True, though I feel like that was one of the big Disney+ selling points, that people could share all of those Disney classics with their kids and grandkids.

I have really enjoyed going through legacy shows on Paramount+ more than new shows. Cheers, Frasier, Taxi, Wings, the list goes on.

Oh it is absolutely a huge selling point, at least to me. I love watching stuff like Gargoyles with my kids, and revamps like X-men '97? More please.

But the conversation around Disney + are just full of complaints once the originals started slowing down or being lackluster. Having an "always there" backlog is great for consumers, particularly for peace of mind, but driving new subscriptions/selling content to other services or direct to consumer? not so much. Particularly when they're paying royalties just for being on the service regardless of whether anyone watches them.

I didn't say no new shows, I just said live within the budget. Have the new shows, but don't overspend on them.

I think it's different with Disney though. I think their backlog is much more important to Disney+ prescribers. And they don't have to pay for royalties for their backlog since they own everything that's on there. So if they're even struggling then I can see how it would be difficult for other studios with their streaming service.

Although I do agree a lot of their problems have been brought upon themselves. Devaluing their movies, especially Pixar and having out of control production costs with their Disney+ shows.

Going back to Paramount, I find their shows, Star Trek really, to look absolutely incredible. Much better than anything Disney is producing and while I'm sure they're paying a pretty penny as well I don't hear nearly as much about rampant cost overruns like you do with Disney+ shows.

Just to clarify, I meant royalties to the actors and creators, not to other companies. It was a big thing in the last actors/writers strike so I assume it will only get worse (for the companies having to pay out). Just something existing on their service means they have to pay out something constantly even if nobody watches it.

As for Trek it's definitely one of their premiere franchises, but making it exclusive to a service runs the risk of alienating their potential reach in a way that Disney may not face due to still having theatrical releases. Diehard trek fans will seek it out, of course, but is the audience broadening?

I will say their commercials are fantastic for showing the kind of stuff that's on the service considering most people couldn't tell you what properties belong to Paramount.

BTW seems like it hit a snag (again):
https://www.reuters.com/business/med...rs-2024-06-04/

Shari Redstone, Paramount End Talks With Skydance – Report
https://deadline.com/2024/06/shari-r...ce-1235970595/

Redstone obviously not heeding DJariya's warning...

I and others in the public don't know all the fine print and dynamics of this potential deal. But, for a studio that is basically dying and having the potential to merge with the production company that helped produce massive hits for you like Top Gun: Maverick and the Mission Impossible series, it seemed like a good pairing.

This doesn't look good...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...ts-1235931990/

Also the entire history of MTV is now gone...

https://www.showbiz411.com/2024/06/2...-20-plus-years

Well start by cutting two thirds of that workforce immediately

I think the only thing MTV has played for the last five or so years is something called Ridiculousness and shitty movies from the 90s and 00s.

I don't get it. Every single music video that was made in the 80s & 90s has been destroyed? As well as every VMA performance from the past 30 years? Are we now supposed to pretend that music in the 80s and 90s never even existed?

No, the MTV news website and its archives have been shuttered and deleted. MTV doesn’t own the rights to music videos and performance shows. Those all belong to the labels and production companies.


https://variety.com/2024/digital/new...ne-1236047163/

(They're pretending that Kurt Loder doesn't exist)

mtv.com

All Paramount owned sites have been scrubbed. They just re-direct you to Paramount+

Yikes. That's a gigantic, desperate move.

Hollywood is collapsing before our very eyes. You get the distinct impression L.A. won't be the entertainment capital of the world in about 20 years.

^^ let our AI overlords take over now and maybe they can save some money.

I wish the younger Sumner from about 1998 could come back and see the mess his daughter has made. It was his greatest fear to see the empire he built slowly destroyed by his family once he handed it over to them. And now we get to watch his daughter do it. I just dont understand her reasoning. It almost seems like she wants these deals to fail until she has to sell everything piecemeal and ruin her father's legacy. I suppose in a way she already has. Horrible family.

The person that is still relevant in news media/reporting that came from MTV is SuChin Pak.

Comedy Central was scrubbed too. Decades of Daily Show clips gone.

Gideon Yago was also pretty cool but he became a Hollywood screenwriter and producer when he left MTV. He wrote a lot of the episodes for that show Manhattan.

Paramount and Skydance reached a tentative agreement to merge. Yup they changed their minds after the talks fell apart.

X - Formerly Twitter

Is this... Is this Inception?!