Posted on 11/23/2008 5:40:07 AM PST by abb
ping
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/media/23sag.html?ref=business
Actors’ Union Talks Break Down
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sag23-2008nov23,0,1126570.story
Screen Actors Guild contract impasse could lead to strike
After failing to negotiate with studios on payment for shows distributed on the Web, the union has decided to seek a strike authorization vote from its members.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-covertechside23-2008nov23,0,2616978.story
Progress in TV technology continues — at a price
The latest advances are expensive, but patient buyers wait for prices to come down.
http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/
Predicting McClatchy’s future
Why is is this such a good thing? Should movies be made and then be free to everyone?
I would rather buy the DVD than buy it online. The DVD usually has additional content that I haven’t yet seen online.
I’ve purchased movies from the iTunes store and from my AppleTV.
Anything that causes Hollywood distress and lessens their influence on the USA’s culture is a good thing.
In my opinion.
Indeed. Why schlep to the store, staring sideways at titles, and wait in line to pay, when I can order online, usually cheaper, and watch instantly on my apple tv? Additionally, online content doesn’t scratch or get lost or “borrowed” only never to be found again.
DVD’s are soon to become today’s beta’s and 8 tracks.
I agree with abb. I rarely watch TV anymore. I can watch many of the same programs online - LEGALLY - with fewer commercial interruptions, etc. I have VERY basic cable. I’m only paying a small amount for it because of a bundle package deal. I’m still going to get rid of the cable. I just don’t watch it enough to make it worthwhile. I’ll take my chances with a HD box and rabbit ears. As long as I have the web, I can get most of what I want for free.
If the cable company gave me more choices (i.e. I could pick the ten channels I wanted piped into my house), then I would happily keep the service. Otherwise, screw them. They sell an inferior product at a ridiculous price.
And “NetFlix” is the best of both worlds (at least currently).
You have certainly articulate some great reasons for using on-line content instead of DVDs. Beta and 8 tracks went out of style mostly for technological reasons, and by that I mean a competing technology won out. I am not so sure, however, that the argument between DVD and on-line is going to be a technology driven decision by the consumer. Yes, they clearly are different technologies, but the real issue will be the business model. The market will chose the business model that has the most appeal to consumers, advertisers and movie makers. Technology will of course play a part, albeit a secondary part, in this choice.
Netflix is the way to go. I watch the very best selection of 100,000 movies, unplugged my cable tv service, and couldn’t be happier. I will still buy a few dvds, but not like the old days!
I dont think anyone suggested movie be made ‘free for the masses’ (Like linux geeks and ‘open source’ communists)
He is just noticing and commenting on a trend, whey does eveyone here have to jump to conclusions so fast...
I have cut down my cable service to bare minimum get ALL my extra content online and still save $50 a month.
Besides, Showtime and Cinemax will keep repeating “48 hours” and “The Golden Child” forever, and i have seen them 800 times each.
My prediction is an advertiser-supported model. On-demand viewing of any movie or tv show ever made available ubiquitously. As bandwidth becomes cheaper and digital compression more advanced, data becomes ever more available.
The price for viewing? Watching a commercial.
I tend to agree with you. Billing and collection is a very expensive business proposition. It is much easier and cheaper to collect money from a few advertisers than it is to collect money from 30M consumers.
I only watch a couple of shows a week. All taped and fast forward through the ads.
The problem for me is children. I won't have them sitting in front of a PC watching shows. They watch movies on DVD. Or, some kid's shows.
If the cable company gave me more choices (i.e. I could pick the ten channels I wanted piped into my house), then I would happily keep the service. Otherwise, screw them. They sell an inferior product at a ridiculous price.
Cable companies have had a monopoly for so long they don't care what you want to watch. They are still operating under "where else you gonna go" model. That will soon end. I would agree to a "per channel" charge if it was available. That way I could keep my wife from watching QVC and HSN.
During the last depression movies were the back bone of the entertainment media, TV and computers hadn't hit the scene and they kept the prices reasonable, no high tech gadgetry, no super over paid stars, just good movies with real plots. No more of that, even if they do wise up and lower costs they will not be able to keep up the way they did in the past. Another thing, as long as they persists in handing out oscars based on industry prejudice, and the queers seem to be top of the list right now, they will continue to slide regardless of other factors.
Wow, that model sounds familiar, where I have I seen something like that before? Oh, yeah, back in the day before idiots started paying for TV and still have to watch ads.
Does that irk anyone else besides me? When they first started talking about pay TV the idea was you would never have to watch another commercial. Then when they finally get the ok, commercials were out for a time and then Wham! right back with the commercials. Only certain channels run without them, and some channels now show commercials on screen while the show is running, what a irritant that is.
I agree with your theory, I also think cable and Satellite TV will go the way of the Dodo. People won't be able to afford it, hence back to network TV or to computers, computers will win.
“Anything that causes Hollywood distress and lessens their influence on the USA’s culture is a good thing”
You could also buy excellent movies, even if they are old, and maybe “Hollywood” would see that there is a demand for good movies. If not we will still have many hours of viewing pleasure. The producers of all these “graphic intensive” movies could definitely learn a thing or two from Alfred Hitchcock.
“I would agree to a “per channel” charge if it was available. That way I could keep my wife from watching QVC and HSN.”
BONUS!
It looks to me like computers and TV will blend into one entity. It’s almost there now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.