Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheRoguedOne t1_j5ybipw wrote

Maybe greedy individual streaming services wasn’t the way to go.

205

Ennion t1_j5z1gt7 wrote

Just go back to licensing shows to other streamers and simply pick up the check.

88

AliasHandler t1_j5z8z1u wrote

For real. I don’t get the fixation these content owners have with losing billions of dollars trying to get their own streaming services up and running. It’s capitalism gone wild. They could be earning free money just licensing the content to Netflix/Hulu or whoever is already established in the market. Peacock gave up almost half a billion dollars to bring JUST The Office home to their own service, which is losing them billions of dollars. If they just continued licensing JUST The Office out to Netflix, and shelved literally every other piece of content they own, they would be earning $100 million a year instead of losing nearly $3 billion a year.

57

lord_pizzabird t1_j5zkl6k wrote

They do this because their core business, running a TV network with ads is being squeezed out. They can sell IP, but without a Network creating new IP (to license later) then they're effectively dying.

That's just their perspective though, a sort of battle for survival. Being honest, I personally think broadcast tv is massively underrated as a platform.

They should have spent this money lobbying to change FCC guidelines instead, allowing them to curse and show nudity. That would open the door to producing content that's more in-line with consumer demand.

39

Isiddiqui t1_j60bsv4 wrote

>They do this because their core business, running a TV network with ads is being squeezed out.

Exactly right. It's somewhat incredible people don't realize this and say just go back to licensing shows. What happens when there is no profit to be made in airing shows on cable/broadcast TV? They won't be able to make any money in just being studios for other streamers.

This move is in order to keep their businesses alive as the market is in the middle of a shift from fully cable to fully streaming.

8

lord_pizzabird t1_j60l79v wrote

I just straight up don't think the broadcast TV situation is as bleak as broadcasters think it is, more than anything.

To me, they just have the wrong mentality and weak IP (content). Both can be corrected.

Literally everyone with a $5 antenna has access to their network. There's just nothing that attracts consumers to them, other-than the NFL.

6

Asiriya t1_j61ee9j wrote

Plus American ad breaks are obnoxiously frequent. Huge turn off.

Personally I’d like to understand their stats on frequency / duration of ads vs attention.

I’m sure that there’s something in blasting the audience with the same thing over and over to program them into wanting what’s advertised, but you’d also think that fewer ads would make people pay more attention when they are on, and be more impactful.

8

_Meece_ t1_j61tfll wrote

The ad breaks are destroying anything that isn't live content.

Why watch a TV show chopped up with 4-5 ad breaks, when you can watch it via streaming with none?

8

inkista t1_j630ivb wrote

>Why watch a TV show chopped up with 4-5 ad breaks, when you can watch it via streaming with none?

Because it's free with ads, and you have to pay a sub to get ad-free streaming? Also because you don't use any of your data if you're on cable. And you can FF through the ads if you DVRed the show?

Not to mention cable boxes all do VoD, much of which is ad-free, or where you can FF through the ads.

1

jblanch3 t1_j63ssk2 wrote

That last part simply is not true, at least from my experience. My family and I had just recently cut the cord, it's been just under a year. Prior to that, I'd had cable as long as I'd been alive. When cable started providing VoD services, it was mostly ad-free and if there were ads, you could usually fast forward through them. Even for certain stations (like the networks), if there were ads and you couldn't fast forward through them, it was only one or two at most. Not ideal, but easily manageable. Over time, I really started seeing it shift. More and more networks that were featured on VoD made it so that you couldn't fast forward through commercials anymore. And that one or two commercials I mentioned a few sentences ago? Yeah, that was no more. Towards the end, it wasn't worth watching anything on demand because the commercials went on for at least five minutes, I might as well had been watching it live.

2

inkista t1_j6ap5lo wrote

For me that's primarily only true if you're using VoD for broadcast network shows (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox). Cable-originals still tend to be either ff through the ads (e.g., SyFy, TNT, BBC America, Animal Planet, etc.) or ad-free (e.g., HBO, TCM)

1

Tha620Hawk t1_j60vcgj wrote

Yeah the nfl still shows if you have something worth watching then people will tune in.

−2

BOEJlDEN t1_j618mb7 wrote

>”They won’t be able to make any money in just being studios for other streamers.”

Why not? They could just create higher quality content and sell it for more money

3

Isiddiqui t1_j618wvw wrote

And when the streamers they are trying to sell it to balk on the price? (Esp in favor of their own original content)

There is a reason they are clinging to the cable model even though they all have their own studios.

5

JuanJeanJohn t1_j61w6a0 wrote

You’re asking a studio and network to focus solely on just one of their business models, effectively killing off the company. Most companies that only produce content are significantly smaller companies than NBC is. They are a producer and a distributor.

3

TheDeadlySinner t1_j67t6h2 wrote

Unless Netflix is going to pump their price way up or create different Netflix channels, that's not going to happen. NBC spends about $10 billion on non-sports content. If they license all of it to Netflix at cost (which means they make no profit,) then that would require Netflix to increase their content budget by 60%.

1

BOEJlDEN t1_j67te8a wrote

bruh why tf nbc spendin that much on mediocre shows 😭

2

AGVann t1_j67thrc wrote

I don't think the nature of the streaming market will allow all these corporations to survive the transition, especially with an ad revenue or subscription based model intact. My guess is that in 5 years, we'll see a few of these 'Tier 2' companies begin to collapse or significantly downsize, and they realize that licensing out their huge catalogue to other services and collecting a fee is better than trying to muscle into the streaming game.

2

JQuilty t1_j60x6ke wrote

Hell, ATSC3.0 would be a decent way to do it. Have subchannels blocked by default that are exempt from FCC content regulations. You can even map them to different numbers higher than 100 for a clear separation.

3

Coolman_Rosso t1_j5zek89 wrote

Not to mention that they had no other program to drive interest outside of wrestling to the point where they were marketing their price tiers based solely on how much Office you wanted to watch

14

Jazz_Potatoes95 t1_j6074r4 wrote

If streaming gets reduced to one or two giant monopolistic services (ie, Netflix and Prime) then all the bargaining power for selling your show as a network goes out of the window. If Netflix hosts everything, then they're the ones dictating price to the content producers, and it becomes a case of which production company is most willing to undercut the competition

9

Asiriya t1_j61emor wrote

Quality will pay a part too, HBO can sell their shows on name and I think Netflix would respect not pissing money up the wall for a 1 and done season before cancelling

4

corporatemumbojumbo t1_j608i8w wrote

I think it's a combination of arrogance and FOMO with a dollop of greed. Some company CEO or CTO convince themselves they can do a better job than established players.

1

ivan510 t1_j5zfg81 wrote

I think the issue with that is increasing prices for current streaming platforms. NBC would charge an arm and and leg for The Office alone. They also probabaly need this to work because of the decline in cable. I mean Xfinity lost 440,000 subscribers last quarter alone and with sports leaving to streaming service, they will probabaly lose a lot more soon.

The approach Peacock has taken was extremely wrong, their platform consist of older shows and the small original content they have is terrible. Not to mention their app is terrible.

19

Spyderem t1_j624yno wrote

Yeah, I was impressed by Sony's decision to do just that. They have lucrative deals with both Netflix and Disney. It's easy money for them. I wonder if anyone else is looking over at Sony with envy as they throw hundreds of millions (if not billions) at trying to make a competitive streaming service.

2

Ennion t1_j62agkl wrote

It's like early oil, these companies feel like they have to get a homestead early or get left behind. When attrition starts devouring some of these services, I think you'll see more licenses being handed back out.

2

TheDeadlySinner t1_j67tvy9 wrote

Sony Pictures doesn't make enough content for a streaming service and it's basically surviving off of Spider-man.

2

Spyderem t1_j6dzhur wrote

They definitely make more than just Spider-Man. Hell. The hottest new show right now is a Sony produced show (The Last of Us). That could have been an exclusive to some hypothetical Sony streaming service.

And just a few years ago Apple made basically zero content. And Amazon before that. Yet here they are with streaming services. So Sony already making a decent amount of content puts them in a spot where a CEO could easily have made the foolish decision to jump into the streaming wars.

It would have been possible. But they went the other way. There’s the big movie deals with the likes of Netflix and Disney. And then they have further deals with other streamers with stuff like Last of Us on HBO and a future God of War on Amazon. They’re making money with everyone.

It might seem the obvious move for them to have made. But considering how it’s not the hypothetical maximum amount of money, I’m impressed they made that call.

1

KumagawaUshio t1_j63x1cd wrote

That worked when they had huge cable TV revenue from affiliate fees and advertising.

With the decline in cable TV revenue they need a replacement that was supposed to be streaming but it takes 6 streaming customers to replace 1 cable TV customer.

The other way is to massively downsize to a third of their current size to copy Sony and just licence shows but that does have consequences like massive layoffs, reduced share price and less money to take chances on new shows and films unless they are owned by a company with diversified revenue streams.

2

Animeninja2020 t1_j61acl1 wrote

Make a deal with Netflix for world streaming service.

Kill the geo-location stupidly.

0

TheRegular-Throwaway t1_j5yrfb4 wrote

It was the way, until they decided to bilk everyone for every last penny. A la carte was always inevitable, but then of course big corporations…..

29

soonerfreak t1_j5zzkno wrote

But a la carte is way better than a couple giant streamers. My cost isn't going up because Netflix didn't shell out for a show like the office that I will never watch. We also have more content than ever because all of these providers are competing for our eyes and making more and more content. Also again the classic reddit argument, I hate monopolies unless it is more convenient for me.

10

Twenty_Seven t1_j5ysfu0 wrote

Bilk = milk + bill?

Edit: not making fun, I generally love the idea of it, if that's what you meant lol.

−8

TheRegular-Throwaway t1_j63xw3k wrote

You realize it’s an actual word with an actual definition right? In fairness, you’d probably only hear it in the States, US or Canada, so if you’re not from one of those place and/or do not get American TV it’s understandable how that might be going over your head.

0

frenin t1_j5yx8ap wrote

Tbf it force creativity. Which is absolutely the way to go.

−5

TimBurtonSucks t1_j5ycqo4 wrote

How many are them are paying like $1 a month because of deals?

143

historycat95 t1_j5yef68 wrote

Mine's included in my cable bill. I rarely watch anything on it.

56

hatramroany t1_j5yx6fc wrote

We aren’t counted in this number. Back in October they had 15m paid subscribers but 30m active users

22

prism1234 t1_j5zdszx wrote

That difference is because they have a fully free tier below premium. I'd be surprised if they aren't including the people who get free premium from a cable subscription in the paid total.

11

Bronco4bay t1_j5zww1o wrote

You are 100% counted in any paying subscriber metric.

2

cmVkZGl0 t1_j69o18u wrote

It has a lot of good original dramas. I've basically watched them all and I would continue. Better be a second season of the undeclared war.

1

Pool_Shark t1_j5znz2l wrote

I got a year for $20 so technically $1.66 per month

27

Corner49 t1_j6070gs wrote

I saw the deal, so looked through their content. Didn't see anything worth even that price.

2

DigitalFirefly t1_j60dcbt wrote

I did that deal too. It's nice when new movies hit the service shortly after they release in theaters.

2

est99sinclair t1_j61njvr wrote

I got lifetime subscription for my soul so technically 666 per month

−4

Dinco_laVache t1_j5z7uyy wrote

That’s how much I pay and how much I’m willing to pay

5

CouncilmanRickPrime t1_j63mox2 wrote

If I've learned anything from Apple TV, it's that enough people will stay even after price increases. They get used to having the app available

2

supes1 t1_j675evw wrote

::raises hand::

Got a 99 cents/month for the year deal on Black Friday. Watched The Resort and excited to start Poker Face, but nothing else has caught my eye.

I'll be cancelling when the deal is up, but I suppose it's nice to have the option in the meantime.

2

monchota t1_j5yifu1 wrote

It blows my mind, everyone told them that having thier own "channel" was done and they needed to sell thier content. These old dinosaurs pf network executives would not listen. Now they learning the hard way. These older network studios just need to sell thier content.

57

Puzzleheaded_Read959 t1_j5yjti6 wrote

They’ll learn nothing.

The dinosaurs will get a nice bonus at the end of the year for their efforts.

It’s the employees who are going to be struggling to put food on the table when the dinosaurs need to make cuts in order to buy new yachts for Christmas.

26

jesbiil t1_j5z4cdm wrote

>Amid a recent industry-wide focus on restructurings and staff layoffs to boost profitability, the media and technology giant also disclosed $638 million in severance costs, or $541 million higher than in the year-ago period, that hit its earnings in the fourth quarter. That included $305 million in higher severance costs related to its cable systems division, $182 million in severance costs related to NBCUniversal and $53 million in higher costs related to Sky.

The big negatives on the balance sheet right now is paying severance to employees which is over half a billion more than last year.

2

TheDeadlySinner t1_j67us13 wrote

They wouldn't have hired those people in the first place without this. And they will have to cut most of their entertainment division if they don't have a cable or streaming business.

1

Similar-Collar1007 t1_j5ysmbv wrote

They are trying to find a way to replace tv AD revenue which will eventually go away as more people cut the cords

19

DrRexMorman t1_j5z2a9m wrote

Streamers are adding ads back in.

They’re going to bring back contracts, too.

7

sgthombre t1_j5zb4c7 wrote

Do you have any basis for this beyond speculation? Has any streamer actually discussed contract based subscriptions or are we just jumping to the worst conclusion?

13

Similar-Collar1007 t1_j5zdy0c wrote

I’m not sure about contracts I haven’t heard anything about those but I understand why people are worried with ad tiers coming in

2

soonerfreak t1_j601jq3 wrote

There have been rumors that netflix has considered year long subs but I cannot imagine them trying to do that and ending password sharing near each other.

−1

monchota t1_j5ytsuj wrote

Yep, like many industries they are bloated and now know that. Ad rev will not be coming back.

4

Similar-Collar1007 t1_j5yvoac wrote

Eventually I imagine if they can’t get that revenue back on there own we’re gonna see acquisitions that get them that revenue

3

Bronco4bay t1_j5zxeok wrote

Ehhh, there are people that will deal with ads just to have a cheaper price.

The concern is if the ads start bleeding into the "premium" tiers or there's no option to remove ads altogether.

3

FrigginMasshole t1_j5ytehc wrote

I think Peacock really thought everyone would sub for The Office.

16

myeff t1_j5yv081 wrote

Based on how many people seem to be addicted to it, I'm kinda surprised they didn't.

13

Bronco4bay t1_j5zxih4 wrote

It's a very vocal but very small actual number, in the grand television landscape.

2

Pool_Shark t1_j5zo421 wrote

Pretty sure that is most of their subscriber base

−1

wicodly t1_j5z5v5o wrote

They put all their eggs into The Office. While a good show, I truly believe its popularity was fueled by Netflix's popularity. Bingeing, background noise, ice breakers. Netflix and the office. That was the pair.

WWE isn't a pull either. Live sports is already an annoying monopoly. This was just an overconfidence move from NBC

56

InspectorSpaceman t1_j600yxw wrote

I’d say WWE is a pull but only in the US where that content was shifted from their own product to Peacock. I’m not sure if it has any more casual draw than it would’ve been already as a stand-alone product.

15

Bronco4bay t1_j5zx8po wrote

If they wanted to put all their eggs into The Office (add in Parks and Rec too) then they should've built a better platform for it to stream on.

Peacock is garbage all around. Poor performance, poor UI, bad features.

6

ahookerinminneapolis t1_j60x1qo wrote

I mainly use it to watch English soccer games. It seems Peacock tends to air even more EPL games than British TV itself.

4

pj4242 t1_j6e3ygt wrote

all the evidence you need for this is looking at the increased popularity of new girl and community years after their endings.

1

NachoBag_Clip932 t1_j5ycjx6 wrote

What annoys me is you will see a show advertised to be on Peacock but when you go to the site it will only be on Peacock Premium.

It's like a video game where you see a large chest and you go up to it and whoops, you need the season pass to open it. C'mon man.

39

stench_montana t1_j5z6613 wrote

Isn't it basically the same as what Hulu used to do when everybody had a free version and then a paid version with extras/more. Unless you're saying you already had a paid version and there's stuff behind ANOTHER pay wall which I haven't come across.

6

Pool_Shark t1_j5zoc5j wrote

Peacock has 3 versions.

Completely free with ads - you have limited access to their library. Sometimes shows will only have 1 season or a few episodes

Paid with ads - you have access to the entire library with ads

Paid with no ads - you have access to the entire library with no ads

8

cmVkZGl0 t1_j69ofwe wrote

What were you looking for? I've never seen this happen.

1

KoreKhthonia t1_j6a4ixq wrote

> It's like a video game where you see a large chest and you go up to it and whoops, you need the season pass to open it.

Is this a real thing? If so, damn, that's ridiculous.

1

NachoBag_Clip932 t1_j6aomph wrote

Borderlands 3 was the first time I noticed it, there was a huge red chest on your ship that could only be opened if you had the pass or a DLC.

The Tom Clancey games are pretty bad especially with starting a quest and not being able to complete it unless you have the DLC. It was embarrassing how much time I spent trying to do the General Anderson quest until I figured out you needed the DLC to do it.

2

bwj7 t1_j5z11b6 wrote

It’s worse they do the same thing games do, first you pay the $60 for the game then you have to pay the online fee of like $10 a month to play with friends and then when you unlock the juicy reward uh oh you have to pay for the battle pass lmao

−2

american_dimes t1_j5yrrfz wrote

Got the dollar or two a month deal back in November. Worth it for AP Bio, Resident Alien, and the Psych movies.

34

TheRoguedOne t1_j60g8la wrote

Resident Alien is probably the only big draw for me, but i can watch that on syfy.

7

RealSunglassesGuy t1_j5zen7x wrote

I think Peacock is underrated. It has gotten some fun movies fairly quickly after their their theatrical runs (Nope, Violent Night, etc) and I'm enjoying some of their originals too (Poker Face, The Traitors).

Also....Murder, She Wrote. Love me some Murder, She Wrote. High quality scans too.

31

lightsongtheold t1_j5zgr2r wrote

I definitely feel like they improved a lot over 2022. It absolutely helped that they increased the volume of original shows and got a healthy amount of Universal movies soon after their theatrical release.

They should be worth $5 a month! Crazy they are struggling to sell at that price.

16

PizzaPartyTonight t1_j5zolcq wrote

I love it. I think their originals are still pretty unique and align with my taste (macgruber, the resort, bust down, killing it) and enjoy the recent movies like minions 2. The interface is pretty crappy though.

1

predator_handshake t1_j61y7d8 wrote

Poker Face is excellent. I also didn’t mind girls5eva but i’m not going to bother with the Netflix version

4

creepygamelover t1_j5z2cg6 wrote

Honestly this is probably my most used streaming service and it's cheap. Has shows like The Office, Psych, Chicago Fire, La Brea, and Eureka.

24

Blood_Tear t1_j5zn2s1 wrote

I love how they decided to split content into 992938 different services, so now people are inconvenienced, pay more AND the producers lose money at the same time too! Everyone loses! Woo!

Even better because most of these services are not even available where I live (EU country) but the steamers still removed their content from Netflix and such, so they can keep it in case they decide to launch here in 2067.

I don’t even care about dubs or subtitles, my English is fluent, but I am still geoblocked. You would think with everyone producing their own content at least geo fencing would not be necessary anymore, but that probably makes too much sense too.

18

NycAlex t1_j5yaqci wrote

Only subbed for 1 month to watch the world cup

I wonder how many of the 20m subs did the same

17

RectifiedUser t1_j5ybag3 wrote

I signed up for it during black friday when they had a deal going for 1$ per month for 1 year with ads its not so bad i signed up mainly just to watch old WWF stuff

14

MimonFishbaum t1_j5yfrez wrote

I got it for the last Olympics only to discover the old NBC Sports app still worked for the games.

4

Zeppo_Ennui t1_j5yn3kc wrote

You should have boycotted the cup. Hope all the human rights violations were worth your entertainment

−21

brief_interviews t1_j60kp5d wrote

Serious question, what would boycotting the cup actually accomplish in this situation? Like materially, how would Qatar suffer if people in other countries didn't tune in to watch it?

2

Similar-Collar1007 t1_j5zfdzl wrote

hope you enjoyed typing that on your slave made computer and tablet or iPhone now seriously not everyone knows the geo political issues in the world so be respectful to people

1

Zeppo_Ennui t1_j5zpikr wrote

Be respectful to people. Exactly.

0

Similar-Collar1007 t1_j5zw8lo wrote

You aren’t respectful that guy might not know what abuses are going on

0

Zeppo_Ennui t1_j609tgb wrote

What was disrespectful? No names or insults were used. No disparagements about race, religion, gender, politics...etc. The dude obviously has internet access and none of the FIFA stuff is quiet. Go be butt-hurt about something else.

0

Similar-Collar1007 t1_j60e4fd wrote

First off the dude could be at work and using that internet we have no idea his internet access as person from a rural area I can attest along of people don’t have it besides work and school and second the thing your typing on was made with absue and slave labor do they matter less

0

BuffaloWilliamses t1_j5yjlpp wrote

I have no interest in subbing to Peacock. There's not enough original content to warrant a sub. The only original show I liked was Girls5eva and that is moving to Netflix. My favorite NBC shows that I watch semi-regularly (Community, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, The Office), I bought the complete blu ray box sets as they usually go on sale pretty regularly. I think I got all 4 box sets for a total of less than $200. While that is about 4 years of Peacock premium at its current price, I own these and have the peace of mind that I can continue to watch whenever without another sub.

15

PineappleZaddy t1_j5yyo9r wrote

i was about to say i’m happy to see girls5eva move to netflix, cause i was planning to do a month of peacock just to watch season 2

but then realized i probably won’t have netflix once they remove password sharing

2

pierophoenix t1_j5z1v22 wrote

Peacock is meh but they have Premier League and WWE so unfortunately I will be a sub until then

8

The--Incident t1_j606yy7 wrote

I thought Peacock wasn’t worth it until I found out it has all the old WWF content. Well worth it to re-live the attitude era.

Don’t know why I didn’t realize they had the whole WWF library.

2

inkista t1_j630zrt wrote

Well, at least you get access to the new Rian Johnson-created show, Poker Face, and if they don't fire Bryan Fuller off Crystal Lake, there'll be that as well.

1

Justthrowtheballmeat t1_j5zg3bt wrote

I just got a month and using it for the first time, I must say their library is AWFUL. I immediately told my wife it’s not lasting past this month. The only silver lining (for her) is that they put up the current Bravo shows without ads (if you pay extra). The only redeeming part was The Resort which was a really interesting show.

6

Kier_Eagan t1_j5yej7q wrote

$20 for a year for me.

5

AliasHandler t1_j5z92xk wrote

Me too, and literally a penny more is too much for me to spend on this service.

1

Pool_Shark t1_j5zomog wrote

I’d re-up on that offer but I can’t justify the full monthly cost in the future

3

basedhenny t1_j5yxi6d wrote

That’s because they promote the platform as a way to watch Premier League games yet only make available like about 2 and most of the time the matches are for lower table teams. It’s terrible.

3

dpman48 t1_j5za4zw wrote

Oh is that how they do it?? I don’t watch premiere league but based on their advertising I always assumed you could watch MOST of the games… or maybe I’m thinking of paramount +?

2

basedhenny t1_j5zroyl wrote

They show the big games on like USA or NBC Sports or whatever it’s called. It’s absolutely useless. I’m a United fan and I want to watch United games. Why should I be stuck watching an Everton game? It’s absolutely mindless.

2

dpman48 t1_j5zt16o wrote

Just to clarify, can you watch United on USA/NBCsports? Or is it kind of random what they determine as the big games?

1

WarbossTodd t1_j5z1cey wrote

“Paid”. I got their Black Friday deal. $1 a month for the year.

3

goliathfasa t1_j5zpqjz wrote

> Loss Hits $978M

Well, this requires a…

… Special Victims Unit.

3

Bronco4bay t1_j5zwrgf wrote

This is what a failing streaming business looks like, Reddit.

2

LeoIrish t1_j61beop wrote

I have to admit, they have put forth some really good content (movies & TV).

2

anasui1 t1_j61vyzz wrote

has any streaming service been shut down before? gonna be a historical moment (sad for those lost jobs, thought)

2

BurroCrata t1_j63l3os wrote

Poker Face is great

Also the random “movie that was just in theaters” drops are great

2

rocketpack99 t1_j62hu7m wrote

Just don't go under until after the Community movie wraps...

1

underthedreadfort t1_j60xg4o wrote

Peacock is shit. They have rights for the premier league but don’t play every game. Pretty foolish honestly

0

monchota t1_j603oz9 wrote

Move it all to paramount

−2

Key-Yogurtcloset-427 t1_j5yc6sd wrote

Every show they put out seems like a 90s burger king kids club commercial.

Night Court doesn't make sense. Dan fielding should be judge. And why would there be a need for night court in 2023? Wouldn't it be zoom court?

Quantum Leap cares more about diversity than storyline. They never even mention the person in the chamber. Whenever they leap, the person they leap into is in the chamber. Haven't even addressed that yet.

−21

Lucky-Carrot t1_j5ygvok wrote

The new quantum leap seems to have different rules. In this one he seems to literally leap into the body of the person he’s leaping into, which sort of makes more sense (although some of the best moments of the original were Sam doing something the leapee couldn’t do like when he leaped into the guy with amputated legs ). The new show is growing on me. The first few episodes were pretty bad. The show is really missing an Al

3

SnoopysAdviser t1_j5yy08n wrote

I am annoyed with the character motivations in QL. I really dislike the lady that was supposed to be the jumper, she is a terrible actress.

The main guy is great, and you have to love Winston, but the rest of the characters are lacking in many ways.

I am also not convinced they have a satisfying ending planned. Plus they got an extended order, so you know they are about to abandon the storyline for filler episodes.

It's just so tedious. If he tries to remember, don't let him tell you why or how you are going to die? Nah. It's just not believable to me at all.

3

Lucky-Carrot t1_j6fjus0 wrote

it’s grown on me. it really works well as a binge, since its a continuing story. The biggest issue is that its overly serious. I sort of enjoy that Dr. Song is less of a superman than Dr. Beckett, i think they need to stop spending so much time in the present, but i am enjoying that there are stakes beyond just getting Ben home. I think they needed to explain the new rules more clearly for people who saw the old show.

1