Main Menu

Star Wars Episode IX

Started by JOE SOAP, 10 July, 2018, 01:50:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

IndigoPrime

Quote from: Professor Bear on 17 July, 2019, 10:47:51 AMPeople paying the makers of the videos understandably want more content - not less - for their money.
Then people are idiots. I want better content, not for my time to be wasted.

Hawkmumbler

Fredrick Knudsen's Down The Rabbit Hole is one of the best series of Youtube, and he only publishes one episode every 2 months, and makes about £4200 on patreon in that time. The fact his videos are equal if not superior to most Netflix documentaries is why people are happy to support him in spite of relatively low output.

Youtubes business model supports quantity over quality, something most quality creatives can't or won't provide. Youtube execs can fuck off.

TordelBack

#272
Quote from: radiator on 17 July, 2019, 02:30:37 AM
I feel strongly the opposite - podcasts shorter than 25 minutes to me seem almost pointless.

Yup. 60-90 mins is the sweet spot for me, since that's the length of my average drive, train commute or walk. Farting about changing episodes on the hoof irritates me, unless there's a story told through an episodic structure (Serial, Polybius Conspiracy) or a really focused weekly topic that gets done (Motherfocloir).  Should be said that my favourite pods are either rambling interviews which often can't be long enough (Adam Buxton) or podcasts broken into recurring segments (Grognard Files).

If we're talking about endless to-and-fro between regular presenters,  or some spode wittering on solo about his hobby horse, definitely less is more,  but then I tend not to go back to those o es.

YouTube OTOH,  dear lord keep 'em short - who has the time?

IndigoPrime

Quite. I'm not specifically against a podcast going on for an hour, but it has to have a reason for doing so. A good example is Infinite Monkey Cage. I'd happily listen to episodes twice as long as the extended podcasts, because they are superb. But so much stuff is just extended to fill the time, rather than edited to be better.

Hawkmumbler

Welcome to Nightvale got it's structure spot on, a half an hour surrealist podcast presented as a 30 minute news bulletin.

Critical Role and The Adventure Zone also curbed their out put perfectly so all could tell an ongoing narrative in sweet bite sized hits.

Professor Bear

#275
Quote from: Frank on 17 July, 2019, 11:31:24 AMAs such, the algorithm prioritises longer videos over shorter ones, which Youtubers have noticed and responded to accordingly.

That was true until around 2017 when "the Adpocalypse" introduced automatic demonetisation (removal of advertising) on any videos flagged by content filters or viewer complaints*.  Foul-mouthed game streamers were put out of business overnight and since then a great many creators have taken their eggs out of the YT basket to create content according to Patreon feedback rather than the YT algorithm, premiering videos directly to backers and only later using YT as a hosting platform.
I have no doubt that some of the monolithic YT channels like Pewdiwpie still make bank somehow (because of course the right wing channels still make money), but most serious content creators are no longer beholden to the site or its preferences**.  And, you know, they're actually making money and growing their audiences, so obviously "they're too long and people who like longer vids are stupid" are highly subjective takes.


* Videos discussing LGBTQ issues also seem to get disproportionately flagged for demonetisation, while left wing channels are constantly targeted in "mass flagging" campaigns by alt-right channels to not only demonetise videos, but to get Youtube to remove them from the site entirely.
** laughably, Youtube has even created its own union to tempt younger and left-leaning creators back into the fold.

radiator

Quote from: TordelBack on 17 July, 2019, 01:20:46 PM
Quote from: radiator on 17 July, 2019, 02:30:37 AM
I feel strongly the opposite - podcasts shorter than 25 minutes to me seem almost pointless.

Yup. 60-90 mins is the sweet spot for me, since that's the length of my average drive, train commute or walk. Farting about changing episodes on the hoof irritates me, unless there's a story told through an episodic structure (Serial, Polybius Conspiracy) or a really focused weekly topic that gets done (Motherfocloir).  Should be said that my favourite pods are either rambling interviews which often can't be long enough (Adam Buxton) or podcasts broken into recurring segments (Grognard Files).

If we're talking about endless to-and-fro between regular presenters,  or some spode wittering on solo about his hobby horse, definitely less is more,  but then I tend not to go back to those o es.

YouTube OTOH,  dear lord keep 'em short - who has the time?

I'm really not a fan of the recent proliferation of corporate, ultra-slickly produced podcasts, usually 25mins in length with a good 5 mins of that being ads. To me they are the exact opposite of what appeals to me about the medium.

sheridan

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 17 July, 2019, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 17 July, 2019, 10:47:51 AMPeople paying the makers of the videos understandably want more content - not less - for their money.
Then people are idiots. I want better content, not for my time to be wasted.


Unless there's a good reason for it, I like podcasts to be less than an hour in length, so that I can listen to them during lunch hour.  Some of the longer podcasts that I actually like I've fallen well behind on as I don't have the spare two or three hours to listen to them.

Tiplodocus

I love a bit of thread drift.

I think I'm going to stick to just the trailers in the build up to this. I pretty much did that for LAST JEDI and that kept it really fresh for me.

Especially as the bits I moaned about ("Those bits look like a rehash of Hoth and asteroid choice") both turned out to be nothing of the sort.
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

IAMTHESYSTEM

#279
Could this allegation be the real reasoning behind Disney's attempt at repackaging Star Wars? Disney didn't want to share any profits with Star Wars original creator George Lucas. By creating new characters, owned entirely by Disney to replace the originals ones they cut out any payment to him. Does seem a bit too conspiratorial to my eye but for profits, we all know Capitalism would sell its soul. Your soul, also. Well, follow the money as Deep Throat said.

https://youtu.be/XqPgVmndoYY
"You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension."

http://artriad.deviantart.com/
― Nikola Tesla

wedgeski

I'm not going to watch that video, but if Disney's grand plan to detach Star Wars completely from George Lucas involves spending hundreds of millions on three movies that feature the original cast, I would say they're off to a bad start.

JOE SOAP

#281
I find this conspiracy a little lacking. George Lucas was paid and owns 37.1 million Disney shares, or 2.1% of the company, making him the second largest non-institutional shareholder behind the Steve Jobs estate, so he gets a huge amount of money anyway from the stock-earnings of all Disney owned properties. At the time of sale Lucas's Disney shares were worth $1.9billion, giving the deal a total value of $4.1 billion since he took the rest as money.

In 2015 the shares he received were worth $4.1 billion, giving the Lucas film deal a total value of approximately $6.3 billion.

If George is still receiving a cut of Lucasfilm/Star Wars, I doubt it's significant enough for Disney not to pay him, and they wouldn't have planned Han Solo and Boba Fett films if they wanted to completely decouple Star Wars earning potential from the previous owner. Whatever future Star Wars has Darth Vader & Co. will forever be part of the content and the merch. Vader and the Millenium Falcon are now 'park rides'.



TordelBack

Joe gets in there ahead of me with a much more fleshed-out response. Mine was going to be:" Messa thinkin 4 billioni buysa themsa the right to crash da boas's hedgibber".

Steve Green

I think the Mandalorian trailer should be out today.


Mardroid

I watched it. Interesting! His ship has quite a Serenity vibe.

I have mixed feelings about the  Mandalorian. They're mostly positive: sci-fi westerns and bounty hunters are always a cool concept and can lead to some terrific stories. There's certainly plenty to mine in Star Wars, and I think this will be set in a time period we don't know too much about. (After Endor, but before the First Order gains power, I believe. So plenty of chaos, criminal activity, imperial hangers-on*,etc.)

Then there's part of me that thinks "Your using Boba Fett's toys with another character! Why didn't you just change the time period and..." I guess they have more leeway with a new character, though. They could have gone with a different look, but Mandalorian armour is cool, and we can't really blame them for that.

Nice to see an [spoiler]IG droid[/spoiler] as a side-kick!

* I don't mind seeing the Empire still with a degree of power during this time period. It seems more realistic to me that a Galaxy wide empire wouldn't just cave in once the leader and their new super toy was destroyed.