In this case, there is some stuff that’s not running at all (apparently). Also, in the videotape era, people who worked on the show could still keep copies for their own portfolios.
From the consumer side not much difference. A channel stopped playing shows I liked to watch I just didn’t watch that channel. The combined streamer may have little in the future that appeals to a group that are current customers. If so they lose those customers. In this case there is nothing that makes anyone think they will pick up many new ones to replace them. But maybe the expense of providing what those customers want outweighs what they pay. And the odds of growing enough going forward to make it profitable may be low. Cut your loss.
There will be other streamers creating and providing product those consumers do want.
The specific manner of implementation though almost seems designed to maximize disrespect for creative talent. That seems like a particularly bad move for a company in that industry to do.
This is not a good trend, the older Bill Burr comedy specials are gone from Netflix after having been there forever, and at least some of them were branded as Netflix productions.
That could be a licensing issue. Netflix does slap its name on shows and so forth if they are the first American release of things. Doesn’t mean they made them. If they buried them just to not pay Bill Burr residuals and so forth, it’s lame.
Are they branded as Netflix productions? Looks like at least the earlier ones are only distributed by Netflix.
Yes, this is the key difference along with if they lost licenses or if they are choosing to bury it.
Netflix made Daredevil and Jessica Jones. I remember telling my wife, “The best part for Netflix is that they’ll own them forever.” I was wrong about that. I guess even with things they make, licensing is complicated.
I actually thought the point of making your own things was to not have to negotiate licensing every few years for it.
The Wikipedia page for Jessica Jones says “Despite being branded as a “Netflix Original”, Jessica Jones was licensed to Netflix from Disney.” I take it they allowed Netflix to license it originally because Disney+ didn’t exist at the time.
I assume this wouldn’t be an issue with shows like Ozark, which were made specifically for Netflix.
Yeah, we need a list of actual originals. I presume Stranger Things, Ozark, House of Cards, and a few others are actually owned by them.
Probably owns them but might not. It really depends on the deals they signed with the respective creators/production companies.
What Netflix typically does is get exclusive or at least first look rights to shows. These days, I would imagine they get ownership rights as part of their deals. They clearly couldn’t do that with Marvel IP, so they got exclusive streaming rights for a number of years and probably kicked in production costs. If they don’t get ownership, they will typically get exclusive or early access streaming rights.
Another creative casualty of Zaslav’s unceasing quest to maximize his absurd paycheck:
Regardless of what anyone thinks of any of the individual projects, the sheer scope of the damage with the creative community generally, both direct and indirect, is inescapable. It’s one thing to trim debt, but relationships are an asset along with everything else, and what Zaslav is doing is just not sustainable.
I’m starting to suspect they know that. It looks like they’re slashing to the black to make it attractive in the short term for further acquisition, so they can all run away with a payout. This storied studio is just another blood bag for the vampire capitalists.
A week or so ago, The Hollywood Reporter said the conventional wisdom of industry executives is that Comcast will make a move on WBD but that it can’t happen until 2024 because of how the merger was structured.
So WB owns “Final Space”. Bummer. I suppose that the only recourse now is for there to be enough fan uprising so that WB either 1. brings it back (hey, it worked for Futurama) or 2. sells the ownership to someone else. If WB is trying to get away from creating content, then 1 is out. Bad decision. Yeah, you might lose money on 9 out of 10, but that 10th one brings back a boatload, enough to pay for the other 9 and then some. Kinda like creating new drugs. Boy, that comparison is better than most people realize. Research into brand-spankin’-new drugs is decreasing because of the high front-end R&D costs; drug companies are putting more effort into “let’s slightly modify this drug so we can officially patent something new!”, kinda like sequels and reboots
That’s an interesting idea. If it happens, there would be two really big entertainment conglomerates (Comcast, owning the NBC television network and two movie studios; Universal Studios and Warner Bros) and Disney (owning the ABC television network and two movie studios; Disney and Fox) and then various other much smaller players.
The third big one (though probably not as big as the other two) would be Paramount Global, which owns CBS, Paramount Pictures, a bunch of cable channels (MTV, BET, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Comedy Central, etc.), and is a part-owner of the CW Network and Miramax Pictures.
I don’t think that is going to happen. I liked early Final Space. I started the (nearly empty) thread here on it. But as time went on it got less and less good. Season three took me multiple months to watch because I was only occasionally in the mood to take up the unplesant job of watching another episode. Among other things, it is now one of the most bleak shows you could hope to find. And I utterly despise Tribore and resented every single second that infinitely abrasive character opened its mouth.
For shows/movies that have never been released, I can sort of see the rationale, even if I don’t agree with it.
But for shows that have aired already and may even have physical releases? This sort of thing will simply encourage piracy. We know people are willing to pay for content as long as it is easily available. But when that content is no longer easily available? They turn to alternatives pretty quickly.
I guess it’s a gamble that the pulled titles aren’t popular enough to alienate enough of the subscriber base to matter.
The problem is that once piracy is encouraged, it’s likely to spread beyond the expendable titles on the chopping block and potentially affect revenue for more popular ones.