|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2018 2:43:22 GMT -5
SO because of a clause in the initial contract with Netflix,none of the Marvel characters and/shows can be used elsehwere for 2 years after the cancellation of the Netflix series. So the earliest these characters can be used again by Marvel anywhere else would be late 2018, later for Jessica Jones and the Punisher which haven't officially been cancelled yet. So that Disney streaming service nor any future MCU films cannout use Daredevil, Luke Cage or Iron Fist for a 2 year period, and cannot offer the shows on the service if Netflix removes them for that period. -M |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,384
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 13, 2018 6:07:45 GMT -5
Any contract can be broken if the financial benefits outweigh the financial costs, of course. Not saying Disney would necessarily go that route, but they certainly have deeper pockets than Netflix.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 13, 2018 6:41:02 GMT -5
Any contract can be broken if the financial benefits outweigh the financial costs, of course. Not saying Disney would necessarily go that route, but they certainly have deeper pockets than Netflix. Agreed, if Disney thinks it can make more money by paying Netflix and producing its own follow-ups to JJ and DD, it will. It paid billions for Star Wars after all, and that turned out to be a good investment. Netflix doesn’t have to agree, though, because even despite the recent tanking of the stock market, its valuation is huge (it was even worth more than Disney for a while last spring). But there would be little incentive for it to just prevent Disney from using the characters if Netflix itself can’t profit from it... much better to settle for several millions more. None of which concerns me much, alas, because I definitely will not subscribe to any Disney streaming channel. I have neither the time nor the money to devote to multiple streaming services; if that’s the way the industry wants to go, I’ll just go all grumpy man again, unplug everything and complain how better things were when there was only one channel on the black and white TV. (There are the always the old DVDs, too)! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2018 10:07:16 GMT -5
I have neither the time nor the money to devote to multiple streaming services; if that’s the way the industry wants to go, I’ll just go all grumpy man again, unplug everything and complain how better things were when there was only one channel on the black and white TV. (There are the always the old DVDs, too)! I feel the same way. My daughters however have no cable and subscribe to multiple streaming sites. They also don't watch TV shows week to week anymore. They binge watch one show at a time until they finish a season. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 13, 2018 10:23:18 GMT -5
I have no interest in signing up for another streaming service for niche programming. Hulu and Netflix provide me with more than enough to watch.
I still buy DVDs/Blu-Ray for true "on-demand" viewing. If Netflix decides to no longer carry Supernatural, I have every season (except #13) on DVD. They usually go on deep discount in the spring at places like Target, Best Buy and Walmart; I got Season 12 at Target in May for $10. If I want to watch any of the first two waves of Marvel movies, they're already sitting on the shelf in my finished basement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Dec 13, 2018 11:09:04 GMT -5
Money can make anything happen. We never thought we'd see Spidey in the MCU fold, and Marvel made it happen. It just depends on whether Disney sees the Netflix side as being valuable enough to pay off Netflix instead of waiting it out. I think it also depends on the specific language of the contract and timing -- whether Disney is prevented from *showing* these characters within that two year window, or is also prevented from actively developing anything. If it's the former, I could envision a best-case scenario where Marvel goes ahead and starts writing and filming new seasons of the shows during the non-compete period so that they are ready to stream as soon as the two-year period is up.
I think something like that would need to happen in order for the current versions to remain viable. If Marvel is not even allowed to work on these shows during that time, then I think the gig is up. The actors are not going to sit around and hope that these shows come back. They are going to look for other work, and if they get signed to a series, then that'll effectively make them unavailable to continue the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 13, 2018 11:48:33 GMT -5
As I've said numerous times, the Balkanization of streaming services will simply ensure that people get the content by less than legal means. I'm not saying that that's right. But it will happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2018 12:32:35 GMT -5
Agreed - seen the same thing with music and DVDs and the streaming content providers are making the same mistake: if you make it harder or less pleasant to get media legitimately people will get it illicitly; it's not just a price thing (though it moresoo is with the multiplication of streaming services) it's also about the user experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 14, 2018 10:50:37 GMT -5
Agreed - seen the same thing with music and DVDs and the streaming content providers are making the same mistake: if you make it harder or less pleasant to get media legitimately people will get it illicitly; it's not just a price thing (though it moresoo is with the multiplication of streaming services) it's also about the user experience. Amazon is working diligently to become a hub through which the different streaming services are routed. On Amazon, you can rent streaming videos, or buy them by the film, episode, or season. You can also subscribe to all the Starz content. We subscribe to Britbox through Amazon streaming and have access to all the classic and modern Doctor Who episodes (the main attraction for us) and lots of otther BBC programming. No "The Avengers" yet though. Netflix clearly recognized that the writing was on the wall, and the other studios were going to make it cost-prohibitive for them to keep access to other people's content, so they bit the bullet and invested in original content preemptively. Still, we all miss the early days of streaming Netflix when they seemed to have everything under one roof. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Dec 14, 2018 11:34:20 GMT -5
Agreed - seen the same thing with music and DVDs and the streaming content providers are making the same mistake: if you make it harder or less pleasant to get media legitimately people will get it illicitly; it's not just a price thing (though it moresoo is with the multiplication of streaming services) it's also about the user experience. Amazon is working diligently to become a hub through which the different streaming services are routed. On Amazon, you can rent streaming videos, or buy them by the film, episode, or season. You can also subscribe to all the Starz content. We subscribe to Britbox through Amazon streaming and have access to all the classic and modern Doctor Who episodes (the main attraction for us) and lots of otther BBC programming. No "The Avengers" yet though. Netflix clearly recognized that the writing was on the wall, and the other studios were going to make it cost-prohibitive for them to keep access to other people's content, so they bit the bullet and invested in original content preemptively. Still, we all miss the early days of streaming Netflix when they seemed to have everything under one roof. The problem with Amazon's model is that they make you pay twice -- once for the Amazon Prime subscription, and then again for the channel you want to subscribe to. Why should I do that instead of subscribing to the channel directly? It would be a different story if those channels were included as part of the Amazon Prime package, but they're not so I don't see the appeal. I'm a legacy Netflix subscriber (from back before they had streaming and it was all DVDs), so between Netflix and Hulu Plus, I could watch pretty much everything I wanted if I was willing to wait for certain shows to be made available on streaming or DVD. I've also had Amazon Prime for a long time, since before they introduced video streaming, but I barely use the video side of it. We cut the cord a long time ago because we felt like we were getting more than enough entertainment with the couple of streaming services we used, and it was cheaper than cable. All these companies wanting to go their own way and creating their own streaming services seem to be forgetting this. At some point, people are not going to want to pony up for a million individual streaming services. I'd rather there be a couple of services with broad selection. I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan, but I'm not going to sign up for CBS All Access just for 1 or 2 shows. Same for Disney, DC Unlimited, or whatever else is out there. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 14, 2018 11:56:25 GMT -5
Amazon is working diligently to become a hub through which the different streaming services are routed. On Amazon, you can rent streaming videos, or buy them by the film, episode, or season. You can also subscribe to all the Starz content. We subscribe to Britbox through Amazon streaming and have access to all the classic and modern Doctor Who episodes (the main attraction for us) and lots of otther BBC programming. No "The Avengers" yet though. Netflix clearly recognized that the writing was on the wall, and the other studios were going to make it cost-prohibitive for them to keep access to other people's content, so they bit the bullet and invested in original content preemptively. Still, we all miss the early days of streaming Netflix when they seemed to have everything under one roof. The problem with Amazon's model is that they make you pay twice -- once for the Amazon Prime subscription, and then again for the channel you want to subscribe to. Why should I do that instead of subscribing to the channel directly? It would be a different story if those channels were included as part of the Amazon Prime package, but they're not so I don't see the appeal. I'm a legacy Netflix subscriber (from back before they had streaming and it was all DVDs), so between Netflix and Hulu Plus, I could watch pretty much everything I wanted if I was willing to wait for certain shows to be made available on streaming or DVD. I've also had Amazon Prime for a long time, since before they introduced video streaming, but I barely use the video side of it. We cut the cord a long time ago because we felt like we were getting more than enough entertainment with the couple of streaming services we used, and it was cheaper than cable. All these companies wanting to go their own way and creating their own streaming services seem to be forgetting this. At some point, people are not going to want to pony up for a million individual streaming services. I'd rather there be a couple of services with broad selection. I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan, but I'm not going to sign up for CBS All Access just for 1 or 2 shows. Same for Disney, DC Unlimited, or whatever else is out there. I was paying for the Amazon Prime subscription anyway just for the free shipping. I live in a rural town and buy tons of stuff from Amazon, including lots of TPB comics, so the free video portion of Amazon Prime is just icing for me rather than the main attraction. I haven't had cable TV for 17 years. Netflix DVDs were all we used for a long time; who has time to watch more than 2 hours a day anyway with kids? We still have the DVD component, but we keep them for a long time. I will probably sign up for streaming Disney for the kids, but not DC. The time I would spend watching superheroes on TV, I would rather spend writing reviews about comic books for this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2018 6:55:48 GMT -5
I was discussing saturation with someone recently.
Once upon a time, you had a cable package. Yes, it meant you got channels you didn't have an interest in, but it also meant that one of your channels was bound to show a series you liked.
Now I fear we're heading for saturation point with streaming. Every day I wake up to news/rumours of another streaming service. This company will do one, that company will do one, some obscure service that no-one has heard of will enter the market, etc.
Like anyone, I can't afford to sign up to multiple streaming services. I only really have Amazon Prime so I can watch Ripper Street. I do have Netflix. But Brits pay a TV licence yearly (around £150), plus there's the cost of an internet/cable package. For how much longer can we be expected to subscribe to numerous streaming services?
As Slam stated, people will seek out shows via less legal means. That doesn't make it right, but I get it. I have heard people say that, e.g. "I can't afford another streaming service, so I'll just download from elsewhere..."
Surely the old way was better? Surely it was more cost-effective to have a cable package? Yes, that meant you got Cartoon Network - and if you weren't into cartoons, that was useless - but for every Cartoon Network or whatever, you had a dozen or so channels that were useful.
|
|
