Wow, that's quite a collection of unsupportable assertions. Bringing shows to Netflix is an attempt to pioneer an expanding method of content distribution. And the idea that Disney would pass completely on a major revenue stream is silly.
Marvel Studios may be planning more MCU for the small screen
- Thread starter Chris3123
- Start date
Such an odd attitude. "Traditional stuff" is on the decline. On-demand viewing of entertainment is the future. Netflix is not going away, and even if these shows "fail", the economic model of traditional television broadcasting is dying and won't be revived.
Do you think you're supporting the drug trade or prostitution if you watch shows about those subjects? Or that the shows are some kind of gateway to becoming addicted to drugs/sex?
That's how they did their other original shows? Just posted the whole season at once, like they do when they add an old series' season set to their streaming service?
That would mean we could watch the episodes whenever we wanted and not have to wait a week for the next episode. Plus I assume there are no commercials -- and being free of the tyranny of commercial-funded broadcasting is bound to be cretaively liberating. And lots of TVs these days actually get Netflix and let you watch on TV rather than on a computer monitor. So that seems like a pretty good approach. And it, or something like it, is probably the wave of the future.
True. And conversely it's good for Netflix too, since securing a property this big is bound to draw in a lot more viewers/subscribers and improve the odds of the project's success.
Although Netflix seems to have a surprising amount of original programming already. It's close to being competitive with the networks for the amount of original content it provides.
The one oddity in this Netflix + Marvel news is that Disney is a co-owner in Hulu. Going with Netflix suggests that Disney does not have faith that Hulu can be a genuine Netflix competitor, regardless of what original programming the former has.
Another possibility that comes to mind is that Disney simply wants to limit the number of parties with which it would need to share profits from these shows (presumably, the other Hulu co-owners would get a piece of the pie if Disney had gone that route).
Another possibility that comes to mind is that Disney simply wants to limit the number of parties with which it would need to share profits from these shows (presumably, the other Hulu co-owners would get a piece of the pie if Disney had gone that route).
Wasn't there some big news about Disney signing a contract with Netflix not that long ago? It was big news because it was happening at a time that others were pulling their programming.
Good point; I had forgotten about that when I typed the other post.
Disney signed an exclusivity contract with Netflix for the television-window release of their films. I forget when that is supposed to start (or did already?), but it's probably mentioned in the first article link to the news about these series. It does make sense from that perspective, though it still gives me a little shrug as to Disney intentionally putting obstacles in the path of a service they co-own.
Disney signed an exclusivity contract with Netflix for the television-window release of their films. I forget when that is supposed to start (or did already?), but it's probably mentioned in the first article link to the news about these series. It does make sense from that perspective, though it still gives me a little shrug as to Disney intentionally putting obstacles in the path of a service they co-own.
Netflix is international, Hulu is US only. Wider distribution with Netflix.
Do they have a controlling interest in Hulu or are they more hedging their bets?
The deal Disney signed with Netflix, gives Netflix the ''pay tv'' window for current theatrical films from all of Disney's production enties, starting in 2016, plus access to library titles (older films) which began at the end of December. Starz currently holds the license to current Disney movies until then. They lost the library titles back in December.
Hulu is owned by (News Corp)Fox, Comcast/NBC, and Disney (plus another non media company). It's run as an independent company, that receives financial backing from the partners.
Exactly.
Then MAYBE you should say THAT. Instead of what you did: I don't like shows that are critically acclaimed.
If you say what you actually mean, then you won't have to walk back what you say later.
This is OT, but Breaking Bad isn't really a "drug show" whatever that means. It's about a lot more than that. The selling of drugs is the basic premise. But, to each his own. I think you're missing out on great acting, great writing, and great story telling.
Do you think you're supporting the drug trade or prostitution if you watch shows about those subjects? Or that the shows are some kind of gateway to becoming addicted to drugs/sex?
I just don't like seeing depictions of drug use/people on drugs on TV. Now, I'm talking about real stuff. Technically the Jem'Hadar on DS9 were on drugs. Its the depiction of real world drugs that I can't stand, at least as the focus of a show/movie.
As for sex, I don't want it on my TV. No sex or nudity. If its on something I really want to see, I'll scene skip (like the stupid pointless nudity in Stargate SG-1's pilot). I'm as attracted to naked women as the next straight guy, but I am just not comfortable with nudity/sex on tv shows or in movies or really in any media. Even strictly PG sex/sexual scenes I'm uncomfortable with, although those don't usually get a scene skip unless its really annoying me for other reasons.
I'll completely admit that I shouldn't have used it as an example. It just popped into my head, so I wrote it down. I probably should have mentioned something else (all of the bad critically acclaimed shows I think of seem to be on AMC, which is kind of weird
). Off the top of my head, honestly a lot of the critically acclaimed shows are things I just find really boring (like Mad Men, I don't hate the idea, more like extreme indifference) or just can't watch because of the theme (like Breaking Bad). I guess for shows I just don't like that I've seen and think count as critically acclaimed, it probably would have been better to mention shows like: The Walking Dead, Arrested Development (I don't hate it so much as don't find it funny or entertaining at all), Lost (ok first season, but after that it sucked), 30 Rock (this is in the same category as AD), and Curb Your Enthusiasm. Those probably fit what I was talking about much better than BB.
TV isn't going anywhere until the internet becomes completely free and covers the major countries of the world 100%. Until then, millions (probably tens of millions just in the us alone) of people that don't have/can't get/can't afford internet, and millions who have internet still watch tv and probably will continue to do so for a long, long, long time.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out. In my mind it's a good place, Netflix has the freedom of premium cable and I imagine a hunger to prove themselves.
I've not read many Cage stories but I always thought the character seemed like it could be a good fit for TV scope stories.
I've not read many Cage stories but I always thought the character seemed like it could be a good fit for TV scope stories.
Access to television programing is not a right.
Studios will follow whatever model is in their best interest. If they can make more money selling their product to those who can afford then they will. There does come a point when the "millions who can't afford internet" no longer remains a viable market share. And it's closer than you think it is.
I'm sure that when TV came along, the radio and movie loyalists raised quite a fuss about it. Life is change.
It's definitely on the decline. Who wants to be forced to watch entertainment on the networks' schedules? Ever since the TiVo allowed for easy and reliable time-shifted viewing (without having to set up a VCR and timer), the idea that advertising revenues will pay for TV programming has been superseded. Entertainment producers will always go where the eyeballs are, because they have to. If the majority of eyeballs are on the internet (and really, they are) then that's the place for everyone to display their stuff. TV will still be around in the same way radio and smoke signals are still around, though.
It has it's benefits and downsides. It certainly lets shows be more creative in HOW they can tell stories. I was really impressed with the Netflix season of Arrested Development. I don't think it always worked on a comedy level, but the style of story telling, where the order you watched the episodes in didn't really matter even though there was one overall story being told was ambitious as hell, and couldn't have been done on broadcast tv or cable. I give them all the credit in the world just for trying. There will be a ton of possibilities in the way Marvel will be able to structure these series and how the series interact with each other.
The big downside for me is that releasing all the episodes at once kind of kills the watercooler effect for the show. With everyone watching at their own pace it stifles the type of community discussion that I really enjoy. Rather than 3 months worth of buzz and discussion, shows tend the flame out quickly, with the really passionate consuming the entire series in right away and talking about it for that week or two following, and the rest catching up at a slower pace, but without any common point of reference to have any large group discussions. The type of thread we have going on here with SHIELD just wouldn't be possible with what Netflix is doing.
Yeah. There are pacing conventions we're used to for shows that DVDs and streaming can't replicate. Interestingly enough, people often find shows more entertaining with the pauses for commercials as well (the suspense between commercial breaks is a big reason why). However, that just makes things different, not necessarily worse. Plus, I think the four characters leading to a mini-series can serve as its own way of building suspense.
Alternatively, they might release it more periodically (I doubt this, but it's possible).
Alternatively, they might release it more periodically (I doubt this, but it's possible).
Honestly, sometimes I think commercial TV is deliberately trying to make itself so annoying that we'd prefer to watch DVDs and streams. It's not enough that they cut to ever-growing amounts of commercials every five minutes, but they have their "bug" graphics constantly on the screen, and lately they have these huge, distracting animated promos for other shows superimposed on top of the show you're trying to watch. Getting to watch shows uninterrupted and unadulterated on Netflix sounds like a great alternative.
Although the troubling thought occurs to me that if TV viewing migrates primarily to the Internet, then the advertisers will follow and we may still end up getting annoying ads superimposed somehow.
Although the troubling thought occurs to me that if TV viewing migrates primarily to the Internet, then the advertisers will follow and we may still end up getting annoying ads superimposed somehow.