TV/Movies Megathread

[celedhring]

The Economist had an article about how Netflix is following sort of an anti-Game of Thrones strategy.  Instead of staking everything on a must-see, they make a million shows that a handful of viewers, somewhere out there, will want to watch.  A niche product for every niche.

I personally think the HBO strategy is vulnerable.  What happens if your once a year monster is a dud?

That is indeed quite true and I got it straight from the horse's mouth (the Catalan writer guild had an event with the Netflix content director for Spain and LatAm). Their soaps and young adult stuff, for example, is stupidly successful and they never advertise those.

[celedhring]

I think in the end content creation won't be an in-house thing anymore. At least not exclusively. It'll be more like an auction where you make your show and then sell it to the highest bidder. That will make financing shows and movies much more interesting and chaotic. I think it will be good for us though. Look how many games and comics have come into existence due to crowdfunding. Really good ones, too.

Disney is already the only studio that produces in house, everybody else outsources. GoT wasn't originated internally at HBO, nor did they produce it directly. Nobody is that vertically integrated anymore.

And outside the US there's a very large bidding market for content (and even in the US for independent stuff) both for before and after the film/show is in the can. That's how funding has been raised for Euro shows for a long time, since Euro companies don't have the financial muscle of US media companies.

[viper37]

I like that they are slowing down a bit and spending more time on developing the characters and storyline.  If you have the richest man in the world backing the show, I guess you get more freedom to tell the story the way you want.

Yeah, it shows.  I mean, like, I never heard so many "fuck" and "fucking" in my entire life from a single woman on tv

[viper37]

Leaving Vikings in the bin I got hold *cough cough* of The Expanse.

Now, this is a good series. The best one, by far, for me going on right now.

Well, it's harder to fuck up history in science-fiction, I guess.   

[viper37]

Amazon is a real wildcard because of just how wealthy the company is, plus integrating it with a Prime membership.  But their original programming is nothing remarkable.

TBH, it is an upstart, compared to Netflix.  I think we're just beginning to see good shows coming on Amazon Prime.  Just like Netflix used to be all about old SD tv shows and DVD rentals.

Disney+ is actually pretty thin when you get down to it.  How many times are you going to watch Marvel movies or the animated classics?  It's probably better if you have kids because they have all the Disney channel shows, but the content for adults is pretty light.

Despite being backed by Disney, the network is only a few months old.  They will have some Marvel and some more SW live tv shows coming there, to attract viewers.  And eventually, maybe some of the Disney/Marvel/SW/Pixar/etc movies will make it there faster than on blu ray.  If it's legal to do, of course.  Not too sure about how that works with other production company and theaters.

There might be room for those three.  I think it's the others that might be in trouble.  What's the point of Hulu now that Disney owns it?

Hulu will be for more "mature" content, stuff where people use big words, or where there could be a nipple slip at some point.  Chopping arms or heads is fine for general networks, but at least, somewhere in America, someone is thinking of the children and all the damages they could suffer if they were accidentally exposed to a "fuck you too" on tv.
Seriously, Deadpool-like stuff could find its way on Hulu.

Who watches CBS All Access

Trekkies.

or Apple TV +?

Duh.  Aren't you the one who's über loyal to Apple products?  You tell me! 

Is there really room for Peacock - NBC's streaming service?

Possibly, possibly not.  It really depends on what they'll show, what kind of exlusives they'll get.
When Fox TV came online, I remember people joking about it.  Nowadays, it seem to be doing well.Of course, back then, it might have costed like 2$ more to have it included in you cable packaging, far from the 10-15$ each of these streaming platform ask nowadays.  But the general principle remains the same.  Eventually, I believe some of them will lower their fees to attract viewers, sign deals with other platforms to exchange some of their contents, or risk disapearing.



EDIT:
I just read NBC wants to reboot Quantum Leap on Peacock.  It might just work.

[Eddie Teach]

Nah, the last 40 years are kinda dull in American history.

[celedhring]

I disagree, plenty of material to write interesting episodes (and not all Quantum Leap episodes were based around a real person or event anyway). 9/11 for starters is one of the biggest events in post-war US history. The LA riots, Columbine, the Irak/Afghan wars (the first show obsessed about Vietnam), the 2008 market crash...

I honestly haven't watched the original in like 20 years. Does it hold up? I find most of my favorite shows from the 1990s are almost unwatchable nowadays when compared to current high quality TV.

[Josquius]

The big problem with amazon prime is less the quality of their good shows and more the messiness of their ui and the amount of utter junk and pay per view they throw on there.
On amazon, everything is listed in one, whether its a decent show you can stream for free, something you have to pay £2 an episode to watch, or some college humour series.
There's just no organisation. Discoverability is borked. There's a constant fear I might accidentally pay for something.

[viper37]

In another story, the CW just announced a reboot of Walker, Texas Ranger with Jared Padalacki (the uncool brother in Supernatural ) and a reboot of Lois & Lane (Superman...).

So, who knows, maybe all these online platforms offering decent, original content, will work?

[celedhring]

The big problem with amazon prime is less the quality of their good shows and more the messiness of their ui and the amount of utter junk and pay per view they throw on there.
On amazon, everything is listed in one, whether its a decent show you can stream for free, something you have to pay £2 an episode to watch, or some college humour series.
There's just no organisation. Discoverability is borked. There's a constant fear I might accidentally pay for something.

Weird. Certainly not set up that way here. No pay-per-view content on the Prime Video app.

UI is messy, so is HBO's. Netflix has by far the best app imho.

[viper37]

The big problem with amazon prime is less the quality of their good shows and more the messiness of their ui and the amount of utter junk and pay per view they throw on there.
On amazon, everything is listed in one, whether its a decent show you can stream for free, something you have to pay £2 an episode to watch, or some college humour series.
There's just no organisation. Discoverability is borked. There's a constant fear I might accidentally pay for something.

Weird. Certainly not set up that way there. No pay-per-view content on the Prime Video app.

UI is messy, so is HBO's. Netflix has by far the best app imho.

There is some content that require a monthly subscription, but you can cancel it anytime you want.  I haven't seen any strickly PPV content though.

[Duque de Bragança]

In another story, the CW just announced a reboot of Walker, Texas Ranger with Jared Padalacki (the uncool brother in Supernatural ) and a reboot of Lois & Lane (Superman...).
So, who knows, maybe all these online platforms offering decent, original content, will work?

How dare they?!
Chuck's work is sacred!   

I saw some shots of the Magnum remake yesterday and it's very low on creativity, unsurprisingly.
The McGyver remake looked like crap as well, despite taking some liberties.

[Eddie Teach]

Disappointed, but not surprised that Viper watches the CW. 

[Grey Fox]

The Economist had an article about how Netflix is following sort of an anti-Game of Thrones strategy.  Instead of staking everything on a must-see, they make a million shows that a handful of viewers, somewhere out there, will want to watch.  A niche product for every niche.

I personally think the HBO strategy is vulnerable.  What happens if your once a year monster is a dud?

That is indeed quite true and I got it straight from the horse's mouth (the Catalan writer guild had an event with the Netflix content director for Spain and LatAm). Their soaps and young adult stuff, for example, is stupidly successful and they never advertise those.

Netflix's Go! Vive tu Manera is very popular with my kids. Spanish language tv is pretty good.

[celedhring]

The Economist had an article about how Netflix is following sort of an anti-Game of Thrones strategy.  Instead of staking everything on a must-see, they make a million shows that a handful of viewers, somewhere out there, will want to watch.  A niche product for every niche.

I personally think the HBO strategy is vulnerable.  What happens if your once a year monster is a dud?

That is indeed quite true and I got it straight from the horse's mouth (the Catalan writer guild had an event with the Netflix content director for Spain and LatAm). Their soaps and young adult stuff, for example, is stupidly successful and they never advertise those.

Netflix's Go! Vive tu Manera is very popular with my kids. Spanish language tv is pretty good.

They are betting very strongly in Spanish language stuff. They built some rather impressive facilities in Madrid and are churning out shows at a quite good pace... which is quite good for people like me.

I think Netflix is doing a very good job at developing a strong overseas base with locally produced content. That's surely costing them a shitload of money though, I do wonder if they can keep that up long term.