Home to reviews of The Simpsons Shorts.
New reviews on Tuesdays and YouTube videos I upload every Friday.
Geeks and Jocks Podcast on Anchor at https://anchor.fm/ryan-sullivan1gaj
Streaming is the hot thing. Netflix knows that. But they are also looking for that extra income. Most people share accounts. I'd argue that it's nice to share one with family. And that's why the streaming giant is looking into password sharing and putting in potential countermeasures if there is any. I understand where they are coming from, but the costs are also a factor into getting one of these apps.
I believe Netflix is 14 dollars a month. A years worth with it unaltered would be nearly 170. Only HBO Max is more pricier, but it's a ten dollar difference if I remember correctly and more quality content. Original content is something to gravitate to, but there was the abundance of shows from prime time and cable networks. That is disappearing with the rise of these other apps that offer a lot for less costs. It's why they are hedging their bets on stuff like The Gray Man and whatever TV shows they believe can succeed.
It's an uphill climb for the competitors, though. Peacock lost nearly a billion according to a report. Who knows what Paramount Plus is going to do since we're a few months away from summer and potentially the end of the pandemic. Hulu is still around. HBO Max has some huge names, but that price may keep people away. Netflix still has reason to exist, but can it sustain itself over the next couple of years? I wouldn't say no immediately, but you never know if there is a huge drop off. Especially with the password sharing cracking down. They have to keep relevancy in their hands and make an extra effort to get and keep people going to their service. The market is finicky to guess. But don't think it will die out.
Streaming is the hot thing over the last couple of years. Every studio is cashing in on it. What you could find on some of the older apps are disappearing. Netflix is one that has lost some big name movies and shows to stuff like Peacock. They got original stuff, but to stay relevant, that's what they will have to rely on. Two movies got mentioned not too long ago.
The first is The Gray Man. It's based on a series of books from author Mark Greaney. He has done many spy type books, including ones done by Tom Clancy after Clancy's passing. The film is being handled by the Russo Brothers (Anthony and Joe) and so far has casted a number of actors. Their Gray Man, according to elitedaily.com, is set to be played by Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans plays the nemesis of Gray Man. Some other notables include Billy Bob Thornton and Alfre Woodard. A very pricey movie at 200 million dollars, beating out The Irishman by about 25 percent more.
This is a huge gamble. With The Irishman, you have Martin Scorsese and his reputation for stuff like Goodfellas and Casino. You know that cast will be putting up a very strong effort. And Goodfellas was based on a book as well. I'm assuming Gray Man's budget is for one film. I hope it isn't. The Russo's track record is mostly Marvel films. Some of their actors will drive viewers to Netflix. But if they want the book readers, they better follow what made the series of books must reads. Otherwise, this is something that could sink Netflix for a little bit. It's looking like it will come out next year.
The next film is Thunder Force. I'm assuming a bit cheaper, but probably expensive. It's a superhero film helmed by Ben Falcone. This is a comedy with Falcone's wife, Melissa McCarthy, as the lead alongside Octavia Spencer. I'm not sure people will bite on it, but these two actresses do get people interested. How much, I'm not sure. Something a little less serious for Spencer and a little variety to her film resume. I can't remember the last film McCarthy did lately. There was a couple from a few years ago. I would think this would do okay. Word of mouth will determine whether it gets watched or not. It comes out next month in early April.
I'm sure there's plenty of more examples, but for Netflix to survive, they will have to adapt to modern times. It's a matter of whether long time or newcomer viewers will want to stick to the subscription and if the content justifies the spending of money per month for the films and shows.
There has been some criticism lately over this new Netflix show, Prank Encounters. It has something to do with pranking people who unknowingly think there's a job to be had when there is not. Even before it's debut, it was getting a lot of heat. I can't say anything regarding it since I don't watch Netflix, but it is a bit different from other prank shows.
The closest thing I can think of is Jackass. It was more than just pranking, though. You had stunts with skateboards, bikes, getting hurt. Friends hurting each other. Very rarely in the movies did they do stuff to the public like the golf course air horn in the first or the grandpa bit in the second. I don't think those guys were too vicious, but it could if they wanted to.
Of course, we got Impractical Jokers. That focus is entirely on making the group of four embarrassed to do what they are told to do. They refuse, they lose. It is rather light hearted, which is shocking, but that's not a bad thing. There are times where they do believe they go out of line, hence the losing and even some of the punishments. I'm talking the tarantula punishment, skydiving out of a plane, acting like a superhero on a cable car. Some of them, while not overly vicious, can be a little dangerous.
If people are aware of the prank, they will have their face shown. If they don't, they'll be blurred. I just think people don't want to see others get screwed when it comes to jobs. Maybe the episodes aren't too bad and it is not given a chance. I don't know. But who knows. It could have an effect on Prank Encounters and how long it lasts.
The go to sites for streaming is Netflix and Hulu. They have provided their share of programming that is from other companies along with material they have created themselves. There are also sites like Amazon and a few others that have jumped into this craze, but a couple more could spell disaster for them.
I'm talking about Disney and NBC. These two are set to have their own streaming services in the next year or two. Disney has a huge backlog of films and shows they can put on there. Their own stuff, Lucasfilm and Marvel. With Fox, a lot more can be added. They are sitting on thousands of well known stuff. How can it go wrong? Depends on the price and what films Disney censors. It would mean butchered versions of specific films or ones that will never see the light of day like Song of the South.
The NBC one is interesting. My main question is what they own. Mainly what they had made before Universal and Comcast. Something like Fresh Prince I don't see being on there because of Warner Brothers involvement. Having a competitor would not bode well. The same could also apply to shows Universal had on other networks that aren't NBC or Comcast affiliated. I guess unless CBS, ABC, or Fox were involved, they would go to the service next year. There are a lot of movies and shows that can make up a good lot of of the streaming. It may not be deep like Disney, but it shouldn't bore anyone, either.
I think we are heading towards a new era where individual companies are having streaming for themselves. The question lies in how much people are willing to spend and when too many ruin it for everyone.
Since the Harvey Weinstein scandals of sexually harassing people (how true it is, I don't know), there have been all sorts of stories from a number of celebrities and non-celebrities of things that happened to them. One example is Terry Crews saying he got assaulted by a producer when Weinstein's incidents came out. Netflix has caught wind of Kevin Spacey's sexual harassment and has decided to end their long running show, House of Cards.
I have never watched House of Cards and probably never will, but I can get why Netflix is canning it. An actor, Anthony Rapp, is claiming a story that Spacey sexually harassed him when he was 14 years old in 1985. Sites have reported the show has been halted in production. An apology has been said by Spacey, as is him getting treatment, but some are not buying it. It has been an interesting year considering certain celebrities with relationships, arrests, yada yada yada. It's hard to know who is telling the truth or not.
There's always these questions as to why these "victims" never report their crimes on them. I think it's fear. Especially with a celebrity, they don't know if something insanely bad will happen to them. They got fans on their side if they are loved by many. There's always those superfans who will kill or maim for the sake of it. Even local stuff can happen, whether it's someone's family member, lover, whatever. Stuff that happens behind closed doors and doesn't get heard unless they go to one of those morning news shows. I'm not saying this stuff doesn't happen, but it's hard to really know what is true. Look at football player. Brian Banks. He was falsely accused of rape and lost five years of his life due to it, spending it in prison. He could have been in the NFL if some dumb woman didn't make a false story. The media gives sympathy to women and gives them an audience to talk about their fake incident.
Sidetrack aside, this is damaging to Spacey and Netflix is not taking chances on their original show. It's the kind of stuff, if true, can oust you from Hollywood. How deep this will keep going, I don't know. One thing is for sure, though. It's not over yet. With Brett Ratner being removed from Warner Brothers, there will be more people that are going to get the boot. Who it is, however, will be a big deal depending on the person involved.
For a long time, Netflix had a five star rating system. If you thought it was very good, a five or four will be doable. A three would fit as decent. Two was a cautionary rating, and one was unwatchable or very poor quality. Within this past week, the digital company that has thousands of movies and televisions shows has changed the format to a thumbs up and thumbs down format. Their vice president of product went on to say it was in the planning stages and given a test run. Ultimately, he would say that it was old news with the five star rating system.
Even though I never used the rating system for a short time on Netflix, my impression was everybody liked everything. It seemed like most of the stuff in the selections were very well liked or had a good reception. Unlike most people, I don't see the fuss. The five star system is not really a strong way to rate things unless you go half a star with whatever stars you think is worth putting up. Really, the only complaint I would have with the thumbs thing is whether people thought something was okay but wasn't awful. There's no middle ground. Personally, I would rather see a rating between one and ten with the ability to have a zero score and half star ratings.
I really wonder if Netflix was still in the beta test run and rushed it, though. For anyone living under a rock, there was a new stand up special this month featuring comedian Amy Schumer as part of an effort to get more stand ups to put their work on a streaming service. One of those examples is Dave Chappelle, which he has two specials coming out March 21st. For Schumer, her special was panned. When I mean panned, I mean very severe one star ratings. Adding more fuel to the fire was her going after alt-right people which she blames for the poor ratings. I have no doubt that while Netflix was probably planning to phase out their five star system, this seems like a big rush to fix any damage.
It's not alt-right people to fully. A lot of people, regardless of political orientation, don't like Schumer. Then again, most of the big end comedians that have shows on Comedy Central are not special. There are exceptions like Chappelle, but when you have idiots like her and Daniel Tosh, who is really unfunny, they wonder why there's an audience that doesn't laugh outside of the cable realm. Her TV show wasn't horrible, but it wasn't must see cable television. She's become a loud, fat, nut job ever since the summer of 2015 when a shooter killed a few people in a movie theater while they watched her film Trainwreck. A lot of her jokes fall flat to many. It's the same routine every time. There's accusations of her stealing jokes from other comedians, dead or alive. If she didn't go into this political tirade and rant, I really believe that Netflix wouldn't hurry with the thumbs up system in a damage controlling attempt despite the panning.
Controversy aside, is it the end of the world they changed their ratings system? No. It was flawed, and I really don't feel like people were sincere in their ratings. Other than Schumer's whining about how she was treated, it shouldn't be a huge deal. I would take it with a grain of salt and say there are better ways to do ratings. That being said, how long they go with the thumbs system is uncertain. In the end, it's something over nothing. There are worst things in the world than Netflix changing the way you rate movies.
As television has grown to where there are lots of cable networks competing, there is always a constant. That is the constant feed of commercials. In a time of watching stuff on AMC and Spike, you will always find five minutes of commercials before going back to the show or film before getting another five minutes. With that in mind, here is one that will creep up and anger people more. It is seven minutes of commercials per break.
Last year, I watched a few movies on cable. Early in the year, I watched an airing of Jackass: The Movie on MTV. It's not lengthy, but there was a point in the middle of the film where it was bombarded with two straight breaks of seven to eight minutes. A few months later, I watched the 60s version of The Jungle Book on Freeform. That film was not lengthy, either, but it was reaching points where it had some of the commercial lengths as Jackass did and had a two hour fifteen minute air time on the channel. As I look at some of these channels, it's been very evident for years that they are desperate for money and a few extra commercials is their way of getting more revenue in a time where people are going to Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and other sites to get their TV or movie fix. The thought of every channel going seven minutes is a scary one.
As of now, the biggest offender is Viacom. Most of their channels employ tactics to get extra commercials. The air times on stuff like Comedy Central, MTV, and BET is beyond absurd and stupid. Looking at what is on for films for the rest of the week, two films had three and a half hour air times. These weren't dramas or even mob films. They were comedies that aren't that long. One clocked at below an hour fifty and the other was a few minutes past two hours. The tactic might work for Viacom in the short term, but long term is going to be a rough road if it backfires.
Syndication cuts are pretty obvious when it boils down to TV shows, but that's for another topic if it gets made. The tactic is time compression, which is speeding up shows to fit in the half hour time span of the syndicated version of the show to get more commercial time. Some movies do that, but they go more for cutting stuff for both time and content. This was a big deal a few years ago when sites and a few entertainment shows talked about a video one did on YouTube in 2013 on Seinfeld reruns ten years earlier at the time. He did a test in 2015 to see how much of a difference it was and it was sped up a little more.
It's not just TBS. It's pretty much the case with any network that has shows up until the 90s to early 2000s. Even some of the early SpongeBob SquarePants episodes suffer because of the era it was in. Yeah, original content like The Walking Dead may get millions of viewers, but for anyone wanting reruns of shows, the choice is obvious now these days. Networks are still going to wonder why they keep losing viewership. Netflix, Hulu, and other sites have access to all episodes of a show and barring certain things like Saturday Night Live and South Park, should be uncut and unaltered. You can watch as many times as you want before deals expire on shows.
Movies, on the other hand, is tougher. It's hard to know when a deal can be made on some films, popular or unpopular. Networks envy the most recent ones and try to get them on HBO or Showtime before going to a cable network like FX or AMC. Companies are making deals to stream exclusively on one platform, though, making them adjust pretty well to the modern era of watching things. Unfortunately, not every film will make it to an online site and unless you're not able to find on DVD or Blu-ray, you might be stuck with the cable version.
Could we see a time where there is ten minutes of commercials in one break? I hope not. With losing viewership from a number of networks (some of which cannot be blamed on commercials) and rising costs per household, it could be a reality that will be dreaded, even if you are dedicated to something like a 15-hour South Park marathon. Only time will tell, and it may look no good.
