MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Delivelution: June 20, 2011

Last week, there were a few things worth noting on our journey into the future.

The New York Post decided to cut off iPad access to its online content. To many this seemed extreme, but it seems to me that they were following in the footsteps of the New York Times. The Paper of Record has not cut off iPad access via Safari, but to use the paper’s iPad app. one has to pay a premium price… an extravagant premium price. And besides that seeming absurd on so many levels, it is all the more so because the iPad app isn’t very good. (As in, it ain’t the WSJ, still the best newspaper app on the market.) Everyone is looking for the right combination of free and getting people who are willing to pay to pay. Sounds of outrage seem to be coming from the one place it really matters to people, which is also a city in which there is probably a higher percentage of iPad use than anywhere else… Nueva York.

I’ve noticed an increase in ads on HuluPlus this last week, at least for their more current programming. Another service with optional payment for additional services, Box Office Mojo, seems to have a new policy on ads… which is that I am now seeing them – and having service slowed by them – even while paying for a Premier Pass. (The price for a year’s access also went up.) This seems to be the next step for these companies and no doubt others. First, they got people to pay for a mostly free service… now, they are comfortable pushing their paying customers incrementally. In both of these cases, personally, additional advertising encumbrances may change my attitude about paying for the services. And a big part of that is that neither company, while accepting my money, bothered to inform me of the changes in policy or number of ads. In my view, the #1 way to irritate your customer base – ask the record business – is to make them feel taken for granted and like your business thinks they are suckers. Yellow flag.

HBO continues to build its iPad platform, HBOGo, heavily promoting that the second episode of the new season of True Blood will be available via the service a week before airing. They did this with Game of Thrones, Episode 7 a couple of months ago. HBOGo is collaborating with the cable companies, smartly not threatening them with a tool that will promote cord cutting, but at the same time protecting themselves from cord cutting. At the same time, if Netflix or Hulu or whomever will pony up big dollars, it’s clear that HBOGo will also align with those companies to make the service available to their customers. (Ironically, the biggest cable outlet not working with HBOGo so far is Time Warner Cable.)

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Responses to “Delivelution: June 20, 2011”

  1. hcat says:

    On a somewhat related streaming note, I tried to watch a movie on Sony’s Crackle site and found it terribly interuptive. Every 11 minutes it stopped for an ad, often right in the middle of the scene, and it took a longer than usual time to buffer back into the feature. Free with ads is one thing but the experience just reminded me why I pay for subscriptions.

  2. NickF says:

    I hope HBO has upgraded their servers. True Blood gets nearly twice as many viewers as Game of Thrones.

    The site was so slow I had to use Comcast’s streaming aite to see EP7 a week early.

  3. arisp says:

    Of course TWC won’t allow HBOGo for their subscribers; corporate can’t cut off the nose to spite the face. Many clients, like me, would cut the cord happily. However, punishing 10+ year clients like myself is not the way to go either. I’ve voiced my displeasure with TWC customer service, but the people who answer the phones are, to put it kindly, morons. Complaining on twitter and Facebook is the way to go with this, which is what I intend on doing. It’s ridiculous that we are STILL being punished, in 2011 and after everything we’ve seen in the music biz, for not illegally downloading files.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon