Help needed to understand Streaming Services removing original content

[Secondhand]

Are the series that the streaming services are removing to avoid paying residuals, tax, etc. gone for good?

Will Paramount do the same to Star Trek Prodigy season 2 or does th r removal mean there will be more episodes?

And why is it some shows and not others? Why Prodigy and not Strange New Worlds? Why the Willow series and not the MCU shows or Star Wars shows?

[kannibaliztik]

Every single show and movie has it's own license/contract and those terms will differ depending on what studio or people are involved. None of us really know when/where a title will show up again if removed from a service.

[Secondhand]

Originally Posted by kannibaliztik

Every single show and movie has it's own license/contract and those terms will differ depending on what studio or people are involved. None of us really know when/where a title will show up again if removed from a service.

I know no one here knows the specifics of each series and film but I should have made it clear what I meant.

For example, what might be reasons that Disney+ have to pay the makers of WILLOW extra money as time goes on but not THE MANDOLORIAN? Both are LUCASFILM.

Same for STAR TREK - is it because it was made by an outside animation company?

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by Secondhand

I know no one here knows the specifics of each series and film but I should have made it clear what I meant.

For example, what might be reasons that Disney+ have to pay the makers of WILLOW extra money as time goes on but not THE MANDOLORIAN? Both are LUCASFILM.

Same for STAR TREK - is it because it was made by an outside animation company?

*shrug*

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Secondhand

I know no one here knows the specifics of each series and film but I should have made it clear what I meant.

For example, what might be reasons that Disney+ have to pay the makers of WILLOW extra money as time goes on but not THE MANDOLORIAN? Both are LUCASFILM.

Do you know they don't have to pay anyone involved in The Mandalorian as long as the series is on streaming? If not, then there's no reason to jump to that conclusion. Why one series is on the air and the other isn't might be just because one brings viewer$ and the other doesn't.

[bhampton]

I would have watched Crater if I knew it was being removed.
I did watch Willow when I learned it would be removed.

Letting people know something will be removed will result in people watching it. So there's an easy way to get more people watching.

[ps3bd_owner]

Licenses.

Digital game/movie/show purchases can be quite risky too if you think you "own" it, and then they remove or replace it.

All in the name of convenience.

[Secondhand]

Originally Posted by Roonan

Do you know they don't have to pay anyone involved in The Mandalorian as long as the series is on streaming? If not, then there's no reason to jump to that conclusion. Why one series is on the air and the other isn't might be just because one brings viewer$ and the other doesn't.

No I didn’t know that.

So there are contracts that if MANDO ever gets removed that Favereau (???), etc will get extra money?

Not bringing the viewers isn’t why content is being removed. It is to avoid paying the creatives and to avoid tax. There has been no mention that simply having it on the servers costs money.

[Secondhand]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I would have watched Crater if I knew it was being removed.
I did watch Willow when I learned it would be removed.

Letting people know something will be removed will result in people watching it. So there's an easy way to get more people watching.

I didn’t know CRATER was gone. Been wanting to see that.

Apparently gone is the comfort of watching whenever you want.

Removal dates in advance is only good for existing subscribers and will hardly bring in new members. So no reason for Disney to have the courtesy of telling us like Netflix does.

[Secondhand]

Originally Posted by ps3bd_owner

Licenses.

Digital game/movie/show purchases can be quite risky too if you think you "own" it, and then they remove or replace it.

All in the name of convenience.

Paramount+ and Disney+ own the content they have removed.

License doesn’t apply to these.

I haven’t seen mention of Amazon in this.

[bhampton]

They own it but license and other costs still apply.

(However, I don't really know anything about this.)

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Secondhand

No I didn’t know that.

So there are contracts that if MANDO ever gets removed that Favereau (???), etc will get extra money?

Nobody knows that.

Originally Posted by Secondhand

Not bringing the viewers isn’t why content is being removed. It is to avoid paying the creatives and to avoid tax. There has been no mention that simply having it on the servers costs money.

Of course not brining viewers is why it's removed. It's costing them money and it's not bringing any profit.

Also, servers cost money. Server space costs money.

[D00mM4r1n3]

Studios manipulate the accounting so that content is paid for over time rather than up front regardless of what comes out of their pocket up front. By removing the show (even if it completed filming) they are technically taking a loss by removing it before it makes it's money back. Disney took a write off of $1.5 billion when they removed a bunch of shows. Server cost has nothing to do with it. That write off lets them try to make something else that may make more money. They don't care about art, only profit.

[kevin87]

Originally Posted by D00mM4r1n3

Studios manipulate the accounting so that content is paid for over time rather than up front regardless of what comes out of their pocket up front. By removing the show (even if it completed filming) they are technically taking a loss by removing it before it makes it's money back. Disney took a write off of $1.5 billion when they removed a bunch of shows. Server cost has nothing to do with it. That write off lets them try to make something else that may make more money. They don't care about art, only profit.

A "write-down" is different than a "write-off." I won't pretend to know what a write-down is, but a write-off means they can't make money off it. Which is why Batgirl and the Scoob movie will never see the light of day... the other shows could theoretically be licensed out to another free ad support service like Tubi. I suspect some of the Disney things will eventually.

Things get removed because they don't want to keep paying the people involved with them.

[Secondhand]

Originally Posted by Roonan

Nobody knows that.



Of course not brining viewers is why it's removed. It's costing them money and it's not bringing any profit.

Also, servers cost money. Server space costs money.

If no one knows then you don’t so does that mean that you made it up?

[Secondhand]

Originally Posted by kevin87

Things get removed because they don't want to keep paying the people involved with them.

Thanks for getting this back to the point.

Should we assume that there is more removals on all services to come?

If Disney and Warner Bros. “rent out” their content to other services could this mean DISNEY+ and HBOMax could eventually come to an end?

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Secondhand

If no one knows then you don’t so does that mean that you made it up?

No, it means you are needlessly conflating two different issues.

Nobody knows any of the contracts.

What is known is that irrespective of the contract, Willow or any other series would remain available if it brought any money. And bringing money means to not only have enough viewer$ to cover the cost (contracts, maintenance, etc) but bring profit too. Aprently Willow didn't do that, so it got removed.

[bhampton]

I have the Scoob movie

Must be another Scoob movie.

(For the record I haven't seen Velma series and I'm ok with that being removed or never coming to disc and it's fine if they burn all the copies of it.)

[kevin87]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I have the Scoob movie

Must be another Scoob movie.

(For the record I haven't seen Velma series and I'm ok with that being removed or never coming to disc and it's fine if they burn all the copies of it.)

There was a Holiday Haunt sequel that was either fully finished or almost finished, they even kept scoring it after it was trashed.

Originally Posted by Secondhand

Thanks for getting this back to the point.

Should we assume that there is more removals on all services to come?

If Disney and Warner Bros. “rent out” their content to other services could this mean DISNEY+ and HBOMax could eventually come to an end?

Licensing is very common, so I don't think it'd be the end of anything. If Disney were to sell off Disney Channel like is the current rumor, that might mean some of those things would get removed.

If something doesn't do well, they'll obviously consider removing it. But if they do that, somebody would probably be willing to pay for the license so they can brag about having a Disney title on their service for example.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by kevin87

There was a Holiday Haunt sequel that was either fully finished or almost finished, they even kept scoring it after it was trashed.

Holiday Haunt is nearly done, Warner is opening to licensing it but the deal would also mean the licensing side would have to cover the cost of paying back the tax write-off.

A write-off means the property has no value and as such can not be resold. There are obvious loopholes like the one mentioned above. Warner er Zaslav took this apprach which actually hurt Warner more than it helped. Now the properties they removed are legally unsellable unless Warner pays back those write-off credits.

A write-down means the property still has some value and can be resold. Disney and Paramount took write downs which is why Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies is available to buy digital and will be available later on DVD. No one knows what Disney will do but Paramount figured out direct sales of these titles meant better returns on investments. So Star Trek: Prodigy will also get released for sale directly and Paramount is finishing season 2 to sell as a singular package to another outlet.

Warner learned their lesson and now, so they are embracing licensing content.