Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney's content library only appeals to very specific demographics. Mostly just kids and the Avengers/Star Wars crowd. Netflix has something for literally everyone.
Disney has a lot of adult content as well (via subsidiaries), but as far as I know they have pushed most of this to Hulu. But yes, as a guy in his 30s, Disney+ provides nothing compelling to me. I do pay for Hulu though
Netflix's New Chapter
271–280 of 314 posts
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Content is expensive to produce. Disney+ is not just a streaming platform for existing Disney content, rather, Disney produce content for it. Likewise, Netflix spends most of its money on content, operating the actual platform is comparatively cheap.
Yeah, D+ is churning out an enormous volume of what would be considered prestige content at other services. All the Star Wars and Marvel shows are star-studded and larded with top-tier visual effects. And some of them aren't really getting a lot of viewers from what the rumors say.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#273The first time I've seen a well written critique of activist investors like Carl Icahn. He certainly scuttled any chance that Blockbuster had of succeeding. He's often right about small details when it comes to traditional companies and where to cut costs (as are many activist investors), but this story reads like he sabotaged Blockbuster when it had an actual substantial and viable chance to compete. I had not heard…
https://www.inc.com/quora/how-early-streaming-video-led-to-u...
I wonder what ever happened to them.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#274I wonder if the time isn't ripe for a kind of "meta" service. Essentially, one group provides the content, branding, some kind of licensing data structure describing date ranges and countries, and so on. An abstracted look and feel. Another service spits out the app and has the streaming infrastructure. The apps produced would have the benefit of reaching many, many platforms and so deduplicate a lot of the work gett…
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're going to spent $100 million on a movie, why settle for a boring plot and pedestrian dialog? I watched the La Brea show for a while. Lots of expensive special effects. But the dialog was just pablum. The characters each talked like they were the same person - using the same words and phrases. They behaved the same, too.
Because it makes money anyway and getting actually good people would cost more nd take longer.
I expect the cost of a good writer is a pittance compared with the cost of the production.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#276I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…
Good summary. Couple notes/IMOs... HBO Max is great, but it's tied to a terrible management/company anchor. Rumor is now they are going to drop the trusted HBO brand smh. Netflix is well positioned, but a player like Disney is also setup to acquire other streamers as they fall over from cost structure issues. I think we're about to see mass consolidation. Finally, I'm kind of sad that I think the content 'golden era'…
The Kool-Aid right now seems to be WBD is pure evil but from my perspective they're making smart and necessary moves precisely to avoid what the OP article is predicting.
And say what you will about Discovery, their frugality or their content, but at least they're a media company. I will still take that any day over a telco, especially AT&T who has done the most "evil" historically of any telco.
It's quite funny to see so many people donning rose-tinted glasses for the short-lived AT&T era. As I remember it at the time, you had near-weekly articles lambasting AT&T higher-ups as being out-of-touch baffoons. A revolving door of executives. Existential dread over resolving debt. (Sound familiar?) Pretty much the only consumer goodwill came from Project Popcorn, and that made Jason Kilar persona non grata in Hollywood.
You can't please everyone, least of all when Wall Street gets involved. I think WBD will be fine, they traded under $10 last week which is insane to me considering their assets and what I believe their trajectory to be in 3-5 years' time. And people like DC and Cartoon Network. People like Euphoria and The White Lotus. And people seem to really like trashy reality shows. HBO Max will be fine.
PS- On the rumored topic of HBO Max changing its name to just "Max," it's a good call. Tying the HBO name to a service which is only 50% HBO at best did not make sense at the time and still doesn't make sense today. "HBO" and "Home Box Office" mean nothing internationally, either. Save the "trusted HBO name" for the prestige content which actually deserves it.
At this point, I think HBO Max has become known enough that just calling it "Max" won't cause tidal waves of confusion, and will correct their original naming mistake for the service. Plus, it's cleaner[1]. Yes please.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s Disney’s content That is partly the problem. You spend hundreds of millions to make blockbuster movies and then release it on Disney+ in a few months for free (or sometimes directly). That costs money. Add to that over reliance on only Disney content creates two problems: 1. You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round. 2. You have to pay money to…
What I don't understand about the movie business is the cost of making them. The most important ingredient to the success of a movie is the plot. We've all seen low budget movies that made lots of money - because of the plot. Casablanca, Psycho, Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, Primer, ... Star Trek TOS was a very low budget affair, and produced excellent results, because they hired the best scifi writers. When they…
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont have a kid, but between work, chores, and other hobbies, I can only have 1 or 2 hours a day to watch anything. I can only slot a movie or a single episode within that time frame. Also, it’s something I do together with my partner so we always pick something that suits us both. And our backlog is getting bigger as we are adding older movies. The cancellation of 1899 was a big blow for me. It’s the kind of show…
That's actually the cancellation that pushed me over the edge. I'm also not subscribed anymore because of 1899.
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#279I had never heard this part about Blockbuster: > Blockbuster ... started with Blockbuster Online, an entity that was completely separate from Blockbuster’s retail business for reasons of both technology and culture...a test version went live on July 15, 2004 — the same day as Netflix’s quarterly earnings call Blockbuster really snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The corporate incentives had become completely b…
I don't think Google belongs in that list of "oldline" companies... GE, Sears, and Boeing are all over 100 years old, and made/shipped actual physical products. Regardless of whether Google's internal incentives are backwards, they are certainly not a stalwart manufacturer. Google is in the business of selling ads, but they keep trying to branch out into selling products/services. Heh, I'd say the fact that they have…
Re: Netflix's New Chapter
#280Is it just me or Disney+ does not have as engaging and comprehensive content as Netflix? I feel it's so easy to run out of the existing catalog on Disney+, and boy the newly added are single-dimension: superhero this and Star Wars that, plus a few great animations. I understand that there are other content. It's just that they seemed so so that I don't even remember which ones I watched. On the other hand, on Netflix…
You might not be the right market (or at least, the marketplace might be different for your demographic). I'm a parent, and for me, and all my parent friends, Disney+ is the streaming service that generates the most value in our households. Along with all the old/nostalgic Disney animated films, they generate and acquire a lot of the "in" content for kids (Bluey, Mickey Mouse Kids House, etc.) Before my kids, Disney+…
True for my family too! It's just that my kids already cycle through most, if not all, of the content they want to watch.