Members Soapsuds Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 How many though are going to pay for something they had been getting for free?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 Thats the question I dont know. I would If It gave me access to TOLN which is supposed 2 have 24 hours of programming every day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 As much as I bitch about them, I would put up with being inundated with obnoxious ads of Soapnet.com proportions over paying. If they must go the pay route, Netflix streaming is $7.99/month for far more content, so I think the price point should be about half that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 I think u would pay a monthly subscription for all the content on TOLN, not just AMC & OLTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angela Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 First, reach a deal with the unions for Lavery's sake. Nothing is going to happen if they don't do that. I'd go even lower for a subscription, as long as their content is only a handful of programs, $7.99/year seems like a fair price especially when you compare it with the amount of old and new content Netflix carries. Additionally a price like that will be equivalent to a lot more customers. I wouldn't cut the programs to 30 minutes but I would air them for only a certain amount of months per year, 6 or less. I'd go with 4. The RHoFormula. This will bring wages down as you don't have to pay two or more casts year round. I think this is something they should do with OLTL even AMC is delayed. It'll give potential investors real numbers to look at. Location and sets. Ask people to move? or to move again? I think they should have a location in LA and NY if they plan to expand. More investors interested due to numbers would add up to more money for two locations. I'd like to think Prospect Park is thinking about different ways to do this whole thing and not just being single minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 Netflix is $7.99 a year? I thought it was that amount like montly? I've never used netflix so I have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angela Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 Netflix is 7.99 a month. I'd have Prospect Park/TOLN go 7.99 a year if they get on their feet because of the huge difference in amount of content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 Good point. Damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted November 20, 2011 Members Share Posted November 20, 2011 Right, I'm just saying that they still won't have nearly the amount of content Netflix has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted November 21, 2011 Members Share Posted November 21, 2011 The first thing Frons talked about at the announcement was, paraphrasing obviously, that this was some great lifestyle change for fat and stupid soap viewers who need to move on. Some vocal fans are always going to think that an executive hates a soap, but generally other fans will get it. But someone like Frons just bypassed any of that and tried his best to make it seem like this was about some noble attempt to educate soap fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AnonNona Posted November 21, 2011 Members Share Posted November 21, 2011 It's now slightly over $17 if you want both streaming & DVDs. A $5/$10 monthly subscription might not sound so bad to anyone who watches streaming video through Amazon or iTunes, which usually costs $1.99/episode for non-HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Max Posted November 21, 2011 Members Share Posted November 21, 2011 I believe that several have said that the internet is the future for soaps, and I agree with this view. What I don't agree with is that the way to the future is to continue two 40+ year-old soaps that are on their last legs. For goodness sake, start a new soap. (IMO, the only reason why PP did not attempt to do this was that it would be much easier to lure viewers over to TOLN with established names than to put the effort/money into launching a new soap.) It's too bad that all the effort put into saving AMC/OLTL wasn't instead directed towards launching a new soap online. That's why I always find the "save the soaps" mantre so insincere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted November 21, 2011 Members Share Posted November 21, 2011 I don't think people who want to save their soaps are insincere. They have memories of those soaps. There are other fans who want to save the idea of a soap opera, and what a soap represents, but that's different from someone who loves one soap and wants it to stay on the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted November 21, 2011 Members Share Posted November 21, 2011 Someone was going to try it. I am kind of surpirised NetFlix for example didn't try a show like Firefly which had a sort of younger cult following but producing big budget productions is not something thats been done yet exclusively for an internet channel so its new. I do partially agree they need an audience and this venture has gotten a lot of PR and is going to bring a lot of eyes to their network and I think at the end of the day they want the eyeballs, It doesn't ,mean they dont care about these shows but these are business people building a network. So they are looking for any way to draw in viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Max Posted November 21, 2011 Members Share Posted November 21, 2011 Carl, nobody was insincere by merely trying to save AMC or OLTL. However, I believe that most people are selfish (since that's human nature), and it seemed as if the "save the soaps" mantre was being used by a lot of people as a reason for keeping the Nixon soaps alive. I honestly wouldn't have had a problem if the fans instead said "save AMC & OLTL." But by saying "save the soaps" as a rationale to save THEIR soaps, it really pissed me off. Seriously, if saving the soaps was so important, then a similar s#itstorm would have occurred when Loving, The City, AW, SuBe, PC, Passions, GL, and ATWT all got cancelled. Unfortunately, none of those cancellatons seemed to matter to the vast majority of AMC & OLTL fans, yet these folks acted as if the world stopped turning the moment their soaps were cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.