|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 21, 2019 17:16:38 GMT
I suspect that Abrams and his production company was acquired to produce original content programing for the new WarnerMedia streaming service, which should be launching in the fall of this year (2019). I think people forget that before J.J. Abrams was known for directing franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars, he was quietly producing TV Shows like "Lost" and "Westworld", which have received Emmy Award consideration. the WarnerMedia Steaming Service plans to offer three levels of streaming plans where a subscriber can either choose an entry-level movie-focused package; a premium service with original programming and blockbuster movies; and a third package bundling content from the first two with the addition of an extensive library of WarnerMedia and licensed content. The latter two packages should be available in 2020. They’re launching the streaming service this year? Great, that’s just what we need. Another streaming service...
|
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
 
|
Post by dnno1 on Jun 21, 2019 19:24:54 GMT
I suspect that Abrams and his production company was acquired to produce original content programing for the new WarnerMedia streaming service, which should be launching in the fall of this year (2019). I think people forget that before J.J. Abrams was known for directing franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars, he was quietly producing TV Shows like "Lost" and "Westworld", which have received Emmy Award consideration. the WarnerMedia Steaming Service plans to offer three levels of streaming plans where a subscriber can either choose an entry-level movie-focused package; a premium service with original programming and blockbuster movies; and a third package bundling content from the first two with the addition of an extensive library of WarnerMedia and licensed content. The latter two packages should be available in 2020. They’re launching the streaming service this year? Great, that’s just what we need. Another streaming service... It's the wave of the future. Network television is dying because Millennials and other demographic groups are watching less traditional TV and watching more streaming video over the Internet. This has caused a boom in streaming services available to anyone who has access to the Internet via computer on any mobile device. It is now up to the provider to market to these people with their programing. Whomever has the best content will win the larger market share.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 21, 2019 19:37:13 GMT
They’re launching the streaming service this year? Great, that’s just what we need. Another streaming service... It's the wave of the future. Network television is dying because Millennials and other demographic groups are watching less traditional TV and watching more streaming video over the Internet. This has caused a boom in streaming services available to anyone who has access to the Internet via computer on any mobile device. It is now up to the provider to market to these people with their programing. Whomever has the best content will win the larger market share. The problem is that streaming services charge on a monthly basis, which means that the more streaming services there are, the more money people will have to pay per month if they want to be able to enjoy as much content as possible. It’s annoying for consumers because it means that unless they’re well off, they’re going to have to pick and choose which services to get. Besides, doesn’t Warner Media already have their own streaming service? Isn’t that what HBO Now is supposed to be?
|
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
|
Post by dnno1 on Jun 24, 2019 18:54:38 GMT
It's the wave of the future. Network television is dying because Millennials and other demographic groups are watching less traditional TV and watching more streaming video over the Internet. This has caused a boom in streaming services available to anyone who has access to the Internet via computer on any mobile device. It is now up to the provider to market to these people with their programing. Whomever has the best content will win the larger market share. The problem is that streaming services charge on a monthly basis, which means that the more streaming services there are, the more money people will have to pay per month if they want to be able to enjoy as much content as possible. It’s annoying for consumers because it means that unless they’re well off, they’re going to have to pick and choose which services to get. Besides, doesn’t Warner Media already have their own streaming service? Isn’t that what HBO Now is supposed to be? Yeah, the consumer can control that by only spending on what they want to see. You will find that you can spend less than what you would pay for cable. I only have Internet, DC Universe, and XBox Live and spend less than the average $107/month that cable cost. I also have Netflix, but I only pay for it about 6 months out of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 24, 2019 18:58:43 GMT
Since directing space movies is apparently his default these days, I assume they’d try to get him to direct a Green Lantern film. Wouldn't surprise me. I can see that being handled as something kind of Star Trek-lite.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 24, 2019 19:04:52 GMT
The problem is that streaming services charge on a monthly basis, which means that the more streaming services there are, the more money people will have to pay per month if they want to be able to enjoy as much content as possible. It’s annoying for consumers because it means that unless they’re well off, they’re going to have to pick and choose which services to get. Besides, doesn’t Warner Media already have their own streaming service? Isn’t that what HBO Now is supposed to be? Yeah, the consumer can control that by only spending on what they want to see. You will find that you can spend less than what you would pay for cable. I only have Internet, DC Universe, and XBox Live and spend less than the average $107/month that cable cost. I also have Netflix, but I only pay for it about 6 months out of the year. What if the consumer wants to see all kinds of different movies and shows? They’d have to get several different streaming services in order to be able to do that.
|
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
|
Post by dnno1 on Jun 25, 2019 18:19:47 GMT
Yeah, the consumer can control that by only spending on what they want to see. You will find that you can spend less than what you would pay for cable. I only have Internet, DC Universe, and XBox Live and spend less than the average $107/month that cable cost. I also have Netflix, but I only pay for it about 6 months out of the year. What if the consumer wants to see all kinds of different movies and shows? They’d have to get several different streaming services in order to be able to do that. The consumer has lots of avenues to watch a movie. If it is just one film, he/she doesn't have to subscribe to multiple services. That person could just buy or rent the DVD or stream the movie though a service lice VUDU or Sling if they want. I have VUDU and I only have to pay for what I want to rent or own.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 25, 2019 18:56:23 GMT
What if the consumer wants to see all kinds of different movies and shows? They’d have to get several different streaming services in order to be able to do that. The consumer has lots of avenues to watch a movie. If it is just one film, he/she doesn't have to subscribe to multiple services. That person could just buy or rent the DVD or stream the movie though a service lice VUDU or Sling if they want. I have VUDU and I only have to pay for what I want to rent or own. Does Warner Media even have enough content to justify an entire streaming service? I get Disney doing their one service, since they basically own half of Hollywood at this point, but what does WB have to offer?
|
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
|
Post by dnno1 on Jun 26, 2019 17:40:54 GMT
The consumer has lots of avenues to watch a movie. If it is just one film, he/she doesn't have to subscribe to multiple services. That person could just buy or rent the DVD or stream the movie though a service lice VUDU or Sling if they want. I have VUDU and I only have to pay for what I want to rent or own. Does Warner Media even have enough content to justify an entire streaming service? I get Disney doing their one service, since they basically own half of Hollywood at this point, but what does WB have to offer? thisguy4000, among HBO, Turner Networks, and Warner Brothers Pictures, Warner Media has one of the worlds largest library of entertainment. We are talking about original content coming from HBO (i.e. Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Euphoria, The Watchmen, and others), Turner Networks (like Murder in the First and The Last Ship), Boomerang (old Warner Brothers, and Hanna Barbera Cartoons), Cartoon Network, and the vast library of films coming from the Warner Brothers movie vault. That's not to mention the new content that is produced each year.
|
|
|
|
Post by kleinreturns on Jun 27, 2019 2:34:09 GMT
If he does a DC film, I'm out. Fuck him for what he did to Star Trek and Star Wars.
i agree with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 6, 2019 20:46:31 GMT
Letting JJ Abrams take a crack at Superman may not be the best call to make given the reception to his screenplays for an attempted reboot of the character in the early 00's. In his very first draft, - Krypton does not explode, the reasoning to send Kal-El to Earth is based purely on politics as you see Jor-El is, or was, king of the entire planet. - Jor is overthrown by his backstabbing little brother and is held in a prison, he is able to communicate with Kal-El telepathically. -Lara managed to escape her brother-in-law's take over and her bodyguard is an anthropomorphic turtle. -The main villain is Superman's evil cousin Ty-Zor, they often engage in Matrix style hand-to-hand combat. - Lex Luthor is actually a Kryptonian sleeper agent whose mission was to watch over Kal-El and keep tabs on Earth's defenses, he goes at it with Clark at the end and loses quickly. -Superman leaves Earth in the ship that brought him there and sets off to Krypton to re claim the throne from his uncle, that would've been the end of what was conceived of as the first part in a trilogy. To be fair, Abrams was not as big a player in the industry then as he is today and he was going under what producer Jon Peters wanted, and he was also writing for McG and Brett Ratner who were both in contention to direct.  
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 6, 2019 21:24:21 GMT
Letting JJ Abrams take a crack at Superman may not be the best call to make given the reception to his screenplays for an attempted reboot of the character in the early 00's. In his very first draft, - Krypton does not explode, the reasoning to send Kal-El to Earth is based purely on politics as you see Jor-El is, or was, king of the entire planet. - Jor is overthrown by his backstabbing little brother and is held in a prison, he is able to communicate with Kal-El telepathically. -Lara managed to escape her brother-in-law's take over and her bodyguard is an anthropomorphic turtle. -The main villain is Superman's evil cousin Ty-Zor, they often engage in Matrix style hand-to-hand combat. - Lex Luthor is actually a Kryptonian sleeper agent whose mission was to watch over Kal-El and keep tabs on Earth's defenses, he goes at it with Clark at the end and loses quickly. -Superman leaves Earth in the ship that brought him there and sets off to Krypton to re claim the throne from his uncle, that would've been the end of what was conceived of as the first part in a trilogy. To be fair, Abrams was not as big a player in the industry then as he is today and he was going under what producer Jon Peters wanted, and he was also writing for McG and Brett Ratner who were both in contention to direct.
Oh, that is not all, -Somehow Jor-El can predict the future and sent himself to Earth to find the right people to raise his son, so Kal-El's travels ending at around the Kent farm were not a coincidence. -Ma and Pa Kent begin to snuggle and because of his super hearing lil' Clark overhears and asks what's going on. -Ma Kent is almost sexually assaulted by a snidely whiplash type of tax collector who lil' Clark beats the crap out of him and scares off running for the hills calling the boy a 'devil'. -First time Clark and Lois meet its at a frat party and Clark has his barn door open. -Pa Kent dies of a heart attack not long after Superman is revealed to the world. -Jor-El actually kills himself while in prison, his spirit lives on to communicate with Kal in, get this, Kryptonian heaven(I was not aware Heaven was different for every planet in the cosmos!) after exposing himself to radiation to save Lois. -Superman fights a giant robot or two, all operated by Kryptonians even though on Earth they are able to become as strong as Kal and thus stronger than said robots(Nice logic!) -Jimmy Olsen is written as a very stereotypical New York City punk, this is actually a image he creates to hide that he is a homosexual.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 9, 2019 17:50:42 GMT
Oh, that is not all, - Somehow Jor-El can predict the future and sent himself to Earth to find the right people to raise his son, so Kal-El's travels ending at around the Kent farm were not a coincidence. -Ma and Pa Kent begin to snuggle and because of his super hearing lil' Clark overhears and asks what's going on. - Ma Kent is almost sexually assaulted by a snidely whiplash type of tax collector who lil' Clark beats the crap out of him and scares off running for the hills calling the boy a 'devil'. -First time Clark and Lois meet its at a frat party and Clark has his barn door open. -Pa Kent dies of a heart attack not long after Superman is revealed to the world. - Jor-El actually kills himself while in prison, his spirit lives on to communicate with Kal in, get this, Kryptonian heaven(I was not aware Heaven was different for every planet in the cosmos!) after exposing himself to radiation to save Lois. -Superman fights a giant robot or two, all operated by Kryptonians even though on Earth they are able to become as strong as Kal and thus stronger than said robots(Nice logic!)-Jimmy Olsen is written as a very stereotypical New York City punk, this is actually a image he creates to hide that he is a homosexual. 
The regular print is stuff I could live with. But the bolded tells me they were throwing any ideas at the wall!
For example: I don't hate that they turned Jimmy homosexual, at least they were trying to do something with the character. Usually he gets ignored altogether. But it kinda bothers me that he was "written as a very stereotypical New York City punk, to hide that he is a homosexual" because there's tons of NYC kids that are just "out". No need to hide. And how would the reveal of his sexuality impact the story of Superman anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 9, 2019 18:20:06 GMT
Oh, that is not all, - Somehow Jor-El can predict the future and sent himself to Earth to find the right people to raise his son, so Kal-El's travels ending at around the Kent farm were not a coincidence. -Ma and Pa Kent begin to snuggle and because of his super hearing lil' Clark overhears and asks what's going on. - Ma Kent is almost sexually assaulted by a snidely whiplash type of tax collector who lil' Clark beats the crap out of him and scares off running for the hills calling the boy a 'devil'. -First time Clark and Lois meet its at a frat party and Clark has his barn door open. -Pa Kent dies of a heart attack not long after Superman is revealed to the world. - Jor-El actually kills himself while in prison, his spirit lives on to communicate with Kal in, get this, Kryptonian heaven(I was not aware Heaven was different for every planet in the cosmos!) after exposing himself to radiation to save Lois. -Superman fights a giant robot or two, all operated by Kryptonians even though on Earth they are able to become as strong as Kal and thus stronger than said robots(Nice logic!)-Jimmy Olsen is written as a very stereotypical New York City punk, this is actually a image he creates to hide that he is a homosexual.
The regular print is stuff I could live with. But the bolded tells me they were throwing any ideas at the wall!
For example: I don't hate that they turned Jimmy homosexual, at least they were trying to do something with the character. Usually he gets ignored altogether. But it kinda bothers me that he was "written as a very stereotypical New York City punk, to hide that he is a homosexual" because there's tons of NYC kids that are just "out". No need to hide. And how would the reveal of his sexuality impact the story of Superman anyway?
Well, the script was conceived in the early 2000s.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 9, 2019 23:07:49 GMT
Well, the script was conceived in the early 2000s. It just sounds like a story element that would work much better in a different movie or a movie of its own. Not as a subplot in a Superman movie. I don't go to see Superman movies to see a tertiary character come out after having 15 minutes of screen time, if that. If I want to see the high drama of a person finding themselves I'll go see Moonlight or Call Me By Your Name, both excellent films.
|
|
