The Golden Age of the Streaming Wars is Over

[hepcat]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings.

No, "filler" is by definition NOT important. If it were important, I (and others) wouldn't call it filler. It would be called story.

1. mass noun
Filler is a substance used for filling cracks or holes, especially in walls, car bodies, or wood.
2. countable noun
You can describe something as a filler when it is being used or done because there is a need for something and nothing better is available.
[informal]

That's my point. Filler isn't important, but people are calling everything that isn't core to the central plot 'filler.' It wasn't all filler. Some of it served an important purpose.

So yes, you agree with me now that filler, by definition, is NOT important. That was all that needed to be said. The other stuff you're discussing is outside the scope of my original assertion that shows forced to run for 22 episodes or more were VERY often padded with crap.

[Blackhawk]

I think I'd qualify that somewhat... You can have an episode that some may call "filler" because they don't promote the main story (like "monster of the week" episodes on Buffy or X-Files).

One of the oddest examples of an episode that was bad filler (or not?), but had profound impact was from Buffy: I Was Made to Love You. Enough so that I can't, to this day, decide whether it was amazing storytelling or awful garbage. It was, however, pure Joss Whedon.

Spoiler:

The entire episode was inane, dumb, and pointless. It was about a guy who made himself a 'love robot.' And then, in the last ten seconds, Buffy goes home, walks in the door, and sees her mother dead. End of episode (and the set up for the single most powerful episode in the series.) The rest of the episode put the viewer so off-guard that hit ten times harder. Had it been a part of a more 'focused' or serious episode, it would have lost much of its power. And as I said, even now I don't know whether it was brilliant or awful. Was it filler? Was the pointless 41 minutes and 50 seconds to set up the 10 seconds justified? I have no idea.

Like I said - pure Whedon. The man loved to play to the tropes, lead the viewer toward an obvious result, and then completely subvert expectations. He used misdirection like a stage magician.

[Blackhawk]

So yes, you agree with me now that filler, by definition, is NOT important. That was all that needed to be said. The other stuff you're discussing is outside the scope of my original assertion that shows forced to run for 22 episodes or more were VERY often padded with crap.

Didn't we just do the Semantic Dance to this song about two weeks ago, coming to the conclusion that we weren't sure if we were agreeing with each other or not?

We determined last time that wordiness was confusing things, so:

Filler is bad
Mandatory full-length seasons forced filler, and trimming some of that is good.
Not everything that isn't focused is filler.
Length should be determined by what's needed to properly tell the story (including asides that add context without advancing the main plot.)

[hepcat]

That's why I was surprised by you attempting to redefine things out of the blue after I assumed the topic was done. But this is the internet, and arguing is like the oxygen that it needs to live, I guess.

[Blackhawk]

To keep with that thought

To be fair, I didn't say filler was important, I said that I said, "some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' "

"Some of" and "think of as" were important in there. I wasn't talking about filler. I was talking about a specific portion of the material that some people have been labeling as filler. The implication being that it's being mislabeled.

[hepcat]

[Rumpy]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings. They're too much to the point now, and are forced to remove much of the context from the stories, making them less impactful and memorable. But again, I don't think that forcing 22 episodes is the answer, either. I still like the idea of giving the creators a range (like a contract for 12-16 episodes, or 14-18, etc), and letting them do what they need to in order to best tell the story.

I''m talking about bottle episodes that exist as standalone stories not connected to anything else. Some are important, yes, but then there's also lots of non-integral stuff like say, recap episodes that borrow from previous episodes, and you really don't need those kinds of episodes these days, because they're technically filler.

Some of the best bottle episodes can be quite memorable, however, such as DS9's baseball episode, and Far Beyond the Stars, but they're far from being essential to the overall narrative. Seperate the wheat from the chaff, and you'd have an overall stronger show.

One of the oddest use of a clip show was in the 90's version of the Outer Limits, which is what I'd call an anthology show with nothing that should theoretically connect. But this clip show made an effort to connect much of what happened throughout the course of several seasons and it made just about as much sense as you'd think.

Most of the purpose behind 22-episode seasons was for syndication. Getting to 100 episodes would secure you for syndication, I believe.

[Blackhawk]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings. They're too much to the point now, and are forced to remove much of the context from the stories, making them less impactful and memorable. But again, I don't think that forcing 22 episodes is the answer, either. I still like the idea of giving the creators a range (like a contract for 12-16 episodes, or 14-18, etc), and letting them do what they need to in order to best tell the story.

I''m talking about bottle episodes that exist as standalone stories not connected to anything else. Some are important, yes, but then there's also lots of non-integral stuff like say, recap episodes that borrow from previous episodes, and you really don't need those kinds of episodes these days, because they're technically filler.

Some of the best bottle episodes can be quite memorable, however, such as DS9's baseball episode, and Far Beyond the Stars, but they're far from being essential to the overall narrative. Seperate the wheat from the chaff, and you'd have an overall stronger show.

Yeah, that I don't disagree with. And if by recap episodes you mean clip shows (which consist almost entirely of footage from past episodes), then I agree - those were awful, and the worst kind of padding, serving only to meet the quota while spending as little budget as possible. They're my second least favorite type of episode (I actually hate cuckoo nest stories even more - sorry, Total Recall. )

I don't think that 12 out of 22 episodes (in order to get down to 10) were filler. I'd guess that for most shows it would be 2-4 during the core of the show, with more early in the first season while they were getting their footing, and more if they were artificially extended beyond their intended finale (which is its own problem.)

Funny, I'd have never thought of Far Beyond the Stars as a bottle show, mostly because they had the entire cast there, including regular guests (and regular cast is usually the first thing that's minimized in a bottle show.) But thinking back, it took place almost entirely in a couple of real-world locations (office, diner), didn't involve much in the way special effects and makeup... yeah, I could see it qualifying.

[Rumpy]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings. They're too much to the point now, and are forced to remove much of the context from the stories, making them less impactful and memorable. But again, I don't think that forcing 22 episodes is the answer, either. I still like the idea of giving the creators a range (like a contract for 12-16 episodes, or 14-18, etc), and letting them do what they need to in order to best tell the story.

I''m talking about bottle episodes that exist as standalone stories not connected to anything else. Some are important, yes, but then there's also lots of non-integral stuff like say, recap episodes that borrow from previous episodes, and you really don't need those kinds of episodes these days, because they're technically filler.

Some of the best bottle episodes can be quite memorable, however, such as DS9's baseball episode, and Far Beyond the Stars, but they're far from being essential to the overall narrative. Seperate the wheat from the chaff, and you'd have an overall stronger show.

Yeah, that I don't disagree with. And if by recap episodes you mean clip shows (which consist almost entirely of footage from past episodes), then I agree - those were awful, and the worst kind of padding, serving only to meet the quota while spending as little budget as possible. They're my second least favorite type of episode (I actually hate cuckoo nest stories even more - sorry, Total Recall. )

I don't think that 12 out of 22 episodes (in order to get down to 10) were filler. I'd guess that for most shows it would be 2-4 during the core of the show, with more early in the first season while they were getting their footing, and more if they were artificially extended beyond their intended finale (which is its own problem.)

Funny, I'd have never thought of Far Beyond the Stars as a bottle show, mostly because they had the entire cast there, including regular guests (and regular cast is usually the first thing that's minimized in a bottle show.) But thinking back, it took place almost entirely in a couple of real-world locations (office, diner), didn't involve much in the way special effects and makeup... yeah, I could see it qualifying.

Yeah, recap episodes, clip shows, etc, this is what I mean. And there really is no need for them in this day and age. You could see the struggle with the writers trying to come up with their quotas while trying to come up with an interesting story to connect the footage. It makes more sense in general if the show is long-in-the-tooth, with say 16+ seasons, where there might be a certain sense into using a clip show to recap some previous history.

The interesting thing about Far Beyond the Stars, is that it does actually provide character growth based on the simple fact of seeing the characters in a different setting and light, and it's rare for bottle shows to be so good.

[Blackhawk]

Yeah, recap episodes, clip shows, etc, this is what I mean. And there really is no need for them in this day and age. You could see the struggle with the writers trying to come up with their quotas while trying to come up with an interesting story to connect the footage. It makes more sense in general if the show is long-in-the-tooth, with say 16+ seasons, where there might be a certain sense into using a clip show to recap some previous history.

Most of the time that can be achieved with the classic, "Previously on..."

From what I understand, the main reason behind both bottle shows (minimal cast, minimal effects, usually one or two existing sets) and clip shows (a type of bottle show where characters reminisce in the form of old footage) is just to save money while still delivering on the contract. You've got 22 episodes and $10 per episode. You do two bottle shows and a clip show for ~$4 each, set the extra $6 aside, and you go into the finale with with $18 extra to bring in everyone and show the giant battle.

[Max Peck]

Most of the purpose behind 22-episode seasons was for syndication. Getting to 100 episodes would secure you for syndication, I believe.

#Actually, the reason for that many episodes per season is that they needed enough episodes of a weekly show to fill a 6-month broadcast season. If you go back far enough, it was common for weekly shows to have 26 (or more) episodes per season, which is why half-seasons traditionally have 13 episodes.

[Isgrimnur]

Most of the time that can be achieved with the classic, "Previously on..."

Chekhov's recap.

[Blackhawk]

Most of the time that can be achieved with the classic, "Previously on..."

Chekhov's recap.

Understanding Chekhov's gun has ruined too many shows for me. "Look! They just went out of their way to show something unimportant. Plot point!"

[Rumpy]

Yeah, recap episodes, clip shows, etc, this is what I mean. And there really is no need for them in this day and age. You could see the struggle with the writers trying to come up with their quotas while trying to come up with an interesting story to connect the footage. It makes more sense in general if the show is long-in-the-tooth, with say 16+ seasons, where there might be a certain sense into using a clip show to recap some previous history.

Most of the time that can be achieved with the classic, "Previously on..."

Yep, exactly, although even that practice seems to be slowly going away. If your show is short enough, maybe you don't need a recap before each episode.

Most of the purpose behind 22-episode seasons was for syndication. Getting to 100 episodes would secure you for syndication, I believe.

#Actually, the reason for that many episodes per season is that they needed enough episodes of a weekly show to fill a 6-month broadcast season. If you go back far enough, it was common for weekly shows to have 26 (or more) episodes per season, which is why half-seasons traditionally have 13 episodes.

I'm sure that's part of it too, but I'd always heard it argued for syndication purposes. You get to the magical number, and you'd get syndicated. And of course, you gotta keep your staff busy Speaking of number episodes per season, I think I remember some shows even having 30 episodes per season. I can't even imagine the production schedule behind those.

[Blackhawk]

I believe that the first season of Star Trek had 29. Half hour shows had even more. Have Gun, Will Travel had close to 40 per season.

[Jaymon]

My favorite clip show episode is from community, when they showed clips from things that never happened. (a least, things that were never shown to viewers)

[Rumpy]

See, now that I could get behind, because if they're scenes viewers never originally saw, then technically what they're doing is using the clip show in a more ingenious way.

[Blackhawk]

I don't remember it, but if it's Community, I'm guessing that it was an intentional roast of the clip show, probably showing absurd 'memories' from borderline delusional characters.

[Malificent]

I don't remember it, but if it's Community, I'm guessing that it was an intentional roast of the clip show, probably showing absurd 'memories' from borderline delusional characters.

I think the most recent Rick and Morty was also basically a fake clip show.

[Carpet_pissr]

I don't remember it, but if it's Community, I'm guessing that it was an intentional roast of the clip show, probably showing absurd 'memories' from borderline delusional characters.

It definitely was mocking, and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia also did at least one episode mocking serial shows as well, like a Bizarro Community if you will.

[Carpet_pissr]

Amazon Prime Video adding ads:

Dear Prime member,

We are writing to you today about an upcoming change to your Prime Video experience. Starting January 29, Prime Video movies and TV shows will include limited advertisements. This will allow us to continue investing in compelling content and keep increasing that investment over a long period of time. We aim to have meaningfully fewer ads than linear TV and other streaming TV providers. No action is required from you, and there is no change to the current price of your Prime membership. We will also offer a new ad-free option for an additional $2.99 per month* that you can sign up for here.

[YellowKing]

Yeah I got that one today as well. It's really annoying but I had to remind myself I barely watch anything on Prime Video as it is so I shouldn't be too up in arms.

I wish Amazon would offer some sort of "Prime Lite" for people who don't want all their bloatware extras. Like, can I just pay half the cost of Prime for the shipping perks and you can keep your Amazon Music, GitHub subscription, Prime books, etc ?

[malchior]

*Enshitification intensifying*

The FireTV also plays ads out of nowhere when on the home screen. Talk about making me want to walk away from your platform.

[Lassr]

I've actually started downgrading a lot of my apps. About to downgrade to Disney+ and Hulu+ with ads and save $10 month. Not paying the $3/ month for Prime without Ads, as I don't watch it enough to worry. Even looking at the Netflix with Ads option for $9 less per month.

Next year I do plan on dropping my cable company for Hulu Live with Disney, then I may go ad free as I'll be saving almost $100 a month. I can't drop now as I'm on a 3 year retention plan, but this 3rd year is still expensive.

[Rumpy]

I also feel that it's not my imagination that ads on FAST networks are appearing more frequently. Was watching a show on CBC Gem (A Canadian service). Had just finished a set of ads followed by a 5 min scene, and then another set of ads came up, and I'm like, "Dude, I just got a set of ads!"

[Max Peck]

If you've been wishing that Warner Bros Discovery had a larger pool of content to cancel, good news!

Debt-laden Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount consider merger

The CEOs of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Paramount Global discussed a potential merger on Tuesday, according to a report from Axios citing "multiple" anonymous sources. No formal talks are underway yet, according to The Wall Street Journal. But the discussions look like the start of consolidation discussions for the media industry during a tumultuous time of forced evolution.

On Wednesday, Axios reported that WBD head David Zaslav and Paramount head Bob Bakish met in Paramount's New York City headquarters for "several hours."

Zaslav and Shari Redstone, owner of Paramount's parent company National Amusements Inc (NAI), have also spoken, Axios claimed.

One of the publication's sources said a WBD acquisition of NAI, rather than only Paramount Global, is possible.

Talks to unite the likes of Paramount's film studio, Paramount+ streaming service, and TV networks (including CBS, BET, Nickelodeon, and Showtime) with WBD's Max streaming service, CNN, Cinemax, and DC Comics properties are reportedly just talks, but Axios said WBD "hired bankers to explore the deal.”

It's worth noting that WBD will suffer a big tax hit if it engages in merger and acquisition activity before April 8 due to a tax formality related to Discovery's merger with WarnerMedia (which formed Warner Bros. Discovery) in 2022.

[Rumpy]

There's something disturbing about acquiring more so that they can have more tax writeoffs. I mean, if they're having financial trouble, the kneejerk reaction would be to not acquire more until the debt is settled. And it seems like quite a slippery slope if this is an actual tactic.

[Daehawk]

I also feel that it's not my imagination that ads on FAST networks are appearing more frequently. Was watching a show on CBC Gem (A Canadian service). Had just finished a set of ads followed by a 5 min scene, and then another set of ads came up, and I'm like, "Dude, I just got a set of ads!"

And at least with some of the places they repeat the same ads every break....or maybe im thinking of YouTube videos now. I dont have a blocker on my new tab that worksk so Im subjected to ads now all the time. i swear one video will have 2 and sometimes 3 ad breaks in 10 min or less.

[Carpet_pissr]

*Enshitification intensifying*

I would say this is peak enshitification...it's the last of their "value adds" that they have intentionally hobbled, so there is really no value add left for Prime. The rest of the email is a pathetic list of things they still offer as value adds, with lots of sad disclaimers. The only reason I keep renewing is because of the 5% I save on every Amazon purchase via the credit card they offer. It more than pays for the subscription, but with this latest bullshit move, I will start looking at other options where I can use another card to get close to 5% cashback on every Amazon purchase.

If memory serves, re: Prime membership:
1. Changed the terms of the shipping so it's no longer automatically 2 day as it was before
2. Completely destroyed the very decent Prime Music service...and start charging for access which was previously included. Not just that, but actively middle fingered customers who had chosen Amazon as their "music home" for their digital music. Won't go into details, but I am still very pissed about that.
3. Removed a crap ton of previously free content from Prime Video
4. Removed access to Amazon's equivalent of Dropbox for Prime members
5. Added ads to Prime Video

All the while increasing costs almost yearly, and I am quite sure I am forgetting some big ones that may be more important to others.

Textbook enshitification.

[Rumpy]

I also feel that it's not my imagination that ads on FAST networks are appearing more frequently. Was watching a show on CBC Gem (A Canadian service). Had just finished a set of ads followed by a 5 min scene, and then another set of ads came up, and I'm like, "Dude, I just got a set of ads!"

And at least with some of the places they repeat the same ads every break....

Yes, that's very much the case with CBC Gem. Same ad blocks every single time. You get to know the ads by heart by the time their term is up.

[Blackhawk]

I also feel that it's not my imagination that ads on FAST networks are appearing more frequently. Was watching a show on CBC Gem (A Canadian service). Had just finished a set of ads followed by a 5 min scene, and then another set of ads came up, and I'm like, "Dude, I just got a set of ads!"

And at least with some of the places they repeat the same ads every break....

Yes, that's very much the case with CBC Gem. Same ad blocks every single time. You get to know the ads by heart by the time their term is up.

I don't know if it's true for all services or just some, but since the content is streamed individually, they're able to sell the ads individually the way something like Google does. You're not getting the NBC ads, nor are you getting the People Who Watch Night Court ads - you're getting the ads that are based on your own history.

[Rumpy]

Not on this service. They're just a bunch of ads that don't relate to any sort of history.

[Isgrimnur]

[JCC]

I don't blame people for missing "the good old days" of streaming, as it has become more pricey and there are more services than the 1-2 most of us originally had. Having said that, the idea that things were "better" when we had DVDs (or any other physical media) is ridiculous. Movies and TV are still available to rent or buy, and you can do it without leaving the house. I still prefer the current way of purchasing "live TV" where I can cancel any month I want and then re-sub any time I want. Not to mention we have more choices for live TV than we did when it was cable, satellte, or OTA.

So yes, the streaming age was better when it was new. But, I still find it far superior to the TV products of yesteryear. And yes, it is MUCH easier than buying a DVD.

[Isgrimnur]

It becomes something else in life I have to manage.

[Blackhawk]

It was less about the convenience of DVDs and more about the growing hassle that is streaming.

[Kraken]

It was less about the convenience of DVDs and more about the growing hassle that is streaming.

Yeah, TV is *complicated*.

I signed up for Paramount+ to get caught up on Star Trek, but Picard S3 wasn't available to me. Turns out it's because I had signed up through Amazon, which would be a little more convenient because I could just use the Prime app. Oh well, I'll cancel Prime/Paramount when the 7 free days are up and start Paramount through its own app. Which I installed, but they aren't offering the free week there. Oh well, let's sign up anyway. Oops! That entails charging the credit card linked to my Google Play account, which I canceled a few days ago because I lost it. So before I can watch Picard I have to update Google Play, activate Paramount+, and cancel Prime/Paramount.

It's a pain in the ass, it is.

[Rumpy]

It's even more complicated in a market that isn't the U.S, where because of streaming rights, you gotta figure out where everything is, and it's not always in the most obvious places. Everything ends up being very fragmented. And if you really want to see something, good luck because it might be in limbo and not available anywhere.

[hepcat]

Meh, I sign up for a service when I wanna binge with a few clicks on a website, I do the same when I want out. Still a hell of a goddamn sight easier than calling a cable company, sitting on hold for 123 hours then begging them to connect me to someone who can help me. Or driving to a Best Buy and hoping they have the dvd for something I wanna watch and paying approximately 10 times or more what it cost me to stream the entire thing for one month subscription.

I’ll take the current system over the old any day of the week.

[Carpet_pissr]

You guys have heard of Amazon, yes?

What is this driving to BB business, or being hard to order a DVD about?

OTOH buying DVD’s was never a model I adopted for consuming TV/movie content.

Renting mailed DVD’s via Netflix though, yes.