[TV] Disney+ Star Wars: Ahsoka Tano

[Kyphael]

Disney+ turned a profit in Q2 of this year and they expect all of their combined streaming services to be profitable by the end of this year.

Oh, then what was all the panic in the sky about scaling back the number of shows they were producing, relative to subscribers they had?

[s_bushido]

Regular network tv is able to put out 20+ episodes (still) a year of every show they offer, every year, year after year, reliably. I mean the scripted stuff; not the game shows or "reality" tv. But the same type of scripted shows the streamer networks are doing.

To be fair, isn't most of that just [Generic Crime Procedural] that takes like no money and no sets to make? Either way, I agree that it's pretty stupid that streamers can't figure out a way to put out a 10 episode season every year. But I have absolutely no background knowledge of the difficulties/logistics of actually doing that, and whether or not those factors are the reason it doesn't happen...as opposed to "we don't need to, so we won't."

[Biomega]

I agree that it's pretty stupid that streamers can't figure out a way to put out a 10 episode season every year.

Except that isn't and never has been the problem. None of them can't do it - they don't want to. It has to do with the very complicated ways in which they make their money and play their audience. They're trying to squeeze good shows for as long as they can before they make new ones, because they work differently than network television without VoD who had an incentive to keep up a regular release schedule so people wouldn't drop their subs. But sub behavior is different with VoDs and accordingly they changed their release model as well - especially if it's a platform like Netflix that still likes to release entire seasons at once rather than dropping things weekly (though they are increasingly doing that, too).

This isn't a competency problem - it's a monetization problem.

As, by the way, is the recurring pattern of Netflix canceling shows after 1-3 seasons: they cash in on hype, and once it seems like that won't do it anymore, they abandon.

[Lahis]

I think streaming services are doing themselves a disservice by having 2-3 years of time between seasons of shows. And its not just Disney+ that has this problem.

Remains to be seen if they're going to figure a way out of this 2-3 year cycle, or just keep it up and hope people accept its the norm. But I think it does explain at least part of why people lose interest/viewership in shows drops off after first season, etc.

And I just don't get it.

Regular network tv is able to put out 20+ episodes (still) a year of every show they offer, every year, year after year, reliably. I mean the scripted stuff; not the game shows or "reality" tv. But the same type of scripted shows the streamer networks are doing.

But streaming networks have a problem shooting 10 episodes (or less) of a show in a year. On multiple shows. Its not like one or two get delayed, its more like 90% of them can't make this yearly schedule. And its not just the "top tier" shows, it includes the crappy ones - if they get more than one season.

I mean do streaming networks really just have like one or two teams they send out to shoot ALL their shows? (lol I know they don't but you get my point).

I just don't see how they can't 'figure out' how to complete the seasonal-cycle more reliably. It was weird when Netflix was alone in this pattern because they were the solo streaming network, but its not made less weird now because more of them fail at it. We've not had a writer's strike every other year (or COVID lockdowns) since Netflix's inception; so that's not the reason.

But i've read several op-eds about this topic now and I have to agree - this is one of their (streaming networks) problems for their shows they want to make money off of, but then don't keep their audience engaged. Not everyone wants to re-watch every show they like every year to remind them (or even watch youtube summary videos of them to do so - lol).

It is because streaming services are not producing TV shows. They are producing 8 hour movies, and most release the "shows" as such (binge dump all at once).

[rhorle]

It is because streaming services are not producing TV shows. They are producing 8 hour movies, and most release the "shows" as such (binge dump all at once).

They are still producing TV shows. The low episode count is from various factors including easier to binge watch. Others are no need for filler episodes because they don't have to fill timeslots. They can also make episode as long or as short as needed for the story because of not being restricted to a time slot.

[Biomega]

It is because streaming services are not producing TV shows. They are producing 8 hour movies, and most release the "shows" as such (binge dump all at once).

I'm not actually sure the binge model is the norm anymore. I have a feeling it's become the exception; but I'm too lazy to go and look for data, so if anyone has any...

Doesn't really matter that much, though. The nature of the VoD model means that even shows not released all at once can become binges through customer behavior. That's something I've seen a lot in my social circle: people unsubbing from many of their streaming platforms, then after a year or two they're resubbing for a month or two at a time only and binging on all the shows that came out in the meantime. Which is probably the nightmare scenario of streaming execs. But it's a very relatable and understandable response to a highly fractured market. Everything is a sub now. Spending $7.50 isn't a big deal - but spending it for the TENTH TIME is.

[Lahis]

They are still producing TV shows. The low episode count is from various factors including easier to binge watch. Others are no need for filler episodes because they don't have to fill timeslots. They can also make episode as long or as short as needed for the story because of not being restricted to a time slot.

They are not producing TV shows. TV show would have production up that could make a season in a year.

Movie productions take years.

[rhorle]

They are not producing TV shows. TV show would have production up that could make a season in a year. Movie productions take years.

That is a silly and arbitrary definition. Fargo, produced by FX, released season 3 in 2017, Season 4 in 2020. Atlanta had Season 1 in 2016, Season 2 in 2018, and Season 3 and 4 in 2022. Sherlock had Season 1 in 2010, Season 2 in 2012, and Season 3 in 2014, and Season 4 in 2017. Though that show only had 3 episodes per season.

There are more with some recent delays but some of that is COVID-19 and strike related.

[Endus]

That is a silly and arbitrary definition. Fargo, produced by FX, released season 3 in 2017, Season 4 in 2020. Atlanta had Season 1 in 2016, Season 2 in 2018, and Season 3 and 4 in 2022. Sherlock had Season 1 in 2010, Season 2 in 2012, and Season 3 in 2014, and Season 4 in 2017. Though that show only had 3 episodes per season.

There are more with some recent delays but some of that is COVID-19 and strike related.

So many people mistake shitty production practices that existed solely to feed the content void on broadcast and cable channels that had set timeslots to fill with some kind of "norm" that "good" TV should abide by.

Those expectations are why we had things like bullshit filler and montage episodes, why shows relied on as few sets as possible and re-used them as much as they could, why you'd have arcs stretched out over 15 episodes where basically nothing happened regarding that arc in episodes 2-14, etc.

It was writing to fill a timeslot with reduced production value, rather than doing what the story you wanted to tell actually required. Hell, this is why sitcoms were so popular; you needed like 3-4 sets and every episode could be filler bullshit that didn't advance any broader story. You could film the entire thing in front of a studio audience, with all the sets right there on-stage!

[RobertoCarlos]

So many people mistake shitty production practices that existed solely to feed the content void on broadcast and cable channels that had set timeslots to fill with some kind of "norm" that "good" TV should abide by.

Those expectations are why we had things like bullshit filler and montage episodes, why shows relied on as few sets as possible and re-used them as much as they could, why you'd have arcs stretched out over 15 episodes where basically nothing happened regarding that arc in episodes 2-14, etc.

It was writing to fill a timeslot with reduced production value, rather than doing what the story you wanted to tell actually required. Hell, this is why sitcoms were so popular; you needed like 3-4 sets and every episode could be filler bullshit that didn't advance any broader story. You could film the entire thing in front of a studio audience, with all the sets right there on-stage!

Yeah Disney shows don't need recap episodes because the story is so light. If you're confused following it perhaps paw patrol is more age appropriate

[Koriani]

I hear all you guys' logic and arguments. There were several so I didn't want to just quote everyone.

And I get streaming is a different beast than broadcast, and yeah, the advertising dollars vs. subscription dollars I do know play a roll, so I can understand those points.

But not every show the streamers put out is Tier A. Just like not all cable shows put out Tier A. There's plenty of B/C/crap content on Netflix, Apple+, all of them - esp. the ones that do NOT rely on decades of broadcast tv (like Disney, Peacock, NBC can do) that still put out plenty of crap, scripted, content. But those lesser shows aren't released more consistently, they have the same gaps the "tier A" shows do.

Now true, those crap shows may get cancelled faster - but streamers still don't put out 100% Tier A TV and it "just takes longer." (which is a whole other streaming network problem; where broadcast gave shows sometimes a season or more to tune a product and get a solid audience but that's another thread point lol).

I'd buy the argument that it has *anything* to do with Quality Of the Show if it was ONLY the Top Tier Shows that were taking 2-3 years to put a season together. But that just isn't the reality of what's on these networks.

I mean logically it /would/ keep people subbed longer if they made more than 10 episodes a season and didn't wait 2-3 years between seasons. But they don't. So if they don't change the model, then I think it will become more and more the norm that viewers are going to cycle streaming networks because there really is NO reason to stay subbed all year.

And for all of you relating this to Ahsoka or Disney specifically, you're missing the point. I wasn't talking about any one show or Disney+, I was talking about all streamers.

It was just the article that we've got 3 years between Ahoska seasons that started the response.

And I don't know why you'd even be commenting on "good norm" for tv, or bullshit filler episodes, or writing to fill a timeslot. That has nothing at all to do with the point I was making - which was about streaming networks being unable to produce more than 10 episodes of any ONE show every 2-3 years. Its about the business, yes, but not about why streaming networks either can't, or don't care to, try and get ANY show out on a yearly basis.

I also realize none of us have this answer, its just more my commenting on the nature of the model and how they shoot themselves in the foot but want everyone to jump on how "much better" this all is. When sure it has some "pros", but its also got plenty of "cons" to work out.

I don't care how much i've enjoyed a show, or how simple it is, after 3 years its hard to give a shit again - esp. when its a complicated enough show I have to go watch youtube videos to catch back up on. Its just...a silly expectation.

And if you say "well they want you to re-watch the whole show multiple times" that's even sillier. I mean I watch A LOT of tv - many hours a week - probably more than most people here (if not most people in general these days) and I STILL don't have time to go re-watch every show I want to catch up on every 2-3 years of a new season. That's a bullshit reason that makes the streamer networks happy but doesn't operate on any realistic-life-expectation for most people.

[rhorle]

And I don't know why you'd even be commenting on "good norm" for tv, or bullshit filler episodes, or writing to fill a timeslot. That has nothing at all to do with the point I was making - which was about streaming networks being unable to produce more than 10 episodes of any ONE show every 2-3 years. Its about the business, yes, but not about why streaming networks either can't, or don't care to, try and get ANY show out on a yearly basis.

It is brought up because that is pretty much the answer. Netflix released Orange is the New Black seasons yearly from 2013 to 2019. Amazon release their 3 seasons of The Expanse from December 2019 to January 2022. Only off a yearly release by a month. Streaming networks and shows can release whenever they feel like it. It is basically up to the studio and what they want. Some release in a year, some release multiple a year, and some take years.

Disney+ is an outlier because they create specials more than TV shows. They do yearly releases when they want to but will also delay seasons when they feel they need to.