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

Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 844 posts

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#71

Post by Retric »

Spivak wrote: post #45
libertine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be my prediction: the usage of piracy to consume this type of content will increase. And they will blame PLATFORM X (or just the ol'piratebay) for the losses of revenue, when in reality it's just a matter of people not being able to access content because everything has a paywall gate. It's like they want to bring cable TV back to the internet, and you had massive bills just for channels subscriptions.

I mean maybe but so many people have prime for the shipping that I doubt it will do anything to stir piracy.

You need to be ordering from Amazon weekly to break even on Prime for shipping costs. It’s likely worth it for some people but it really doesn’t fit my habits.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#72

Post by ajaimk »

Pxtl wrote: post #65
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #23

So what we're seeing is a repeat of the film industry from 1930's-1950's. You want to see a Paramount movie, you must go to a Paramount theater. Today you want to watch an Apple show you must go to Apple's VOD. We could really use laws that force, once again, some sort of separation between production and distribution. Better stuff gets made in this kind of ecosystem.

One wrinkle of that era was how they even had their own stable of actors working for them exclusively. The new vertical integration doesn't seem to be going that far down. I imagine there's not as much interest in that, and actors have a powerful union now.

That’s kinda happening now too but with directors that have signed first look deals with VOD providers.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#73

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

xixixao wrote: post #26
someperson wrote: post #17

This makes it very likely that the beloved Stargate franchise will return as an Amazon Prime exclusive franchise, which will be great news for those of us like myself with appetite for 60+ more seasons of that show (after the 17 seasons that have already been made). I watched the sci-fi show "The Expanse" on Amazon Prime Video. Season 4 (the one made by Amazon Prime Video) felt like it had a tenth of the budget compa…

I started watching SG1 again (I saw it incomplete as a kid). It’s incredibly good. It pushes rationalism and feminism in a sane way that I’m not sure would happen in today’s environment. It’s incredibly rich in historical references and concepts. It’s rarely dumb and often preempts cliches. It’s still worth watching imho (and is much less known that Star Trek in US).

The characters are so good. The plot lines are great. The enemies are actually bad.

While TNG is idealistic and more or less wholesome, SG1 definitely lines up with DS9 in that it's more real/gritty yet still has all the hope, fun, morals, ethics, etc.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#74

Post by rchaud »

wut42 wrote: post #16

> The deal can be viewed as a doubling down on business strategy that Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, articulated at a conference in 2016: “When we win a Golden Globe, it helps us sell more shoes,” he had said, referring to Amazon's diverse business divisions. This part is a real nugget.

Indeed. The acquisition opens up numerous product placement opportunities. I can't wait to watch John Krasinski watching a mission briefing with his mPow 2021 Slim Noise Cancelling Bluetooth USB-C headphones.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#75

Post by mivade »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #63
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #23

So what we're seeing is a repeat of the film industry from 1930's-1950's. You want to see a Paramount movie, you must go to a Paramount theater. Today you want to watch an Apple show you must go to Apple's VOD. We could really use laws that force, once again, some sort of separation between production and distribution. Better stuff gets made in this kind of ecosystem.

> Today you want to watch an Apple show you must go to Apple's VOD. When I was a kid, if you wanted to watch an NBC show, you had to watch it on an NBC network. What is the difference? At least nowadays you can just pay, watch, and cancel at your leisure with the click of a few buttons.

The difference is simple: NBC was (and still is) free to watch if you have a television and an antenna.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#76

Post by [deleted] »

someperson wrote: post #17

This makes it very likely that the beloved Stargate franchise will return as an Amazon Prime exclusive franchise, which will be great news for those of us like myself with appetite for 60+ more seasons of that show (after the 17 seasons that have already been made). I watched the sci-fi show "The Expanse" on Amazon Prime Video. Season 4 (the one made by Amazon Prime Video) felt like it had a tenth of the budget compa…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#77

Post by tzs »

I wonder if Amazon will change MGM's stance on "Movies Anywhere"? MGM is one of the few major studios that currently does not participate in that.

OT: how the heck does MA actually work?

Suppose I buy a movie from Apple that came from a studio that supports MA. It almost immediately shows up in my Amazon Prime Video library, my Fandango library, and others. I then stream it using the Fandango app on my TV.

Does it stream from Fandango's servers? If so, who pays for that bandwidth?. Fandango accounts are free, so I've not paid them any money. Do they just eat it, assuming it will balance out due to people who bought from Fandango streaming on other services? Or does MA tell Fandango that I bought the movie from Apple and Fandango periodically bills Apple for Apple store movies played via Fandango?

Or does it stream from some common CDN that keeps track of all this and bills each seller for their share of bandwidth?

Or does some magic happen so that even though I'm playing the movie in the Fandango app, it is actually streaming from Apple servers?

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#78

Post by echelon »

edent wrote: post #69
lotsofpulp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today you want to watch an Apple show you must go to Apple's VOD. When I was a kid, if you wanted to watch an NBC show, you had to watch it on an NBC network. What is the difference? At least nowadays you can just pay, watch, and cancel at your leisure with the click of a few buttons.

I'm unfamiliar with US television - but was NBC broadcast free to air, via a government regulated transmitter?

It wasn't bundled with a subscription to eCommerce/grocery store/ebook/video streaming.

This is going to force subsidization of all entertainment. Then big tech will gobble it all up.

We're going to have a lot of Netflix Original-caliber shit that gets cancelled once viewership changes.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#79

Post by CubsFan1060 »

jerf wrote: post #49
xixixao wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started watching SG1 again (I saw it incomplete as a kid). It’s incredibly good. It pushes rationalism and feminism in a sane way that I’m not sure would happen in today’s environment. It’s incredibly rich in historical references and concepts. It’s rarely dumb and often preempts cliches. It’s still worth watching imho (and is much less known that Star Trek in US).

I consider it hands down better than any Star Trek except possibly TNG. And that's giving TNG some grace due to being a bit older; take that away and I'll give SG-1 the prize. I will agree that people can reasonably disagree about Deep Space Nine vs SG-1. But that's the level of quality we're talking about, in my opinion. It's top tier, and much less well known. Also strongly recommend binging the first season in par…

I agree with all of this, but especially the last bit.

It sets up the stories to come, even if some of it borderline contradicts SG-1. The characters that go from the movie to the TV show are much more likable in the TV show.

Post reply on HN