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

101–110 of 187 posts

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

#101

Post by closetbch »

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…

you are comparing an entire group vs one show. it's not even a little surprising. you probably get a boner when someone says hell in a tv show

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by mrfusion »

nostromo wrote: post #35
echelon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is strictly worse than cable. Streaming in the 2010s was a breath of fresh air. You could find everything on one platform, watch it at your leisure, and pay way less than cable. Now we're going to have to pay more AND switch between nine different apps with broken UIs. This is god awful. All of this because of greed and a lack of regulation. We need to campaign for limited copyright (20 years), and build service…

No, it’s much better than cable. Most people don’t watch that much TV and won’t need more than one or two services. Those people are saving a ton of money. And a few people that are glued to their TVs will pay more. As they should. I’m particularly happy that I no longer have to subsidize sports, which I never watched, to the tune of $20 a month or so.

Problem is if you want one show from each service.

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

#104

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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.

The early episodes focused on Bart and glorified his delinquency. That was the primary moral panic surrounding the show.

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

#105

Post by RoyTyrell »

ravenstine wrote: post #16

While his position is [partly] accurate, it's not exactly revelatory. People, notably internet pirates, were saying this 20 years ago. People are going to get fed up if they've got to pay for dozens of streaming services to get all the shows that they want. On top of that, a lot of these platforms are still shoving ads in our faces. If streaming manages to become worse than cable, people might just spend less time wa…

> People are going to get fed up if they've got to pay for dozens of streaming services to get all the shows that they wa

I agree. You start paying $70 for internet, $15 to Netflix, $15 to Disney, $10 to Hulu and really you're back to where you were with cable. I think having a couple offerings in the universe is great for competition reasons, but I will not spend the equivalent of a cable bill to get most of what I want to watch from mutually exclusive services.

I'm not saying I'll pirate the shows I can't get, but it certainly makes a good case for that.

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

#106

Post by wincy »

brogrammernot wrote: post #15
whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

Amazon doesn’t really count as it’s an added benefit of Prime. However, all of those you listed are cheaper than adding cable to my bill. I pay for Netflix, Hulu and YoutubeTV. It’s cheaper than adding cable to my bill & that’s just absurd to me.

I just cancelled my Prime subscription since it’s $120 and it seems to just be increasing so they can make more tv shows. Super annoying.

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

#107

Post by CharlesW »

mrfusion wrote: post #103
nostromo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s much better than cable. Most people don’t watch that much TV and won’t need more than one or two services. Those people are saving a ton of money. And a few people that are glued to their TVs will pay more. As they should. I’m particularly happy that I no longer have to subsidize sports, which I never watched, to the tune of $20 a month or so.

Problem is if you want one show from each service.

What do you think of this solution? (1) Sign up for a month, (2) binge, (3) cancel.

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

#109

Post by h2odragon »

basch wrote: post #57
whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

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…

> Verizon is making a bad play not gobbling up whats left.

they're the phone company, they don't have to care. The content companies will gobble their knobs now to be allowed access to the pipes they must have. They'll take what they're given and say "thank you."

I hope thats just cynicism and it isn't that way really. Look at how they behave.

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

#110

Post by dehrmann »

barkerja wrote: post #27
echelon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is strictly worse than cable. Streaming in the 2010s was a breath of fresh air. You could find everything on one platform, watch it at your leisure, and pay way less than cable. Now we're going to have to pay more AND switch between nine different apps with broken UIs. This is god awful. All of this because of greed and a lack of regulation. We need to campaign for limited copyright (20 years), and build service…

I don't know if I'd go as far to say it's worse. Cable forced one's hand into paying for things they didn't necessarily want. At least with this model, we the consumer have the ability to pick and choose exactly what we want to pay for. If a network has shows that look appealing to you, subscribe for a couple months. If there's only one show that looks appealing, buy it on iTunes. We're never going to have an afforda…

> We're never going to have an affordable, legal, pay-once-for-everything model.

Why does it work for music, though?

Post reply on HN