Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Television Entertainment

'Arrested Development' Comes Exclusively To Netflix 201

Posted by timothy
from the on-probation dept.
First time accepted submitter Xondak writes "The cult series 'Arrested Development' is being resurrected and brought exclusively to Netflix streaming subscribers. This marks the first time a major studio has produced first-run content for the streaming service and perhaps this will afford other opportunities for cancelled Fox series. Firefly, anyone?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Arrested Development' Comes Exclusively To Netflix

Comments Filter:
  • I'll pass. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Microlith (54737) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @12:39PM (#38108982)

    I'm allergic to giving money to corporations that sponsor bills like SOPA.

  • by benbean (8595)

    Well, thanks a bunch.

    Love, The Rest Of The Not United States World.

  • Gee ... there's just too many to choose from.
    • by hedwards (940851)

      Unfortunately, Bruce Campbell is too old to play Brisco again. Similar for most of the other series that Fox has cancelled prematurely. Not that I begrudge any fans of whatever shows Netflix can resurrect.

      • by zippthorne (748122) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @01:14PM (#38109210) Journal

        Also, Bruce Campbell might have contractual obligations to the show he's currently working on...

        • by hedwards (940851)

          Yes, but that's rather a moot point as I doubt very much that he has the energy to spend 12-16 hours every day working on the show and promoting it. The show itself was rather the impressive feat as they were basically filming a new movie every 2 weeks which is just absolutely insane as far as pacing goes.

        • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Saturday November 19, 2011 @01:35PM (#38109314)

          For those reading this, "Burn Notice" is really good, by the way.

          • by nigelo (30096)

            But *why* is it called 'bum notice'?

            Now, where's me specs?

          • by Hatta (162192) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @03:02PM (#38109982) Journal

            No it's not. It's incredibly bad actually. None of the characters are remotely believable or likeable. It's hard to get into a spy show when you're rooting for the protagonist to get shot. And the premise? "When you're a spy, you don't get fired, you get sent to Miami." WTF is that? I watched a half dozen episodes of this with family and it was completely and utterly without any merit whatsoever.

            • by Surt (22457)

              It's much more interesting once you realize his mother is pulling all the strings.

            • by Culture20 (968837)
              I was talking about burn notice with a friend of mine, and I referred to it as a great comedy. She looked at me like I had two heads, and said "it's an action-drama". (like that greek tragedy, Magnum P.I.)
              • I'd call it an "action-comedy" (just like most of USA's other shows: White Collar, Suits, Covert Affairs, etc.).

  • Very Cool, but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ideonexus (1257332) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @12:41PM (#38109006) Homepage Journal

    I closed my Netflix account during all the price-hike hoopla and really haven't missed it at all (started reading a lot more). So I guess I'll do what I do with TV shows (since we don't own a TV) and wait until they're out on DVD or streaming somewhere else for free online. I'm patient enough to do this with Futurama, so I can wait for more episodes of this awesomely twisted show.

  • by Pecisk (688001) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @12:47PM (#38109040)

    1) "Firefly" or "SGU" or whatever your sci-fi poison is can't and won't be retrieved this way - because it is too expensive and Netflix subscribers simply won't do all the lifting;
    2) As someone already pointed out, Netflix and other streaming services which streams tv series are kinda useless in big picture, because they won't be allowed in the rest of the world due of syndication/greed/whatever is new reason for MAFIAA to restrict their product to be available for rest of us;
    3) And I'm alergic to bulshit like SOPA too - so I see less and less initiative to play by the rules. If they think that threatening everyone like wannabe criminals, why I should try to change their mind? There is lot of other things to really worry about, like hunger, economical stagnation, or even existence of capitalism itself. I will try to get myself into more independent stuff and support them - as I already do using open source and free software for 11 years.

  • Hate It (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afabbro (33948) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @12:51PM (#38109064) Homepage

    This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor - limited selection. I can get show X or album Y on service 1, but not on service 2.

    I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

    I've long thought that digital media should be like the Internet, with individual Music Service Providers competing based on their interface, features, etc., and not on their catalog. In other words, all content available through everyone and that's not why you choose one over the other.

    iTunes, Google Music, Netflix, etc. are simply recreations of the record company distribution monopoly. At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.

    • Re:Hate It (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hedwards (940851) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @12:58PM (#38109116)

      More or less, but it's been that way for ages. I remember Apple using that as a way of damaging competing brands of MP3 player. They would have tons of DRMed ITMS exclusives that couldn't be played on other players without degrading the sound quality. All because Apple refused to license its DRM to competitors and wasn't willing to license MS' DRM.

      These days it's not about the player but about making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible to get access to the entire catalog. In this case rather than Netflix, Hulu et al., being responsible it's the industry wanting to receive payment multiple times for the same consumer's access to the work.

      • Re:Hate It (Score:5, Informative)

        by Karlt1 (231423) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @01:05PM (#38109160)

        More or less, but it's been that way for ages. I remember Apple using that as a way of damaging competing brands of MP3 player. They would have tons of DRMed ITMS exclusives that couldn't be played on other players without degrading the sound quality. All because Apple refused to license its DRM to competitors and wasn't willing to license MS' DRM.

        And instead of licensing their DRM, they encouraged the music industry to allow all music to be sold DRM free.

        http://www.apple.com/de/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ [apple.com]

        The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

        Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs havenâ(TM)t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. Thatâ(TM)s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

        • So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free? Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Karlt1 (231423)

            So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free? Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.

            i thought the reframe was that people wanted DRM free media to "use their media anyway they want to and on any device". What other device besides an iOS device could apps be used on and how does it hurt the consumer? How does DRM on apps prevent you from doing anything you want to with it besides illegally distribute it?

            • by jedidiah (1196)

              DRM on apps prevents me from using my device as if I owned it. I can't install products of my choosing or use formats of my choosing. I am not free to backup and restore my device free of some other proprietary entanglement.

              It's the same problem as video.

              The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

              I can play a Harry Potter disk in any brand of player. Can't say the same of the "digital download" that c

              • Er? By your low ID, I would hope you know that buying an app for one platform is not likely to work very well on another platform. For instance you can buy Office for Windows but unless you run virtualization that copy isn't going to work on a Mac.

                The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

                You are under no obligation to buy only Apple media. The problem is DRM on the media limits the platform. It exists under the insistence of the copyright holder.

                • by tepples (727027)

                  For instance you can buy Office for Windows but unless you run virtualization that copy isn't going to work on a Mac.

                  That's what Wine is at least supposed to be for. If iOS apps didn't have DRM, someone could take GNUstep and in theory build it into a binary-compatible execution environment to run iOS apps.

                  The problem is DRM on the media limits the platform. It exists under the insistence of the copyright holder.

                  On the other hand, some other copyright holders insist on no DRM, and Apple won't let them distribute their apps that way. I can link to a prior Slashdot article about this if you're interested.

                  • That's what Wine is at least supposed to be for. If iOS apps didn't have DRM, someone could take GNUstep and in theory build it into a binary-compatible execution environment to run iOS apps.

                    Let me get this straight. You want Apple to release their apps without DRM even though the application developers may not want you to and bog down a mobile device by running virtualization. Only because you want everything free. Sure.

                    On the other hand, some other copyright holders insist on no DRM, and Apple won't let them distribute their apps that way. I can link to a prior Slashdot article about this if you're interested.

                    I believe nothing stops a developer from releasing their source code today if they want if they want. If you are talking about VLC someone ported it into the app store, but one of the developers objected to it being there. So Apple removed it.

                    • by tepples (727027)

                      You want Apple to release their apps without DRM even though the application developers may not want you to

                      Please see my other reply [slashdot.org].

                      and bog down a mobile device by running virtualization

                      Where does virtualization (in the VirtualBox or VMware or Parallels sense) come into it? Wine is just a set of libraries that are binary-compatible with applications made for Windows. An app to run theoretical DRM-free iOS apps on something else would be little different from Wine to run Windows apps on Linux or Mac OS X.

              • by Karlt1 (231423)

                The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

                My audio content is encoded in AAC or MP3 which works on every modern device.

                My video content is encoded in H.264 that is natively supported by almost every device.

                Even my Divx video can be played with third party software.

                No one forces you to buy content from iTunes. It's child's play to rip video content off of a disk,.

            • by tepples (727027)

              What other device besides an iOS device could apps be used on and how does it hurt the consumer?

              If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

              And if iOS apps were DRM-free, people wouldn't have to pay $600 plus $99 per year to run applications that a friend developed on a device that they bought.

              • If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

                That's assuming that the application developer allows you to do so. Not everyone wants you to run their applications for free.

                • by tepples (727027)

                  That's assuming that the application developer allows you to do so. Not everyone wants you to run their applications for free.

                  Nor do the major record labels want you to listen to their recordings for free, yet Apple managed to get them to agree to iTunes Plus. Besides, why does Apple use DRM for the paid apps and the same DRM for the freeware apps instead of DRM for the paid apps and no DRM for the freeware apps?

                  • Nor do the major record labels want you to listen to their recordings for free, yet Apple managed to get them to agree to iTunes Plus.

                    Um maybe that had to do with the fact that music was DRM free from CDs to begin with and by insisting on DRM, the labels made Apple too powerful as they became the #1 music seller.

                    Besides, why does Apple use DRM for the paid apps and the same DRM for the freeware apps instead of DRM for the paid apps and no DRM for the freeware apps?

                    Because it is logistically easier. If the developer doesn't want to get paid, the entire mechanism is the same but Apple simply does not collect any money and does not forward any to the developer. Otherwise, they would have to a develop an entire system of non-DRM-ed apps. And then what happens if the developer changes his min

                    • by tepples (727027)

                      Um maybe that had to do with the fact that music was DRM free from CDs to begin with

                      Apps from Mac OS X, of which iOS is known to be a fork, were DRM free to begin with.

                      Otherwise, they would have to a develop an entire system of non-DRM-ed apps.

                      And guess what they had on the Mac: a non-DRM ecosystem before adding the Mac App Store.

                      And then what happens if the developer changes his mind?

                      Developer discontinues freeware version in favor of paid version? Freeware version gets no more updates.

              • by jasomill (186436)

                If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

                "In the tradition of Wine," an appropriately "clean room" implementation would entail a massive amount of work, and "in the tradition of Wine," it'd most likely never be robust and current enough for anything but "useful special cases" in productio

                • by tepples (727027)

                  an appropriately "clean room" implementation would entail a massive amount of work

                  Yet the GNU developers managed such an implementation of the published POSIX API. Because Cocoa Touch is based on OpenStep, and OpenStep is implemented in GNUstep, such work for Cocoa Touch has in theory already begun.

                  Assuming the "friend" is a member of the paid developer program, there are several ways to do this for free.

                  Until the friend stops paying his protection money.

          • So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free?

            Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM. Those are basically break even enterprises Apple uses as a way to make money selling hardware. Anything that makes it easier and more common for people to get more movies or apps also gives users more reason to buy Apple devices and that is where Apple cashes in. The one caveat being, Apple doesn't want other distribution networks for applications on their mobile devices because they are worried about quality, development practices

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by jedidiah (1196)

              > Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM.

              You've just got to love how the fanboys will speak for a corporation as if they have any standing to do so. It's pretty arrogant really. It also flies in the fact of the fact that they clearly benefit from the arrangement.

              They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

              • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM.

                You've just got to love how the fanboys will speak for a corporation as if they have any standing to do so. It's pretty arrogant really. It also flies in the fact of the fact that they clearly benefit from the arrangement.

                You've got to love how people can present the logical fallacies of ad hominem and implicit statement in a single paragraph. It's wonderful how initially a poster presented as fact that Apple was leveraging DRM on music to make money as their business model, then when that was shown to be completely wrong, someone else asserts how, with a nearly identical business model Apple is benefiting too much from DRM on movies so they would not abandon it. I mean, did you even read the thread or can you not make that

              • They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

                So you are saying it's Apple's fault that they don't want to allow 3rd parties access to the DRM they created. They've already stated the reasons they don't want to. Hey if you want to create a DRM system with 3rd parties go right ahead. If you want to deal the with Hollywood, that's your dilemma.

                • by hedwards (940851)

                  Hollywood has been perfectly fine doing just that as has the recording industry. I'm not sure how else you explain all the music stores that managed to get licenses to sell DRMed music from mainstream artists. None of the stores is as big as the ITMS but that's mostly because they weren't in early enough and didn't have the ability to sell to iPod owners.

                  The fact of the matter is that there's absolutely no reason to believe that Apple's unwillingness to license Fairplay to anybody else was anything other th

                  • for not sharing their DRM protocol. The short story is that they were obligated via contract with the record companies to prevent unauthorized breaking or cracking of their protocol (or to roll out fixes quickly in the case of breakage). All DRM security is based on some secrets; secrets they would have to divulge to the third parties for them to implement their protocol. Apple didn't feel like they could meet their contractual obligations if they let a dozen different vendors have access to those secrets.

                    A

              • by Karlt1 (231423)

                They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

                Anybody who wants to sell DRM'd media is welcome to do so using their own app -- just as every e-book seller, NetFlix, Hulu, etc. already do,

                • Anybody who wants to sell DRM'd media is welcome to do so using their own app

                  For one thing, this isn't true for the click-wheel iPods, which can't run apps except for a select few major-label games. For another, I seem to remember Apple wanting the 30% cut on the monthly subscription.

            • Apple doesn't want other distribution networks for applications on their mobile devices because they are worried about quality

              "Quality" is nebulous. There are bad movies on the iTunes Store; why should apps be any different?

              development practices that will limit future improvements

              If by such "development practices" you mean use of private APIs, then have the executable loader fail if it detects the name of any such private API in the list of symbols that the executable imports.

              and malware tarnishing the brand.

              Malware can be dealt with by applying sandbox policies similar to those of OLPC Bitfrost to unapproved applications.

              • Apple doesn't want other distribution networks for applications on their mobile devices because they are worried about quality

                "Quality" is nebulous. There are bad movies on the iTunes Store; why should apps be any different?

                Because when a movie is bad, people don't blame Apple or the quality of the iPhone. When an app is poor quality it can kill the battery life of the device and people do blame the phone maker. Android developers at Google said this was their #1 problem and it is the reason why they are investing so much money into trying to make new technologies to make it easier to find out what is killing your battery life and warn users of "bad" apps.

                development practices that will limit future improvements

                If by such "development practices" you mean use of private APIs, then have the executable loader fail if it detects the name of any such private API in the list of symbols that the executable imports.

                By development practices, I mean they don't want developers on their pla

                • by tepples (727027)

                  Android developers at Google said this was their #1 problem and it is the reason why they are investing so much money into trying to make new technologies to make it easier to find out what is killing your battery life and warn users of "bad" apps.

                  OS-level battery monitoring in my opinion is the correct solution, as opposed to imposing censorship on application distribution.

                  Umm, you do know they guy who made Bitfrost is now working for Apple on the sandboxing Apple uses in iPhones and OS X, right?

                  Just because it's from the same person doesn't mean it implements the same policy. From the Bitfrost page [laptop.org]: "we wish to have the ability to execute generally untrusted code, while severely limiting its ability to inflict harm to the system." The iOS environment explicitly denies "the ability to execute generally untrusted code" by design.

          • Whenever the copyright holders agree to it. Apple could force DRM-free music because they were the #1 music store and music labels realized they gave Apple leverage by insisting on DRM. With movies, you can get them on netflix, RedBox, Hulu as well as outlets. As for applications, an application is not media. Buying an iOS app to work on your Android is not likely to work very well.
        • by hedwards (940851)

          Right, they encouraged the industry to go DRM free after they had gotten all the mileage that they were going to get out of abusing their ITMS to harm the competition. Don't make Steve out to be something he's not, he was every bit as vicious and arrogant as MS, it's just that early on he got booted from Apple when he could have been building up a dominant market position in computers.

          • by Karlt1 (231423)

            Right, they encouraged the industry to go DRM free after they had gotten all the mileage that they were going to get out of abusing their ITMS to harm the competition. Don't make Steve out to be something he's not, he was every bit as vicious and arrogant as MS, it's just that early on he got booted from Apple when he could have been building up a dominant market position in computers.

            Yeah because little companies like MS and Sony couldn't possibly compete with big bad Apple....

            The same article I quoted sai

            • by hedwards (940851)

              It doesn't matter whether or not that's the case it's still an antitrust violation no matter how you spin it. The reality is that there were an awful lot of exclusives that the ITMS managed to get in large part due to its size and it was effectively preventing people who owned other brands of MP3 player from getting full quality out of their purchases.

              It doesn't matter what you cite, the fact remains that Apple was using the ITMS in a way that damaged competition.

      • Its been that way even further back, in ye olde times of ancient television. A single station might produce a show, and that was your basic option for seeing said show. (Unless you wanted to purchase the VHS).
        • by hedwards (940851)

          Yes, although I don't really consider that to be the same thing as in those days there was a really good technological reason for that. VHS was expensive as was the means of setting up another station. It was less about control and more a matter of pragmatics back then.

          Don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if they wouldn't have pulled this sort of crap, but the technology didn't really require it at the time.

    • by Surt (22457)

      And of course, every one of those services wants to be the only one you can get it from. It's what they all want.

    • by j-beda (85386)

      I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

      Quest had a cute commercial about this type of thing, way back in 1999:
      A tired man goes into a cheap motel in the middle of nowhere and asks about amenities. When he asks about entertainment, the girl responds "all rooms have every movie ever made in any language anytime, day or night."
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ9qcp6Lcno [youtube.com]

      The technology exists, heck, a payment system probably could be worked out without too much technical difficulties. The political/legal rights issues are probably intractable.

    • what is this 8-track you speak of? and will it play in my disc player?

      ....well, so much for that one format for all devices argument
    • by Noughmad (1044096)

      This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor

      Of the four services you mentioned, three don't work where I live (Europe). Unfortunately, the fourth one requires a piece of proprietary software that I can't run without buying even more proprietary software or hardware.

      On the other hand, there is this one service that works everywhere in the world, has a lot of different clients (many of them free), and even supports interoperability between providers. And on top of that, you don't have to risk your credit card details getting stolen.

    • by Nyder (754090)

      This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor - limited selection. I can get show X or album Y on service 1, but not on service 2.

      I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

      I've long thought that digital media should be like the Internet, with individual Music Service Providers competing based on their interface, features, etc., and not on their catalog. In other words, all content available through everyone and that's not why you choose one over the other.

      iTunes, Google Music, Netflix, etc. are simply recreations of the record company distribution monopoly. At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.

      Weird, thepiratebay.org and other sites, don't have the problem. If it can be digitized, you can download it.

      This is why I don't pay for stuff, because they don't need money and they sure as fuck don't understand the market. So screw them. Because they will screw you over, if it makes them even the slightest profit.

    • by TopSpin (753)

      I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally.

      Stay alive long enough and you'll see it. This won't happen in an orderly fashion; legacy content owners wisely adopting the new business model. Most of them will have to be bought to evict the legacy management and/or have change forced upon them.

      I explained and predicted this back in July. [slashdot.org] Exclusive content is the way forward for streaming, just as it was for cable companies. Cable was the venue for CNN, MTV and all those other now household names. Netflix, or whomever wishes to do well, needs to k

    • I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want.

      In the early days of Bulletin Board Systems, operators of these services discovered a principle regarding the relationship between information (content) and clientele: Information has a negative supply/demand curve. With regular stuff, like cars and dental floss, the more there is, the smaller the demand. With information, the more you have, the more clients you will have. The principle holds up in websites today, as well. Do you think Slashdot would have as many readers if they only posted one story

  • I wouldn't mind seeing Firefly, Dark Angle, and Terminator - The Sara Connor Chronicles get revived. I'm not sure why Breaking In disappeared. It looked like it had potential.

  • by shoppa (464619) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @01:19PM (#38109240)
    And that's why you don't use a one-armed man to scare someone.
  • by Bill Dimm (463823) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @01:37PM (#38109342) Homepage

    Netfix surely could have gotten the content cheaper if it was non-exclusive. The price hike everyone was griping about isn't being spent (entirely) on bringing more content to Netflix subscribers. Part of it is being spent on keeping content away from subscribers of other content delivery services, i.e. exclusivity. You're happy to pay more to help Netflix shut out its competitors, right?

    Note: I'm not arguing about whether or not Netfix is a good deal for the price. I'm arguing against exclusivity as a matter of principle -- it's an abuse of customers to make them pay more in order to make the market less competitive (which ultimately hurts consumers).

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe Arrested Development would still be dead if Netflix didn't pay enough to be the exclusive distributor.

    • by artor3 (1344997)

      Maybe, or maybe it's an exclusive because no one else wanted it. No one was exactly racing to pick up the show until now.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Hold on. The point of exclusivity is to draw more customers to your service. If you're drawing more customers, that's more revenue. If you have more revenue, you can use that to pay for the exclusivity. If you're not expecting to make enough from new customers to pay for the exclusivity deal, then making the deal doesn't make economic sense for your business. There's absolutely no reason to raise rates on existing customers to pay for an exclusivity deal.

  • by kogut (1133781)
    Can a 4-year-long series with established talent be considered "cult?"
    • Re:Cult? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kimvette (919543) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @04:47PM (#38110606) Homepage Journal

      Yes - Fox did everything they could to sabotage the show, including but not limited to musical timeslots. airing shows out of order, placing it in timeslots where it would be preempted by sports or political speeches, and so on. They went out of their way to kill the show, justifying their cancelling it due to low ratings which were due in large part to the musical timeslots and preempting and delaying of broadcast, and yet it STILL became an astounding success upon DVD release and reruns on cable networks have been strong as well. So yes, it enjoys a cult following.

      I'd like to see "No Ordinary Family" and "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" be continued as well. Also, Firefly, I would second, providing the writers pretend "Serenity" never happened (It was a really shitty ending and we never did learn much about Shepherd's backstory and why at times he enjoyed a VIP get out of jail free card) and just pick up where the series originally left off.

  • The studios bankroll, they do not create. If the creative types jump ship to streamers, the traditional companies have nothing to offer. Damnatraiggt the should be scared.

    • by j-beda (85386)

      On a per-viewer basis - TV creators get very little revenue. If they can find a way to get similar levels of income from non-broadcast TV distribution, then we will see more of this in the future. Maybe broadcast TV will end up just showing old re-runs of programming first released in some other format.

If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.

Working...