I'll Get Around To It Later

There are so many great alternatives to cable now. Netflix and Hulu are awesome. My parents are still stuck with the cable subscription. But I can say that I never had one. I picked up NetFlix when I was still at home and now with NetFlix, Hulu and some YouTube keeping me busy I am never left wanting.

When I am home the amount of commercials on cable can nearly drive me insane. There has never been a time I have been “Oh boy! Good thing I saw that commercial!” And for those that argue my preferred viewing options also have commercials, true. The commercials on YT can get a little annoying I don't have that problem with NetFlix or Hulu. I only watch via streaming with a chrome cast, and have not seen commercials.

On Hulu I pay the extra for no commercials.

But there is the added value of having their own content. I feel like the content keeps getting increasingly better and has come out at a faster rate.

I see an increasing amount of value on the consumer side. Netflix is now more well known for their original programming, shows like Stranger Things, Chef’s Table, Daredevil, Ozark, than they are for streaming other content.

Though it can be hit or miss with some of their content it is important to keep a wide base of users. Something that doesn't interest me was likely not made for me but others will like it because it was made with them in mind.

In order to keep their subscriber base and continue growing, they need to keep producing said original programming. Their content has become exponentially more expensive for them to produce.

The uptick is, they’re a service that is seen as an alternative to cable, and also a recession safeguard.

If the economy begins to slide, it’s more likely that people will turn to Netflix as a cost saving measure than cut Netflix out of their budget. Shows are still shows, no matter what platform they're on. At the end of the day it is like any other content provider, just treat it like what it is and watch what appeals to you.

Aladdin 2 was initially going to have a theatrical release, this would have made it one of the few sequels during that Disney era that had a such a release but they decided it was going to be too costly and take too long. And they didn't have Robin Williams on it. It was thrown together from what was going to be the beginning of the TV show.

The TV show was actually pretty good, and I thought the third movie was pretty strong. But the second film had weak and forgettable characters, shabby animation, predictable to just what-the-hell plot, and I really honestly felt like it was a waste of my time. But they killed the show.

In the third one Aladdin finds out his dad is the king of thieves, and the statue that turns everything to gold.

I honestly might like it better than the first movie when I first watched it. But that was a really long time ago.

After about five seasons I was pretty much unable to continue watching "The Walking Dead" for a number of different reasons. I won't go into too much detail, if you have watched the show you will know what I am talking about. Still, a friend of mine decided to pick it up based on my past enjoyment of the show. They like zombies as well but the show didn't have the right something for them to pick it up and start watching it. When they finally did start they didn't even make it as far as I did.

The reason?

The Walking Dead Sucks

At least in their opinion.

The opinion might actually be sound though.

And here is why I think they came to the conclusion. As I said I am not toing to make this about me. Though I will again say that there is some overlap. I was just able to hold it out longer.

It is definitely not the best show ever.

I think you need to watch it week-by-week to appreciate it, not binge-watch.

I was fortunate to start the series from the beginning... having the week long breaks in-between gave you something to look forward to, and you tend to forget about any inconsistencies or clichés, which become more obvious when you binge-watch the show (any show for that matter).

When the show started I was really excited for a zombie series based on a graphic novel.I had not read it at that time but I felt that the two were a perfect match.

What did I get? Over time a large number of boring clichés, run of the mill series, with a bunch of zombies added in. And while this might save you on the short term it is not a recipe for longterm success. It merely makes it watchable, but they drag everything out and the characters often survive for far too long without any real growth or development. I think that they might have had a strong sense of where to take the show in the beginning but quickly saw that it was easier to manage it with tropes.

And there is a reason why I say this.

The show is written by comittee, not by a writer who has a clear idea of where the story is going.

The character arcs and development are based on shock factor...it lacks the overall narrative cohesiveness that makes shows like, say, Breaking Bad so strong.

I absolutely love zombie movies, and typical zombie tropes, but when they are executed poorly then they just make the sub-genre seem more bland in general, and crowd out other good works people might make. It's kind of like more modern zombie books - Pride and Prejudice and Zombies comes to mind.

There are honestly so many better shows on both to binge and on television.

It was very smart of them to go in to original content some years ago because they saw that the future was in streaming services.

Once other content creators realized they wanted a piece of the pie Netflix would’ve been starved of their productions or forced to pay high licensing fees.

They're adapting.

And they have been adapting for sometime, but the truth is that they are falling slowly behind.

The industry that NetFlix is in will not wait for them to catch back up. And they as a company know that they will fall by the wayside if they aren't willing to invest heavily in original programming.

They have no choice.

And as a consumer Netflix has proven, to me at least, that they're capable of making awesome original content, and distributing it without me having to break the bank. Netflix had a great thing going with its catalog, but then the greedy networks saw how much money there was in this and started jacking up the prices for their content or moving things to their own services like Hulu or new ones they're creating. Other networks are just trying to follow a business plan that they see is successful.

They to are adapting and trying to avoid loosing their relevance in an increasingly more streaming oriented society.

Of course, setting aside the fact that it is incredibly annoying to have to go multiple places for content, the value of any service diminishes greatly for every additional provider who enters the market. People have been talking about slowing down growth for 5 quarters now, and every time Netflix proves it wrong.

"The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that may be of Spanish origin of which English versions began to appear in the first half of the 17th century.
The idiom is glossed in the original sources as being used of a person who is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another and is thus an example of psychological projection.

When I started re-enjoying Disney movies I was loath to try "The Black Cauldron" since it was never something that I enjoyed watching growing up. This was a risky move. And it demanded a little bit of thought to get it right.

I don't think it's a particularly good effort by Disney, it was different. Though I can look at it now and appreciate it for what it is. Back then Gurgi was the only good part of the movie and he still is.

The art direction is great in "The Black Cauldron" and I assume that this the reason it was one of my brother's favorite Disney films as a kid. Watching it now I see how dark it really was and why it did not appeal to me.

Audiences weren't necessarily prepped for a darker movie in the 1980's, the film had budget issues across the board, the plot tried to condense a lot of material. At the time it just didn't feel like a traditional Disney movie. It was darker and put off some families.

This was because Disney had purchased the rights to the whole series. It was named after the second book but also tried to cover the first and then veers in a different direction and the pacing occasionally struggled because of this. On top of that the characters come and go with little development, which makes them forgettable. The film's atmosphere feels oddly empty, as if there's no world or characters beyond what shows up on screen. Compare that to something like "Beauty and the Beast" which features a lively castle, rowdy bar, village, etc.

As for story it took a simplified direction with the material like many Disney stories and the story they did try to tell was visibly undermined by censorship. It's very poorly paced compared to better example of Disney animation for decades before and it is clear that it has been reworked from the editing. Another reason was because it was the last of the Disney "gag men" style of animated feature.

I admire that the movie is a bold attempt for Disney to use a darker style, rather than the usual stuffs they were producing, however, I just don't think that lives up to the better movies that came out before it. Still, I also feel that the darker-tone of the movie inspired some of the more mainstream fantasy movies of the 80s and against them it holds its own. Though it is not a great film as such "The Black Cauldron" is far from the worst Disney movie. And the hate that it receives is unjust.

I like to re-watch shows and movies at different points in my life to give a renewed perspective on them.