Topic: The TV Show Thread

@nessisonett
Streaming would have to be profitable eventually otherwise how does Netflix, Disney, HBO, Amazon, etc all justify operating these platforms, paying licensing for shows and movies, funding their own shows and movies, the advertising involved, and the PR? Everything is motivated by money. Just because these platforms dont have to rely on box office returns or necessarily viewership doesn't mean they are not paying attention to what is attracting lots of attention vs. what isn't. This leads to companies not funding movie or tv show genres that have proven not to receive satisfactory viewership and leads them to cancel shows with low ratings and not fund movies that are especially risky. Throwing 20-150 million into a movie whose premise could alienate a significant amount of people just won't cut it for corporations. I'm not saying this is the way it should be but the reality is that there are reasons companies don't take risks. And in fact corporations almost never took risks even back in the day and just rode the coattails of whatever trend is popular at that time. Also as for artsy movies turning higher profits, not always. There's no gurantee they will succeed. And if they are profitable sure you make okay money but still nothing compared to the big bucks in blockbusters so most businesses won't even bother. Why bother going through all that work to pocket 20 million from a lower budget movie when you can pocket half a billion or more in a blockbuster?

@PegasusActual93 I’m not convinced that you’re actually following what I’m saying. Let’s say they make a new Transformers movie. That would obviously go into cinemas because it would bring in loads of money in the box office. Let’s say they make an arthouse reinterpretation of Hamlet via the disco scene that reviews well and is up for Oscars. That wouldn’t make lots of money in the box office despite the critical success therefore it is perfect for a streaming service in order to give users an impression that the service carries quality content. Streaming services literally just need people to subscribe, they don’t even need you to watch their content in order to make their money. Content created by these services inherently is run at a loss. There’s no tangible returns on the investment as they don’t release into theatres. Netflix and Apple TV+ have clearly been investing in talent though which can be seen from their award success recently. Often these critically acclaimed movies are cheaper to produce as well, which is much more of an advantage given they can’t make their money back. Something like a Marvel movie will cost a fortune to make but will make that money back easily. Therefore it makes no sense for them to stop releasing into theatres and instead putting them exclusively on Disney+. Quality generates word-of-mouth which is exactly how streaming services attract new customers. Therefore it’s much better for these streaming services to invest in talent and create content with artistic merit than to sink loads of money into blockbusters which won’t provide any return. All WB had to do was release Batgirl in theatres rather than put it onto HBO Max. It’s just not sustainable to put that much money into a probably middle of the road albeit enjoyable movie and then give it away to however many subscribers for no extra cost.

@nessisonett
I understand what you are saying but with investing talent like I am trying to express, it's still all about the money. And even if there is incentive I would argue still that artsy movies are hardly ever making companies much money or attracting many subscribers regardless. Artsy movies and academy winners are hardly ever successful. Yes CODA won best picture this year but do you think it attracted enough new subscribers for Apple TV to justify it's price tag? I doubt it. Meanwhile millions literally subscribed to Disney Plus purely just for Marvel or Star Wars. Award winners and nominees are almost always financial flops and corporations are all about the profit, profit, profit. So funding pricey projects off talent alone is not an incentive to most corporations when they don't attract enough subscribers to begin with. Netflix has learned this the hard way and them throwing money at everything like I predicted was eventually going to bite them in the ass. Because it's just not a feasible model.

Forgot to mention, but I watched Man VS Bee last weekend. It was actually pretty amusing, and definitely had some Mr. Bean energy in spots even though he wasn't specifically playing that character. I think my favorite scene may have been when he was fiddling with his pants in front of the police officer.

@colonelkilgore, @PegasusActual93, don't watch anime on Netflix (or any of the "big" streamers) unless it's an exclusive ("Netflix Original", "N Series", or whatever they're calling them these days), if you want to see the whole thing.

All the anime licensors run their own streaming services, Funimation has Funimation (being rolled into Crunchyroll) & Sentai has HiDive, where they tend to keep the full runs of their series exclusive to their platform, and only license out the first 1 or 2 seasons of a show to the big streamers.

The one exception to this rule is Hulu which has the full runs of any anime licensed by Viz, as their own streaming platform (Neon Alley) was absorbed by Hulu not long after it was released. IIRC, InuYasha is licensed by Viz, so only the first 2 seasons are available on Netflix, but Hulu has the whole thing + sequels.

Granted, I'm in the US, so the situation might be a bit different in the UK.

Finished off Under The Banner of Heaven, which is easily one of the best limited series I’ve watched in a long time. Might not be a Mormon but I think the themes would touch anyone who grew up in any sort of organised religion. The very question if extremists twist doctrine in order to justify heinous acts… or if the doctrine itself is built on shaky foundations and subject to human vices from the very writers. Had no idea until looking it up afterwards that it was created by Dustin Lance Black, who I mostly know as Tom Daley’s husband, but I’m definitely up for watching anything else he’s developed now!

@nessisonett I think that is one things that is pulling me towards the series. Although no one got murdered (as far as I know) when I was a Jehovah's Witness, some really shady things happened that got covered up. So can kinda relate to it in a weird way.

Finished Sandman series on Netflix and loved it. I am a huge fan of Neil Gaiman and have read the Sandman graphic novel multiple times. I was worried and excited to watch it. My worries were unfounded. With Neil working closely with the director the TV show stayed close to the graphic novel. The cast choices were great as well. Can't wait for more.

@LN78 I'm not sure why someone would hate the show, but I'm more lenient with differences in shows if its done well. It still has Gaimans story intact which was important to me. It just got it the main points in a few different ways. As for the audio, I heard it was fantastic, but I have not had the chance to listen to it yet.

@Elodin Think I’ll probably start it tonight. The rave reviews have totally quelled my fears about Netflix tackling it, they don’t have the best of records when it comes to adaptations. Tom Sturridge is utterly perfect casting as Dream as well!

@LN78
It seems you can never please fans with adaptations. Usually they complain when something takes too many liberties but you are telling me they are complaining with the Sandman that it's too faithful to the original? What the hell do these fanboys want?

@LN78 That’s basically my feelings with The Last of Us in terms of it being a retread of stuff we’ve seen before but then that was cinematic already. I think when it comes to a comic series or a book then I don’t mind if it’s dogmatic to the original work as the novelty of seeing iconic scenes acted out is a big draw. I did love the audio series but I’m up for watching the show because it’s still a different medium. The same is true of the Doctor Who audio plays that I’ve been getting through, a couple of those were adapted to TV and worked pretty well while being able to show off the described environments to a greater spectacle.

@LN78 @nessisonett For me live action on screen is way different than other mediums. It is hitting other stimuli. To see such a beautifully imagined world come to life in such a great way is amazing. Yes graphic novels and even audio play more so is closer to a TV adaption vs a book to TV adaptation. Also the closer to the original the better. If you love something, the more the merrier.

I hope netflix keeps trying these book/graphic novel adaptations. My number #1 book wish would be the Name of the Wind series. I think Lionsgate still owns the rights to that and last I heard Lin Manuel Miranda was writing the music for it.For graphic Novel choice i would love to see Fables or Saga. Many others as well but those are my top choices.

@Elodin I knew from your name on here you’d be into those books! Part of me feels like they would be incredibly hard to adapt without looking dodgy though, even The Witcher is a little hokey at times and look how much money was chucked at it. Saga as well, I love it but I’m not sure how well it would translate to the screen! Probably why some stories work so well as books/comics, you don’t have to really think about how it could be recreated on a screen.

@LN78
I'm confused what that she part you are saying is about, I didn't mention gender anywhere in that comment nor do I ever

Just finished up Maken-Ki season 2.

It completely ditched (what little) narrative elements the first season had, and just absolutely indulges in ridiculous fan service scenarios (in one episode for example, a neglected cat transforms all the girls in the school into cat girls, while in another a sentient perverted teddy bear spies on & gropes them at any opportunity). Apparently the studio knew they weren't going to be getting a season 3, so they just went absolutely wild with the stuff.

The only reason to watch this would be if you're interested in fan service (which at points borders on outright lewd content, especially that OVA episode), and to give it credit they don't cut corners in the animation/detail paid to it (I think practically every other fan service show I've ever seen pales in comparison to the effort this one puts in to that aspect).

@LN78
I didn't address that previous commenter I was talking about rabid fans in general. Fandoms if you prefer then.

@PegasusActual93 To be fair, “fanboys” and “fangirls” are both used, so it’s not as if fanboys is a gender-neutral term!

'Banshee' - watching this off the back of finishing off The Boys, as it also stars Anthony Starr (Homelander).

'Banshee' is a 2013 Cinemax offering, Pretty brain-dead at times, but very entertaining. Probably one of the most graphic shows I've ever seen, with quite frequent and intense violence/sex/drugs etc.... Not sure if I'd recommend this to everyone, but its interesting to see AStarr in another role. (nb. I thought he was exemplary as Homelander, and a real standout career moment)

@CJD87
Banshee was pure unapologetic mayhem. Another Cinemax offering I would recommend is The Knick. It got cancelled after two seasons but is a really good period drama that despite cancellation ended on a solid enough note.

@PegasusActual93 Yes absolutely! Real 'McDonalds TV'.... I know its bad for me, but can't tear myself away from it!
Ha OK I'll stick "The Knick" on my watch-list... after I've recovered from Banshee