Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Minneapple]

4 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I get it and it makes perfect business sense if you're Disney.  Why license your content when you can cut out the middle man and keep it all for yourself?  And it's not like there's such an extensive glut of Disney content on the current streaming platforms anyway.  But if Disney does it then Universal, Fox, Warner Bros, Sony et al will follow.  And it's all about the exclusive content these days.  CBS is already dipping its toe in the water.  I agree with the article that we don't need to go back to the days of three networks but at the same time who needs 18 different subscription services?  And, like the article says, what if Disney fractures the fracture?  A separate service each for Marvel, for Star Wars, for animation, for Pixar, etc? I myself have three subscriptions and it's probably (definitely) two too many.  (In my defense with the amount I buy from Amazon, the prime account pays for itself so that one shouldn't really count.)

Well, maybe someday a company will package the 18 subscription services into a "bundle" and sell it at one low price!

[bilgistic]

In theory, Disney would have more than just a passing interest in streaming media. ABC and Disney are the same company conglomerate (the article mentioned that). The company holds ABC, A+E, the Disney Channel and ESPN (not mentioned).

[Chaos Theory]

Like slot of things it does make sense in theory.  However Freeform is also one of the channels owned by ABC/Disney and big with Millennial who tend to not even own tvs.  They are not going to want to buy into ten different web sites to get their shows.  That was the whole point of services like Prime, Hulu and Netflix.   Again it sounds like a good idea for CBS/ABC etc to all have their own streaming services but who is going to want to pay for it not older people who are already paying for cable and not Millennials  who will bawk at paying for so many different services. 

[proserpina65]

 I don't find Leslie Jones funny.  Maybe it's just how they write for her on SNL, although I've watched other allegedly hilarious videos posted on various entertainment sites, and, to me, they weren't hilarious. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by proserpina65

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, Gee, who didn't see this coming? Netflix may keep Marvel, Star Wars

Ask me, it's all about the money. Like the article states, Netflix's stock dropped after dropping this bombshell on Tuesday.

[Chaos Theory]

I am still trying to figure out the logistics of all this.  Is it just old guys who don't understand the Internet or millanials?  Yes Netflix is making millions and possibly billions but a smart businessman would negotiate a cut of that and not be responsible for the logistics of maintaining a website.  Disney could negotiate That vault of money Scrooge McDuck has from Netflix if it was smart.  Instead they are being dumb.  I doubt anyone would Pay an extra fee to watch Disney content on top of what they are already watching unless at least not forever.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[bilgistic]

But they would pay extra for the ESPN channels that Disney/ABC owns. Cable already does that with sports channel packages.

Edited August 11, 2017 by bilgistic

[Minneapple]

Netflix is $20 billion in debt so how much would they really be willing to throw after Disney?

With the news that Netflix will keep Marvel, it's clear Disney is going after people with young kids. Put all their movies, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Sofia the First, a couple original shows et al on the streaming service and I'm sure there are plenty of moms/dads/grandparents who would pay whatever Disney will charge.

[Kel Varnsen]

22 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Not sure where else to put this.  And I have a feeling this won't be that unpopular but Disney wants to create And, like the article says, what if Disney fractures the fracture?  A separate service each for Marvel, for Star Wars, for animation, for Pixar, etc? I myself have three subscriptions and it's probably (definitely) two too many.  (In my defense with the amount I buy from Amazon, the prime account pays for itself so that one shouldn't really count.)

Disney could easily fracture their services. Have a mainline disney service ( princess, pixar,mickey and special vault releases) an abc studios one (for Shonda Rimes stuff and modern family) a Star Wars one, a marvel one probably eventually (bet it changes once the defenders shows are all done) an espn major league sports one (NFL and what ever else ESPN has rights too) and a weird sport channel (the Ocho). Then they will sell you three or more channels for a big discount but only if you order the Ocho.

I wonder if these studios are just hoping to squeeze netflix out of business. Considering that most of Netflix's content is hosted on Amazon servers it is just about who has the best content. And like was mentioned netflix has a massive amount of debt so other companies siphoning off subscribers is going to really hurt them. 

[bilgistic]

I don't understand how Netflix is B-B-B-BILLIONS of dollars in debt. They are a smashing success and how the hell do you get BILLIONS of dollars in debt?!? I mean, other than being a country, which I don't understand, either. Economics class didn't leave much of an impression on me.

[Kel Varnsen]

9 hours ago, bilgistic said:

I don't understand how Netflix is B-B-B-BILLIONS of dollars in debt. They are a smashing success and how the hell do you get BILLIONS of dollars in debt?!? I mean, other than being a country, which I don't understand, either. Economics class didn't leave much of an impression on me.

Developing shows costs a shit ton of money . Especially the classy kind like netflix likes. Some googling tells me they spent $5 billion on original content alone in 2016 (plus there is licensing other content, marketing and other overhead costs). $9 a month or what ever isn't much for all of what viewers get. Plus consider that many of their supplier and their server host (amazon) either are or want to get in the streaming game, so they probably don't make it easy. But without that original content there isn't much to separate them from their competitors.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Kel Varnsen

[DittyDotDot]

9 hours ago, bilgistic said:

I don't understand how Netflix is B-B-B-BILLIONS of dollars in debt. They are a smashing success and how the hell do you get BILLIONS of dollars in debt?!? I mean, other than being a country, which I don't understand, either. Economics class didn't leave much of an impression on me.

They've been spending a lot of money producing a shit-ton of their own original content lately--which is costly. I'm sure they have a business plan of some sort that proves to investors they'll come out ahead, eventually--they seem to be operating on the belief "you gotta spend money to make money."

Edited August 12, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Chaos Theory]

10 hours ago, bilgistic said:

I don't understand how Netflix is B-B-B-BILLIONS of dollars in debt. They are a smashing success and how the hell do you get BILLIONS of dollars in debt?!? I mean, other than being a country, which I don't understand, either. Economics class didn't leave much of an impression on me.

Have you heard of Sense8?  It recently got canceled for obvious but deeply tragic (at least for me) reasons.  It was expensive as hell but one of its most ambitious and inclusive  shows to date. Netflix does like these kinds of high concept shows and doesn't charge all that much for them.  They have close to HBO caliber shows at half the price. 

Edited August 12, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[2727]

From Netflix:

“The L.A. Times story inaccurately calculates our debt, counting our streaming obligations (i.e. our content contracts with studios) of $15.7b as debt, which it isn’t. The correct number: we have total gross debt of $4.8B vs. our equity market value of about $75B. They have since corrected the story."

[Katy M]

16 hours ago, bilgistic said:

I don't understand how Netflix is B-B-B-BILLIONS of dollars in debt. They are a smashing success and how the hell do you get BILLIONS of dollars in debt?!? I mean, other than being a country, which I don't understand, either. Economics class didn't leave much of an impression on me.

It's really not so much about debt separated from anything else.  It's about debt versus assets (quick, current, and long-term), versus projected income, etc.  So, in theory, you can be billions of dollars in debt, and be financially sound. 

[Ohwell]

I know Tina Fey probably got a lot of kudos for her cake-eating monologue on SNL last night, but have I never thought she was funny, last night included.  I enjoyed Jimmy Fallon and Seth Myers as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, much better.

[cpcathy]

My UO is that I'm not going to bag on Jimmy like everyone else does, it seems to be the cool thing to deride him and complain he's not funny, yada yada. I think he's funny. His version of Late Night was much looser and silly than The Tonight Show, and I think he was really good at it. Him playing a golf video game with Amy Poehler and Tiger Woods was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

And Seth is awesome, always loved him too.

[2727]

4 hours ago, cpcathy said:

My UO is that I'm not going to bag on Jimmy like everyone else does, it seems to be the cool thing to deride him and complain he's not funny, yada yada.

Goodness, I'll go you one better on wildly unpopular talk show opinions: I like Jay Leno and preferred him to Letterman.

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, 2727 said:

I like Jay Leno and preferred him to Letterman.

Me too!

[callie lee 29]

On 8/18/2017 at 5:51 PM, Ohwell said:

I know Tina Fey probably got a lot of kudos for her cake-eating monologue on SNL last night, but have I never thought she was funny, last night included.  I enjoyed Jimmy Fallon and Seth Myers as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, much better.

If my FB and Twitter is to be believed she's getting a lot of backlash for it. 

[Miss Dee]

Well..."let them eat cake" is maybe not the best message for a white woman to go with with millions of people of colour still hurting not only after the events of Charlottesville but more of that shit on the horizon. I see where she's coming from, and she *was* funny, but...yeah. Not the right time, and not her place.

[Ohwell]

2 hours ago, Miss Dee said:

Well..."let them eat cake" is maybe not the best message for a white woman to go with with millions of people of colour still hurting not only after the events of Charlottesville but more of that shit on the horizon. I see where she's coming from, and she *was* funny, but...yeah. Not the right time, and not her place.

You said it much better than I did, but that's what I meant by her not being funny.  Easy for a *privileged, celebrity* white woman to sit there and stuff her face with cake and make snarky jokes, but definitely not the right time and not her place.

Plus, I never thought she was funny anyway. 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Ohwell
added something

[HunterHunted]

On 8/10/2017 at 7:30 PM, kiddo82 said:

Not sure where else to put this.  And I have a feeling this won't be that unpopular but Disney wants to create its own streaming service.

 

I hope it crashes and burns.

 

I get it and it makes perfect business sense if you're Disney.  Why license your content when you can cut out the middle man and keep it all for yourself?  And it's not like there's such an extensive glut of Disney content on the current streaming platforms anyway.  But if Disney does it then Universal, Fox, Warner Bros, Sony et al will follow.  And it's all about the exclusive content these days.  CBS is already dipping its toe in the water.  I agree with the article that we don't need to go back to the days of three networks but at the same time who needs 18 different subscription services?  And, like the article says, what if Disney fractures the fracture?  A separate service each for Marvel, for Star Wars, for animation, for Pixar, etc? I myself have three subscriptions and it's probably (definitely) two too many.  (In my defense with the amount I buy from Amazon, the prime account pays for itself so that one shouldn't really count.)

When it was announced, Netflix stock dipped and so did Disney's. We're at a point where there no one is going to subscribe to a dozen streaming services. And sorry while people love their children, no one just subscribes to the Disney channel for their children. It's part of a cable bundle for a reason. 

John Landgraf of FX has said that basically we're at a breaking point with streaming services. If Disney wants to do a $5 add on for Hulu or Amazon Prime Video, they should go ahead and do that. NBC Universal's streaming comedy service, Seeso, has basically collapsed despite pretty good reviews for some of its original content.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/john-landgraf-peak-tv-update-its-become-unmaneagable.html

[HunterHunted]

On 8/11/2017 at 9:40 PM, bilgistic said:

I don't understand how Netflix is B-B-B-BILLIONS of dollars in debt. They are a smashing success and how the hell do you get BILLIONS of dollars in debt?!? I mean, other than being a country, which I don't understand, either. Economics class didn't leave much of an impression on me.

You're also describing Amazon. It's been profitable for maybe a dozen quarters for its 20 years of business. Both Amazon and Netflix are willing to spend their competition into submission.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2017/05/23/the-amazon-era-no-profits-no-problem/#67de7c91437a

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

You're also describing Amazon. It's been profitable for maybe a dozen quarters for its 20 years of business. Both Amazon and Netflix are willing to spend their competition into submission.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2017/05/23/the-amazon-era-no-profits-no-problem/#67de7c91437a

I think the big difference is that amazon has spent those 20 years building up the efficiency of their system to make it very difficult for competitors to arise. That is why they weren't profitable.  Even now walmart is going after some of Amazon's business and it is not eaay. With netflix other than a few key shows and name recognition there isn't a lot separating them from their competition. It would be a lot easier for a competitor to take down netflix than amazon i think. 

[meep.meep]

I'd better whisper this:  I'm sick of Princess Diana.

[Ohwell]

*whispery voice*  It's not her fault. : )

[biakbiak]

59 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

*whispery voice*  It's not her fault. : )

I would disagree Ro a certain extent.

[Ohwell]

42 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I would disagree Ro a certain extent.

She's........dead?

[bilgistic]

I'm a little bit psychic. It's totally useless, like, I'll know what's going to be in the mailbox when I'm walking to it or I'll have a random, non-current song in my head for days and then I'll hear it on TV or it'll somehow appear in my life in another way.

The random song in my head this week has been Elton John's "Candle in the Wind", and @meep.meep just posted about Princess Diana. Whoa.

[kiddo82]

At the urging of one of my best friends (who hasn't steered me wrong in the past) I'm trying to get into Jessica Jones on Netflix and I'm just not feeling it.  I'm only two episodes in but I'm bored.  I don't know if it's the darker tone than the Marvel films that's throwing me off or Krysten Ritter (I feel Jessica acts like a badass as opposed to actually being one) but I don't know if I'm gonna stick this one out.  

[meep.meep]

19 minutes ago, bilgistic said:

I'm a little bit psychic. It's totally useless, like, I'll know what's going to be in the mailbox when I'm walking to it or I'll have a random, non-current song in my head for days and then I'll hear it on TV or it'll somehow appear in my life in another way.

The random song in my head this week has been Elton John's "Candle in the Wind", and @meep.meep just posted about Princess Diana. Whoa.

probably because there are 80 documentaries/special event programs about her this month and every dang one features that song.  Sometimes it is causation, not just correlation.

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

She's........dead?

Yes and I believe many of the choices she made in life led a lot of the tributes and contributed to her death.

[bilgistic]

16 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

probably because there are 80 documentaries/special event programs about her this month and every dang one features that song.  Sometimes it is causation, not just correlation.

But I've not seen or heard about any of them until reading this post.

[meep.meep]

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

She's........dead?

Did we fail to provide a spoiler alert?  Sorry.

That's why I was whispering. 

[Ohwell]

6 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Yes and I believe many of the choices she made in life led a lot of the tributes and contributed to her death.

So what?  She's still dead.

[biakbiak]

Just now, Ohwell said:

So what?  She's still dead.

I am aware and was stating in the unpopular opinion thread that she coveted the sort of attention she is currently receiving.

[Ohwell]

Just now, biakbiak said:

I am aware and was stating in the unpopular opinion thread that she coveted the sort of attention she is currently receiving.

And I'm saying that she can no longer "covet" the attention because she's deader than dead now, so beginning with the day, hour, minute, and second of her death, it can no longer be her fault for the attention she receives thereafter.  

So, we can agree to disagree and I'm movin' on. 

[Enigma X]

How does not liking or liking Princess Di end up in an Unpopular TV opinions thread? Well, I know how. The documentaries about her and such, I get if someone said that. (Not that I get why, but I would get the mention.)

Edited August 24, 2017 by Enigma X

[meep.meep]

I didn't say I disliked her, I said I was sick of her.  And clearly in a TV UO thread, I'm sick of her because of all the TV coverage.

And I'm just as entitled to my UO as you are to yours.  

Another UO I have is that I don't think we need yet another show about a gang of misunderstood mutant kids who have to stand up to the tyrany of their government that doesn't understand them.  At this point, it's been done to death.  Why not do the opposite show?  In a world of mutants, the non-mutants are being picked on.

[DittyDotDot]

27 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

Another UO I have is that I don't think we need yet another show about a gang of misunderstood mutant kids who have to stand up to the tyrany of their government that doesn't understand them.  At this point, it's been done to death.  Why not do the opposite show?  In a world of mutants, the non-mutants are being picked on.

Not that I disagree that we don't need another show like this, but isn't that basically the same show? 

Edited August 24, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[meep.meep]

It is but it's at least a little bit original.  I wish the mutants would just go away.

[proserpina65]

On ‎08‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 6:33 PM, meep.meep said:

I didn't say I disliked her, I said I was sick of her.  And clearly in a TV UO thread, I'm sick of her because of all the TV coverage.

I'll go a step farther: I was sick of Princess Diana while she was still alive, and the virtual canonization of her after her death annoys the crap out of me.  All the tv coverage of the 20th anniversary of her death makes me want to shoot the tv.  I've been trying to stay away from it, but it's freaking everywhere.

[Katy M]

3 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Princess Diana while she was still alive, and the virtual canonization of her after her death annoys the crap out of me. 

I feel the same way.  I've never wanted to say so, though, because "don't speak ill of the dead" and all that.  But, geeze, you'd think she was some perfect paragon or something.  I'm not saying she was a bad person, or any worse than anyone else, and probably better than some, but she wasn't a perfect, sinless being who could do no wrong.

[GHScorpiosRule]

This is me whenever I see the promos for the new show Team SEAL, or SEAL Team, starring David Boreanz: ????

Because originally, Jim Caviezel was supposed to play this role and for reasons I cannot find, he was suddenly gone and this guy was replacing him. 

[proserpina65]

7 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I feel the same way.  I've never wanted to say so, though, because "don't speak ill of the dead" and all that.  But, geeze, you'd think she was some perfect paragon or something.  I'm not saying she was a bad person, or any worse than anyone else, and probably better than some, but she wasn't a perfect, sinless being who could do no wrong.

I thought she was a troubled person who was ill-suited to the life into which she was thrust.  She did some good things, some other not-so-good things, much like any other decent person.  But she was not the saint that some of the tv coverage has been trying to paint her as.

[Danny Franks]

3 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I thought she was a troubled person who was ill-suited to the life into which she was thrust.  She did some good things, some other not-so-good things, much like any other decent person.  But she was not the saint that some of the tv coverage has been trying to paint her as.

The outpouring of public grief, wailing and gnashing of teeth over here in the UK when she died was flat out embarrassing. You couldn't go anywhere, read any paper, turn on the TV, without being smashed over the head by how wonderful and tragic she supposedly was.

A rich, pampered woman who married in order to be richer and even more pampered, and then didn't like the rest of what came with that. Namely, an actual husband, responsibilities and a life in the public eye. I never had any real sympathy for her, and I still don't. I give her credit for the charity work she did, but I feel that's a bare minimum that a person in her position should be doing.

I used to be far more anti-monarchy than I am these days. I don't really care about the monarchy one way or the other. They do some decent things, but still live a life of privilege that few can dream of. But I still have no time for Diana worshippers.

[kassygreene]

I knew she was a troubled person, and I knew she'd co-operated with the "unauthorized" bio, and I knew she'd tip off the press for photo ops, and I still was shocked and stunned.  I remember when the news was breaking (early evening Central Time) that I called a friend and stayed on the phone for about half an hour just to have the comfort of a telephone voice.  I knew enough about the royal family to know they were reacting in character, and that that was not necessarily evil.  I knew that some of the media started out hysterical and got worse.  I knew that that week was ridiculously over the top, but I was still shocked and stunned.  I even knew I was shocked and stunned, and yet remained shocked and stunned.  In my memory it was the sort of thing you had to gut your way through, because you couldn't yank yourself out.

YMMV.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 23/08/2017 at 5:23 PM, meep.meep said:

I'd better whisper this:  I'm sick of Princess Diana.

I'll take it one step further and even though i don't know a whole lot about their marriage I have more sympathy for Charles (outside of the fact that she died of course). If anything he was the one forced to marry someone he didn't love when he was already in love with someone else. It really seemed like she got a lot more public sympathy because she was attractive and he wasn't. Of couse the fact that Camilla was also not as attractive as Diana  made it worse. 

[Blergh]

And to think, I actually liked Fergie more than Diana when I first heard of her. Well, at least this frenzied 'landmark anniversary' coverage has little if anything to do with Fergie.