Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 09 2018, @10:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the should-have-scene-it-coming dept.

CNBC:

Disney's new streaming service will be called Disney+ and launch in late 2019, CEO Bob Iger announced on the company's earnings call Thursday.

The company announced in August 2017 it would pull all its movies from Netflix in 2019, and start its own streaming offering for its past titles. Disney also purchased Fox for $71.3 billion in cash and stock, further bolstering its library.

The service will also feature new, original shows and movies, including original Marvel and Star Wars series. Marvel fan favorite character Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, will get an original series on the Disney+ service. A prequel series to Star Wars movie "Rogue One" about the character Cassian Andor, portrayed by Diego Luna, will also call the service home.

Are these streaming services the second coming of Cable?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Saturday November 10 2018, @12:17AM (9 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday November 10 2018, @12:17AM (#760159)

    I know how to use Pirate Bay and friends, cut the cable 6 months ago when my rate went from $120/month (which was too much but whatever) to $140 (yeah, how about no).

    Given what I've downloaded over the past 6 months I'm good to go for a year. 6 feet under, Star Trek Discovery, Altered Carbon. Couldn't watch any of them before. Young Sheldon, Supernatural, and Survivor? Yeah, I'm guessing in 6 months I'll be able to download them.

    In other words, give me what I want for a fair price, or I'll find another way to watch what I want.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:28AM (8 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:28AM (#760184) Journal

    All these million streaming services are also a giant pain in the ass. I had no problem with the netflix model, at it's core: buy millions of cheap licenses at let people watch what they want, until you run out, renew the cost effective licenses.

    But "exclusives" are hell, and trying to figure out who provides what thing is just... yeah, back to piracy.

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:35AM (7 children)

      by legont (4179) on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:35AM (#760193)

      I watch what I can pirate. If I can't pirate it, too bad, I am not watching that shit. But honestly, there is nothing that they produced over the last three decades worse even pirating.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:37AM (5 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:37AM (#760195) Journal

        Yeah, I think maybe you just don't like things. Even if you don't like corporate overproduced trash, there's lots out there.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by legont on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:51AM

          by legont (4179) on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:51AM (#760200)

          Well, may be, but I don't think so. I still can find lots of good books. Movies, on the other hand, are trash with rare exeptions.

          --
          "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday November 10 2018, @03:19PM (2 children)

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday November 10 2018, @03:19PM (#760352) Journal

          No, Hollywood has some significant problems, and it is reasonable to say most movies are trash. Hollywood is awesome with the visuals. They try hard to get the looks fantastic, dramatic and exciting, and they spare no expense on that. They've really come a long ways from the days of visible wires holding up the planets and spaceships in 1950s sci-fi.

          Where Hollywood routinely stumbles is the plotting. Very rare for the movie to be as good as or better than the book. Usually it's a lot worse. Sequels are another area they routinely botch. How about Highlander II? Batman and Robin? Those that aren't based on books are still full of cheese. Like, that line in Star Wars, "you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy". Arrrgh! And that movie is a supposed classic, one of the best. The Lord of the Rings movies are a case in point. Perhaps it is the very sort of "corporate overproduced trash" you mean, but the disease infects most movies. They cheapened and trivialized the plot everywhere. They reduced Gimli to a bunch of mean jokes against short people. There's that part where Gollum frames Sam for eating all the food, and Frodo believes that?!? Takes Gollum's word over Sam's? Bullshit! The battle scenes are mostly fine, but there's a brief break in the violence so an orc can deliver a majorly cheesy line "now is the age of orcs". Or, how about dropping the Scouring of the Shire entirely? I can understand leaving Tom Bombadil out, but Scouring of the Shire is an essential part of the plot. And so on. Some of what they did was to cram the story into a few hours worth of movie footage, and they ought to quit doing that. But most of the changes can't be justified by even that lame of an excuse.

          Then there's Hollywood's penchant for getting wildly "nuking the fridge" unrealistic. Real human bodies can't take a fraction of what Hollywood shows people taking. Just walk away from a horrific automobile wreck, not only survive a helicopter or plane crash but stumble out of the burning wreck still alive and largely unhurt, and if they are hurt, they heal improbably fast and completely. Huge explosions somehow never cause any concussive damage, etc.

          Disney is hugely formulaic, worse than average. And to keep things what is thought to be kid-friendly, they're the king of Bowdlerization. Deaths do happen, lots, but the Disney movie always looks away.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 10 2018, @04:00PM (1 child)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday November 10 2018, @04:00PM (#760361) Journal

            I would have enjoyed the inclusion of Tom Bombadil. That added extreme dimension to the perceived age of Middle Earth. Also, it explained how Merry and Pippin came by the swords they used to pierce the Witchking's enchantments so Eowyn could kill him. Without Bombadil, the struggle against Sauron is the sum total of what has happened in Middle Earth; with Bombadil it's an impermanent altercation against an eternal background.

            Agree on the Scouring of the Shire.

            It seems to me the underlying problem with Hollywood is that they tell the same stories over and over again with the same cast of characters. There are many more interesting story structures actually out there, but they don't make it to the big screen intact. It's probably because they don't test well with focus groups. I am still surprised that Cloud Atlas ever got made; it was a difficult story structure to follow but it came together nicely in the end.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday November 11 2018, @04:02AM

              by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday November 11 2018, @04:02AM (#760560) Journal

              I also would have liked to see Tom Bombadil, played by Robin Williams.

        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday November 11 2018, @08:56AM

          by Bot (3902) on Sunday November 11 2018, @08:56AM (#760607) Journal

          Have you watched enough pre 1990 stuff to say it's equivalent to newer stuff? Top productions now feature characters that have trouble attaining the depth of those in the Dukes of Hazzard.

          As for the political correctness in the newer stuff, it is commendable to present the main character as a spotless saint (yes it has spots but those are artificial and bound to be overcome by the end of the show), but you would know what risks it entails... if you only watched the final part of Dr Jekyll e gentile signora, a B series movies, in the original version with subtitles.

          --
          Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:46PM

        by stretch611 (6199) on Saturday November 10 2018, @01:46PM (#760338)

        That's bull... there is a lot of decent stuff out there. Some is even worth buying if it wasn't overpriced and full of BS DRM. Sadly, piracy is an answer.

        I will admit to one thing though.... There is a ton of crap out there... regurgitated plot lines... complete lack of innovation, reality shows (though this version of House Hunters [NSFW-Language] [youtube.com] seems interesting)

        It does not matter what type of media you prefer... Music, Video, Programs/Games... There are a few good titles... but to find them you have to wade through a ton of crap.

        --
        Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P