• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

mreddie

Member
Oct 26, 2017
44,092
https://variety.com/2021/digital/features/hulu-disney-original-programming-only-murders-in-the-building-1235047953/

hulu.jpg


What, exactly, is Hulu?

For years, its core brand identity in a nutshell has been: Watch the TV you know and love, streamed over the internet. Right now, analysts say, Hulu's biggest advantage in the streaming wars is that it serves up most of the scripted programming released on broadcast networks. Yes, it has thrown originals into the mix. But the Hulu value proposition remains tied to traditional TV, as reinforced by its introduction of a live-TV package four years ago.

Over the next few years, Hulu — now controlled solely by Disney — will face an existential crisis on the content front that will amplify the pressure for it to produce a regular cadence of original hits, as it is hoping to establish with "Only Murders in the Building."

Starting in 2022, NBCUniversal will have the right to cancel most of its content-licensing agreements with Hulu and could decide to bring its programming exclusively to Peacock. Analysts say ViacomCBS (which has launched Paramount Plus) and Fox Corp. (which owns free, ad-supported streamer Tubi) also are likely to claw their programs back from the streamer.

Still, compared with Disney's bigger streaming mouth to feed — Disney Plus — Hulu is hampered by its U.S.-only confines in terms of payback on content investments. Internationally, Hulu originals produced within the Disney General Entertainment Content group, including "Only Murders in the Building," "Dopesick," "Dollface" and "The D'Amelio Show," are distributed on Disney Plus as part of the new Star general entertainment offering. But the international rights for some Hulu originals are retained by third-party studios. The upshot: Because Hulu never launched overseas, owing to its thorny multi-owner structure, Disney can't as easily amortize Hulu content spending across a global footprint.

"Only Murders in the Building" might yield Hulu a nice crop of new viewers. But the problems for the streamer are bigger than any single show. "They need to increase the frequency of the big-buzz hits coming out of Hulu," says Joe McCormack, senior telecom and media analyst at Third Bridge. "You can't just ride 'Handmaid's Tale.'"

(The biggest example is the streamers biggest show, "The Handsmaid Tale" isn't on Star outside the US and things just more nuts from there.)

Things are about to get really insane for the Green Stream thanks to its past mistakes and an already international brand taking up its space.
 

BlinkBlank

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,226
I currently hate having to open 15 different apps to browse content like you would on cable or satellite. So I just don't anymore. Instead of subscribing to multiple different content providers, I have 1 because it has just gotten too cumbersome and seemingly expensive to keep up on shows.
 

BassForever

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
29,930
CT
I'm not sure why Hulu isn't just rolled into Disney+ at this point. What value is there in having a separate streaming platform?
 

HououinKyouma

The Wise Ones
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,366
Yeah, unfortunately the writing has been on the wall with these streaming services - either accept paying for a dozen different services, or accept that you won't truly have access to all content. I don't mind having Netflix / Hulu / HBO, but this is just crazy now.
 

Senator Toadstool

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,651
this is why they're pushing the bundle. hulu's gonna be an add on for Disney +. I don't mind paying for a few shows or movies a year in addition to Disney plus and ESPN +

I'm not sure why Hulu isn't just rolled into Disney+ at this point. What value is there in having a separate streaming platform?
Non-family content It been around for a while and has name recognition.
But it'll become an outlet for FX, Originals, and other Disney stuff through 20th-century studios

disney's not gonna put always sunny on Disney +
 

Azerare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,713
Yeah it's rough with all the different apps getting into the fold. Makes cable look like a worthwhile consideration again the way each one gets their exclusive rights
 

KrisHolt

Member
Jan 29, 2020
63
I'm not sure why Hulu isn't just rolled into Disney+ at this point. What value is there in having a separate streaming platform?
Right now, Hulu's probably making enough money as a standalone brand to keep it separate. But I can see Disney combining them (similar to Star in other countries) down the line.
 

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,346
I got the HBO stuff for Hulu because of HBO's terrible app. Did they fix that yet?
 

BlinkBlank

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,226
Yeah, unfortunately the writing has been on the wall with these streaming services - either accept paying for a dozen different services, or accept that you won't truly have access to all content. I don't mind having Netflix / Hulu / HBO, but this is just crazy now.
That kind of sucks especially if there are 2-3 shows that you would watch on different networks/subscriptions. I just don't want to have to keep up on all my subscriptions or constantly be churning all the time.

I actually really liked Netflix as it was coming out of the 2010's, wide variety of content by many providers.
 

MadLaughter

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
13,096
I wonder if in 5-10 years there will just be a Fox/FX Icon added to the main headers for Star Wars, Marvel, Disney, Pixar, and NatGeo.

I guess it would be Fox, Hulu, or a new 'everything else' category
 

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,346
They already sort of caught onto that no one wants Showtime, AMC+, Starz, and these other services. Making them cost pennies a month permanently would be a good idea.
 

Biske

Member
Nov 11, 2017
8,270
I hope a lot of these streaming platforms die so things can consolidate down. I can do about two streaming services (not counting amazon cause I have prime anyways so as benefit from free shipping prime video is fine enough) but any more than that... nah fuck off.
 

ContractHolder

Jack of All Streams
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,234
I'm not sure why Hulu isn't just rolled into Disney+ at this point. What value is there in having a separate streaming platform?

Because legally they can't until Comcast officially no longer owns a part of Hulu. The last investor call clearly hinted that Disney would rather have one combined media streaming service for all content (including adult content) in the US. But they can't just do what they want when they don't officially own 100% of Hulu. That time will come in a few years. But it's not right now.

Also, while yes, Comcast is definitely going to pull their content in 2022, I find it hilarious that the article is suggesting it stays on Peacock exclusively. Comcast/Universal can't even commit to keeping their movies exclusive to the service. They just signed deals with Netflix and Amazon. I'd need to see a shift in long term valuing of Peacock before I'd believe they'd keep the shows Peacock exclusive. They still want to make money off of licensing deals in the streaming age.
 

Senator Toadstool

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,651
also I can see disney marketing hulu as a cheaper place to produce original work (existing user base and cross-marketing with Disney plus) rather than demand the distribution cut that Netflix would demand (as they're gonna have to claw back some of their costs).
 

CloseTalker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,603
It's already a mess here in Canada. We have that Star section of D+, but it doesn't have even close to all of Hulus content. Some shows are on other services, and some like Malcolm in the Middle and King of the Hill aren't available to stream or purchase digitally at all in Canada
 

Senator Toadstool

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,651
I hope a lot of these streaming platforms die so things can consolidate down. I can do about two streaming services (not counting amazon cause I have prime anyways so as benefit from free shipping prime video is fine enough) but any more than that... nah fuck off.
then don't? I don't know why consolidation is something we should cheer for. It would basically give amazon, Disney, and warnerdiscover control over pretty much everything. Just unsubscribe for months you don't use it.
 

LFMartins86

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,179
I wonder if in 5-10 years there will just be a Fox/FX Icon added to the main headers for Star Wars, Marvel, Disney, Pixar, and NatGeo.

I guess it would be Fox, Hulu, or a new 'everything else' category
Outside the US this already happens, it's not a Fox/FX Icon but a Star +.
That's where the Fox/FX content goes to, including the Hulu like "Only Murders In The Building".
 

bangai-o

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,527
I currently hate having to open 15 different apps to browse content like you would on cable or satellite. So I just don't anymore. Instead of subscribing to multiple different content providers, I have 1 because it has just gotten too cumbersome and seemingly expensive to keep up on shows.
I thought that was a normal thing to do. Subscribe to one for a few months, then cancel and subscribe to another for a few months, cancel and repeat.
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,153
Seattle
Disney will continue to push that bundle. It's actually
Not bad when you include both the adult content and the family content.

Hulu has some of the strongest 'Arthouse' /Indie libraries through their output deals with NEON, Annapurna, Bleecker Street, Magnolia Pictures and IFC.
 

Biske

Member
Nov 11, 2017
8,270
then don't? I don't know why consolidation is something we should cheer for. It would basically give amazon, Disney, and warnerdiscover control over pretty much everything. Just unsubscribe for months you don't use it.

I mean yeah I don't. It would just be nice if watching 5 different shows didn't take 5 different streaming platforms. And its not as if amazon or disney or whoever are going to stop gobbling things up.
 

IDreamOfHime

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,437
It's a weird world where Handmaid's tale is available on Amazon here the UK and Walking Dead is on Disney+.
 

ContractHolder

Jack of All Streams
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,234
I hope a lot of these streaming platforms die so things can consolidate down. I can do about two streaming services (not counting amazon cause I have prime anyways so as benefit from free shipping prime video is fine enough) but any more than that... nah fuck off.

It's not going to go down to two, not counting Amazon. Netflix is sticking around. Disney+ is a success. HBO Max seems to be doing well too.

ViacomCBS and Comcast/UniversalNBC appear to have a partnership overseas. So I suppose if Peacock isn't taken more seriously and Paramount+ doesn't hit the levels that D+ and HBO Max have, they could merge into a service years down the road. But that's the closest you're getting.

And honestly, I find everyone making comments about wanting less streaming platforms weird when everyone here gets worried about what is a monopoly and what isn't in the entertainment space. Not to mention the fact that Funimation and Crunchyroll are going to merge in the future, and everyone flipped out about that.
 
OP
OP
mreddie

mreddie

Member
Oct 26, 2017
44,092
They already sort of caught onto that no one wants Showtime, AMC+, Starz, and these other services. Making them cost pennies a month permanently would be a good idea.
The fact Viacom split Paramount+/BET+/Showtime has to be the stupidest move I've seen (not to mention putting some of the content on Netflix which WUH), just a excuse for more money and Universal's and Sony's Netflix/Amazon/Disney deals are just as batshit.


disney's not gonna put always sunny on Disney +
Not here but....

it68gkg09qq61.png
 

Jest

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,565
CBS pulling their stuff out makes sense. Their solo offering likely has legs with a few of their current exclusives combined with the backlog they'd get back. NBC and Fox... that is a bigger question.

Peacock already tried to go hard subscription at launch with pretty much just The Office. That doesn't seem to have really worked out since they've since offered a Free tier. The strategy at this point might be a similar one to Hulu's initial one... bring viewers in with the Free tier then try to get them to subscribe once the content is there. However, I'm really not sure that whatever they pull off Hulu would be enough. Netflix went super hard with Original Programming and has multiple heavy hitter shows and they're still dealing with customers (U.S. at least) constantly debating the value of the subscription. Peacock would pretty much just have The Office as its big hit with a few lesser hits. I'm not sure that's enough for them to become truly viable. Might be more worth it to keep some of their stuff on Hulu and collect money passively that way.

Fox.. well I have no clue how the Fox stuff works out in the end. The article suggests that Fox Corp can get a bunch of stuff back (I assume because they retain the TV network) but The Simpsons is currently on Disney+ in the US. How all that all works out I'm not clear on enough to even wildly speculate.
 

trashbandit

Member
Dec 19, 2019
3,910
They already have a content crisis. Hulu has only 140 episode of Naruto Shippuden dubbed. There are 500 episodes of Naruto Shippuden. Those maniacs only secured the rights to a fraction of the damn show.
 

ContractHolder

Jack of All Streams
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,234
The fact Viacom split Paramount+/BET+/Showtime has to be the stupidest move I've seen (not to mention putting some of the content on Netflix which WUH), just a excuse for more money and Universal's and Sony's Netflix/Amazon/Disney deals are just as batshit.

It's especially weird that ViacomCBS is doing that when HBO Max exists and is the equivalent of all three of those services in one package. They seem insistent on wanting an identity for each content service, instead of wanting one content hub for all owned content.

If there's any consolidation that needs to happen in streaming, it's that. Just make one hub for each company. That'll reduce the amount of services and make it clear where you can get each type of content.

The only company I can kind of get spreading around is Sony, and that's because they're not interested in making their own service. So you might as well get all the licensing deals you can from these services looking to get more content.
 

Jest

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,565
The only company I can kind of get spreading around is Sony, and that's because they're not interested in making their own service. So you might as well get all the licensing deals you can from these services looking to get more content.

Sony was definitely interested and tried to make Crackle work for over 10 years, only recently bailing on it entirely.
 

Nida

Member
Aug 31, 2019
11,190
Everett, Washington
CBS pulling their stuff out makes sense. Their solo offering likely has legs with a few of their current exclusives combined with the backlog they'd get back. NBC and Fox... that is a bigger question.

Peacock already tried to go hard subscription at launch with pretty much just The Office. That doesn't seem to have really worked out since they've since offered a Free tier. The strategy at this point might be a similar one to Hulu's initial one... bring viewers in with the Free tier then try to get them to subscribe once the content is there. However, I'm really not sure that whatever they pull off Hulu would be enough. Netflix went super hard with Original Programming and has multiple heavy hitter shows and they're still dealing with customers (U.S. at least) constantly debating the value of the subscription. Peacock would pretty much just have The Office as its big hit with a few lesser hits. I'm not sure that's enough for them to become truly viable. Might be more worth it to keep some of their stuff on Hulu and collect money passively that way.

Fox.. well I have no clue how the Fox stuff works out in the end. The article suggests that Fox Corp can get a bunch of stuff back (I assume because they retain the TV network) but The Simpsons is currently on Disney+ in the US. How all that all works out I'm not clear on enough to even wildly speculate.


Does Disney own The Simpsons? I'm still confused what Fox shows they own now.
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,153
Seattle
CBS pulling their stuff out makes sense. Their solo offering likely has legs with a few of their current exclusives combined with the backlog they'd get back. NBC and Fox... that is a bigger question.

Peacock already tried to go hard subscription at launch with pretty much just The Office. That doesn't seem to have really worked out since they've since offered a Free tier. The strategy at this point might be a similar one to Hulu's initial one... bring viewers in with the Free tier then try to get them to subscribe once the content is there. However, I'm really not sure that whatever they pull off Hulu would be enough. Netflix went super hard with Original Programming and has multiple heavy hitter shows and they're still dealing with customers (U.S. at least) constantly debating the value of the subscription. Peacock would pretty much just have The Office as its big hit with a few lesser hits. I'm not sure that's enough for them to become truly viable. Might be more worth it to keep some of their stuff on Hulu and collect money passively that way.

Fox.. well I have no clue how the Fox stuff works out in the end. The article suggests that Fox Corp can get a bunch of stuff back (I assume because they retain the TV network) but The Simpsons is currently on Disney+ in the US. How all that all works out I'm not clear on enough to even wildly speculate.

Fox made a new production studio after losing 20Th century television. So 24, x-files etc all stay with Disney
 

Jest

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,565
Does Disney own The Simpsons? I'm still confused what Fox shows they own now.

That's what I'm saying in my post. What Disney owns and what they don't, as far as the Television/Broadcast stuff isn't super clear. Given Fox Corp still owns that Broadcast Network, I'd assume they own all the shows... but I'm not sure Disney would toss The Simpson's on Disney+ in the U.S. if they weren't confident they could keep it there.

Fox made a new production studio after losing 20Th century television. So 24, x-files etc all stay with Disney

BringBackSonics Ah.. so Fox Corp didn't *keep* the broadcast network shows... but rather they have a new TV Production Studio that has since made new shows that they could pull?
 

ContractHolder

Jack of All Streams
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,234
Sony was definitely interested and tried to make Crackle work for over 10 years, only recently bailing on it entirely.

Yeah, Crackle has always been weird. I know they tried to make it work, but the way it was marketed never made it seem like something on the levels of Netflix and Hulu. I'm not sure what exactly was going on with that.

That's what I'm saying in my post. What Disney owns and what they don't, as far as the Television/Broadcast stuff isn't super clear. Given Fox Corp still owns that Broadcast Network, I'd assume they own all the shows... but I'm not sure Disney would toss The Simpson's on Disney+ in the U.S. if they weren't confident they could keep it there.

They don't own all the shows. Heck, some of the other Networks don't own the shows that get broadcast on there. Sony Pictures TV runs shows on networks while still having the rights to the shows. It's a very common misconception.

The Simpsons are on D+ because Disney was well aware that the show was up there with The Office and Friends as a show people would rewatch or new people would watch for the first time on a regular basis. They were correct with that thinking as it's still in the Top 3 most watched shows on US D+ Trending. But whatever the newest season of the Simpsons is stays on Hulu because right now Hulu is acting as the hub for most 20th Century shows until Comcast sells their stake in Hulu.
 

rpm

Into the Woods
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
12,356
Parts Unknown
Does Disney own The Simpsons? I'm still confused what Fox shows they own now.
That's what I'm saying in my post. What Disney owns and what they don't, as far as the Television/Broadcast stuff isn't super clear. Given Fox Corp still owns that Broadcast Network, I'd assume they own all the shows... but I'm not sure Disney would toss The Simpson's on Disney+ in the U.S. if they weren't confident they could keep it there.
As I understand it, Disney bought 20th Century Fox Television, which owned most of their shows (all the in-house stuff you would consider Fox shows).


Fox still owns the network. Post-buyout Fox made a new TV division, and they own all that stuff:

 

5taquitos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,884
OR
Now that I don't have Seinfeld or South Park on Hulu, I'm not sure why I'm still subscribed. It's nice to rewatch some Futurama from time to time, but that's not enough to keep me around, and I assume that will end up on D+ too anyway.
 

Jest

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,565
Yeah, Crackle has always been weird. I know they tried to make it work, but the way it was marketed never made it seem like something on the levels of Netflix and Hulu. I'm not sure what exactly was going on with that.

They don't own all the shows. Heck, some of the other Networks don't own the shows that get broadcast on there. Sony Pictures TV runs shows on networks while still having the rights to the shows. It's a very common misconception.

The Simpsons are on D+ because Disney was well aware that the show was up there with The Office and Friends as a show people would rewatch or new people would watch for the first time on a regular basis. They were correct with that thinking as it's still in the Top 3 most watched shows on US D+ Trending. But whatever the newest season of the Simpsons is stays on Hulu because right now Hulu is acting as the hub for most 20th Century shows until Comcast sells their stake in Hulu.

Oh I'm aware of how the network broadcast system works, in terms of studios shopping shows to networks so that the network a show is broadcast on isn't necessarily who owns the show.

I was specifically talking about the stuff that Fox made that it also broadcast. The Simpsons, for example, has always been Fox through and through going back to its roots in The Tracey Ullman Show.

The way things have been reported just made the specifics unclear to me. Granted, I didn't go super deep into the Fox acquisition news stories.

As I understand it, Disney bought 20th Century Fox Television, which owned most of their shows (all the in-house stuff you would consider Fox shows).


Fox still owns the network. Post-buyout Fox made a new TV division, and they own all that stuff:


Yeah, that clears up quite a bit. Thank you for that!
 
OP
OP
mreddie

mreddie

Member
Oct 26, 2017
44,092
Fox.. well I have no clue how the Fox stuff works out in the end. The article suggests that Fox Corp can get a bunch of stuff back (I assume because they retain the TV network) but The Simpsons is currently on Disney+ in the US. How all that all works out I'm not clear on enough to even wildly speculate.
They can mostly reclaim the stuff they made after the deal. (Masked Singer is the big one, dunno about the stuff with 20th TV.)
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,153
Seattle
That's what I'm saying in my post. What Disney owns and what they don't, as far as the Television/Broadcast stuff isn't super clear. Given Fox Corp still owns that Broadcast Network, I'd assume they own all the shows... but I'm not sure Disney would toss The Simpson's on Disney+ in the U.S. if they weren't confident they could keep it there.



BringBackSonics Ah.. so Fox Corp didn't *keep* the broadcast network shows... but rather they have a new TV Production Studio that has since made new shows that they could pull?

yup pretty much, Fox entertainment doesn't actually have much content (that I could see). But stuff like HOw I met your mother, homeland, the shield, futurama all belongs to Disney
 

FinFunnels

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,610
Seattle
Yeah, Crackle has always been weird. I know they tried to make it work, but the way it was marketed never made it seem like something on the levels of Netflix and Hulu. I'm not sure what exactly was going on with that.
It's because Crackle was free with ads. The content was mostly old Sony movies and TV shows that weren't licensed for streaming elsewhere. And it was kind of annoying to watch because they'd always play the same one or two ads over and over again lol
 

Chippewa Barr

Member
Aug 8, 2020
3,970
They keep it for the more mature Disney content.
Epic American Moment

But in all seriousness, outside of the US (like here in Canada) all the mature Disney owned stuff from other networks is just behind a(n optional) PIN input gate within the Disney+ app.

Always mind boggling why they don't consolidate them in the US as well. I imagine the overhead savings alone would be huge.
 

Nida

Member
Aug 31, 2019
11,190
Everett, Washington
Epic American Moment

But in all seriousness, outside of the US (like here in Canada) all the mature Disney owned stuff from other networks is just behind a(n optional) PIN input gate within the Disney+ app.

Always mind boggling why they don't consolidate them in the US as well. I imagine the overhead savings alone would be huge.
It was stated in the thread earlier that they can't until NBC Universal's stake ends in the near future.
 

JigglesBunny

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
31,117
Chicago
All because they still haven't released the second half of the new season of PEN15…

*yes, I know this is unrelated, but let me whine about this.