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

Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 330 posts

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#311

Post by dham »

lolinder wrote: post #165
tom_walters wrote: post #29

I think this primarily comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of where the value in streaming services lies from the perspective of old world media giants. The majority of people who buy streaming, I suspect, are interested mainly in the conveyor belt of diverse and engaging content. Sure I whack an episode of Rick and Morty on via Netflix once a month, but 90% of viewing is of new serialized content. Disney na…

Netflix's secret starting in their DVD days was to provide a service that had way more variety than Blockbuster, so that no matter who you were, the movies you wanted to watch would be available. Disney especially was arrogant enough to assume that they controlled all the IP that people actually want to watch, so they thought they could just pull out of Netflix and everyone would switch. But that's not how movie pref…

You also have to be willing to be put out good content that isn't written by ChatGPT, which, as we've seen, Disney has been unable to do for quite some time.

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#312

Post by matthewdgreen »

alephnerd wrote: post #112
matthewdgreen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content quality is excellent, but the English-language voice acting is horrible.

Because it's an afterthought. Netflix added KDramas in order to help it pivot into the Asian market. Most viewers will be watching the shows via subtitles.

The shows are heavily promoted here in the US, and they default to the English soundtrack.

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#313

Post by kyriakos »

kranke155 wrote: post #245
edgyquant wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird, I couldn’t tell at all since they both have converged on the exact same format.

Are you serious? TLDR: They feel pretty different to me. SW has nowhere to go and is trying to go nowhere. Marvel continues doing its thing, within the level of competence they've always demonstrated. I find that SW has declined to a level previously unimaginable, they are effectively stuck doing live action versions of children's animated TV shows. The mild incompetence of Clone Wars is now a distant memory, the low…

Exactly this. SW productions are side characters who had some kind of relationship with a skywalker at some point getting their own shows. The recent movie franchise didn't manage to open new directions for bigger plots that can be presented as tv shows therefore all Disney+ SW productions are stuck in the past trying to unsuccessfully expand on existing characters.

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#314

Post by LanzVonL »

dham wrote: post #310
LanzVonL wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney has admitted they aren't trying to please Star Wars fans. Amazon has admitted they aren't trying to please Tolkien fans. Fans already consider these new developments of timeless classics to be non-canon no matter who technically owns the rights. It'll be a lesson taught in brand management for eons, until the heat death of the sun - don't acquire a property which is only valuable because of fans, just to disca…

This. I've always wondered why these companies are trying to create content for audiences that literally don't exist. It's really only shown up in the last few. years.

They're government supported, is my guess. There's no profit motive so everybody can do whatever they want.

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#315

Post by kyriakos »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #283
strunz wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Suits - a long since lapsed cable series - like the most popular thing on Netflix? So was Friends, Seinfeld, and The Office for a time too. People love to think they can generalize all streamers into a bucket when in reality it's not as simple as anyone thinks. Viewing trends change all the time and can be unpredictable, even horrible stuff gets tons of views.

Apparently not: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/top10/tv Top 10 is pretty dynamic. Longest item there was there for 6 weeks and is new content. Hilariously "Fireplace 4K: Crackling Birchwood from Fireplace for Your Home" beats out Squid Game.

Squid game show not the actual Korean drama series

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#316

Post by kyriakos »

skydhash wrote: post #199
geodel wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Amazon shot many very expensive shows and they turned out to be crapola. The only thing favored Amazon studios was huge cash from Amazon so they could just be fine with all mega failures. So far lot of streaming shows are crappy in a way I can't quite put my finger on and its definitely not just about budget.

I believe it’s the writing. There is no soul in te dialogue and characterization always seems forced. Acting and set design may be good, but it feels like no one is giving a damn about the scenario

I feel the opposite for Netflix, which has better writing but worse acting, casting, costumes and generally plastic feeling on most of its original shows.

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#317

Post by alephnerd »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #312
alephnerd wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's an afterthought. Netflix added KDramas in order to help it pivot into the Asian market. Most viewers will be watching the shows via subtitles.

The shows are heavily promoted here in the US, and they default to the English soundtrack.

I'm in the US. And KDramas don't show up prominently in my recommendations (I prefer watching on KissAsian - force of habit and the subs are better).

The algo is heavily targeted to your own assumed tastes. The one time I did watch one, it was in Korean with English subs.

Maybe you watched a western marketed KDrama like Squid Games? Try watching Beyond Evil, Itaewon Class, Reply 1988, or Mr Queen and see if it reverts to English. I'm kinda curious now

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#318

Post by vel0city »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #298
vel0city wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cable had ads on it from day one. Only a few premium channels didn't have ads or only had pre-roll ads.

this guy again. stop it, when people say it's ad-free they mean the content wasn't disrupted with an ad. stop attacking a strawman.

this guy again

> free of commercials

This isn't "not disrupted by ads". This means no ads. Free of commercials, not limited commercials.

Ad-free means ad-free. No mustard means no mustard not just no grey poupon. Not a hard concept to understand.

And once again, cable had interruptive ads since the first cable was connected to the first subscriber. So even scoped to just pre-roll ads you're still denying highly documented history.

National cable networks were making many millions in ad revenues the first few years into their existence. This means they ran ads. Aka, not free of commercials.

The only way the above makes sense is to add a ton of qualifiers. "The whole point of a few premium channels on some cable networks 20 years into cable's history was limited to no advertising." Cable's original point was by no means "freedom from ads."

And even this statement of "Streaming was supposed to be free of commercials" just ignores the fact Hulu had ad-supported streaming in 2007, pretty early in the commercial OTT streaming industry growth. YouTube started having ads in 2008. But I guess if you've been doing enough drugs to think Netflix started it's streaming business in the 90s you'd see that as late. The rest of us in reality see that's still pretty early in the commercial streaming world.

stop denying reality.

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#319

Post by selcuka »

smileysteve wrote: post #248
selcuka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one that surprised me the most to be struggling is Disney+. Smells like Hollywood accounting [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Turns out that streaming unlimited things to a family of 2+ for $13 a month is less profitable than selling $20 experiences per person per view? Doesn't seem too surprising to me.

It doesn't explain how Netflix is profitable and Disney+ is not.

Re: Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers

#320

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

vel0city wrote: post #318
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this guy again. stop it, when people say it's ad-free they mean the content wasn't disrupted with an ad. stop attacking a strawman.

this guy again > free of commercials This isn't "not disrupted by ads". This means no ads. Free of commercials, not limited commercials. Ad-free means ad-free. No mustard means no mustard not just no grey poupon. Not a hard concept to understand. And once again, cable had interruptive ads since the first cable was connected to the first subscriber. So even scoped to just pre-roll ads you're still denying highly docum…

the reason it's called a strawman is that you're not attacking what the person was actually arguing.

stop it.

Post reply on HN