I'm interested from a "curiousity" perspective. I find SSHing into my mac mini and using elinks to grab .torrents, and tossing them into the folder Transmission automatically looks to is easy enoug. My friend's parents are hardcore Christian Brethren and believe TV is one of those sins that leads to dancing and drinking. My friend was blown away by the free cable he had when he moved out, but was otherwise well adjusted anyway (largely as his parents weren't as conservative about internet use, and he had plenty of video games hooked up to an old commodore monitor) The only funny thing is that his parents had some weird stereotypes (People go to movies TO DRINK!)... that he'd actually fulfill. I don't think he's ever been to a movie theatre without a flask
Heh, here goes my crazy mama's work again... She converted to JW and insisted my father remove all "demonic" influences, such as cable. They kept a television and VCR for the propaganda the JW's would encourage us to watch. We had a few kiddie movies around, many of which got taken away when my little brother and I attempted to show her how hypocritical she was. I was really into music, which she tried to censor, but I learned to hide. She did find my Beastie Boys Licensed to Ill cd, which she smashed with a hammer to make some sort of point. Once I got out of there, I was briefly spellbound by cable. I quickly realized that much of it is useless and haven't paid for it in some time. We have quite the set up here, surround sound, 42" HD television, and a kickass stereo system. We have an HDMI hooked up to the television so we can watch whatever we wish.
I've set up a topic in the Tech forum about torrenting. Feel free to add, ask questions, or PM me feedback.
Wow. Just saw this. <a class="postlink" href="http://mashable.com/2011/04/07/original-youtube-programs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://mashable.com/2011/04/07/original ... -programs/</a> Tell me this isn't a shot across the bow of the big Networks. I can only imagine internet-based shows, like the cartoon network, etc., that totally bypasses the big networks. Has anyone run across any half decent internet based shows, other than the occasional fan remake of something?
I'm going on record right now: NetFlix and Google and all these people are very much used to maximally capitalizing on content other people produce, while giving them (at best) a pittance for it. They now seem to think that they are somehow geniuses with content (despite never making any themselves) and can therefore do better than the old, stodgy, ultra-conservative Big Content companies. When they have to actually put together real content, they will find that they have zero expertise in this area, and that maybe it's a little harder than they thought. They will find that, despite all their innovativeness in the world of shipping DVDs and ranking search results, making a TV show or a movie that people want to watch consistently is expensive and difficult. Meanwhile, the profit margins will be really, really thin compared to what they're used to. Media economics seems to be a lot like venture capital: the way you sustain it is that the one big hit subsidizes all the losses. If either one of them can come up with one big hit, I will never hear the fucking end of how THIS IS THE FUTURE OF MEDIA everywhere I go on the Internet. The 10 failed projects that nobody remembers (and the enormous pots of money sunk into them, totally offsetting the profits from Big Hit Show) will be quietly swept under the rug and forgotten. If they don't get a big hit early, then these ventures will, as a whole, be quietly swept under the rug. The other problem they will face is that there is one big talent pool for making TV shows and movies, and the good part of it is already working in Hollywood doing the best it can to make TV shows and movies. If Joss Whedon's paycheck is signed by Google instead of Fox, it will not matter a whit. He's going to make the same shows. Google may fund Firefly longer than Fox did, but they will soon realize that a hardcore group of 10,000 geeks doesn't pay the bills.
See, I didn't read it like this. I interpreted it to mean that they were going to hire the pros to make the content, they were just paying for it. One of the HUGEST problems I see in Hollywood is that there are morons making decisions about what should be green-lit. Or canned. They're still trying to think about advertising dollars and the bullshit 9pm demographic and all that crap, whereas Google has a chance to refine that a bit and target the more internet-savvy types. AND THERE'S NO REGULATION. THERE'S NO CENSORSHIP. It's like podcasting, only video, and with $100m behind it. It's the equivalent of satellite radio to terrestrial radio. I have faith that a geek-inspired company, like Google, with their masses of geeks, would tend to have Firefly made rather than some bullshit reality show. In short, I believe that they won't make stupid decisions like Hollywood does. Or at least anywhere near as many, I hope. Hopefully they'll go to FX or AMC or one of the other smaller providers that have been showing excellent content and fund them. And tell me the FCC and whoever it is that makes the censorship calls aren't going to be rattling some cages soon to extend their powers. And how big of a deal would it be if they launched the whole service with internet-based Firefly episodes?
I haven't watched normal television since I was 17 (my father bet me I couldn't go a year without television, while still being able to watch Netflix movies on the DVD player, and I won), and haven't owned a television since I was 18. Nowadays though, I do occasionally download (Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, Archer, MMA, Dancing with the Stars...uh, I mean...Death with Sex! Yeah, that's it!) and stream (basketball, MMA) programs. Honestly, I wouldn't be so opposed to having a television if there weren't so many goddamn commercials, and if I could pick the channels I wanted, or even better, decide on the specific programs I wanted to watch. Let's say I want to watch a specific MMA program from Spike, followed by some Yakuza film from a Japanese channel, without having to pay for shit like Lifetime and all the other useless crap on most stations. That would be awesome. Very astute observations, and sure, I expect their results to be utter shit, but it is an interesting new avenue for aspiring directors and actor nonetheless. Edit- Maybe...but their Youtube audience might still prefer the bullshit reality show.
They are hiring pros. Netflix bought 26 episodes of a big expensive show from David Fincher and Kevin Spacey sight-unseen. They are apparently confident that they cannot go wrong with such huge names. We shall see. I can see studio executives sniggering about this right now. I think the big content companies make decisions the way they do for a reason. Probably a lot of little reasons built up over the years. Maybe Google or Netflix will discover the assumption that needs to be violated to create a revolution in content. They found it with search and advertising. It might work, certainly. It will be interesting to see if they do target the geek demographic. You can't hire people and spend money like the top of the power-law curve and then make content for the long tail. If they do make new episodes of Firefly, they would do well to invest in jizzmopping services in the Silicon Valley - they will be in huge business for at least a week.
I re-listened to an Adam Carolla podcast today that featured Kevin Smith, and he had an incredibly astute observation. He basically said that if you want to get the absolute best out of people, put it in their lap. Don't micromanage. Let them do what they do. If you have talent working for you, the more you let go, the better it will be, to an extent. Don't try and tell the pros how to play a specific scene, just let them do it, and bring their talent to bear. Everything I've heard about Hollywood (albeit it's quite limited) screams that they are a bunch of micromanagers seeking validation, and are their own worst enemies. Listen to Carolla talk about his pilot that he did, and the fucked up way the networks went about it. It's beyond fucked. Look at Twin Peaks. Lynch only did it because he was guaranteed complete control and free reign on what was done. As a result it was one of the biggest hits of the 90's, and yet the network pulled it. I think that the further away from Hollywood that content production (or the decisions made about content production) gets, the better it will be for people with a brain.
The one thing about Google that has pretty well been a universal constant, is that they innovate and they push the boundaries. Usually they succeed at that. I can't see them just copying the current Hollywood model, or churning out shit that has the same theme or content as what is out there now. I think they'll do something somewhat unique and original, and I just hope it will succeed. Call me crazy, but I have faith in Google. Especially since Page recently announced that he's putting more of the Engineers back in charge of things, like the old days, because the (reading between the lines) typical MBA's are fucking things up.
Seriously, look at how successful Google Buzz is, take that Twitter! Or how about the limitless potential of Google Wave! These guys can do no wrong. As for the Netflix show, I hate to do this, because I think quality wise Nett is 100% correct that it should be left to the creatives and that the quality of these internet shows will probably be quite high, but good content doesn't pay the bills if most people don't want to watch it. And like Frylock said, these guys aren't in the business of creating consumable content, they are just in distribution. I will also go on record saying I think these ventures will be a flop. I just hope my subscription fees don't get jacked to cover the loss. Lastly, how does Netflix actually profit from this if it is widely successful? They don't sell advertisement slots. Are they hoping that the show alone will bring enough new subscribers to make it profitable?
Remember when Fox was the fourth network? And, David Letterman used to tell jokes about that and giggle every time he used the word "network" when referring to Fox? NBC, CBS, and ABC used to laugh at them - now who's laughing? Admittedly, there is the CW and UPN failures, so maybe it won't work. But, I think part of their success will come from allowing shows to mature and evolve before pulling the plug, since their newness will encourage them to stick with it. The big networks cancel WAAAY to quickly on some shows.