That's usually when I get snacks.
Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
Tell me about it. I've had them happen just as a reveal is happening killing the suspense of the moment.And it never fails to be at some of the worst moments.
Character: I'll tell you how it all happened. It began like this.> Cut to ADS!!
I don't mind ad-supported streaming, but they need to put the ads in at the act breaks. (And TV shows need to start putting in formal act breaks again.)
Traditional TV has 5 acts for 5 ad breaks, which meant a whole lot of cliffhangers. I prefer one cliffhanger per episode. I don't want streaming to turn back into cable TV. If that does happen, I'll pirate shows that I can't buy physical media for, which was originally the whole reason for buying TV shows on DVD before streaming. You could watch the show and not have to waste your time with ads. A typical cable TV show is 42 minutes long with 18 minutes of ads.
An act break doesn't need to end on a cliffhanger -- but each act should end with a sense of resolution so that the ads don't break the dramatic unity of the episode.
Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced that any other production model has proven to both be financially viable and capable of supporting middle-budget/mid-tier audience shows like Star Trek.
Ads are built in snack and bathroom breaks.
Ads, or psychological warfare, are a disease. Fortunately you can avoid them with just a few dollars.
If you watch just 1 40 minute program a day you avoid ads and save over 2 hours a week. That’s nearly $100 a month at $10 an hour.
But it’s more than that. The only reason corporations advertise to you is that the cost of the advert is less than the extra money they get from you.
You waste thousands of hours of your life having some of the most talented brain washers in the world convincing you to spend money you wouldn’t spend otherwise. What a drain on the human race.
If you watch just 1 40 minute program a day you avoid ads and save over 2 hours a week. That’s nearly $100 a month at $10 an hour.
But it’s more than that. The only reason corporations advertise to you is that the cost of the advert is less than the extra money they get from you.
You waste thousands of hours of your life having some of the most talented brain washers in the world convincing you to spend money you wouldn’t spend otherwise. What a drain on the human race.
The perk of working in retail for 10 years is recognizing the ad cycle and now I promptly ignore it.
Shame that Americans don’t have their own equivalent to the BBC, with its completely commercial-free television and radio.
Essentially, we do.
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS TV) and National Public Radio (NPR), but it’s not exactly the same.
No, which is why they said commercial-free and not completely free.
I'll just unsub if needed. Physical media is throwing more money and wasting time.
The alternative is to unsub to all the streaming services and buy physical media for interesting shows or get it via the library through Hoopla or even Redbox rentals. There is a finite amount of money people are going to spend on these services. And I'd rather spend my time watching content than being sold to.
I agree. But the thing is, if it's a show made for the streaming format, then generally they've shied away from structuring it for ad breaks. You can usually tell when the scenes generally flow well together into the next. But you can notice when a show was designed for ad breaks by the way they've cut the scenes abruptly. The problem comes when an ad-supported channel decides it's time for an ad-break, which isn't always where the ad-breaks are generally meant to be. I think they must be based on a timer script and will insert ads depending on how long you've been watching.
You could put it on "mute" during the commercials, y'know.
I mean, the problem is that a-la-carte isn't a financially viable production model. That's essentially what having a bunch of single-studio streamers is -- a version of a-la-carte: People will pay for a streamer for a month or two so as to binge the shows they want, then cancel that streamer, then pay for a month of another one, and generally hop around from streamer to streamer. And the end result is that almost none of these streamers are making enough money to pay their bills; they're either being subsidized by their corporate parents (as in the case of Disney+), or they're literally threatening to pull their corporate parents underwater (as we have recently learned might be the case with Paramount+).
I mean, yeah, when customers were given the option to use streaming services that were being subsidized by their corporate parents. But now that was a bubble; the bills are coming due, corporate parents are starting to not be willing to subsidize their unprofitable streamers, and so we're in this situation where shows like Star Trek: Prodigy are being "disappeared" for tax purposes. It's not a viable alternative in the long-term, and in the meantime it harmed the system that was viable, which was cable.
This is the equivalent of how Uber undermined cab companies, then became worse than cab companies, but there weren't enough cab companies anymore for customers to return to because Uber had destroyed so many of them.
Okay, then you're saying you want a production model that will really only support massive juggernauts and micro-budget niche stuff. Star Trek has never been either of those, so in the production model you seem to want, there wouldn't be much Star Trek because there would be no financially viable production model for it.
Yeah, like I said, I think they're gonna need to start designing shows with ad breaks again even if they're for streamers.
And we still have basic and premium cable.
