In this week's rankings, I give DC Universe the #10 slot despite it not existing. It's coming this fall, though, and it generated some chatter at last week's San Diego Comic Con. I'm not thrilled about the price point--7.99 a month, but to be fair it includes some kind of access to digital comic books--and the early glimpses of originals like Titans doesn't impress me, but as a longtime (if lapsed) DC Comics reader, I just want this to be cool.
A while back, I made some suggestions for classic TV shows that should stream on this new streaming video service. Well, we now know some of--hopefully not all--the content DC will give us at launch. It's more than I would have feared but not as much as I hoped.
Perhaps the big showcase effort as far as classic TV is concerned is the 1970s Wonder Woman series. If this is remastered and uncut, hey, I'm there for Lynda Carter in HD. In that earlier post, I wrote:
I already suggested Batman (1966) for Netflix and Wonder Woman (1977) for Amazon. Wouldn't it be fantastic if DC, which is reportedly "securing rights" to old shows and movies, is going to announce each will be on DCU instead? I may even shell out for this thing if it gets both of those.
I think Batman streaming in high-def would be a real game changer for a new service like this, and maybe it's still in the works (or maybe even--I can dream--a surprise announcement being held back for launch), but for now, hey, one out of two ain't bad.
The other shows I picked:
The Adventures of Superman: No sign of that here yet, which is a shame.
Lois and Clark: It's not being touted in the publicity for this service, but the released promo pics indicate the entire series will be on the service. Thumbs up, DC!
The Flash (1990): This is included as well!
Filmation cartoons: I don't see anything about these...yet. I still think it's a natural fit considering many of these
Justice League: Also included!
That's 3 out of 5 I wished for, plus, according to that promo pic, "9 seasons" of Super Friends. You can parse that show many different ways--The New Gods know Warner sure confused things with its endless DVD releases--but I think that means the entire run will be there.
All this plus Batman: The Animated Series and Superman: The Animated Series (though I read it may just be some and not all of the episodes) makes a decent package. Is it worth 8 bucks a month? Well, with the originals, it's worth a look-see, I think. However, at 8 bucks a month, I don't think I would have this an automatic purchase every 30 days. Now, the comic book component could blow me away, and with access to a huge back catalog of comics, I might see it a little differently.
Showing posts with label Behind the Rankings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Behind the Rankings. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Monday, July 16, 2018
Streaming Showcase: Sling TV and DirectTv Now
I signed up for a month of Sling to watch the World Cup via Fox in the Orange package. Or is it the Blue package? I don't remember which, and the fact there are two packages is part of what makes Sling kind of wacky.
I was going to go with the 7-day free trial and see where it went, but I saw a deal: Free Roku Express when you pay for a full month. Sign me up for a free month! I now have a backup/portable Roku, and to Sling's credit, it shipped that sucker out right away. I received it in less than a week, even with the holiday.
I just parted ways with DirectTV Now after the fantastic intro deal ($10 /month for 3 months) expired. The service had just added a DVR for Roku and was improving, but I didn't want to pay full price. I wanted to try something else. So how do Sling and DirectTV Now compare?
Well, bear in mind things change quickly in streaming. DirectTV Now has already announced a price increase to its base package--35 to 40 a month--and Sling ALSO announced it is raising the price of its Orange--or is it Blue--package. Plus the first day I had Sling, a carriage dispute removed several channels I was looking forward to getting--Univision, UniMas, El Rey.
So these are just my thoughts based on my experiences:
DirectTV Now:
Pros:
Good selection of channels in the base package. TCM is included, which I love.
Generally good video quality
HBO is only $5/month with DirectTV Now. If you are a hardcore HBO fan, this alone might save you $10 a month.
Works well with other apps--though oddly, considering the merger with Warner, the Turner networks like Cartoon and TBS did not accept it a provider for authentication purposes while I had it.
Cons:
No DVR on Roku for 2+ of the 3 months I had it.
DVR was buggy and awkward when it launched
Buffering--big time.
Slow to load and navigate
User interface wasn't always clear
I had PlayStation Vue in the fall, and it had some similar issues, but DirectTV Now was in my head as I transitioned to...
Sling:
Pros:
Much, much easier to use and navigate.
Loads faster--both in general, and switching channels works better
Much less buffering--Not sure if the video quality is better, but it is far more consistent than DirectTV Now.
At least it gives the semblance of "choice." However, that comes at a cost...
Cons:
Nickel and diming on everything. DVR costs $5 extra, and it should be standard.
Inane division of channels into Blue and Orange packages--I have Fox and Fox Sports but not ESPN nor any of the Disney channels. To get those, I would have to pay 50 bucks a month (once the increase takes effect) and get BOTH Blue and Orange. You can get stuff like TCM as part of add-on packages.
Losing several Univision channels right as I signed up and getting nothing in return leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Stingier with app support. I think many less networks accept Sling as a provider for authentication.
Let's be clear about one thing: Even as these skinny bundle packages start to boost their prices and become more like cable, we are still in a great time. Month-to-month deals mean we aren't tied down to these providers and can take off if we don't like something. It's a hassle to have to switch to get one certain channel, but it's good to have the freedom.
Right now, the thing that jumps out at me is how much faster and easier to use Sling TV is than DirectTV Now. I realize many will not agree, but after several months of DTVN, Sling felt smooth and enjoyable. Give me a DVR feature and a few more channels, and I could see myself sticking with Sling for more than a month. As it is, the weak channel assortment and the lack of extras like DVR and app support mean I will likely walk after this month. I may well return soon, though.
As for DTVN, it is clearly positioning itself well as its parent company moves away from satellite. However, the DVR is clearly not ready for prime time. The entire service feels like it needs a makeover and a technical upgrade or two. As far as overall channel assortment, though, it's my favorite so far, and the great deal on HBO will make it a winner if/when it gets its act together.
I was going to go with the 7-day free trial and see where it went, but I saw a deal: Free Roku Express when you pay for a full month. Sign me up for a free month! I now have a backup/portable Roku, and to Sling's credit, it shipped that sucker out right away. I received it in less than a week, even with the holiday.
I just parted ways with DirectTV Now after the fantastic intro deal ($10 /month for 3 months) expired. The service had just added a DVR for Roku and was improving, but I didn't want to pay full price. I wanted to try something else. So how do Sling and DirectTV Now compare?
Well, bear in mind things change quickly in streaming. DirectTV Now has already announced a price increase to its base package--35 to 40 a month--and Sling ALSO announced it is raising the price of its Orange--or is it Blue--package. Plus the first day I had Sling, a carriage dispute removed several channels I was looking forward to getting--Univision, UniMas, El Rey.
So these are just my thoughts based on my experiences:
DirectTV Now:
Pros:
Good selection of channels in the base package. TCM is included, which I love.
Generally good video quality
HBO is only $5/month with DirectTV Now. If you are a hardcore HBO fan, this alone might save you $10 a month.
Works well with other apps--though oddly, considering the merger with Warner, the Turner networks like Cartoon and TBS did not accept it a provider for authentication purposes while I had it.
Cons:
No DVR on Roku for 2+ of the 3 months I had it.
DVR was buggy and awkward when it launched
Buffering--big time.
Slow to load and navigate
User interface wasn't always clear
I had PlayStation Vue in the fall, and it had some similar issues, but DirectTV Now was in my head as I transitioned to...
Sling:
Pros:
Much, much easier to use and navigate.
Loads faster--both in general, and switching channels works better
Much less buffering--Not sure if the video quality is better, but it is far more consistent than DirectTV Now.
At least it gives the semblance of "choice." However, that comes at a cost...
Cons:
Nickel and diming on everything. DVR costs $5 extra, and it should be standard.
Inane division of channels into Blue and Orange packages--I have Fox and Fox Sports but not ESPN nor any of the Disney channels. To get those, I would have to pay 50 bucks a month (once the increase takes effect) and get BOTH Blue and Orange. You can get stuff like TCM as part of add-on packages.
Losing several Univision channels right as I signed up and getting nothing in return leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Stingier with app support. I think many less networks accept Sling as a provider for authentication.
Let's be clear about one thing: Even as these skinny bundle packages start to boost their prices and become more like cable, we are still in a great time. Month-to-month deals mean we aren't tied down to these providers and can take off if we don't like something. It's a hassle to have to switch to get one certain channel, but it's good to have the freedom.
Right now, the thing that jumps out at me is how much faster and easier to use Sling TV is than DirectTV Now. I realize many will not agree, but after several months of DTVN, Sling felt smooth and enjoyable. Give me a DVR feature and a few more channels, and I could see myself sticking with Sling for more than a month. As it is, the weak channel assortment and the lack of extras like DVR and app support mean I will likely walk after this month. I may well return soon, though.
As for DTVN, it is clearly positioning itself well as its parent company moves away from satellite. However, the DVR is clearly not ready for prime time. The entire service feels like it needs a makeover and a technical upgrade or two. As far as overall channel assortment, though, it's my favorite so far, and the great deal on HBO will make it a winner if/when it gets its act together.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Behind the Rankings: About those MASH reruns
Hulu rocketed to the top of the power rankings this weekend partly due to its unveiling of all 1,983 episodes of MASH. Commenter Top Cat James pointed out that the show is not exactly scarce in reruns. Ah, I replied, but now the series will be uncut and un-time-compressed!
Well, word is out: The adventures of the 4077th aren't truncated for commercials, but they aren't exactly in their as-broadcast form, either. On one hand, they look great--sharp picture and vivid colors that look better than they did on your 19-inch Magnavox in the family den back in the day.
On the other hand, these new HD transfers follow a recent trend of widescreening older shows by cutting the tops and bottoms and showing more on the left and right, thereby avoiding the 4x3 aspect ratio that would leave--GASP--blank space on the sides of the screen. I thought we had won this war (I won't demean our nation's veterans by making a Korea joke) when DVDs eventually made pan-and-scan passe. Yet there is still a fear of "Why is my whole screen not filled?" and it's leading to these kinds of transfers. For more examples, see the recent crop (no pun intended--or, OK, maybe it is) of old Warner Brothers TV shows like CHIPS on Amazon Prime Video. Fake widescreen seems to be the norm.
(Is this why it's taking so long to get promised Fox library series like The Bob Newhart Show? Is someone prepping new HD transfers of the likes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show?)
I understand why many fans of the show are angry. I understand the argument that these shows weren't meant to be seen this way and that this is butchery. I have never been a big MASH watcher, though. I avoided it in reruns over the years--the ubiquity may have driven me away in a sense--and I never got around to digging into the series in its short stint on Netflix. It bothers me that this presentation distorts the original picture, but I think I can enjoy the series, anyway. Hawkeye's sanctimony might be a bigger hurdle for me.
Maybe if HD transfers are done with care and thought, it's worth altering the original broadcast picture if we get far superior picture quality AND uncut episodes. There is reason to suspect that kind of attention to detail is not evident in these Hulu versions. According to this fansite, The Interview, one of the series' more notable installments, is in color instead of the original black and white.
For me--let's put aside the obvious botch on The Interview--the most important thing in general is complete runtimes. As a viewer, I will put up with this if I want to give the series another shot. I have to wonder, though: Why can't we get HD transfers that offer superior quality AND preserve the original 4x3 broadcast ratio?
Well, word is out: The adventures of the 4077th aren't truncated for commercials, but they aren't exactly in their as-broadcast form, either. On one hand, they look great--sharp picture and vivid colors that look better than they did on your 19-inch Magnavox in the family den back in the day.
On the other hand, these new HD transfers follow a recent trend of widescreening older shows by cutting the tops and bottoms and showing more on the left and right, thereby avoiding the 4x3 aspect ratio that would leave--GASP--blank space on the sides of the screen. I thought we had won this war (I won't demean our nation's veterans by making a Korea joke) when DVDs eventually made pan-and-scan passe. Yet there is still a fear of "Why is my whole screen not filled?" and it's leading to these kinds of transfers. For more examples, see the recent crop (no pun intended--or, OK, maybe it is) of old Warner Brothers TV shows like CHIPS on Amazon Prime Video. Fake widescreen seems to be the norm.
(Is this why it's taking so long to get promised Fox library series like The Bob Newhart Show? Is someone prepping new HD transfers of the likes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show?)
I understand why many fans of the show are angry. I understand the argument that these shows weren't meant to be seen this way and that this is butchery. I have never been a big MASH watcher, though. I avoided it in reruns over the years--the ubiquity may have driven me away in a sense--and I never got around to digging into the series in its short stint on Netflix. It bothers me that this presentation distorts the original picture, but I think I can enjoy the series, anyway. Hawkeye's sanctimony might be a bigger hurdle for me.
Maybe if HD transfers are done with care and thought, it's worth altering the original broadcast picture if we get far superior picture quality AND uncut episodes. There is reason to suspect that kind of attention to detail is not evident in these Hulu versions. According to this fansite, The Interview, one of the series' more notable installments, is in color instead of the original black and white.
For me--let's put aside the obvious botch on The Interview--the most important thing in general is complete runtimes. As a viewer, I will put up with this if I want to give the series another shot. I have to wonder, though: Why can't we get HD transfers that offer superior quality AND preserve the original 4x3 broadcast ratio?
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Behind the Rankings: A gem on YouTube
YouTube is at #2 on the weekly power rankings in no small part because of this gem posted by the great folks behind FuzzyMemoriesTV, now known as The Museum of Classic Chicago Television:
This is an original airing of a rebroadcast (got that?) of Tomorrow with Tom Snyder. This airing is June 18, 1976, and Snyder provides new intros and outros. The theme is "Monsters in the Movies," and Tom chats with Peter Cushing, Forrest Ackerman, and professor/horror historian Leonard Wolf.
This broadcast has all the original commercials. The clip gets off to a good start with this (the ad is cut off, but we see enough to get the gist, I think):
Then look who shows up in an ad for a Chicago job-finding dealy: William H. Macy!
The whole hour is a treat, and Snyder is a fine moderator. The panel talks about the major movie monsters and their histories and enduring appeal. They get into some weird territory at one point, discussing the possibility of an x-rated horror film, and stick around to the end for Snyder's rundown of what is coming up next week on the program!
My favorite moment is a stone-cold-serious Snyder asking, "Were there vampires? People who would suck the blood out of other people?"
This is an original airing of a rebroadcast (got that?) of Tomorrow with Tom Snyder. This airing is June 18, 1976, and Snyder provides new intros and outros. The theme is "Monsters in the Movies," and Tom chats with Peter Cushing, Forrest Ackerman, and professor/horror historian Leonard Wolf.
This broadcast has all the original commercials. The clip gets off to a good start with this (the ad is cut off, but we see enough to get the gist, I think):
Then look who shows up in an ad for a Chicago job-finding dealy: William H. Macy!
The whole hour is a treat, and Snyder is a fine moderator. The panel talks about the major movie monsters and their histories and enduring appeal. They get into some weird territory at one point, discussing the possibility of an x-rated horror film, and stick around to the end for Snyder's rundown of what is coming up next week on the program!
My favorite moment is a stone-cold-serious Snyder asking, "Were there vampires? People who would suck the blood out of other people?"
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Behind the Rankings: Boomerang still doesn't get it
Yesterday, Boomerang slipped into the weekly Cultureshark Streaming Video Power Rankings by virtue of adding the rest of The Flintstones. It's great that the whole series is available, and hopefully the later series are on the way. Really, though, what took so long? There's no reason this couldn't have been there at launch. For 5 bucks a month, as I mentioned when I reviewed Boomerang last month, stuff like the complete Flintstones should be a given.
The service got press coverage this week not for adding more classic 'toons, but for announcing new original programming. You know what my reaction to that is? It's the same one I had when I had Boomerang and learned that only some of The Flintstones was streaming:
This piece lays out the Boomerang lineup: https://deadline.com/2018/05/boomerang-turner-scooby-doo-guess-who-yabba-dabba-dinosuars-1202396229/
The family-friendly premium video subscription service is serving up new series featuring classic animated characters. Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? brings back the Mystery Inc. gang for some sleuthing adventures with celebrity guests while Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs! features new stories from Pebbles, Bamm Bamm, Dino and your favorite Bedrock families.
Parents aren't going to pay 5 bucks a month for this stuff. There isn't enough content for the little kids, and the adults who want the old stuff don't care about these new versions. How about you just add more classic Scoob and Flintstones?
Boomerang also announced that the launch of a full Spanish language experience for its users starting Memorial Day weekend. They will also offer families and fans the opportunity to personalize their Boomerang experience through avatar creation and show discovery. In addition, Boomerang users will have more interactivity with the ability to create and share playlists featuring their personal cartoon favorites along with other features that will elevate interaction with some of Boomerang’s favorite characters.
OK, the Spanish thing is cool. But all the other is window dressing. Better usability of the service would be great. How about just a working watchlist rather than being able to share it?
And how about you just add more classic cartoons from that brontosaurus-sized library?
Boomerang is not going to make it with originals. It is going to make it by luring older folks like me with the archival content. I believe it should try that before spending money on remakes that many (raises hand) are going to be reluctant to even sample. If Boomerang has some strategy based on holding back content so it doesn't burn through the archives early, well, as I have already suggested, it may be sacrificing viability now by worrying about the future.
The service got press coverage this week not for adding more classic 'toons, but for announcing new original programming. You know what my reaction to that is? It's the same one I had when I had Boomerang and learned that only some of The Flintstones was streaming:
This piece lays out the Boomerang lineup: https://deadline.com/2018/05/boomerang-turner-scooby-doo-guess-who-yabba-dabba-dinosuars-1202396229/
The family-friendly premium video subscription service is serving up new series featuring classic animated characters. Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? brings back the Mystery Inc. gang for some sleuthing adventures with celebrity guests while Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs! features new stories from Pebbles, Bamm Bamm, Dino and your favorite Bedrock families.
Parents aren't going to pay 5 bucks a month for this stuff. There isn't enough content for the little kids, and the adults who want the old stuff don't care about these new versions. How about you just add more classic Scoob and Flintstones?
Boomerang also announced that the launch of a full Spanish language experience for its users starting Memorial Day weekend. They will also offer families and fans the opportunity to personalize their Boomerang experience through avatar creation and show discovery. In addition, Boomerang users will have more interactivity with the ability to create and share playlists featuring their personal cartoon favorites along with other features that will elevate interaction with some of Boomerang’s favorite characters.
OK, the Spanish thing is cool. But all the other is window dressing. Better usability of the service would be great. How about just a working watchlist rather than being able to share it?
And how about you just add more classic cartoons from that brontosaurus-sized library?
Boomerang is not going to make it with originals. It is going to make it by luring older folks like me with the archival content. I believe it should try that before spending money on remakes that many (raises hand) are going to be reluctant to even sample. If Boomerang has some strategy based on holding back content so it doesn't burn through the archives early, well, as I have already suggested, it may be sacrificing viability now by worrying about the future.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Behind the Rankings: Two channels that will NOT be on the next list!
These two channels have made THE NAUGHTY LIST and will not appear in the Streaming Video Power Rankings this weekend:
*IFC: I was happy that IFC let me authenticate through DirectTV Now last week. Then I tried to watch an episode of Brockmire and was thwarted with a message saying my subscription didn't allow it. I can't say I am surprised, considering my lineup does not involve IFC, but I am miffed.
So you let me authenticate and log on all official-like, but you won't let me actually watch your content? Not cool at all, IFC. Not very I of you! As a matter of fact, it's quite F'n C! (I have no idea what that means, but I am upset I am not gonna be able to watch Brockmire this season after all).
*The Roku Channel: This free channel is always adding new content, including local news from what I read. This month it has new titles like Whiplash and Foxcatcher. However, it dropped the classic TV series Good Times, Bewitched, and I Dream of Jeannie. Maybe this means those shows will appear somewhere else--Crackle? For now, though, they aren't streaming.
I am particularly annoyed at the loss of Good Times since I was watching season 1 on Roku Channel. "Ain't we lucky we got 'em?" No, we ain't lucky, because now we ain't got 'em anymore.
*IFC: I was happy that IFC let me authenticate through DirectTV Now last week. Then I tried to watch an episode of Brockmire and was thwarted with a message saying my subscription didn't allow it. I can't say I am surprised, considering my lineup does not involve IFC, but I am miffed.
So you let me authenticate and log on all official-like, but you won't let me actually watch your content? Not cool at all, IFC. Not very I of you! As a matter of fact, it's quite F'n C! (I have no idea what that means, but I am upset I am not gonna be able to watch Brockmire this season after all).
*The Roku Channel: This free channel is always adding new content, including local news from what I read. This month it has new titles like Whiplash and Foxcatcher. However, it dropped the classic TV series Good Times, Bewitched, and I Dream of Jeannie. Maybe this means those shows will appear somewhere else--Crackle? For now, though, they aren't streaming.
I am particularly annoyed at the loss of Good Times since I was watching season 1 on Roku Channel. "Ain't we lucky we got 'em?" No, we ain't lucky, because now we ain't got 'em anymore.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Behind the Rankings: 5 SVODS that are NOT ranked this week and why
1) PBS: This "app" has become lamer and lamer since the introduction of the "Passport" concept designed to get people to pay to stream content. Coincidence? I think not.
2) ESPN: Stop me if you've heard this one before, but then go ahead and let me finish: Since the introduction of the ESPN+ paid service, there is much less worthwhile "free" (meaning available to cable/satellite subscribers) material.
3) Prime Video: I can't in good conscience reward Amazon in a week in which it announced it was increasing Prime membership by a whopping 20%. It doesn't seem like a good idea to talk about a massive price hike at a time when the president is bashing you.
4) CBS All-Access: Other than a handful of original series, what has CBS added since launch? It looks like the "classics" section is identical to what it was when it started.
5) The CW: I really do appreciate the fact that CW makes virtually all of its shows available free (and I do mean free) here, but this week I skipped catching up on Flash and Supergirl, and I am tempted to wait until those current seasons appear on Netflix in a few weeks.
2) ESPN: Stop me if you've heard this one before, but then go ahead and let me finish: Since the introduction of the ESPN+ paid service, there is much less worthwhile "free" (meaning available to cable/satellite subscribers) material.
3) Prime Video: I can't in good conscience reward Amazon in a week in which it announced it was increasing Prime membership by a whopping 20%. It doesn't seem like a good idea to talk about a massive price hike at a time when the president is bashing you.
4) CBS All-Access: Other than a handful of original series, what has CBS added since launch? It looks like the "classics" section is identical to what it was when it started.
5) The CW: I really do appreciate the fact that CW makes virtually all of its shows available free (and I do mean free) here, but this week I skipped catching up on Flash and Supergirl, and I am tempted to wait until those current seasons appear on Netflix in a few weeks.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Behind the Rankings: To find out about Netflix, go to YouTube
I mentioned before my pet peeve of websites that run a list of "What's Coming to Netflix Next Month" but either just run a list of titles or, worse, describe movies like Lethal Weapon or Zootopia but give zero info on the long list of originals. In any given month, there are a few Netflix Originals I have heard about, a few others I heard about but forgot long ago, and then a whole bunch about which I know nothing.
THAT is the kind of info we need, not propaganda like, "You're gonna love the fact that the original Batman movies are back for their annual stint!" Have you really investigated all the original series and movies before they drop? There are documentaries and foreign series and standup specials and--oh, no, now I am starting to sound like propaganda.
My point is that if it doesn't have Adam Sandler or a talking robot, chances are we don't know much about it. This is why I now appreciate the Looper YouTube channel so much. Each month, the site puts together a sizzle reel of sorts highlight all the stuff coming to Netflix. It distinguishes itself from the sizzle reel Netflix itself puts out by showing many more titles and by using words.
Yes, words. See, pretty pictures are enough to sell a project sometimes, but when you have 5-10 seconds before moving on to the next glamour shot, it helps to have a little context. Looper does this with concise, sometimes cheeky voiceover commentary that explains what the heck these Netflix Originals are.
It sounds like a simple concept, right? Yeah, it is, but I don't see many others doing it. I don't need to see a bunch of cool shots of Lost In Space; the trailer for something like that has already been circulating. What I need is a bit of background on the Brazilian crime drama or the war movie or the reality show about fashion models competing in barbecue contests. OK, actually, I am fine prejudging that last one and don't need any info, but my point stands.
So consider this a shout-out to Looper. It looks like they run a lot of clickbait, but, hey, clickbait ain't always bad. More importantly, at least once a month they offer a great service to Netflix subscribers.
THAT is the kind of info we need, not propaganda like, "You're gonna love the fact that the original Batman movies are back for their annual stint!" Have you really investigated all the original series and movies before they drop? There are documentaries and foreign series and standup specials and--oh, no, now I am starting to sound like propaganda.
My point is that if it doesn't have Adam Sandler or a talking robot, chances are we don't know much about it. This is why I now appreciate the Looper YouTube channel so much. Each month, the site puts together a sizzle reel of sorts highlight all the stuff coming to Netflix. It distinguishes itself from the sizzle reel Netflix itself puts out by showing many more titles and by using words.
Yes, words. See, pretty pictures are enough to sell a project sometimes, but when you have 5-10 seconds before moving on to the next glamour shot, it helps to have a little context. Looper does this with concise, sometimes cheeky voiceover commentary that explains what the heck these Netflix Originals are.
It sounds like a simple concept, right? Yeah, it is, but I don't see many others doing it. I don't need to see a bunch of cool shots of Lost In Space; the trailer for something like that has already been circulating. What I need is a bit of background on the Brazilian crime drama or the war movie or the reality show about fashion models competing in barbecue contests. OK, actually, I am fine prejudging that last one and don't need any info, but my point stands.
So consider this a shout-out to Looper. It looks like they run a lot of clickbait, but, hey, clickbait ain't always bad. More importantly, at least once a month they offer a great service to Netflix subscribers.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Behind the Rankings: Stuff like "The Best of Years of Our Lives" helps make Filmstruck a winner
As long as I have Filmstruck and am able to watch it, I am going to rate it high in the weekly power rankings. It's great to be able to sit down and watch The Best Years of Our Lives just because, as I did last week. William Wyler's 1946 film depicting the troubles of servicemen returning home won multiple Oscars including Best Picture and is widely considered one of the best of its era. For what it's worth, it made a ton of money in initial release and is #37 on the American Film Insisitute Top 100 list.
Also, in a recent podcast interview with Ken Levine, TCM host Ben Mankewicz said Best Years is one of the most popular films the channel shows. In an interesting bit of dissent, Levine says he hates the movie because it is so heavy handed. I know Mankewicz feels otherwise because, one, he defends it in a non-aggressive way on the podcast, and, two, he talks about it on Fi;mstruck.
One of the interesting things about Filmstruck is that it has extras. In the case of Best Years, it has about 10 different intros/outros. I mean, it is almost overkill considering the movie itself runs nearly 3 hours and there are 20 minutes of intros. I'm glad they are all there, though, and no one is forcing you to watch them--not even Alec Baldwin. Baldwin is in "gracious guy who seems like he would be pretty cool" mode in several clips from when TCM screened the movie as one of The Essentials.
You also get a conversation B-Mank had with a representative of a disabilities interest group, a segment aired when TCM screened the film as part of a theme. Did I mention that TCM shows Best Years often? Plus there's a short clip of commentary from Wyler's son, producer David Wyler; as well as a new intro by B-Mank himself.
The movies are the thing, but it's nice to get a little added value with your viewing and, maybe more importantly, a little extra TCM. These kinds of extras help make Filmstruck more like the TCM on Demand we wanted.
Also, in a recent podcast interview with Ken Levine, TCM host Ben Mankewicz said Best Years is one of the most popular films the channel shows. In an interesting bit of dissent, Levine says he hates the movie because it is so heavy handed. I know Mankewicz feels otherwise because, one, he defends it in a non-aggressive way on the podcast, and, two, he talks about it on Fi;mstruck.
One of the interesting things about Filmstruck is that it has extras. In the case of Best Years, it has about 10 different intros/outros. I mean, it is almost overkill considering the movie itself runs nearly 3 hours and there are 20 minutes of intros. I'm glad they are all there, though, and no one is forcing you to watch them--not even Alec Baldwin. Baldwin is in "gracious guy who seems like he would be pretty cool" mode in several clips from when TCM screened the movie as one of The Essentials.
You also get a conversation B-Mank had with a representative of a disabilities interest group, a segment aired when TCM screened the film as part of a theme. Did I mention that TCM shows Best Years often? Plus there's a short clip of commentary from Wyler's son, producer David Wyler; as well as a new intro by B-Mank himself.
The movies are the thing, but it's nice to get a little added value with your viewing and, maybe more importantly, a little extra TCM. These kinds of extras help make Filmstruck more like the TCM on Demand we wanted.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Behind the Rankings: Do I really need to see all 5 seasons of Eight Is Enough?
(NOTE: 'Mooners Monday will return next week)
I continue to rate the remnants of Warner Archive Instant high in the weekly rankings, and I appreciate the chance to keep plowing through the stuff I'm watching, Eight Is Enough. However, now that I am through the first 3 seasons, I find the show is straining a bit.
Susan's boyfriend-soon-turned-hubby Merle the Pearl is all over season 4, and his character's 'push" seems a bit too fast, too soon. David's wife Janet is essentially a cast member now, but at least she was built up over the course of season 3. What concerns me more is the use of more shtick, sillier situations, and the kind of stuff that plagues most shows that pass their peak.
I saw a season 5 and a season 4 episode last week that each made me think about that issue. In the season 4 episode, though, I had a sense it was deliberately "zany." The hijinks and coincidences were stacking up on top of each other because of a specific intent to create sitcom chaos. In the season 5 episode, though, I just felt like the show didn't know any better at that point.
The worst thing about season 5 is the introduction of Ralph Macchio's Jeremy, who is shoved into the cast and practically adopted right away by the Bradfords. This leads to a sappy episode in which the family agonizes over the thought of Jeremy's real father taking him away. I keep thinking the departure of that poser wanna-be hustler would be addition by subtraction, but Tom and Abby don't see it the same way.
Oh, of course I am going to keep watching, but the gentle and more grounded dramedy of the early seasons is losing out to the more contrived, sillier farce that the series contained pretty well in the beginning. If WAI does pull the plug soon, at least I will know I saw the best the show has to offer.
I continue to rate the remnants of Warner Archive Instant high in the weekly rankings, and I appreciate the chance to keep plowing through the stuff I'm watching, Eight Is Enough. However, now that I am through the first 3 seasons, I find the show is straining a bit.
Susan's boyfriend-soon-turned-hubby Merle the Pearl is all over season 4, and his character's 'push" seems a bit too fast, too soon. David's wife Janet is essentially a cast member now, but at least she was built up over the course of season 3. What concerns me more is the use of more shtick, sillier situations, and the kind of stuff that plagues most shows that pass their peak.
I saw a season 5 and a season 4 episode last week that each made me think about that issue. In the season 4 episode, though, I had a sense it was deliberately "zany." The hijinks and coincidences were stacking up on top of each other because of a specific intent to create sitcom chaos. In the season 5 episode, though, I just felt like the show didn't know any better at that point.
The worst thing about season 5 is the introduction of Ralph Macchio's Jeremy, who is shoved into the cast and practically adopted right away by the Bradfords. This leads to a sappy episode in which the family agonizes over the thought of Jeremy's real father taking him away. I keep thinking the departure of that poser wanna-be hustler would be addition by subtraction, but Tom and Abby don't see it the same way.
Oh, of course I am going to keep watching, but the gentle and more grounded dramedy of the early seasons is losing out to the more contrived, sillier farce that the series contained pretty well in the beginning. If WAI does pull the plug soon, at least I will know I saw the best the show has to offer.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Behind the Rankings: Warner Archive Instant is changing again?
I made my weekly pilgrimage to the Warner Archive Instant website to see if it added anything (the Roku version hasn't worked properly in months). and saw something interesting: a prominent banner touting an important announcement.
However, al it does is link to a single question on a FAQ/support page saying new accounts are not being accepted because:
Warner Archive is currently in the process of transitioning into a broader service, and during the transition new accounts cannot be created and certain apps may become temporarily unavailable. We will be sending out more info in the near future to all of our users about the upcoming service.
Hmm...This is the only place I have seen this, and it being WAI, there is no other info anywhere. The service has social media accounts that haven't been updated since October 22. Why not update those and include this information?
So of course all we can do is speculate as to what is going on here. I certainly hope "broader" means more value and not less (like taking away the rare TV and dumbing down the service). I think it's safe to assume Warner isn't integrating Boomerang in here since it's already a standalone deal. Could we finally get the TCM service we have craved for years? Filmstruck is TCM-endorsed, but there is room for a classic Hollywood service, and I think many assumed WAI would be that. It started out as pretty good but has been neglected for years. Of course, it remains in my rankings and in my heart because of the handful of cool TV series it streams. I am going to try to pick up my pace of watching those, and I suggest you do, too, because who knows what is next for WAI? Certainly not anyone who visits its website, Twitter feed, Facebook page, or uses it on Roky.
However, al it does is link to a single question on a FAQ/support page saying new accounts are not being accepted because:
Warner Archive is currently in the process of transitioning into a broader service, and during the transition new accounts cannot be created and certain apps may become temporarily unavailable. We will be sending out more info in the near future to all of our users about the upcoming service.
Hmm...This is the only place I have seen this, and it being WAI, there is no other info anywhere. The service has social media accounts that haven't been updated since October 22. Why not update those and include this information?
So of course all we can do is speculate as to what is going on here. I certainly hope "broader" means more value and not less (like taking away the rare TV and dumbing down the service). I think it's safe to assume Warner isn't integrating Boomerang in here since it's already a standalone deal. Could we finally get the TCM service we have craved for years? Filmstruck is TCM-endorsed, but there is room for a classic Hollywood service, and I think many assumed WAI would be that. It started out as pretty good but has been neglected for years. Of course, it remains in my rankings and in my heart because of the handful of cool TV series it streams. I am going to try to pick up my pace of watching those, and I suggest you do, too, because who knows what is next for WAI? Certainly not anyone who visits its website, Twitter feed, Facebook page, or uses it on Roky.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Behind the Rankings: Amazon Prime adds "Laugh-In"
This is a new feature in which I will, when events warrant, discuss in a little more detail an item in the weekly SVOD power rankings. By "events warrant," I mean I might have a bit more to yak about than I want to cram into the regular post.
Amazon Prime quietly added the complete Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In a few weeks ago, and, boy, is it funny to associate the word "quiet" with that series. Anything with JoAnne Worley is not gonna be a shrinking violet. I'm glad I learned about it, and if you hadn't known, well, you can bet your sweet bippy (Sorry) that it's true.
I don't know how many Prime memberships this addition is going to sell, but it sure might make some of us who already have it happy. Laugh-In is an ideal show for streaming. With all due respect to the massive DVD box set Time-Life released last year--and I can't help but point out that you could buy two years of Prime and have money left over for a few Mannix seasons for the $250 the complete series costs--this isn't the kind of show I need to own.
I love the idea of seeing the episodes, but I don't know about the RE-watchability. It's not serialized (thank goodness), it is loaded with fast-paced but essentially unconnected bits, and it's easy to dip in and out of the series. With the episodes accessible on a platform like Prime, it's easy to look for guest stars that interest you, that being the main thing that distinguishes installments within a given season.
(Well. it would be easy if Prime Video had a better interface, but...)
Even if you aren't a fan of the series, it's a great time capsule of fashions, attitudes, and whatnot. The series is "of its time" and "dated," but I find that aspect fascinating, It's amusing to see what was considered cutting edge back then, or at least what was sold as cutting edge. The politics seem very tame compared to today's standards or to what we've been hearing about The Smothers Brothers (which also seems a lot tamer today) for years.
I watched a lot of Laugh-In on Decades several months ago, and while I enjoyed checking it out, an hour of the show is probably a bit much for many people. That's another reason to celebrate its presence here. I don't need to bust out a DVD and watch 3 or 4 of these in a row, but it's nice having them streaming when I do want to check one out.
Kudos to Amazon for making this possible. It's another reminder to keep checking these services because they surprise us from time to time.
Amazon Prime quietly added the complete Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In a few weeks ago, and, boy, is it funny to associate the word "quiet" with that series. Anything with JoAnne Worley is not gonna be a shrinking violet. I'm glad I learned about it, and if you hadn't known, well, you can bet your sweet bippy (Sorry) that it's true.
I don't know how many Prime memberships this addition is going to sell, but it sure might make some of us who already have it happy. Laugh-In is an ideal show for streaming. With all due respect to the massive DVD box set Time-Life released last year--and I can't help but point out that you could buy two years of Prime and have money left over for a few Mannix seasons for the $250 the complete series costs--this isn't the kind of show I need to own.
I love the idea of seeing the episodes, but I don't know about the RE-watchability. It's not serialized (thank goodness), it is loaded with fast-paced but essentially unconnected bits, and it's easy to dip in and out of the series. With the episodes accessible on a platform like Prime, it's easy to look for guest stars that interest you, that being the main thing that distinguishes installments within a given season.
(Well. it would be easy if Prime Video had a better interface, but...)
Even if you aren't a fan of the series, it's a great time capsule of fashions, attitudes, and whatnot. The series is "of its time" and "dated," but I find that aspect fascinating, It's amusing to see what was considered cutting edge back then, or at least what was sold as cutting edge. The politics seem very tame compared to today's standards or to what we've been hearing about The Smothers Brothers (which also seems a lot tamer today) for years.
I watched a lot of Laugh-In on Decades several months ago, and while I enjoyed checking it out, an hour of the show is probably a bit much for many people. That's another reason to celebrate its presence here. I don't need to bust out a DVD and watch 3 or 4 of these in a row, but it's nice having them streaming when I do want to check one out.
Kudos to Amazon for making this possible. It's another reminder to keep checking these services because they surprise us from time to time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
