(Thread IKs:
muscles like this!)
|
That's the main reason they are all pushing for ad supported tiers and FAST. The real collapse is going to be in the advertising industry and it's going to yank the legs out from under everything else. Right now, companies are still overpaying for ad placement within shows (even if that price has been dropping) so the media companies are trying to cash in on that while they can. We are very quickly approaching a point though where traditional advertising becomes nearly worthless. Why spend the money with an ad agency producing a commercial and then pay a media conglomerate for a commercial slot when they can toss a comparatively tiny amount of money at some youtuber or the latest flavor on tiktok to drink a Coke in their videos? The drying up of ad revenue is going to expose the next dirty secret that everyone already knows. They are overproducing content. Take even just movies. In 2000, there were 371 movies released. In 2018, there were 873 movies released. That did crash because of COVID, but we're seeing a rebound with 449 movies released in 2022. TV has seen similar explosion. In 2009, there were 210 original TV series. In 2022 that number was 599. These series and movies also keep getting more and more expensive. It's unsustainable.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
thrawn527 posted:edit: I THINK it says it started dying in 2018? But why? And is this streaming exclusive? (What defines "Pay TV"?) This is cable TV. VMVPD refers to Virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (YoutubeTV, Hulu with LiveTV, Fubo, Sling...). This is YOY growth. Prior to 2018, it was near flat as people were transitioning from Cable to VMVPD (just moving one bucket to another bucket), but now even the VMVPDs are losing subscribers as people reject linear TV altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
As to what happened in 2018, my guess is FAST. Turns out a chunk of people don't actually care all that much what they watch, they just want to have the burden of choice removed for background noise. Why pay $80 /month to watch Star Trek:TNG reruns on BBCA while you are doom scrolling when you can just turn on PlutoTV for free?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:It hits different knowing there's a guy out there on a radio tower cranking all the levers and knobs to broadcast science waves directly to my ears from a mysterious machine that hasn't even got an operating system to run windows groove. Except well, there isn't. The vast majority of radio stations in this country are automated from a central location with DJs (if they even have them) that are probably over 1000 miles away from you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Pluto is basically my mst3k slash rifftrax channel I turn on during work or when I’m cleaning. Keep your Joel and Mike fan fiction to yourself. IRQ posted:Tiktok happened is certainly part of it. I'm sure it had an effect, but tiktok demos don't overlap all that exactly with those who are paying for linear TV.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 00:16
|
|
|
Collateral posted:BBCA costs $80 a month? Good lord. How much does Britbox cost over there? The $80 is the cable service you need to buy to get it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
BBCA is another dead channel walking. Not that I have any complaint about hours of Star Trek, but they kinda missed the brief of what their channel was about. Today's schedule. 6:30am-10:30am Star Trek:TNG 10:30am Galaxy Quest 12:45pm Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 3:15pm Stargate 6pm Starship Troopers 9pm Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 11:30pm Galaxy Quest So, one feature film that's related to something British? I mean, I don't have any complaints about what specifically they are running other than it could just as easily be IFC or AMC or Sundance. Sat is all nature docs capped off by "The 5th Element" and "Dredd". Sunday is more nature docs and Hollywood movies. Otherwise, throughout the week, it's Star Trek:TNG, Bones, Law and Order, and a handful of movies. There's zero British scripted content and the only stuff that's BBC produced are the various nature docs. BBCA is just another AMC subchannel now. But yeah, that's emblamtic of the issue with cable right now. You had all these niche stations, these niche stations were eventually bought up by conglomerates either directly or through acquisition of their parent company. At that point, those stations just become another programming slot for the parent company that may not even have licensing rights (or plan on producing original content) that matches the point of the channel in the first place. So, what then happens is instead of having a channel driven around a particular interest/genre, they just becoming a dumping ground of syndicated content that the parent has licensing for while original content gets doled out to the marquee station in the lineup (in this case, AMC). We now have like 60 general entertainment channels that just show syndicated shows and movies in 3 hour time slots for 90% of their airtime. Then enter FAST. While you have this generalization happening with network channels that you have to pay for, FAST goes the opposite direction by giving you hyper specific channels for just a single show (or franchise) for 100% free. So why watch 4 hours of Star Trek TNG on BBCA when you can watch one of 3 different Star Trek 24/7 streams on Pluto TV for free? BBCA not showing "Top Gear" anymore or British mystery shows? No problem, there's a FAST channel for that (there's more British content on Tubi in an hour than BBCA has in a month.) Syfy showing "Transporter 3" instead of some classic scifi? Go stream some Twilight Zone, Stargate, or Farscape on PlutoTV. Hell, have an Asylum movie marathon while you're at it. Everything has just grown too big. There are too many channels with most of their lineup being reruns. It's a strange state of affairs when we simultaneously have too much conent being produced but also have too many channels for the amount of content we have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
Eh, most of the services have OnDemand libraries too, but the coverage may be incomplete depending on the licensing agreement. You can watch Star Trek: TOS OnDemand on PlutoTV, but it's only Season 1. Star Trek: TNG is only Season 3. I don't view FAST as a suitable way to watch something for the first time, but it's background noise TV which is what the vast majority of linear TV ends up being. Westworld is one of the few shows moved to FAST that you can still buy (digital and physical), so I would just recommend that if you wanted to actually sit down and watch the series. That, unfortunately, is not an option you have with something like "Raised by Wolves." After all the shenanigans in the past year, I'm buying physical whenever possible or buying digital when I can't do that. I can still watch all three seasons of "Final Space" from my Amazon account because I bought them when they aired. They usually stop sale on stuff the blackhole for tax reasons, but already purchased stuff is USUALLY safe (but can never be as safe as a physical copy.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
Those were all created prior to AMC Networks purchasing a 49.9% stake in the network in 2014. Oddly enough, those were done under Discovery's ownership of the 49.9%.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
The biggest distinction is that it collapses the distribution model. Cable -> Warner Brothers Discovery reaches a licensing deal with AMC for Babylon 5. AMC schedules Babylon 5 on their channel and sells the ad space to make money. That money, combined with carriage fees that they get from the cable operators, is what allows them to license content. Cable companies use subscriber fees to pay the carriage costs and operating costs. Warner Brother's take is essentially the licencing agreement. If Babylon 5 is somehow widely successful for AMC and the price for the ad slots shoot up, that's unlikely to make Warner Brothers more money unless there was some sort of revenue sharing baked into the agreement, but I don't think that's common. FAST -> Warner Brothers Discovery works with various companies to create one or more channels. These companies specialize in programming (what should be shown when) and channel creation (graphics, metadata, encoding, all the technical stuff.) Warner Brothers Discovery then pays a FAST provider to carry the channel for some nominal fee. In some cases though, the provider will pay Warner Brothers Discovery to carry the channel if it's desirable content that they want exclusive access to. Here's the REALLY important bit. Ad.revenue.sharing. There are a bunch of different models. In some the FAST provider manages the inventory of ads and the channel and provider split the ad payout. In other instances, both the provider and channel creator have their own ad inventory and they split the available slots. However, no matter what, Warner Brothers Discovery gets paid DIRECTLY for ad revenue on the platform. More people watch, more money they get. It also makes the calculus for residuals easier for them. If they have good enough programming directors, they can figure out what level of ad load will break even to pay the residuals on something so they can ensure that this particular show streaming isn't going to make them lose money. That is why they pulled the show from their normal streaming library in the first place. "Lovecraft Country" isn't likely to get Max net new subscribers, so anytime someone streams it, they take a hit financially that likely isn't being made up for through new or continued subscriber fees or the level of ads that run on ad supported tiers. So, they punt it to FAST where it will almost certainly make some money, even if a small amount. So, that's really it. FAST allows the content creators to more directly monetize their properties, cutting out the network middle man and getting immediate revenue based on views. It's an end run around the traditional cable distribution model with fixed network channels. You can be drat sure that premium FAST will be coming down the pipeline soon where they introduce a subscriber fee for some premium (ad supported) channels, thus completing the rebirth of cable without networks or cable companies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2024 04:27
|
|
|
Too many movies spend their audience attention budget trying to build a cinematic universe instead of just putting together an entertaining and engaging movie from start to end. You can do both, but you have to put priority on the whole "coherent and entertaining movie" part. Monster Hunter is another example of this. There's no satisfying conclusion of the plot of that movie because, well, it doesn't conclude. A new objective is introduced in the last 30 seconds of the movie and it just..ends (not without a mid-credit teaser roll though.) Even if they would have just ended the movie a bit earlier and still included the teaser, it would have been a better ending to the movie (not necessarily a better movie though. It is Paul Anderson after all.) As much blame as you can heap on Marvel for this trend, they actually were doing it correctly (at least at the start.) If you look at Ironman, there were certainly comic book easter eggs throughout, but it was a singular story that had a beginning, middle, and end. That was really the point of the mid credit teasers, to hint at what's next without having to make the plot of your movie in service of it. If you make an audience sit through 90 minutes of buildup to find out that the plot doesn't even have a satisfying resolution and instead they were doing homework for what's to come, they are going to be pissed (obvious exceptions excluded like LOTR and Dune where it was made clear from the start that the story was too big to be told in one movie.) "Enter the Spiderverse" is another one that got it right. Everyone knew from word go that this could be a jumping off point for a whole series of movies in this vein, but you don't watch and enjoy the movie for that. You watch it because it's a good movie that can stand on its own even if never led to anything else and you only had the most cursory familiarity with Spider-Man. Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum with something like "The Batman" which mercifully doesn't include Batman's origin flashbacks for once but still manages to be a bloated 3 hours. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jan 8, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
I regularly sit down to watch Star Trek:TMP and I was bored through most of “The Batman.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Another great example is how the newest Mortal Kombat movie ends with them preparing for the actual Mortal Kombat tournament. The whole movie is Shang Tsung trying to cheat and kill people before the actual tournament and that's the movie. Yup, that was the other recent example I was struggling to remember.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
mutantIke posted:That's really just an obsession of Paul W.S. Anderson's. He's been doing it since his first Resident Evil movie, the man loves a stinger I mean, a stinger can be fine, but you have to have resolved enough in your own movie to make it feel earned. I’m fine with the ending of the first Resident Evil movie because enough was resolved. We know who Alice is, she regains her memory. We know what she was doing trying to be a whistleblower about what Umbrella was working on. We know who set the virus in motion and we get his satisfying end. The major plot threads introduced in the movie were resolved throughout the movie so the fact that it leans in to a sequel at the end isn’t as egregious. With Monster Hunter, the whole plot of the movie is trying to get home, she does, but then goes back because monsters are a threat. They engage with a dragon. Boom, end credits. Mid fight. We don’t really learn anything about this new world, why things seem to be getting worse about stuff crossing between worlds, really anything about the Sky Tower (and the hooded figure at the end). We don’t even get to see the outcome of their fight with the dragon. We didn’t learn anything really about the world. The characters didn’t undergo any sort of growth arc. It was half survival movie, then exposition dump that really doesn’t even tell us all that much, then the movie ends like they ran out of budget.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
I think it has one of the best cold opens too. The action is in flashback and stays just long enough to show the brutality of the fight. Otherwise it’s cool, collected Bond who has the situation fully under control from the start. The slow realization on Dryden’s face that he’s going to be the second kill. “Yes, Considerably.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
The car chase to get The Penguin was one of the dumbest things I’ve seen put on the big screen, especially for a movie that’s praised as high as “The Batman.” Batman causes how many deaths on the highway doing a high speed chase simply because he thinks The Penguin is the informant, only to find out that he isn’t. 1) The carnage level on the highway should have Batman branded as the villain. It causes more death and destruction than Danny DeVito did in “Batman Returns” when he straight up hijacks Batman’s car. I don’t even get the sense that they were trying to make any sort of statement with it either, it’s just treated as an action sequence. 2) Batman is chasing after him basically on a hunch. 3) They catch him and are like “this princess is in another castle” stuff about him being the informant, but they should still have him on major drug charges, but Batman just kinda leaves (I think, it’s been awhile since I watched it.) 4) This whole drat frantic chase was unnecessary anyways. The Penguin is a known figure with known hangouts and there was no indication that he was going to run and go to ground. Batman didn’t have to chase him. He could have picked him up at any time. Not denying that the new Batmobile is cool and it should have a scene in the movie, but they could have excised that whole section with ZERO effect on the overall plot of the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
ymgve posted:The worst thing is that a chase between the penguin and the batmobile should be over in like 5 seconds. You mean the multi-billion dollar war machine can’t outrun a normal car? The speed is tied to the tempo of the song playing on the radio and Batman has “Something in the Way” on repeat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
I didn’t hate the movie, liked it even, but it could have easily lost 35 minutes and been a much more tight film as a result (and it STILL would have been almost a 2.5 hr movie.) It being 4 minutes shy of 3 hours is indefensible. There’s only so many times Batman can approach from the darkness in slow motion to the same 3 bars of a Nirvana song.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:You know, a version of Batman where Gotham City is a giant decrepit interstellar colony ship that got lost and is drifting through perpetual interstellar night would be a good Elseworlds take. That would be a really Dark City.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
I've read the first two books so far and I'm kinda excited for Neflix adaptation since I felt the translation really held me back from fully enjoying some neat heady concepts. It was specifically the dialog. I'm sure it reads well in the original Chinese, but the English translation had me going constantly "no one talks like this", kinda pulling me out of the story. This is especially true for the non-Chinese characters in the book. Yeah, I was also screaming at the pages as I read book two about the massive military blunder that was clearly about to happen that seemed to only serve as a way to wrap up that stage of the story quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 03:04
|
|
|
So Amazon raises prices of Prime video with this dumb no-ad tier but then turns around and gets rid of hundreds of MGM and Prime Video employees.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Stuck at the airport and just saw Doug Jones walking through. Owns. If I were him, I would always walk with the weird flowy arm thing he does when doing aliens and monsters.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
I mean, a group that famously picks and chooses facts to frame their world view deliberately misinterpreting media seems decidedly on brand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
I’ve said this before, but if I was a soulless money grubbing Disney exec I would do the following if new episodes with existing voice cast became impossible in some way. Go back and re-animate the first 20.5 seasons in HD with the existing voice track. It would be a lot cheaper than new episodes and then you would have two decades to find replacement voice actors. Remix the seasons even (since there’s no continuity) so that people get used to the VAs sounding different as they aged into their characters which would make it even easier to replace them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I'm sure there were circumstances that led to that happening for your mom, but that isn't normally the case. 73 isn't really all that old anymore, if you're otherwise healthy. Yeah, really depends on the person. My mom just turned 73 this past December (and my Dad 72 a few months earlier) and we went to Universal Studios in 2023 and they rode all the rides (and did like 7 miles of walking a day for a week). I’m actually going with them to Hawaii in a few months and we’ll be walking all over the drat place. That’s not to say I haven’t noticed them slowing down a little, because they have, but that’s going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
The amount of ambiguity in all of this makes me think they are in active negotiations for a new host, they are trying to lowball, and are going to say “see the show works just as well without a host so maybe we don’t need you.” What’s stranger about all of this is that they have brought new correspondents onboard during the guest host era. So, it’s not like they were pulling back on developing the show.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
Here's my prediction on how the Daily Show stuff is going to pan out. Monday ratings are going to be a ton higher than the other 3 days. They end up renaming the show "The Daily Show: Weekly Edition with John Stewart" and that's the only version that airs on Comedy Central. Otherwise the correspondents do a half dozen or so 10 minute segments that they release throughout the week on Paramount+.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2024 02:43
|
|
|
Reruns of South Park are cheaper than producing 3 nights of extra shows that have no ratings draw due to a lack of host.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
Watching "The Plot Against America" was one of the worst things I did to my mental health in 2020.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2024 16:03
|
|
|
No one is too high level for anything. It just comes down to the individual's ego and whether or not they actually want to do something. Leaving the show might have been what he wanted/needed to do at the time, but it doesn't mean he didn't enjoy himself when he was there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Pluto TV has a Rifftrax and MST3K channels. It also has two Star Trek channels and a Stargate channel. Perfect background fodder. The [Adult Swim] app also has marathon streams of several shows that don't require login to watch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
I’m still super annoyed that Hulu doesn’t have playlist functionality. I would often have FXX on as I work in the afternoon since it’s just KOTH, Simpsons, and Bob’s Burgers. All of that stuff and more is on Hulu. I just wish I could dump all the Archer, American Dad, Bob’s Burgers, KOTH, select seasons of the Simpsons into a massive playlist and hit shuffle. That would be peak background TV for me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
It’s a disconnect between how they want us to consume content vs how we actually want to. I somehow managed to get on the Disney Insider’s thing for Disney+ and get surveys from time to time and the questions are just nonsensical. You get stuff like “how easy is it to discover content on Disney+ based on the mood you are in”. That’s not how I or anyone else watches stuff. Sure, I’ll occasionally open a service without knowing EXACTLY what I want to watch and browse, but at most I’ll do that based on genre category or new releases or something. “How easy do you find it to discover content based on studio”. You are projecting a brand loyalty on me that doesn’t exist. I don’t fire up a streaming service and go “you know what I’m in the mood for today? A lionsgate movie. Doesn’t matter which. I just know Lionsgate will entertain me right now.” They jump through all these permutations on how to serve up content and yet their management tools remain some variation of “Continue Watching” or “Watchlist”. I can make a playlist on Youtube, why not Hulu or Disney+ or Max?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I work in product on content discovery at a major streaming service, and let me tell you, it's even more frustrating from the inside. There have been times where I’ve just closed the survey because ranking anything just felt like lying. It’s such a bizarro window into a world I completely do not understand. “How would you rank the app on your ability to choose content based on trending popularity.” I have no loving clue because that’s not how I make my watch decisions! bull3964 fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Feb 1, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
Having Nikki Haley on to joke about how she dog whistled to white supremacists is pretty loving gross as are all the news outlets headlining it as "Nikki Haley jokes about gaffe on SNL." A gaffe is mispronouncing someone's name or stumbling over your words in a speech or misremembering something. It isn't reframing the root cause of the civil war to kowtow to racists in your party and continuing to double down on it. Stop normalizing this crap!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
The fact that every news mention of him isn’t prefaced with “adjudicated rapist facing 91 felony counts” tells you all you need to know about how the media is framing the 2024 election. They want a horse race goddamnit and they will normalize any behavior they have to in order to make it a horse race.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
This one of the reasons why I really didn’t enjoy when Charlamagne Tha God hosted the Daily Show. Not that he was pro-Trump, because he sure as hell wasn’t. It was because he would counter every Trump piece of news with “but Biden is sure old and doesn’t know where he is most of the time, am i right” and then go off on how “is this the best we can do?” That mindset just reinforces the idea that it’s a zero sum game when it sure as hell isn’t. Do I wish we had someone who was born after we landed on the moon as a party nominee? gently caress yeah. But that’s not where we are at the moment. Old guy is old isn’t the height of comedy and pushing this nihilistic narrative at this point is irresponsible. If you want to add balance to the “less than ideal choice” situation, then you start talking about how everyone needs to focus on elections closer to home since they shape the national stage, it just takes a decade or two to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
I love that they got Linda Hamilton to say "Korvo and Terry sucked and hosed their way into restoring humanity through the power of love."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2024 02:44
|
|
|
Huh, Comcast is putting Season 1 and 2 of Resident Alien on Netflix on Feb 13th ahead of the Season 3 start. Guess Peacock isn't getting enough eyes for them. Season 3 will still be exclusive to Peacock for next day streaming after the episode airs on Syfy/USA.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
You know, I was sitting there thinking, there are a dearth of streaming services. Someone should recitfy that. https://www.engadget.com/espn-fox-a...56.html?src=rss quote:Three of the biggest sports TV companies in the US — ESPN, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery — will launch a streaming sports service in the fall of 2024, the companies said in a joint statement on Tuesday. It will stream sporting events from networks that all three companies own, including games from the NFL, MLB, NHL, and the NBA. Importantly, subscribers will also be able to stream linear channels, including ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS, ABC, FOX, FS1, FS2, BTN, TNT, TBS, truTV, and ESPN+, helpful for anyone thinking about canceling cable. Though, if this finally de-couples sports expenditure from everything else, I'm all for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 00:19
|
|