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

181–187 of 187 posts

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

#181

Post by echelon »

scarface74 wrote: post #164
echelon wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every commercial product is designed for maximum ROI. Not true with art. > You really think movie theaters would rather show movies that don’t fill it? Disney takes a larger cut per screen, so the theater actually makes less money on Disney films. If they don't show Disney films on their best screens, they'll lose the right to show any Disney films. It's extortion. [1] [2] > Ever heard of Blumhouse? Their entire bu…

Disney takes a larger cut per screen, so the theater actually makes less money on Disney films. If they don't show Disney films on their best screens, they'll lose the right to show any Disney films. It's extortion. [1] [2] Movie theaters have never made most of their money from ticket sales. They make money from concessions.

> Movie theaters have never made most of their money from ticket sales. They make money from concessions.

We're getting nitpicky here.

Theaters still make money through ticket sales, though the studios take most of the revenue [1]. Sometimes theaters earn over 50% of revenue. It depends on the film. Disney takes more than anyone, leaving barely anything for theaters. Better not sneak in any snacks to their films or you'll be stiffing the theater!

But the bottom line is that Disney dictates what gets shown and when. If theaters don't give up as many screens as Disney wants, they'll lose their rights to Disney films outright. And that isn't fair.

[1] https://theweek.com/articles/647394/when-buy-movie-ticket-wh...

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

#182

Post by scarface74 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #154
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…

> 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 impediment to participating in society? That strikes me as completely ridiculous. Perhaps not serious, but an impediment, yes. Stranger Things is not for everyone, but Game of Thrones actually was the #1 topic in the office at previo…

You'll note I'm only talking about exclusivity here, not IP ownership. The money for streaming, say, GoT would still go to HBO regardless of where they were streamed, but HBO shouldn't be able to refuse to license other platforms to steal it.

Let’s talk software, should developers who write GPL software be forced to allow on the iOS App Store? Should GPL 3 software not be allowed to ban TiVo from using it? What If I have a SASS offering and I don’t want it to be used in a Confederate Memorabilia store. Should that right be taken away from me? What if I have a Christian movie, Pornhub opened a digital video store and I decided not to license it to them, is that not my right?

Right now, Mongo’s license doesn’t allow AWS to host a managed offering even though you can download the same software and host it on an EC2 instance for free. Should that not be allowed either?

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

#183

Post by scarface74 »

zanny wrote: post #92
AJ007 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And how is that different than VC backed startups?

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

#184

Post by anoncake »

scarface74 wrote: post #177
anoncake wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public broadcasting isn’t exactly producing great content. I frankly don't know if our experiences differ that much or if your mind is clouded by ideology. > Do you really want broadcasting to be controlled by the government? Of course not, that would be even worse than private broadcasting is. > What happens when the “other party” is in power? I don't understand the question. Which "other party" do you mean? There…

If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings, do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? China had an economy but resources weren’t properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed.

> If the “public” is funding broadcasting [...] do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government?

This is not a hypothetical question, public broadcasters do exist and do criticize their governments. Will your next question be if public healthcare can work better than what the USA is doing?

> If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings

Then whoever drafted that law didn't do their job which would have included researching how public broadcasters around the world are organized. Or they're British and think limiting the power of Parliament is for Europeans, Colonials and other wimps anyway.

> China had an economy but resources weren’t properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed.

Thanks for telling me things that I already know. I didn't write "Considering that the planners of the eastern block had to greatly simplify their plans and still weren't able to finish their calculations within 5 years," for decoration.

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

#185

Post by scarface74 »

anoncake wrote: post #184
scarface74 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings, do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? China had an economy but resources weren’t properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed.

> If the “public” is funding broadcasting [...] do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? This is not a hypothetical question, public broadcasters do exist and do criticize their governments. Will your next question be if public healthcare can work better than what the USA is doing? > If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings Then…

And a quick Google search....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279

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

#186

Post by anoncake »

scarface74 wrote: post #185
anoncake wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the “public” is funding broadcasting [...] do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? This is not a hypothetical question, public broadcasters do exist and do criticize their governments. Will your next question be if public healthcare can work better than what the USA is doing? > If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings Then…

And a quick Google search.... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279

Carry on?

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

#187

Post by slovette »

anoncake wrote: post #158
slovette wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to be rude: I’m not sure you really know what “marginal cost” means and it’s relation to a product’s economic impact. Twice, so far, you’ve used it here in the wrong context.

Please explain then.

I didn’t see this response, apologies.

It seems you keep referencing: marginal cost == value. That’s very untrue. Indeed marginal cost is a factor in value, but is most certainly not directly relational.

Simply put, value is ascertained by a product’s measure of overall impact. An example would be a simple script that tally’s an employee’s hours from clock in and clock out times. Say a task that once took a bookkeeper an hour to do, with the script takes .1 seconds.

Let’s say the script cost $5 to create but zero dollars to duplicate. It doesn’t mean it’s value is zero. It’s value is equivalently equal to the hour of bookkeeping time that person saved multiplied by however many times the task is used in any given time frame.

Marginal Cost is 0. But the value is far from it. A similar exercise is done to evaluate the value of entertainment. Different factors, but same idea.

Post reply on HN