Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Spence]

7 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

??

 

There are trailers or clips out for Disney+ shows?  Titans is not Disney+.  I saw a clip from The Mandalorian (which actually looked pretty good), but that's the only one I know of so far.

 

Possibly because we are not talking specifically about Disney+.  But rather all of the suddenly sprouting streaming everything and they all lunge for the trough...  And in general, none of the trailers/pics for most of the new offerings that I have seen look even close.  Key note, "that I have seen". 

 

And the Teen Titan comment was because it is an epic example of horrific. It actually makes the Ben Affleck Daredevil and the Jennifer Garner Electra movies look like high art, except of course a movie and a TV Series are generally not in the same league.    

 

I just wonder how long all the isolated one product streaming services will last before revenue loss swings them back to a wider service model. 

 

Of course, there is plenty of time to prove me wrong

[zslane]

3 minutes ago, Spence said:

I just wonder how long all the isolated one product streaming services will last before revenue loss swings them back to a wider service model.

 

Yeah, I wonder this too. I see a great reckoning coming in which all the studios and networks learn that nobody wants to pay $10-15/month for each and every one of their streaming channels and so they ultimately end up signing contracts with aggregators like Netflix and Hulu again. I think it will take a few years for this to happen though.

[Spence]

Just now, zslane said:

 

Yeah, I wonder this too. I see a great reckoning coming in which all the studios and networks learn that nobody wants to pay $10-15/month for each and every one of their streaming channels and so they ultimately end up signing contracts with aggregators like Netflix and Hulu again. I think it will take a few years for this to happen though.

 

Yes.  But I am not really worried about how long.  It will just mean a lot of things to bing on later.  That is the way I watch GoT's.  Sure I am a year or more behind everyone else, but I am still watching.

[zslane]

1 minute ago, Spence said:

But I am not really worried about how long.

 

Nor am I. I have the same "I just wonder how long..." general curiosity that you have.

[Bazza]

 

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

 

Yeah, I wonder this too. I see a great reckoning coming in which all the studios and networks learn that nobody wants to pay $10-15/month for each and every one of their streaming channels and so they ultimately end up signing contracts with aggregators like Netflix and Hulu again. I think it will take a few years for this to happen though.

 

The short answer is that it's not going to happen. The next stage is for the media companies to bundle "channels" into something resembling cable TV, so that they recoup all of the lost revenue from cord-cutting. Disney's already talking about bundles for Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu, and AT&T/Warner's talking about discounting their upcoming service if you also have HBO Now.

[Spence]

4 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

The short answer is that it's not going to happen. The next stage is for the media companies to bundle "channels" into something resembling cable TV, so that they recoup all of the lost revenue from cord-cutting. Disney's already talking about bundles for Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu, and AT&T/Warner's talking about discounting their upcoming service if you also have HBO Now.

 

Like we said.  The attempt to create 50 or 60 single proprietary streams will fail and they will wind up going back to the model like Netflix and Hulu.  They may masquerade under different names, but they will need to combine their offerings with others to give people justification for another service.

[Ternaugh]

20 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

Like we said.  The attempt to create 50 or 60 single proprietary streams will fail and they will wind up going back to the model like Netflix and Hulu.  They may masquerade under different names, but they will need to combine their offerings with others to give people justification for another service.

 

I used to subscribe to something called the Warner Archive, until I decided that it wasn't giving me enough value for my money. The stuff that appeared on that service never went to Hulu or Netflix, even after it was shut down by Warner. Instead, it was held for a future offering from Warner. There is essentially no reason for a large media company to support a new Netflix, as they can sit on rights indefinitely.

[Spence]

41 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

I used to subscribe to something called the Warner Archive, until I decided that it wasn't giving me enough value for my money. The stuff that appeared on that service never went to Hulu or Netflix, even after it was shut down by Warner. Instead, it was held for a future offering from Warner. There is essentially no reason for a large media company to support a new Netflix, as they can sit on rights indefinitely.

 

There is a reason.

 

Sit on it = zero $

Licensed = $

 

But owners have been known to gamble that burying a property will increase its value.

 

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, Spence said:

 

There is a reason.

 

Sit on it = zero $

Licensed = $

 

But owners have been known to gamble that burying a property will increase its value.

 

 

It sure worked for the Disney Vault.

[massey]

If I really really feel the need, I'll subscribe for a month or two, binge everything, and then cancel my subscription.

 

But I don't think I'll feel the need.

[Spence]

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

 

It sure worked for the Disney Vault.

 

You are not wrong.

[archer]

Disney Vault has a rather unique kind of product. Most people who might need children's movies at some point in their life don't feel a need to stockpile them in anticipation of them not being available. Yet there's always a new supply of children being produced who haven't seen the movies which are geared to be especially appealing to them.

 

Most movies don't age particularly well, which limits their appeal to audiences in the future. Children's movies don't really have that same type of drawback.

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, archer said:

Disney Vault has a rather unique kind of product. Most people who might need children's movies at some point in their life don't feel a need to stockpile them in anticipation of them not being available. Yet there's always a new supply of children being produced who haven't seen the movies which are geared to be especially appealing to them.

 

Most movies don't age particularly well, which limits their appeal to audiences in the future. Children's movies don't really have that same type of drawback.

 

And now you know the Disney+ core demographic ?

[slikmar]

8 hours ago, Spence said:

 

Possibly because we are not talking specifically about Disney+.  But rather all of the suddenly sprouting streaming everything and they all lunge for the trough...  And in general, none of the trailers/pics for most of the new offerings that I have seen look even close.  Key note, "that I have seen". 

 

And the Teen Titan comment was because it is an epic example of horrific. It actually makes the Ben Affleck Daredevil and the Jennifer Garner Electra movies look like high art, except of course a movie and a TV Series are generally not in the same league.    

 

I just wonder how long all the isolated one product streaming services will last before revenue loss swings them back to a wider service model. 

 

Of course, there is plenty of time to prove me wrong

I liked the Affleck Daredevil, not so much Elektra. I liked it more with Director's cut. Is one reason I would have really liked to have seen him play an older Batman more.

[Old Man]

On 4/13/2019 at 4:32 AM, massey said:

 

Yeah, we have Netflix and Amazon Prime.  I won't be subscribing to anything else.

 

Same.  And Amazon Prime Video is only because it came with Prime.

 

Well, I take it back.  I have HBO for Game of Thrones.  That will last another couple of months.

[mattingly]

20 hours ago, slikmar said:

I liked the Affleck Daredevil, not so much Elektra. I liked it more with Director's cut. Is one reason I would have really liked to have seen him play an older Batman more.

 

I liked his Daredevil, too. The movie gets a lot of flak, but not from me.

 

[Spence]

23 hours ago, slikmar said:

I liked the Affleck Daredevil, not so much Elektra. I liked it more with Director's cut. Is one reason I would have really liked to have seen him play an older Batman more.

 

3 hours ago, mattingly said:

 

I liked his Daredevil, too. The movie gets a lot of flak, but not from me.

 

 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't really consider them horrible movies.  Just movies that were made before they really had the movie tech to make a convincing supers movie.  Kind of like scifi movies from the 50/60's.  I like a lot of them, but they really didn't have the technology to do what they wanted.  But shows like the Teen Titans are actually worse in my opinion, it is like the people making the calls on casting and costuming had never seen any of the comics.  Just bad.  

 

But as to additional streaming services, DC, Disney, CBS and on, have a long way to go before I subscribe.  I really enjoy Game of Thrones, but no matter how much I like the show, I just can't subscribe to HBO for one, maybe two shows a year.  And that is all HBO usually has.  At least that is all they have that interests me, so paying for so little is not an option.

 

The same thing applies to most of the new streaming services. Like Old Man, I get Amazon Prime Video only because it came with Prime.  And I get Netflix, Hulu and CR because they carry shows from multiple sources.  If the streams and the pay cable networks offered true "ala carte", by which I mean the ability to purchase/rent specific titles/episodes, I'd probably watch their shows a lot more rather than waiting for a video release. 

 

The entertainment is littered with far more failures than successes, and this concept of 5000 separate streaming services is just another failure waiting to happen.  In my opinion of course

[Starlord]

The Affleck Daredevil was brought low for me by that awful, vomit-inducing teeter-totter fight scene.  The rest of the movie was solid.

[Ternaugh]

2 hours ago, Spence said:

 

 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't really consider them horrible movies.  Just movies that were made before they really had the movie tech to make a convincing supers movie.  Kind of like scifi movies from the 50/60's.  I like a lot of them, but they really didn't have the technology to do what they wanted.  But shows like the Teen Titans are actually worse in my opinion, it is like the people making the calls on casting and costuming had never seen any of the comics.  Just bad.  

 

But as to additional streaming services, DC, Disney, CBS and on, have a long way to go before I subscribe.  I really enjoy Game of Thrones, but no matter how much I like the show, I just can't subscribe to HBO for one, maybe two shows a year.  And that is all HBO usually has.  At least that is all they have that interests me, so paying for so little is not an option.

 

The same thing applies to most of the new streaming services. Like Old Man, I get Amazon Prime Video only because it came with Prime.  And I get Netflix, Hulu and CR because they carry shows from multiple sources.  If the streams and the pay cable networks offered true "ala carte", by which I mean the ability to purchase/rent specific titles/episodes, I'd probably watch their shows a lot more rather than waiting for a video release. 

 

The entertainment is littered with far more failures than successes, and this concept of 5000 separate streaming services is just another failure waiting to happen.  In my opinion of course

 

I'm subscribed to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu (at the no commercials tier). Most of my viewing time is spent on Hulu and Netflix, with occasional journeys to Amazon Prime Video when I don't feel like watching stuff on those two services. Amazon Prime's shipping and Prime Music are the primary reasons that I'm subscribed. Much of the stuff that I watch on Netflix is Disney-sourced, so I'll be considering possibly reducing my subscription in the near future (from 4 screens to 2--which was only upgraded so that I could stream in 4K/HDR).

 

My friend's take on the explosion of streaming services was that cord-cutters are getting exactly what they asked for--the ability to pay for only the channels that they want. I got a strong, "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" vibe from the conversation.

[Armory]

10 hours ago, Starlord said:

The Affleck Daredevil was brought low for me by that awful, vomit-inducing teeter-totter fight scene.  The rest of the movie was solid.

 

I don't hate it, but it had more problems than that.  For instance, the court scene was incoherent.  The screenwriters didn't know if he was a defense attorney or a prosecutor.

 

I'll sign up for Disney+.  We have Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix.  I refused to add CBS All Access just for a Start Trek series that doesn't look much like Star Trek to me.  I refuse to get the DC streamer because it's DC.  But I will get Disney for my Marvel fix.

[massey]

10 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

I'm subscribed to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu (at the no commercials tier). Most of my viewing time is spent on Hulu and Netflix, with occasional journeys to Amazon Prime Video when I don't feel like watching stuff on those two services. Amazon Prime's shipping and Prime Music are the primary reasons that I'm subscribed. Much of the stuff that I watch on Netflix is Disney-sourced, so I'll be considering possibly reducing my subscription in the near future (from 4 screens to 2--which was only upgraded so that I could stream in 4K/HDR).

 

My friend's take on the explosion of streaming services was that cord-cutters are getting exactly what they asked for--the ability to pay for only the channels that they want. I got a strong, "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" vibe from the conversation.

 

I have a ton of DVDs I've bought over the years, a few hundred.  Most movies that I really like, I already own.  My wife is an Amazon Prime member because she does most of her shopping on Amazon, so we've got that.  I've had a Netflix subscription for more than a decade now, so that gives us options as well.  Then I watch a lot of those new digital broadcast channels.  MeTV and things like that.  There's a channel called GRIT that just shows old westerns.  Those are free.

 

I've also got an external hard drive full of... questionably obtained material, generally things I can't find elsewhere.  If I want to watch "House on the Edge of the Park" or "Shriek of the Mutilated", I know where to go.  That's on there with things I'm just not gonna pay money for, like the complete run of "Leave it to Beaver" or "Mister Ed", but that I might theoretically want to have on in the background.

 

Because of that, I cut cable years and years ago.  I can always find something I'm willing to watch.  At this point we've got about 70 years of television to choose from.  I really don't have time to see everything I already have.  Occasionally there'll be a show I want to watch but can't (True Detective is the only one I had to go out of my way to see), but that's not very common.  Live sports is the only thing I actually miss, but I'm not going to pay $100 a month for cable just for that.  I've just started listening to the local sports team on the radio.

[Greywind]

2 hours ago, Armory said:

 

I don't hate it, but it had more problems than that.  For instance, the court scene was incoherent.  The screenwriters didn't know if he was a defense attorney or a prosecutor.

 

 

The Director's Cut made up for a lot of the theatrical ills.

[massey]

14 hours ago, Starlord said:

The Affleck Daredevil was brought low for me by that awful, vomit-inducing teeter-totter fight scene.  The rest of the movie was solid.

 

Our gaming group started joking about Affleck many years ago.  We took the Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back version of Ben Affleck and just ran with it.

 

Security guard: "A 10-82 is removing a dead hooker from Ben Affleck's trailer."

Other security guard:  "Oh that Affleck!"

 

It makes his movies much more enjoyable.

[zslane]

13 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

My friend's take on the explosion of streaming services was that cord-cutters are getting exactly what they asked for--the ability to pay for only the channels that they want. I got a strong, "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" vibe from the conversation.

 

Sure, but I don't think anybody wanted to be paying $15/month for each one. For all the moaning cable-cutters have been doing, $50/month for 200 channels is a really good deal. Of course, most people have no interest in most of the content on those 200 channels, which is why it doesn't feel like such a great deal (not to mention the fact that most of them are commercial-driven as well), but when I look at what these streaming channels offer, they don't have much content I'm interested in either, so I can't really agree that the proliferation of streaming services constitutes what all the cable-cutters were asking for. It certainly isn't what I always had in mind.