Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 187 posts

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#81

Post by solipsism »

anoncake wrote: post #75
solipsism wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Popular entertainment becomes popular culture, and if you want to participate in the society and build relationships with other people, you kind of have to be at least aware of some of the current offerings of that popular culture. Oh come on. Are you really claiming that if you can talk with your friends about Stranger Things, but not Game of Thrones because you don't have HBO, then you face some kind of serious imp…

1. If cultural works are important, it's important that people can access them. 2. If they aren't, let's get rid of them and reallocate resources to more important things. 3. If allocating resources is the job of the market, then the market has decided that these cultural works are important. GOTO 1.

Who's talking about cultural works that people can't access?

What we're talking about is how much money they can access them for, and how many services they have to sign up to access them, and whether every single person needs access to every single work.

Your analysis is way too simplistic for this conversation.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#82

Post by bearcobra »

bitwize wrote: post #77
scarface74 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be that the sway of the “Moral Majority” has lost its clout. When Ellen first came out as gay on her show it was a big deal in the 90s and Murphy Brown having a child out of wedlock was a talking point by the Vice President. Now even cartoons aimed at kids show same sex couples (I can’t remember the name of the cartoon) and Disney and most corporations are ignoring them - including protest about an interracial…

They've been displaced by a new moral majority. For example, the producers have decided to erase the Michael Jackson episode of The Simpsons from history. Now that the Right People are burning books, book burning is A-OK with the Simpsons crew.

The counter argument offered by the producers to this point is there’s a difference when the author(s) decide to make an edit. If you believe the accusations against Jackson it doesn’t seem unreasonable that living people may want to dissociate from him

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#83

Post by scarface74 »

anoncake wrote: post #71
scarface74 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another post on HN about a company that needs to be broken up because they are big in some made up market. Now are we going to define a monopoly as the “Pop Culture” market. Would you also like the government to “build a market” so that everyone can have all the software they want and have the government decide what a fair amount for software is?

> Would you also like the government to “build a market” so that everyone can have all the software they want Yes, of course I would like the democratically elected government to run the economy in a sane way. > and have the government decide what a fair amount for software is? No, that would be absurd. The fair amount for software is equal to its marginal cost which is zero.

So how should we pay for software developers? Should software as service products that have hosting cost also be free?

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#84

Post by seganddr »

wolco wrote: post #55

I'm surprised by how little content will be offered for the price point that will increase shortly. The Simpsons and a new star wars show plus 500 movie titles. Max 50 titles by 2024. People may pick it up to try it but if there is nothing to keep them watching many will drop them. Surprised they are only spending a billion in new content per year and spending 150 million for 10 star wars episodes. Surprised they are…

The Mandelorian is only the first Star Wars series. There's another based on Cassian Andor (from Rogue One, Diego Luna's character) and Obi Wan with Ewan McGreggor. I am excited for all of them!

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#85

Post by chrisseaton »

grawprog wrote: post #2

>including all 30 seasons of The Simpsons; Never thought I'd see the day when a Disney service would air the Simpsons. The idea of the simpsons airing on the disney channel back in the day would have been ridiculous. Seems so strange to go from being considered one of the most notorious shows around to being carried by Disney. The very antithesis of what it was when it started. Not sure what that says more about thou…

The Simpsons was never really that controversial was it? It's fairly family-friendly. Didn't have any bad language, almost zero sexuality, zero nudity, any violence is very cartoon, its satire is pretty gentle, plot-lines are usually wholesome in the end.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#86

Post by andrepd »

bitwize wrote: post #77
scarface74 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be that the sway of the “Moral Majority” has lost its clout. When Ellen first came out as gay on her show it was a big deal in the 90s and Murphy Brown having a child out of wedlock was a talking point by the Vice President. Now even cartoons aimed at kids show same sex couples (I can’t remember the name of the cartoon) and Disney and most corporations are ignoring them - including protest about an interracial…

They've been displaced by a new moral majority. For example, the producers have decided to erase the Michael Jackson episode of The Simpsons from history. Now that the Right People are burning books, book burning is A-OK with the Simpsons crew.

Elaborate?

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#87

Post by jhbadger »

chrisseaton wrote: post #85
grawprog wrote: post #2

>including all 30 seasons of The Simpsons; Never thought I'd see the day when a Disney service would air the Simpsons. The idea of the simpsons airing on the disney channel back in the day would have been ridiculous. Seems so strange to go from being considered one of the most notorious shows around to being carried by Disney. The very antithesis of what it was when it started. Not sure what that says more about thou…

The Simpsons was never really that controversial was it? It's fairly family-friendly. Didn't have any bad language, almost zero sexuality, zero nudity, any violence is very cartoon, its satire is pretty gentle, plot-lines are usually wholesome in the end.

It totally was controversial in the beginning. It was considered worse than South Park or Family Guy are today. George H.W. Bush (the father) even made a statement that the American family should be "more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons." ("The Waltons" was a series about a wholesome family in Virginia surviving the Great Depression)

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#88

Post by seanalltogether »

paganel wrote: post #72
wolco wrote: post #55

I'm surprised by how little content will be offered for the price point that will increase shortly. The Simpsons and a new star wars show plus 500 movie titles. Max 50 titles by 2024. People may pick it up to try it but if there is nothing to keep them watching many will drop them. Surprised they are only spending a billion in new content per year and spending 150 million for 10 star wars episodes. Surprised they are…

Maybe people with kids will pick it up? Which, granted, it's a pretty big market, but even so I think you are correct on your assessment when it comes to the very few titles they'll have available. And to be honest I don't know how much they'll be able to milk the Star Wars brand, it starts looking very, very stale. Even Pixar has started losing a big part of its attractiveness since it has been acquired by Disney, w…

My daughter just started getting into Winnie the Pooh shorts and movies, which we're happy to let her watch and rewatch and rewatch, mostly because they don't annoy us. I have no doubt we'll be buying in to disney+ for her to have access to higher quality cartoons.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#89

Post by chrisseaton »

jhbadger wrote: post #87
chrisseaton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Simpsons was never really that controversial was it? It's fairly family-friendly. Didn't have any bad language, almost zero sexuality, zero nudity, any violence is very cartoon, its satire is pretty gentle, plot-lines are usually wholesome in the end.

It totally was controversial in the beginning. It was considered worse than South Park or Family Guy are today. George H.W. Bush (the father) even made a statement that the American family should be "more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons." ("The Waltons" was a series about a wholesome family in Virginia surviving the Great Depression)

> George H.W. Bush (the father) even made a statement that the American family should be "more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons."

Yeah... I get that the plot is that the family in the show are chaotic.

But that doesn't mean that the show itself is controversial, does it? It's not advocating for being like the Simpsons are.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#90

Post by wj »

chrisseaton wrote: post #89
jhbadger wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It totally was controversial in the beginning. It was considered worse than South Park or Family Guy are today. George H.W. Bush (the father) even made a statement that the American family should be "more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons." ("The Waltons" was a series about a wholesome family in Virginia surviving the Great Depression)

> George H.W. Bush (the father) even made a statement that the American family should be "more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons." Yeah... I get that the plot is that the family in the show are chaotic. But that doesn't mean that the show itself is controversial, does it? It's not advocating for being like the Simpsons are.

It's not now but is was 1990. The Simpsons and Married With Children were pretty much unlike anything else on TV at the time. The Cosby Show was pretty popular if that gives you a contrast.
Post reply on HN