HBO Under Pressure From AT&T to Broaden Lineup and Grow

pcgeekesq said:
DO not read the following if your parody detector is broken:

1) you can't murder animals, you can only murder human beings.
2a) you're promoting sexism by saying that a woman living with one or men implies she's sleeping with them.
2b) you have no evidence Snow White is having sex with anyone, much less being paid for it, so calling her a whore is misogyny.
2c) what's wrong with a woman sleeping around, anyway? And what's wrong with getting paid for it?
2d) saying it's wrong for a woman to enter a male-dominated household men is the exactly the same as saying it's wrong for women to enter male-dominated occupations.

Bambi shows that taking an animal's life has negative consequences and therefore should not be done lightly.
Snow White shows it's okay for young women to flaunt anti-female social conventions.
So not only are these movies appropriate for 6-yr olds, we should force all 6-yr olds to watch them,
sewing their eyelids open if necessary.

:)
Click to expand...

Prostitutes get paid, whores do it for free. The first is at least a job.
 
I perceive HBO and us losing big time on this merger. Just look at AT&T's track record on what they do with companies they buy out. :(
 
Factum said:
What makes HBO great is not their "Broad Appeal".
It is shows like West World, Game of Thrones, Rome, Vikings, Band of Brothers ect.

Shows were sex, nudity, violence are not shunned and where the little grey matter has to be activated...that is why they are successfull...they offer something more real and less puritan and "disney" like that the rest.

This is a dumb move...broader means "watered down" (to suit people who gets offended by most stuff) = the end of HBO.
Click to expand...

Vikings is history channel pg-13 commercial riddled show. I do enjoy it, but god damn it would be so much better if it were on HBO. HBO has historically been progressive, willing to take huge risks, while shedding light on issues that most of comfortable america (the sheep watching survivor, american idol ect) is completely ignorant to. If they start pumping out a bunch of average content they'll end up with the opposite of what they have now. A bunch of stinkers and a rare decent program, the way netflix does it.
 
I'm looking forward to seeing how well HBO's Game of Thrones spinoff reality show does
 
brentsg said:
Even without the part where they go down the advertising rabbit hole, we don't need another Netflix. HBO should just continue to be HBO.
Click to expand...

Your statement makes no sense. HBO is a venue to watch entertaining video in either long format (movies) or shorter, serialized format (30-60 minute TV shows). So is netflix. The rality is HBO has to either go way or meet market demands.

Currently, HBO has more subscribers than netflix, but less revenue.

Depending on where you are on the planet, netflix cost between $4 and $15. HBO generates between $2-8 IIRC (can't find the data on that at the moment. However, at least within the US, netflix has a shit ton of content, and costs a user $10. HBO has much, much less content, and costs user between $5 and $15. Additionally HBO generates very little new content comparatively. Netflix has at least 8 shows going on that are high production quality and budget on par with the best of HBO. HBO has maybe 6. You probably aren't getting all 6 each year.

At $5 I don't find their service lacking. At $15 I do. HBO has to decide what price they want to set, how much they want to give to middle men, and where they want to exist on the food chain of vertically integrated streaming media.

Opting out of that decision won't go well for them.

They don't need to mimic netflix, but right now the winds are blowing in the direction of streaming services with decent amounts of original, self-owned, perpetually owned content. HBO can get in that game or pass it by. What they can't do is get in that game and stay exactly as they are.
 
Grimlaking said:
That sounds like a mixed bag to me. It SOUNDS like they want to be the next netflix and they want HBO to lead the way.
Click to expand...
Years ago HBO said "we need to become the next Netflix before they become the next HBO" referring to streaming original programming; I'd say Netflix won.

I was a huge HBO fan (Sunday nights were a bfd) but most of their new shows lost my interest starting about 4-5 years ago and I cancelled. Maybe I'm just old and out of touch now.
 
IF the whole point of the "create more content" speech was just to "get more user engagement data" to "advertise to them more," then I don't have high hopes for new good content. The point of new good content should be to entertain. The whole mindset is screwed up and getting worse.
 
Why didn't ATT just start their own streaming service with all those billions? Total lack of creativity in my book.
 
Is it just me.,. I can't even follow tv with ads... I could never pay for it. I would take it free, but to pay with ads you can go screw your self. Opportunity for more ads... Ah ATT, burn in hell.
 
they need something other than anti trump mockumentary/knews and feminazi revenge flicks?
 
Grimlaking said:
That sounds like a mixed bag to me. It SOUNDS like they want to be the next netflix and they want HBO to lead the way.
Click to expand...
Ted Sarandos over at Netflix said this back in 2013 "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."

And now that Game of Thrones is wrapping up AT&T needs a new cash cow.
 
pcgeekesq said:
we should force all 6-yr olds to watch them,
sewing their eyelids open if necessary.

:)
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you're going to force people to watch something, it should be Mel Brooks movies, especially Blazing Saddles.

Exavior said:
Prostitutes get paid, whores do it for free. The first is at least a job.
Click to expand...

Um... you're a bit off. Whores and prostitutes are the same thing; they get paid for sex. Sluts are the ones who don't get paid.
 
It feels like big cable has given up and just started seeping into streaming companies as wolves in sheep's clothing instead. We're gonna need a new alternative to cord cutting now, what should we call it? Cord cutting cutting? Live Theatre? Life?
 
Budwise said:
It feels like big cable has given up and just started seeping into streaming companies as wolves in sheep's clothing instead. We're gonna need a new alternative to cord cutting now, what should we call it? Cord cutting cutting? Live Theatre? Life?
Click to expand...

This was always going to happen. In so many cases, big cable still controls big ISP.. They were always going to follow the money, and streaming was always going to suffer as a result.
 
SmokeRngs said:
I disagree. If you're going to force people to watch something, it should be Mel Brooks movies, especially Blazing Saddles.



Um... you're a bit off. Whores and prostitutes are the same thing; they get paid for sex. Sluts are the ones who don't get paid.
Click to expand...

No to derail the topic any more. But I guess I was wrong. I have always heard whore used as another word for slut instead of another word for prostitute. I guess I have just been using the word wrong.
 
Lakados said:
Ted Sarandos over at Netflix said this back in 2013 "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."

And now that Game of Thrones is wrapping up AT&T needs a new cash cow.
Click to expand...

Wrapping up this season yes. They have what 6 different spin off series planned? Some will be prequels, some I thought were going to take place during the same time and tell background stories that were taking place alongside the main series. Maybe covering stuff that the books covered but the show glanced over or ignored for one reason or another. So there will still be game of thrones maybe.
 
A spinoff that went deeper into each of the religions might be interesting. Especially the ones of the red ladies. Sigh... The choker of hotness..
 
Who knew the guy from the old Onion article that doesn't even own a TV had so many accounts at [H]? LOL.

My take on this: HBOs thing is a few high quality shows with HUGE budgets that bags tons of viewers across the entire spectrum of screens that keeps subscribers for their other lower cost (comedy, older films) content. AT&T will demand they scale that up, but without the budget to match.

To the edgelords going "lol, HBO, I don't even have cable" : get with the times gramps, HBO is available without cable.

Edit: also the folks equating Netflix to HBO because they both stream stuff. Again. LOL. No.

HBO is reported to be spending $15m per episode for GoT final six episodes. They're about spectacle and bombast and insane productions.

Netflix is all about inexpensive, high-ish quality fringy, foreign stuff you never heard of as "exclusives" plus a one or two high profile but modestly budgeted items as "tent pole" productions (IE: Stranger Things, Luke Cage).

Now, does Netflix aspire to do stuff like HBO. You bet your ass they do and I expect that to happen. But that's not the case as of yet.

Put it another way: King and Bioware are both game developers. Does that make Candy Crush Saga and, say the upcomming "Anthem" "the same?" LOL. Of course not. Stupid rhetorical question is stupid.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't wanted to have HBO or watch HBO since MTV was good. So them starting a streaming service for double what others were charging made me nearly fall out of my chair laughing. AT&T buying them and going wait why arn't you making alot more money? ... priceless.
 
ianken said:
Who knew the guy from the old Onion article that doesn't even own a TV had so many accounts at [H]?
Click to expand...
I own one of the bests TVs out there, a 65" LG OLED. I just don't watch crap on it.
And most of the content on HBO, Netflix, and broadcast is, as far as I'm concerned, crap, including "popular" crap like GoT.

I spend 3-4 times as many hours reading each day as I do watching TV, but that's because I usually watch a 4K or Blu-Ray movie with dinner. And because reading is most of what I do for a living, along with thinking about what I read and then writing down my thoughts.

I used to write more, though, back when I was writing C++ instead of English.
But I got paid less back then.
 
I agree. They need something other than Bill Maher. They use to have Dennis Miller years ago. I only have HBO just for Game of Thrones. The movies they have are mostly B movies. Hardly ever show classics from the past. The same movie can be shown 2-3 months in a row. Really HBO? I find myself watching History and Science channels 99% of the time.
 
Executioner said:
I agree. They need something other than Bill Maher. They use to have Dennis Miller years ago. I only have HBO just for Game of Thrones. The movies they have are mostly B movies. Hardly ever show classics from the past. The same movie can be shown 2-3 months in a row. Really HBO? I find myself watching History and Science channels 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

I prefer to make history and channel science...but my ISP has strict limits on that sort of thing.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Hunchback had as the villain a clergyman who lusted after Esmeralda and would have raped her if he could have.
The Good Dinosaur includes a Thidwick-like dinosaur clearly tripping on something.

These are not things I would show 2-6 year olds.

Good kid's movies can be enjoyed by anyone. My Neighbor Totoro, Kiki's Delivery Service, and Wreck-It Ralph are kid's movies, but I like them all quite a lot.
Click to expand...

i loved the beatles yellow submarine as a kid. i also loved willy wonka , dumbo and sword in the stone. this is nothing new each had their trips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top