Delivelution, May 18, 2011

This WSJ story on Hulu’s new content arrangement with its parent companies is just another clear indicator of how perceived value of content is changing.

Now, studios/broadcasters see their re-runs as freshly valuable commodities. With the price point being set by Netflix, the value of all second-run content is rising. So after eliminating most of what would have been network re-runs in recent years, the internet delivery of said re-runs is turning out to be worth more than the ad revenue a site like Hulu can earn to share with the content owner. In other words, ABC.com can generate similar levels of advertising revenue in-house… or more enticingly, can get a Netflix or another new competitor of Netflix to pay a premium for the content as bait for whatever business they want to build.

After a week or ten days or two weeks, the content could go up on Hulu and/or a parade of streaming syndicators who are willing to revenue share.

As with the film business, it’s all about getting the maximum revenue out of whatever piece of content being discussed. None of these companies care about where the shows play or how many people see them. It’s about more payments for the same thing.

So a tv show window might now be 1. ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX, 2. a week on the network’s website only, 3. 3 months on Hulu and a variety of subscription sites, 4. DVD/digitally delivered ownership, 5. annual deals for Netflix. How much can each window deliver in dollars? Which window is worth more as an exclusive or a non-exclusive? Can more windows be created to add more revenues? For instance, what about phone streaming exclusivity?

This issue manifested itself in the print media world recently, as Conde Nast decided to include iPad access with New Yorker print subscriptions. David Carr at the NY Times wrote about this is a though it devalued the property. Perhaps it was because the NY Times had decided that their iPad app access would be quite expensive, charged at the price of a full delivery subscription or given away as a perk with a full delivery subscription. A delivery subscription for New Yorker is about 50 bucks… NY Times, over $400 a year.

I don’t really understand why The New York Times thinks anyone would pay a massive premium for an iPad app (much less a mediocre one), but that is one philosophy. And at The New Yorker, another. Which is right? There may be a different answer for different outlets. But either way, only time can tell.

How long will it be before using your DVR becomes more expensive? Or your cable/satellite provider agrees to built in some kind of gimmick that disallows skipping commercials, like Hulu? What is the right price point for a re-run? What is the right price point for a new episode’s premiere?

Studios are well ahead of the public in recalculating how the future revenue streams will be balanced. And except for those who own cable companies, none of them care how these film entertainments are delivered to you. It’s simply a matter of maximizing revenues.

The problem for Hulu is that they have no way of knowing which direction ownership might go next. They need to be able to choose a direction. Are they a business about re-runs and selling ads on them? Are they a general entertainment channel? And how much will they risk… how much reward to they foresee? Netflix has thrown hundreds of millions of dollars a year into leasing streaming content. Is Hulu the place that wants to suck up all the content that Netflix does get… the other side of the coin, so a consumer who wants to see “everything” needs to subscribe at those two places? Or does it want to create a more narrow, more specific niche?

One thing that is crystal clear… the goal of all this is not to make content less accessible to the public. It’s to make it more accessible… but to get paid… paid in ways that seemed impossible just 2 years ago.

The long game issue is that there is a nearly finite amount of money at the which the public will spend. So everyone who now wants to get paid in the digital age is going to have to figure out how to get their piece of the pie,… and not be so greedy that thy end up with nothing.

Poll du Summer Redux…

I was rushing out the door and thought I had included everything… sorry… but out of respect to everyone’s time, here is a new poll… and then the final version of the original one…

Poll du Summer…

(Apologies to the early voters for resetting the poll… and thanks to Scott, who pointed out that I had left out one major summer title)

Poll du Jour…

BYOB 5/18/11

Tintin

Finally… An Important Reason To Buy A 3D TV

But the real question is… will it be the best 3D seller yet?

DP/30: Hesher, director/co-writer Spencer Susser

On The Malick…

I just spent 30 minutes writing and eating thai food… and you know what? Having seen the film twice today and sorting it out as best I could, I am not really ready to write about the movie tonight.

I will say this. I think it’s a little bizarre that people are tripping over the effects section of the film – 20 minutes or less – and somehow making their reviews hinge on it. This is a movie about a boy, Jack, who is torn between two ways to live… as his parents are. It’s very Malick. He captures boyhood better than any filmmaker I have ever seen.

There are also the big themes to chew on… and they are challenging enough that I am not sure there is a clear answer. It would be easy to assume that Malick doesn’t believe in God… but then, he offers ideas to which religious groups will spark. He certainly never answers his central question, “nature or grace?”, as the issue is conflictual for every character.

Where I hit the wall, in terms of writing a review, was in considering the adult version of Jack, played by Sean Penn in this nearly silent film (words, that is), and why he is living his life the way he is. It was like drilling down to get the last few drops of oil and getting another gusher. I need to let it breathe some more.

Trailers: Straw Dogs-es

How many times did Screen Gems watch the old trailer?

BYOB: Just Another Malick Monday

Review: Fast Five

How much is there to say?

They took The Fast & The Furious and melded its genes with Soderbergh’s Ocean’s Eleven, The Magnificent Seven, The Italian Job, and Midnight Run. They steal develop from the best.

It’s not very good. And that, in part, is because it’s trying so hard to pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease. But that’s also why it’s entertaining.

I have no idea whether Justin Lin or anyone else involved with the film can actually shoot action because so much of it is CG. I’m not sure why I never got goofy about the film, giving in completely to its cartoonish, ethnically supercharged, sexually balanced pleasures. In the third act, I started laughing out loud at some of the more absurd or absurdly predictable moments… but I didn’t feel like I was disturbing the crowd, which was having fun.

The big action sequence near the end reminded me a lot of Michael Bay’s lowest moment, throwing corpses off a truck on a Miami causeway. It was just so over the top that I couldn’t find any way to stay with it, try though I may. But even more so, I was a little shocked by how much actually killing there was in this film. I didn’t remember that as a theme from the other films. Threats and guns and stuff, yes. But lots of random death in this movie… doesn’t seem to bother any of the characters anymore. For me, it created an edge that I didn’t find as amusing as I wanted.

I liked almost everyone in the film. It’s a very likeable, watchable cast. You have your core triangle of Growling Vin, Aging Walker, and Skinny (even 6 months pregnant) Jordana. There is the 2 Fast pairing of Ludacris and Tyrese Gibson. There’s Sung Kang, veteran of Tokyo Drift and F&F (aka #4). Matt Schulze returns to represent the first in the series. There’s a furious version of Scotty Caan & Casey Affleck with Tego Calderon (who was in the last one) and Don Omar, who makes his first appearance on camera after contributing music previously. And there is Elsa Pataky, who makes Brewster look fat in a bikini scene.

Now, we are ten.

Add The Rock and Gal Gadot to the mix as good guys who might… oh might…oh how they might… become ambivalent.

Now we are twelve… no, eleven… no, nine… no, ten…

Whatever. Who cares? It’s fast cars, skinny women who show their bodies off, and lots of sweat.

For me, it was Jack of all trades, Master of none. I would have preferred mastery of maybe one or two of the directions the film went in. But the kitchen sink is making good money, breaking records for the series. So there!

With all that going on, couldn’t Michelle Rodriguez’s ghost or her Rio look-a-like have turned up? Maybe they’re saving it for the sequel.

Housework.

I hate banning anyone. But I have.

And frankly, the last period without LexG, IO, and Don Murphy has been very pleasant. People discuss things. Not a lot of back-biting and baiting. And some new commenters have turned up and contributed… more than on a usual week.

So of course, this will be threatened. I am welcoming Lex back once again. And I have made clear that if he goes off again, that will be it. (That isn’t a request for those of you who love to fight with him to try to bait him into f-ing up.)

And Mr. Murphy is threatening to change IP addresses so that he can get around his ban. Funny… I don’t want to be anywhere I am not wanted. So we’ll see how Producer Tiger Blood works his magic. It’s kinda funny that in what will surely be the most financially successful year of his career, he is busy messing around with me… terribly, horribly, obsessively unimportant me. Or is it just sad?

And IO… we may see him again one day too.

I thank you all for your participation.

CORRECTION, 2:50p, Monday – From Mr. Murphy – “I never said I would change my IP, I just sent some Warriors to expose you. Now that you are moderating every comment I will call them off and surprise you in the future.”

I am not, in fact moderating any comments. Don’s IP is blocked and goes into the moderation queue. Warriors, come out and play…

Review: The Beaver (Spoilers)

I don’t really know how to discuss The Beaver without getting into spoilers. I could offer the surface analysis of the film, but it’s not fair to all the things the film is.

So what are those things?

First, it’s a serious film about depression. It’s not a comedy. It’s not a charming reverie on depression, as is Lars & The Real Girl, which uses a very similar idea. And if you can’t get past the beaver itself, you can’t really take this journey.

Second, it’s a film about how families deal with depression. You have the mother, who is trying everything she can think of to support both her husband and her children through the husband’s depression… while also dealing with the guilt of knowing that she is giving more to the adult in her immediate world than she is to the children, who really need her more in a normal situation.

Third, it’s a satire about today’s culture. I found myself thinking more about Charlie Sheen, who has paraded his illness around, bouyed by the idea that people had accepted it, than Mel Gibson when watching the second act of this film. Success makes everyone forget/look away from the sometimes ugly road to that success.

While it is true that the thing that Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are most famous for is performing sex acts on “leaked” videos, we don’t linger in that reality every time we engage them. However mocking of them we might be, “I’ve seen that famous person get hit in the face with a penis” is not the central conversation every time they show up on our TV screen. Same with Roman Polanski, for that matter. My tendency to point out that he is a “child anal rapist” when he comes up in conversation seems to disturb people. And it can’t be because he isn’t one. Everyone is agreed that he is, even if you want to requalify his sex act on a quaaluded 14 year old as something other than rape. But to think that this is what defines him is too uncomfortable to deal with every time his name comes up… for most people.
Read the full article »

In Case You Were Waiting For The Live Action “Ambiguously Gay Duo”

Carrell, Hamm, Fallon, Colbert, Helms, Armisen…