Tag Archives: Streaming Wars

Business, Entertainment, Lifestyle, Movies

The Short and Tragic Life of Quibi: Obituary for a Hollywood Experiment

PHOTO COLLAGE / LYNXOTIC

The unconventional streaming service is done – a flameout less than seven months after launching

On October 21st, The Wall Street Journal caught a whiff that a certain young video streaming service was about to bite the dust. Rumors turned out to be true, as the hardly six-month-old Quibi shut down that same day.

Quibi was an unconventional streaming service from its very beginning, a risky idea from Hollywood veterans Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman. Conceptualized in August 2018, their idea was to create a streaming platform dedicated to short-term content on mobile screens. The founders figured that people might appreciate “quick bites” of entertainment on the go— hence the service’s name.

Read More: Quibi Gone after Shortest Stint in Streaming History: WSJ Reports

Although the idea was irregular, Katzenberg and Whitman were still able to work their magic and build up hype for the product. In the months leading up to its April 2020 launch, Quibi ads were everywhere, many of them featuring notable celebrities. The moguls behind the project also raised over $1.75 billion from high-profile investors and garnered an additional $150 million in ad revenue from the likes of Pepsi and Walmart. In the final hours before its release, Quibi was starting to look like a forthcoming underdog success story.

But when the launch happened, audiences quickly realized some issues with Quibi. It lacked particularly alluring content; the small-screen “Turnstyle” optimization was unusual; many questioned, “Why pay money for such a service when there are so many free mobile streaming destinations like YouTube or TikTok?”

Evidently, Quibi was off to a rough start, but the road only got rockier. In May, a lawsuit emerged as the video company Eko sued Quibi for infringing on a patent for the “Trurnstyle” technology.

Now with heavy criticism and a legal battle on their hands, Quibi’s viewership also started to dwindle. The number of subscribers was actually disappointing from the very beginning, but the figures really started declining around Quibi’s three-month birthday, when the service’s lengthy free trial was running out.

Why did it fail? And what does it means for streaming to come?

According to The Verge, one report estimated that Quibi lost ninety percent of its subscribers in July, just when they were all supposed to start paying the monthly fee: $4.99 with ads, $7.99 without ads.

All of these factors could have played into Quibi’s premature demise this week. However, the formal announcement, penned in a letter from Katzenberg and Whitman, blamed the coronavirus. While COVID-19 has helped other streaming services like Netflix and Disney+ boom, forcing audiences to seek home entertainment as theaters closed, it has done the opposite for Quibi.

Essentially, part of Quibi’s appeal was to attract a mobile audience— people who were riding trains or sitting in waiting rooms. Now that most people are working from home and avoiding public spaces, a short piece of visual narrative watched from a smartphone does not seem as appealing, even if the service did just launch its first TV app a few days ago.

Read More: Read More: Quibi Shifts Gears Following Rough Start: Katzenberg Blames Underperformance On Coronavirus

The other part of Katzenberg and Whitman’s letter stressed how Quibi could not carry on as a stand-alone company. Allegedly, the partners tried getting Apple, WarnerMedia, Facebook, and NBCUniversal to acquire Quibi, but no one was buying. Thus, they had no choice but to close up shop.

Quibi stood as a big Hollywood experiment from the get go. Although both of its founders were well experienced in the entertainment industry, a small-screen subscription based streaming service would be considered a bold endeavor for anyone to sell.

We can blame Quibi’s failures on timing, pandemics, competition, or simple over-ambition, but in the end, the only hard truth is that the platform lasted a very short time. Perhaps the shortest time ever for a recognizable streaming service.

Sometimes, Hollywood rewards audacity, like when a young director breaks the rules or a studio chooses to invest in a chancy intellectual property. However, for every Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” or Disney’s acquisition of Marvel, there are a million projects that didn’t make it. Sadly, Quibi is one of them.

In the streaming war, an ongoing battle where Disney+ and Netflix seem to be winning while HBOMax, AppleTV+, and NBCUniversal’s Peacock hold their ground, Quibi will go down as the young, daring private, sent out by senior officers to storm the trenches, only to take one in the gut early on.

We will never know what it could have been, and there may be others like it to come. For now, though, Quibi may be a cautionary tale for entertainment executives, one that has alas met a hasty epilogue. 

Find books on Business, Sustainable Energy, Screenwriting and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac or subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Breaking News, Entertainment

Quibi Gone after Shortest Stint in Streaming History: WSJ Reports

From the Bigger they come dept.

From initial announcement of the high level duo of former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and Hollywood Mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg there was always something unlikely about Quibi. 

Read More: Quibi Shifts Gears Following Rough Start: Katzenberg Blames Underperformance On Coronavirus

In some ways like “WeWork” for streaming – at least in the hype and over-financing department,  the concept of reinventing the way that stories are told on screens and arbitrarily cutting all traditional sizes into 10 minute “bites” (quick-bites, hence the wonky name) seemed from day-one, to many, as a dubious goal. 

Not only driven by outdated thinking on the creative-business axis: stars-only, big money leading the way, astronomical budgets, virtually no one involved with a current digital media background, in some ways its shocking it lasted this long. 

Quibi Holdings LLC, which according to the WSJ article, had raised 1.75 billion in start-up capital is shutting itself down.  

A lawsuit from a tech company who claims ownership of the streaming tech used by the service, in particular the “turn style” feature, where the videos could be watched either in landscape mode or portrait, with the viewer able to switch back and forth at any time.  Interactive-video company Eko initiated a lawsuit with the help of Elliot Management.

This is a better, more plausible, reason, in addition to the lack of interest from viewers, than using the pandemic and the timing of the initial launch coming during lock-down as an excuse.

Although Quibi attracted major advertisers and achieved a pre-sale of $150 million in booked ad-revenue, ahead of the initial launch, payments where predicated, as is typical, on viewership numbers which never materialized. 

This news is yet another indicator of the incredibly volatile nature of the online video market, and is a harbinger of likely many more shake-ups and flame-outs in the near future…

Find books on Business, Sustainable Energy, Screenwriting and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac or subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Entertainment, Movies

Tom Hanks’ Reaction to “Greyhound” on Apple TV+ Epitomizes Cinema During the Pandemic

https://movietrailers.apple.com/movies/sony_pictures/greyhound/greyhound-trailer-1_h1080p.mov
New Official Trailer for “Greyhound”

Demotion or Step into the Future of Streaming?

On July 6th, actor Tom Hanks sat down for an interview with The Guardian to promote his new movie “Greyhound.” However, this interview was not done face-to-face between Hanks and the correspondent. Like almost all other professional interactions nowadays, it was done remotely, with the two parties talking via computer screens in their homes—practicing social distancing due to the coronavirus.

This particular interview with Hanks was especially telling, because the actor was actually one of the first American celebrities to contract COVID-19 back in March, and “Greyhound” was among a long list of movies meant to hit theaters this summer, but got sidelined because of the pandemic.

Read More: Sony And Tom Hanks’ “Greyhound” Goes To Apple TV+ For Direct-To-Streaming Release

Now, Hanks—along with his wife Rita Wilson, who also had coronavirus—is fully recovered and well. Nevertheless, his beef with the pandemic is not entirely settled, as the coronavirus’ consequential theater shutdowns has forced him to release his new film on a different platform: Apple TV+.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with Apple TV+. As far as streaming services go, Apple is a rising phenomenon and has brought about several praiseworthy shows since it launched last November. All the same, Hanks intended “Greyhound” for a theatrical release, and in the interview he called the film’s ultimate home on Apple TV+ “an absolute heartbreak.”

Again, this is not necessarily a jab at Apple, but it is indicative of what many filmmakers are going through right now. Streaming vs Theatrical releases was a hot debate in Hollywood long before COVID-19 ran everything amuck, but now that releasing movies in theaters is not an option, many movies have no choice but to sell out to the streamers and debut online.

“Greyhound” for example, was meant to hit theaters in March with Sony Pictures as distributor. However, the pandemic pushed the release date back perpetually, and in May, it sold to Apple for $70 Million, getting an official July 10th release date on the site.

Hanks continues in the interview, “I don’t mean to make angry my Apple overlords, but there is a difference in picture and sound quality [when viewing a film online rather than in a theater].” He is not the first filmmaker to voice this opinion, but he is also not the first filmmaker to have his creative work siphoned off to an unanticipated platform during these unprecedented times. Paramount Pictures, for example, sold the Kumail Nanjiani-starring rom-com, “The Lovebirds” to Netflix earlier this year despite initially banking on a theatrical release.

Triple Threat Thwarted by Timing, perhaps, but will be enjoyed nonetheless

The alternative would’ve been to hold out on releasing these films until theaters re-open. Given the fact that the theaters are closed indefinitely, though, only the movies that are more-or-less guaranteed blockbuster hits are taking this risky option—Marvel’s “Black Widow,” Universal’s “Fast & Furious 9,” DC’s “Wonder Woman: 1984” and Warner Brother’s Chris Nolan-directed “Tenet” are among them.

“Greyhound”— which Hanks wrote and produced as well as starred in— might’ve had blockbuster potential, but the clock was ticking a little too temperamentally on production company Columbia Pictures and the film’s $50 million budget. Returns simply could not be left up to a temporally unspecified gamble.

Luckily, the stigma around direct-to-streaming releases has diminished in recent years, as Netflix in particular has garnered a large number of Oscar nominations with prestigious projects like Martin Scorsese‘s “The Irishman” and Alfonso Cuaròn’s “Roma” going straight to the service. Likewise, even the studios are also transitioning to the streaming world these days with Disney+, HBOMax, and Peacock headlining the ongoing streaming wars.

Still, with “Greyhound” being a war epic set at sea, we can empathize with Tom Hanks for wanting audiences to experience it on the big screen. In fact, we can empathize with all of the filmmakers who put their hearts into creative projects for 2020, and are now seeing them shrunk down to something smaller—but perhaps not lesser—than their expectations.

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Education , Politics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Books, Business, Entertainment, Movies

Sony And Tom Hanks’ “Greyhound” Goes To Apple TV+ For Direct-To-Streaming Release

Video
https://movietrailers.apple.com/movies/sony_pictures/greyhound/greyhound-trailer-1_h1080p.mov
Official Trailer for “Greyhound

Competitive bidding underway for films previously set for worldwide release to theaters

Tom Hanks stars in the new Sony Pictures World War II drama, “Greyhound,” which was due for a theatrical release on June 12th. Like many other films meant to come out this summer, though, “Greyhound” has been derailed by the coronavirus and the worldwide shutdown of movie theaters. Thus, the film has been expedited to the streaming market and will now be available exclusively on Apple TV+.

Launched just last November, Apple TV+ has been an underdog in the streaming war so far. The affordable $4.99/month service met some early awards for its highly praised “The Morning Show” and has created a few shows starring major talent such as “Defending Jacob” with Chris Evans and “See” with Jason Mamoa. The platform has also done a few spinoff shows such as the children’s “Fraggle Rock: Rock On” and a revival of Steven Spielberg’s “Amazing Stories.”

Read More: SpaceX Starship Plans for The Moon, Mars and Earth-to-Earth Transport

By-and-large, Apple TV+ has been committed to original content, opting to produce in-house series and movies rather than acquire outside titles. However, Apple TV+ does not have the vast libraries of Disney+, HBO Max, or NBCUniversal’s Peacock. It is a tech company that just entered the film and TV entertainment world and it must to compete with Netflix and Amazon Prime, both of which have created more original series in recent years, but still rely heavily on mergers and acquisitions for variety.

Apple TV+ appears to have a long road ahead in order to gain significant foothold

While Apple’s closed-system quality-over-quantity approach to streaming is admirable, it’s not giving them any leg-up on their rivals. Hence, they are presently bending their own rules a bit, talking with bigger studios about licensing out additional content. The service allegedly paid Sony $70 million for “Greyhound” and according to Deadline, the site will treat the film as its biggest movie release yet.

The deal also works out for Sony. Unlike Disney, WarnerMedia, or NBCUniversal, Sony does not have its own streaming service, so allocating its property to Apple gives them a presence in the streaming world without selling out to one of their theatrical competitors. Of course, Sony would probably prefer to release “Greyhound” on the big screen, but the global pandemic has all but slaughtered that possibility.

Read More: New Trailer for Chris Nolan’s “Tenet”: WB stays true to Original Release Despite Coronavirus

During the coronavirus, all streaming sites have seen increases in activity. Apple TV+, like any of the other platforms, is profiting off of, but also vying for the attention of people stuck at home. Throwing a Sony-produced Tom Hanks war epic in the captive audience’s faces will certainly help the site’s cause.

Aaron Shneider directs “Greyhound,” and its narrative comes from a screenplay by C.S. Forester and Hanks himself. It follows the true story of an American navy ship crossing the Atlantic in the early days of World War II while being pursued by troves of enemy German U-Boats. Apple has not yet scheduled a release date for the film, but it will likely come out sometime this summer.

Find books on Movies and Filmmaking, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Books, Entertainment, Movies, Tech

Scorsese’s Next Big-Budget Project Starring DiCaprio and De Niro: “Killers of the Flower Moon” looking at Apple and Netflix

Streaming Power on the Rise in Production Finance

Last November, legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese made his debut into the world of streaming with “The Irishman.” After ViacomCBS deemed the project too costly, Paramount withdrew support from the movie and Netflix picked it up, willing to give Scorsese the creative freedom (and $159 million budget) he needed to see his vision come alive.

Click to buy
“Killers of the Flower Moon” 
and at the same time help Lynxotic 
and all independent local bookstores. Also on Amazon

Now, it looks as if that recent history already about to repeat itself. Scorsese’s next big project, titled “Killers Of The Flower Moon,” has been in development under Paramount since early 2019. However, its budget has been perpetually increasing, now requiring an estimated $200 million. This is a tall price for any studio to pay for a film, but ViacomCBS in particular is already in a precarious financial situation as it struggles to keep up with conglomerate competitors like Disney, WarnerMedia, and Universal.

Furthermore, Paramount (like all other studios) is currently dealing with the COVID-19 setbacks and economic crashes. Now is not a safe time for anyone to take extravagant risks in the entertainment industry, and a $200 million Scorsese project is far from a conservative investment.

While Paramount has not officially detached itself from the film yet, Scorsese has already started eyeing other production companies, most notably his old pals at Netflix and some new faces at Apple. Last year’s “The Irishman” was one of Netflix’s biggest selling points, especially as the streaming wars started taking off in mid-November. The film set a new standard for Netflix as a company that supports creative and prestigious filmmakers. During awards season, “The Irishman” earned the streaming site an unprecedented 10 Oscar nominations. Sadly, it took home none.

Apple is the New Kid on the Block but with Very Deep Pockets

Apple, on the other hand, would be new territory for Scorsese. The tech company’s new streaming site, Apple TV+, launched just last November, and has focused more on creating quality television series than films. However, the platform recently released its first original movie—“The Banker” starring Samuel L. Jackson—and is allegedly spending big money on a Will Farrel-Ryan Reynolds musical adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” for an upcoming holiday season. Adding the new Scorsese project to the platform’s budding filmography would likely benefit Apple’s rising studio image.

Scorsese reportedly talked with executives at Universal and MGM as well, so there remains a possibility that the film will not end up on a streaming site at all.

Of course, whatever studio or website “Killers Of The Flower Moon” ends up on, the adopting company will have to go through ViacomCBS first. Paramount is not required to sell the film, and it will definitely want compensation for all of the money it has already invested. The way things are going, though, selling will probably be in Paramount’s best interest, for the film is becoming far too expensive to hold on to.

In addition to Paramount, a smaller, independent company called Imperative Entertainment is also attached to the film. Unlike Paramount, though, Imperative will likely continue its attachment, for it bares far less of the financial burden.

“Killers Of The Flower Moon” is meant to come out sometime next year, but with the coronavirus affecting schedules across the board as well as the current studio mix-ups, it very well might take longer to finish.

Book Origin is Intriguing as a Backdrop to a A-List Team Effort

The film is an adaptation of the 2017 book, “Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI,” by bestselling author David Grann. The book follows the federal investigation into the murders of Osage County Native Americans in 1920s Oklahoma. It’s a slow burning true story that will lend itself well to Scorsese’s hardboiled, historical take on narrative film.

Scorsese veterans Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are meant to star in the movie. Di Niro starred in last year’s “The Irishman” and has appeared in nine Scorsese features since they first collaborated in 1973’s “Mean Streets.” The much younger DiCaprio last worked with Scorsese in 2013’s “The Wolf Of Wall Street” and has done a total of five movies with the auteur since 2002’s “Gangs Of New York.” He is also expected to star in a Theodore Roosevelt biopic, which Scorsese has been developing and hopes to start directing after finishing “Killers of the Flower Moon.”

This project will be the twenty-sixth feature in Martin Scorsese illustrious directorial career, which has lasted over half a century now. Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are two of his most loyal collaborators, and their creative relationships with the director have been quite fruitful from artistic and financial perspectives. Both actors are Oscar winning leads, yet “Killers Of The Flower Moon” will be the first time they share the screen in a feature since 1996’s “Marvin’s Room.”

Regardless of where it ends up studio-wise, “Killers Of The Flower Moon” is bound to be a cinematic spectacle and a much talked about movie in the coming years. Whoever ends up getting their hands on the film will be lucky. That being said, it comes at a hefty ($200+ million) price, which is a sizable gamble even in the most normal of circumstances.

For such a figure, the luck better run deep.

Find books on Big Tech, Climate Change, Sustainable Energy, Esoteric Spirituality and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Entertainment, Tech

NBC’s “Peacock” to Escalate Streaming Wars with varied Price and Experience options

Logo Collage / Lynxotic

Massive Library May be included and Increase Streaming Compitition

NBCUniversal and Comcast will be making their debut into the media market’s ongoing streaming war on July 15th, 2020. On that Wednesday in the midst of the summer, the globally renowned entertainment conglomerate will launch “Peacock,” the ultimate online service for all things Comcast.

Just to set the record straight, NBCUniversal owns far more than just the Nightly News and old horror movies. DreamWorks, Illumination, Focus Features, G4TV, USA Network, and Syfy amongst others all fall under the company’s corporate umbrella. Thus, there is a lot of reason behind consolidating all of its content to one streaming service, especially when competitors Disney, WarnerMedia, and CBS are all starting to do it.

Comcast first announced that it would be starting its own streaming service over a year ago in January 2019, and it released the name “Peacock” (based on NBC’s colorful feathered symbol) on September 17th. At that time, NBCUniversal also stated that the website would be launched in April 2020 and that it will eventually be the sole place to stream NBC favorites “The Office” and “Parks & Recreation.”

Obviously, the launch date has been pushed back since then. Nevertheless, the announcement that “The Office” and “Parks & Rec” will be barred from other streaming services is a big blow for the competition. Netlflix, for one, will certainly suffer from the loss of these shows, as “The Office” in particular has been one of the most popular programs in its catalogue for years. With shows like “The Office” and “Parks & Rec” (and “Saturday Night Live” and “Brooklyn Nine-Nine”) having such vast, dedicated fan bases, one can imagine customers subscribing to Peacock just for the access to specific programs.

Peacock will also have movies from Universal Pictures and its subsidiaries, and a slew of original content from veteran NBC and USA showrunners such as Mike Schur of “The Good Place” and Sam Eslami of “Mr. Robot.” Hopping on Hollywood’s current nostalgic bandwagon, Schur will be creating a reboot of 1980s sitcom “Punky Brewster” for the service and Eslami will be leading a revival of “Battlestar Galactica.”

From “Free” to $10 per Month with Comcast Customer Link

When it comes to pricing, Comcast is offering Peacock at three different tiers. The least expensive tier costs absolutely nothing. This version of the platform will be called “Peacock Free” and it will have limited, ad-supported content. The next level up will again be ad-supported, but it will have access to the service’s full library. This will be free for Comcast customers and cost $5/month for everyone else.

The final tier will be called “Peacock Premium.” It will cost $10/month and will run ad-free. Like the second tier, it will have access to the service’s complete catalogue plus live sports, including Premiere League soccer, which is a television rarity in the United States.

At $10/month, even Peacock’s priciest option is relatively cheap compared with the competition. While it costs more than Disney+’s generous $7/month fee, it remains thriftier than Netflix and Amazon Prime’s standard $12/month plans and HBOMax’s forthcoming $15/month price tag.

Still, Comcast is willing to offer even better Peacock deals for their loyal customers. Comcast and Cox cable users can get Peacock Premium for free with ads, or for half price without ads. Those who subscribe to Comcast Xfinity X1 or Flex will be also able to get Premium early—in April.

As opposed to Netflix that began its business in streaming or Disney and Warner that are only now starting to transition, NBCUniversal is evidently trying to keep its foot in conventional television with Peacock. The deals that Comcast is making with its cable subscribers are direct incentives to stifle the cord-cutting phenomenon while still keeping up with the times.

With Netflix getting copious nominations this awards season, Apple TV coming in hot with “The Morning Show,” Disney+ estimating to earn $2.2 billion in 2020, and HBOMax coming out it May, the streaming wars are in full swing. Throw Hulu, Amazon Prime, Quibi, and multiple other platforms into the mix and one can clearly see that the competition is quite fierce. The media sphere is changing, and NBCUniversal is straddling the line between the old and the new. We’ll just have to wait until July to see where Peacock stands and how it plays out.

Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Entertainment, Tech

Quibi Embraces Smallest Screens and Biggest Talent in New Mobile Streaming Service from Jeffrey Katzenberg

Video

Aging Mogul and CEO Eye Disruption with Innovative Mobile Platform

In a market apparently oversaturated with online video streaming platforms, it may seem like an inopportune time to start up a brand new service for audiences to consume content on their personal screens. This outlook, however, has not stopped Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman, two aging entertainment tycoons, in raising over a billion dollars to fund their novel mobile streaming project, Quibi.

Katzenberg and Whitman is, on paper, a corporate match made is heaven. Katzenberg was the chief of Walt Disney Studios during its 1990s animation renaissance and then went on to create DreamWorks with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. Whitman, meanwhile, was a tech mogul, formerly serving as CEO of eBay and Hewlett-Packard. Both in their sixties, these two veteran experts in their respective industries have recently combined their knowledge to launch Quibi—an upcoming streaming service made for the smallest of screens. Namely, mobile devices.

Of course, watching content on a smartphone or tablet is nothing new. Almost every streaming service has a mobile app, and YouTube alone has a seemingly endless amount of free content for viewers to watch wherever is convenient. Nevertheless, while most of these platforms hold true to the philosophy that the bigger-the-screen-the-better, Quibi embraces the small, personalized screen format exclusively, working it into their very production model.

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/Quibi-Demo.mov

Can “Turnstyle” Take Off along with 10 min “Quick Bites”?

Quibi is incorporating new technologies and resources to make their content highly personalized and appropriate for smartphone screens. Perhaps the company’s most innovative initiative is its “Turnstyle” format, whereby all content is made for both vertical and horizontal screens.

Unlike most mobile videos that are best watched horizontally, Quibi content will adjust for the phone’s orientation. Thus, there is no optimal way to watch Quibi; viewers can do so however they deem comfortable and switch back and forth in a seamless fashion.

Furthermore, Quibi has factored in the short attention spans of young audiences using mobile devices. Realizing that most mobile viewers seek quick bursts of information or entertainment, Quibi aims to keep its shows between seven and ten minutes long, providing episodic gusts of action often ending on cliffhangers. Moreover, the company is also looking to expand its daily video programming, whereby new content comes out each day.

While this high-turnover temporal model may appear as a mere means of reducing costs for the up-and-coming Quibi, Katzenberg and Whitman are far from pinching pennies for the service. Estimates claim that Quibi will pay its creators up to $125,000 for every minute of scripted and unscripted content, and around $10,000 for the daily programming. This is a bold, yet consciences effort to ensure quality, thus helping Quibi stand out amongst the competition and justify its subscription cost—$4.99 a month with ads, or $7.99 without ads.

The prospect of quality content on Quibi is further confirmed by the copious prestigious names already attached to the service. As aforementioned, Katzenberg and Whitman are far from beginners in the industry, and they have long lists of professional connections. Hence, Steven Spielberg, Guillermo Del Toro, Steven Soderbergh, Sam Raimi, Anna Kendrick, Kevin Hart, Jennifer Lopez and Zac Efron amongst other A-list names have already committed to Quibi.

Likewise, the company already has investment deals with some of the biggest studios in Hollywood including Disney and Warner Brothers, and will have content connected to ESPN, NBC News, and BBC.

Quibi’s exhaustive and impressive list of attached talent is made possible in no small part thanks to Katzenberg and Whitman’s networking prowess. However, the company is also incentivizing its creative minds with unprecedented terrain to explore on.

Additionally, Quibi promises its talent the right to retain ownership, after a specified interval, over creations. That way, no projects or characters are eternally bound to Quibi—directors can take their ideas to new platforms if need be and can keep all merchandizing and marketing rights to themselves. In a world where syndication dominates the entertainment industry, this is a very rare and appealing offer.

”Too Rich to Fail” Motto seems Apt, and Resonates with with Big Name Talent

Some of the shows on Quibi are already well into production or even post-production. Sam Raimi is working on an anthology series titled “Fifty States of Fright,” where he will be going back to his early horror roots as a filmmaker. Meanwhile, Steven Soderbergh is directing a suspenseful series called “Wireless” for the platform.

The projects that have garnered the most buzz, however, include a documentary series on DC and Marvel Comics spearheaded by “Avengers: Endgame” directors Joe and Anthony Russo, as well as a revived continuation of the hit Comedy Central show “Reno 911!” Projects from Spielberg and Del Toro are yet to be fleshed out, but the two filmmakers’ unparalleled reputations are likely to bring Quibi even more interest.

In short, the industry is certainly on board with Quibi. The real question now is whether or not consumers will be into it. With so much free content to scroll through on one’s phone, many viewers might not see adequate reason to pay a monthly fee for particular shows—especially when they are already paying for Disney+, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other services.

Quibi is certainly showing creativity in their use of the mobile platform and they definitely have a lot of promising talent in their corner. Nevertheless, some might deem Quibi’s mobile innovations as excessive gimmicks, and their talent as impressive, but not quite alluring enough of an end to justify the means.

A lot of skepticism existis that this entirely new format, in terms of show length, cost and price as well as the somewhat wacky “turnstyle” tech has a chance to become established. In some ways it is similar to Apple TV+ in the sense that the massive cash hoard backing each service (Quibi at least $1.4 Billion, Apple TV+ $6 Billion+) will ensure that, regardless of how long it takes to become popular with the public, in the end they are “too rich to fail”.

We won’t really know until April 6th, when Quibi officially launches and enters into the streaming war as a tactical and unpredictable underdog.

Find books on Business, Sustainable Energy, Screenwriting and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic on your iPhone, iPad or Mac:

Entertainment, Movies

77th Golden Globes Recap: Ricky Gervais hits a nerve, On Stage Activism & Netflix goes Unsung

’Big Winners Mostly Among the Predicted with a few Notable Exceptions

With the 77th Golden Globes concluded, Hollywood’s 2020 awards season is officially underway, celebrating the best and brightest that the film and television industries had to offer in the past year.

The Golden Globes took place on Sunday, January 5th at the famous Beverly Hilton hotel in Beverly Hills, California. The ceremony began at 5:00 PM Hollywood time, when stars from around the world took their seats to eagerly await the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s picks for 2019’s best film, show, actor, actress, and so on… as well as the obligatory drama and awkward moments that come with any award show.

The event started far from subtly, as host Ricky Gervais took the stage. A notoriously raw British comedian, Gervais did not shy away from controversy in his opening monologue. He poked fun at just about every industry professional in the room, humorously calling out individuals for their leftist stances on political issues while engaging in an exploitative business led by capitalist juggernauts like Apple, Amazon, and Disney. Add in a Jeffrey Epstein suicide joke, a comparison between Joe Pesci and Baby Yoda, and a shot at Felicity Huffman’s prison sentence, and the night was off to a deliciously cringey start.

Despite his forewarning jests, through, Gervais did not manage to silence the award winners in their acceptance speeches. With few exceptions, it seemed as if each recipient used his or her stage time to make a statement regarding the world’s current turbulent condition.

Upon receiving the award for Best Actress in a Miniseries or TV film, “Fosse/Verdon” star Michelle Williams spoke out for a woman’s right to choose; While accepting his Best Director title for “1917,” Sam Mendes made a sly remark about war that was indubitably tied to President Trump’s recent actions in Iran; Actor Jared Harris also touched on the cost of political lies when getting the Best Limited Series award for the ever-so-relevant “Chernobyl.”

Undoubtedly (and unsurprisingly), however, the social issue most addressed on the stage was climate change. Nobody addressed this topic more profoundly than Joaquin Phoenix, who upon winning Best Actor in a Drama Motion Picture for his performance in “Joker,” took to the stage with peculiar reticence before immediately thanking the HFP for making the event plant-based. He then proceeded to get on Gervais’ level by dropping several f-bombs in calling out Hollywood hypocrisy. The speech was jarring, yet well received, as the actor delivered the message with far more sincerity than Gervais did at the night’s beginning.

Climate change was on many people’s mind throughout the night, especially in light of the ongoing bushfire epidemic in Australia. Russell Crowe even missed winning best actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie for his performance in “The Loudest Voice,” because he was Down Under protecting his house and family from the catastrophic infernos. In absentia, Jennifer Anniston read the New Zeland-born (yet Australian-raised) actor’s acceptance speech, where he definitively articulated the link between the country’s present forest fires and the planet’s continuing climate crisis.

Ellen DeGeneres also started out her speech expressing her concern and love for Australia. DeGeneres was honored with winning the Carol Burnett Award for achievement in television. After her touching words for Australia, the comedian-actress-talk show host shared her humble rise to stardom and her thoughts on the power of television, all with a characteristically stellar mix of endearing humor and unmistakable earnestness.

Later in the evening, actor Tom Hanks won the second special award of the night—the Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award. Hanks gave a deeply impassioned speech and even got choked up while thanking his family. He touched on the duty of an actor to think creatively, know ones part, and “show up on time.”

This brings us to the meat of the event—the actual winners. While the drama, activism, and jokes all make for good television, the Golden Globes are ultimately there to recognize yesteryear’s outstanding works in the entertainment industry.

First off, we obviously had a number of expected outcomes. On the TV side, Brian Cox and Olivia Coleman won best series actor and actress for their respective work in “Succession” and “The Crown.” “Succession” also won Best TV Drama Series while “Fleabag” won in the Comedy category.

As for movies, we saw the anticipated Brad Pitt win Best Supporting Actor for his role in Quentin Tarantino “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood.” Tarantino himself also won Best Original Screenplay and the film as a whole won Best Film in the Musical or Comedy category. Similarly predictable, the Korean “Parasite” won Best Foreign Language Film, Hildur Guðnadóttir won best original score for “Joker,” and Renée Zellweger won Best Drama Actress for “Judy.”

1917 is Stealth Favorite and Takes Top Drama

The upsets, however, came about in some other fields. As aforementioned, Sam Mendes won Best Director for “1917,” and the movie went on to win Best Film in the Drama category. Neither award was anticipated for Mendes. On the directorial front, he faced competition from the likes of Tarantino and Scorsese. Likewise, for best picture, he went up against bona fide critical hits such as “The Irishman,” “Joker,” and “Marriage Story.” “1917” is yet to get a wide release, however, which may be the reason many people did not foresee its success.

Another upset occurred in the Best Musical/Comedy Actor category, where Taron Egerton won the title for portraying Elton John in “Rocketman.” The thirty-year-old actor beat out stars such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Eddie Murphy, and Daniel Craig. Furthermore, in the Animated Film category, Laika Entertainment’s “Missing Link” beat DreamWorks’ “How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” along with Disney’s triple-threat nominees “The Lion King,” “Toy Story 4,” and “Forzen II.” “Missing Link” performed abysmally in the theaters and director Chris Butler was utterly baffled during his acceptance speech. Evidently, big studios and box office figures do not always correlate with talent or translate to critical success.

That being said, the films that had no box office earnings whatsoever (i.e. the copious direct-to-streaming nominees this year) did far worse than expected at the 77th Golden Globes. Going into the night, Netflix had more film nominations than any other production company. Noah Baumbach’s “Marriage Story” led the race with six nominations, trailed only by Scorsese’s “The Irishman” with five—both of which were Netflix originals.

It seemed as if the Globes was going to be a game-changing event for the streaming world as well as a defining moment for Netflix to rebrand itself as the “prestigious” streaming platform amongst the competition. Maybe just getting the nominations was enough for Netflix to earn this reputation. However, the company walked away with just one film award—Laura Dern for Best Supporting Actress in “Marriage Story.” For all the hype that Netflix’s “The Irishman,” “Dolemite Is My Name,” and “The Two Popes” went in with, they all left empty handed.

Contrary to expectations, perhaps the Hollywood Foreign Press was not quite ready to hold direct-to-streaming titles in the same regards as traditional theatrical releases. Maybe the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences will think otherwise, as they announce the Oscar nominees on January 13th—if nothing else, maybe they’ll at least select a host with a touch more compassion.

Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Entertainment, Movies, Tech

The Streaming Wars as the Decade Begins: Disney Up, Netflix Down, Apple Emerging, and HBO Max TBD

The Carnage and Consumer Choice Explosion has only just begun

2019 will go down in history as a game-changing year for television. It was the year that put the nail cable’s coffin as major networks and production companies turned over to the Internet, creating a streaming war between the various online platforms for consumers to watch content on.

The war unofficially began when the Walt Disney Company launched Disney+ on November 12th. In its first day, the service attained over 10 million subscribers. One month in, it had over 24 million, an unprecedented growth rate.

Much of Disney’s success has come at the expense of other streaming services, though. At just $7 a month, Disney+ is one of the less expensive streaming subscriptions on the market. Amazon Prime costs just under $10 a month and Netflix can cost up to $16 a month depending on the plan.

Since Disney+ launched, Netflix has lost 1.1 million subscribers. This is a 5.8% reduction in the company’s customer figures, and it is likely correlated to the fresh competition.

Netflix has tried to combat its rivals by focusing on their in-house productions and creating Oscar-savvy films. While the Academy picks are still yet to come, Netflix is already the most nominated production company for the 2020 Golden Globes. Their movies “The Irishman,” “Marriage Story,” “Dolemite Is My Name,” and “The Two Popes” were all nominated for best picture. “Marriage Story” and “The Irishman” even lead the race with six and five nominations respectively.

Many, however, believe that these prestigious projects are not enough to keep Netflix afloat in the long run. With the rise of Disney+, Netflix is losing all of its licensed-out Disney content, and its library will continue to dwindle as more studios create their own platforms. Perhaps the company’s recent deal with Viacom to produce new Nickelodeon content will help keep Netflix safe for a little while longer. After that, it might have to consider lowering the monthly cost, or even selling the data that it keeps so close to its chest.

Launch Announcement at Apple Special Event in 2019

Apple TV+ could be a Sleeper Hit with Upside Potential to Grow

One of the few streaming services that costs less than Disney+ right now is Apple TV+, another new kid on the block that launched on November 1st. Apple TV+ costs only $5 a month, and since its emergence it has garnered around 9 million subscribers. These figures seem small when standing next to Disney, but that 9 million may not account for all of the people who bought new Apple devices this year. As an extension of the tech company, Apple TV+ is included free-of-charge for one year on all new iPhones, iPads, Apple SmartTVs, or Mac computers.

Like Netflix, Apple TV+ is also making a big debut in the upcoming awards season. Its original series, “The Morning Show” already earned the company three Golden Globe nominations. This marks the first time that a streaming service has achieved recognition from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association in its inauguration year.

On the other end of the spectrum from Apple TV+’s affordable price is the forthcoming HBO Max, which AT&T’s WarnerMedia will launch in May 2020. HBO Max will cost a hefty $15 a month, and its release date has been pushed back multiple times since its announcement in 2018.

Thus, HBO Max has been a confusing and quiet underdog in the streaming war. Part of the confusion surrounding the future service is the fact that WarnerMedia already has two different premiere subscription services—HBO Go and HBO Now (not to mention the DC Universe streaming service also under Warner’s corporate umbrella).

Netflix Facing new competition from all sides

To put it plainly, HBO Max will combine HBO Go and HBO Now to offer both service’s entire libraries plus original shows, all the DC content, and additional intellectual properties from other TimeWarner networks such as TNT, TBS, CNN, and Cartoon Network. It will have all episodes of “Friends,” “South Park,” and “Game Of Thrones.” Oddly, it will not have Warner Brothers’ famed Harry Potter or Fantastic Beast films, as their streaming rights are still licensed out to Universal.

This consolidation of all TimeWarner content will be another hit against Netflix. Based on viewership, Netflix’s two most popular shows are “Friends” and “The Office,” and they will be losing both of them to HBO Max and NBC’s Peacock respectively.

These streaming services are the major players in the game, but they are not alone. Amazon Prime, Hulu, YouTube TV, Philo, CBS All-Access, fuboTV and others may not be as talked about, but they still have stakes in the streaming wars. Competition amongst the entertainment conglomerates in the cybersphere will undoubtedly continue into the new year, and it will likely come to redefine television in the approaching decade.

Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Entertainment, Movies

Disney+ & “The Mandalorian” Tops Netflix’s “Stranger Things” as America’s most In-Demand Streaming Series

“Baby Yoda” a.k.a. “The Child” – Photo / Disney

Streaming Wars heating up and Disney+ lets loose the First Salvo

Disney+ launched in early November, and it quickly became a major contender in the world of streaming. Achieving over 10 million subscribers within a single day, the Walt Disney Company’s new site entered the streaming war with a bang, immediately establishing itself as a fierce competitor with other services such as Amazon, Hulu, Apple TV+ and Netflix.

As of right now, Netflix still reigns supreme as the most popular streaming service out there. However, Disney+ recently got their first leg-up on the streaming frontrunner, as their original series “The Mandalorian” topped Netflix’s “Stranger Things” as the most in-demand series in America according to Parrot Analytics.

“Stranger Things” Season 3 came out this past July, and it swiftly broke records as the most highly-demanded direct-to-streaming show ever created. The show then held the number one spot for an astounding twenty-one weeks. After just three episodes, though, “The Mandalorian” reached 100 million demand expressions, besting Netflix’s record and leaving the cross-generational sci-fi bildungsroman “Stranger Things” in the dust.

“The Mandalorian” was one of the most highly anticipated shows of 2019 well before Disney+ launched. An original program for the streaming service, “The Mandalorian” is also the first live-action series to take place in the Star Wars universe.  It thus has a built in fan base as well as a talented cast and crew—including “Iron Man” director Jon Favreau as executive producer and “Game of Thrones” actor Pedro Pascal playing the titular bounty-hunter protagonist.

Baby Yoda is a Meme Factory already and may be Christmas Merch Hit

What is really leading the “The Mandalorian” to success, however, is the sensational “Baby Yoda” character, who debuted in the opening episode and has since become an integral part of the plot. The wide-eyed, adorable alien has ambiguous origins, but he looks like an infant version of the legendary Jedi Master Yoda, and he is effectively stealing the hearts of audiences everywhere.

Disney did not reveal “Baby Yoda”—actually called “The Child” on the show—until the series premiered. Since then, however, they company has begun capitalizing on his (or her?) cuteness with merchandize, making “The Mandalorian” an even bigger money-maker than it would otherwise be as just a high-demand subscriber magnet for Disney+.

Of course, having more “demand expressions” does not definitively mean that “The Mandalorian” is more popular than “Stranger Things.” Parrot Analytics estimates how highly demanded a show is using audience statistics as well as digital imprint data across multiple media platforms. Essentially, even though Netflix still has more subscribers to watch “Stranger Things” than Disney+ does for “The Mandalorian,” the latter is getting more buzz, appeal, and views altogether.

No Binge Watching as Episodes are Released in Sequence

Unlike Netflix series, which come out with entire seasons at once, “The Mandalorian” is getting released one chapter at a time. The first season will have eight episodes total with the last one premiering on December 27th—and season 2 has already been ordered. Furthermore, Disney+ has many additional original shows lined up for its future, including two more Star Wars series and three Marvel series. “The Mandalorian” is thus a strong starting point for Disney+ and a positive indicator that its subscribers will go up with the more original content it releases.

Netflix, however, is not out of the picture just yet. Although it will be losing a lot of its library as the streaming wars intensify, Netflix has been investing more in original productions lately. The service’s recent movies like “The Irishman,” “Marriage Story,” and “The Two Popes” have received lots of critical praise. Likewise, “The Crown” came out with Season 3 in early November, creating yet another increase in demand.

Lastly, Netflix already announced “Stranger Things” Season 4, which will likely come out in 2021. A lot could obviously take place between now and then, and there is no guarantee what will happen with Disney+, “The Mandalorian,” or the streaming wars in general before that comes out. Nevertheless, “Stranger Things” is bound to bring Netflix yet another spike in demand when it returns. Let’s just hope the service is still afloat at that time to make the most of it.

Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Business

Disney+ Vastly Exceeds its own Expectations, Achieving 10 Million Subscribers within First Day

Video
https://movietrailers.apple.com/movies/lucasfilm/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-trailer-2_h1080p.mov
Star Wars

Streaming Wars are adding Choices for Consumers

Nobody ever doubted that Disney+ would be a success. From the second that the streaming service was announced, almost everyone knew that the website—which offers nearly every film and TV show in the Walt Disney catalogue—would be an enormous step forward for the company.

When Disney+ finally arrived on Tuesday, however, it did not just meet expectations. It immediately surpassed them, surprising even its parent company in the process. 

Within twenty-four hours of the website’s launch, Disney+ reached over 10 million subscribers. This is a number that many did not expect Disney+ to reach for at least a year. To put it in perspective, Disney+ already has more subscribers than HBO Now, CBS All-Access, and Showtime… all reputable services that have been in existence for several years. Disney+ surpassed each of them in the course of a single day.

Of course, this is reason for the Walt Disney Company to celebrate. Even at the affordable price of $7 per month or $70 per year, Disney+ is bound to be a financial goldmine for the company. 

That being said, not all of the 10 million current subscribers are guaranteed customers. Disney+ offers new members a seven-day free trial, so we can assume that at least a few people will binge for a week and then drop the service once they have to pay. Likewise, Verizon has offered the service for free to some of its users, which could account for some of the people lumped into Disney’s hefty figure. 

Nevertheless, not even the higher-ups at Disney anticipated so many people to subscribe on day one. The website’s initial activity was so intense that it actually overwhelmed the service, leaving many users with Error pages and foreboding screens reading “Unable to Connect to Disney+” accompanied by Disney’s very own Wreck-It-Ralph. Over ten thousand reports of this took place on Tuesday, making many subscribers nervous. Luckily, Disney apologized for the inconvenience and swiftly adapted to the unexpectedly large number of patrons. 

The service has been running smoothly ever since, offering users everything that it advertised. With very few exceptions, the service has every piece of Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar content along with Disney classics, National Geographic shows, and several original programs, most notably “The Mandalorian,” which is the first ever live-action series to take place in the Star Wars universe. 

Baby Yoda / Photo / Disney

Do I sound like a Fan? Ok, sorry, you got me

And this is only the beginning! The service promises more originals including “WandaVision,” “Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” “Loki,” and “What If…?” under the Marvel banner as well as two more Star Wars series: one focusing on Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan Kenobi from the prequel trilogy and another one focusing on Diego Luna’s Cassian Andor from “Rogue One.” This is not even to mention all of the original movies, animated content, and pre-released Disney titles that are yet to make their way onto the service. Clearly, the current 10 million subscribers are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

The only ones not celebrating Disney+ right now may be its streaming competitors. While Netflix responded to the Disney’s success with optimism, looking forward to improving their own brand with original content, Amazon, CBS, and other companies of the sort are probably shaking. Likewise, we can imagine that WarnerMedia, Apple, and NBCUniversal, each of whom are about to launch their own streaming services, are sitting on the edges of their seats, fearfully glaring at Disney’s instant accomplishment.

The streaming wars have begun. Many more armies are yet to arrive on the battlefield, but Disney+ has certainly made its presence known. Not even a week into its life, it is striding into combat with confidence, power, and a militia of 10 million soldiers, joyfully armed with a vast inventory of intellectual property that is far from tapped out.

Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.