2018-19 Season TV Cancellations/Pilots: One Dollar doesn't buy Access at All at CBS (try $120M)

Aiii

何これ
Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,920
0
I'm not paying for four different streaming services, so they can make as many as they want, at some point I'm turning back to pre-streaming alternatives out of necessity.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,048
0
London
This caught my eye from the "Daredevil" cancellation:
I wish Disney capitulated. Netflix shows became infamously bloated, and cutting things back to an 6-8 episode season would have done wonders for the overall quality of the shows.

Shame.
I doubt the episode order as such was the issue for Disney, so much as the resulting loss in financial value for the deal. If Netflix was willing to pay the same margin amuont for fewer episodes Disney would have likely bitten their hand off, but of course Netflix would also be very silly to do so (they were overpaying for those shows as it is).
 
OP
OP
berzeli
Oct 25, 2017
2,184
0
I doubt the episode order as such was the issue for Disney, so much as the resulting loss in financial value for the deal. If Netflix was willing to pay the same margin amuont for fewer episodes Disney would have likely bitten their hand off, but of course Netflix would also be very silly to do so (they were overpaying for those shows as it is).
Disney gets paid per episode, so a reduction of 40-55% episodes means a downfall of the similar percentages in revenue. So the number of episodes ordered matter very much, not to mention this theoretically could affect the New York tax credits.

But who cares, the shows were expensive, bland, and didn't have the viewer retention Netflix wanted.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,048
0
London
Disney gets paid per episode, so a reduction of 40-55% episodes means a downfall of the similar percentages in revenue. So the number of episodes ordered matter very much, not to mention this theoretically could affect the New York tax credits.

But who cares, the shows were expensive, bland, and didn't have the viewer retention Netflix wanted.
My point was that if Netflix was willing to pay the missing 60% margin on the lost four episodes even though they weren't made I'm sure Disney would have taken the deal. I don't think they were creatively tied to 13 eps.

But as I say, Netflix would be nuts to agree to that.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,043
0
I'm not paying for four different streaming services, so they can make as many as they want, at some point I'm turning back to pre-streaming alternatives out of necessity.
You can always just pay for what you are watching. You're not obligated to subscribe to shit for 12 months a year. If HBO has something you absolutely must watch, ditch Netflix or Hulu or whatever for a month and then return to those when they have something you feel like are a must watch. These services are ultimately really cheap for what they are offering that immediately resorting to piracy when you can't get everything for 10$ is pretty pathetic.

I understand if something is made impossibly hard to get legally (a lot of more niche American series outside of US simply aren't on Netflix or any other streaming services that are offered here), but creating an account to these services takes 2 minutes and subscribing and unsubscribing takes 10 seconds. It shouldn't be that hard to maintain a few accounts based on what you want to watch at any given time.
 

Aiii

何これ
Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,920
0
That argument was valid when there were three streaming services, now that the content is split over eight or more of them, the argument that you can just switch every month isn't holding much water. Same for the argument of cost, since you're now subscribing to several services at once, the cost is rising, while the offering per service is less appealing due to less diverse content. Maybe I don't want to spend an entire month watching Marvel and Star Wars shows and not something else, for instance.

While unsubscribing might take seconds, you still pay for full months.
 
Last edited:

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,785
0
Death by thousand cuts is indeed how you kill Netflix. Their own catalogue would never be enough but the same goes for every service.
They need another model. A Netflix with everything, but with a Spotify-like payment model where the amount of streams determines how the money is divided.
 

Aiii

何これ
Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,920
0
Death by thousand cuts is indeed how you kill Netflix. Their own catalogue would never be enough but the same goes for every service.
They need another model. A Netflix with everything, but with a Spotify-like payment model where the amount of streams determines how the money is divided.
Pretty much VRV's business model.
 
OP
OP
berzeli
Oct 25, 2017
2,184
0
Pretty much VRV's business model.
VRV is owned by Warnermedia (well technically owned by Otter Media who in turn are owned by Warner, who are owned by AT&T).
Speaking of Otter Media:

AT&T’s Otter Media Lays Off 10% of Staff, Will Absorb Machinima in Reorg
Otter Media, the digital-media company owned by AT&T, is undergoing a broad restructuring resulting in the layoff of about 10% of employees across the organization, Variety has learned.

In addition, AT&T’s WarnerMedia is moving Machinima — the gamer and fandom digital property that has been part of Warner Bros. Digital Networks — under Otter Media, starting in January 2019. Otter houses businesses including Rooster Teeth, focused on sci-fi and anime-style content; Fullscreen, focused on branded content and influencer marketing; and the Ellation subscription VOD business unit.

Among its changes, Otter is consolidating its direct-to-consumer businesses, moving Rooster Teeth under the oversight of Ellation CEO Tom Pickett, who also oversees the Crunchyroll anime and VRV services. Otter Media also will Fullscreen to operate in three divisions — creator services, brand studio, and brand services — and wind down the Fullscreen Direct direct-to-fan digital management business.
Otter Media has nearly 1,400 employees total (excluding Machinima), according to a source familiar with the company. The cuts come as part of the overall reorg, with some positions being eliminated because of redundant functions. Machinima had about 100 staffers as of earlier this year, after its workforce had been trimmed in previous years.
Goncalves, along with outlining the restructuring and staff cuts, touted that Otter had “invested heavily in our businesses” over the past year. “We acquired companies, established two new studios and launched a gaming division at Crunchyroll, set the foundation for increased programming quality at Rooster Teeth, and elevated our tech platforms and data capabilities,” he wrote in the memo. “All this during a period of significant change, including our acquisition by WarnerMedia earlier this year.”
The ending paragraph is a real kicker:
Under AT&T’s ownership, WarnerMedia has shut down FilmStruck, from Turner and Warner Bros. Digital Networks, and WBDN’s DramaFever. In addition, Turner also shuttered its Super Deluxe edgy digital studio in October.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,098
0
Death by thousand cuts is indeed how you kill Netflix. Their own catalogue would never be enough but the same goes for every service.
They need another model. A Netflix with everything, but with a Spotify-like payment model where the amount of streams determines how the money is divided.
I've said it before, but I sincerely believe that in ~10 years at most Netflix will go the way of the dodo. I just don't see how they compete against the big 3 of Disney, Warner, and Amazon. Or someone like Apple that would also have to rely on original content, but can bundle with other products. Once Netflix loses its syndicated library and only has to rely on its originals, they're in major trouble.
 

Penguin

The Mushroom Kingdom Knight
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
2,468
0
New York
Who wants a warner themed streaming service? Disney works because they are Disney
I don't know
Based off the reaction to Netflix losing Friends, and as far as I remember, Big Bang Theory not being streamable anywhere... WB could have a dedicated base with that alone.

But really need to fold in all their other services like DC Universe and Boomerang.
 
Nov 4, 2017
1,038
0
I've said it before, but I sincerely believe that in ~10 years at most Netflix will go the way of the dodo. I just don't see how they compete against the big 3 of Disney, Warner, and Amazon. Or someone like Apple that would also have to rely on original content, but can bundle with other products. Once Netflix loses its syndicated library and only has to rely on its originals, they're in major trouble.
If I had to bet on anyone surviving, I would bet on Netflix. I really do think their head start and mindshare can't be taken for granted. Their subscriber base is way ahead of the others, not only in the U.S. but internationally as well. When people think of streaming, they think of Netflix first and most people I know either have the service or know someone close to them that does. Things like Netflix and chill show just how much it is ingrained into culture.

While I don't foresee a day where they will totally rely on originals happening, the sheer volume of stuff they produce is impressive and they are building up a damn fine library all there own. Personally if I'm watching something on Netflix it is usually an original series, although I do realize a great number of people like watching old series. Netflix does as well, which is why they shelled out all that money to keep Friends on the platform. Something I can see continuing to happen, with multiple streaming services sharing syndicated material. If Warner Bros really wanted to play hardball, they could have turned down the money and made Friends exclusive to their upcoming service.

Disney is Disney so they will do well. Yet their strategy of having Disney+ be for family friendly programming and Hulu being for the more adult material does leave me with some questions.

Amazon is getting better, but they still have people who don't realize you get shows with Amazon Prime and their interface needs work, with some shows being available for streaming and some shows you have to buy. I've actually recently starting watching more (Patriot is becoming one of my favorite shows), but they haven't really had much that has penetrated pop culture like say a Stranger Things.

Apple continues to release press releases and not much else. Plus their proposed strategy seems iffy to me as well.

Next year will be very interesting at the very least.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,098
0
If I had to bet on anyone surviving, I would bet on Netflix. I really do think their head start and mindshare can't be taken for granted. Their subscriber base is way ahead of the others, not only in the U.S. but internationally as well. When people think of streaming, they think of Netflix first and most people I know either have the service or know someone close to them that does. Things like Netflix and chill show just how much it is ingrained into culture.

While I don't foresee a day where they will totally rely on originals happening, the sheer volume of stuff they produce is impressive and they are building up a damn fine library all there own. Personally if I'm watching something on Netflix it is usually an original series, although I do realize a great number of people like watching old series. Netflix does as well, which is why they shelled out all that money to keep Friends on the platform. Something I can see continuing to happen, with multiple streaming services sharing syndicated material. If Warner Bros really wanted to play hardball, they could have turned down the money and made Friends exclusive to their upcoming service.
I agree Netflix is synonymous with streaming for now, but a lot can change in 10 years. Netflix has had the benefit of few competitors and a head start. And they have grown, in part due to their originals but, largely because of their significant library of others' material... which is quickly diminishing. Friends will 100% be Warners exclusive after their service launches, it's just that service won't launch until the end of the year, so they may as well get the money for an extra year of licensing it to Netflix. Without Disney, Fox, or Warners content Netflix will quickly lose subscribers, in my opinion. Especially since their quality originals are sort of few and far between.

Why aren't they putting DC Universe in the WarnerMedia service? Seems like a no-brainer.
Don't think it's yet clear that they're not, though it sounds like that content would only be in the highest tier if it is.
I think that will definitely be rolled in to the "Basic" Warners package once it's available. They just wanted to get the subscription ball rolling now, a year in advance. I think HBO will be offered in the higher tier. Things could change of course, but a bifurcation doesn't make any sense once the larger service launches, especially with DC films and shows being one of the major draws to such a service (on top of the Warner backlog).
 
Nov 4, 2017
1,038
0
I agree Netflix is synonymous with streaming for now, but a lot can change in 10 years. Netflix has had the benefit of few competitors and a head start. And they have grown, in part due to their originals but, largely because of their significant library of others' material... which is quickly diminishing. Friends will 100% be Warners exclusive after their service launches, it's just that service won't launch until the end of the year, so they may as well get the money for an extra year of licensing it to Netflix. Without Disney, Fox, or Warners content Netflix will quickly lose subscribers, in my opinion. Especially since their quality originals are sort of few and far between.
Perhaps, but I don't see a scenario where Netflix is relying entirely on original content. I know Disney is pulling content, and I can see competitors wanting to keep key titles for themselves but there will be shows they don't mind sharing. Either for simply the extra cash or the value proposition of reaching a bigger audience.

Quality is certainly subjective, but I think Netflix far outpaces their streaming competitors. The past few months alone they have dropped Daredevil, Bojack, Big Mouth, Maniac, Haunted House, Sabrina, Castlevania, Michael Douglas show, etc. Point being they have a little bit of something for everything. There are months that go by on Hulu/Amazon before they release a show I want to see, can't say the same for Netflix. I think once you get someone in the door, it's easier to keep them there and Netflix is already ahead of the curve.
 
Oct 25, 2017
387
0
Maryland
You can always just pay for what you are watching. You're not obligated to subscribe to shit for 12 months a year. If HBO has something you absolutely must watch, ditch Netflix or Hulu or whatever for a month and then return to those when they have something you feel like are a must watch. These services are ultimately really cheap for what they are offering that immediately resorting to piracy when you can't get everything for 10$ is pretty pathetic.

I understand if something is made impossibly hard to get legally (a lot of more niche American series outside of US simply aren't on Netflix or any other streaming services that are offered here), but creating an account to these services takes 2 minutes and subscribing and unsubscribing takes 10 seconds. It shouldn't be that hard to maintain a few accounts based on what you want to watch at any given time.
He has a point though - every streaming company wanting a piece of the cake will make the whole market fail eventually. Nobody will want to pay 60$ a month for netflix, hulu, CW, Warner, Disney, and the 5000 other ones popping up. Eventually the bubble will pop, it cant be sustained. You can't expect something to pay for EVERY streaming service just so each company can get their own money. Shit is ridiculous man.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,942
1
He has a point though - every streaming company wanting a piece of the cake will make the whole market fail eventually. Nobody will want to pay 60$ a month for netflix, hulu, CW, Warner, Disney, and the 5000 other ones popping up. Eventually the bubble will pop, it cant be sustained. You can't expect something to pay for EVERY streaming service just so each company can get their own money. Shit is ridiculous man.
Agreed. There's a limit to how much a customer is willing to take, especially considering these things are supposed to be convenient but managing individual subscriptions for six to ten different competing services to watch the shows you want to watch is the opposite of convenient.
 

RatskyWatsky

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,460
0
Who wants a warner themed streaming service?
That's up to Warner, honestly. They absolutely have properties that can drive people to their new service - they just have to be smart enough to utilize them to do so. A Harry Potter (/adjacent) series would do wonders to bring people on board, as would a (n even short) Friends revival.

Disney is approaching Disney+ in a very smart way - they know that in order to stand out (which even they have to do!) they need to make a big splash right out of the gate so they're dropping fucking Star Wars on day one, in addition to a ton of other things that will appeal to their base. Apple too (in some ways, anyway), in that they've ordered like 30+ shows and will have a bunch set to launch whenever they're ready. Warner's new service is coming out in less than a year and have they even announced any new original series for it yet? I guess they could fold in the DC Universe shows, but that's not going to be enough.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,098
0
Perhaps, but I don't see a scenario where Netflix is relying entirely on original content. I know Disney is pulling content, and I can see competitors wanting to keep key titles for themselves but there will be shows they don't mind sharing. Either for simply the extra cash or the value proposition of reaching a bigger audience.

Quality is certainly subjective, but I think Netflix far outpaces their streaming competitors. The past few months alone they have dropped Daredevil, Bojack, Big Mouth, Maniac, Haunted House, Sabrina, Castlevania, Michael Douglas show, etc. Point being they have a little bit of something for everything. There are months that go by on Hulu/Amazon before they release a show I want to see, can't say the same for Netflix. I think once you get someone in the door, it's easier to keep them there and Netflix is already ahead of the curve.
Netflix is ahead on originals, I agree. But the others will catch up. Amazon already, currently, has the most impressive and expensive slate. Obviously the jury is out until the shows actually release -- but in a couple years they -should- have the best original content of the current three streaming leaders (Netflix/Amazon/Hulu). And Hulu itself has the largest back catalog of these services, and that will continue to be the case with the entire Fox library + whatever else Disney wants to dump on there.

That's up to Warner, honestly. They absolutely have properties that can drive people to their new service - they just have to be smart enough to utilize them to do so. A Harry Potter (/adjacent) series would do wonders to bring people on board, as would a (n even short) Friends revival.

Disney is approaching Disney+ in a very smart way - they know that in order to stand out (which even they have to do!) they need to make a big splash right out of the gate so they're dropping fucking Star Wars on day one, in addition to a ton of other things that will appeal to their base. Apple too (in some ways, anyway), in that they've ordered like 30+ shows and will have a bunch set to launch whenever they're ready. Warner's new service is coming out in less than a year and have they even announced any new original series for it yet? I guess they could fold in the DC Universe shows, but that's not going to be enough.
Warners hasn't announced anything exclusive to the service yet. But if DC and HBO/Cinemax are rolled in that is kind of automatic.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,484
0
Perhaps, but I don't see a scenario where Netflix is relying entirely on original content.
I thought netflix heavy investments is strongly suggesting and highly implying they aim for a day where it's totally original only content on their site. I dont really think catalog content is really going to drive and maintain subscriber counts especially with content arriving and leaving, its not like Netflix true Originals will leave the service. Perhaps International Netflix will host catalog and perhaps new content for companies that dont really do international (I guess those current tv shows that air on tv here but are available next day on netflix international)

-Amzn video should forever survive unless their AWS somehow faces steep competition, and people just somehow stop buying stuff on their stores. But with how long companies like Sears, Macys, and co have stayed in business, its doubtful AMZN will go away in the next 80-100 yrs.
 
Nov 4, 2017
1,038
0
I thought netflix heavy investments is strongly suggesting and highly implying they aim for a day where it's totally original only content on their site. I dont really think catalog content is really going to drive and maintain subscriber counts especially with content arriving and leaving, its not like Netflix true Originals will leave the service. Perhaps International Netflix will host catalog and perhaps new content for companies that dont really do international (I guess those current tv shows that air on tv here but are available next day on netflix international)

-Amzn video should forever survive unless their AWS somehow faces steep competition, and people just somehow stop buying stuff on their stores. But with how long companies like Sears, Macys, and co have stayed in business, its doubtful AMZN will go away in the next 80-100 yrs.
They are definitely moving in that direction with the sheer number of shows they produce, but it would still take awhile to be completely independent and there is value in co-promotion and licensing series, especially if you can get them relatively cheap. Not every major giant media company will have it's own service, and they could use someplace to sell to.
 

Strafer

The Flagpole is Wider
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,696
0
31
Sweden
Did Seal Team actually get the sound right during the firefight? The sound was muted because of the confined space in the church.

Nice job sound department.
 

Cornballer

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,727
0
Quick Twitter thread from Joe Adalian comparing ratings from four years ago to today:


While the overall tale of the five broadcast nets is decline, a couple things stick out:
- ABC has gone from dominating the night in demos and a strong No. 2 in viewers to 4th place in both. It's lost 2/3 of its millennial audience.​
- NBC and Fox: UP vs. 4 years ago!​
- CBS has kept 2/3 of its lineup intact (Criminal Minds/Survivor were both on the night in 2014) and has paid the price.​
- *No shock: A18-34 fleeing broadcast most quickly. 5-night cume among the demo is down about 40%. In total viewers? A more modest 23% *That's hurt CW *a lot*​
But also worth noting a few things these numbers DON'T show. First, and most importantly: These are same-day ratings. DVR and streaming have made up some (though not all) of these losses (in eyeballs, if not ad dollars). Also: Off-net streaming $ much bigger now

To wit: CW's linear ratings story on Wednesday is...no bueno. But the network also has an amazing deal with Netflix which makes up for a LOT of those losses and keeps the network healthy. Similarly, CBS is making big bucks by selling SEAL TEAM to Sky TV.

I tweet this very small snapshot of the network landscape not to declare the medium dead (the Homer Simpson GIF notwithstanding). But I do think numbers like these demonstrate how quickly audience habits have changed & why networks are rushing to find new business models

I also think these numbers show how, even in #EndTimes, networks CAN still turn things around with better programs. NBC and Fox changed their programming strategies and they've managed to make sizable gains-- despite the forces of gravity pushing ratings down. Impressive!

Conversely, ABC had such an amazingly valuable comedy brand 4 years ago, and while 3 of its big 4 comedies still do well, the massive drop-off in audience wasn't inevitable. The net also didn't do enough to use Wed. to launch new comedy hits. But that's another thread.
 

RatskyWatsky

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,460
0
In addition to Hill Street Blues, ABC is also rebooting

I hear ABC is in talks for a new incarnation of New York Undercover, which will be written by Hand of God creator Ben Watkins.

Created by Dick Wolf and Kevin Arkadie, New York Undercover aired on Fox for four seasons, between 1994-98. It starred Malik Yoba and Michael DeLorenzo as two undercover detectives in New York City’s Fourth Precinct. It was the first police drama on American television to feature two people of color in the starring roles.

As a procedural, New York Undercover can be reinvented with new characters and cast. Even the original series rebooted itself in the fourth and final season with a largely new cast joining Yoba and Season 2 addition Lauren Velez as the other series regulars exited.
Not to be outdone, Syfy also has their own reboot in the works

In a competitive situation, Syfy has landed a re-imagination of Night Gallery .

Night Gallery, which ran on NBC from 1969-73, was Sterling’s supernatural/horror follow-up to his sci-fi-themed anthology series The Twilight Zone. Rod Serling was the host of Night Gallery, appearing in an art gallery setting to introduce each segment of an episode by unveiling a painting that illustrated the story.

Created by Jeff Davis, who reinvented Teen Wolf as a dark, supernatural genre series for the millennial generation, the Night Gallery reboot will update the series for the digital age. Featuring dark and twisted morality tales paired with Serling’s specific brand of irony, Night Gallery will explore and exploit every modern nightmare imaginable, mining our fears of the dangers of social media.
per Deadline
 

SpartyCrunch

Xbox
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
763
0
Seattle, WA
www.twitter.com
I'm all for shorter seasons - and I probably would've watched all the Marvel series if they were shorter - but I don't know if I buy the idea that the long seasons were entirely on Marvel / Disney instead of Netflix.

Orange Is the New Black completely owned by Netflix from what I understand, but that series is also 13 episodes/season and suffers as a result. And not only is each season 13 episodes, each episode is around 60 minutes instead of ~40-45 minutes like network shows. There ends up being tons of bloat as a result.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,224
0
Sabrina Christmas special (this is super neat actually imo) drops Dec 14th

I wonder if this is gonna be movie length or just an episode.

He has a point though - every streaming company wanting a piece of the cake will make the whole market fail eventually. Nobody will want to pay 60$ a month for netflix, hulu, CW, Warner, Disney, and the 5000 other ones popping up. Eventually the bubble will pop, it cant be sustained. You can't expect something to pay for EVERY streaming service just so each company can get their own money. Shit is ridiculous man.
This is what people wanted though. Back when the streaming boom started people wanted every channel to be streaming and to be able to subscribe to the ones they want. I remember arguing with people back in the Sunken Place that this is exactly where we'd end up but they didn't want to listen.
 
Oct 27, 2017
385
0
I'm all for shorter seasons - and I probably would've watched all the Marvel series if they were shorter - but I don't know if I buy the idea that the long seasons were entirely on Marvel / Disney instead of Netflix.

Orange Is the New Black completely owned by Netflix from what I understand, but that series is also 13 episodes/season and suffers as a result. And not only is each season 13 episodes, each episode is around 60 minutes instead of ~40-45 minutes like network shows. There ends up being tons of bloat as a result.
Fairly sure OitNB is Lionsgate.