studio brand just paints a target on your back. Nobody used to think about all the movies a studio made before streaming. Only the indoctrinated knew that Disney made hyper-violent, sexually suggestive films under a different moniker. And no one knew WB frequently served up B-movie-level tap water between Oscar fare to make a quick buck. Hollywood never was and never will be performant as a business model. The media industry as a whole, maybe, but not Hollywood. It's a Ponzi scheme, and they got some nerds from the valley to bet big on their sexy wares, and now they're all losing their shirts.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Feb 12, 2024 5:17:36 GMT 1
Disney simply forgot who their target audience is which made them huge in the first place. Families with kids.
Im not saying you can not add any characters that are gay, trans or whatever. But if you start to do that too much people will just stop watching. Because they dont like being preached to.
Im all for what people call woke. Its fine by me. As long as the stories are good and entertaining I have zero problems. But Im not everybody. Fact of the matter is they made their fortune catering to traditional families and they are being ignored in their content.
As for streaming in general... You pay for streaming so you can access your desired content at any given time. And people are just now finding out that content gets pulled on a regular basis or even altered. That was not what they signed up for. And one to three services isnt an issue. A dozen is.
We are seeing a return to physical media. And that is not for nothing. And I for one embrace it.
|
|
|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Feb 13, 2024 2:32:41 GMT 1
WOLVERINE JACK! that’s why I am waiting for the streaming bubble to burst. There’s too much content, it costs too such, and eventually they’re gonna run out of subscribers. Hell, the subscribers they got now are not going to be happy about paying more if they believe they are getting less. Have you ever wondered why such a seemingly sound economic model like streaming is tanking so severely? After venturing into streaming, multinational conglomerates are dragged to the bottom of the ocean to hang out with the Titanic. If you think about it, you'd have to be an idiot to mess up streaming. There's not much to it. As a studio - you gather all your content into one digital space and offer a low to moderate subscription fee for uninterrupted access anytime and anywhere (there is power and an internet connection). If you want to spice things up, you could lease some content from another studio and stream it on your service; a performance-based revenue-sharing model would make sense here. Why pay for a show if no one watches it or it fails to attract new subscribers? So, how exactly does such a relatively simple economic model fail so spectacularly - to the tune of billions of dollars lost quarter over quarter, over and over again? You could say it's overspending on new content, and you'd be half right with that. The other half is the indirect cause of the destruction of the streaming industry. It's Hollywood accounting. When streaming's largely simple, unsexy, and innocuous business model comes into contact with the arcane and opaque art of financing and producing a movie, you get nothing but chaos. Look at the niche services like Criterion, Arrow, and Shudder that appear to be doing well. They're built around a theme; cult movies, horror, international, etc. Building around your studio brand just paints a target on your back. Nobody used to think about all the movies a studio made before streaming. Only the indoctrinated knew that Disney made hyper-violent, sexually suggestive films under a different moniker. And no one knew WB frequently served up B-movie-level tap water between Oscar fare to make a quick buck. Hollywood never was and never will be performant as a business model. The media industry as a whole, maybe, but not Hollywood. It's a Ponzi scheme, and they got some nerds from the valley to bet big on their sexy wares, and now they're all losing their shirts. I remember seeing a youtube comment/joke where someone said the CW was a money laundering operation lol. Honestly wouldnt surprise me. Same goes with film studios and streaming, and some of their projects. It's not like organized crime and the entertainment industry havent shaken hands before Who can blame companies, even stockholders, though? Greed wins out. Guaranteed money supply per month v unpredictable box office returns/ratings
|
|
|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Feb 13, 2024 2:35:25 GMT 1
Disney simply forgot who their target audience is which made them huge in the first place. Families with kids. Im not saying you can not add any characters that are gay, trans or whatever. But if you start to do that too much people will just stop watching. Because they dont like being preached to. Im all for what people call woke. Its fine by me. As long as the stories are good and entertaining I have zero problems. But Im not everybody. Fact of the matter is they made their fortune catering to traditional families and they are being ignored in their content. As for streaming in general... You pay for streaming so you can access your desired content at any given time. And people are just now finding out that content gets pulled on a regular basis or even altered. That was not what they signed up for. And one to three services isnt an issue. A dozen is. We are seeing a return to physical media. And that is not for nothing. And I for one embrace it. It's refreshing to see this. A lot of woke people cant see this or are much too partisan
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Feb 13, 2024 3:08:00 GMT 1
Disney simply forgot who their target audience is which made them huge in the first place. Families with kids. Im not saying you can not add any characters that are gay, trans or whatever. But if you start to do that too much people will just stop watching. Because they dont like being preached to. Im all for what people call woke. Its fine by me. As long as the stories are good and entertaining I have zero problems. But Im not everybody. Fact of the matter is they made their fortune catering to traditional families and they are being ignored in their content. As for streaming in general... You pay for streaming so you can access your desired content at any given time. And people are just now finding out that content gets pulled on a regular basis or even altered. That was not what they signed up for. And one to three services isnt an issue. A dozen is. We are seeing a return to physical media. And that is not for nothing. And I for one embrace it. It's refreshing to see this. A lot of woke people cant see this or are much too partisan Its the other way around too.
|
|
|
Post by WOLVERINE JACK! on Feb 13, 2024 3:24:31 GMT 1
I think there’s two problems with streeeaming that I don’t often see addressed.
1) People like me that love to rewatch shows and movies may like having a big catalog but there’s also a lot of people who are one and done. They watch a movie once and that’s enough. Most people I know are like that so the back catalog is not the big sell for everyone. So without a constant stream of new hit shows the subscribers will never grow.
2) As far as new shows go— why is streeaming better? Curb Your Enthusiasm airs on HBO and streeeams on Max. I have HBO, I watch live or I DVR it and watch it whenever—plus it’s “on demand”. Of course streeeaming exclusives don’t give me two options— but the underlying question remains- Why is streeaming new content any better than new content on traditional cable or tv? The fans who streeeam on Max don’t get anything more out of the experience. What does this supposedly revolutionary technology actually offer compared to cable?
At the end of the day it’s just another channel. And since you pay for it all alone instead of part of a package there’s all the more pressure to satisfy the customer. If people had to pay for just NBC or just CBS or just TBS, etc, etc, would those channels have thrived? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA KEN! on Feb 13, 2024 3:33:39 GMT 1
It honestly probably doesn't help that they've spent so much on streaming stuff as well. Disney had the mindset of quantity over quality.
Also the ongoing increase in subscription prices is getting bad too.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 13, 2024 7:23:18 GMT 1
Have you ever wondered why such a seemingly sound economic model like streaming is tanking so severely? After venturing into streaming, multinational conglomerates are dragged to the bottom of the ocean to hang out with the Titanic. If you think about it, you'd have to be an idiot to mess up streaming. There's not much to it. As a studio - you gather all your content into one digital space and offer a low to moderate subscription fee for uninterrupted access anytime and anywhere (there is power and an internet connection). If you want to spice things up, you could lease some content from another studio and stream it on your service; a performance-based revenue-sharing model would make sense here. Why pay for a show if no one watches it or it fails to attract new subscribers? So, how exactly does such a relatively simple economic model fail so spectacularly - to the tune of billions of dollars lost quarter over quarter, over and over again? You could say it's overspending on new content, and you'd be half right with that. The other half is the indirect cause of the destruction of the streaming industry. It's Hollywood accounting. When streaming's largely simple, unsexy, and innocuous business model comes into contact with the arcane and opaque art of financing and producing a movie, you get nothing but chaos. Look at the niche services like Criterion, Arrow, and Shudder that appear to be doing well. They're built around a theme; cult movies, horror, international, etc. Building around your studio brand just paints a target on your back. Nobody used to think about all the movies a studio made before streaming. Only the indoctrinated knew that Disney made hyper-violent, sexually suggestive films under a different moniker. And no one knew WB frequently served up B-movie-level tap water between Oscar fare to make a quick buck. Hollywood never was and never will be performant as a business model. The media industry as a whole, maybe, but not Hollywood. It's a Ponzi scheme, and they got some nerds from the valley to bet big on their sexy wares, and now they're all losing their shirts. I remember seeing a youtube comment/joke where someone said the CW was a money laundering operation lol. Honestly wouldnt surprise me. Same goes with film studios and streaming, and some of their projects. It's not like organized crime and the entertainment industry havent shaken hands before Who can blame companies, even stockholders, though? Greed wins out. Guaranteed money supply per month v unpredictable box office returns/ratings The tech world, driven by data and analytics, never knew what hit it when it collided with the squishy world of movie-making. They still fundamentally don't understand what they're involved in, as evidenced by their management approach. Netflix started the trend of simply throwing money and creative control at talent to win the content wars. I assume they felt the only metric they needed to be concerned with was whether the finished product generated or sustained subscribers. This practice created a toxic winner-takes-all market for high-end creative talent, which sent demand skyrocketing. This meant creatives controlled the market, forcing studios to overspend on content. Production companies were brokering 8- and 9-figure deals with studios/streamers to produce content (a lot of which never even got made). Then, a (lengthy) strike happens because writers weren't making any money - odd. That would be like walking out into the rain and never getting wet in that climate. Meanwhile, the producers' and directors' guilds settled with the studios faster than twin lightning strikes - clearly, they were eating. Instead of trying to force Hollywood to distribute and manage its streaming wealth more equitably and efficiently - the street thought the solution was to turn streaming into cable via FAST (which, for those of us that did not graduate Wharton, is just a fancy way to say plain-vanilla TV). But the F in FAST is a lie, as the streaming gods still want you to pay something to see those HIV treatment ads. I sure do hope that guy on the beach with the beard ponytail blowing in the wind makes it - FFS. I've never seen a business model chase its own demise more fervently. Streaming is the expensive rifle you see in the sporting goods store with the fancy scope you can use to kill deer in Romania from a cracked, dirty window in a South Bronx tenement. 'The only person who could miss with it is the sucker who had the bread to buy it in the first place.'
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 13, 2024 8:09:19 GMT 1
Disney simply forgot who their target audience is which made them huge in the first place. Families with kids. Im not saying you can not add any characters that are gay, trans or whatever. But if you start to do that too much people will just stop watching. Because they dont like being preached to. Im all for what people call woke. Its fine by me. As long as the stories are good and entertaining I have zero problems. But Im not everybody. Fact of the matter is they made their fortune catering to traditional families and they are being ignored in their content. As for streaming in general... You pay for streaming so you can access your desired content at any given time. And people are just now finding out that content gets pulled on a regular basis or even altered. That was not what they signed up for. And one to three services isnt an issue. A dozen is. We are seeing a return to physical media. And that is not for nothing. And I for one embrace it. Damn straight. You put into words what everybody's thinking.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 13, 2024 8:09:39 GMT 1
Anyway, streaming costs a lot of money across all the companies. I dont think much profit has been made on this front just yet. You have bad executives. It travels throughout the company unfortunately. Im not sure Bob Iger is doing that well with Disney.. I would like to see Peltz make a go of it and what his vision could be. His daughter is also in Transformers Isn’t it crazy that all these streaming services have been bleeding cash? Makes you wonder what it’s all for. How long can they play the long game before it’s no longer worth it? Too many of them, and they aren't offering enough of what people want.
|
|
|
Post by WOLVERINE JACK! on Feb 13, 2024 19:27:24 GMT 1
Isn’t it crazy that all these streaming services have been bleeding cash? Makes you wonder what it’s all for. How long can they play the long game before it’s no longer worth it? Too many of them, and they aren't offering enough of what people want. I’m not sure they can. Even the most successful tv channels of all time offer mostly crap that few people like. In order to maximize subscribers these “services” would need HBO quality shows all of the time. Is Disney capable of that? Not really to be honest. And you can’t use the business model of a premier channel and not bring the goods. People will stop paying. They thought they could rely on name brand IPs but that’s a strategy for movie franchises and it has proven to not work so well for tv shows.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Feb 13, 2024 19:34:26 GMT 1
Too many of them, and they aren't offering enough of what people want. I’m not sure they can. Even the most successful tv channels of all time offer mostly crap that few people like. In order to maximize subscribers these “services” would need HBO quality shows all of the time. Is Disney capable of that? Not really to be honest. And you can’t use the business model of a premier channel and not bring the goods. People will stop paying. They thought they could rely on name brand IPs but that’s a strategy for movie franchises and it has proven to not work so well for tv shows. In Europe we have Viaplay and they are going for sports. F1, Premier League, Bundesliga. Im sure they will get their hands on other stuff as well at a certain point. If you can add shows and movies to that you may have businessmodel that works. I think Apple TV is going into that direction as well. It just needs to be less spread.
|
|
|
Post by WOLVERINE JACK! on Feb 13, 2024 19:39:34 GMT 1
I’m not sure they can. Even the most successful tv channels of all time offer mostly crap that few people like. In order to maximize subscribers these “services” would need HBO quality shows all of the time. Is Disney capable of that? Not really to be honest. And you can’t use the business model of a premier channel and not bring the goods. People will stop paying. They thought they could rely on name brand IPs but that’s a strategy for movie franchises and it has proven to not work so well for tv shows. In Europe we have Viaplay and they are going for sports. F1, Premier League, Bundesliga. Im sure they will get their hands on other stuff as well at a certain point. If you can add shows and movies to that you may have businessmodel that works. I think Apple TV is going into that direction as well. It just needs to be less spread. If there was just one service that had everything it would absolutely be successful. But would it be good for the consumer? It would likely be just as pricey as cable and satellite because when you corner the market you jack up the prices. So in the end, why would it be any better than cable? At the end of the day, streeaming a show is not really any different from watching it on regular tv. This whole shift in technology is just a lateral move.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Feb 13, 2024 19:52:25 GMT 1
In Europe we have Viaplay and they are going for sports. F1, Premier League, Bundesliga. Im sure they will get their hands on other stuff as well at a certain point. If you can add shows and movies to that you may have businessmodel that works. I think Apple TV is going into that direction as well. It just needs to be less spread. If there was just one service that had everything it would absolutely be successful. But would it be good for the consumer? It would likely be just as pricey as cable and satellite because when you corner the market you jack up the prices. So in the end, why would it be any better than cable? At the end of the day, streeaming a show is not really any different from watching it on regular tv. This whole shift in technology is just a lateral move. With one exception... You can watch shit when you want to instead of when the networks want you to. But its not that big of a difference. On that I agree.
|
|
|
Post by WOLVERINE JACK! on Feb 13, 2024 19:55:35 GMT 1
If there was just one service that had everything it would absolutely be successful. But would it be good for the consumer? It would likely be just as pricey as cable and satellite because when you corner the market you jack up the prices. So in the end, why would it be any better than cable? At the end of the day, streeaming a show is not really any different from watching it on regular tv. This whole shift in technology is just a lateral move. With one exception... You can watch shit when you want to instead of when the networks want you to. But its not that big of a difference. On that I agree. But I can record a show on DVR and watch it whenever, which I could also do back in the 90s with a VCR. Plus new shows are available “On Demand” after they air. So that part too is really not so different
|
|
|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Feb 13, 2024 21:26:12 GMT 1
I remember seeing a youtube comment/joke where someone said the CW was a money laundering operation lol. Honestly wouldnt surprise me. Same goes with film studios and streaming, and some of their projects. It's not like organized crime and the entertainment industry havent shaken hands before Who can blame companies, even stockholders, though? Greed wins out. Guaranteed money supply per month v unpredictable box office returns/ratings The tech world, driven by data and analytics, never knew what hit it when it collided with the squishy world of movie-making. They still fundamentally don't understand what they're involved in, as evidenced by their management approach. Netflix started the trend of simply throwing money and creative control at talent to win the content wars. I assume they felt the only metric they needed to be concerned with was whether the finished product generated or sustained subscribers. This practice created a toxic winner-takes-all market for high-end creative talent, which sent demand skyrocketing. This meant creatives controlled the market, forcing studios to overspend on content. Production companies were brokering 8- and 9-figure deals with studios/streamers to produce content (a lot of which never even got made). Then, a (lengthy) strike happens because writers weren't making any money - odd. That would be like walking out into the rain and never getting wet in that climate. Meanwhile, the producers' and directors' guilds settled with the studios faster than twin lightning strikes - clearly, they were eating. Instead of trying to force Hollywood to distribute and manage its streaming wealth more equitably and efficiently - the street thought the solution was to turn streaming into cable via FAST (which, for those of us that did not graduate Wharton, is just a fancy way to say plain-vanilla TV). But the F in FAST is a lie, as the streaming gods still want you to pay something to see those HIV treatment ads. I sure do hope that guy on the beach with the beard ponytail blowing in the wind makes it - FFS. I've never seen a business model chase its own demise more fervently. Streaming is the expensive rifle you see in the sporting goods store with the fancy scope you can use to kill deer in Romania from a cracked, dirty window in a South Bronx tenement. 'The only person who could miss with it is the sucker who had the bread to buy it in the first place.' Yeah some of these deals seemed to be dizzyingly expensive. Just for Friends to stay on Netflix but then again it is a popular show, and obviously not even new content. Scorsese with the talent. Then I think Paramount and South Park, another expensive one ironed out On the Campea show, recently he pointed out by way of some source he referenced that the top 10 shows that were being watched were all re-runs haha. A friend of mine also noted over facebook that there are less shows being made today than during the golden age of tv or a few years before which seems surprising. However, Im not sure if the strikes were counted, like you mentioned-so expensive to make or other factors involved. Ill see if I can find the source. Certainly interesting
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 13, 2024 21:29:40 GMT 1
Too many of them, and they aren't offering enough of what people want. I’m not sure they can. Even the most successful tv channels of all time offer mostly crap that few people like. In order to maximize subscribers these “services” would need HBO quality shows all of the time. Is Disney capable of that? Not really to be honest. And you can’t use the business model of a premier channel and not bring the goods. People will stop paying. They thought they could rely on name brand IPs but that’s a strategy for movie franchises and it has proven to not work so well for tv shows. We did have at least a functional version of the Streaming model back when it was just Netflix doing it, and everybody that was willing to Stream streamed through them. There was something for everyone on Netflix in the old days. The problems started when everybody started doing it.
|
|