Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[Davkaus]

55 minutes ago, BOF said:

Worse is streaming services that release 1 episode at a time. See Better Call Saul on Netflix. Now people might say 'oh but I prefer them doing it that way'. That's not the point. Netflix was for bingeing. Your old telly did it 1 a week. We're going backwards.

I do think with a certain tier of show, there's a benefit from the cadence of a weekly release. Every Tuesday morning during Games of Thrones seasons, there'd be a morning chat about the episode, it fed into the excitement and encouraged more people to watch it, there were days of speculation about what might happen next week. It almost became a community event. You just don't get that when they dump the whole load on at once - people could still watch it once a week, of course, but it's not the same if everyone else is binging through it all in a week.

[Brumerican]

Just now, BOF said:

Yeah, that, the layoffs and the surprise cancelled shows are clear signs they're definitely in trouble.

They must be running out of criminals and serial killers too. I think we are about 6 months away from documentaries where the dude only kills one person in an accidental car crash.

[BOF]

1 minute ago, Brumerican said:

They must be running out of criminals and serial killers too. I think we are about 6 months away from documentaries where the dude only kills one person in an accidental car crash.

Or 6 months away from them doing a Nightcrawler/Wallace Souza and going on a spree of their own.

[Brumerican]

Just now, BOF said:

Or 6 months away from them doing a Nightcrawler/Wallace Souza and going on a spree of their own.

A Netflix doc about how Netflix pivoted to become Murder Inc 2 might be interesting .

"Well I started out at Netflix in  marketing but 3 years later here I am I'm chopping up bodies in a basement . I still cringe about my involvement in the entertainment industry if I am honest but it was the 20's and that's how we lived back then" .

[ender4]

32 minutes ago, BOF said:

Yeah, that, the layoffs and the surprise cancelled shows are clear signs they're definitely in trouble.

Are any cancelled shows by Netflix a surprise?  Its actually surprising when they don't cancel a show after season 1 or 2 and without resolution.

[BOF]

6 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Are any cancelled shows by Netflix a surprise?  Its actually surprising when they don't cancel a show after season 1 or 2 and without resolution.

I believe it's more the stuff about to go into production that was cancelled that's more of a surprise. Not the stuff that was already greenlit.

[bannedfromHandV]

When Netflix came on the scene it had no competition, fast forward to now and you’ve got multiple platforms all vying for the same content, Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Paramount+, Discovery and probably a bunch of others I haven’t included, it’s kinda gotten out of hand really.

People deride Sky, particularly in a footballing context in terms of their impact on the game (in the UK) but man, think about 10 years or so ago, they really were halcyon days. For whatever the (maximum) sky subscription was back then you could watch every new film that came out (okay, 6 months after release but still), English, Scottish, Spanish, Italian, Champions League and international football (as well as all the other sports) plus any decent TV series.

Nowadays you’d need around 6 or 7 different subscriptions to match that whilst still paying top whack for Sky.

Victory for the consumer? Abso-frickin-lutely not!!

[rjw63]

4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Nowadays you’d need around 6 or 7 different subscriptions to match that whilst still paying top whack for Sky.

Victory for the consumer? Abso-frickin-lutely not!!

Oh no I don't.

[lapal_fan]

1 minute ago, rjw63 said:

Oh no I don't.

And if it weren't for the sky subs etc, you wouldn't get pirated stuff, so it's the equivalent of tax avoidance  

You should be thanking Sky etc subs!

[Genie]

9 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

And if it weren't for the sky subs etc, you wouldn't get pirated stuff, so it's the equivalent of tax avoidance  

You should be thanking Sky etc subs!

The people who should be most grateful for the Sky subs are footballers.

[Xela]

49 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Nowadays you’d need around 6 or 7 different subscriptions to match that whilst still paying top whack for Sky.

They're not clever enough to realise people won't pay for 6 or 7 services. 1 or 2, people will pay and watch stuff legally. 6 or 7? People will cancel everything and pirate it instead. 

[Xela]

I only watch stuff now that has completed,  run its course and has ended naturally. I'm not investing time in a series only for Netflix to cancel it without a resolution because they don't want to pony up the money to make more and pay the actors more. 

 

[Anthony]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

The person who should be most grateful for the Sky subs is Rupert Murdoch.

FTFY

[Davkaus]

22 minutes ago, Anthony said:

FTFY

Sold it to Comcast years ago

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

When Netflix came on the scene it had no competition, fast forward to now and you’ve got multiple platforms all vying for the same content, Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Paramount+, Discovery and probably a bunch of others I haven’t included, it’s kinda gotten out of hand really.

People deride Sky, particularly in a footballing context in terms of their impact on the game (in the UK) but man, think about 10 years or so ago, they really were halcyon days. For whatever the (maximum) sky subscription was back then you could watch every new film that came out (okay, 6 months after release but still), English, Scottish, Spanish, Italian, Champions League and international football (as well as all the other sports) plus any decent TV series.

Nowadays you’d need around 6 or 7 different subscriptions to match that whilst still paying top whack for Sky.

Victory for the consumer? Abso-frickin-lutely not!!

I think the future will be Sky's model to no longer work and everything to be on streaming services. Sky TV plus Movies plus Sport is probably what? £70 a month?

That's 10 streaming services

[Davkaus]

Sports deciding to cut the cord could be what finishes Sky off as a dominant player. Now TV is alright, but they're not charging 50, 60, 70 quid a month without the live sports. 

[Anthony]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Sold it to Comcast years ago

Yup. 4 years ago in 2018. This is after setting it up in 91ish. He had knocking 30 years of colossal profits and got out at the perfect time.

Showing Premier league football was what made Sky profitable. If it hadn't been for the footy, Sky would have been bust.

[bannedfromHandV]

19 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think the future will be Sky's model to no longer work and everything to be on streaming services. Sky TV plus Movies plus Sport is probably what? £70 a month?

That's 10 streaming services

Yeah it’s definitely heading that way, Sky know it and hence why they brought out ‘Sky Glass’ (which I think is going to be a huge failure) as an attempt to combat it.

Personally I’d rather just have it the old way, one subscription to one platform for all content.

[OutByEaster?]

Anyone that leaves me a voicemail.

 

 

 

[Davkaus]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Anyone that leaves me a voicemail.

 

 

 

Can't remember the last time I listened to one. And people think I'm the rude one for ignoring them, not realising it's them that's being rude leaving an unsolicited voicemail.

It's not the 1990s anymore, you don't just leave a message in someone's voicemail. You may as well put your nob in my pint. Send an IM like a sane person.