re: RUMOR: Lucasfilm is reportedly reducing its output of live-action StarWars shows to 1/yr

They’ve been saying this for two years now and even said it at the beginning of this year. Disney is pure propaganda, you can’t believe a word they say.

As a viewer, I'd like 2-3 series a year, within the same timeline, where you can really build up a story. Maybe 1 series in another timeline, but only if you have a good idea and want to show that specifically.
You make a movie for the payoff of the series.

I'd do the same thing with the MCU. You can progress the story and fill in the dots with the series, the movies would be the climax.

I'm sure that isn't financially the best model.

I can’t imagine having a 180 million dollar budget for an 8 episode show and landing on Lez Headland to run it. Talk about lighting money on fire but I guess when your funding now comes from the WEF there’s no price too high for propaganda.

quote:

---

Nobody is going to choose a streaming service nowadays because of it's movie library; if I want to watch Star Wars over and over I will buy the discs.
Same thing with MCU.

The reason adults have Disney+ is to watch "premium tv series", in Disney's case that's the Star Wars and MCU shows.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying all the SW and MCU shows have been good, but Disney needs to keep them coming if they want to keep those subscriptions.

---

While I generally agree with this, I think Disney+ actually could be the exception.

Adults may need continuous new content to justify keeping a streaming service, but kids are a different story. My little girl has probably seen Moana, Frozen, and Finding Nemo a dozen times each. On top of that she’s probably seen the entirety of Bluey 4 times over. We try to get her to watch something new just so we don’t have to watch the same shite again, but kids like what they like I guess.

The point is, I’d wager that there are a lot of people who mainly subscribe to Disney+ for their kids. The Mandalorian is great and I loved Andor, but the adult shows are not the primary reason we have Disney+ and I probably wouldn’t pay for it if I didn’t have a kid.

I think the problem is that as all of these companies continue the battle to become the “must-have” streaming platform, they keep growing and bundling more and more content at a higher price. Which means the consumer needs to get more out of it to justify the expense.

I would happily pay $5/month for an ad-free Disney+ with absolutely no new content, just for access to the movie library and kid shows. But the cheapest ad-free tier of D+ alone is $14/month which doesn’t feel great if you aren’t getting some “grown up” content out of it. As the streaming market saturates and these companies start having to cut costs (by reducing new content or cutting production budgets) it wouldn’t shock me to see things swing back away from super bundles and more towards niche services at a lower price. At least for certain catalogs like Disney/Pixar.

The desire to pick and choose content rather than paying for shite you don’t watch was a huge driver behind the whole cord-cutting movement in the first place.

In completely unrelated news, I'm sure, Disney's stock is currently worth 87.98 per share. They're well on their way to losing all post-COVID gains.