mattstueland - Tumblr blog

[mattstueland]

And VICELAND is live!!!!! (at Vice Hq)

[mattstueland]

#viceland is live today replacing H2! Check out all your new favorite programs this week live and on VOD!

[mattstueland]

VICELAND IS COMING!!! Check out the trailer featuring all your next favorite TV shows!! #VICE #VICELAND

[mattstueland]

Thought there was something familiar about today...

Today is the day Marty McFly goes to the future!

[mattstueland]

Why Cord Cutting is Overrated

I would cut the cord… IF any OTT packages were truly worth the cost

Last fall HBO announced it was going over-the-top (OTT), meaning you no longer need a cable subscription to get HBO. Fast forward six months and several new OTT services have come to market, all offering various bundles of cable networks.

This OTT explosion sounds like a champion of viewer choice and the beginning of the “a la carte” age: simplifying your cable bill by only paying for the networks you want to watch. In reality it’s a mad scramble to stake a claim in the video streaming space with little incentive (for most) to truly cut away from their traditional cable package.

WHAT MAKES A CABLE BILL

Our house has a solid cable package with Verizon Fios. No, it’s not perfect. The viewing guide and online streaming could be smoother and the cable box needs resetting at least once a month so video on-demand plays correctly. But what I really care about is content, and we have a favorable amount. Here’s the monthly bill: $60 TV + $45 internet + $17 DVR + $10 taxes = $130

This is the middle-tier Fios package. The $60 TV portion has almost 400 channels (100 in HD), including all the highest-rated cable networks, the top sports networks (ESPN, NFL, FSN, Big Ten, SEC, YES) and pay networks HBO and Showtime.

All in, we pay about $75 for our TV package and one DVR box. I checked other providers Comcast and Time Warner Cable and comparable TV packages also fall into the $70-80 range.

WHAT OTT PACKAGES OFFER

Individual on-demand channels/apps include HBO ($15/month), Netflix ($9), Hulu ($8), Amazon ($99 annually – essentially $8/month) and CBS All Access ($6). However I’m mostly interested in comparing the three main network bundles to my cable offering. 

SONY VUE = $50-70

$50/month accesses 50 channels; $70/month accesses 83

Missing Disney-owned networks (ABC, ESPN, ABC Family, History, A&E, Lifetime)

Initially available only on PS3 and PS4 consoles and in three cities

SLING = $20-45

$20/month for 17 channels, including ESPN

Five add-on packages at $5/each. Buying all five grants access to 30 additional channels, albeit most are small nets (Bein Sport, BabyTV, several news nets from other countries)

Lacks broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CW). Also missing nets from Discovery (Discovery, TLC), Viacom (Comedy Central, MTV, Spike, VH1, BET), FOX (FX, FXX, Big Ten) and NBCU (USA, Bravo, SyFy, E, NBCSN)

No DVR option – you can only watch live or on-demand 

APPLE TV = $30-40 (estimated)

Launches later this year

Reportedly in the $30-40 range covering 25 channels

Will include broadcast networks ABC, CBS and FOX and some large cable networks like ESPN and FX

No NBCU networks (ex: NBC, USA, Bravo, SyFy, E, NBCSN) – although that could change

Only compatible with Apple devices

Likely no DVR capabilities – you can only watch live or on-demand

HOW ARE ANY OF THESE BETTER THAN CABLE?

If you watch a lot of current programming and lean heavily on a DVR, then none of these packages bring as much value as a cable package. Especially since you still need an internet connection, and cable providers offer discounts when bundling TV and internet together versus buying either individually. 

And if you’re a sports fan, forget it. There’s no way you can keep your total OTT bill below what you’re currently paying for cable. Consider:

SPORTS EXAMPLE: Vue ($60 Core package) + Sling ($20 basic) = $80

This package covers most of the large sports nets but omits ABC (home of the NBA Finals and college football games)

Lacks NFL Network, which has exclusive games in November/December

Adding a $5 Sports Extra package from Sling brings SEC Network and the smaller ESPN channels (ESPNU, ESPNEWS) but pushes your bill up to $85

Ten channels overlap so you’re technically paying twice for some networks

Also missing premium movie networks. For those, add $15 for HBO Now or $9 for Netflix

The only real deal to be had is for those who don’t watch current programming or sports or lean on a DVR to record and fast-forward through commercials. People falling into those categories could mix and match on demand channels/apps for a total monthly bill between $6-46.

THE OTT TARGET AUDIENCE

Today’s OTT services are certainly interesting and a refreshing step in the right direction, but they are NOT for heavy TV viewers or sports fans with cable subscriptions. These OTT offerings are structured so a current consumer doesn’t get everything they want. Instead they have to buy more expensive tiers or combine services to ultimately pay the same (or more) per month as a cable bill… but with less content choice. 

OTT packages are primarily aimed for the cord-nevers (those who’ve never had cable) or to entice the roughly 8 million US cord-cutters with a cheaper, non-contractual, fixed price option to return to TV. 

Why? Because there’s simply too much money at risk if people drop cable subscriptions altogether. Cable networks have a dual revenue stream, collecting profit from monthly subscriptions as well as from sold commercial time. As I’ve written before, cable networks bring in anywhere from 50-70% of profit for media companies; generally two to three times the profits of feature film branches.

Television viewing habits have changed immensely in the last five years and will continue to evolve in the near future. But “cord cutting” and “a la carte” subscriptions are not the same thing. Rather than empowering current cable consumers, the only people truly holding any hand at choices with today’s offerings are those who don’t watch much current TV in the first place.

[mattstueland]

Will Dec 17-18 Forever Change TV?

How a breaking news story, an inconspicuous company announcement, and a TV show’s departure could influence TV (and media) for years to come.

It was supposed to be an uneventful week before Christmas. In retrospect, December 17-18 could be remembered as the most important days of 2014 as three unrelated happenings could each influence TV (and media) for years to come.

CONTENT CENSORSHIP

What happened: The largest of the three events took place on a national scale as the FBI announced North Korea was responsible for the electronic hacks of motion-picture company Sony… in order to prevent the release of James Franco and Seth Rogen comedy The Interview.

Why it matters: A foreign country just censored American media. North Korea used a third party group to break into Sony’s servers and steal data, then relied on extortion and threats of terrorism to demand a movie that poked fun of its leader never see the light of day. This is a silly movie – what happens when North Korea (or another government) frowns upon content with higher stakes, like a heavy-hitting documentary exposing human rights abuses?  

What happens next: President Obama said on Friday Sony made a mistake pulling the movie and promised a response from our Government. In the meantime, many powerful industry activists like George Clooney are speaking out on the dangers of First Amendment violations, particularly the insanity of allowing another country to dictate our content. One would hope this leads to a broader discussion and unified response from the industry should this circumstance be repeated in the future.

  ENDING LIVE TV

What happened: The quietest event was Esquire’s announcement it would release a full season of new series The Short Game on video on-demand a month in advance of its linear premiere.

Why it matters: It sounds like a boring industry press blurb, but this is huge news in the TV industry. Live TV is increasingly becoming antiquated in today’s on-demand, content-binging environment. Networks will occasionally offer limited pre-linear premieres of a series on VOD or other platforms but never a full season. Up until now, television’s economic model collects the vast majority of its revenue via affiliate fees (ie your cable bill) and commercials (the industry measurement adds ratings from watching a program live with three days worth of playback on DVR/VOD). It remains to be seen whether the The Short Game’s VOD episodes will contain full commercial breaks or an exclusive sponsorship, but lacking either is a game changer as that would effectively mean Esquire is betting on word of mouth boosting the show’s ratings (revenue) when it premieres next month.

What happens next: Esquire is part of NBC Universal that owns other networks like USA, SyFy, Bravo, E! and Oxygen. Esquire is serving as group guinea pig because there is little risk - it has low ratings and can only gain exposure with this experiment. Should it work, NBCU could add this strategy to its business model and re-invent how advertiser revenue is collected throughout the industry. Also, NBCU is owned by Comcast – the nation’s largest cable provider. A willingness by Comcast to push the VOD envelope with its own content means the provider could strong-arm other media groups to match when affiliate deals are being negotiated.

RAISING THE BAR FOR POLITICAL COMEDY (AND COMEDY IN GENERAL)

What happened: The series finale of The Colbert Report.

Why it matters: Over nine years Stephen Colbert re-wrote political satire by transforming himself from an obscure talking head to a national phenomenon. His show was unlike anything on television by being educational, bizarre, funny and meta – usually all at the same time. One of my favorite examples is 2011’s Colbert Super PAC where Colbert went through the process of exploring, filing and soliciting donations for a perfectly legal PAC that later sponsored ridiculously confusing commercials in the 2012 Elections. His goal was to educate viewers on the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, specifically how corporations and millionaires are able to funnel billions of dollars into elections. His efforts resulted in a Peabody Award (as well as a smarter audience).

What happens next: The Colbert Report’s departure creates a colossal void in television. He consistently enlightened audiences by using humor to examine important causes and complicated news stories. Colbert has retired the pundit character and will appear as himself when he replaces David Letterman as The Late Show host in 2015. As far as political satire goes, fellow Daily Show alum John Oliver is clearly next in line of succession with his excellent HBO show. But Oliver appears as himself and is limited at having a weekly program whereas Colbert had four days a week to fine-tune his show, character and message into contemporary masterpieces.

[mattstueland]

My Two Months Reading Deadpool

After spending the summer reading War and Peace I had a craving to try something completely different. So I opened a Marvel Unlimited account and spent two months reading every Deadpool digital comic. 

That’s right - every Deadpool on Marvel Unlimited. Every series. Every one shot. Every guest role. 

I quickly discovered there was a TON of Deadpool out there. (18 starring titles and over 400 issues)

Here’s a little of what I learned… 

WHY DEADPOOL?

I was looking for something fun to read and DP has the most unlimited story potential of any character in all of Marvel or DC.

DP could visit any location on Earth, interact with any hero or villain, bounce back from any amount of physical punishment (even death), battle aliens in outer space, travel through time or interact with other versions of himself in parallel universes… and it would all make sense.

Also I like Mexican food. 

  BUT, SERIOUISLY, WHO IS DEADPOOL?

DP is a mercenary who would seemingly appear under the typical anti-hero trope. But a few unique additions push his character into uncharted territory for a mainstream publisher: 

He’s crazy. But more in the form of comic relief with one-liners, bad jokes, outrageous solutions and sophomoric humor than deranged psychopaths like Carnage or Joker. Many writers have dueling character boxes in a panel, representing DP’s split consciousness as he talks to himself with multiple voices. 

DP is self-aware he’s in a comic book. He frequently breaks the Fourth Wall and addresses the reader directly, like in this panel where he addresses co-creator Rob Liefeld. 

He went through the same super-solider program as Wolverine, granting him similar regenerative powers. This comes in handy as most DP appearances involve him losing a limb or being killed… only to regenerate back to normal by the next issue. 

DP’s nicknamed “Merc with a Mouth” because he’s always talking, including verbalizing his stream of conscious. Many villains (and allies) find this highly annoying. 

He’s a misfit who doesn’t always win. He endures insane amounts of physical abuse and makes poor personal choices. Shortly after earning a windfall of money DP can be seen broke on his couch looking for his next score. 

Over time DP’s wise-cracking has evolved to be an emotional cover to a rather sad and lonely life. He’s gone from being an amoral killing machine to desperately seeking appreciation as a hero and trying to help others. 

DP is horribly disfigured from a side effect of his healing powers. He considers his mask his true face. 

He’s in love with the entity Mistress Death (whom he can never be with as he essentially cannot die). 

And, obviously, he’s one of the best martial artists and assassins in the world. Duh. 

AND PEOPLE LIKE THIS?

Absolutely. He’s ranked as IGN’s #31 Comic Book Hero for a reason. Part of the character’s charm is being free-spirited with unconventional ideas and spontaneous actions, all in the spirit of fun rather than being malicious. Google “Deadpool cosplay” and you’ll see the legions of fans who don a DP-themed costume at any comic convention.

Fans had a mini freak out a month ago when test footage leaked of Ryan Reynolds staring as a movie version of Deadpool (see below), which is set to release in February 2016. Reynolds played Deadpool in the universally-panned 2009 movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine and has been attached to play DP in a solo feature ever since.

WAIT. THE 2016 MOVIE WILL STAR RYAN REYNOLDS AS DEADPOOL? AND HE’LL BASICALLY BE RUNNING AROUND TELLING JOKES THE ENTIRE TIME? THAT SOUNDS TERRIBLE. I REMEMBER GREEN LANTERN.

You’re preaching to the choir. Sam Rockwell would be my pick to play DP. The mixture of goofiness, edge, crazy and empathy he brings to characters truly embodies DP’s personality without being as hammy, obvious and all around obnoxious as Reynolds. Too bad Rockwell’s being used in the Marvel Cinematic Universe…

SO WHAT’S SO GOOD ABOUT DEADPOOL?

Plenty! Good or bad, the movie will be its own standalone entity. If you really want to enjoy DP check out some of his best work (listed in chronological order):

Deadpool (Volume 1) #11 = A fun ride as DP goes back in time and relives the events of 1967’s Amazing Spider-Man #47.

Deadpool (Volume 1) #21-25 = DP has to decide whether an alien en route to Earth is the messiah or humanity’s greatest threat. The best story arc of Joe Kelly’s long run.

Deadpool (Volume 1) #65-69 = First off, Gail Simone rocks as one of DP’s best writers. Her arc ends Volume 1 with DP taking credit for an impossible hit with sudden infamy making his life much more complicated. (Simone also writes the beginning and ending to spin-off series Agent X.)

Cable & Deadpool #1-50 = Written by DP co-creator Fabian Nicieza, this is by far the best DP title. An unlikely pairing between DP and the almost omnipotent X-Man Cable leads to enjoyable adventures with plenty of subtle humor and surprising touches of humanity.

Deadpool (Volume 2) #1-22 = Daniel Way does a fantastic job mixing adventure with all out wackiness as DP fights (then joins?) the Skrulls, gets hunted by Norman Osborn’s Dark Avengers and becomes a pirate before seeking redemption by working with the X-Men and Spider-man.

Deadpool (Volume 2) #45-63 = The final story arc of the second DP title is truly bizarre as DP fights an evil version of himself (made from his severed body parts), then discovers a way to permanently die so he can be united with his lover, Death, for all eternity.

DP is also a part of Wolverine’s secretive black ops team in The Uncanny X-Force (Volume 1) where he plays a supporting, comic relief role (like Murdock from The A Team). It’s a decent title with the best story arcs being “The Dark Angel Saga” (#8-19) and series conclusion “The Final Execution” (#25-35). 

GEEZ. THAT’S A LOT OF COMICS. IS IT ALL GOOD DEADPOOL?

Well… 

WELL?

For the most part DP stories are at least OK (like 3/5 stars). But readers should avoid: 

Deadpool Team Up = More like “Dreadful Team Ups.” DP joins forces with mostly obscure heroes in one uninspiring caper after another.

Deadpool Corps = On paper it’s ripe with potential as DP teams up with parallel universe versions of himself to save the multi-verse. If only someone could have saved me the time wasted reading this droll.

Thunderbolts (Volume 2) = DP is part of a mercenary team including Red Hulk, Electra and The Punisher. The series is punishing to your intellect, and apparently Marvel agreed. The series was cancelled in October 2014 after 32 issues.

  OK, GOT IT. ANYTHING ELSE?

Nope, other than I’m now craving a chimichanga. 

[mattstueland]

HBO OTT Could Change Cable TV, But it Won’t Destroy it

2014 will be the last year you’ll need a cable subscription to (legally) watch HBO. Parent company Time Warner announced Wednesday that starting in 2015 HBO will offer an over-the-top streaming service (like Netflix or Amazon Prime).

Doomsayers would proclaim the apocalypse of cable television, but they shouldn't get ahead of themselves.

  HBO’S SIZE IN RELATION TO THE TV INDUSTRY

Neither HBO or Netflix are watched by even half of the TV universe. In the US about 30% of TV households have HBO subscriptions. Although not apples to apples, if Netflix were in the same sample it would have 32% coverage.

US Television Households = 116,400,000

Netflix Households = 37,220,000 (32% US coverage if were a TV network)

HBO Households = 34,308,000 (29% US coverage)

Conversely, fully distributed cable networks are available in over 80% of TV households. Here are the universe sizes for the Top Five-rated cable networks in September 2014:

ESPN Households = 95,256,000 (82% US coverage)

TBS Households = 97,036,000 (83%)

USA Households = 96,814,000 (83%)

FX Households = 95,348,000 (82%)

Adult Swim Households = 96,795,000 (83%)

There are approximately 10 million households that have “cut the cord” or dropped their cable subscriptions and rely solely on an internet connection. This is the target audience for HBO’s OTT service to help push them past Netflix with US subscribers.

The real question isn't, “How long until the cable industry implodes,” but, rather, “How long before it transforms into something else?”

Cable TV will absolutely change in the next decade between technological advances making it easier to access content and creating better user experiences as well as viewers becoming more comfortable watching what they want on their own time. No question. But assuming the entire cable industry is going to collapse is rather premature for two large reasons:

Media conglomerates’ profits

Sports licenses

FOLLOW THE MONEY = CABLE IS TOO LUCRATIVE TO GO AWAY

Six conglomerates control over 90% of US media. These include CBS, Comcast, Disney, FOX/Newscorp, Time Warner and Viacom. Cable properties produce a ridiculously large percentage of the parent company’s bottom line. Here are a few examples from the most recently available quarterly earnings reports:

Time Warner - Q2 2014 Earnings Report:

Cable Nets = $2.8 billion revenue; $940 million profit

HBO = $1.4 billion revenue; $552 million profit

Warner Brothers = $2.9 billion revenue; $236 million profit

COMPANY TOTAL = $6.8 billion revenue; $1.6 billion profit 

Cable networks were 41% of Time Warner’s revenue, which trailed Warner Brothers (the film and TV production arm). However cable nets were easily the most profitable division with 58% of Time Warner’s quarterly profits. 

Walt Disney - Quarter Ending June 2014 Earnings Report:

Cable Nets = $3.9 billion revenue; $1.9 billion profit

Broadcast = $1.6 billion revenue; $354 million profit

Parks/Resorts = $4.0 billion revenue; $848 million profit

Studio Entertainment = $1.8 billion revenue; $411 million profit

COMPANY TOTAL = $12.5 billion revenue; $3.9 billion profit 

At Disney cable nets were behind parks & resorts with 32% of the company’s quarterly revenue. But cable nets more than doubled parks & resorts by representing half of Disney’s profits.

21st Century FOX – Quarter Ending June 2014 Earnings Report:

Cable Nets = $3.4 billion revenue; $1.2 billion profit

Broadcast = $1.0 billion revenue; $145 million profit

Filmed Entertainment = $2.8 billion revenue; $339 million profit

COMPANY TOTAL = $8.4 billion revenue; $1.8 billion profit 

Cable network programming brought in the most revenue (40%) and the largest profits (68%) of FOX’s results for quarter-ending June 30, 2014.

  SPORTS KEEP THE CURRENT SYSTEM IN PLACE

Sports programming is expensive. Practically every new TV rights deal sets some type of license fee record. That’s not all too surprising considering live sports are practically the only content that’s DVR-proof. The vast majority of fans watch games live - commercials and all. And sports programming has a track record of delivering the elusive young male audience in droves that makes advertisers salivate.

Paying for those rights increases the negotiating power of cable networks. Take ESPN for example. With licenses including the NFL, NBA, MLB and NCAA (both football and basketball) it has cornered the market with broadcasting live, highly watched games throughout the year. It’s been reported ESPN charges affiliates around $6 per month per subscriber. That means ESPN brings in well over $550 million every month in affiliate revenue. (Most cable networks are lucky to charge over $1 a month per subscriber, and those nets usually have expensive scripted and syndicated programming.) With that much money at stake, one could understand why ESPN pays four times more than broadcast nets for NFL games.

Networks have done all they can to hold lucrative licenses well into the next decade. MLB’s TV deal expires in 2021, NFL in 2022, the NCAA Basketball Tournament in 2024 and the NBA in 2025. With those licenses locked in for so many years to come there is little incentive for cable providers, networks or conglomerates to change the system anytime soon.

And it works because US consumers have an insatiable appetite for live sports as events consistently draw large ratings. The majority of sports fans are going to keep paying $50-60 a month for their cable package, which includes a variety of sports networks and sports programming throughout the year, rather than cut the cord and lose access because you don’t have a cable subscription.

  SCENARIOS TO FORCE CHANGE

Keeping in mind the money at stake for conglomerates and the stronghold sports have on keeping the masses from dropping cable subscriptions, three scenarios come to mind that could ultimately bring change to the cable system.

1) An outside company (without ties to the media conglomerates) buys sports licenses and airs games on digital platforms that don’t require cable subscriptions. The most likely company in this scenario would be Google. They already have the world’s #1 video distribution site with YouTube and more money than they can spend. (Consider Google made $13 billion in profit in 2013!!)

Google making a play for NBA games could not only jeopardize ESPN but TNT as well which has strong Q2 ratings with its coverage of the NBA Playoffs. Those Q2 ratings not only make TNT the top network of the quarter, but the extra viewing serves as a promotional platform for its summer lineup of originals.

If Google made a play on NASCAR events, the impact could be felt at smaller sports nets like FOX Sports 1 or NBC Sports Net which signed on for broadcasting NASCAR in hopes to build their credentials towards one day dethroning ESPN as the top sports network.

No matter the culprit, the complete removal of sporting events from the traditional cable provider model would entice more people to drop cable subscriptions as well as hurt the negotiating power of networks losing licenses, who would have to accept rate cuts. And that would hurt the bottom line of conglomerates and force them to make changes.

Of course taking licenses to non-cable platforms is challenging with so many leagues locked into rights deals well into the 2020s.

2) Cord cutting becomes rampant and the expected norm for watching content. This would be especially true among the "cord nevers" – people who grew up never having cable subscriptions and have always used their internet package to stream content. But I don’t think this scenario is likely to happen right away either. There are 11 times more homes with TV subscriptions than there are cord cutters. There’s still too much offered in a cable package for the majority of people to opt out and solely use OTT services.

3) Streaming or binge watching on your own time is the new norm, and the ability to do that outweighs everything else – including sports subscriptions. This is the most likely scenario to change cable in the near future because it’s slowly starting to happen. More and more companies across the TV industry are touting the ability to offer viewers a chance to watch any program, on any platform, at any time. For cable networks, your monthly cable bill means you’re an authenticated user with unlimited access to network content at your leisure.

And that works today because networks command larger audiences than OTT services. Just in the last week The Walking Dead was the #1 program in all of TV with its season five premiere. American Horror Story returned for its fourth season and set franchise records while ranking as cable’s #4 program for the week. Every week over 1.5 million People 18-49 are tuning in to WWE’s Monday programming on USA while networks Discovery, A&E, History, Bravo or VH-1 all have reality programming delivering over 1 million People 18-49 and regularly ranking among the Top Ten cable telecasts.

But will that always be the case?

  WHAT'S LIKELY GOING ON WITH HBO

The immediate plan for HBO OTT has to be to boost HBO’s profits and surpass Netflix in size. The WSJ reported the HBO OTT service would be no less than $15/month. Say 30% of cord-cutters (or 3 million) households add the service, and that’s an additional $45 million in revenue per month. Not ESPN numbers, but still damn impressive. Add that $135 million per quarter to the earnings example from earlier and HBO’s quarterly revenue increases 10% to $1.6 billion.

A stronger HBO bottom line would lead to a stronger share price for Time Warner, and that would justify the company rejecting 21st Century FOX’s takeover price of $85/share last summer – because the offer was too low. 

Long-term, my guess is HBO OTT is a way for Time Warner to leverage its bets and stake a claim in a new territory. If the cable provider system would become threatened, either by losing subs or drops in affiliate fees, conglomerates aren’t going to stand idly by while their profits evaporate. Cable nets obviously represent a large chunk of profits, so the most logical move in that scenario would be for each conglomerate to bundle its networks/brands together into an OTT package.

  THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THINGS STAY THE SAME

If HBO’s OTT is successful, and if the cable provider system did become threatened, why wouldn’t Time Warner create a new OTT like “Turnercast”? Such an OTT could bundle HBO with Time Warner properties like TNT, TBS, CNN, truTV, Adult Swim/Cartoon Network and TCM and charge a monthly fee that matches what it currently gains from affiliate fees, thus protecting that revenue stream.

This would lead into all the conglomerates following suit with the same strategy. For example, Disney could merge the ESPN family of networks with ABC Family, Disney Channel and maybe even the AETN group and create “Disneycast”. Considering Disney is starting to treat Netflix as its pay cable partner, they could even offer a Netflix/Disneycast bundle.

Whatever the combination, with this scenario I envision conglomerates creating OTT bundled packages to fit individual tastes and protect their bottom line. Bundles would likely attract a smaller subscription base than the 90+ million homes in a widely-distributed network today, so to offset that loss each conglomerate’s package would probably be in the $15-25/month range. Signing on to 2-3 such packages would equate to around $50/month… essentially on par with a cable bill today, but with less offerings.

It would also be in the conglomerates’ best interest to work together and offer all of their bundles together in one giant service – like how cable providers are used today. Even if linear broadcasting were completely replaced by OTT services, providers would still be in good shape as they deliver internet connections. And what better way to justify higher-quality video and faster connection speeds than by installing new equipment to meet the demands of a purely broadband audience... naturally leading to an increase in monthly internet rates. (So meet your new monthly bill. Same as your old monthly bill.) 

With a workable scenario like this it’s hard to imagine cable television completely vanishing. Networks could become brands with some merging while others are dissolved, and a new experience, platform and system name could take its place. But there is simply too much money at stake for the industry to go extinct.

[mattstueland]

Why Guardians of the Galaxy Will Be One of Marvel’s BEST Movies

When I first heard Marvel was making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie I thought, “What a stupid title.” That was followed by, “IS MARVEL INSANE?” after learning one of the major characters is a genetically-modified talking raccoon and, finally, “YES. This is a disaster,” when I discovered another character is a giant humanoid tree. 

All this before I knew about Cosmo, the telepath Russian dog/cosmonaut. He’s the head of security on a space station at the edge of the universe.

Two years later, I can honestly say I’ve been looking forward to this movie all summer.

This change in attitude wasn’t a natural progression for me. Growing up reading comics I avoided space-based titles as if they were supermassive black holes. Give me Batman or Spiderman any day over those weirdoes in the Green Lantern Corps flying around the universe wearing spandex and magic rings. Same goes for the X-Men. Mutant fights or time-traveling stories were perfectly acceptable, but count me out if an issue hinted at interacting with aliens. No, sir.  That was just silly.

My prejudice against Guardians of the Galaxy (GOTG) started to shift when I learned Chris Pratt was cast as the lead. Pratt has an integral role on NBC ensemble comedy Parks & Recreation as the dim-witted, lovable oddball who says (and does) some of the most creatively bizarre things on television. His addition piqued my curiosity so I decided to do some investigating…

This led me to the 2008-2010 comic series GOTG written by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning from which the movie is based. It ran for 25 issues which are available as four digital download volumes.

The long and short of it is these are a bunch of losers thrown together as a team. (Yeah, I know, sounds like the Bad News Bears or The Mighty Ducks… in space.) But, unlike the familiar “ragtag bunch of misfits” trope where they overcome their differences and predictably save the day, these guys are constantly aware they are a group of screw ups. In fact, they’re in on the joke the entire time.

And that’s what makes the comic, and what will make this movie, so enjoyable: it’s fun. The characters know they look like a bunch of stereotypes and respond with a tongue in cheek attitude. They’re very much aware of their infamous image as strangers frequently make fun of the team name, its odd members and Star-Lord’s (Pratt’s character) self-appointed codename. They’re not as self-aware or jokey as, say, Deadpool, but the tone is much more Galaxy Quest than it is 1986 gem (and Joaquin Phoenix’s first feature) Space Camp.

Another reason why this movie will work is it’s made by Marvel. The track history of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been stellar. After nine movies only Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World had average reviews, and even those films were better than the majority of action movies out there. Marvel successfully translated the supernatural world of Thor into the MCU and wouldn’t have gone down the avant-garde path of GOTG if they didn’t know what they were doing.

Case in point: Chris Pratt. Reading the source material it becomes clear Pratt IS Star-Lord. He naturally carries the character’s charisma, enthusiasm and playfulness as well as Star-Lord’s self-deprecating tendencies.

Also consider nothing Marvel does is left to chance. The Marvel creative team has a masterful long-term strategy of connecting all the properties of its universe for years to come. The closing credits scene of Avengers teased Thanos as the architect behind the movie’s invasion of Earth. One problem is Thanos is a cosmic entity – why would a being who could traverse the universe care about our speck of a planet? It’s a difficult concept to sell, but GOTG will help provide some clues. (Team members Drax and Gamora have history with Thanos, and Josh Brolin has been cast to voice the purple baddie.) At the end of the day Marvel is essentially laying the groundwork for introducing Thanos and his backstory now and in subsequent films/TV shows so he can be the main villain of Avengers 3 (likely releasing in Summer 2018)… a long-term plan if I’ve ever heard of one.

In closing, yes, the heart of the team is a foul-mouthed talking raccoon. The muscle is a gigantic walking tree who can only say his name. There are a couple (not-related) green-skinned mercenaries with killer fighting skills. And they all follow a wise-cracking Earthling. As this Dorkly cartoon says, it’s like Star Wars if Han Solo and Chewie teamed up with all the bounty hunters and got rid of the plucky farmboy and British droid comic relief.

How could that not be cinematic gold?!?!

[mattstueland]

Media Hawk’s Best Bets of Summer 2014

As a new parent I’ve learned there’s no longer such a thing as excess time, which makes time management all the more critical for my media habits. After shifting through the offerings of Summer 2014, these are my best bets for the most bang for your viewing buck:

Sunday, June 8 and 15, 9pm: Game of Thrones season finale (TV series-HBO)

I’m not spoiling anything, but knowing where the TV show is in relation to the books means this should be the best season finale yet! Valar Morghulis!

June 12-July 13: The World Cup (ABC/ESPN/ESPN2)

Does it matter I don’t know anything about any players and occasionally zone out when watching matches? Not at all! Although USA is #1 in my heart, once they’re eliminated it’s a simple matter of constantly jumping onto the bandwagon of my next country of heritage… until (naturally) rallying behind the team whose food and beer I like the most in the semi-finals.

Check out this helpful TV schedule for when/where to catch all the action. 

Thursday, June 19, 8pm: Defiance (TV series-SyFy)

Season 1 slowly won me over, mostly because the show doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s a fun ride with plenty of sci-fi dynamics without being too corny or over the top. Not to mention it literally is a sci-fi Western by taking place on a terraformed Earth. 

Sunday, June 22, 9pm: The Musketeers (TV series-BBC America)

Alexandre Dumas’ Musketeers stories are among my favorite novels, and I’ve been looking forward to seeing this series ever since hearing rave reviews from the UK. Hopefully this will help erase the memory of that sacrilegious 2011 movie.

Wednesday, July 9, 9pm: Extant (TV series-CBS)

Astronaut Halle Berry returns from a solo mission in space to find herself pregnant, apparently by some creepy alien guy. Oh, and her “son” she left on Earth is a robot. Steven Spielberg has had a spotty track record on TV for my tastes, but his latest entry has definitely perked my interest.

Sunday, July 13, 10pm: The Strain (TV series-FX)

Guillermo del Toro comes to TV? Sign me up! It’s one thing to visualize the vampires and zombies in the novels, and quite another to see a live-action version. It’s going to be difficult to best The Walking Dead’sratings, but The Straincould give it a run for the money - especially if del Toro had a hand in the creature design.

Friday, August 1: Guardians of the Galaxy (movie)

I plan to make a blog entry next month on why this is going to be one of Marvel’s best movies to-date. In the meantime, this is a nice summary:

http://www.dorkly.com/post/63736/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vs-star-wars

  Friday, August 22: Sin City A Dame to Kill For (movie)

Robert Rodriguez, Mickey Rourke and the gang return to tell more stories from Frank Miller’s noir comic. Plus Mike Hammer himself joins the cast? Sweet!

[mattstueland]

Saturday's Final Four = The Future of Sports Coverage?

I’m excited about this year’s Final Four and, if you’re a sports fan, you should be too. It actually has less to do with the teams playing and everything to do with how it’ll be televised.

Saturday’s Final Four will be airing on cable for the first time ever. As part of the CBS-Turner deal to broadcast every NCAA Tournament game, TBS has the 2014 and 2015 Final Fours and the 2016 National Championship. That alone is a huge deal for so many reasons – namely a decade ago the only sports coverage on TBS were Atlanta Braves games. Now it has the Final Four, a staple on CBS since 1982, and in 2016 it will mark the first American sports championship to air solely on a cable net. (The NHL’s Stanley Cup Finals has a long history of sharing games between broadcast and cable.)   

But the really interesting part about the 2014 Final Four is it will include teamcasts – slightly tweaked broadcasts of the same game geared towards each team. TBS maintains the traditional national feed while Turner-family networks TNT and truTV each have a feed dedicated to one of the teams playing. These teamcasts include hometown announcers calling the game, additional cameras for each team’s coverage and separate graphics. In other words, a customized experience for each team’s fans. 

What a refreshing step in the right direction.

Full disclosure, I am a Turner employee. But this blog post has nothing to do with where I work and everything to do with being a sports fan. I’m sure other fans can relate at dreading their team’s coverage on a network because they dislike a particular announcer, or becoming increasingly frustrated watching a game because they’re convinced the announcers are showing the opponent all the love.

Perhaps those days are now numbered. Yes, the only way to really pull it off is to have a family of networks sharing coverage (the way Turner is doing with TBS-TNT-truTV), but what used to be a foreign concept is now entirely doable in today’s media environment. The Olympics are already shared across NBC’s family of networks and ABC-ESPN systematically swamp around college football games. And I’m sure, should teamcasting become the norm, FOX could easily incorporate separate feeds for its licensed championships by utilizing FOX Sports 1 or even FX and FXX. 

And marrying individual team coverage to social media should be a slam dunk (no pun intended). If I’m at home watching a game I’ll usually have a Twitter feed refreshing my team’s hashtag on my second screen in order to share the experience – both highs and lows. The next evolution to teamcasting will be to merge social interactions along with a televised team feed. The end result could be even better than being at the game live… OK, not really. But it would be pretty cool, especially if you’re watching a game someplace on your own.

For whatever happens tomorrow the Final Four teamcast is a terrific experiment into making sports coverage more relevant and personal to viewers. There may be a hiccup or two along the way, but it’s all positive momentum for a future I look forward to watching and interacting with. 

[mattstueland]

The WWE Network: Is Everything As It Seems?

Professional wrestling has been a mainstay on television dating all the way back to the 1940s. But WWE (then WWF) entered the picture in 1979 and rewrote all the rules. During the 1980s it had a weekly syndicated show, larger than life characters (literally when you consider Andre the Giant), Wrestlemania and other pay-per-view events, a Saturday morning cartoon, NBC’s Saturday Night’s Main Event and endless merchandising offerings. This enabled WWE to establish itself as THE wrestling franchise with an allegiance of loyal fans.

Fast forward to 2014 and WWE is still dominant. It produces revenues of $500 million a year, bought out the competition and has a public stock (currently trading at $23). It also produces two highly-rated weekly programs: Raw on USA Network ranks in the Top 10 of all cable telecasts every week while SmackDown is SyFy’s highest-rated program.

With all its success and momentum WWE has been eager to continue expanding. Articles were surfacing in 2010 reporting WWE planned to launch its own premium cable network. Eventually it was announced the network would launch on cable in April 2012, coinciding with Wrestlemania XXVIII.

There was just one problem: cable providers weren’t interested.

COURSE CORRECTION

Not one provider agreed to carry WWE on cable. Zilch. But the company wanted its own network, particularly to utilize literally thousands of hours of library content sitting unused on the shelf. And that content is only growing with 12 annual pay-per-view events (PPV) and four hours of new programming every week between USA and SyFy.

Thus the change in focus towards an over-the-top streaming network. (Like Netflix, except replacing movies with the arsenal of WWE programming.) Launching on February 24, 2014, WWE asks for $9.99 a month and in return consumers get unlimited access to the library, replays of its cable shows, and live streaming to every PPV.

WWE is hoping for 1 million subscribers in its first year, but the magic number for profitability will likely be 2-3 million. (2 million subs would generate $240 million a year. PPV and TV licenses combined for $243 million in 2013.) Either way, it sounds manageable today as Netflix and HBO have over 30 million subs each. And it especially sounds like a deal with thousands of hours of content, potential new program exclusives (like reality show Legends House) and a cheaper way for fans to watch PPV events.

Of course, since it’s professional wrestling we’re talking about, nothing is as transparent as it seems.

PPV, OR, WHY SATELLITES ARE UPSET

WWE’s monthly PPV events run about $50 each in HD, with its “Super Bowl” Wrestlemania running $65. That’s $600+ per year to watch all 12 events. WWE subscribers will have instant access to PPVs via their $10 monthly fee, meaning a full year subscriber will pay around $120 (nearly a $500 savings vs. buying PPVs individually).

WWE is allowing cable providers to continue airing its PPV events (and rightfully so since they’re at a much higher cost). BUT WWE has to share PPV revenue with its providers. Under the traditional PPV model WWE would get 40% of the price while cable/satellite providers take 60%.

Of course signal providers receive no money from events streamed on the WWE Network. Providers like Verizon are OK with this in the long run because they’re still making money. Even if consumers forgo buying individual PPVs for a year-long WWE subscription, subscribers need an internet connection for streaming. And MVPD’s like Verizon will still receive money as an internet provider – keeping them in control of consumers’ monthly internet fees as well as setting bandwidth speed and charging sites for faster streaming.

On the other hand, satellite providers don’t offer the internet. If they lose PPV audiences they have no leverage to recoup that lost money. As a result, it shouldn’t be all that surprising to hear DirecTV say it will eventually eliminate WWE events and DISH make dubious announcements like they are going to “re-evaluate our relationship with WWE.”

If I’m doing the math correctly and WWE makes $83 million annually on PPV, then cable and satellite distributors are making $125 million annually under the 40/60 split. That’s a large chunk of change to lose… and it’s only the beginning. If successful, WWE could encourage other large PPV event creators like UFC to follow the same online subscription model and destroy providers making profits via hosted PPV events.  

TELEVISION LICENSES

In 2013, WWE earned $160 million in television licenses. Not only is this the company’s largest revenue source (almost doubling annual PPV revenue), but as I said earlier the Raw and Smackdown programs are highly-rated with several million viewers tuning in every week between them.

However, WWE is asking for increases in its license fee similar to other sports franchises. And that’s not always a win for the hosting network. Expensive licenses devour moneys that could be spent on original programming, and owning original programming is vital in the digital age. Remember WWE content contains racy material that likely has a list of advertiser restrictions so, despite large ratings, a commercial during WWE may not be recouping as much advertising revenue as an original drama's commercial. 

So, upon review, its very likely NBCU has decided it could increase profits by creating original content to air during the WWE hours (which they can distribute on any number of platforms and regions in perpetuity) rather than pay higher WWE license fees for content they don't own.  

There’s no industry chatter about other media conglomerates looking to make a TV deal with WWE, which means either this deal will be magically ironed out at the last moment (at a lower cost), or WWE is going completely digital on its own.

And that would be a bad idea.

THE FUTURE

WWE has a lot of buzz and interest now but I question its long-term viewer substantiality and growth. Its streaming service is a great idea and a comprehensive package for fans today, but how does it attract fans tomorrow without an outside presence?

1980s icon Hulk Hogan announced his return last week and is undoubtedly going to entice consumers in their 30s/40s to try the streaming service out of nostalgia and the massive video library. But what about a kid under five years old today? If their parents aren’t watching wrestling and WWE is available solely on a siloed streaming service, how do they get exposed and (more importantly) convince their parents to add a $10 monthly subscription?

Unlike professional sports leagues WWE doesn’t have a regional presence or national coverage on ESPN, NBC Sports or other sports channels. Yes, events tour around the country, but its largest outlet for growing awareness and exposure comes from nationally-televised events on largely-distributed networks or platforms. WWE has no other corporate partners or outside parent company platforms to boost its awareness or grow its footprint.

Should NBCU not renew its WWE licenses (between USA, SyFy, and Total Divas on E!) the pressure will be even greater on The WWE Network to deliver results. The streaming network will be the only chance the company has at exposing younger audiences to its brand… who, in return, are expected to become future fans and subscription holders.

Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. Training, saying your prayers and eating your vitamins may not be enough without outside help. 

[mattstueland]

10 posts!

[mattstueland]

Reordering Star Wars For My Kid

    I recently became a parent, which brings about many important decisions: Breastfeed or formula… nanny or daycare… whether or not to circumcise… what order to watch the six Star Wars movies with your kids?

Of course I’m kidding. There are only five movies – The Phantom Menace doesn’t count.

Now I can’t take complete credit for this idea. Over the years I’ve read a number of articles proposing various orders. But, after a lot of reflection, this is the order I plan to introduce Star Wars to my Youngling when he comes of age:  

#1, Episode IV: A New Hope

#2, Episode II: Attack of the Clones

#3, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

#4, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

#5, Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Why this order? A few reasons:

Sense of Awe - The first chapter he’ll see (A New Hope) is the same first chapter original fans saw. Sure it’s cool from a nostalgic perspective to share the same first chapter experience as my son, but of all the entries ANH is the most distinct stand-alone title with a rich universe full of mysteries. From the opening scene of a small ship being chased by a behemoth Star Destroyer, ANH creates a sense of awe that sucks you into the narrative and slowly drops hints of a different universe with its own history and backstory. By the time the movie ends you know the basics on the Force, the Jedi Order, the Empire and that it’s a large galaxy filled with strange aliens, diverse robots, and its own politics… all of which temps your imagination and leaves you wanting to learn more.

Graphics – Watching the series in order risks losing a kid’s attention by the time they hit ANH. Episodes II and III are rich in CGI effects, which means ANH would look badly dated by comparison. Instead, starting with ANH helps captivate a child with the story and graphics that will only get better with proceeding movies. 

Retains Surprises – The revelation from The Empire Strikes Back remains a shock… not to mention a few other things now become surprises in Revenge of the Sith.  

Empire in the Middle – TESB is the heart of the franchise. It’s the favorite by the majority of fans for a number of reasons – strong characters, enticing blend of action and drama, the best dialogue and Han Solo one-liners, the claustrophobic pressure of the Empire closing in on the Rebels, Lando Calrissian, Darth Vader at his Dark Side kick-ass best… all in all, it’s the most fun, the most depressing, and the most hopeful of the franchise. It rightfully belongs in the middle as a bonding agent for the other chapters. 

The Earlier Chapters Become More Interesting - This order reveals the franchise like a great mystery novel by giving you pieces of information over time rather than all at once. You get the general history with a stand-alone adventure in ANH, part of the backstory in AOTC, the heart of the franchise in the middle with its revelations intact (TESB), the rest of the backstory and how things became the way they were (ROTS) followed by the franchise conclusion (ROTJ).

Less Jar-Jar - Meso neva hava son to a-see Jar-Jar. My son never has to know about the crazy antics of the goofy Gungan or the painfully annoying slave-boy Annie. Darth Maul looks cool, but is he a huge loss? All he really did was jump around and grunt a lot before getting sliced in half. Bossk is more memorable with the same amount of dialogue. 

So that’s my perfect plan… until Disney starts making backstory prequels every other year between Episodes VII-IX! (Speaking of which... Bring Back Lando!) 

[mattstueland]

GOT Ruins Walking Dead’s Impact

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR WALKING DEAD & GAME OF THRONES!! 

The Walking Dead’s mid-season finale was easily one of the better finales of the series with plenty of destruction and intensity; a sociopath showed up with a tank and two main characters kicked the bucket. While I found the episode (and season) entertaining I have to admit I was rather indifferent with the outcome…. and for that, I fully blame Game of Thrones.

To be clear, I enjoy The Walking Dead. It’s cable’s highest-rated show because it is one of the best programs (drama or otherwise) on television. Sure, the acting can be suspect at times, but at its heart this is a character-driven program with evolving protagonists who regularly encounter the consequences of their decisions. 

Yet I thoroughly lack empathy for their fates.

Maybe this is due to the overabundance of zombie deaths. Becoming desensitized to violence has to be a natural response in a world where zombie heads are constantly exploding like popped ticks after being shot, stabbed, pierced or crushed by every imaginable hand-held instrument.

Or maybe it’s because I’ve been down this road before and, rather than being desensitized to violence, I’m instead desensitized to main characters dying.

Reading the Red Wedding chapter in A Storm of Swords was like surviving a head-on collision with a Mack truck. I distinctly remember putting my book down in a daze and sitting in quiet disbelief at what I had experienced; trying to digest how an entire kingdom and family’s ambitions disintegrated in an instant. And as intense as that was, watching the HBO live-action version was like wittnessing a double homicide in an elevator ride. Not only did I have to relive painful memories from the book, but the brutality exhibited on Talisa and her unborn baby produced haunting images that can’t be unseen.

In other words, the Red Wedding was probably as bad as it ever could be. (Crueler and more impactful than even poor Ned Stark’s beheading.) And, try as it may, deaths on The Walking Dead just can’t compete on that level.

Was there any doubt kindly old Herschel was going to die? It was rather obvious his time was up from the moment the Governor threatened killing a hostage. Michonne is too much of a sword-wielding badass to waste now, especially when there hasn’t been a ton of time dedicated to her backstory or character growth. Herschel, though, had already used up his usefulness over the course of seasons 2-4, most recently risking his own health to nurse fellow survivors back from the brink of death.

Ultimately, Rick and Daryl are the only characters whose deaths would shock the masses and produce an outrage. They’re The Walking Dead’s versions of Jon Snow and Tyrion Lannister because they simultaneously exist as fan favorites and plot catalysts. Meanwhile, Rick’s son Carl is the HBO Daenerys Targaryen (Dany is far more complex and interesting in the books) – he’s given a lot of attention while remaining rather dull but he has to stay around because he’s apparently pivotal to how the franchise ends. (My guess is the series ends with Carl becoming the new leader after he shoots Zombie Rick.)

Every other character, Michonne and Glenn included, are expendable. If they die they’ll be replaced the way Dale and T-Dog were with doppelgangers who’ll serve the same purposes by blowing up zombie heads and debating the decisions of Rick and Daryl.  

The Walking Dead is popcorn viewing: it’s easy to watch with characters who you want to survive, but there’s no real stake if they don’t. I enjoy it and look forward to the return in February as the group's scattered across the countryside and on the run from zombies. It’ll most certainly fill the gap until March when Game of Thrones returns… when I’m pretty sure there’s another wedding viewers will be dying to see. 

[mattstueland]

Are pay networks doomed after the Marvel-Netflix deal?

The grand-slam announcement came last Thursday that Netflix is going to air four live-action series staring superheroes from the Disney-owned Marvel Universe. This comes almost a year after Disney signed a deal to give all first-run movie windows of its properties (including Star Wars, Marvel and Pixar) exclusively to Netflix in 2016.

The Marvel deal begins in 2015 during Marvel’s Phase Three timeline and includes series staring Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and Luke Cage. The four series will have a minimum of 13-episodes each and the heroes will ultimately team up in a miniseries called The Defenders. All series will be set in New York City’s Hell’s Kitchen where the four heroes are described as “street level”, which likely means greater emphasis on character development, realistic action sequences and a lot of detective stories and less reliance on special effects. (These heroes are no strangers in the comic world. Iron Fist and Luke Cage started teaming up as a crime-fighting duo in the late 1970s while Cage and Jessica Jones had a kid together and later married in the mid-2000s. All three have histories crossing paths with Daredevil.)

The potential for cross over stories and a continuing build towards each subsequent series (or tying in the latest Marvel movie) is obvious. But what does this mean for the future of TV?

First off, Disney would not have made this deal with Netflix if it in any way jeopardized their network investments. Disney owns a broadcast network (ABC), sports giant ESPN, the Disney Channel and its offshoots (including cartoon heavy Disney XD) and a 50% share of AETN (including A&E, History and Lifetime). Looking at the most recent earnings report, networks combine for a whopping 45% of Disney’s annual revenue ($20 billion in fiscal year 2013), so it would make no business sense for them to reduce the value of their lucrative properties.

However, what is lacking in Disney’s portfolio is a pay network - networks requiring a monthly subscription on top of your cable bill. Such networks have newer, unedited movies and some have high-concept, edgy originals. Examples include HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, The Movie Channel, Flix, Epix, Starz and Encore.

While this deal creates excitement for fans who can continue to celebrate the expansion of the Marvel Universe and windfall profits for Netflix (future added subscribers) and Disney (license fees, merchandising, and potential product placement), it could signify a rocky future if you��re a pay network. Established networks like HBO and Showtime are likely safer since they have a long track record of popular original programs and have larger libraries of original content (HBO offers library exclusively to subs while Showtime has started offering content on Netflix). But smaller pay nets are going to struggle to avoid a high churn rate (more people dropping than adding a monthly subscription) because Disney owns so many lucrative properties… and Disney has sided with Netflix.

Starting in 2016, the latest Avengers or Star Wars movie will first go to pay per view, then exclusively to Netflix. Not HBO, Showtime or Amazon Prime… Netflix. Why would a consumer continue to pay for all the extra movie channels at $5-10 each when Netflix will have all the latest Disney franchise movies and original Marvel series (plus any other new Netflix or Disney originals)?

Keep in mind Disney will shop around future television projects across networks, likely even putting some programs on its own channels (ABC, A&E). But only if it makes sense. Placing an hour-long Daredevil program on ABC (or any advertised network) would be a risky move. Daredevil may be the most famous of the four heroes, but he’s far from a household name or having widespread recognition – especially among younger fans who never read Frank Miller’s iconic run or know about the Ben Affleck box office dud.

Low ratings would lead to a network either not picking up a full season’s order or dropping it to an unfavorable time slot; essentially hurting Marvel’s long-term plans by destroying a franchising opportunity (The Defenders) before the first step of that plan even had a chance to succeed.

But just because he’s not as well known as Superman or Batman doesn't mean Daredevil sacrifices in story or appeal. The same could have been said about Iron Man and look how that turned out. It's just Daredevil and the other three heroes need a safe environment to gain viewer and critical acclaim without the pressure to deliver large audiences. 

Disney has now guaranteed a way for these fringe characters to exist and to extend the live-action Marvel brand without the fear of cold-footed cancellation due to low ratings. And Netflix has practically been solidified as Disney’s pay network distributor, all while strengthening both Netflix’s relationship with Disney and Netflix’s image with consumers. The latter of which will lead more consumers to alter their cable bills and use Netflix as their default pay network… infusing Netflix with more money from subscribers to purchase Disney movies and original content for years to come.

So, yeah, if you’re a smaller pay network – no pressure or anything.

[mattstueland]

Attempting Chaos With Hawaii Five-0

CBS is conducting a social experiment by letting viewers pick all the key details of a future episode of Hawaii Five-0. By visiting the show’s website www.cbs.com/h50vote people can vote on the following:

Through the end of October votes are taken for the episode’s Murder Scene, Victim, Murder Weapon, Evidence, Suspect and Takedown.

January includes votes on Props & Wardrobe.  

Music is voted on during February.

Title is voted on in March.

(I’m guessing this episode will air during May Sweeps near the end of the broadcast season.)

I don’t watch Hawaii Five-0 but I love this idea. It’s an easy and fun way to engage viewers and attract attention to the mildly performing drama. After three years of falling ratings at Monday 10pm, Hawaii Five-0 was downgraded to the graveyard of Friday night this season. So, now more than ever, it needs a ratings boost to return for a fifth season in 2014.

In terms of letting voters decide on the plot, I remember the infamous late 1980s Batman storyline “A Death in the Family” where DC Comics allowed viewers to call a 900 number to vote on whether the second Robin, Jason Todd, should live or die. Callers chose death for Jason, which DC honored with a rather sadistic turn of events. Jason survived a brutal beating by the Joker with a crowbar, only to regain his consciousness in time to be caught in a building explosion that ultimately killed him. 

Obviously Hawaii Five-0 is not nearly as dark or brutal as that Batman example and the plot choices it has on the website are rather safe and lighthearted (well, as far as plotting a murder scene goes). The connection I wanted to make to Jason Todd’s death is if enough people purposely tried to create a tangled, incohesive mess CBS would be bound to honor it… right?

It’s with that purpose of creating utter chaos that I’m voting for the elements below. Unfortunately none are in the lead so the chance of my dream episode of mayhem isn’t looking great. If you’d like to join the cause, I implore you to vote for these:

SCENE = Volcano (Because there really aren’t enough volcanoes on primetime television)

VICTIM = Sumo Wrestler (Why would a sumo be at a volcano? Not my problem!)

MURDER WEAPON = Snow Shovel (No snow at a volcano – so good luck with that!)

EVIDENCE = Kitty Litter (Makes absolutely no sense)

SUSPECT = Synchronized Swimmer (I would only pick Struggling Illusionist if it were guaranteed to be G.O.B.)

TAKEDOWN = Base Jumping (I wanted Sniper Hunter Robot because it sounds like some type of Transformer but a Base Jumping arrest seems like a much harder ending to film)

So good luck CBS. I wish you success with your pedestrian episode of a murdered macadamia nut tycoon killed by a struggling illusionist with a five-inch stiletto at Chin Ho’s high school reunion. So far the voters have defined intensity with a toy rocket being enough evidence to lead to an arrest in a giant maze… it actually sounds exactly how I imagine every episode of Hawaii Five-0.