'Arrested Development' Comes Exclusively To Netflix 201
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?"
I'll pass. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm allergic to giving money to corporations that sponsor bills like SOPA.
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What, do you seriously think that Fox isn't sponsoring the bill AND getting money from this resurrection?
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Was in the "past" re SOAP - anyone have any info?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What we need is a congressman to stand up against SOPA. The next step would be for that congressman to run for president of the United States, I bet that candidate would be tied for first in Iowa, and a strong second in New Hampshire by now. Just to add icing to the cake, he should be a veteran, hell make him a doctor too.
Re: (Score:3)
What about a congresswoman? Nancy Pelosi has talked against SOPA: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/idUS402801936220111117 [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But a woman can't be president. I bet she barely has time for the cooking and cleaning as it is.
Re:I'll pass. (Score:4, Informative)
I took the liberty of looking some things up, and it may surprise you to learn that the cast of TV shows does indeed age with the passage of time. Firefly was nearly 10 years ago, so everyone is now 10 years older. It's funny how that works isn't it.
That didn't stop the original cast of Star Trek!
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is those movies took place well after the events of TOS. This would be making Firefly Season 2 picking up where Season 1 left off.
Why would new Firefly episodes have to pick up where the old ones left off?
Re: (Score:2)
it would now be 9-12 years after the events in serenity.... considering the info that was leaked it could be a radically different place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Everyone's aged 10 years so we can have a 29 year old Jewel Staite trying to pass herself off as Kailey. Imagine similar scenarios for all actors involved. Surely nobody will notice the 10 year seam.
Hell, if they can make Johnny Depp look like a chameleon [imdb.com], then ILM can make Jewel State look 20 years old again.
(Goes back to dreaming).
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. Jewel Staite. Sorry there.
Yeah. (Score:2)
Never mind that rampant objectification, it's the fucking spelling of her name that really gets my goat.
Re: (Score:3)
Them? (Score:2)
Well, thanks a bunch.
Love, The Rest Of The Not United States World.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".
And what did you think all those shows were?
"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Bruce Campbell might have contractual obligations to the show he's currently working on...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (Score:5, Informative)
For those reading this, "Burn Notice" is really good, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
But *why* is it called 'bum notice'?
Now, where's me specs?
Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much more interesting once you realize his mother is pulling all the strings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd call it an "action-comedy" (just like most of USA's other shows: White Collar, Suits, Covert Affairs, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand though, most other shows get this much much worse. For example, Burn Notice only had magical GPS "trackers" once or twice, while the average such show uses that in damn near every episode.
While the average show portrays explosives as simple magic, this show has for the most part been relatively accurate in its descriptions of the components of an explosive, even if the actual explosion generated is not always that realistic. (Although one instance in which they described C4 being detonated
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, most shows deliberately get explosives wrong (and in a way that, hopefully, can't actually detonate) to reduce liability in the event someone tries it at home and it goes horribly wrong...
The magic dust gps tracking recently bugged me a lot, though. I thought people finally had a small idea about how GPS worked, so shows couldn't just make stuff up willy-nilly any more.
It's worse, because it's completely unnecessary - I fail to see how perimeter cameras couldn't have been used as the plot devic
Very Cool, but... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider a Netflix DVD by mail subscription as a way to participate in a national distributed off-site backup system aimed at bypassing SOPA.
I sold my station wagon decades ago.
Several thoughts on this rather positive trend (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
HBO / show / MAX / Stars is the better way to go (Score:2)
More people can them then streaming. But why not move the show to FX or some other channel?
Re: (Score:3)
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;
The same as if it was NBC or HBO, Netflix will own the international copyright and will most probably sell the rights to broadcast elsewhere. At the very least they'll wait a while and put out a DVD.
And yes. You don't like copyrighted products so you use free software, great. Similarly, there is a huge amount of freely available music and video
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most Free Software is copyrighted. GPL, BSD, Apache are all copyright licenses.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, BSD and Apache aren't copyleft.
and you can get less time by shoplifting movies an (Score:2)
and you can get less time by shoplifting movies and games from the store.
Hate It (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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]
When will movies and apps become DRM-free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
I thought Apple made a pretty good technical case (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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,
The 30% cut on the monthly sub (Score:2)
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.
Bitfrost (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because little companies like MS and Sony couldn't possibly compete with big bad Apple....
The same article I quoted sai
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score: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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disk player? Wassat?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Information: The more you have... (Score:2)
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
There are a few. (Score:2)
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.
Lord knows they're squinters (Score:5, Funny)
Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Maybe Arrested Development would still be dead if Netflix didn't pay enough to be the exclusive distributor.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses have principles?
I didn't say that. I dislike businesses doing exclusive deals because it is a way to extract greater profits from consumers by creating an artificial monopoly. It's my principles that I was referring to, not the principles of the businesses involved. Of course, my opinion (and hopefully that of people who understand my point) of a business is lowered when I see them doing such things.
Cult? (Score:2)
Re:Cult? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A shot across the bows (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could also use reason and ask yourself why a 5 year old TV show being made available by a DVD rental company would make it onto Slashdot. The only reason would be that it was new content, and you would scan the summary for this tidbit, albeit small and somewhat hidden.
Late arrival spoiler (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A simple file has all of the advantages of streaming media and none of the downsides. When it also represents the cheaper option, it really makes no sense to shun physical media.
Re: (Score:3)
Jericho reboot is currently on AMC. They wanted to mix it up a bit from "Internal terrorists" and went with "Zombies" instead as the main plot.
More or less remains unchanged.
Re:WTF is Arrested Development? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a fox tv series that aired in the US a few years back. Among people who watched it, it was exceptionally well regarded, but it suffered and died from two problems:
1) Jumping in was hard, because there were a lot of self-referential jokes from earlier episodes.
2) It got consistently stuck in terrible time-slots, and this was before Nielsen figured out how to deal with people using dvrs.
If you're a nerd and enjoy comedy series, I'd highly recommend it. In my opinion it's the best comedy series ever on tv, and the only one that I've watched the entirety of more than 3 times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seasons 1 and 2 were brilliant. Having not seen the show in the UK, I laughed a lot during these.
By half way through season 3, I understood why it had been cancelled. Man that was dire!
The British stuff in season 3 was pretty average, but pretty much every other aspect of it was brilliant.
Like:
- Tobias' hair plugs
- George Sr talking at the "scared straight" tent
- George Sr being under house arrest and wanting to go back to prison
- the surrogate
- Gob and Steve Holt
Etc etc...