Three cheers to assigning The Big Short! I read the book, which is so sense that I wondered what a production team could do with it--a miniseries perhaps? But the movie communicated enough of the book that I couldn’t complain and entertained me to boot.
As long as I can hear my local baseball team's games on AM radio while I'm doing other things, I'm content. For me, watching tennis or golf is as exciting as watching water boil. As for football, I no longer have any favorite teams, so CBS and Fox fill what little void I present.
I don't know if it is something particular/peculiar with me or what, but, when I read your pieces, I actually hear your voice, and it's rapid pace...lol
"One path leads to a return of sorts to the bundle: cable companies offering access to the ad-supported tiers of D+, Max, Peacock, Paramount+, etc. for cheaper than all of those streaming channels individually."
But buying all the streaming channels individually would be a dumb thing to do, whether there was a bundled alternative or not.
The purpose of bundling in any market is to *sell you more*. In the case of TV this means more than you can possibly watch, more than you would buy given a free selection. The right comparison is not the bundle vs. all its components, it's the bundle vs. only the components that you would buy and use individually. If a bundle happens to give you a better deal on what you actually want and were prepared to buy anyway, that's great - if you are really intensely interested in simultaneously keeping up with multiple current shows on different channels. If TV isn't your job or sole interest, bundling offers only trivial convenience (saving a few minutes in switching streaming subs) for a higher price than you would otherwise pay.
the demise of cable cannot come fast enough. For decades they operated as monopolies. Stream services changed the dynamic. Whether it's Paramount, Disney, AMC, the new paradigm is cut out the middleman (cable providers). Granted, watching your favorite programs might mean getting two or three streaming services, but in the end, having multiple streaming services is cheaper than any cable system. Cable is a dinosaur, as is Satellite Televison. Directv's streaming service, depending on your tier, up to $60 cheap than their satellite service.
Cable has only itself to blame. Dealing with the companies is notorious difficult, and the whole “we’re raising you rates every year but giving you nothing new” isn’t a model that’s sustainable.
I’m still angry, years later, at how hard it was to cancel my service, long after the contract was over, because my house was destroyed in a fire. I’m standing there in the cable office holding my half-melted box and the lady is trying to convince me that I should keep my service anyway, even though my house was uninhabitable and my tv was in a dumpster. I don’t blame her, though, I know she was under orders to talk everyone out of canceling.
The cable bundle broke because the way we watch TV changed. 10 years ago, I wanted to watch each episode of each show the week it aired. When streaming first started, the selection was slim and poor. Most of the good shows and movies were only available on DVD months afterwards. I made great use of Blockbuster, and then Netflix's DVD subscription service (may it rest in peace.) But cable wasn't too expensive and you go so many channels, plus the DVR and it was great. Now, the only thing I want to watch live is sports. There's not a single show currently on the air that isn't streaming SOMEWHERE. And even if you have cable, there are still all those shows that are streaming only across 20 different services and IT'S JUST TOO MUCH DAMN TV! Maybe I'm old and my attention span isn't what it used to be, but I can't remember all the plots and characters in a 22 show season spread out from September to May. I actually prefer to binge everything.
Now, all I want to watch live is sports, which is hard without cable! I watch the Georgia Bulldogs and their games this season will be on ESPN+, regular ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, the SEC network, CBS, and possibly some other option I'm not aware of. I looked at Philo, but they don't get the local affiliates. Right now I have Hulu with live TV, but they just announced a rate increase of over $30 a month. I'm looking at all the streaming options and think I'll go with YouTube. Direct TV is $99 a month to get all the sports channels.
So, I'm totally on the side of ESPN. Without them, your cable bundle is worthless. If I didn't watch sports, it would be so much simpler. You keep saying cable was great because we got so many channels, but now I don't NEED that many channels. If I really wanted to save money, I could just churn through the different services: watch all the new episodes of The Crown and Stranger Things, then cancel Netflix. Watch The Mandalorian, whatever new movies and Marvel shows came out and cancel Disney. Watch Only Murders, the ABC shows, etc. cancel Hulu. Even if you're a huge TV fan and actually watch all that, you don't need every streaming service every month. ESPN could easily start a stand alone streaming service and people would flock to it. But that would be the final nail in the cable coffin.
This ESPN battle sucks. Had to get the trial of YT-TV to get through this dark time.
A little off topic, but on topic as it relates to Disney. They did throw an old physical media head such as myself a bone by finally announcing the blu ray/4K release of the awesome Predator sequel Prey (and a few other D+ streaming offerings). This felt like a huge win in the current climate of entertainment. Me explaining that streaming is cool-ish but very much lacking in true quality to friends can be difficult, but I can't quit highest quality presentation. I go back to the time of Laserdiscs and my first job was projectionist at my local theater. It has always been in my DNA. I appreciate your takes on the many aspects of entertainment! Keep it up!
Sonny no! Do not review the Taylor Swift concert film unless you are prepared to say that you loved it. If you say anything less the ire you will receive will be 100X worse than what you got when you said you were going to review it.
Although I don't like ESPN or Spectrum/Charter, I'll side with ESPN. One of the few reasons I had a YouTube TV subscription was the MLB network. But because of carriage fees or something they got dropped and I haven't watched much baseball this year as a result. I canceled my subscription. I have no idea how to get MLB network. I can get MLB.tv but it's not the same. I want MLB tonight and can't access it anywhere unless I get cable again. Do Entertainment industry executives want to have the same approval ratings as politicians, bankers, & lawyers?
I hear ya when it comes to MLB Network. Totally indispensable for a baseball head like myself....and yes, i also have MLB.tv. MLB.tv is great when you want to follow your team or another team of interest, but if you want to know about THE GAME, MLB Net is a must.
Thanks for the review on No Hard Feelings. I was kinda watching the trailer with vaguely “WTF did Lawrence sign up for here” feelings, and you provided some clarity. Can’t wait to see it
1. No Hard Feelings was fantastic and really highlighted the differences between my Millennial generation and the Zoomers. J-Law's comedic chops are also fantastic and surprising, in a way similar to Channing Tatum. Both are excellent movie comedians that I never saw coming. Also... No Hard Feelings definitely satisfies Victorino's most important quadrant.
2. During my college days, I had many a night where I was one Bud Light away from full blackout. On occasion in those instances, I'd bum a smoke. Despite the heavy intoxication, cigarettes never tasted good. And I knew I looked trashy. All that said... Don Draper made smoking look cool as hell.
Three cheers to assigning The Big Short! I read the book, which is so sense that I wondered what a production team could do with it--a miniseries perhaps? But the movie communicated enough of the book that I couldn’t complain and entertained me to boot.
My parents, lifelong Texas fans, who were at the championship games in the 60s and in 2005, could not watch the UT/Alabama game because of this.
Re sports, let my inner curmudgeon roar.
As long as I can hear my local baseball team's games on AM radio while I'm doing other things, I'm content. For me, watching tennis or golf is as exciting as watching water boil. As for football, I no longer have any favorite teams, so CBS and Fox fill what little void I present.
I don't know if it is something particular/peculiar with me or what, but, when I read your pieces, I actually hear your voice, and it's rapid pace...lol
"One path leads to a return of sorts to the bundle: cable companies offering access to the ad-supported tiers of D+, Max, Peacock, Paramount+, etc. for cheaper than all of those streaming channels individually."
But buying all the streaming channels individually would be a dumb thing to do, whether there was a bundled alternative or not.
The purpose of bundling in any market is to *sell you more*. In the case of TV this means more than you can possibly watch, more than you would buy given a free selection. The right comparison is not the bundle vs. all its components, it's the bundle vs. only the components that you would buy and use individually. If a bundle happens to give you a better deal on what you actually want and were prepared to buy anyway, that's great - if you are really intensely interested in simultaneously keeping up with multiple current shows on different channels. If TV isn't your job or sole interest, bundling offers only trivial convenience (saving a few minutes in switching streaming subs) for a higher price than you would otherwise pay.
the demise of cable cannot come fast enough. For decades they operated as monopolies. Stream services changed the dynamic. Whether it's Paramount, Disney, AMC, the new paradigm is cut out the middleman (cable providers). Granted, watching your favorite programs might mean getting two or three streaming services, but in the end, having multiple streaming services is cheaper than any cable system. Cable is a dinosaur, as is Satellite Televison. Directv's streaming service, depending on your tier, up to $60 cheap than their satellite service.
Cable has only itself to blame. Dealing with the companies is notorious difficult, and the whole “we’re raising you rates every year but giving you nothing new” isn’t a model that’s sustainable.
I’m still angry, years later, at how hard it was to cancel my service, long after the contract was over, because my house was destroyed in a fire. I’m standing there in the cable office holding my half-melted box and the lady is trying to convince me that I should keep my service anyway, even though my house was uninhabitable and my tv was in a dumpster. I don’t blame her, though, I know she was under orders to talk everyone out of canceling.
The cable bundle broke because the way we watch TV changed. 10 years ago, I wanted to watch each episode of each show the week it aired. When streaming first started, the selection was slim and poor. Most of the good shows and movies were only available on DVD months afterwards. I made great use of Blockbuster, and then Netflix's DVD subscription service (may it rest in peace.) But cable wasn't too expensive and you go so many channels, plus the DVR and it was great. Now, the only thing I want to watch live is sports. There's not a single show currently on the air that isn't streaming SOMEWHERE. And even if you have cable, there are still all those shows that are streaming only across 20 different services and IT'S JUST TOO MUCH DAMN TV! Maybe I'm old and my attention span isn't what it used to be, but I can't remember all the plots and characters in a 22 show season spread out from September to May. I actually prefer to binge everything.
Now, all I want to watch live is sports, which is hard without cable! I watch the Georgia Bulldogs and their games this season will be on ESPN+, regular ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, the SEC network, CBS, and possibly some other option I'm not aware of. I looked at Philo, but they don't get the local affiliates. Right now I have Hulu with live TV, but they just announced a rate increase of over $30 a month. I'm looking at all the streaming options and think I'll go with YouTube. Direct TV is $99 a month to get all the sports channels.
So, I'm totally on the side of ESPN. Without them, your cable bundle is worthless. If I didn't watch sports, it would be so much simpler. You keep saying cable was great because we got so many channels, but now I don't NEED that many channels. If I really wanted to save money, I could just churn through the different services: watch all the new episodes of The Crown and Stranger Things, then cancel Netflix. Watch The Mandalorian, whatever new movies and Marvel shows came out and cancel Disney. Watch Only Murders, the ABC shows, etc. cancel Hulu. Even if you're a huge TV fan and actually watch all that, you don't need every streaming service every month. ESPN could easily start a stand alone streaming service and people would flock to it. But that would be the final nail in the cable coffin.
This ESPN battle sucks. Had to get the trial of YT-TV to get through this dark time.
A little off topic, but on topic as it relates to Disney. They did throw an old physical media head such as myself a bone by finally announcing the blu ray/4K release of the awesome Predator sequel Prey (and a few other D+ streaming offerings). This felt like a huge win in the current climate of entertainment. Me explaining that streaming is cool-ish but very much lacking in true quality to friends can be difficult, but I can't quit highest quality presentation. I go back to the time of Laserdiscs and my first job was projectionist at my local theater. It has always been in my DNA. I appreciate your takes on the many aspects of entertainment! Keep it up!
Sonny no! Do not review the Taylor Swift concert film unless you are prepared to say that you loved it. If you say anything less the ire you will receive will be 100X worse than what you got when you said you were going to review it.
Look I'm keeping an open mind! Maybe I WILL love it. Maybe I will become a Swiftie!
The better question is how much Tay's branded pitchforks will cost her fans when they come a 'marchin'.
Let's hope so...otherwise they will come for you.
If you are a Disney stockholder and Spectrum customer. How are you supposed to feel?
Although I don't like ESPN or Spectrum/Charter, I'll side with ESPN. One of the few reasons I had a YouTube TV subscription was the MLB network. But because of carriage fees or something they got dropped and I haven't watched much baseball this year as a result. I canceled my subscription. I have no idea how to get MLB network. I can get MLB.tv but it's not the same. I want MLB tonight and can't access it anywhere unless I get cable again. Do Entertainment industry executives want to have the same approval ratings as politicians, bankers, & lawyers?
I hear ya when it comes to MLB Network. Totally indispensable for a baseball head like myself....and yes, i also have MLB.tv. MLB.tv is great when you want to follow your team or another team of interest, but if you want to know about THE GAME, MLB Net is a must.
Thanks for the review on No Hard Feelings. I was kinda watching the trailer with vaguely “WTF did Lawrence sign up for here” feelings, and you provided some clarity. Can’t wait to see it
Two random thoughts.
1. No Hard Feelings was fantastic and really highlighted the differences between my Millennial generation and the Zoomers. J-Law's comedic chops are also fantastic and surprising, in a way similar to Channing Tatum. Both are excellent movie comedians that I never saw coming. Also... No Hard Feelings definitely satisfies Victorino's most important quadrant.
2. During my college days, I had many a night where I was one Bud Light away from full blackout. On occasion in those instances, I'd bum a smoke. Despite the heavy intoxication, cigarettes never tasted good. And I knew I looked trashy. All that said... Don Draper made smoking look cool as hell.