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

91–100 of 187 posts

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

#91

Post by jhbadger »

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.

I guess what people like Bush didn't like about it was that Homer was seen as stupid (and traditionally the father figure on shows was wise and could give good advice to his children) and that Bart was a troublemaker.

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

#92

Post by zanny »

AJ007 wrote: post #80
basch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CBS/Viacom/Paramount/Nickelodeon/Showtime. Sony. Disney/Hulu/ESPN count as one, though you can buy smaller packages. ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal, WarnerMedia, and Disney will still be the big 4 of all the ones you listed. Amazon, Apple, and Netflix have minuscule content libraries by comparison. After people binge through new shows, the big 4 will be the ones holding all the old content. Netflix cant afford to produce co…

How will there be a race to the bottom on price, when companies like Netflix are barely cashflow positive right now? Will subscribers really decide to pay $5 a month for a subscription with a bunch of shows they don’t want to watch instead of $10 a month for a subscription with a few shows they really want to see? How are these companies going to deliver more video ad value per viewer than someone like Google does wi…

These companies will treat streaming like they treat all other markets dominated by networking effects and mindshare - dig into their vast scrooge mcduck money pits they have been accumulating (mostly internationally) for the last 10 years to sell the services below cost to try to attrition out the competition so they can reign alone as the last corporation standing.

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

#93

Post by behringer »

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.

When I was a kid I wasn't allowed to watch it :S

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

#95

Post by LeifCarrotson »

phkahler wrote: post #94

Dear Disney. Instead of streaming, why not build a nationwide Disney network? 3-6 Subchannels of Disney 24/7. I'll watch that with my kids, ads and all. But were not paying for your streaming stuff.

What? You'd show ads to your kids? And would watch on Disney's schedule, not on demand? You can do your thing, but that sounds like exactly the opposite of what I want.

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

#96

Post by chrisseaton »

jhbadger wrote: post #91
chrisseaton wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I guess what people like Bush didn't like about it was that Homer was seen as stupid (and traditionally the father figure on shows was wise and could give good advice to his children) and that Bart was a troublemaker.

Father figures have been buffoons and families have been chaotic on TV for decades - the Flintstones back in the 60s for example.

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

#97

Post by grawprog »

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 was at a time when cartoons that came even remotely close to dealing with serious subject matter was deemed to be an adult cartoon. It was a big deal at the time and a lot of the tropes and stuff in the Simpsons that seem tame and trope like today were originally from the Simpsons.

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

#98

Post by behringer »

chrisseaton wrote: post #96
jhbadger wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what people like Bush didn't like about it was that Homer was seen as stupid (and traditionally the father figure on shows was wise and could give good advice to his children) and that Bart was a troublemaker.

Father figures have been buffoons and families have been chaotic on TV for decades - the Flintstones back in the 60s for example.

What parents didn't like about it was it dealt with grown up themes, had grown up jokes, and covered grown up problems, but it was a cartoon, one of the first of it's kind on regular tv aimed at adults. It was a show for adults. Just because the show was probably clean enough to air on tv doesn't mean kids should be watching it.

On top of that all the characters are mildly annoying when their catch phrases are repeated ad nauseam by little kids.

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

#99

Post by fragmede »

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.

To echo that it was the 90's, Bart Simpson says "Hell" in one of the earlier episodes - not even interesting these days, but there was a huge uproar over such indecent profanity, in a cartoon to boot! Also keep in mind that back then, cartoons were the purview of kids - (the thinking went) no self-respecting adult would watch cartoons. Thus, Simpsons had to pave the way for cartoons being aimed at mature audiences, and not just the Saturday morning kids slot.

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

#100

Post by chrisseaton »

fragmede wrote: post #99
chrisseaton wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To echo that it was the 90's, Bart Simpson says "Hell" in one of the earlier episodes - not even interesting these days, but there was a huge uproar over such indecent profanity, in a cartoon to boot! Also keep in mind that back then, cartoons were the purview of kids - (the thinking went) no self-respecting adult would watch cartoons . Thus, Simpsons had to pave the way for cartoons being aimed at mature audiences,…

> cartoons were the purview of kids - (the thinking went) no self-respecting adult would watch cartoons ... Simpsons had to pave the way for cartoons being aimed at mature audiences, and not just the Saturday morning kids slot.

This just isn't true - the Flintstones was prime-time back in 1960, shown at 8:30pm, exactly the same slot as the Simpsons. Fred and Wilma were shown in bed together. That was almost thirty years before the Simpsons.

> Bart Simpson says "Hell" in one of the earlier episodes

And Wilma said 'bollocks' in a Flintstones episode!

Post reply on HN