Belton Ag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

---

What's stopping me is the approximately $100 per month I allocate to Netflix, Prime, Max, Starz and Paramount+ I spend for content I rarely watch. I realize nothing stops me from doing that now, other than my family is stuck in this paradigm where we have to have all these subscriptions and every time I talk about canceling this stuff I get pushback. My entertainment budget is finite and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

---

Your argument is somewhat nonsensical. You started with "I would gladly drop my subscriptions" and then complain that you can't stop doing that because of your family. Blame your family's consumption patterns, not the market.

---

I constantly blame them for their bad taste in entertainment but it doesn't do me any good.

---

Your point is a good one though...and the fragmentation is my biggest complaint about the current landscape.

Not long ago, EVERYTHING was in one place. It was so easy. You paid for your cable package, and were off and running. There was On Demand options for older movies/shows, and the option to rent new releases.

Now you need a dozen different subs, to watch the same amount of content that interests you (or your family). And it's simply become much more expensive than I ever paid for cable....with costs for the apps ever-increasing.

What we had, was unquestionably easier, and less expensive in the past. Now I pay more, for less convenience. I miss a lot of content I'd otherwise watch, because I'm not going to sign up for more streaming options.

I'm predicting someone comes out with an app/service, that somehow consolidates the various streaming content back into a single sub/package, and we're back where we were before (it's already starting to happen with HULU, Disney, ESPN, Max, etc).

maroon barchetta said:

---

dude95 said:

---

Side note - Hot Ones is actually up for sale from Buzzfeed. They are in a bind because they need money, but are trying to sell for $40MM or something like that.

The problem is that Sean Williams is just an employee of the show. If they sell the show and he decides to go somewhere else, 95% chance the show tanks. Samir and Colin did a good breakdown on their podcast a little while back - latest was the show may go away altogether if they can't figure it out.

---

Sean Evans?

---

thank you sir

cajunaggie08 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

But there has always been competition. You had other studious, TV series, cable tv, etc. The delivery method/options have changed, but the content is relatively the same.

We'd all watch a movie at the theatre or from Blockbuster. We'd also watch Sopranos on HBO or 90210 on Fox.

Im sure people will watch a new movie on Prime on Sunday. Then what do they watch on Monday? Maybe the new release that I missed in the theatre.

I dont see how that's changed much.

---

Whats changed is nearly every tv show or movie from the past 40 years is on one app or another. Why am I paying for new release when I havent seen most of what has been out there. I can only speak for myself but since having kids I have nearly a 10 year long backlog of stuff i should checkout that have missed because i didnt previously have time to see it then. Our viewing habits have changed. We binge watch tv shows. There is no longer a certain night of the week when nothing is on but reruns and baseball. We have to make a conscious effort to watch a movie so it takes it being barbieheimer levels of hype for our household to cave in and rent it.

---

I wonder what amount of the market is in your boat. There is definitely still appointment viewing for a large number of people, but it's more based on the show being worth it rather than a specific day regardless of what's on.

Quote:

---

If you only recently changed, you missed out on the roughly 5-8 year sweet spot where cutting the cord was actually real and saved money.

The industry has finally adjusted and found a way to make it all cost more and be more cumbersome to use. We're back at their mercy

---

I changed a couple years ago, because other options went away. But, even during those 'sweet spot' years, I was never opposed to switching. It's just that it was never financially beneficial for me. I never paid more than $145 for cable and internet package. Never. Sure, I had to call and negotiate my rate every 1-2 years, or switch providers every 5-6 years...but that was a minor inconvenience in comparison.

I could be wrong, but I think it only saved people money, who never called to negotiate their rates. Otherwise, I dont know why people paid so much to begin with.

But yes, I agree with you. We're definitely at their mercy now. Part of the issue is that there is reduced competition.

In the past, say you wanted to watch a particular show. Well, you had Dish, Uverse, Directv, Comcast, etc...all vying for the right to give you access to that network/show. They had an incentive to keep rates down. That meant they also had the incentive to negotiate the fees with the network. Now? You have direct access to their app. And they can charge what they want, and there isnt another service that can provide you a lower rate to watch it.

It is what it is. And I'll be a consumer no matter what. But at the expense of sounding like an old Curmudgeon, it was better before.

PatAg said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

---

What's stopping me is the approximately $100 per month I allocate to Netflix, Prime, Max, Starz and Paramount+ I spend for content I rarely watch. I realize nothing stops me from doing that now, other than my family is stuck in this paradigm where we have to have all these subscriptions and every time I talk about canceling this stuff I get pushback. My entertainment budget is finite and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

---

Your argument is somewhat nonsensical. You started with "I would gladly drop my subscriptions" and then complain that you can't stop doing that because of your family. Blame your family's consumption patterns, not the market.

---

I constantly blame them for their bad taste in entertainment but it doesn't do me any good.

---

Your point is a good one though...and the fragmentation is my biggest complaint about the current landscape.

Not long ago, EVERYTHING was in one place. It was so easy. You paid for your cable package, and were off and running. There was On Demand options for older movies/shows, and the option to rent new releases.

Now you need a dozen different subs, to watch the same amount of content that interests you (or your family). And it's simply become much more expensive than I ever paid for cable....with costs for the apps ever-increasing.

What we had, was unquestionably easier, and less expensive in the past. Now I pay more, for less convenience. I miss a lot of content I'd otherwise watch, because I'm not going to sign up for more streaming options.

I'm predicting someone comes out with an app/service, that somehow consolidates the various streaming content back into a single sub/package, and we're back where we were before (it's already starting to happen with HULU, Disney, ESPN, Max, etc).

---

If you only recently changed, you missed out on the roughly 5-8 year sweet spot where cutting the cord was actually real and saved money.
The industry has finally adjusted and found a way to make it all cost more and be more cumbersome to use. We're back at their mercy

---

The original cord cutting movement was about getting away from cable/satellite tv monopolies and expressly did not have the expectation of getting all the content. There simply wasn't another way (legally) to get that content through the internet or streaming. Hulu was the closest thing at the time to being able to get some network productions through streaming but it was pretty limited early on.

Somewhere along the way some portion of people got the idea that you could get all the content (including new content sources that wouldn't have existed prior to streaming becoming mainstream) for less money. That idea was always nonsensical as a long term plan.

I'm confused... no one has taken away DirecTV, Comcast, Spectrum, etc, and there's also now YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, etc. Yes, traditional cable is dying, but there are still plenty of choices out there offering exactly what you're talking about, with all kinds of packages, DVR features, and on-demand options. To that end, you don't have to subscribe to any apps to watch shows on, say, ABC, CBS, NBC, AMC, FX, HBO, Starz, Paramount, etc, whenever you want, same as it's always been. Literally nothing has changed in that regard.

Now, if you want to watch the extra/exclusive stuff on Amazon, Disney+, Netflix, Max, sure, you have to subscribe to those apps. But that's an absolute **** ton more content that I would argue you should have to pay extra for.

Don't get me wrong, I hope and one day believe it'll all be better consolidated/organized, where we're not having to navigate multiple apps + a digital/cable package. But until then, I don't understand this hostage narrative.

Quote:

---

Yes, traditional cable is dying, but there are still plenty of choices out there offering exactly what you're talking about

---

It's not though. It's way more fragmented, hence why you and i agree about this:

Quote:

---

I hope and one day believe it'll all be better consolidated/organized, where we're not having to navigate multiple apps + a digital/cable package.

---

For example, a show like Only Murders in the Building, Ted Lasso, etc...would require you to sign up for a separate sub. In the past, it's on a network, included in my package. It's only 'extra/exclusve' now, because it's made exclusive to each platform, in an effort to get more subs. It didnt used to be like that for the consumer.

There is no 'hostage' narrative. Just discussing the current landscape and how it compares, and in some cases falls short of what we've had in the past. Which is why we both hope it'll be better organized in the future.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, traditional cable is dying, but there are still plenty of choices out there offering exactly what you're talking about

---

It's not though. It's way more fragmented, hence why you and i agree about this:

Quote:

---

I hope and one day believe it'll all be better consolidated/organized, where we're not having to navigate multiple apps + a digital/cable package.

---

For example, a show like Only Murders in the Building, Ted Lasso, etc...would require you to sign up for a separate sub. In the past, it's on a network, included in my package. It's only 'extra/exclusve' now, because it's made exclusive to each platform, in an effort to get more subs. It didnt used to be like that for the consumer.

There is no 'hostage' narrative. Just discussing the current landscape and how it compares, and in some cases falls short of what we've had in the past. Which is why we both hope it'll be better organized in the future.

---

There is WAY MORE content now than there has ever been. In other words, there is no way the old/current cable model would be able to accommodate the amount of shows being offered across cable + all the streamers in today's landscape. So to imply that all of this new content would have simply been on networks you already paid for via cable is disingenuous.

Yes, it sucks that we now have multiple bills and have to navigate multiple apps. But it's not like they took the same amount of content that there was in, say, 2010, and decided to divide it up among a bunch of different streamers now.

Case in point...

In 2010, there were 200 scripted shows.

In 2022? There were 600 SCRIPTED SHOWS.

The amount literally tripled, and again, that's only counting scripted. Never mind all the new reality shows, docu-series, kids content, all the streamer exclusive movies, etc. All said and done the amount of content in today's cable/streaming landscape has probably quadrupled, if quintupled since peak cable.

So why shouldn't that amount of content cost more?

TCTTS said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, traditional cable is dying, but there are still plenty of choices out there offering exactly what you're talking about

---

It's not though. It's way more fragmented, hence why you and i agree about this:

Quote:

---

I hope and one day believe it'll all be better consolidated/organized, where we're not having to navigate multiple apps + a digital/cable package.

---

For example, a show like Only Murders in the Building, Ted Lasso, etc...would require you to sign up for a separate sub. In the past, it's on a network, included in my package. It's only 'extra/exclusve' now, because it's made exclusive to each platform, in an effort to get more subs. It didnt used to be like that for the consumer.

There is no 'hostage' narrative. Just discussing the current landscape and how it compares, and in some cases falls short of what we've had in the past. Which is why we both hope it'll be better organized in the future.

---

There is WAY MORE content now than there has ever been. In other words, there is no way the old/current cable model would be able to accommodate the amount of shows being offered across cable + all the streamers in today's landscape. So to imply that all of this new content would have simply been on networks you already paid for via cable is disingenuous.

Yes, it sucks that we now have multiple bills and have to navigate multiple apps. But it's not like they took the same amount of content that there was in, say, 2010, and decided to divide it up among a bunch of different streamers now.

Case in point...

In 2010, there were 200 scripted shows.

In 2022? There were 600 SCRIPTED SHOWS.

The amount literally tripled, and again, that's only counting scripted. Never mind all the new reality shows, docu-series, kids content, all the streamer exclusive movies, etc. All said and done the amount of content in today's cable/streaming landscape has probably quadrupled, if quintupled since peak cable.

So why shouldn't that amount of content cost more?

---

No need for edits on this one, got it perfect on the first try.

Ok. But is it better? I watch a lot of TV, but I dont watch more TV...in fact, I probably watch less, because I'm just not going to sign up for more Apps. And I've heard a lot of people echo that same sentiment (which is a reason things likely will be consolidated more in the future). And there was a reason not as many things used to get green lighted. Now, the various services simply need more content for their service/app. Doesnt make it better. It means we get a lot more shows like Hubie Halloween than Peaky Blinders.

But all that said, I realize it's my opinion, and I dont want to keep debating it.


I'd be curious about your opinion on my original question from Page 2..about why the DVD rentals revenue disappeared, and why the studios allow it to be this way...

Sorry, but the reason I didn't answer your earlier question is because so many others did instead. I woke up to, like, 30+ new replies that day and there was nothing I could have added that wasn't already addressed ad nauseam.

If I rubbed you the wrong way or something I apologize. You seem bothered towards me. Not sure why...

We had a good discussion, a few theories/tangents, but I dont think it got definitively answered. I was interested in learning about how it got structured this way during the transition. I figured someone in the industry would know a bit more than the average fan on here.

But really, dont bother... you must be tired from reading 30 whole new replies. I'll just be glad to have had a good discussion with the other posters on this thread.

No, you didn't rub me the wrong way at all, sorry. I just genuinely didn't understand your above complaint, as it seemed to me you were framing it as if cable had already gone away and that there wasn't way more content available today. Nor did I mean to be flippant toward your other question. Genuinely, I don't know what else I would add to that conversation. If I tried, I would simply be summarizing a combination of other people's posts.

Gotcha.

TCTTS said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, traditional cable is dying, but there are still plenty of choices out there offering exactly what you're talking about

---

It's not though. It's way more fragmented, hence why you and i agree about this:

Quote:

---

I hope and one day believe it'll all be better consolidated/organized, where we're not having to navigate multiple apps + a digital/cable package.

---

For example, a show like Only Murders in the Building, Ted Lasso, etc...would require you to sign up for a separate sub. In the past, it's on a network, included in my package. It's only 'extra/exclusve' now, because it's made exclusive to each platform, in an effort to get more subs. It didnt used to be like that for the consumer.

There is no 'hostage' narrative. Just discussing the current landscape and how it compares, and in some cases falls short of what we've had in the past. Which is why we both hope it'll be better organized in the future.

---

There is WAY MORE content now than there has ever been. In other words, there is no way the old/current cable model would be able to accommodate the amount of shows being offered across cable + all the streamers in today's landscape. So to imply that all of this new content would have simply been on networks you already paid for via cable is disingenuous.

Yes, it sucks that we now have multiple bills and have to navigate multiple apps. But it's not like they took the same amount of content that there was in, say, 2010, and decided to divide it up among a bunch of different streamers now.

Case in point...

In 2010, there were 200 scripted shows.

In 2022? There were 600 SCRIPTED SHOWS.

The amount literally tripled, and again, that's only counting scripted. Never mind all the new reality shows, docu-series, kids content, all the streamer exclusive movies, etc. All said and done the amount of content in today's cable/streaming landscape has probably quadrupled, if quintupled since peak cable.

So why shouldn't that amount of content cost more?

---

Completely agree with TCTTS here and I'll throw in some more things that bolster his argument.

1. No commercials.
2. Watch anywhere (phone, tablet, TV) and anytime
3. Loss of subsidization from people who don't utilize the service. Ideally, you no longer pay for things you don't use. In the cable model, you were paying for all sorts of channels you never watched. That kept direct viewing costs down.

We are about to ditch Disney+ and Netflix. That will leave us with just Prime.

I watch more YouTube than anything so might consider getting a subscription.

We just aren't watching much Netflix or Disney+.

dude95 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

The 1980s churned out a plethora of coming of age R rated comedies like Porkys, Losin It, Class, etc. seems to me they are inexpensive to produce and the genre is wildly popular. Why hasn't an independent studio stepped up to make these types of moves considering the content void today?

---

So much of the draw of these films was naked girls and a chance to see boobs. Granted, I laughed with them.

Now you have the internet and can see boobs at any time. The actors don't want to be naked.

---

I think you are confusing the hilarious R rated comedies with the B level boobie movies like the Spring Break type
comedies. Yes there were boobs in Porkys, Revenge of the Nerds, Losin It, Class, etc but the script and plot lines were hilarious. That's what we are missing these days at the theater, a 2 hour experience where you can just forget about the myriad stress and drama of your life and just laugh your ass off. My son is 15 and a few months ago he and I watched Porkys and we both laughed our asses off while the wife clucked her disapproval from the kitchen, it was good times. The whole movie he was texting his buddies telling them all the funny scenes and within a few days all of them had seen it.

They especially liked the Ballbricker tug of war in the shower scene, Hollywood needs more of those type of scenes in movies and fewer slow motion shots of super heroes lining up for another showdown.

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, traditional cable is dying, but there are still plenty of choices out there offering exactly what you're talking about

---

It's not though. It's way more fragmented, hence why you and i agree about this:

Quote:

---

I hope and one day believe it'll all be better consolidated/organized, where we're not having to navigate multiple apps + a digital/cable package.

---

For example, a show like Only Murders in the Building, Ted Lasso, etc...would require you to sign up for a separate sub. In the past, it's on a network, included in my package. It's only 'extra/exclusve' now, because it's made exclusive to each platform, in an effort to get more subs. It didnt used to be like that for the consumer.

There is no 'hostage' narrative. Just discussing the current landscape and how it compares, and in some cases falls short of what we've had in the past. Which is why we both hope it'll be better organized in the future.

---

There is WAY MORE content now than there has ever been. In other words, there is no way the old/current cable model would be able to accommodate the amount of shows being offered across cable + all the streamers in today's landscape. So to imply that all of this new content would have simply been on networks you already paid for via cable is disingenuous.

Yes, it sucks that we now have multiple bills and have to navigate multiple apps. But it's not like they took the same amount of content that there was in, say, 2010, and decided to divide it up among a bunch of different streamers now.

Case in point...

In 2010, there were 200 scripted shows.

In 2022? There were 600 SCRIPTED SHOWS.

The amount literally tripled, and again, that's only counting scripted. Never mind all the new reality shows, docu-series, kids content, all the streamer exclusive movies, etc. All said and done the amount of content in today's cable/streaming landscape has probably quadrupled, if quintupled since peak cable.

So why shouldn't that amount of content cost more?

---

Completely agree with TCTTS here and I'll throw in some more things that bolster his argument.

1. No commercials.
2. Watch anywhere (phone, tablet, TV) and anytime
3. Loss of subsidization from people who don't utilize the service. Ideally, you no longer pay for things you don't use. In the cable model, you were paying for all sorts of channels you never watched. That kept direct viewing costs down.

---

With DVR I never watched commercials. Most apps now make you watch them unless you pay the highest tier

And you could still have mobility with bundled TV. That's more the delivery method (internet) than anything to do with fragmenting the content across so many platforms.

I do like being able to cancel anytime.

Saw this headline and it made me think of this thread. I promise you, more people than not in this industry feel the way Ortega does. Hopefully more like her actually speak up, and I do feel like it's trending that way (though it's definitely going to take some time)...

Jenna Ortega says "everybody wants to be politically correct" in Hollywood and that "lacks honesty."

“The business that we work in is so touchy-feely. Everybody wants to be politically correct, but I feel like, in doing that, we lose a lot of our humanity and integrity, because… pic.twitter.com/f2oXONH9Ac

— Variety (@Variety) August 8, 2024

This week I watched the episode of Hot Ones where she was the guest.

I was very impressed with her answers to Sean's questions as well as her ability to handle the spicy sauces.

Seems like more and more people are saying what she's saying.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Seems like more and more people are saying what she's saying.

---

Is she saying Hollywood stars aren't able to speak their minds when it comes to politics without fear of retribution? I feel like we have constantly heard how they feel about political topics for decades whether we wanted to or not.

Her statement came after a costar was removed from one of the scream movies for saying Israel is committing genocide.

What does "IP" mean?

I literally was listening to a podcast about this today. Think of how great the early 2000s were for comedy. In one decade, you had:

Anchorman, Talladega Nights, Dodgeball, Wedding Crashers, Superbad, Step Brothers, Hangover, Old School, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I Love You Man, School of Rock, Meet the Parents, 40 Year Old Virgin, Zoolander, Tropic Thunder.

We have had maybe 2 or 3 great comedies in the last 10-15 years. Super saddened by that.

The comments about budgets don't make sense though. These movies mostly were made for nothing. Very easy to turn a profit.

Horror movies are having a resurgence right now because they are easy to make, cheap, a way for a director to make a name for themselves and can make a huge profit. Some of the best horror movies ever have come out in the last 10-15 years. Wish low budget comedy would make a similar comeback.

Aggie Dad 26 said:

---

What does "IP" mean?

---

Defined in the very first post, specifically for people like you…

Quote:

---

"IP" (intellectual property, in the form of book and board game adaptations, endless sequels, spinoffs, etc)

---

Early 2010s still had some good comedies but it definitely dried up mid decade imo.

Early 2010s comedies:
Tucker and Dale vs Evil
Scott Pilgrim
Hot Tub Time Machine
Horrible Bosses
21 Jump Street

Certainly not all of these are all time greats or anything but I can't think of anything from around 2015 and newer I have enjoyed more that is a comedy first.

We watch a lot of the office when there isn't anything else on TV. Watching some of those older seasons, there are definitely some jokes that wouldn't fly today. But I also don't think there's much interest in a lower budget comedy serial like that. Which is a shame, because that show was great when it came out and is very rewatchable. I'm sure it's much more rewatchable to us because that came out when we were late teens/early 20s. But I can't think of anything in the last 10-15 years that was in that same lane.

If you haven't seen it already, this Office Space reunion is a great discussion on making a fairly low-budget comedy for adults. Of course, it wasn't a box office smash, but went to make an impression on the culture.

TCTTS said:

---

Saw this headline and it made me think of this thread. I promise you, more people than not in this industry feel the way Ortega does. Hopefully more like her actually speak up, and I do feel like it's trending that way (though it's definitely going to take some time)...

Jenna Ortega says "everybody wants to be politically correct" in Hollywood and that "lacks honesty."

“The business that we work in is so touchy-feely. Everybody wants to be politically correct, but I feel like, in doing that, we lose a lot of our humanity and integrity, because… pic.twitter.com/f2oXONH9Ac

— Variety (@Variety) August 8, 2024

---

IMO, her comments can be taken a couple different ways (and I've only read the tweet so maybe there's greater clarification somewhere). If she's complaining that people are self-censoring their art to meet politically correct standards, I agree it's relevant to this thread. However, I think she may be complaining that people are having to self-censor their personal views. If her point is the latter, I fail to see how Hollywood being more vocal in their personal beliefs is going to help anything.

People want a more wide-ranging offering of entertainment products. But I don't think anyone is clamoring to know more about the personal views of those making the entertainment products.

She's claiming the latter, pretty sure.

How can that be profitable for Frito Lay?