Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Disney is playing with fire [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iron_mike wrote:
jkca1 wrote:
Take a look at everything Disney owns:


http://disney.wikia.com/...sets_owned_by_Disney


Then couple the above with offers to theme parks that will only be available to Disney subscribers. Then toss in all the toy companies that want your money. Yes, this could be a very lucrative business if done right. And it's only the beginning.


just for laughs, do you know what the global merchandising take was for the 'cars' movies?



over $10 billion.


by 2011.

That's crazy. Every time Disney launches a new franchise like HSM or the Descendants I hear those cash registers ringing. And what girl does not have a back to school Disney Princess lunchbox?

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Disney absolutely resonates with my 5y/o son.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is it Disney or simply cartoons.
My boy was 5 about 9 years ago. He loved cartoons like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles - but all were Pixar and not Disney. I know Disney now owns Pixar, but Pixar seems to have lost its spark since the takeover

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Have you asked any kids?

"Pixar has produced eighteen feature films, beginning with Toy Story (1995), which was the first-ever computer-animated feature film, and its most recent being Cars 3 (2017). All 18 of its films have debuted with CinemaScore ratings of at least an "A−," indicating positive receptions with audiences"

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Guffaw wrote:
Is it Disney or simply cartoons.
My boy was 5 about 9 years ago. He loved cartoons like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles - but all were Pixar and not Disney. I know Disney now owns Pixar, but Pixar seems to have lost its spark since the takeover

Disney and Pixar seem to be doing fine. Sure, Pixar hasn't had the blockbusters like at their beginning, but they were on an unreal hot streak for awhile. There was no way they could keep up that pace.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
Everyone already has Netflix. Who wants to pay for another streaming service? If you already have cable and a DVR I'm sure it's full of Disney movies.
Not everyone has Netflix. I got rid of it a while ago as the catalog gets smaller and smaller. I also got rid of cable a long time ago, so I have old Disney stuff but none of the new stuff. If they charge $10/month for all their TV (including ABC) and Movies (including Marvel and Star Wars) I would probably bite.
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [mck414] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mck414 wrote:
I wonder if Disney would actually build a service from the ground up. Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase an existing service? Not saying they'd buy Netflix. I'm not overly plugged into the industry, but are there any streaming services (Vudu, Hulu, Sling, etc) that may be getting short on cash? That could be an attractive purchase for Disney. Snatch up a existing service with an already existing customer base, and content licenses other than Disney owned.

IIRC....

Vudu is owned by Walmart. Sling is owned by Dish. Hulu is owned by a consortium which includes Disney. None of those players are remotely short on cash.

The real question here is how much longer Netflix can survive. Their cash burn is phenomenal and, IMO, the accounting practices they're using to show positive earnings are questionable at best.
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Endo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here's an example of how f'ed the native Netflix recommendations are: I watched Hoffa (Jack Nicholson movie). A few days later my Netflix "Because you watched Hoffa" recommendations included Curious George, A Halloween Boo Fest and The Andy Griffith Show. How their algorithm includes either of those two for Hoffa is beyond me. There were others that didn't seem to fit also, but those being the two most puzzling.




Endo wrote:
MidwestRoadie wrote:
Netflix has an absolutely awful UI for finding movie content. I think they have enough stuff worth watching, but it can be difficult to navigate through and find worthwhile content. Search by actor & get only a few results for the movies Netflix offers that they're in. Search by genre and get only what Netflix thinks you might want to watch, which is fairly random. I don't know of a streaming service that's really nailed that experience, although I'd expect Netflix to be farther ahead than they are in that area given their dominance.


I usually take it up a level on searches, using your content box (Roku box or Amazon fire box) to do searches. It will bring you all it finds across all apps you have, along with prices. Roku used to have a.good search interface. I've switched to Amazon Fire now, and theirs is a bit less agnostic, and tends to favor Prime offerings in the top of searches.

.
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Guffaw wrote:
So apparently Disney is planning to pull its catalogue of cartoons and family fare off Netflix so it can launch its own online streaming network.

Will people get a subscription to another streaming service so the rug-rats can watch Frozen and Cinderella? The Disney brand does not seem to resonate with the kids today.
Netflix is now a goliath in the TV entertainment industry. I can't imagine Netflix can't create its own high quality kids shows.
What is the ST perspective?

The question should be how long can Netflix keep hemorrhaging money. Now that other companies are seeing someone drop the once goliath netflix, they are going to start looking at their options. Once that starts, memberships start to drop from Netflix and then investors stop investing and the stock price tanks.
Personally, with a 4 and 6 year old at home, I am more likely to subscribe to a Disney channel than I am Netflix (I do have a Netflix subscription now). They are in for some trying times in the next few years in my opinion.
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [M~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Netflix can only stream the movies that studios (owners of the movies) allow it to stream.

It also dictates which movies Netflix can rent a la carte on their DVD service and they also control which movies Netflix does not have access to.

I assume that if Netflix was able to secure a license agreement to do a pay per view to rent movies (like Amazon), they would. I have no idea why Netflix has not been able to translate their program of a fixed number of DVD rentals monthly through the mail (for an additional fee) to a pay per stream model. It has to be fairly easy for them technically to implement, so I'm guessing it is all due to studios not willing to grant them a license to do that (for a reasonable price).

.
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Endo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pay per stream is always expensive. I think the problem with the rental and pay per stream is Amazon has driven the price of DVD or bluray down so much that it doesn't make sense.

If I go onto Comcast and rent a movie it's like 5 bucks. If I'm thinking about ever watching it more than once it makes more sense to go buy it for 10-20 and have it instead of paying every time. The payperview model is really tough now it seems.
Quote Reply
Re: Disney is playing with fire [Endo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Endo wrote:
Netflix can only stream the movies that studios (owners of the movies) allow it to stream.

It also dictates which movies Netflix can rent a la carte on their DVD service and they also control which movies Netflix does not have access to.

I assume that if Netflix was able to secure a license agreement to do a pay per view to rent movies (like Amazon), they would. I have no idea why Netflix has not been able to translate their program of a fixed number of DVD rentals monthly through the mail (for an additional fee) to a pay per stream model. It has to be fairly easy for them technically to implement, so I'm guessing it is all due to studios not willing to grant them a license to do that (for a reasonable price).

.

Up to this point the studios have been reluctant to say no to Netflix as they were seen as the giant and "the place to be" if you wanted to get your content seen. Studios are now looking at other options as they are becoming more available and easier to do themselves.
Quote Reply

Prev Next