#like i think netflix just really wants its viewers to get disney+ and whatever at this point bc whats the point of having a netflix account

[clownkiwi]

what the faaaaaaaace

they took megamind off of netflix?????

[twh-news]

To land ‘Loki,’ Kate Herron had to pull out all the stops. How she won over Marvel

As a teenager, Kate Herron was obsessed with the “Lord of the Rings” films.

In particular, she recalls heading to theaters repeatedly with friends who shared her passion to see “The Two Towers” (2002), the second installment in director Peter Jackson’s trilogy based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic fantasy novel. She even wrote “Lord of the Rings” fan fiction.

“It was very silly,” the British filmmaker insists, revealing that one of her stories saw the heroic Fellowship traveling through a magical fountain and getting trapped in New York. “Honestly, I was just writing the stories to make my friends laugh. I guess it was kind of that first foray for me: ‘How do I tell a story?’”

Years later, Herron is again involved in telling a story about a protagonist displaced from the world he knows. But this time, her audience is much bigger.

Herron, 33, is the director of “Loki,” the Marvel Studios series that follows the adventures of the titular god of mischief after he has been plucked out of time by an agency charged with maintaining the sanctity of the timeline. Thus, the six-episode series, which premiered earlier this month on Disney+, features a slightly different version of Loki than the fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe have grown to love since his first appearance in “Thor” (2011) through “Avengers: Endgame” (2019).

“I love villains,” says Herron during a recent video call from Atlanta, where she is putting the final touches on “Loki.” “I think that if a villain’s done right, you don’t necessarily have to like their actions, but you have to understand them. And I think that Tom [Hiddleston], in the last decade, has brought such empathy and wit and pain to a very real character for so many people. I just wanted to be part of whatever [Loki’s] next chapter was going to be.”

The series, on which the self-described Loki fan also serves as an executive producer, is Herron’s highest-profile project to date. Her previous credits include directing on Netflix’s “Sex Education,” as well as “Five by Five,” a series of short films executive produced by Idris Elba.

While growing up in South East London, Herron never considered filmmaking as a career. Her love of movies manifested as the aspiration to become an actor, and she often goaded her peers into putting on plays or making movies using a friend’s father’s camcorder. It wasn’t until some astute and encouraging teachers at Herron’s secondary school pointed out that she seemed more interested in storytelling that she changed course.

By introducing Herron to new texts, these teachers — as well as a film studies class that covered films directed by Stanley Kubrick and Akira Kurosawa — helped expand her perspective.

“I just didn’t know that you could have a voice and an authorship over a film, which probably sounds a bit silly. But I just hadn’t really thought about films in that way,” says Herron. Soon enough, she was on the path to film school at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham, England, where she graduated with a degree in film production.

Herron laughs as she remembers how she believed she would just go off and find work in film straight out of school. “Obviously that did not happen,” she says.

With no post-graduate roadmap (or job offer) to help her break into the industry, Herron eventually started writing and directing short films with “no money” while juggling a day job as a temp. Both experiences provided Herron with material for “Loki,” which introduces a new bureaucratic agency called the Time Variance Authority to the MCU.

“I’ve worked at a lot of random places, which weirdly has influenced ‘Loki’ in some ways because we have this office culture kind of running through it,” says Herron. “I’ve worked in a lot of offices.”

In order to give the retro-futuristic offices of the TVA “a real lived-[in], breathed-in office” feel, Herron incorporated details that viewers could recognize from the real world — from paper files to the posters on the walls — and gave them a fantastical twist befitting the superhero series.

“One of the most exciting things to me about Kate is she has this amazing attention to detail,” says “Loki” co-executive producer Kevin Wright. “That was something that we saw on her very first pitch [and] it works its way into every frame of the show. Every monitor, every piece of paper in the TVA … she has looked over and approved everything you see.”

In an email, “Loki” star Hiddleston described Herron as “a dream collaborator” who possesses “a unique combination of extraordinary diligence, stamina, energy, respect and kindness.”

“Her affection for and understanding of Loki was so deep, profound and wide-ranging,” Hiddleston wrote. “She built a new world for these characters to play in with incredible precision, but she was also acutely sensitive to their emotional journey.”

Herron’s affinity for outsiders is apparent throughout the course of our conversation. There is of course her love for Loki — the heir to the king of Frost Giants raised as the prince of Asgard who has become one of the MCU’s most beloved villain-turned-antiheroes. Herron’s first introduction to the world of Marvel as a kid was through “X-Men: The Animated Series,” about the superhero team with mutant powers that set them apart from average humans. Herron cites Lisa Simpson — the overachieving, opinionated middle child from the animated sitcom “The Simpsons” — as the reason she is a vegetarian who can play the saxophone.

And although Herron describes herself as shy, it’s no match for the passion she brings to discussing film and television.

She calls Wes Anderson’s 2001 film “The Royal Tenenbaums,” co-written by “Loki” actor Owen Wilson, “a perfect movie.” In addition to being obsessed with “The Simpsons,” Herron gravitated toward genre shows such as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” the updated “Battlestar Galactica” and “The X-Files” when growing up.

As Herron enthusiastically dives into “Loki’s” influences — which include “Alien” (1979), “Blade Runner” (1982), “Brazil” (1985), “Metropolis” (1927) and, yes, even “Teletubbies” — it’s easy to see why Wright knew she was the right person to bring “Loki” to life from their very first meeting.

Upon learning that Marvel was developing a show about Loki, Herron tasked her agents with calling Marvel every day until they would meet with her. And it worked.

“I was just so excited that somebody was chasing the project,” says Wright. “Which sounds crazy, that Marvel would be excited somebody’s chasing us. But it was the early days of us trying to get this Disney+ streaming stuff off the ground, so people were very hesitant … they didn’t know what it was yet.”

Herron’s enthusiasm for the show landed her a video meeting with Wright and executive producer Stephen Broussard. Believing it might be her only shot at the project, Herron came armed with so many stills and clips to illustrate her discussion of the scripts she’d been sent that a simple meet-and-greet turned into a four-hour conversation.

“Over the course of the next week or so,” Wright explains, “it was really figuring out how to set Kate up to succeed when we got her in front of Kevin Feige to pitch this.”

Herron put together a 60-page bible of ideas for the characters, the story, the visual references and more. The rest is Marvel history.

She learned not to wait for permission, she says, after graduating from film school and becoming involved with improv and stand-up to both develop her comedy chops and to meet funny collaborators to be in her short films.

“I think I’d always find excuses, almost, [to not do it],” says Herron. “It was that thing of being like, ‘Oh, well, I’m not ready. So I’ll wait. I’ll wait until I’m perfect at it and then I’ll go do it.’”

Taking inspiration from Robert Rodriguez’s “Rebel Without a Crew” and a SXSW keynote speech by Mark Duplass, Herron realized that she just needed to start making things. She told herself it was OK if the films were messy. If a short was bad, nobody had to see it. If a short was “halfway to good,” she would submit them to festivals.

It’s this tenacious creativity that connects the dots between her early fan fiction, her short films, her pitch presentations — and now “Loki” itself. It’s a trait that has helped her navigate the industry to her current success, even during the periods it’s been most frustrating. As a female director, “I got asked crazy stuff in interviews sometimes,” she says of life on the festival circuit. “I remember being asked, ‘Are you sure you’re ready? Are you sure you’re ready?’ And male colleagues of mine were never asked that in interviews. I think that’s probably why I was so driven to just go out and make stuff.”

[letterboxd]

Obsession.

Ella Kemp dives into Letterboxd’s 100 highest-rated, obsessively rewatched films of 2020 to find out why we love them—and to give Hollywood a heads-up on what we want to rewatch again and again.

Take note, development execs: we want to watch more of everything that makes us feel alive; that makes us feel thankful to be. To bottle that feeling, and drink it up as often, and as obsessively, as we like. We also want: more singing, more dancing, more drugs, more talking animals, more of whatever Director Bong is serving—and make everything gayer.

We know this because, a few years back, the Letterboxd team asked one very simple question: what’s the highest-rated film of all time, when the criteria is that you must have seen it five or more times? Not the ‘guilty’ pleasures, not the ‘so-bad-it’s-good’ gems, but the already-excellent films that are also inherently rewatchable. The resulting top 100 from back then are all extremely, objectively good. What can we say—you have great taste.

Because 2020 is, well, 2020, we revisited this idea to see how four years and an endless quarantine might have changed things. The usual suspects have been rounded up (Christopher, Quentin, Ridley, Damien, David and company), but a lot has shifted in the Highest Rated Obsessively Rewatched Club for 2020.

The top ten in the 100 highest rated, obsessively rewatched films of 2020.

Céline Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire is now top of the heap, where Spike Jonze’s Her was number one last time around. In fact, only Jaws and Carol remain from the last top ten. The Letterboxd community favors a wider world view: in 2017, the top 100 had only one film by a female director; in 2020 there are eight. The list has gone from exactly zero films entirely in languages other than English, to two (Portrait and Parasite), with several more containing a portion of non-English dialogue. Not quite leaping the one-inch tall barrier of subtitles, but it’s progress. And, there is substantially more LGBTQ+ representation all round.

This year’s top 100 shows that we still like to return to the idea of the auteur, and the challenge of a franchise. In 2017, Christopher Nolan was the filmmaker with the highest number of highly rated, obsessively rewatched films; in 2020 Quentin Tarantino has taken the lead, just ahead of Nolan. Joining them in the multiple-titles group are Edgar Wright, Peter Jackson, Joe and Anthony Russo, epic-scale filmmakers from whom we’ve learned so much, and whose films have more to offer the viewer on every watch. (When ratings are not part of the equation, Avengers: Endgame—still with a respectable 3.9 average—was the Most Obsessively Rewatched title of 2019. “You give me someone flying, turning invisible, super speed… that’s where I live,” explains obsessive rewatcher Max Joseph this Letterboxd interview. “In Endgame, I get a little bit of every genre and mood.”)

Obsessed with obsession

What is “obsessive”? To put some kind of parameters around the search for this year’s top 100, our team looked for the feature films that had five or more rated watches from a minimum of 150 Letterboxd members each, then we sorted that list by the ratings of those members.

But that word—“obsessive”—got me thinking. Just how obsessive are we talking here? It’s reassuring to know that Parasite is, naturally, a film we enjoy returning to, but when we’re talking about rewatches plural, what happens when we sort these 100 highly rated titles by another value: the number of diary entries logged by these obsessive members. And what would that list say about our tendencies as watchers?

Spoiler: we also pulled those numbers, and found an entirely different top ten:

The most obsessively rewatched, highest-rated films of all time, as at 2020.

Look at that image. Compare it with the inarguable cinephilia of the ratings-based top ten, which soars on critical strength. What are we seeing here? That’s not the question. The real question is: what are we feeling? What do these ten films do to us so consistently, that helps them to retain high ratings across many, many, many rewatches?

You see, in the top 100, members typically log their favorites between five and seven times—but there’s a select handful of titles that see an average of up to 24 viewings per obsessive member. You read that right. There is a film on Letterboxd that multiple obsessive members have watched 24 times or more, at the time of writing.

Comedy that never gets old

The film in question is Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi’s What We Do in the Shadows, a genre-smart mockumentary about three vampire housemates just, well, pure vibing. It’s entirely in a league of its own, no doubt helped by a spin-off series, with the next entry, The Lonely Island’s Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping racking up an average of 17.7 rewatches per obsessive member.

These top two most obsessively rewatched titles make sense. When you’re feeling low, or when there’s some time to kill, what better place to turn than somewhere where the jokes never get old? As James writes on Letterboxd, Shadows “never fails to make me laugh”. Never fails. Taking a chance on a new comedy harbors its risks, so when you find the ones that work, you have to hold onto them like gold dust. It’s the sense of familiarity that comes from the same sharp, self-aware sketches, the endlessly quotable one-liners and screenshots that make memes feel like works of art.

(On that note, I asked the team: what were the highest-rated, obsessively rewatched comedy specials? No surprises: Bo Burnham’s masterful 2016 Netflix special Make Happy, and John Mulaney’s Kid Gorgeous at Radio City. Comedy is good when it catches you off guard—but in a pandemic, it’s even better when you can rely on it to deliver that same rush of endorphins, every time.)

Thank you for the music

Speaking of pick-me-ups, ever notice how much better you feel after karaoke? Or, when you know everyone else has gone out so you can let rip across every inch of the house with ultimate privacy? The cathartic thrill that comes from a sing-along is what keeps our obsessive members returning to musicals, increasingly. There’s comfort in memorized lyrics; the words we yell and hold dear.

You’ve got this in Popstar (‘Finest Girl’, anyone?) and, crucially, in a double-bill of jukebox musicals celebrating ABBA’s greatest hits: Mamma Mia! and Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again. With fifteen rewatches on average for the former, and almost seventeen for the latter, the sequel’s slight upper hand proves the film’s triumphant formula—there really is an endless supply of ABBA bangers—but also that the repurposing of the most pivotal tracks (‘Mamma Mia’ and ‘Waterloo’) will work even better the second time around, due to the familiarity, both of the songs and now their new-found purpose in this world.

The feeling of singing along with Lily James as Donna, as she dances around Paris with her young Harry, of latching onto Cher’s every breath as she reunites with the eponymous Fernando—these moments become part of our own memory, and the satisfaction that comes from performing them again and again never fades. It’s also why so many musicals are rewatchable staples. Singin’ in the Rain, Rocketman, Bohemian Rhapsody and Pitch Perfect all feature in the top 100.

Out of interest, I asked the team to lift the curtain on non-narrative music films to see which greats we return to. Again, zero surprise (to me, at least): Jonathan Demme’s transcendent Talking Heads concert film Stop Making Sense is, and has long been, the highest-rated, most obsessively rewatched concert documentary on Letterboxd. And it’s only been a few months, but the Disney+ filmed version of Hamilton is up there, along with Homecoming: A Film by Beyoncé. #BEYHIVE, come in.

Maybe we should trust love

At the other end of the spectrum, two titles in the most obsessively rewatched top ten point to our tendencies to find catharsis in our most extreme, most vulnerable expressions of emotion. Our two revealing films here are Love, Simon and Interstellar—one a grounded and sensitive coming-of-age picture of a teenage boy’s coming out, the other an epic space-travel thriller. Still, both films understand that, ultimately, love transcends all.

These films make room for us to revisit these most searing feelings, of love hidden, lost, afraid or universal, they let us cry out what we relate to, and escape into whichever onscreen emotions we prefer to project ourselves into beyond our own lives, time and time again. Because however much changes, you know you’ll always crave and be rewarded by love. (And by the existential exploration that often accompanies these big feelings: Don Hertzfeldt's World of Tomorrow is the highest-rated, most obsessively rewatched short film with Letterboxd members.)

Ink spots and needle drops

The idea of projection—of escape beyond our own lives—comes back often when thinking of the rewatch. But certain titles reveal how we choose to find escape in a quite literal form; observe the love for Tangled, rewatched on average ten times per obsessive member.

And then there’s Shrek 2, revisited on average 7.9 times (more on this bizarre, outstanding oddity on its own soon). The leap of faith into an animated world is one that offers a blank canvas painted over with new colors: the pastel pinks and soft peach oranges of sunset skies in Tangled, the rich purples and blues of the twinkling lights of the afterlife in Coco, the playful blue waters of Moana, with the sun giving everything a new glow. Animation works as relaxation here, clearing the mind and coloring it calmly time and time again. Elsa said it first: you can, and should, let it all go.

It is entirely probable, of course, that no Letterboxd parent is logging the Frozens—or any other animated family film, for that matter—as often as their household is actually watching them, the truth of which would completely upend this data. We know the math underpinning this whole exercise is somewhat arbitrary, but it’s an interesting starting point from which to analyze why certain things just work, again and again.

Take the oddity that is Shrek 2, deserving of its own dissection purely because of how masterfully it combines so many of the previously established elements. This film and its predecessor create so many vivid images that fit into the category of animated escapism, but music plays a major part, also. ‘Accidentally In Love’ by Counting Crows as Shrek and Fiona blissfully enjoy their honeymoon period; ‘Funky Town’ by Lipps Inc. as Shrek, Fiona and Donkey roll into Far Far Away; Jennifer Saunders as Fairy Godmother, with her sublime cover of Bonnie Tyler’s ‘Holding Out For A Hero’. There are too many perfect needle-drop moments to count, and every time the rewatch comes around, they feel new.

Add to the comforting visuals and euphoric music the countless one-liners, perfectly performed by Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers, but really, here, Rupert Everett as Prince Charming—a squirm-inducing, note-perfect pantomimic performance. Shrek 2 might just be the defining example of what makes a good movie the best movie, and one that only grows greater with every rewatch. Lucky us.

Festive fever

The inclusion of A Christmas Story, the second-last in our most rewatched top ten, makes sense when considering the times in our lives when we turn to movies for comfort (and discomfort: note the Hallowe’en-related rewatchables in the top 100). A Christmas Story might not be your first festive choice, but you will have your own equivalent. The Muppet Christmas Carol also made the top 100, with Elf, Love, Actually and the Home Alone movies bubbling under. We recognize all the beats, and seeing as the holidays return each year, it’s natural that we return to the titles that make us feel most at home within them.

Like Carol. Darling Carol. The last of our top ten most most most rewatched. Flung out of space into our eyeballs by Todd Haynes as some sort of Christmas miracle, its rewatchability as much seasonal as it is about love, representation, vintage glamor and that final scene. Let’s see where Happiest Season sits this time next year, shall we?

And so, what can filmmakers and distributors learn from what we want to see, not just once, but again and again? In just four years the list of titles the Letterboxd community has chosen to revisit and protect has blossomed with an open heart and feverishly enthusiastic mind.

Looking over the top 100 highest-rated, obsessively rewatched films in 2020, we want more queer love: Portrait, Moonlight and Carol but also Booksmart, The Favourite, Call Me by Your Name. We definitely need more singing and dancing: Suspiria, La La Land, Singin’ in the Rain, Mamma Mia and beyond.

We want more adventure, more time travel, more mind-melters, more drinking, exploring, investigating, more talking animals, more drugs, more laughs, more tears, more goosebumps. We want more full-body feelings of falling in love with a movie you know you’ll hold onto with everything you’ve got.

In the end, numbers can only tell us so much, and these numbers are drawn from what we’ve already seen, which is what’s already managed to make it through the system. There’s as much to learn from how these films were made as there is from what they’re about. Because, no matter how many AI tools people dream up to help with the green-lighting process, moviemaking is fundamentally about magic. And when all the right ingredients make it into the cauldron, the spell can be so strong that a film will win our hearts forever.

Related content

The Highest-Rated Obsessively Rewatched Club for 2020

Follow Ella on Letterboxd

[nomadicism]

To be honest, I'm not that surprised that Voltes V is being adapted into la before Voltron. Voltes V is extremely popular in the Philippines, even now. While I think Voltron was big in North America during it's time, it's not nearly as popular as was back in the 80s, even with the Netflixs series. It's like how Saint Seiya is still super beloved in Latin America to this day, despite it being made in the 80s.

Hi Anon, thank you for the Ask!

I’m surprised-and-not-surprised that Voltes V will be adapted into live-action before Voltron, both for the reasons you mentioned, but more importantly, it’s because when IP holders of cartoons (doesn’t matter what cartoon it is) attempt to get a live-action film made, they nearly always fail to get it made. Live-action TV series adaptations don’t do well either, for mostly the same reasons.

Note: I’m not counting live action adaptations of anime, b/c that’s a completely different beast.

My self-indulgent axiom is: The moment that there is an announcement about a cartoon being made into a live-action film or series, is the moment that such a thing ever happening dies on the vine. There are quite a few of them languishing in movie rights limbo, so I never take it seriously. 

There are a lot of factors involved as to why they fail to get made, but the biggest reason has to do with special effects budget/capabilities vs perceptions about how much money the potential audience will bring in. Since cartoons in the US are for children—obviously, they don’t have to be, but sadly that’s the widespread cultural belief—then that limits what can be done for a film that is based on a cartoon. This isn’t the same as an original animated film that is not adapted from an existing cartoon.

Basically, PG, PG-13, and R movies bring in more money. TV series face the same issue, even though live-action series traditionally bring in more ad revenue. The special effects budgets that would be required to adapt most cartoons (given the fantastical content) practically demand a movie adaptation rather than an on-going series, or mini-series.

Rated G movies can bring in mountains of money (especially if you’re Disney), and even then, Disney’s live-action films (notably based on IP that Disney purchased and are not even uniquely Disney) bring in more than their most beloved animated films, and no Disney G-rated film has broken $1B. Their top grossing animated film to date is the 2019 Lion King, which, being realistic CG, effectively makes it a live-action film. 

Frozen and the recent CG Lion King (2019) are in Disney’s top 10 as of 2019, and they are both rated PG. CG Lion King is #7 and Frozen is #15 of all top grossing films. FWIW, CG Lion King is ‘realistic’ to the point where I don’t think it really counts for what I’m on about here. Its realistic look makes it indistinguishable from the rest of the top 10 highest grossing films to date.

No company wants to spend tens of millions (or more) to make a cartoon into live-action if they have to keep it rated G, and they have to keep it rated G due to audience perceptions and expectations. The Scooby Doo movie got to dodge that a bit for some reasons that are unique to its franchise and audience (also, they still had to cut content/tone it down to avoid the R rating). The live-action He-Man movie is a good example of everything that could possibly go wrong, and I suspect that its infamous failure still looms large in the minds of those who write checks to produce movies.

The Michael Bay Transformers movies did well b/c the technology was there to make them look good, they were PG-13, and Bay’s “explode all the things” film-aesthetic was hit the right notes in the zeitgeist of the time. Even if I don’t really like the Bayformers, I can still respect them for bringing something fresh to the franchise, and looking damn good for CG robots.

Compare their success against, the animated Transformers: The Movie. That one did not do well in theaters and the more mature themes caught fans and viewers by surprise and—as much as I love the movie—many parents and kids were upset by it at the time and I agree with the reasons why. I also saw it in theaters as a kid and was upset at the time, but eventually grew to love it. That movie is another example of just how tricky it is to bridge the cartoon-to-film gap, even when animated. The Bayformers movies bridged the gap right (again, even though I’m not a fan of them, I respect them for what they are). I can’t think of any cartoon-to-live-action film that made the adaptation gap as well as the Transformers did. Obvs, there is no live-action TV series for Transformers. It can’t be done.

TMNT did well for the first two films, but again, they were films and not a TV series.

What follows is speculation on my part:

In the case of IP like Voltron or Robotech, I suspect that the reason why they have been in movie rights limbo for so long is to prevent someone else from buying the rights and making a movie of the original source material. Even a shitty Golion or Macross live-action movie could harm WEP or Harmony Gold’s control or water down their vision for the IP. Voltron and Robotech are unique b/c technically, a Japanese studio could have gone to production on a live action Golion or Macross movie, but if the license to make them is tied up with American studio/production houses (and royalties being paid where applicable) will prevent that. This doesn’t mean that WEP or Harmony Gold couldn’t challenge said hypothetical Japanese studio over an adaptation, but it would be a legal battle that no one wants. The rights get tied up indefinitely simply to keep another studio from buying them and possibly making the film and doing a great job of it.

It’s such a Cold War mentality, but I can’t see any other rationale for it other than WEP and Harmony Gold being really awful at brand and IP management to the point where they actually believe that a studio would risk millions on a live-action adaptation. At this point, Robotech would be more likely to get adapted since HG has the fire lit under their ass by looming copyright changes and that Sony was interested enough to get involved. They’ve got like 2 years to make that happen so we’ll see.

How this relates to Voltes V:

Since Voltes V is an anime, a live-action adaptation won’t be bound by the same expectations for content rating, especially if it is not being made for an American audience that expects rated G or family-friendly PG. The love for Voltes V among Filipinos puts the IP into a special place, and it’s probably a lot like Transformers, where there are a lot of older fans who are waiting to see their beloved show get some attention, whether big screen or small. There is that legacy audience plus the popularity of robot anime and video games in the region gives a Voltes V a good chance at a live-action TV adaptation.

To me this means that, since this adaptation won’t be a movie, but instead will be a “seasonal” series, that it’s going to do well enough for the Philippines, and probably have a quality similar to more recent Ultraman series, or Power Rangers. They don’t have to go all-in like a big budget Hollywood film, or an HBO drama. I’m curious if this live-action is actually live-action + CG, or if it’s going to be all CG animation that’s mostly realistic looking but also stylized.

Whatever happens, I’ll be happy to see Voltes V get made b/c it’s a fun-and-interesting story that deserves more attention, and it’s really a shame that there was never a reboot or remake. If it does well, then maybe Toei might bring it back in animated form.

[singingwordwright]

Trying to break the cancellation issue down: Week 2

Okay, so tonight I posted an entirely-too-long tweet thread on this issue, in which I recapped a lot of what I laid out in my post last week, as well some things I mentioned in response to an ask yesterday, and also new questions, information, and supposition. I thought I would try to lay it out here in a slightly more coherent issue.

First, however, I’m going to put it behind a cut. Because then if I have to edit any of this information, all the reblogs will link to the edited version instead of reblogging the incorrect/out-of-date version. Then I won’t have to make any future new posts on this subject.

Please keep in mind that this is all educated guessing. None of us know what’s really going on.

To recap what I laid out last week:

@freeform doesn’t own Shadowhunters. Freeform merely “leases” the domestic distribution rights from Constantin Film, who holds the adaptation rights.

(ETA 6/16/18) Freeform, however, has exclusive rights to this show indefinitely and it goes no where unless Freeform chooses to give them up. (this is a correction as I was mistaken before in believing the distribution rights would revert to Constantin after Freeform turned down Season 4)

@netflix doesn’t own Shadowhunters either. Netflix “leases” the international distribution rights from Freeform.

The money Netflix and Freeform pay Constantin for those rights funds production of the show.

Itunes, Amazon Video and Hulu all have domestic streaming of the show as well as Freeform.

Hulu likely acquires its streaming arrangement from Freeform, as the show carries the Freeform logo on Hulu. This makes sense; Disney owns part Hulu and all of Freeform.

I don’t know if Amazon and Itunes carry SH internationally, and I don’t know if they have their domestic streaming agreement from Freeform or from Constantin. I DO know they have a different streaming format than Freeform; you buy the episodes individually or the season entirely, rather than paying for a subscription service (I don’t think the show is on Amazon Prime as part of their subscription package, but I could be wrong.)

Something to keep in mind going forward:

Freeform is a business, and it’s going to be more helpful to us to regard this stance on the issue in terms of cost/benefit analysis, rather than assuming pettiness or malice or vindictiveness. I know having a villain in this scenario fires us up and keeps us raring for the fight, and we need that energy, but ultimately it’s not helpful in drilling down to the core issues and finding solutions.

Stupidity and tone-deafness are definitely sins we could probably fairly lay at their door, however. They have clearly underestimate both the passion of their audience and the importance of this show on a societal level, and those are tragic, foolish mistakes.

Shadowhunters and Freeform: A History:

As anyone who has ever looked at leasing versus buying a car or apartment will tell you, there are certain benefits to both arrangements, but usually in the long run it costs less to own something rather than to lease it. Which means that Freeform isn’t making as much money off SH as it is off the shows that are actually Freeform originals.

Why did Freeform acquire the distribution rights, then?

Well, ABC Family was intending to rebrand as Freeform and go after the millennial crowd, and it needed some new, edgier, more adult, more diverse, less family-oriented shows than The Fosters or whatever.

They also wanted to break into the streaming market instead of going with a live-airing-only model.

A show like Shadowhunters, based off a series of books their target audience enjoyed growing up, was obviously a good bet. Especially since that audience is largely comprised of binge-watching cord-cutters.

The goal, then, was to use Shadowhunters to draw the new audience in and to have it “shepherd” less established, Freeform-original franchises by hoping the SH viewers would stick around to watch whatever was in the 9pm time slot. And that worked well for them.

But once Freeform had a number of other, original shows doing somewhat well, the “benefit” side of the cost/benefit ratio began to decrease. It’s an expensive show to produce that isn’t performing well in live ratings and whatever money they’re making off it, they have to give a hefty portion of that to Constantin Film.

The cost (at least in terms of lost potential revenue) was further compounded by the fact that Shadowhunters was occupying a very coveted time-slot, 8PM, for 20 weeks of the year. That is a massive piece of prime-time real estate to give to a show that is no longer really needed to perform the functions they once required from it.

Malec_Immortal over on Twitter posted a pretty astute (if somewhat vitriolic) series of tweets about how you can identify the timeframe when Freeform made the decision to stop investing so heavily in Shadowhunters. YouTuber Trini did a side-by-side comparison of the effort the Freeform Twitter put into promoting s2 and the effort they put into promoting s3 and it couldn’t really be more blatant.) Now, maybe they might have continued with the show had season 3 performed better in the live ratings, but it’s obvious they were all about reducing their cost while trying to glean what dwindling benefit they could from it.

I think it’s clear that Freeform was still promoting the show up through August, at least, because the cast’s appearance at SDCC was an obvious investment that doesn’t appear to have been used to promote any other Freeform properties (though perhaps a few Disney ones) but by NYCC in October, it’s obvious that they had slotted SH into the role of mentor/veteran show whose primary purpose was to pull in viewers for Freeform’s other, wholly owned properties.

Perhaps if SH had performed well enough in live-airing views to justify a continued investment, Freeform wouldn’t have wanted to reduce their episode order for season 4, but that didn’t happen. At that point, the cost of continuing with a full 20-episode season outweighed the benefit. They tried to negotiate for a reduced season order, Netflix wasn’t happy with that, and now here we are.

Where does that leave us?

Freeform got the drop on everyone in terms of setting the narrative for this whole thing. They blamed it on Netflix for yanking out of their distribution deal and leaving Freeform holding the bag. In truth, however, it appears the only reason Netflix pulled out is because Freeform violated an agreement by demanding a shorter season for s4.

Which makes sense. Of course Netflix would want more and Freeform would want less; this show has always performed better on streaming and internationally than it has on live television.

I think it’s clear that somewhere along the way, Freeform (while not abandoning its streaming emphasis) has reverted to considering live-viewing ratings in its considerations. An obvious example is Beyond. Beyond performed well enough in its first season (shepherded, as it were, by Shadowhunters) to get a second season, but a large part of its success was the fact that it was dropped all at once for streaming-on-demand. For whatever reason, Freeform decided that wasn’t profitable and went to a different model for season 2, and Beyond performed abysmally and got the axe.

Unfortunately for us, they’ve been applying the Beyond-season2 model all along, which means Shadowhunters hasn’t been performing as well either by their calculations (though a great deal of that is down to reduced marketing and just using the show as a vehicle to promote other, Freeform-original properties. 

For all that they claimed it wasn’t about the ratings and was “purely economical” you can’t divorce the economics of a show from the ratings if you’re using a live-air-viewing model. They needed that coveted 8pm timeslot for something that would be more profitable. They could have moved SH to a less valuable time slot, but then it wouldn’t make them enough money to earn back what they were spending on the distribution license (which funds production.)

Yeah yeah yeah, but what does this mean for the show getting picked up?

To put it frankly, our biggest obstacle here on multiple fronts is season 3b. Specifically, it’s the fact that Freeform has pushed 3b back to Spring of 2019. That is screwing our efforts over, big time.

These are episodes that are already in the can. The final cut of 3x20 has been produced, according to Todd Slavkin. And these are episodes that Freeform owns and still hasn’t aired.

No one is going to want to acquire this show until 3b has aired. (Assuming Freeform is willing to let anyone acquire it.) Which means no one is going to want to acquire it until Summer of 2019. And we probably wouldn’t get season 4 until spring of 2020 at the earliest.

I can’t think of a single other show that has been canceled with half the season still month away from being aired like this. And if it has happened, it probably wasn’t picked up by anyone else (if at all) until after the season was done.

Look at it this way. It’s obvious from their CEO’s tweets that Constantin would love to see the distribution rights pass to someone else (probably Netflix.) Netflix may even be willing to pick them up (if Freeform is willing to sell,) considering that who Constantin’s CEO tagged in his tweets.

But what happens to those 10 episodes that are in the can? Whoever picks the show up has to wait until Freeform is done airing those eps before they can begin marketing, and probably even filming.

Maybe someone would be willing to pay Freeform for those eps, but that’s highly unlikely. What new network wants to start a show mid-season like that? And would they even be willing to pay enough for Freeform to recoup their losses on production AND potential losses on advertising? A new network will want the story to be in a place where new viewers who have never seen it before will be able to tune in and quickly pick up on what is going on, and considering the cliffhanger S3a left off on, that’s...not something anyone EXCEPT Netflix (or maybe Hulu or Amazon, who already have the previous episodes in their libraries) would want to pick up. That pretty much rules out...every other network.

Furthermore, again, the show has always done best streaming. Odds are good that ONLY a streaming service is going to want the show.

Some questions we need to ask:

Will whoever acquires the show be paying Freeform to “adopt” their distribution license, or will Freeform’s distribution license lapse and a new license need to be negotiated with Constantin? (ETA 6/16/18: we appear to have an answer on that.)

Also, CAN Freeform even get out of the plan to film/air the 2-hour finale at this point? The contract has probably already been negotiated. Unless they somehow have an option to back out of it, they’re committed.

So, it may be that they HAVE to make that episode. Which probably won’t begin filming until season 4 would have begun filming, probably around August.  Which probably means the earliest they could air the season/episode is in January and we would HAVE to wait until spring/summer of 2019 before anyone else can pick up this show. IF they’re willing to pick up this show. If potential buyers see interest has waned because of the long wait and general frustration and disgust, they’re not going to want the show.

Will potential buyers even be interested if the show has run out of book-based material? The 2-hour finale is supposed to wrap up the final book of the series, and while our main concern is that 2 hours won’t be enough to do all that material justice (especially with any non-book-based plotlines also needing to be resolved.) Any future seasons would, in essence, be a spin-off using the same characters. Can Constantin even do that with the adaptation rights?

So what do we do?

I’m not saying we should stop fighting, not at all, but I’m saying we need to conserve our energy because this is going to be a very long haul. It’s a situation that is messy and complicated beyond any other show that I’ve ever heard of being cancelled and picked up by another network. We very likely won’t see any fruit from our labors until after 3b and the finale air, whenever that may happen. I think with the negative publicity we’re generating, Freeform may find it useful to get us out of their hair sooner rather than later, but the time required to produce the finale ep is an issue there. 

We really need more answers to know how to most effectively apply pressure to get the show renewed. Our best bet for getting those answers is the same place we’ve gotten the information we have so far; interviews and articles. Some media outlets are already latching onto this story (and largely supporting us, or reporting that we’re not going away) but we need to keep making this A STORY in order to get them to report on it (and hopefully use their access to get more answers than we have.)

HOWEVER I could be wrong about any or all of this. OUR BEST BET IS TO CONTINUE BEING LOUD. DO NOT STOP TRYING TO GET THE SHOW PICKED UP.

[jewelridersarchive]

Why do we love seeing new versions of the same thing? Is it simple nostalgia? Is it the desire to engage with some sort of content that once moved us in a new and different way? Is it new creators wanting to stamp something they loved from their own childhood with their mark? Or is it all of the above?

I’m not immune to loving reboots. I devoured the new DuckTales on Disney XD, I’m reading the new Rainbow Brite comics from Dynamite, I’m watching the new iteration of Will & Grace, and continue to watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Reboots are fun; they not only allow fans who loved something to have a nostalgia party, but also allow potential new fans entry points into what sometimes appears to be never-ending streams of content (I’m looking at you, Transformers). But things seem out of hand when even ReBoot, the mid-90s CGI cartoon, has a reboot on Netflix (ReBoot: The Guardian Code). Have reboots become the “safe,” risk-averse way companies can cash in on portfolio properties that already have known fanbases? It’s the equivalent of an artist only drawing fanart because they know it will get thousands of likes versus hundreds on original content.

And I fully admit some level of fatigue with franchises that just keep chugging along, seemingly forever. Every movie that comes out seems to want to be a tentpole franchise builder. Or a reboot of an existing franchise, or a soft reboot that only takes some elements going forward, or an alternate universe or…well, you get the idea.

I love original content. One of the best shows I watched this year was Alex Hirsch’s Gravity Falls (yes, I know I’m rather late to the game). It was a bright spot of originality, something new and not tied to any other content or previous iteration. Many of the anime I watch and enjoy are either original or straight adaptations of an existing manga. I think original content and ideas are important in entertainment. They allow a generation to experience a piece of entertainment in its prime, and have something uniquely “theirs.” Kids of the 60s had Star Trek, kids of the 70s had Star Wars, kids of 80s will always be the original audience for Jem & the Holograms and He-Man/She-Ra, kids of the 90s will always have X-Men TAS and Sailor Moon. (And PGJR, of course haha). No matter if they are rebooted down the road or not, that original experience belongs to the original viewers.

Which is why it’s always hilarious to me when people who hate on the new version of something say “It’s ruining my childhood!” Your childhood is whatever it was, frozen in time. Those original cartoons obviously still exist, and if you have the desire you can watch most of them. A reboot doesn’t destroy the original, no matter how many changes it makes to the original idea. The best reboots can often give us (as adults) what we thought we were watching as children. And often, the reboot can drive traffic back to seek out the original, as adults want to share with children the version they loved at that age.

Which brings us to She-Ra. I didn’t watch any He-Man or She-Ra as a child, for whatever reason. I found He-Man & the Masters of the Universe through the 2002 anime-influenced incarnation (also a great reboot IMO), then went back and watched the 1983 cartoon, followed by the 1985 She-Ra: Princess of Power. I loved it all. Sure, sometimes it was goofy, and there was lots of animation reuse in the older versions, but the core concepts were really strong. They are classic good vs evil, freedom vs tyranny stories, told with engaging casts and crazy creative worlds.

I powered through all 93 episodes of She-Ra during the summer of 2010 while I studied for my board exams. It holds the special place of being the series I turned to to relieve the stress of studying. I love the 80s fantasy girl designs, the color schemes, the powers, the sheer kookiness of the side characters. She-Ra was the OG American magical girl, and I finally understood what all the fuss over this franchise was about. She-Ra feels iconic in the way that characters like Wonder Woman and Sailor Moon do. Yes, she starts out as a spin-off of the successful He-Man franchise, but he makes very few appearances in She-Ra’s cartoon.

But after her initial run, She-Ra remained a virtually dormant property for the next 30 years. He-Man had two different reboots in 1991 and 2002, but She-Ra was stuck in limbo. Only once the Masters of the Universe Classics collectible figure from Mattel released in 2010 did She-Ra finally see the light of day again. Story-wise, the bios on the back of the toy packages gave us a little info about She-Ra’s further adventures, but it wasn’t until the 2012/2013 Masters of the Universe comic from DC that She-Ra comes back, this time in the guise of the villainous Despara. It’s a dark but interesting take on the characters; an exploration of what being raised by the Evil Horde would really do to a person.

Interestingly, this seems to be the jumping-off point for the new “She-Ra and the Princesses of Power” animated series from Dreamworks and Netflix. This show takes as its central theme the relationship between Adora and Catra. When Adora finds the sword that lets her turn into She-Ra, she leaves the Horde – an organization to which she has devoted her life. Almost more importantly, she leaves behind Catra, her best friend. It’s this broken relationship that informs the emotional tone of the rest of the show.

Unlike the 80s version, this time around the Rebellion knows Adora’s identity as She-Ra. It’s an interesting change – shows of the 80s were obsessed with secret identities, and sometimes it could get ridiculous making up excuses for what happened to the other identity of the character every time. Thankfully, that is avoided here, and instead of angst over whether or not you can let people know the real you, we are treated to relationships that ask whether we can accept someone who we know has wronged us before.

Much has been made over this update’s reworking of the body types and ethnicities of the main princesses. While I confess not loving all the updated designs and missing the 80s fairytale warrior goddesses of the original, I understand and fully support the change. Reboots are about viewing something old through the lens of today, and audiences of today want to see themselves in the media they watch or read. We can’t (and shouldn’t) go back to mostly-white casts. The world is a rainbow of colors, and the show feels richer for including them.

Speaking of rainbows, I have to mention the new show’s decidedly queer bent. The relationship between Adora and Catra is somewhere between ex-best-friends and ex-girlfriends in tone. Netossa and Spinerella, long shipped by the fandom, are finally outed in a true relationship this time around. Other characters like Scorpia, Bow, and Entrapta all tap into queer mannerisms and norms as well. The end result is unlike anything else I’ve ever seen in children’s entertainment, and I couldn’t be happier. I wish I’d had something similar as a child, but I’m grateful today’s queer kids have their own heroes.

When we talk about a successful reboot, what are we looking for? Here’s what I think a good reboot need to accomplish.

Bring the characters and concepts of the original property up to date for current audiences.

Explore the characters or world in new and different ways.

Add depth to the original concept.

She-Ra and the Princesses of Power does all of these in spades. I think it’s the nicest treatment an 80s female-driven property has gotten in a reboot. The show is full of strong characters with interesting dynamics, great writing, and interesting world building. Yes, some of the episodes can be a bit predictable and the designs are not always my favorite, but everything works together toward a greater whole. I won’t spoil the story for you, because seriously if you haven’t watched this, get thee to Netflix and enjoy!

For the Honor of Grayskull!

Chris

P.S. Can you imagine getting a ✨Princess Gwenevere and the Jewel Riders✨ reboot that brought all this to the table? I’d die!

Read the complete blog at The Jewel Riders Archive! http://www.jewelridersarchive.com/posts/she-ra-the-princesses-of-power-and-reboot-culture/

[bcwallin]

Streaming services need bonus features

The stream of content never ends.

Hulu, like many other services, has autoplay set up so that as soon as I finish one movie, I’ll start whatever’s next. Disney+ won’t start something without a click, but it’ll try to get me to start something else while the credits are rolling. Netflix doesn’t let me have a quiet moment from the second I open it, and at one point or another, it had buttons to encourage skipping the opening credits or rewatching a scene that had just finished in the middle of a movie. I want to be able to sit with the movies and let them soak in, and that’s often not easy to do when I’m being pushed to watch something else and move on – because, to analytics-obsessed streaming services, everything is content and the goal is for me to be yet another number in a streaming quarterly report.

While I crave a moment to process the film or TV show I just enjoyed, I also want other ways to enjoy them. I want to learn more about the creative process behind the piece and engage with the ideas of whatever media I’ve just seen. I want to see alternate takes the filmmakers opted not to use in the final work and hear commentaries from those artists, or the scholars who can teach me more about what I’m watching. I want to explore. I miss special features. I miss the context and bonus content that would come with DVDs, ones that encouraged me to stay with a movie even after watching it. In the age of limitless content and fully customizable menus, this experience is all but dead.

The one streaming service that I’ve found that really, fully does this — where you can generally depend on having more to watch than just the movie — is the Criterion Channel, where much of the library and supplements from the Criterion Collection are available. The first thing I watched on the service when I activated my subscription was a making-of documentary for A Hard Day’s Night. When Criterion’s movies end, they don’t force anything on me. I can explore, understand, go deep. Movies are a whole lot better with context — and a little extra something.

The Criterion Channel treats bonus features like they’re worth watching, and it’s clear when you look at the UI. Movies are treated as films or collections, and when you open them as collections, all the extra shorts, commentaries, interviews, and extras are laid out, easy to see. You can search for bonus features and you can add one of them to your watchlist without adding the movie it’s related to. The first step in offering great bonus features is to make them or at least make them available. The next thing to do is to actually show where they are, instead of pretending they don’t exist.

Sure, Netflix and Hulu have some featurettes or clips hidden with certain releases – the odd podcast or alternate cut. HBO GO sometimes offers extended editions of a movie. Amazon Prime has X-Ray trivia running over their movies, if you want to keep pausing and checking intermittently. And Disney+ has the occasional special feature that’s actually special, like the feature commentary that can play during Avengers: Endgame (if there were better commentaries available, it would be less special, but beggars can’t be disappointed about listening to the Russo brothers explaining time travel, I guess). Yet, seeing these options here and there only makes me crave more. For the vast majority of these streaming platforms’ titles, the best we can expect is an attached trailer.

I want to be able to learn more about a movie, to immerse myself in these stories and the artists who brought them to life. These materials exist and are put out on disc releases, so why can’t I enjoy them on streaming platforms? I’m sure Disney and Netflix and Amazon and AT&T have the cash on hand to clear whatever rights issues might be standing in the way, or to produce original features for content. HBO certainly saw the value when it came to explaining why Game of Thrones’ last season was such a rush job.

Am I going to have a movie night with friends where we watch a feature-length commentary or a recorded Q&A from a festival screening? Probably not. Do I get concerned looks when I complain that a special SteelBook release doesn’t deviate from the already-available bonus features in a standard Blu-ray? That’s not unimaginable. Have I felt alone for so long because these special extras feel like they’re generally only special to me, and I could just mindlessly binge Friends (which is bad) or The Office (which isn’t bad, but I’ve seen it enough) without complaining about this possibly meaningless crusade? Let’s not make this personal.

Sometimes, the special features are what pull me toward one home release over another. I’ve been interested in watching Star Wars: The Last Jedi’s dialogue-free version of the film (special features also include the documentary The Director and the Jedi, which is a step above standard featurettes), and I’ve sought out releases because they have a sing-a-long version, like a recent Mamma Mia double-feature gift purchase. If I ever buy a copy of Blade Runner, it’s going to be the one with all five cuts available. I want Disney+ to offer the incomplete version of Beauty and the Beast it once screened, which should require minimal effort (especially because they actually packaged and sold the work-in-progress version to the public). I want bonus features, and I’m getting tired of waiting for them.

I get the motivation for us to move from title to title, mindlessly consuming this vague, money-making thing they call content, but that doesn’t mean I understand why they do this. Why does Netflix, self-crowned champion of the independent cinema, not want to encourage viewers to fall in love with film and explore their passion? Does context only belong on its Twitter account (which should really stop pretending it’s a human person) or in podcasts that I wouldn’t have known existed without an oddly insatiable curiosity about The Other Side of the Wind, a not-so-good movie I can’t stop thinking about?

Even when they’re not providing context, bonus features can just be fun. Animated features that have bloopers as if the characters are real actors being filmed? I love it. An in-universe animated series that also features a commentary track by the characters being portrayed in it? Absolutely. How about a series of one-offs that eventually launched a TV series? It can happen. And those are just Disney properties.

I’m tired of the constant, never-ending stream of content, of being told to watch one thing then the other then the other — “Are you still watching?” Netflix asks, then shovels more down your gullet — and I can’t even breathe and contemplate what I just saw. I’m annoyed that Roku’s Apple TV app won’t let me watch a movie with commentaries or that the best Amazon Prime has to offer in terms of context involves disrupted viewing.

Bonus features let us take a moment. They’re the special ingredient that home entertainment gave us. And I want them back.

Originally published on Input

[andrewdburton]

Death by a thousand cuts

I've been on the internet for a long, long time.

Via local Bulletin Board Systems, I started reading USENET newsgroups — mostly Star Trek and comic book and computer game stuff — during college in the late 1980s. I got sucked into the world of MUDs. Soon after graduating, I heard about this new thing called the World Wide Web, so I installed Mosaic on my Macintosh SE.

Before long, I taught myself HTML and built my first website. Eventually, in 1997, I started my first blog — back before blog was even a word!

I was drawn to the web (and the internet) in part because it seemed so egalitarian. Anyone could start a website about anything, and as long as they produced great stuff and shared it, people would read. I also liked the fact that almost everything was free. It didn't cost anything (besides your $19.95 monthly dial-up service) to access any of this information. The early web was a de facto sharing economy.

Best of all? The web was a wide open space, a blank slate, a platform free from dominance by mainstream media. Little people like me could have a voice.

None of this lasted long.

The Monetization of the Web

Soon, banner ads came along. I hated banner ads when they first appeared. “My site will never have banner ads,” I told my friends. (This was my first real lesson that you should never say never. My friends have been giving me grief about this for more than fifteen years!)

In 1998, Google arrived and changed everything. Until that point, web search was a miserable experience. It wasn't very good and it was overly monetized. Google was the opposite. It was amazing and had no monetization at all.

Hahahahahahahaha. How things have changed. Today, Google is all about ads. And using it is more and more a miserable experience. Look at this mess:

How long until Google has transformed itself into AltaVista?

In time, the mainstream media realized that the web wasn't going anywhere. By the early 2000s, they were treating it as an important part of their operations. By the early 2010s, the web had become the most important part of most media companies' platforms. And if it hadn't, those companies would soon be dead.

Meanwhile, two parallel (but related) trends developed.

First, there was the rise of “software as a service” (Saas). In the olden days — 1995, say — when you wanted a computer program, you went down to Circuit City and bought it. You paid for it once and you owned it forever. As “web apps” became a thing, companies shifted from one-time payments to a subscription model. Today, even big companies like Microsoft and Adobe have adopted the practice of continually charging for their products. (And if they don't use a subscription model, they often “sunset” their software, which is essentially the same damn thing.)

Second, forward-thinking sites and companies learned there was money to be made by disrupting existing business models. Netflix is a great example. Founded in 1997, this company has single-handedly destroyed multiple industries, most notably retail video. And, eventually, Netflix began to disrupt the monolithic television industry itself! Initially, this was beneficial to consumers. Now, in 2019, it's become apparent that oops, nope it's not. (See also.)

Twenty-five years ago, when the web was young, it was all about free. Anyone who could afford a computer and a $19.95/month dial-up connection was free to create and publish whatever they wanted — and free to consume what other people had created. It was like some sort of digital utopia.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Today, the web is most decidedly not free. And it's getting less free with every passing month. Let's be honest: More and more, life online is fucking expensive. It's like death by a thousand cuts.

This morning as I was pulling together the latest edition of the GRS Insider — this site's weekly email — I experienced the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. And that prompted this article. (And delayed the newsletter haha.)

First, I tried to read a New York Times article: “Health facts aren't enough. Should persuasion become a priority?” But I couldn't. I've already read one article from the NYT this month: “D.I.Y. Private Equity Is Luring Small Investors”. It used to be that the NYT was free. Then they instituted a limit on article consumption unless you subscribed, but it was a limit I could live with (something like ten articles per month). Besides, I could bypass the paywall with my browser's incognito mode. Then they got wise to incognito mode, which is fair enough. Now, apparently, you get one free article per month.

Next, I wanted to read this article: “Families Go Deep in Debt to Stay in the Middle Class”. I mean, I really want to read that article. But I can't. It's at The Wall Street Journal and the WSJ has been locked behind a paywall for years.

Crashing into paywalls is a daily occurence now. No — it's an hourly occurrence. I follow a promising link and bam I'm brought up short because I have to pay to access the article. This happens at newspapers, magazines, and even internet-only sites. It makes me grateful for the publications that produce terrific content and still provide it for free. (One example? I find that I'm frequently drawn to articles at The Atlantic. They provide top-notch quality without asking for payment. But for how long?)

Meanwhile, the subscription software model is starting to take its toll too. I completely understand that some apps and services require subscriptions in order to function properly. I pay a monthly fee to have Get Rich Slowly hosted on a webserver. That makes sense.

It does not make sense to me that some of the tools we use to build Get Rich Slowly require monthly (or yearly) subscriptions. There's no ongoing maintenance. There's no draw on the vendor's resources.

It does not make sense to me that my favorite weather app for the iPhone requires an annual subscription. In fact, it's insane. (Yet I still pay it.)

It does not make sense to my that Pzizz, a sleep tool that I've used for over a decade, moved from standalone pricing to subscription pricing. (And hey, Pzizz people, how many times do I have to pay for your product before you give me lifetime access? Because I've paid three or four times already.)

Generally speaking, SaaS and subscription plans aren't necessary — they're just profitable for the companies that use them. And as long as we keep paying, they'll stick to the model.

All Good Things Must Come to an End

The “cut” that's really going to mess with people's minds? The upcoming high price of television.

When Netflix and Hulu and similar companies came along, they offered low-cost alternatives to cable. Cord cutting became an act of frugality. I ditched cable television in 2007 and have never looked back. Until now.

Now, big media companies have recognized that they too can get on the act. They too can inflict one of the thousand cuts.

CBS was quick on the draw. Want to watch the latest Star Trek shows? No Netflix for you! You have to pay $10 per month for CBS All Access — or $6 per month if you're willing to put up with commercials.

Disney is a heavy hitter and they want to get in on the act. Disney+ — coming November 12th — will cost $8 per month. Want to watch the latest Marvel and Star Wars shows? Want to watch Disney and Pixar movies? This is your only option.

By far, the most popular show on Netflix is NBC's The Office, which accounts for a mind-boggling 7% of all Netflix viewing in the U.S. NBC knows a golden goose when it sees one. When its current deal with Netflix expires, it's yanking The Office and using it as a tent pole to launch its own subscription service.

Meanwhile, Netflix and Hulu and Amazon all offer their own original programming. (At least the latter is free for folks who pay for Prime, which is nearly one-third of the United States. Holy shit!) Apple will soon get in on the game and they're using big names to draw viewers: Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston, and more.

Streaming used to be a cheaper alternative to cable television. As Consumer Reports notes, these days it's a toss-up. And soon, streaming is likely to be the more expensive option.

Note: The one huge advantage to this proliferation of options? Users can pick and choose which content they subscribe to. For years (or decades), folks had been asking for a la carte pricing for cable channels. Well, I guess now we have it.

No Free Lunch

To provide supporting evidence for this article, I started to make a list of all of the software subscriptions I have, my software that's being “sunsetted” and needs to be upgraded (Quickbooks 2016 just notified me yesterday that it's no longer supported), the most common paywalls I encounter, and the television-related payments I make. I gave up. It's a doable thing, but it'd take too much time right now. It's a project for another day.

I know I sound like a cranky old man (again!), but I've had enough. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore! Except that I probably am.

“Don't you expect to pay for services?” Kim asked me as I bitched to her this morning. “How does anybody run a business if it's free? In your mind, their business model should be to not charge the customer?”

Okay, fair point. I don't want to be taken for a choosing beggar.

As somebody who runs a website himself and knows how much it costs (in terms of time and money) just to maintain my tiny corner of the web, I absolutely do not begrudge anyone the desire to make money.

And, in fact, my biggest challenge since repurchasing Get Rich Slowly two years ago has been balancing my desire to provide excellent information without destroying the user experience with monetization. It's a delicate balance, one that I'm not sure I'm achieving. (But hey, I'm working on it!)

My frustration is that there are just so many companies extracting a pound of flesh from me. It's too much.

Yes, I realize most (of not all) of these expenses are voluntary. Yes, I realize this is capitalism in action. Yes, I realize there are often free (or cheaper) options. Yes, I realize we can't reset the internet to 1995. Believe me: I've been thinking about this issue for years now. I understand all of this stuff. But I don't like it.

In the end, my solution recently has been to KonMari my digital life. I've removed most of the apps from my iPhone and iPad, opting to cut those with subscription fees first. When possible, choose software with a one-time fee instead of an ongoing subscription. I try to steer clear of sites with paywalls. I killed Hulu. (But then Kim promptly joined.) Even though I love Star Trek and the Marvel Universe, I refuse to pay for CBS All Access and Disney+. I never will.

But then, I was never going to have banner ads on my website either, was I?

The post Death by a thousand cuts appeared first on Get Rich Slowly.

from Finance https://www.getrichslowly.org/death-by-a-thousand-cuts/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[freecastmkt-blog]

The History of Television

From one of the writers of the next chapter…

Few parts of life have changed as radically in the past 20 years as television. The way millennials think of TV is entirely different, even from that of Gen-X, and even further from what older folks like me may remember.

In an age of instant access to anything you want to watch, it’s easy to forget that once upon a time, “appointment TV” and the old print TV Guide once reigned.

Here’s a brief history of how we got here and why I say, as an entrepreneur who’s been at the forefront of media technology for several decades, believe that despite the disruption in the media business and confusion among consumers, the future of television is bright.

Primordial Television

Television of course began with broadcast. I remember when most sets had a pair of “rabbit ears” that picked up anywhere from four to a dozen channels broadcast from local towers. And it didn’t cost a dime!

With so few choices, you were likely to simply watch what was on, whatever it happened to be. Grow attached to a show, and you had to remember what channel it was on and its time slot (an easier task back then), and make sure you were in front of a TV at the time each week, or risk missing an episode with no easy or reliable way to catch it again.

Real TV aficionados might have subscribed to the TV Guide, a paper guidebook with a printed grid of stations and their schedules, not unlike what you see when you push the “guide” button on today’s cable TV remotes.

Cable and Pay-TV

While broadcast TV signals could be freely picked up, the introduction of wired television service allowed consumer offerings to diversify. And from the business perspective, the marriage of Pay Television with more focused channels really changed the game.

For a monthly fee, customers could go from a dozen channels to 100 or more, and it was reliable too; no more fuzzy pictures or adjusting the antenna. By the turn of the millennium, cable and satellite TV were ubiquitous.

Unless you were in a remote an unserved area, or an older legacyantenna viewer, “TV” had taken on a new meaning: a subscription service from a 

regional or satellite MVPD.

It was in this environment that I founded MegaMedia Networks, the company that launched the first on-page, no-download streaming video, in the late 1990s. Internet connections at the time were often 56kbps, but we were the “Netflix” of the time, while the actual Netflix was still renting DVDs by mail.

The “Big 3” Make Web TV a Reality

Through the 90s and 2000s, pay-TV offerings continued to grow, but as cable bundles bloated to hundreds of channels, cable bills rose sharply as well, growing faster than wages or inflation.

Paired with poor customer service from companies that effectively had local monopolies, and customers started to sour on pay-TV. And soon, they’d have an alternative.

In 2007, Netflix began living up to its name by streaming flicks via the net, in addition to via the mail. Around the same time, Hulu began streaming contentfrom NBC Universal, with Disney and FOX joining shortly there after. Amazon wasn’t far behind with its own Video On Demand service, eventually offering a similar library as a benefit of its Prime membership.

Together, these 3 on-demand libraries were it. And just about everything that you could watch online was spread between these 3 services. And with each one costing less than $10 a month, together they began to form a rival to traditional television.

Sure, it wasn’t as familiar as channel surfing, and there was no linear TV, so catching that must-see show or live news and sports at their scheduled times was out of the question.

But among the most tech-savvy and cost-conscious consumers, there were many advantages, but the biggest was price. Even adding premium movie channels like HBO and Showtime, a streaming “bundle” could come out under $40 a month, a fraction of typical cable bills at the time.

As cable and satellite TV began to lose subscribers, so too did the TV networks, who had long depended on the MVPDs for a steady revenue stream.

Realizing that they’d created a monster that could now destroy them, by licensing content to Netflix and other SVOD libraries, they’ve since changed their own strategies.

Cordial relationships between streaming services and Hollywood studios have morphed into an all-out war for content distribution rights where everyone refuses to share.

- Ryan Waniata, Digital Trends, 10/24/2018

Over the past several years, they’ve stopped licensing content to Netflix and Amazon, and begun launching streaming products of their own. The same shows and movies, that could once be found between three services, are now spread across dozens. And with each one costing around $10 a month, subscribing to all of them can be just as costly as paying for cable TV, if not more so.

But it’s too late to turn back the clock on television. Consumers have grown more comfortable getting their content online, and begun an exodus from cable TV. In fact, there’s now a generation coming of age for whom pay-TV holds little value. They’ve grown up in the age of streaming, where free and cheap content has been abundant online.

I’ve said many times, when my own kids go off to college and then move out on their own, they’ll never pay a cable bill.

For them, it will be a bandwidth bill.

Despite the fact that it’s become harder for consumers to find the content they want, and harder for the television industry to make money, I believe that the future is full of promise.

Everybody recognizes the problem. And that’s the first step towards a solution. Consumers are hungry for a better solution than a dozen different apps. And everybody in the industry, from the content creators to the networks and services that distribute them, knows that the current customer confusion is bad for all of their business prospects.

But the solution for both consumers and distributors is afoot. Not hypothetically or in wishful thinking, the technology is here and now.

At FreeCast, we’ve spent the past 5 years building a media aggregation platform that addresses the pain points from both ends: an easy and affordable experience for consumers, and a legal and monetizable one for content providers.

Our SmartGuide serves an essential purpose, and one that has always gone hand-in-hand with television. Even when there were only a dozen channels, you had the old TV Guide. During the cable age, that “guide” button on your remote usually suffered the most wear and tear.

Now that there’s more content than ever, from more different sources, spread across the internet with no good way to navigate it all, there’s never been greater need for a guide. And now, when it’s needed most, ours is ready for prime time.

Source Content : https://ottsquared.com/history-of-tv-efe0a44dcf50

[averyboleyn]

So I tried to email Freeform and Disney about Shadowhunters and keeps saying my message has been blocked so I’m posting here

To whom it may concern,

 I understand that you are a very busy person and you get many emails everyday but I beg that you please read this in its entirety. I truly don’t think you understand what’s really at stake here. I want to help you understand what’s happening from a perspective you probably don’t understand, a fan. I’m not trying to harass you or annoy you I just want to be heard.

 Losing the Shadowhunters fan base would be a horrible mistake for you. Many of the Shadowhunters fans would leave the network completely. It’s a very large portion of your audience that you’re losing should you cancel Shadowhunters and not bring it back. I for one was going to watch Cloak & Dagger but couldn’t because I’ve been so busy with work and the #SaveShadowhunters twitter campaign and I think The Bold Type looks like a great show with a good message and I would like to watch it when I find the time but I can tell you right now there are many Shadowhunters fans boycotting your network and if you take Shadowhunters from them and don’t at least give it to another network so it can live on somewhere else, those fans will never watch any of your other shows.

The marketing for Shadowhunters has been lackluster since season 2 and the fans have noticed. Many believe you killed the show on purpose through not promoting it as much as your other shows. I know my mom watches The Fosters and she watched Switched at Birth, Melisa & Joey, and Young and Hungry and I’ve never noticed any commercials for Shadowhunters during those shows. Online I’ve seen a million ads for Sirens, Beyond, and Cloak & Dagger before many YouTube videos but none for Shadowhunters. Since the Teen Choice nominations came out I haven’t seen anything from you about the Shadowhunters nominations. They have 5 nominations in 3 categories. You should be very proud and be promoting that. I also haven’t seen anything from you to try and get them an Emmy nomination but I have seen your Emmy campaigns for other shows.

 I can forgive you for all of this if you bring back the show. I understand there’s a lot that goes into saving a cancelled show and being as you’re involved with 2 other companies with Shadowhunters it becomes even more difficult but I assure you whatever you must do to keep this show will be worth it. We don’t care if we only get 10-12 episodes a season if we keep getting seasons. Even if you have to sell to Netflix at least you would somewhat pacify the angry fans. If you let the show die when there was an option for it to live on somewhere else you will lose the entire fandom. They will leave your network and the rest of your shows.

 I’m sure you’ve become annoyed by the fans constantly taking over your tweets about other shows and movies on your network but they want to be heard. Acknowledge them. What they’ve done so far is massive. It’s only been a week and they’ve already accomplished so much. The media is starting to notice as well. You need to think about how all of this is going to affect your image with viewers in the long run. For the most part you’re dealing with millennials which are currently the largest generation so remember how many people you’re pissing off. We don’t forgive very easily but you still have time to fix this. It’s not just about this show it’s also other seeing how you treat one of your own shows and its fans. Who’s to say you wouldn’t do it to any of your other shows?

 Several news outlets have written about the cancellation and the fan campaign which are linked below and I’m sure by the time you read this more will have been written.

·        https://people.com/tv/shadowhunters-fans-in-an-uproar/?utm_source=twitter.com&xid=socialflow_twitter_peoplemag&utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_medium=social

·        https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/973585/Shadowhunters-cancelled-Why-was-Shadowhunters-cancelled-petition-save-Netflix-Freeform

·        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5809005/Shadowhunters-cancelled-best-social-media-reactions.html

·        https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/shadowhunters-ep-promises-satisfying-ending-after-surprising-cancellation/

·        http://www.justjaredjr.com/2018/06/11/katherine-mcnamara-hopes-that-the-fans-social-media-campaign-to-save-shadowhunters-works/

·        http://www.justjaredjr.com/2018/06/05/shadowhunters-fans-get-save-shadowhunters-trending-worldwide-make-a-strong-case-to-save-the-show/

·        https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/10/many-episodes-shadowhunters-left-will-shown-7619716/

·        http://theseriesregulars.com/saveshadowhunters-the-power-of-fandom/

·        http://talknerdywithus.com/2018/06/12/saving-shadowhunters/

·        http://tvafterdark.com/why-its-important-to-save-shadowhunters/

·        https://www.buzzfeed.com/shwriter/saveshadowhunters-is-fundraising-for-the-trevor-p-3ho7l?utm_term=.rqjOmMO54#.wsEzQLzNZ

·        https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/973585/Shadowhunters-cancelled-Why-was-Shadowhunters-cancelled-petition-save-Netflix-Freeform

·        https://www.teenvogue.com/story/freeform-cancelled-shadowhunters-after-3-seasons

·        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/on-demand/0/hidden-netflix-feature-allows-users-request-movies-tv-shows/

·        https://www.girlfriend.com.au/fans-petition-for-shadowhunters-to-be-saved?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

·        https://cartermatt.com/311246/petition-save-shadowhunters-nears-100000-signatures/

·        https://cartermatt.com/310436/shadowhunters-season-4-can-the-series-be-saved/

Your public image is at stake here. This isn’t just about the amazing show, the hard-working cast and crew, the dedicated and loyal fans this is also about the public’s image of you. Even people who have nothing to do with the show or the fan campaign will see the news articles and videos about it and draw their own conclusions about your networks poor handling of the situation and unfair treatment of the show and its fans.

 There are so many reasons why this show is important to society as well. This show provides representation for so many different people who deserve to see themselves on tv. It has honest portrayals of relationships, family drama, abuse, prejudice and more. It shows the damages that prejudice can have on a society and the struggle to fight against them and fight for equality. It shows the importance of celebrating differences and using those difference to contribute to the betterment of society. The entire relationship between Shadowhunters and Downworlds is an excellent display of race tensions and prejudice. There are so many reasons why this show is important so I’m going to briefly break it down based off a few characters. There are point that have been left out and many more characters worthy of this list but I tried to keep it as short as possible while still getting my point across.

 Maryse Lightwood’s redemption arc shows people the importance of admitting your mistakes and growing from them. She didn’t ignore what’d she’d done in the past she took responsibility and accepted the consequences. She asked for forgiveness from the people she’d hurt in the past and worked to make amends. Now that she’s lost her runes it will be interesting to see how it changes her and how she copes with it. She’s lost something that was so fundamental to her life and she’s been exiled from her home. People need to see her transition and struggles relearning life.

 Maia Roberts had an extremely traumatic experience and learned to live with her new lifestyle. She didn’t let being turned into a werewolf stop her dreams and continued her college career. When her ex-boyfriend returned, even though she hated him and wanted him far away from here she knew Simon needed him so she put Simon’s needs before her own feelings and asked Jordan to stay. She is loyal no matter what and even when the entire pack is against Luke she never turns her back on him because she’s fighting for what is right. She wants a better future for everyone and even when outnumbered she stands her ground. She’s also great because she’s a strong, black, female character who defies stereotypes and gives other young black girls representation and has talked about police brutality on black people and being stopped only because she was black herself.

 Magnus Bane has had so many traumatic things happen in his past: his mother’s suicide, his step-father trying to kill him, murdering his step-father, being saved from his own suicide attempt by Camille, their toxic relationship, switching bodies with Valentine, the agony rune, losing his position as High Warlock, losing his magic, his past with his father, etc. He’s been through so much and get he’s still so giving and selfless. He’d give anything to protect those he loves. He’s such an inspiration to others who have faced adversities in their lives and he’s an out and proud Asian bisexual so he gives such great representation. He shows that you can be bisexual and have real, caring, deep relationships with people and that bisexuals aren’t just greedy people who want to have sex with everyone. He loves one soul at a time, the gender doesn’t matter. Every past relationship means something to him. They’re all important and he cares them all with him through his many years of life.

 Alec Lightwood is the eldest son of a disgraced, prominent Shadowhunter family. He’s all about duty and honor. His first priority is his family. He’d do anything to help them and bring honor back to the family name. He almost married a woman he didn’t love for that reason alone. He felt it was his duty. He has always been the protector. Putting the wellbeing of others before himself, protecting his siblings, taking their punishments, etc. He came out as gay in front of the Clave. Something unheard of. He also did so by kissing a warlock, a Downworlder. His family was now more disgraced than ever and he had to deal with the backlash from his parents and fellow Shadowhunters. He dealt with guilt from that, from Jocelyn’s death, from lying about the soul sword. He’s felt so much guilt over his life he almost jumped off a building. He fights for what’s right. He set up a Downworlder cabinet when no one else cared what they had to say. He includes them in major decisions. He opened the door for other gay Shadowhunters. He gives people afraid to come out hope. They can see his struggles and see that even though it was hard he has his friends and family supporting him in the end. The people who matter most will always love you. Viewers need to see his story.

 Jace Herondale has had so many last names it’s hard to keep track. He was raised by a psychopath trying to turn him into his greatest weapon and was never shown real love as a child. He’s been told his girlfriend was his sister and then the woman he thought was his mother tried to kill him. Then he found out they weren’t his real family and his actual biological parents were dead. The only living relative he had was his grandmother, who he then killed while possessed. He was forced to run away with a madman to protect his loved ones. Then hunted, imprisoned, and tried as a criminal for doing so. His parabatai almost died trying to find him. He activated the soul sword that killed hundreds of Downworlders when he thought he was destroying it which would also kill him. He allowed a vampire he claims he doesn’t even like to nearly drain him of blood. He was murdered and brought back to life. He was then possessed and tortured in his own mind. He hurt and killed many innocent people which he will blame himself for and nearly killed his parabatai while possessed. Magnus gave up his magic to save him. Now he thinks his girlfriend is dead. He’s an abuse survivor with some pretty dangerous coping mechanisms who is learning to deal in more healthy ways and be a better person. It’s important for people to see different methods of coping and how the more destructive ones can really ruin your life. He shows the power of found family over blood family and that withholding love from a child can scare them forever. He also shows how hard it is for people like him to accept love but once they do it can be beautiful.

 Isabelle Lightwood was addicted to a drug so strong that Jem had to become a Silent Brother to overcome it. She sweat it out and moved on. She hid the addiction from her loved ones, no saw the signs, she made friends who feed her addiction and who she started have a toxic relationship with. All these things happen to people in real life. Viewers can see how easy it can be to fall into a drug habit. It snowballs so quick and effortlessly that you don’t even realize you’re an addict until it’s too late. She also dragged Raphael back into his former addiction and being around each other made them want to break their sobriety which happens all the time. It shows why it’s so important to get away from the people in your life who have a negative influence. She shows the dangerous effects drugs can have. She is also a very strong character. She pulls through her addiction and comes back just as strong as she was before. She uses her sexuality to her advantage. She doesn’t allow mean to objectify her but she uses their desire for her to get what she wants. She doesn’t care about what people think. She’s comfortable in her body and likes to show it off. She’s in complete control of body and what she does with it and she’s not afraid to put the boys in place and show she can kick ass better than any man.

 Clary Fray/Fairchild found out about the Shadow World and lost her mother on her 18th birthday. She found out her father was a psychopath who wanted to commit genocide and had her mother. She then had all this responsibility thrust at her with no knowledge of the world she was now a part of. Her best friend was killed because of her and she had to decide to revive him as a vampire. Throughout the show she’s had so much responsivity for a world she’s only known about since her birthday and she’s been judged and mistrusted because of her father who she’d never even met before now. She thought her boyfriend was her brother, she almost lost Simon over the Seelie Realm kiss with Jace, she almost die for a blood oath, her mother was killed by a demon right after she got her back and they had just made up after a fight, she found out her brother was alive only to realize he was evil and had to killed, she watched her father kill her boyfriend, then she committed treason to resurrect him which lead to his possession by The Owl demon, she was tried and put on death row for said treason, and then had to resurrect her evil father and kill him all over again before Lilith tied her to her evil brother so he could be resurrected. She’s had so much thrown at her in such a short time and yet she still stays strong, positive, and true to herself. She never lets this new world she’s apart of shake her ideas of right and wrong. She is always true to herself and an excellent role model for young girls.

 Simon Lewis was thrown into a world he doesn’t know a thing about. He died and came back as a vampire. He betrayed his clan to help his friend and was kicked out. HE had to live in a shed with werewolves who hated him. He was kidnapped by Valentine and nearly killed which resulted in becoming a daylighter. He had to avoid his family. He then was forced to come out to them as a vampire and almost killed his sister. His mother disowned him so he had to make her think he was dead. Now he thinks he killed his best friend and the reason he’s in this world to begin with. He always has a way of staying positive and finding humor in horrible situations. He cheers people up even when he’s miserable. He’s an important character to have on tv. It’s good for people to see that even though everything in the world has gone to crap, you can still laugh.

 Luke Garroway lost the love of his life, got her back, and then lost her again to a demon attack. His parabatai turned out to be evil and tried to kill him. He was turned into a werewolf and disowned by his own people. He had to find a new way and a new life. He’s been a father figure to many characters on the show and has help guide them. He’s loyal and a voice of reason. He admits when he’s wrong and he never loses faith in the ones he loves. When Maryse Lightwood apologized to him he forgave her and after she was deruned he offered her help and friendship.

 Raphael Santiago is a devote Catholic who had to learn how to live with his religion and new life as a vampire. He is also asexual. Even though he is supposed to be aromatic and is shown having romantic feelings for Isabelle Lightwood he still said on the show that he didn’t want to have sex with her because he doesn’t like sex. That’s a huge thing for other asexuals to see. They are a heavily underrepresented group and deserve representation just like everyone else and have a character on a major tv show say they don’t like sex is a huge step. Inclusion of all sexualities is important and should be shown as often as possible.

 Valentine is pure evil. His jealous of others’ abilities consumed him until he decided genocide was the only option. He shows how easy it is for people to be manipulated by a charming character to believe in a horrible idea. He slowly pulled people in and convinced them what they were doing was for the betterment of everyone. He’s the epidemy of corrupt power and shows why people should always question leaders and follow what they know is right. You must always fight for what’s right no matter what the majority is telling you.

I’ve tried to show how and why this show is so important. Even if it wasn’t important for people to see it’s still a really great show with amazing sets, costumes, music, actions sequences, etc. The crew is so wonderful with the fans and the cast are so approachable and funny they add that much more to the show. The cast has such an appreciation for who their characters really are. They all love their characters and always stay true to them. The show is just a really amazing show and I can honestly say in my opinion it’s the best show I’ve seen in my 28 years of life. The fans are fighting so hard to save their show.

 The Change.org petition to save the show has over 114,000 supporters and counting. https://www.change.org/p/anyone-who-this-show-has-saved-save-shadowhunters

Fans have raised over $10,000 for The Trevor Project in honor of #SaveShadowhunters. https://give.thetrevorproject.org/fundraiser/1496004

There are over 8 million tweets with the hashtag #SaveShadowhunters and 6 other Shadowhunter themed hastags. https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaveShadowhunters?src=hash&lang=en

There’s a campaign website: https://www.saveshadowhunters.com/

 The fans will not be giving up anytime soon and for good reason. They are passionate about their show because it’s one of the best out there. It could be your greatest accomplishment and go on for 10 more seasons easy if you give it a chance. Think about your fans and your future and remember #SaveShadowhunters.

 Thank you for your time

[bruhsauraus]

Armando Iannucci: I was saved from being a reject by comedy

The king of satire, back with a new film about Soviet-era Russia after Stalins death, talks about being uncool, Veep and building a spaceship in London

Armando Iannucci arrives for our 3pm meeting with a small amount of his lunch still clinging to his shirt. We discuss retouching the mark for the Observers pictures but, admirably, he doesnt seem to care either way. It is tempting to describe the 53-year-old Iannucci as the most feared political satirist of our age. Certainly, his output in the past decade the BBC sitcom The Thick of It, the companion film In the Loop, and latterly Veep has been untouchable in skewering the vanity, incompetence and plain childishness of people in power. But, in person, nothing about Iannucci is remotely scary: he is self-effacing, smiley, quick to laugh. At the end of the day, hes just a guy with a tomato stain on his shirt.

Iannuccis latest target is Stalin and his cronies. His new film, The Death of Stalin, is set in 1953 and depicts with unexpected historical accuracy the undignified scrabble for dominance that followed the demise of the Soviet despot. It is silly, moving and revelatory, all at once, with deft, pitch-perfect turns from Simon Russell Beale as Beria and Steve Buscemi as Khrushchev. Iannucci, who never likes to have fewer than seven plates spinning at any moment, has also just published a book on classical music, Hear Me Out, about a lifetime of listening to Mahler and Britten in open defiance of the keepers of the cool.

Was it easier than you expected to make a comedy about Stalin and his inner circle that was also factually accurate? Yeah. When we were researching it, we found out things like Vasily, Stalins son, really did lose the ice-hockey team in a plane crash. And because the comedy is the comedy of hysteria, you want to be true to what happened and how people responded. So anything that was so-bizarre-and-yet-true was a candidate for going in. I thought about having This is a true story, but then I thought, no, just watch it for what it is, and it would be great if you subsequently found out that the bulk of it was true.

These men are vicious, but your film also gives them a human side. They have families they fear for; they play practical jokes. Did your feelings towards them change? Um, no. But I did think, what must they have done to have survived and ended up so close to Stalin, and what has it done to them? The fact, for example, that he would almost taunt them and mock them and play them off against each other With all these things its about posing the question, What would you have done in those circumstances?

Power corrupts? Yeah, it was almost like Animal Farm by the end, and yet they all lived near each other and popped in and out of each others houses. He might have had your brother shot and all that, but they had to sublimate that as just part of the process of moving forward. But, you know, you read that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were the biggest enemies and are now reconciled. Im not saying they are like Stalin, but in that febrile environment where you see each other every day, in order to survive, just psychologically, you must have to close off a bit of your emotion.

Watch a trailer for The Death of Stalin.

So there are lessons about todays political landscape? Trump gets all his closest associates in over the past three or four months, and has to say, By the way, youre fired because I need to survive now. So could you go away? And eventually hell be saying that to his daughter and his son-in-law: Youve now become an albatross, I cant be seen with you anymore. Or after the general election, Theresa May turns to her two very close advisers and says, Its you or me. And they all kind of understand that. Its like that thing in The Godfather: Its not personal, its strictly business.

Is it true there have been calls in Russia for the film to be banned? You say Russia its a person in a country of 200 million people. Just somebody somewhere said something.

Were you expecting a reaction? I was wondering what it would be. I was surprised to hear we sold it to a Russian distributor. Stalins been making a comeback. There have been busts of Lenin, Stalin and other key figures going up in Moscow for the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Its that sense of, dont be frightened of strong men. Thats the message in Moscow at the moment.

Theres a line in your book Hear Me Out where you describe film directing as an astonishing ego trip, and that you wouldnt recommend it to anyone who has the slightest psychotic tendencies. Is it a job you feel comfortable doing? Ha! It is, but you do spend all day ordering people around, and everyone will do what you say. My wife teases me when I finish a shoot that it takes about a week and a half before I stop going, Right, shall we have a cup of tea? You, get a cup of tea I can see how, especially if you do shoots that go on for months, you become like a medieval lord with all these serfs, just ordering them around and torturing them and asking them to tell jokes and fetch food.

As the creator and showrunner on HBOs Veep for the first four seasons was it a difficult decision to give it up in 2015? No. It might have been the British thing that we dont do that many episodes of TV shows in the UK. Plus, it was three months of the year going out to Baltimore, backwards and forwards, and it was an all-year-round thing of the writing, the shooting, the edit, the publicising and then the writing And I knew the show could carry on, but fundamentally Id taken it to where I wanted to take it.

The show will end next year with a final, seventh series. Do you know whats going to happen? No, no, no. They asked if I wanted to stay on, but I knew I was going to do Stalin and I just thought, I cant be on set and get a call saying, Can you look at this script? But its great, because I watch it as a viewer and you realise though I always knew this what an amazing cast it is and how funny they all are. And also, I genuinely dont know what they are going to say next, which is really great.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus as vice-president Selina Meyer in Veep. Photograph: HBO

It was recently announced that youre making a new show with HBO called Avenue 5. Whats the idea behind that? Ive always wanted to do sci-fi, so this will be set mostly in space, in about 40 years time. Its not going to be Blade Runner, but there will be an element of realism to it. Ive been out to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and Virgin Galactic, looking at where it might be in about 40 years time. Ive mapped out the season and were writing the pilot episode and well shoot that sometime next year. And because its in space, its not location specific, so we can shoot it in a studio or a hanger in London. Well just build a spaceship here.

What impact do you think streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime are having on terrestrial TV? Well, the good thing is that content producers writers and producers have more places to go. And also, whats great, and HBO paved the way with this: quality stuff is profitable. Thats their business model: youll only subscribe to HBO if you think youre going to get good stuff thats different from whats on the networks. So they need it to be better and well thought out and high production values and all that.

But is the quality always better? I do worry that simply because theres so much money available from the big streaming companies, theyll say, Oh well make your movie. We know no one else wanted to, and we realise why, because it was slightly indulgent or whatever, but well make it. And you watch it and you think, it was fine but For all the criticism of the studio process, if youre making something that costs someone else money and which is going to be available commercially, you want people to go and see it. So it does force you to think: have you made it as well as you can? Or have you really thought this through?

In Hear Me Out you write about the tyranny of the keepers of cool. Was liking classical music a reaction against them? Well, I was never really into fashion or clothes. I just wasnt that bothered. I wanted to read a good book. I was saved from being written off as a complete reject by the fact I could do comedy.

You started to learn piano in your 40s. Was that difficult? I found it hard. It was learning a language: Oh, I can speak music! And suddenly these dots and whatever started to make sense. But it was hard work. Some people can do it instinctively and I couldnt. My son would lean over me, hed be practising the violin, and go, No, no, no, its like this. And he hasnt had a piano lesson.

Do you listen to any non-classical music? I kind of like Radiohead, the Beatles, Bowie, its not extensive, but Im always trying. Whats interesting now is, because everything is available, kids can listen to Sinatra when theyre 12 and theres no real sense of: Youve got to listen to this because its out now. But you cant listen to that because thats from 20 years ago. They are a lot more experimental in what they are listening to and that then feeds into the music thats being produced. Its influenced not just by music from two years ago, but music from 20 or 30 years ago.

How can classical music stay relevant? Its up to the classical music establishment, for want of a better word, to open it up. Concerts neednt be off-putting and expensive and you dont have to dress up and you dont have to understand the technical complexities. Just talk to the audience. One of the weird things about a concert is that nobody says anything to you, so youve got to just accept whats in front of you and work it out. Somebody should sit down and explain: This piece, when it was first composed, caused a riot. Now it might sound a bit more conventional because its been used in a Walt Disney movie. I dont know, I think its just useful.

Stalin had a great passion for classical music. So listening to it doesnt make you a better human being then? George Steiner writes about how Goebbels was into Mozart and played the piano beautifully. Wagner was an antisemitic bastard, so actually, no. Thats the sad thing: it doesnt make any difference. It really doesnt.

Can you put that aside when you listen to the music? I dont know. I always got taken by the grandiosity of Wagner, but the more I listen to it now the more I think, it does sound fascist, doesnt it? But its interesting, that thing of, Can you excuse? Like Polanski. That whole, Great film-maker, but should you be watching his movies? I dont know what the answer is.

The Death of Stalin is released on 20 October.

Hear Me Out by Armando Iannucci is published by Little Brown (14.99). To order a copy for 12.74 go to guardianbookshop.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over 10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of 1.99

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/oct/15/armando-iannucci-the-death-of-stalin-hear-me-out-interview

The post Armando Iannucci: I was saved from being a reject by comedy appeared first on GDPUD Blog.

from GDPUD Blog https://ift.tt/2HzkZIM via Article Source

[phooll123]

Here’s what you need to know about the U.S. lawsuit against the AT&T-Time Warner merger

AT&T and Time Warner plan to merge in a $85 billion deal that would unite one of the largest distributors of content with one of the biggest producers of content, a roster that includes hits like HBO’s “Game of Thrones,” the Harry Potter films and major cable franchises like CNN.

But not if the Justice Department has its way. The U.S. government has sued to block the deal, a move that some fret is actually political reprisal for CNN’s reporting on President Trump. The trial begins on Wednesday, March 21.

Here’s what’s at stake and what to look for.

Why is the Justice Department suing AT&T?*

The government says the merger will be bad for consumers. A combined AT&T and Time Warner would have much more heft and could force higher prices on TV distributors, leading to higher cable and satellite TV bills.

“Consumers will end up paying hundreds of millions of dollars more than they do now to watch their favorite programs on TV,” the Justice Department said in court filings.

AT&T’s counter? The government’s analysis relies on an improbable hypothesis: In order to extract higher fees, AT&T would have to withhold Time Warner channels like CNN and TNT from the pay TV distributors.

In theory, that would also allow AT&T to raise prices on its own TV customers (via AT&T’s U-verse and DirecTV), since it would be the only place a viewer could watch Anderson Cooper or key games of the NCAA basketball finals.

But the economic harm from doing so would far outweigh whatever gains AT&T could get, the company says, making it an unworkable bargaining tactic. AT&T has also made a commitment to not black out any TV channels in any future fee disputes, removing its most powerful bartering tool. In short, prices won’t go up, and the TV landscape will remain competitive.

What are the stakes for AT&T and Time Warner?

Time Warner could lose out on $85 billion — which would go to its shareholders, including to executives. Anyone who bought stock prior to news of the deal stands to gain at least a 36 percent profit based on AT&T’s offer of $107.50 per share.

But after the government filed its suit in November, shares dropped below $100, a sign of low-to-medium confidence that the merger will be approved.

If AT&T loses, it would also have to pay Time Warner $500 million in what’s known as a reverse breakup fee. That’s small relative to the typical payout, usually between 3 percent to 9 percent of the deal size. In this case, it’s less than 0.6 percent. Time Warner and AT&T, it seems, were confident the deal would pass regulatory muster, which might explain the low fee. The Trump Administration, of course, ignores all past precedent.

It would also be a blow to Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, who sees this deal as his grand exit.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes

Drew Angerer / Getty

For AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, buying Time Warner is a way to set the company apart from its key rival, Verizon, which has done its own content deals by acquiring both AOL and Yahoo. Pricing wars have pushed down monthly cellphone bills, which has been good for consumers but not so great for mobile phone operators.

AT&T’s key thesis in buying Time Warner is that the combined company could speed up the development of new types of online video (which it would own), and drive bigger profits by marrying AT&T’s consumer data with Time Warner’s TV content to sell targeted advertising, which is worth more than the usual advertising.

What it means for the media industry

But there’s something bigger in play here.

If the court rules against the acquisition, it might chill other media mergers in the works. Disney plans to buy Fox’s entertainment business and CBS and Viacom are working on a merger. There’s also Comcast’s bid for European pay TV operator Sky, a deal that appears to be designed to spoil Disney’s play for Fox — more on that here.

If, however, you believe President Trump is just trying to punish CNN with the suit, then you’d also have to think these other media deals are safe, since, in the Disney-Fox case, Trump is an avowed fan of anything Rupert Murdoch owns, specifically Fox News, and so is happy for him to succeed; in the CBS-Viacom merger, neither side has been a target of Trump’s ire, despite the reporting of CBS News.

If that’s too cynical a take for you, then you’d have to allow that these deals would have to be in doubt, and therefore would/should invite the same Justice Department scrutiny.

The Disney-Fox proposal, for example, takes a competitor out of the marketplace by marrying two different content companies. In other words, Disney would no longer just be bringing its own TV networks (ESPN and ABC and Freeform) when bargaining with Comcast or Dish, but also Fox’s channels (its regional sports networks, FX and National Geographic).

Same goes for a tie-up of CBS and Viacom, which would put Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, CBS and Showtime all under one roof.

Ironically, the AT&T-Time Warner deal is the one media merger that doesn’t change the content portfolio, which is to say that since AT&T doesn’t already own any TV networks, the addition of Time Warner wouldn’t reduce the number of competitors in the marketplace — what’s known as a vertical merger. That, in fact, has been the essence of AT&T’s legal argument.

You could also argue that since AT&T doesn’t get a distinct advantage by owning Time Warner, the merger actually doesn’t make sense.

But why are so many mergers happening in the first place? Because the media industry has turned into a zero-sum game. Fewer people are paying for TV, which means fewer people are watching TV, which means there’s less in subscriber fees and advertising dollars to go around.

That’s why the merger landscape has turned into a fight for assets, all the while as Netflix and Google and Facebook continue to eat into TV’s audiences.

Who is the real competition?

AT&T has stated pretty clearly in court filings that Google, Netflix, Facebook and Amazon are the real threats to its business as well as that of Time Warner’s. “Google,” for example, appears on 16 pages of the brief it filed on March 9. “Netflix” appears on 19 pages; “Facebook,” 15 pages; “Amazon,” 12 pages.

Meanwhile, “Fox,” “CBS,” “Viacom” and “Disney” each appear on no more than five pages; “Verizon,” only two pages. “Apple,” interestingly enough, also only appears on two pages.

*Is it really because Trump doesn’t like CNN?

The president has said publicly he had nothing to do with the Justice Department’s decision to block the purchase. Reminder: The Justice Department is supposed to remain independent of the White House.

But AT&T CEO Stephenson questions the timeline of events.

To start, Trump’s Twitter stream is already clear evidence of his hostilitytoward CNN.

The source of his acrimony might trace back to his relationship with the network’s president, Jeff Zucker. The two were compatriots at NBCUniversal**, where Zucker was CEO until 2011. He had hired Trump for the reality show “The Apprentice,” which became a ratings success.

Jeff Zucker, Donald Trump and Melania Trump at Focus Features Golden Globes After Party in Los Angeles, 2007.

WireImage for Focus Features

The fact that each ended up in adversarial positions naturally creates tension, but CNN’s aggressive coverage has only stoked Trump’s animus; his ties to Zucker seem to suggest he feels a keen sense of betrayal.

The thinking goes that by stopping AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner, it would hurt Time Warner and thus CNN.

In fact, while Trump was on the campaign trail, he vowed to block the merger in the first 100 days of his presidency, saying it “concentrates too much power in the hands of too few.”

Months after he took office, however, it appeared that AT&T’s merger gambit would pay off. The Justice Department had enlisted a new antitrust czar, Makan Delrahim, who just months prior to his appointment had publicly stated that AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner shouldn’t be an issue for regulators. “I don’t see this as a major antitrust problem,” he said.

But by the end of last year, Delrahim had pivoted. The Justice Department now wanted AT&T to sell Time Warner’s Turner unit — which includes CNN — in order to proceed with its acquisition, according to a report in the Financial Times and in the New York Times.

AT&T refused, and the Justice Department sued.

Worth noting: Delrahim’s reversal was eye-opening enough to inspire AT&T to attempt an unusual legal strategy. It included him on its witness list, and asked the court to compel the Justice Department to provide any communications it had with the White House via emails and phone logs about the merger, part of an effort to show Trump may have prompted the suit because of his feelings toward CNN.

It was a long shot. The bar for compelling that kind of information is very high, and the court denied the request. AT&T also removed Delrahim from its witness list with the understanding that it could still call him later to testify if there was good enough reason.

Noel Francisco, Makan Delrahim and Steven Engel being sworn in

Mark Wilson / Getty

Who’s the decider?

The case is what’s known as a bench trial, so the presiding judge, in this instance Richard Leon, will make the sole determination. There’s no jury.

Antitrust cases are typically a battle between experts, and AT&T has already started harping on the government’s analysis. The company cites Justice’s claim that the merger would lead to a 45-cent increase in a consumer’s average monthly TV bill, which AT&T calls a “remarkably small size,” and a finding it nonetheless still doesn’t accept.

AT&T even characterized the government’s case as like ”a Persian cat with its fur shaved...alarmingly pale and thin,” an allusion to another case that nevertheless drew eyebrows given the fact that Delrahim was born in Iran. His family immigrated to the U.S. as Jewish refugees.

Judge Leon is arguably already an expert on the economics of the TV business — or has at least been exposed to experts. He approved Comcast’s acquisition of NBCUniversal in 2011.

There is, however, a key difference this time around.

In the Comcast case, the Justice Department cleared the deal pending certain conditions, known as a consent decree — a set of rules designed to prevent potential harm to consumers or to competition. It was signed by Judge Leon.

The order laid out what Comcast could and could not do with NBCUniversal after the acquisition. As an example, it had to forfeit management rights over Hulu, a joint venture one-third-owned by NBCUniversal.

With AT&T, however, the Justice Department is asking the judge to block the deal outright.

The potential second part of the case

Some finer points to understand: The judge could wholly find in favor of the government and block the merger altogether, or he could find the government failed to prove its case and let the merger go through.

There is a third option: If Leon finds that the merger is anticompetitive, he could still let the deal go through with conditions or remedies to address anticompetitive concerns. Which would bring us to the potential second part of the case where each side will argue the merits of certain rules that would govern how AT&T manages Time Warner.

The Justice Department will likely argue that no conditions should be allowed and the deal shouldn’t go through, since 1) any conditions would do nothing to curb consumer harm, and 2) even if some rules proved useful, it would be far too costly for the government to monitor.

AT&T will argue it has already made a pretty big promise — to not black out any Time Warner channels in any future disputes for a period of seven years, with any disagreements subject to third-party arbitration. In other words, with that promise, AT&T has effectively already built in a key condition.

The judge could also apply his own prescriptions to the merger, but even then he would only do so very narrowly. If he does, he may work off the decree from the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger over which he presided.

Why won’t the government just allow for conditions?

Despite Delrahim’s reversal (or maybe in spite of it), when it comes to antitrust, he and many others in the legal community believe in what’s known as a “structural remedy” over “behavioral remedy.”

Comcast’s consent decree is considered “behavioral” fix to what the government saw as potential harm to consumers. But Delrahim has expressed skepticism that it has actually worked out. As an example, Comcast had met with fellow owners of Hulu back in 2013 over the streaming platform’s future, which could be seen as a violation of its agreement.

And as a conservative, Delrahim doesn’t believe that government should be meddling in a for-profit business, and behavioral remedies require government to make business judgments.

A structural remedy, on the other hand, is a do-it-once-and-walk-away process. That usually amounts to forcing a company to sell something, which would explain Justice Department’s request that AT&T sell Turner as part of the deal.

Case details

The case number is 17-cv-2511: United States of America v. AT&T Inc. et al., and it will take place at the U.S. District Court for D.C. The trial starts March 21 in Courtroom 18.

The proceedings will be open to the public, but Judge Leon has banned reporters from bringing in electronic devices, which goes against the standard policy. Leon was agitated by press leaks and warned both sides the case shouldn’t be litigated in the media.

The trial could last as long as two months, a change from the original three-week estimate. That’s because both sides have been arguing over the admissibility of certain types of evidence as well as what kinds of evidence should be kept confidential, such as rate pricing for TV channels.

Most of the testimony will likely feature economists and experts with charts and graphs. But the appearances of Stephenson and Bewkes (and possibly Delrahim) will be the ones to pay attention to.

** NBCUniversal is a minority investor in Recode parent company Vox Media.

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2HHknfL

[njawaidofficial]

Meet Time Warner's New Boss: A Hollywood Outsider With a Grand Plan

http://styleveryday.com/2017/08/10/meet-time-warners-new-boss-a-hollywood-outsider-with-a-grand-plan/

Meet Time Warner's New Boss: A Hollywood Outsider With a Grand Plan

“Investment in content is going to increase,” says John Stankey in his first interview since being named to oversee HBO, Warner Bros. and CNN as he reveals AT&T’s post-merger synergy strategy, Peter Chernin’s potential role and the top priority for making a mark in showbiz: “We’re going to have to earn our way in.”

Not so long ago, John Stankey could hardly answer when asked to name a TV show or movie that he liked. But the 54-year-old head of AT&T’s entertainment group — who will run Time Warner, assuming AT&T’s $85.4 billion acquisition wins federal approval, as expected — says it became clear to him in the past year or two that he had to buckle down and watch some entertainment.

“I realized I had to spend more time getting exposed to what’s out there,” he tells The Hollywood Reporter in his first interview since he was tapped July 28 to run the to-be-renamed Time Warner. “It’s part of my work routine.” But he still doesn’t seem to have much of a list of favorites. Looking for programs to watch with his wife of 26 years, he says he’s seen all of Downton Abbey and some of Showtime’s Homeland. But his wife is way ahead of him on HBO’s Game of Thrones. His only appointment viewing? College football.

At 6-foot-5 with a deep voice and abundant self-confidence, Stankey looks and sounds like what he is: a metrics-oriented 30-year veteran of a telecom company whose first language is business-speak. Raised and educated in Los Angeles, he seems a bit more Dallas (home of AT&T) than Southern California at this point. But he’s a graduate of Loyola Marymount and got his MBA from UCLA. And he was chief strategy officer when AT&T acquired DirecTV for $48.5 billion in 2015, a deal that made AT&T the biggest pay TV company in the country.

Among the many questions surrounding the Time Warner acquisition, the overarching one is: What will AT&T do with a company — home to HBO, the Warner Bros. studio, Turner Broadcasting and CNN — that outgoing chairman Jeff Bewkes has trimmed down and managed in preparation for a sale? There are two schools of thought. Some high-level industry observers believe AT&T will strengthen the assets, for example, by using its data on consumer habits to help the Turner networks withstand competition from giants Facebook and Google, or by increasing HBO’s roughly $2 billion programming spend to help it keep pace with Netflix and Amazon. Others suspect that whatever AT&T may say now, it will eventually squeeze Time Warner like a lemon, offering its content at a discount to hold on to existing customers and wringing out cash to pay dividends.

Stankey dismisses the latter scenario. “This is an awful lot of overhead just to do that,” he says. “I categorically disagree with the perspective that our goal is simply to run it and harvest cash flows.” Instead, Stankey says the acquisition will help both AT&T and Time Warner thrive despite the rapid changes in their respective businesses. And he says that might give consumers of entertainment some more appetizing options, such as ads that are more relevant to individual viewers and less frequent. “We can’t continue to jam an ever-increasing amount of advertising down consumers’ throats in a 30-minute block,” he says.

For sports fans, Stankey wants to explore questions such as how to offer programming in new ways. “Instead of having to watch a baseball game for three hours, can the content be reconstructed in the context of millennials?” he asks. “How do you allow people to come in and out of the game with social cues?”

But industry analyst Craig Moffett is a skeptic, saying he already sees signs that AT&T will squeeze its new acquisition because the company is trying to protect its “portfolio of businesses that are suffering from declining revenues.” AT&T is primarily a telecom company, he adds: “They approach most businesses as, how can they help wireless?” The tell, he says, is that AT&T already has started offering HBO to its customers at a discount. He notes that DirecTV — which had an exodus of executives following the AT&T acquisition — was used in the same fashion. “What can [Stankey] point to at DirecTV that is going to give confidence to the longtime employees of Time Warner?” he asks.

But Stankey offers no apologies: “Somebody on the outside might say, ‘They’re giving [DirecTV] away.’ The question is, how long is that [DirecTV] customer a customer, and how deep is the relationship?”

BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield lays out a more hopeful vision of AT&T’s strategy — at least for HBO. “I hope he recognizes the importance of increasing the investment in it,” he says. “HBO is severely underinvested relative to Netflix.” (HBO’s annual spend is about $2 billion versus Netflix’s $6 billion.) He says AT&T can cut back on Turner expenses to harvest cash. “HBO is the incredible brand,” he says. “There is such potential, and the window for capitalizing on it is shortening.”

Stankey says AT&T sees great value in original content and wants to grow the Time Warner businesses, but he is vague as to how much it will spend and how soon (the fact that the Trump administration has yet to greenlight the acquisition likely is a factor in his reluctance to comment more substantively). “Over time, investment in content is going to increase,” he says. “My goal would be to find a lane to continue to ramp up investment in content at a higher level than today and to benefit from some of the efficiencies, some of the synergies.”

It’s fair to say that Time Warner insiders are nervous about how Stankey will handle some of the entertainment world’s most vaunted legacy properties. There are other suits with no direct experience creating content who are running famed media companies, but those execs spent much, if not all, of their careers in the business. NBCUniversal’s Steve Burke rose through the ranks at Disney, and Bob Bakish put in a decade at Viacom before his surprise ascent. Sony’s Tony Vinciquerra is a Fox veteran.

Stankey has been getting some Hollywood education from another Fox alum, Peter Chernin. The two met in 2013 when the Chernin Group and AT&T teamed up in an unsuccessful bid to buy Hulu. Chernin instead joined with AT&T to form the digital-video company Otter Media. (Sources say AT&T is now poised to acquire Chernin’s stake of slightly more than 50 percent.) Stankey says Chernin has become “a great friend” who has “been very pointed” in teaching him about the entertainment industry. Chernin also has been pointed in ruling out an executive position at Time Warner, but the two seem likely to continue to do business. “Is there a possibility that we find opportunities that we’re jointly interested in?” says Stankey. “I wouldn’t rule that out.”

Chernin says Stankey is “a really good guy with a dry sense of humor,” but adds that he’s also strategic and thoughtful. Chernin predicts his priorities will be to build “a genuinely targeted advertising business,” to be aggressive about building up data-driven video-on-demand and about helping Warners get better at selling content, whether it’s Harry Potter or DC Comics, to the right customers. “I don’t think you’re going to see John trying to greenlight movies and looking at rough cuts,” says Chernin. “You’ll see him trying to unlock the opportunity.”

To that end, Stankey says Warners CEO Kevin Tsujihara won’t be replaced: “He’s a talented guy.” Stankey expects to be in the loop if the studio intends to make, say, a $200 million movie, but “in terms of getting down to the specifics of what is the right content to make a $200 million bet on, that’s not where I’m going to spend my time and energy.”

Stankey is very clear that the entertainment industry has its own idiosyncratic culture and AT&T does not intend to try to change it. Instead, the company intends to approach with respect. “We’re going to have to earn our way in,” he says. “My job is to demonstrate that there is value we can bring.”

A version of this story first appeared in the Aug. 9 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

#Boss #Grand #Hollywood #Meet #Outsider #Plan #Time #Warners

[jewelridersarchive]

She-ra & Reboot Culture

Why do we love seeing new versions of the same thing? Is it simple nostalgia? Is it the desire to engage with some sort of content that once moved us in a new and different way? Is it new creators wanting to stamp something they loved from their own childhood with their mark? Or is it all of the above?

I’m not immune to loving reboots. I devoured the new DuckTales on Disney XD, I’m reading the new Rainbow Brite comics from Dynamite, I’m watching the new iteration of Will & Grace, and continue to watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Reboots are fun; they not only allow fans who loved something to have a nostalgia party, but also allow potential new fans entry points into what sometimes appears to be never-ending streams of content (I’m looking at you, Transformers). But things seem out of hand when even ReBoot, the mid-90s CGI cartoon, has a reboot on Netflix (ReBoot: The Guardian Code). Have reboots become the “safe,” risk-averse way companies can cash in on portfolio properties that already have known fanbases? It’s the equivalent of an artist only drawing fanart because they know it will get thousands of likes versus hundreds on original content.

And I fully admit some level of fatigue with franchises that just keep chugging along, seemingly forever. Every movie that comes out seems to want to be a tentpole franchise builder. Or a reboot of an existing franchise, or a soft reboot that only takes some elements going forward, or an alternate universe or…well, you get the idea.

I love original content. One of the best shows I watched this year was Alex Hirsch’s Gravity Falls (yes, I know I’m rather late to the game). It was a bright spot of originality, something new and not tied to any other content or previous iteration. Many of the anime I watch and enjoy are either original or straight adaptations of an existing manga. I think original content and ideas are important in entertainment. They allow a generation to experience a piece of entertainment in its prime, and have something uniquely “theirs.” Kids of the 60s had Star Trek, kids of the 70s had Star Wars, kids of 80s will always be the original audience for Jem & the Holograms and He-Man/She-Ra, kids of the 90s will always have X-Men TAS and Sailor Moon. (And PGJR, of course haha). No matter if they are rebooted down the road or not, that original experience belongs to the original viewers.

Which is why it’s always hilarious to me when people who hate on the new version of something say “It’s ruining my childhood!” Your childhood is whatever it was, frozen in time. Those original cartoons obviously still exist, and if you have the desire you can watch most of them. A reboot doesn’t destroy the original, no matter how many changes it makes to the original idea. The best reboots can often give us (as adults) what we thought we were watching as children. And often, the reboot can drive traffic back to seek out the original, as adults want to share with children the version they loved at that age.

Which brings us to She-Ra. I didn’t watch any He-Man or She-Ra as a child, for whatever reason. I found He-Man & the Masters of the Universe through the 2002 anime-influenced incarnation (also a great reboot IMO), then went back and watched the 1983 cartoon, followed by the 1985 She-Ra: Princess of Power. I loved it all. Sure, sometimes it was goofy, and there was lots of animation reuse in the older versions, but the core concepts were really strong. They are classic good vs evil, freedom vs tyranny stories, told with engaging casts and crazy creative worlds.

I powered through all 93 episodes of She-Ra during the summer of 2010 while I studied for my board exams. It holds the special place of being the series I turned to to relieve the stress of studying. I love the 80s fantasy girl designs, the color schemes, the powers, the sheer kookiness of the side characters. She-Ra was the OG American magical girl, and I finally understood what all the fuss over this franchise was about. She-Ra feels iconic in the way that characters like Wonder Woman and Sailor Moon do. Yes, she starts out as a spin-off of the successful He-Man franchise, but he makes very few appearances in She-Ra’s cartoon.

But after her initial run, She-Ra remained a virtually dormant property for the next 30 years. He-Man had two different reboots in 1991 and 2002, but She-Ra was stuck in limbo. Only once the Masters of the Universe Classics collectible figure from Mattel released in 2010 did She-Ra finally see the light of day again. Story-wise, the bios on the back of the toy packages gave us a little info about She-Ra’s further adventures, but it wasn’t until the 2012/2013 Masters of the Universe comic from DC that She-Ra comes back, this time in the guise of the villainous Despara. It’s a dark but interesting take on the characters; an exploration of what being raised by the Evil Horde would really do to a person.

Interestingly, this seems to be the jumping-off point for the new “She-Ra and the Princesses of Power” animated series from Dreamworks and Netflix. This show takes as its central theme the relationship between Adora and Catra. When Adora finds the sword that lets her turn into She-Ra, she leaves the Horde – an organization to which she has devoted her life. Almost more importantly, she leaves behind Catra, her best friend. It’s this broken relationship that informs the emotional tone of the rest of the show.

Unlike the 80s version, this time around the Rebellion knows Adora’s identity as She-Ra. It’s an interesting change – shows of the 80s were obsessed with secret identities, and sometimes it could get ridiculous making up excuses for what happened to the other identity of the character every time. Thankfully, that is avoided here, and instead of angst over whether or not you can let people know the real you, we are treated to relationships that ask whether we can accept someone who we know has wronged us before.

Much has been made over this update’s reworking of the body types and ethnicities of the main princesses. While I confess not loving all the updated designs and missing the 80s fairytale warrior goddesses of the original, I understand and fully support the change. Reboots are about viewing something old through the lens of today, and audiences of today want to see themselves in the media they watch or read. We can’t (and shouldn’t) go back to mostly-white casts. The world is a rainbow of colors, and the show feels richer for including them.

Speaking of rainbows, I have to mention the new show’s decidedly queer bent. The relationship between Adora and Catra is somewhere between ex-best-friends and ex-girlfriends in tone. Netossa and Spinerella, long shipped by the fandom, are finally outed in a true relationship this time around. Other characters like Scorpia, Bow, and Entrapta all tap into queer mannerisms and norms as well. The end result is unlike anything else I’ve ever seen in children’s entertainment, and I couldn’t be happier. I wish I’d had something similar as a child, but I’m grateful today’s queer kids have their own heroes.

When we talk about a successful reboot, what are we looking for? Here’s what I think a good reboot need to accomplish.

Bring the characters and concepts of the original property up to date for current audiences.

Explore the characters or world in new and different ways.

Add depth to the original concept.

She-Ra and the Princesses of Power does all of these in spades. I think it’s the nicest treatment an 80s female-driven property has gotten in a reboot. The show is full of strong characters with interesting dynamics, great writing, and interesting world building. Yes, some of the episodes can be a bit predictable and the designs are not always my favorite, but everything works together toward a greater whole. I won’t spoil the story for you, because seriously if you haven’t watched this, get thee to Netflix and enjoy!

For the Honor of Grayskull!

Chris

P.S. Can you imagine getting a ✨Princess Gwenevere and the Jewel Riders✨ reboot that brought all this to the table? I’d die!

Read the complete blog at The Jewel Riders Archive! http://www.jewelridersarchive.com/posts/she-ra-the-princesses-of-power-and-reboot-culture/