The problem with ads for me (other than the bloat and the privacy invasion) is that the tracking is just shit.
Whenever I'm signed in on Youtube I get non-stop ads for Squarespace (due to being a web dev I imagine). No matter how many times I mark the ads as irrelevant, they keep showing them. I've seen Squarespace ads hundreds of times, wasting my time, and Squarespace's ad spend.
When I open Youtube in a private browser and go to a gaming channel, I get ads for games. The ads are actually interesting, and I discovered three games this week that I hadn't heard of.
I would rather Youtube showed gaming ads on gaming channels, instead of all this tracking nonsense.
Someone could see a $500/pm idea in this thread, being developed by a solo dev, and think: "that's a good idea". They put a team of seasoned devs on it and created their own $500k/pm version.
If that is the case, that idea was in the wrong hands to begin with. All the successful ventures you see seeded by an idea but grow to the success that they are because of execution and good ol' fashioned luck. There is nothing original or groundbreaking in Slack for example. Nor are they the only ones playing in that space. But Slack are Slack because they executed well enough and luck was on their side (right place right time).
Yeah, this is the same with me. The last game I bought at full price was watch_dogs, and I felt ripped off that most of the season pass content was the same copy and paste missions as the rest of the game, with only one proper DLC.
Last month I bought Dishonored 2 for £10 and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided for £8, roughly six months after release (when they were £60).
What about feeding in an audiobook narrated by a well-known personality (like Stephen Fry), and then using the voice to narrate your own self-published eBook?
Some people have tried to analyze this as an aspect of right of publicity (e.g. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=281... but I think there are many other articles on this topic). The right of publicity analysis could be different from the copyright analysis.
Not to mention that Firefly's cancellation has posthumously added to its notoriety. Nearly every Firefly mention is in relation to its cancellation. Would it be as popular if it hadn't been cancelled?
I really like Firefly, but the cancellation meant they didn't have the opportunity to fuck it up. Every other Whedon series has had poor seasons.
Actually, I think this is consistent. 13-26 or so episodes is a pretty good length. Beyond that, ideas get stale, characters get repetitive, plots get either formulaic, or too convoluted to ever resolve, and a show generally starts to tilt downward.
I wish there were more shows that just were OK with planning an ending. I like stories with endings. Just know your limits, don't try to make a show that can go on for a million seasons, end it when its still good, and then use the goodwill garnered from making a masterpiece to build the next creative thing.
I'm not sure why this model seems to be more successful in, say, Anime as opposed to western TV. Budget, maybe?
I think they're starting to get it. Breaking Bad fully executed its ending. Game of Thrones announced their end years in advance. TV producers are finally starting to come on board with the idea of stopping a show even though it's popular.
The alternative is to mint an evergreen series like Law & Order. Someone finds a dead body in NYC; investigation, trial, and silly social commentary ensue. Then vary the parameters a bit and you get SVU, Criminal Intent, et al. Characters are interchangeable, guest spots abound, social commentary changes with the politics of the day.
Walking Dead -- eh, it's getting a little old. I thought they were going to explore some primitive economics, and maybe they will, but the cliffhanger gag last season reminded me too much of "Who Shot JR?" Not sure I care. And the spinoff went too heavy on the social commentary, couldn't even finish Season Two.
Mr. Robot is more promising, but I haven't seen one yet that comes close to the satisfaction I got from the clear arc of the story in Breaking Bad. Sons of Anarchy tried, but fell short somehow.
Walking Dead, I just wish they could find another model for a season.
"Oh, we're walking or driving through the woods"
"Cool, we found a place that looks cool and has cool people"
"Oh, the cool people were actually horrible for some reason"
"Time to blow it up I guess."
Making a hit is such a crap shoot that depends on a lot of things including what basically boils down t luck, i.e. it grabs the limelight for whatever reason. So when something does become a hit, there's a lot of pressure to just keep things going.
- The network likes that they have a predictable money-making show.
- A lot of fans will continue watching out of habit/duty.
- Many actors and others associated with a hit show may think (often for good reason) that they'll likely never see as good a payday again.
It's also worth noting that shows like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones still had relatively niche audiences compared to a hit on a major network. Probably makes it easier to plan for a fixed length.
You do see some of the same effect in, say, genre fiction though. There are a lot of interminable series because they have a built-in readership.
Actually, I think the UK is the exception in this regard. Most other countries that shoot their own local TV shows have 6-9 month seasons. Brazil, India, China, Turkey.. etc.
Furthermore I'm not convinced UK's shorter season format is a good thing. I actually think it's a symptom of much smaller budgets.
The consistent, long-term revenue for a series comes via syndication, which typically becomes feasible for a 30-minute sitcom around 100 episodes (can vary by format, however).
I suspect that any boost gained by early cancellation would also have been gained by more episodes, and time for word of mouth to popularize it... unless Fox pulled more slow death dickery.
I can't really speak to Buffy and Angel, but with regards to Firefly and Dollhouse... The indication is that Whedon wouldn't so much fuck it up, but requirements by Fox would force him to fuck it up. Compare "Train Job" to the original first episode of Firefly. Compare early episodes of Dollhouse to later ones, particularly the encore episode.
The idea of using the Big Red Reset Button as a continuous plot element, and telling the arc story through seepage across resets was a brilliant way of giving the finger to almost every other series.
Dollhouse was a misfire IMHO. I watched both seasons on Netflix and it never really found a groove. I was really annoyed that they more or less sidestepped the obvious ethical and moral issues and instead ended the show with outright supervilliany. It was just so dumb by the end that I felt kind of embarrassed to keep watching.
That feels a bit like a cop-out to me. Part of the job of a television creative is effectively working inside of your network.
Although it's better today, with Netflix and the free reign a lot of producers get, I think there is an art of show business maneuvering that shaped so much TV and kind of added to it's character. The classic "medium with a limitation" theory.
While I think Firefly had one or two more good seasons in it, I do support your argument. There are so many examples of shows having a strong start and then screwing up in a later season, making the whole series terrible. I think Heroes was the worst example of this: brilliant first season, complete garbage after. Glee is another example. I would have hated to see Firefly do this.
My aunt used to have two VCRs and an alarm clock. She'd use the alarm to remind her to hit record. She struggled with the timer, but I don't think she trusted it to record what she asked it to.
It's now 2016. She's got two DVRs... and an alarm clock.
I've tried a lot of the newer city builders and the 3D just does not do it for me. I find it clunky and awkward.