Amazon acquiring MGM Studios in $8.45 billion deal

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 51
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Zeebler said:
    Beats said:
    Not a bad price in my opinion. Apple could have had (NEW) James Bond films exclusively on Apple TV+. That alone would have drove subscribers.

    Apple is very picky on contents being shown on their TV+. Purchasing Warner Bros. seems to be the logical move for Apple.

    “Picky on contents being shown”

    Yes, ORIGINAL content. That’s what makes AppleTV+ different and not “another Netflix”. I called it years ago that Apple would do something innovative in the space(doesn’t take a Nostradamus) and they have. Original content, Spacial Audio and more are coming.

    In 2-5 years Apple’s catalog will be killer and 100% original! Tim says Apple does things for the long run.

    With that said, Apple should still buy old content and license it to 3rd parties or bundle it into a separate service. That would be the smart thing to do. This way they can make money outside AppleTV+ while keeping the allure of original programming. For example, license an old catalog to Netflix so they make money off BOTH AppleTV+ and Netflix. Think of it as a “Beats”.
    It's as if you're waiting for Tim to crash through your wall painted red saying; "ooooh Yeaaaaah".
    I'm sorry man - but Apple TV is the most bizarre/bad streaming service of any streaming service ever released - ever. 
    Tom Hanks even cried when Apple bought the rights to his new movie. The only movie above B+ they bought rights to. Do they expect subscribers to watch it 200 times?

    Apple needs 2 of these big studio acquisitions just to be relevant. You can currently chew through anything worthwhile to watch in 3-4 days. 

    And what are you talking about Netflix??? They are currently the most productive original content creation entity in the world. 

    If anything - letting Amazon buy MGM indicates to me that they might be getting out of the content creation space - and will drop ATV in the next few years. 

    Man, for real... your post... 


    Factually incorrect when you look at ratings. Apple TV ranks very high.

    Apple not buying MGM means they’re getting out of the business? What a weird assumption!
  • Reply 42 of 51
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Zeebler said:
    Beats said:
    Not a bad price in my opinion. Apple could have had (NEW) James Bond films exclusively on Apple TV+. That alone would have drove subscribers.

    Apple is very picky on contents being shown on their TV+. Purchasing Warner Bros. seems to be the logical move for Apple.

    “Picky on contents being shown”

    Yes, ORIGINAL content. That’s what makes AppleTV+ different and not “another Netflix”. I called it years ago that Apple would do something innovative in the space(doesn’t take a Nostradamus) and they have. Original content, Spacial Audio and more are coming.

    In 2-5 years Apple’s catalog will be killer and 100% original! Tim says Apple does things for the long run.

    With that said, Apple should still buy old content and license it to 3rd parties or bundle it into a separate service. That would be the smart thing to do. This way they can make money outside AppleTV+ while keeping the allure of original programming. For example, license an old catalog to Netflix so they make money off BOTH AppleTV+ and Netflix. Think of it as a “Beats”.
    It's as if you're waiting for Tim to crash through your wall painted red saying; "ooooh Yeaaaaah".
    I'm sorry man - but Apple TV is the most bizarre/bad streaming service of any streaming service ever released - ever. 
    Tom Hanks even cried when Apple bought the rights to his new movie. The only movie above B+ they bought rights to. Do they expect subscribers to watch it 200 times?

    Apple needs 2 of these big studio acquisitions just to be relevant. You can currently chew through anything worthwhile to watch in 3-4 days. 

    And what are you talking about Netflix??? They are currently the most productive original content creation entity in the world. 

    If anything - letting Amazon buy MGM indicates to me that they might be getting out of the content creation space - and will drop ATV in the next few years. 

    Man, for real... your post... 

    I have Apple TV+ and Disney+, among others, since I've been mostly at home for the last year, and it will take a long time to get through all that old Disney content, but I've already seen a lot of Disney's older content in the past (eg, Star Wars, Pixar) and the only thing that Disney+ can do to keep me now is to create new content, just like Apple TV+ has to do. There's the past, and there's the future. The past is important, but going forward into the future it's the new content that matters. I'm not sure why you called Apple TV+ "bizarre." Having a good back catalog is nice, but if you don't have a good investment in future programming, you're nothing. I find Apple TV+'s new content to be more interesting than Disney+'s new content, the latter of which seems mostly like spin-offs of historical programs like Star Wars. There are several things in your post that don't make sense; I hardly know where to start. Your opinions are very welcome here, but it would help if you back up your opinions with reasons and/or citations.

    You’re exactly right! I think he’s confused and doesn’t know that AppleTV+ is all original content. Literally 100% is original.
    tmay
  • Reply 43 of 51
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,676member
    Beats said:
    Zeebler said:
    Beats said:
    Not a bad price in my opinion. Apple could have had (NEW) James Bond films exclusively on Apple TV+. That alone would have drove subscribers.

    Apple is very picky on contents being shown on their TV+. Purchasing Warner Bros. seems to be the logical move for Apple.

    “Picky on contents being shown”

    Yes, ORIGINAL content. That’s what makes AppleTV+ different and not “another Netflix”. I called it years ago that Apple would do something innovative in the space(doesn’t take a Nostradamus) and they have. Original content, Spacial Audio and more are coming.

    In 2-5 years Apple’s catalog will be killer and 100% original! Tim says Apple does things for the long run.

    With that said, Apple should still buy old content and license it to 3rd parties or bundle it into a separate service. That would be the smart thing to do. This way they can make money outside AppleTV+ while keeping the allure of original programming. For example, license an old catalog to Netflix so they make money off BOTH AppleTV+ and Netflix. Think of it as a “Beats”.
    It's as if you're waiting for Tim to crash through your wall painted red saying; "ooooh Yeaaaaah".
    I'm sorry man - but Apple TV is the most bizarre/bad streaming service of any streaming service ever released - ever. 
    Tom Hanks even cried when Apple bought the rights to his new movie. The only movie above B+ they bought rights to. Do they expect subscribers to watch it 200 times?

    Apple needs 2 of these big studio acquisitions just to be relevant. You can currently chew through anything worthwhile to watch in 3-4 days. 

    And what are you talking about Netflix??? They are currently the most productive original content creation entity in the world. 

    If anything - letting Amazon buy MGM indicates to me that they might be getting out of the content creation space - and will drop ATV in the next few years. 

    Man, for real... your post... 


    Factually incorrect when you look at ratings. Apple TV ranks very high.

    Apple not buying MGM means they’re getting out of the business? What a weird assumption!
    Thanks for clarifying what he meant to say. I had so much trouble understanding his point even after reading his post thrice.
  • Reply 44 of 51
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,676member
    Beats said:
    Zeebler said:
    Beats said:
    Not a bad price in my opinion. Apple could have had (NEW) James Bond films exclusively on Apple TV+. That alone would have drove subscribers.

    Apple is very picky on contents being shown on their TV+. Purchasing Warner Bros. seems to be the logical move for Apple.

    “Picky on contents being shown”

    Yes, ORIGINAL content. That’s what makes AppleTV+ different and not “another Netflix”. I called it years ago that Apple would do something innovative in the space(doesn’t take a Nostradamus) and they have. Original content, Spacial Audio and more are coming.

    In 2-5 years Apple’s catalog will be killer and 100% original! Tim says Apple does things for the long run.

    With that said, Apple should still buy old content and license it to 3rd parties or bundle it into a separate service. That would be the smart thing to do. This way they can make money outside AppleTV+ while keeping the allure of original programming. For example, license an old catalog to Netflix so they make money off BOTH AppleTV+ and Netflix. Think of it as a “Beats”.
    It's as if you're waiting for Tim to crash through your wall painted red saying; "ooooh Yeaaaaah".
    I'm sorry man - but Apple TV is the most bizarre/bad streaming service of any streaming service ever released - ever. 
    Tom Hanks even cried when Apple bought the rights to his new movie. The only movie above B+ they bought rights to. Do they expect subscribers to watch it 200 times?

    Apple needs 2 of these big studio acquisitions just to be relevant. You can currently chew through anything worthwhile to watch in 3-4 days. 

    And what are you talking about Netflix??? They are currently the most productive original content creation entity in the world. 

    If anything - letting Amazon buy MGM indicates to me that they might be getting out of the content creation space - and will drop ATV in the next few years. 

    Man, for real... your post... 

    I have Apple TV+ and Disney+, among others, since I've been mostly at home for the last year, and it will take a long time to get through all that old Disney content, but I've already seen a lot of Disney's older content in the past (eg, Star Wars, Pixar) and the only thing that Disney+ can do to keep me now is to create new content, just like Apple TV+ has to do. There's the past, and there's the future. The past is important, but going forward into the future it's the new content that matters. I'm not sure why you called Apple TV+ "bizarre." Having a good back catalog is nice, but if you don't have a good investment in future programming, you're nothing. I find Apple TV+'s new content to be more interesting than Disney+'s new content, the latter of which seems mostly like spin-offs of historical programs like Star Wars. There are several things in your post that don't make sense; I hardly know where to start. Your opinions are very welcome here, but it would help if you back up your opinions with reasons and/or citations.

    You’re exactly right! I think he’s confused and doesn’t know that AppleTV+ is all original content. Literally 100% is original.
    This is the third or fourth time in a week people agreed with me. I must be getting better at writing posts. Yes, Apple TV+ is 100% original. Although the Snoopy episodes do rehash some of the old stories that Peanuts had used before.

    You scared me for a minute, because your post implied that the correct spelling is "AppleTV+" but I went to their website and found it's "Apple TV+". It seems that there's always a space after the word Apple for both Apple TV hardware and services.
    edited May 2021
  • Reply 45 of 51
    laytechlaytech Posts: 340member
    AppleZulu said:
    If only Amazon would hire some app developers to re-work their video app UI. For years that app has been the digital equivalent of a WalMart bin of bargain DVDs. There's probably good stuff in there you'd like to see, but it's buried in a random pile of poor-quality, out-of-copyright junk, along with d-list content from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hopefully the purchase of MGM would mean they'll value the asset and upgrade their app to present it (and other content) well, rather than just turning MGM into an underfunded side project.
    Agreed, it is very ordinary at best. The one on my LG TV is woeful. 
  • Reply 46 of 51
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,297member
    Amazon buys MGM
    MGM has published blockbuster titles like:
    • James Bond
    • Rocky
    • Robocop
    • Pink Panther
    • Stargate franchise television
    • Bill and Ted
    • Child's Play
    • Legally Blond

    I'll stop you there. No, MGM does not own "Legally Blond". The word "Blond" is perhaps the only word in the English language that has two different spellings depending on which the subject  is male or female. The title is actually "Legally Blonde." A movie called "Legally Blond" would have to refer to a legal story about a ditzy male going to law school. Perhaps that would be about Justin Bieber.

    Some languages, like French, have a different spelling for most adjectives (not just "blonde") depending upon the gender of the subject. I wonder how the "pronoun argument" works in those languages. If I'm writing an article about a transgender person in French, do I have to use different spellings for all the adjectives I use for transgenders?
    Nobody cares about what you just said. 
  • Reply 47 of 51
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    I find Apple TV+'s new content to be more interesting than Disney+'s new content, the latter of which seems mostly like spin-offs of historical programs like Star Wars. 
    Disney+'s new content has been excellent.  There should be no surprise that they are largely from their family friendly classic franchises like Marvel, Star Wars and Disney films.

    Seriously did you expect from something called Disney+?  I really like the mini-series format for MCU content.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 48 of 51
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,448member
    carthusia said:
    AppleZulu said:
    If only Amazon would hire some app developers to re-work their video app UI. For years that app has been the digital equivalent of a WalMart bin of bargain DVDs. There's probably good stuff in there you'd like to see, but it's buried in a random pile of poor-quality, out-of-copyright junk, along with d-list content from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hopefully the purchase of MGM would mean they'll value the asset and upgrade their app to present it (and other content) well, rather than just turning MGM into an underfunded side project.
    Is it just me, or is the Amazon Prime streaming quality horrible? Everything looks washed out and grainy-hurts my eyes. 
    Just you. I watched The Boys on my 65" 4K LG OLED and it looks fucking incredible.
  • Reply 49 of 51
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,448member
    DAalseth said:
    Aw man, so many classic films I will now never be able to see. 
    Why would you assume that?
  • Reply 50 of 51
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 1,045member
    carthusia said:
    AppleZulu said:
    If only Amazon would hire some app developers to re-work their video app UI. For years that app has been the digital equivalent of a WalMart bin of bargain DVDs. There's probably good stuff in there you'd like to see, but it's buried in a random pile of poor-quality, out-of-copyright junk, along with d-list content from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hopefully the purchase of MGM would mean they'll value the asset and upgrade their app to present it (and other content) well, rather than just turning MGM into an underfunded side project.
    Is it just me, or is the Amazon Prime streaming quality horrible? Everything looks washed out and grainy-hurts my eyes. 
    Just you. I watched The Boys on my 65" 4K LG OLED and it looks fucking incredible.
    I find that most of the time Amazon Prime streaming has poor quality. 

    A big question mark about the MGM purchase is what will happen with MGM's current non-participation in Movies Anywhere. A lot of us movie fans hope that Amazon's purchase will get that studio added to MA.
  • Reply 51 of 51
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,676member
    Amazon buys MGM
    MGM has published blockbuster titles like:
    • James Bond
    • Rocky
    • Robocop
    • Pink Panther
    • Stargate franchise television
    • Bill and Ted
    • Child's Play
    • Legally Blond

    I'll stop you there. No, MGM does not own "Legally Blond". The word "Blond" is perhaps the only word in the English language that has two different spellings depending on which the subject  is male or female. The title is actually "Legally Blonde." A movie called "Legally Blond" would have to refer to a legal story about a ditzy male going to law school. Perhaps that would be about Justin Bieber.

    Some languages, like French, have a different spelling for most adjectives (not just "blonde") depending upon the gender of the subject. I wonder how the "pronoun argument" works in those languages. If I'm writing an article about a transgender person in French, do I have to use different spellings for all the adjectives I use for transgenders?
    Nobody cares about what you just said. 
    Except for the people who actually thanked me in this thread for my post. Has anyone thanked you for your posts recently?
    edited May 2021 Japhey
Sign In or Register to comment.