The First Round of Shows to Get Removed from Disney+ and Hulu This Week Have Been Revealed

[Peter_Brosdahl]

The first round of shows to get the axe as Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger implements his new cost-saving measures have been announced. News about the forthcoming cuts came a couple of weeks ago per a CNN report that detailed a multistage plan for reducing its debts. From cutting shows to producing less content Bob Iger is committed to getting Disney's books in order. At one point he said that "everything is on the table" in regard to Disney's continued partnership with Comcast for Hulu. Disney owns two-thirds of the streaming service and there have been rumors it may sell it off to Comcast in a drastic move to cut more costs but, for now, it seems it will just remove more shows there as well.

Per Market Watch (via Vulture) the list continues to grow between the two platforms. While this first round of shows leaving both services is lengthy it is expected there will be more which will be added at a later date. It has been said the final tally could be just under one hundred. This move quite literally follows similar decisions made by Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav who has been putting shows, and movies, on the chopping block as well as removing content from HBO Max which is soon to don yet another name, Max. HBO's streaming offerings have had a convoluted history both before the debut of HBO Max and more recently with the HBO Max and Discovery+ Merger.

See full article...

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

My title favorite on the list is, and I'll have to look it up later just to find out what it is, "Everything’s Trash"

Kind of sums it up, don't you think?

 

[MadMummy76]

The irony is that this will probably boost interest in these, you know the forbidden fruit is always sweeter.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I stopped sailing the seas a very, very, long time ago but that would be hilarious if some of these shows suddenly became more popular in certain places after being removed.

 

[Grimlakin]

All Disney actually needs to do is the exact same thing they do with their DVD/Blue Ray, and older VHS releases... start rotating IP through the streaming service... Have stuff that's available to stream during part of a year or on a rotational basis for stuff that is less seasonally aligned.

Keep their huge IP backlog (that costs them to have available on line... maybe to pay the writers and actors and such residuals.) And then only put them back in on a rotational basis, even send out survey's to customers to get engagement on what to bring back into rotation and what to take out of rotation. Keep it a give or take.

Sure some people might leave when their wanted stuff isn't part of the service, but having the rotation of the huge Disney, Marvel, Star Wars back long on hand to 'reintroduce' will both reinforce people buying hard copy (dvd/Blue ray and whatever is next.) as well as keep costs down for having stuff on their streaming platform year round but sparsely consumed.

 

[MadMummy76]

All Disney actually needs to do is the exact same thing they do with their DVD/Blue Ray, and older VHS releases... start rotating IP through the streaming service... Have stuff that's available to stream during part of a year or on a rotational basis for stuff that is less seasonally aligned.

Keep their huge IP backlog (that costs them to have available on line... maybe to pay the writers and actors and such residuals.) And then only put them back in on a rotational basis, even send out survey's to customers to get engagement on what to bring back into rotation and what to take out of rotation. Keep it a give or take.

Sure some people might leave when their wanted stuff isn't part of the service, but having the rotation of the huge Disney, Marvel, Star Wars back long on hand to 'reintroduce' will both reinforce people buying hard copy (dvd/Blue ray and whatever is next.) as well as keep costs down for having stuff on their streaming platform year round but sparsely consumed.

Keeping stuff on that they own, but few people watch costs virtually nothing. It literally makes no difference if it's on 12 months a year and 100 people watch it every month, or if it's on for 1 month and 1000 people watch it that month. Arguably the latter costs more, because it is more stress on the bandwith, the less people watch a show the same time the less hosting and load balancing costs.

The argument could be made for shows that they pay royalties for keeping it in the catalogue, but their own product, nah.

Also I for one know, that I'd never sign up for a streaming service that openly rotates their content. I hate fomo, not playing that game.

 

[Grimlakin]

Keeping stuff on that they own, but few people watch costs virtually nothing. It literally makes no difference if it's on 12 months a year and 100 people watch it every month, or if it's on for 1 month and 1000 people watch it that month. Arguably the latter costs more, because it is more stress on the bandwith, the less people watch a show the same time the less hosting and load balancing costs.

The argument could be made for shows that they pay royalties for keeping it in the catalogue, but their own product, nah.

Also I for one know, that I'd never sign up for a streaming service that openly rotates their content. I hate fomo, not playing that game.

We're both speaking out of turn here as if we know. My counter thought process here is that when content is available gratuities have to be paid to those that get paid. Meaning that actors/actresses, directors, writers, and so on continue to see residuals from content that is still in circulation, whether or not they get consumption, the base act of having it be available to consume brings value to the service so in some small token should see remediation be paid to the creators involved.

Now if Disney actually does that or not I simply am in no place to actually know. Perhaps you are?

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

My counter thought process here is that when content is available gratuities have to be paid to those that get paid. Meaning that actors/actresses, directors, writers, and so on continue to see residuals from content that is still in circulation, whether or not they get consumption, the base act of having it be available to consume brings value to the service so in some small token should see remediation be paid to the creators involved.

Now if Disney actually does that or not I simply am in no place to actually know. Perhaps you are?

Well, that's pretty much what the writer from Willow was saying in regard to it being on the list of shows getting pulled.

 

[MadMummy76]

Now if Disney actually does that or not I simply am in no place to actually know. Perhaps you are?

It depends on individual contracts, but I have to say it would be mighty stupid of disney if they agreed to pay royalties based on mere availability instead of actual views. I mean if the show's availability brings in subscribers it must by definition bring views too. Nobody signs up for disney+ to not watch the show they signed up for.

PS: I'm not a great fan of royalties either way, the creators did their job made the movie or episode, got paid that should be end of the story. I don't know why do they think they deserve residual payment each time their show is viewed?

 

[Grimlakin]

It depends on individual contracts, but I have to say it would be mighty stupid of disney if they agreed to pay royalties based on mere availability instead of actual views. I mean if the show's availability brings in subscribers it must by definition bring views too. Nobody signs up for disney+ to not watch the show they signed up for.

PS: I'm not a great fan of royalties either way, the creators did their job made the movie or episode, got paid that should be end of the story. I don't know why do they think they deserve residual payment each time their show is viewed?

Oh trust me I'm sure these writers and creators would love just 1 massive check. But the industry hedges their bets, gives them a % or points based on income thresholds that equate to ongoing revenue. It's a contract that was created so they don't end up paying out the nose and loose their shirts. Yet they have to continue to pay when there is derived value. Considering instead of a royalty a licensing. they are paying for licensing to use their presented talent within the format of this show/movie until such time as they no longer derive value from the agreement.

This is something created by the studio's to save up front cost.

 

[MadMummy76]

Oh trust me I'm sure these writers and creators would love just 1 massive check.

They still do, but with royalties they might settle for slightly smaller check up front but in general it is really not a bad deal for them. This is simple contract work, get hired to direct a movie / write a screenplay, etc. It's not like the builders who built your patio get royalties each time you sit there with your friends. It is a very unfair thing in my opinion, that's why I can't muster up any sympathy for millionaire hollywood people loosing their royalties.

 

[Grimlakin]

They still do, but with royalties they might settle for slightly smaller check up front but in general it is really not a bad deal for them. This is simple contract work, get hired to direct a movie / write a screenplay, etc. It's not like the builders who built your patio get royalties each time you sit there with your friends. It is a very unfair thing in my opinion, that's why I can't muster up any sympathy for millionaire hollywood people loosing their royalties.

Nope but those credit card companies that so many have to use to get that deck built sure do accept monthly payments.