Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: And show what? (Score 1) 51

I have an example elsewhere in this thread explaining that consumers have limited dollars and foreign mega-streamers exert pressure on local industry that is not proportionate.

It's a very weak argument. If they really like the local content better, they'll simply opt for that instead of Disney, especially if it's a lower price.

And yet, it doesn't work that way. The argument is - in fact - sound, because it has decades of ground under its feet. This is not new. It is merely new to AU.

I personally dislike Disney. Not because of the whole woke thing, or the vastly overused multiverse trope (and not even in a fun way like Rick and Morty.)

Rather, I never really cared for superhero franchises, except the Christopher Nolan Batman series, the original two Tim Burton Batman movies with Michael Keaton, and the first two IronMan movies (haven't yet seen the third.) The idea that superman can just defy physics at will and bounce off of literally nothing, or that a massive dose of gamma radiation turns a man into a green giant instead of simply killing him is a bit too far fetched for me. Sure, Batman and Ironman take extreme liberties with it, but at least those guys rely on technology that is in some way plausible rather than supernatural crap.

I also never particularly cared for Star Wars. I've always been more of a trekkie, and I basically see the whole series the same way that Harrison Ford does.

Outside those two, what the fuck does Disney have to offer aside from ruining copyright laws in America in their own image? Well...basically nothing, unless you like musicals. Their current biggest franchise that they didn't simply buy off from somebody else (Frozen) is literally, a fucking musical. Characters randomly breaking out into a song is what I loathed the most about Disney movies as a kid, and that's like the entire movie. They even openly took a massive shit on their classics like Snow White (which I never really cared for, either old or new) that their own fans adored. Even as a kid, I never particularly cared for Disney's live action movies, and that's what they're favoring the most. I honestly can't see why anybody would subscribe to Disney+. Even their theme parks are shit now -- who the fuck wants to stand in line for an hour, all for a ride that lasts all of 5 minutes? Oh, you want fastpass? That's another $200, and it still has all the same limitations that the free one used to have, except you wait even longer now. Disneyland will certainly take you for a ride alright.

That's quite the wall of text talking about what you like and don't like. Insight: the other eight billion-ish consumers on the planet are not you.

The bar that this local content has to reach to exceed Disney+ is honestly quite low, and you're thinking Disney can simply spend its way to the top? Yeah...not buying it.

You are incorrect. The bar is very high. Which is why the streaming leaders (such as Disney+) are dominant. And yes, advertising budget is huge. Not necessarily the most important factor, but it's gargantuan.

Comment Re: And show what? (Score 1) 51

If what you say is true, then why is a cultural trade war necessary instead of letting this stuff simply succeed on its own merit?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NX...

The cold war is over.

I have an example elsewhere in this thread explaining that consumers have limited dollars and foreign mega-streamers exert pressure on local industry that is not proportionate. The lure of big-ticket franchises and heavily-advertised water-cooler-topic shows influences spending. This isn't a trade war or a culture war. It's enabling customers to be able to get what they want.

Comment Re:And show what? (Score 1) 51

So you're saying it would be ideal if Disney was forced to push streamers specializing in local content out of business and become a local monopoly?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Which is why I said it.

Oh. Wait. I didn't.

In your hypothetical, lots of families can in fact afford the $23/m, so Stan would still get a lot of business.

In your proposal they're mostly redundant.

In my hypothetical situation, zero families can afford $23/mo. It's stated in the definition of the scenario.

Now, I could have written a wall of text that nobody would've read. I could've gotten into the differences between show producers and show distributors. I could've explained how it can actually be beneficial for a show producer (Stan! for instance) to get money from anywhere to do what they do and not have to worry about distribution. I could've explained how this model has been a thing in Canada for decades. I could've explained that the regional industry welcomes this and wants it, and why. Much of that would've required more research on my part, and would've been ancillary to the topic.

Suffice it to say that the scenario wherein an Internet rando posts anything along the lines of "this is a stupid idea" is incorrect.

Comment Re:And show what? (Score 2, Insightful) 51

> Haha only... there's a healthy-sized Australian TV industry with some very good shows. Then why do they have to force non-Australian companies to produce shows if there's a healthy Australian tv-industy? Is this one of those "Australia has an army!" things?

Imagine a family has $20/mo to spend on streaming content.
Imagine Disney+ has the billion shows you already know about; Star Wars, Marvel, all the princess things.
Imagine Stan! has a decent selection of Australian content. Obviously not Disney's massive library worth, but a reasonable library.

Now imagine Disney+ wants $15/mo and Stan! wants $8.

Finally, imagine you've got kids. You can't afford both. You have to pick one or the other service.

You've got to pick Disney, right? Even though Stan! has a bunch of content that stars people like you, in places like yours, written by people who think like you and understand your regional sensibility. Because not having the giants cuts you off from so much "must see" content you've kind of got to pick them.

Wouldn't it be nice if Disney+ was mandated that they had to pick up and license some of that local content? So you can get at least some of that stuff you crave. And as a bonus, people in other countries may get to see it - and like it - too.

Personally I'd just make a few hours of AI generated aboriginals spouting hate speech at the Australian government as a middle finger for each day.

And this is why a} you're modded a troll and b} your mother put you up for adoption but there were no takers. But seriously, stereotypes from the outside just demonstrate why local content is important; outsiders don't often "get it".

Comment Re:And show what? (Score 4, Insightful) 51

Tumbleweeds, dying reefs and spiders? We've had enough of that already.

Haha only... there's a healthy-sized Australian TV industry with some very good shows.

While the bulk of content for English-speaking people seems to come from the US, as a Canadian I actively look for content from here, from the UK, Australia and NZ because frankly there's some really excellent stuff out there. It's another benefit to sailing the seven seas... when you're not fettered to the big streaming companies you can find things you'd never otherwise know exist.

Comment Re:Make more (Score 1) 24

Can't they just make more of the ones that used to work and improve that design rather than burning up piles of cash reinventing the wheel, badly apparently.

According to Google, Starliner is a fixed-price contract, so (in theory) they should only get paid for meeting milestones. There's no extra profit to Boeing in dragging this out (again, in theory).

Comment Re:Europe exported it's polluting industry (Score 1) 96

There is also the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine in California.

It has been opened and closed several times as the Feds and state of California tussle over it.

California greenies want it closed. The Feds want it to operate, even at a loss, for supply chain security.

It is currently operating with DoD subsidies, but production needs to be ramped up.

Comment 3 billion people, really? (Score 1) 83

OpenAI Needs At Least $207 Billion By 2030 Just To Keep Losing Money ...
the bank expects OpenAI to reach 3 billion users by decade's end, up from roughly 800 million today

Over 1/3 of the world's population, really? Although, think of how much money OpenAI will have lost by then. /s

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mr. Spock succumbs to a powerful mating urge and nearly kills Captain Kirk." -- TV Guide, describing the Star Trek episode _Amok_Time_

Working...