Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo To Produce Sci-Fi Streaming Sitcom

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the oh-it's-no-red-dwarf dept.

Yahoo! 121

jfruh (300774) writes "As the heydays of Internet portals recede into the mists of history and Yahoo tries to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up, the company has decided to dip its toes into the incredibly expensive and unpredictable world of producing full-length television shows to compete with the likes of Netflix, Amazon, and HBO. One of the two may intrigue Slashdot readers: Paul Feig, co-creator of the cult '90s hit 'Freaks and Geeks' (and more recently the director of 'Bridesmaids') will product "Other Space," a comedy-adventure about a misfit group of space travelers who stumble onto an alternate universe. The second show, about a fictional Las Vegas NBA team, will appeal to Yahoo's sports audience." I wonder how long it will be until Google, Microsoft, and Apple are also all producing TV shows.

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's cold outside (4, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 5 months ago | (#46868027)

There's no kind of atmosphere.

Re:It's cold outside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868045)

If there's no atmosphere, then the only heat transfer would be radiative.

Re:It's cold outside (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46868235)

And sure enough, an inert body in deep space will end up very cold. It is indeed cold, just takes time to get that way.

Re:It's cold outside (1)

AuralityKev (1356747) | about 5 months ago | (#46868121)

I'm all alone. More or less.

Re:It's cold outside (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868373)

Let me fly, far away from here

Re:It's cold outside (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868505)

Fun, fun, fun. In the sun, sun, sun.

Re:It's cold outside (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46868797)

I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose

Re:It's cold outside (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 5 months ago | (#46869305)

drinking fresh mango juice

Re:It's cold outside (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 5 months ago | (#46870397)

Goldfish shoals, nibbling at my toes

Re:It's cold outside (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 months ago | (#46870601)

Fun, fun, fun, in the sun, sun, sun.

Why should Full Length TV Shows be expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868217)

... the incredibly expensive and unpredictable world of producing full-length television shows ...

What I do not understand is why producing a full length tv shows must be incredibly expensive ???

Do they need to employ all the UNIONIZE workers on the set ?

Why can't people produce incredibly great TV shows without having to pay an arm and a leg for each episode ?

Re:Why should Full Length TV Shows be expensive? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46868323)

Conversely, why would you expect it not to be expensive?

Maybe you should try making one first.

Re:Why should Full Length TV Shows be expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868471)

What I do not understand is why producing a full length tv shows must be incredibly expensive ???

Conversely, why would you expect it not to be expensive?

GP was asking why producing full length tv shows is expensive and you retort with why shouldn't it be expensive without giving any lead as to why it must be

Care to provide us with _at least_ one credible answer, please ?

Set the budget FIRST. (1)

khasim (1285) | about 5 months ago | (#46870849)

How much is "expensive"? What's your budget?

Then, choose the already existing novels that you want to turn into a series. This gives a beginning and ending to your series so you'll be better able to control costs.

Gritty crime drama fantasy? Vlad Taltos by Steven Brust [wikipedia.org]

Historical vampire romp? Count Saint-Germain by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro [wikipedia.org]

Need more cute? Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper [wikipedia.org]

Dystopian future? Hardwired by Walter Jon Williams (not the movie) [wikipedia.org]

Space fantasy fun? The Stainless Steel Rat by Harry Harrison [wikipedia.org]

Ultra stylized fantasy world? The Witch World by Andre Norton [wikipedia.org]

Gritty war fantasy? The Black Company by Glen Cook [wikipedia.org]

I'm sure that lots of other people can come up with lots of other examples. There's something available out there for every production budget and schedule.

Re:Why should Full Length TV Shows be expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868453)

Umm, actors, directors, crew, script writers, composers, set designers, stunt men, rental of sets and locations, equipment, props, costumes, special effects, post-production, etc etc, it all adds up. Did you ever give one seconds thought to what goes into making a tv show?

Re:Why should Full Length TV Shows be expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868831)

Just outsource it to India. The dancing and singing is free of charge.

Re:It's cold outside (1)

jjbenz (581536) | about 5 months ago | (#46868863)

well played, very well played.

Microsoft (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868039)

Microsoft already IS producing its own shows.

No friggen clue why. I'm pretty sure Apple and Google are smarter than that. Especially Google, since they've got youtube and just have half the internet produce their video content for them.

Re:Microsoft (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#46868367)

Well, Netflix has produced a few of their own show. I particularly like House of Cards. Microsoft has their own video rental/purchase service, XBox Video [xbox.com] . I see no reason why they shouldn't be producing their own content. If they can make money by selling or renting content, then more power to them.

"Will product" (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 5 months ago | (#46868089)

What's that? Some kind of device to improve willpower? To help you with your last testament?
Or just lousy editing?

I'm voting for the last one...

Re:"Will product" (1)

Megane (129182) | about 5 months ago | (#46868191)

Yahoo is also getting into the hot new market for estate planning.

Re:"Will product" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868301)

What editing?

Re:"Will product" (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46868357)

It's like "gifting" something..."to product" is "to make a product", right?

Re:"Will product" (1)

wooferhound (546132) | about 5 months ago | (#46869273)

It's like "gifting" something..."to product" is "to make a product", right?

That would be "Producting"

Re:"Will product" (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46869353)

Producting, have producted, will product. What's your point?

Re:"Will product" (3, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 months ago | (#46869633)

It's like "gifting" something..."to product" is "to make a product", right?

No. Producting is analogous to amateurducting. You see it all the time on those home renovation shows. Amateurducting doesn't have taped joints, holes cut through the floor joists, electrical junction boxes buried in the cold air returns. But with producting, you get even warmth all through the house, and everything is up to code and safe.

Did everyone just run out of ideas? (2)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 5 months ago | (#46868119)

For the last couple of years, mobile and "cloud" were the new things. Both absurd from a certain point of view - mobile because what were people doing with it exactly? Facebook and Snapchat? And cloud, as a concept, is not new. Every few years, companies don't have a choice and need to move into new markets because they're getting yelled out by shareholders. Fine. "Original Programming" is the new thing now? Everyone wants to do this (Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, now Yahoo, probably Facebook next month), they want to have a set top box in the living room that can be used for everything, but the irony is laughable because you need to own practically every set top box on the market to get all of the content out there since no one company has everything.

So, "Original Programming" is going to be three times as expensive as cable and you'll be tracked and data mined.

Re:Did everyone just run out of ideas? (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46868207)

we had a huge consolidation of content over the last few decades into cable TV
now we are going to get a cycle of degragmentation which means everyone selling a box and having exclusive content

in a few years we will have another consolidation cycle because most people aren't dumb enough to buy a dozen boxes just to get every show
same with computing and the internet in general over the last 50 years. in 10 years watch for the cloud to break up into a sunny day of defragmentation again as people get tired of slow oversubscribed servers

Re:Did everyone just run out of ideas? (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 5 months ago | (#46868633)

I don't think it'll get that far. It feels like the car has veered off the road into stupid land. There was a time when progress meant moving from hubs to switches, buying products online instead of going to the big box store - these were things that made life better, right? I'm pretty sure any thinking person can agree that there's a difference between improving life by creating the commercially viable cellular phone and building a gaudy monstrosity of a social network whose only raison d'etre is to collect your information and sell it to marketers and god-knows-who. "Original Programming" feels like the continuation of a trend of finding ways to pull more money out of the average person's wallet to pay for stupid things. Count me out.

Re:Did everyone just run out of ideas? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 5 months ago | (#46868489)

but the irony is laughable because you need to own practically every set top box on the market to get all of the content out there since no one company has everything.

Didn't the content industry say that was intentional?

They saw what happened with the music industry and iTunes, and to prevent another iTunes happening, they intentionally spread out the competition. They don't want Netflix or Amazon or iTunes to have everything on purpose, because that means no one service will be able to control them. (If one service had everything, customers would flock there, giving that service rather large powers).

Of course, the bigger issue Is international distribution - I will probably bet the biggest video distributor around is ... Apple. Because iTunes is practically everywhere and most likely the only provider of video content over the internet for most countries out there. Sure, the UK and US may have tons of alternates, but countries like Canada and Australia have few, if any, alternatives. (No, Apple didn't bully their way in, they just had the means and well, could prove the demand for content - but even Apple has to negotiate nasty per-country distribution agreements).

So, "Original Programming" is going to be three times as expensive as cable and you'll be tracked and data mined.

One of the biggest ironies is TV networks realize that streaming content is a great way to counter stuff like ad skipping and such (remember, the "ratings" networks go for are C3 (commercials, 3 days) ones - the ratings during programming matters absolutely not - only during the commercial breaks).

At least, that was my experience when I streamed TV rather than put it on my TiVo. The content on my TiVo I just skip through the ads, but the streamed content? Ad heaven. You can't skip them, you have to sit through them, they're short so you can't even go through the bathroom, etc. And some are so nasty that if you rewind through them, they show another ad! And re-show the ad break.

Re:Did everyone just run out of ideas? (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 5 months ago | (#46868673)

I think quitting television makes more sense for me than to keep up with this. Too complex. Television programming has never been high enough in quality to justify this kind of effort and expense on my part.

Re:Did everyone just run out of ideas? (1)

wooferhound (546132) | about 5 months ago | (#46869375)

12144 channels and nothing's on

Re:Did everyone just run out of ideas? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 5 months ago | (#46868881)

I read that as "Oriental Programming".

Re:Did everyone just run out of ideas? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#46869215)

I read the title as 'steaming content'.

yeah, a steamer alright....

Tapioca at walls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46869189)

Yes, the big corps have run out of ideas. Marrissa was supposed to be Yahoo!'s great blonde hope, but as we see, someone who is quite intelligent in her field (look at her pedigree, she ain't no dummie!).

Yahoo! over the last couple of years has gotten really ... cheap looking. The finance page is littered with shitty sponsored ads and "articles" Yahoo! Finance used to be the place to go, now they screwed it up. Bloomberg for me now.

Anyway, I think Yahoo! is just doing things - aping everyone else - in the hopes that something will work.

The two genres don't go together (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 5 months ago | (#46868131)

Sorry, but this really has no appeal for me. I like the occasional comic relief in my sci-fi but knowing it's a sitcom makes me not want to watch it. Jar Jar Binks is not funny. He's annoying. Droids that flap their arms around and behave in an overly anthropomorphized manner aren't funny. Spaceballs is funny but only because it's a spoof.

Re:The two genres don't go together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868169)

What is Red Dwarf? [wikipedia.org]

Re:The two genres don't go together (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#46868355)

Red Dwarf is funny, but the whole space setting is just a backdrop to comedy that really could be set anywhere. I think the frustration that the OP expresses (or at least the frustration that I personally feel) is that there is little television or film that is hard science-fiction, where the dialogue doesn't consist of vacuous technobabble for color, but instead real or plausible scientific concepts actually drive the plot.

Re:The two genres don't go together (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 5 months ago | (#46868501)

How can jokes about a cat that's evolved for 3 million years into a human form be set anywhere else?

Re:The two genres don't go together (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#46868707)

See, that's the problem. There is almost no realistic science behind Cat. Instead, he's just given a thin veneer of sci-fi background and then he acts as the wacky weirdo to Rimmer's straight man and Lister's cool layabout. The entire cast of Red Dwarf are comedy archetypes that have been used to death in television programming. The deep space setting is incidental.

Re:The two genres don't go together (3, Insightful)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 5 months ago | (#46869217)

Yeah yeah,
Firefly is just a thin veneer of sci-fi over what could be a perfectly viable western.
Star Wars is just a veneer of sci-fi over a story that could be set in feudal japan with kame spirits.
A lot of Star Trek could be set in 1600's age of sail with minimal amounts of retrofitting teleporters into rowboats, shields into hull integrity, and scanners with sonar.

You want hard sci-fi. This is soft sci-fi.

Hard sci-fi is about how people deal with changes. The change caused by scientific progress is the topic being explored. Soft sci-fi is everything else, but set in the future.

I would also like more hard sci-fi shows/movies/games. But I'm ok with soft sci-fi too.

Re:The two genres don't go together (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46870307)

Hell, I'd like any sci fi on TV these days. I want my spaceships, dammit!

Revolution? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | about 5 months ago | (#46868887)

There are a few shows out but it's mostly post-apocalyptic stuff: Revolution's premise falls into that realm even if the writing is hit and miss. Hard science fiction a la Red Mars (book) is rare on TV. Warp drives and wormholes have some theory behind them but saying they are futuristic is a bit of a leap -- they still exist as fiction only.

Re:The two genres don't go together (1)

RicktheBrick (588466) | about 5 months ago | (#46869605)

No matter how far in the future a show pretends to be in, the people will still have basically the same attitudes, desires, and morality of the people today. They will not get enough people to watch it if they do not keep it so people can understand it. Most people do not even want to learn something from watching a show so everything must be familiar to them. Almost everyone of the sci-fi shows just continue our present conflicts into the future. I would hope that someday we can settle both personal and national conflicts without resorting to violence. Therefore for most of the show, the time could be today. They will probably mix some computer generated videos of some futuristic travel and weapons but those will be a very small part, time wise, of the show.

Re:The two genres don't go together (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 months ago | (#46870713)

Red Dwarf is funny, but the whole space setting is just a backdrop to comedy that really could be set anywhere.

Anywhere with a cat that has evolved over three million years to human form. Anywhere with a foil who is not a just a pathetic jerk, but a holographic simulation of a pathetic jerk. Anywhere that they can ring in all the changes on various time-travel tropes.

Yeah, anywhere like that.

Re:The two genres don't go together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868185)

Anybody remember "Homeboys In Outer Space"?

Hyperdrive was pretty funny, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868303)

and then there's Red Dwarf. The brits do it pretty well.

They could go together. (1)

khasim (1285) | about 5 months ago | (#46869011)

The problem is that most of the TV writers out there know a lot more about how to get a job writing for TV than they know about science.

So you end up with concepts that might have worked as a 5 minute skit on a comedy show being dragged on and on and on.

Personally, I'd like to see something like Freefall [purrsia.com] as a series.

Re:The two genres don't go together (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 5 months ago | (#46869053)

After QUARK, no sci-fi comedy stands a chance. Haven't they figured that out yet?

"Vision has no beauty" - Ficus.

Re:The two genres don't go together (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 5 months ago | (#46869671)

Something moody, dark, and raw megatech-feeling like the superb German movie Cargo (I think it was 2009) mixed with Aliens (2 and 4), a dash of Firefly for style, and a splash of original Star Wars for colour (less of the force and more of the wacky non humanoid alien races). I would watch the shit out of that. Revelation Space would probably come closest.

Re:The two genres don't go together (2)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 5 months ago | (#46869949)

IMHO, hard sci-fi doesn't sell too well to large audiences. Star Trek is more high-brow. Star Wars and Aliens, IMHO, needs the 2-hour film format to work. I'm really surprised that Firefly didn't last. It had fun and interesting characters, interesting back stories, plots that weren't run-of-the-mill stuff. Yes, there was comedy but it was nicely blended. I kinda hope Nathan Fillion decides to produce a new version of the series when he's done with Castle.

Who Better (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 5 months ago | (#46868133)

"a comedy-adventure about a misfit group of space travelers who stumble onto an alternate universe"

Who better to produce this than a company that has no clue what it is doing and historically has wasted billions of dollars on pointless crap.

Re:Who Better (2)

taliesinangelus (655700) | about 5 months ago | (#46868199)

"a comedy-adventure about a misfit group of space travelers who stumble onto an alternate universe"

Otherwise known as a Yahoo board meeting

Re:Who Better (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 months ago | (#46868243)

"Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it."

It's not even remotely original [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Who Better (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46868417)

Are you going off some other source that describes the plot? Your link says they travel back in time to (presumably Earth's) prehistoric times. Not really the same as going to an alternate universe...unless they also go to prehistoric parts, the argument could be made. But more or less all the big ideas have already been done in sci fi, haven't they?

If the first few seasons of Doctor Who are any indication of quality in the mid 60's, this is one of the few exceptions where I'd be in favor of a reimagining/refilming/whatever.

Re:Who Better (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 5 months ago | (#46868989)

Who knows, it might be entertaining.
I for one won't judge until I see it, that is if it even goes live. Personally, I don't care who is producing what, I'm gonna give it a shot, then decide if it's worth watching or not. After all, it doesn't cost me anything, apart from some lost time if it proves to be shit.

"figure out what it wants to be when it grows up"? (3, Funny)

grumpyman (849537) | about 5 months ago | (#46868139)

It's 45 years of age with teenage kids giving him trouble, bad spousal relationship, mid-life crisis...etc.

Halo series? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868145)

Microsoft are already doing a live-action Halo series for Xbox Live

Re:Halo series? (1)

Megane (129182) | about 5 months ago | (#46868221)

I liked it better when it was called "Red vs Blue".

*cough* microsoft is already creating shows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868167)

Microsoft is already creating a bunch of shows related to the xbox service. Numerous documentaries and shows have been mentioned, including a halo show that Steven Speilberg is somehow involved in.

Re: *cough* microsoft is already creating shows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868287)

You mean Steven Spellberg?

Microsoft TV shows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868181)

Microsoft IS producing show for its Live platform

Bottom of my list (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 5 months ago | (#46868219)

Wow, they've almost made it to the bottom of my "esteem" list!

- scientists
- programmers, physicians, carpenters, plumbers, etc.
...
...
...
- journalists
...
...
- politicians
- lawyers
...
...
- actors, movie producers
- marketeers, advertisement agencies
- lobbyists, RIAA, MPAA, etc.

Re:Bottom of my list (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46868455)

So...basically, anyone whose job involves doing physical actions gets your thumbs-up? Sounds like theoretical physicists would be lower-middle and prostitutes would be near the top.

Arbitrary value is arbitrary

Re:Bottom of my list (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 5 months ago | (#46869005)

I fail to see any ladder where prostitutes would NOT be at the top. Or on top. Or seen from behind.
After all, Missionary position is "passe" :)

I'll bet $5.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868231)

That Google does a remake of the 60's sitcom, retitled "My Mother the (self-driving) Car".

Crappy-O (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868233)

Sounds like some real crap. Someone should put that Yahoo girl on a leash!

The internet age: searching for a cause (1)

hessian (467078) | about 5 months ago | (#46868279)

The internet age: giant companies with huge pots of money, searching for a direction.

Google wants to fix the world. So does Bill Gates. Yahoo wants to be Netflix. Netflix wants to be Amazon, and Amazon wants to be Google.

It seems the money came too easily and too abundantly, and there was never any plan past the basics: Microsoft, unify the desktop computer; Google, search engine; Netflix, streaming video; Amazon, tax-free products online.

Re:The internet age: searching for a cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868371)

The best minds of a generation, and all they're doing is figuring out new ways to get you to look at ads.

Re:The internet age: searching for a cause (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 months ago | (#46868971)

Well Amazon totally failed then, because in most places you now have to pay sales tax for Amazon purchases. Their main advantage now is huge inventory and super-cheap shipping, so they frequently still make sense to buy from, but frequently not, depending on what you're buying and what kind of competition they have.

Re:The internet age: searching for a cause (1)

nikkipolya (718326) | about 5 months ago | (#46870023)

Where is facebook?

Its a remake (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 months ago | (#46868283)

I mean the idea of nontraditional companies making shows.

Last century the embodiment of that idea became "Soap Operas".

Makes sense (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 5 months ago | (#46868285)

This actually makes sense. What in the world does a company like Yahoo have to do with producing a television show? That's easy - they already have the infrastructure in place to deliver that content to millions of people. They just need the content. That only leaves them a couple options. One is to try and work out some exclusive distribution deals for existing content, but that is certainly going to be re-runs of an existing show. So the other option is to fund the production of new media that they will own all rights to. I say why not. Give it a go. The downside for us consumers? Oh, just even more fragmentation of where / how we can watch shows. Netflix for that, HBO for this other, Hulu, now Yahoo, on and on.

Re:Makes sense (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#46868813)

What in the world does a company like Yahoo have to do with producing a television show?

They have money?

With no Yahoo app, could be foolish (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 5 months ago | (#46868325)

Netflix and Amazon, as streaming content providers, have apps on various devices such as some smart TVs, Roku, etc. At present I'm not aware of any Yahoo video app like that. Sure, the kids will just watch on their laptops - if they care enough to watch such shows and assuming they hear about them - but the older crowd that buys Roku, Amazon Fire, and similar devices won't watch without a dedicated app. We'll see what happens, but this sounds like a foolish thing for Yahoo to do unless they are able to get viewers that somehow (ads) translates into revenue.

I suppose anything could happen, but making a TV show doesn't seem to fit with Apple and Microsoft's business model. Google may do it or may not care about it at all and view it as a distraction - 50-50 on that. This is the first big decision Yahoo has made under Marissa Mayer that makes me wonder if they know what they are doing. I haven't necessarily agreed with everything she's done, but none of the other decisions seemed to be grasping at straws in desperation like this one does. It makes me wonder if things at Yahoo are actually pretty bad if this seems like a good idea to them. Well, if I'm wrong and Yahoo is right, they'll make some money and if I'm right that this idea won't work, I guess they won't be any worse off unless it spooks investors that they really are out of good ideas to raise revenue.

Re:With no Yahoo app, could be foolish (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 5 months ago | (#46869519)

Does Roku get software updates? If so, update it, duh, problem solved. Else buy a Roku 4 or yet another content-specific dongle. Let me guess, that "Amazon Fire" I'm learning about from your postdoesn't do iTunes/Apple TV stuff, and the Apple TV doesn't do Amazon stuff?

I don't know the answer to that question, but regarding Yahoo.. I've also just found a Yahoo app is advertised on the Apple TV, under the name of Yahoo Screen (maybe it's not an "app", it's a "channel"? or whatever the hell they call that thing)
http://www.apple.com/appletv/w... [apple.com]

Jumping the gun (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46868393)

The second show, about a fictional Las Vegas NBA team, will appeal to Yahoo's sports audience.

...Yahoo hopes. Let's wait and see.

Bubble anyone?? (1)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about 5 months ago | (#46868493)

In 1999, it was all about eyeballs, clicks and e-commerce. In 2010 it was all about cloud and mobile. Now it's all about tablets and eyeballs again with the entertainment angle. I know interest rates are low and stocks are an attractive investment now, but some of the stuff pumping up this current bubble is even less well thought out than pets.com and the like back in '99 and 2000. You would think some people would learn from the last 20 years.

I see how Netflix et al can be a very useful service for entertainment junkies. With two young kids and a very demanding job, I don't get much time to watch movies and TV anymore unless you count Disney stuff. What I don't see is every single company trying to go out and do what Netflix did with their original content creation. It's kind of like Morgan Stanley going into the chocolate business to compete with Hershey simply because their investors told them it was a good idea.

Oh well, I'll just sit back and watch this bubble pop too, and hopefully I'll still be employed in my boring old-school IT job. :-) Oh, look over there, it's a shiny cloud!!!

Fuck beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868517)

Fuck the fucking beta

Yahoo Japan Produced Shows for Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868527)

Yahoo Japan has produced a number of streaming shows over the years. So it's not exactly new for Yahoo per se.

Star Spangled Dwarf (2)

tippe (1136385) | about 5 months ago | (#46868539)

Kind of sounds like Red Dwarf.

Maybe they plan on stealing the Red Dwarf episodes, then using CGI to cover the Red Dwarf ship with the American stars and stripes and to replace the faces of the characters with something more pro-American, like the face of Tom Cruise (for Lister), the face of some Silicon Valley engineer (for Rimmer) and the face of Vin Diesel for "the Rottweiler" (formally "the Cat", but "the Cat" just isn't "American" enough). They could call the show "Red, White and Blue Dwarf", or the "Star Spangled Dwarf", or "Shock and Awe Dwarf" or something. I think it would be funny if their budget ran out before they had a chance to dub the voices over with something more American sounding. In my opinion, Vin Diesel would sound better as a British Rasta than he does now...

Re:Star Spangled Dwarf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868919)

Already been tried. The American version of Red Dwarf sucked.

Investor Woes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868681)

Anyone else concerned that the money should be, I don't know, going towards innovating in the tech sector rather than entertainment? If I were an investor I'd be worried about this kind of spending.

Plot idea for them (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 5 months ago | (#46868749)

Media Wars: The executives of established media feel they aren't getting richer fast enough and some Johnny-come-latelys who initially made their money through technology are stepping on their lawn.

  • Be reduced to tears when you see the legislative ideas they come up with to protect their turf
  • Gasp at the amounts spent on bribery, I mean lobbying

Yahoo is really grasping at straws... (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about 5 months ago | (#46868759)

they should team up with Blackberry to make an even larger irrelevant company.

Not sure they mix (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46868839)

"a comedy-adventure about a misfit group of space travelers who stumble onto an alternate universe"

So... Red Dwarf [wikipedia.org] meets Sliders [wikipedia.org] ?

There's only Netflix (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46868857)

Because only Netflix seems to understand there's huge markets outside of the U.S.A.

Provide a Useful Stream Service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46868951)

So Yahoo has the infrastructure to serve out video content eh?

Why not provide something useful that is growing in popularity like TWITCH or Picarto

Hell, hook that shit up to tumblr, which they already own, sell ad revenue like YouTube used to for content creators

They could be dominant in this area if they started now and really brought a solid service to the table

Could this possibly not suck? (1)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 5 months ago | (#46869039)

You've got a sci-fi sitcom, which already sounds iffy as hell, and it's made by Yahoo? That sounds like a combination from hell, but maybe it'll start off awesome and then only become a pile of crap later. You know, like they did with Launchcast.

Re:Could this possibly not suck? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46870051)

As Yahoo's primary market is parents looking for a safe search engine for their kids, I'm sure the show will be edgy as hell with all kinds of questionable humor.

Just what we need: *another* bright idea... (1)

whitroth (9367) | about 5 months ago | (#46869285)

Let's see, there's at least tens of thousands of SF anf Fantasy novels out there, maybe hundreds of thousands, and some have won awards as being well worth reading.

But we'll go come up with something that Hollywood producers (IQ == belt size) will understand, who will approach it with the following ideas
    1. We've got Names! We've got SPECIAL EFFECTS! Why would we need plot, continuity, stories worth watching?
                  All we need is EXPLOSIONS!!!
    2. All geeks are all stupid, and they'll watch anything we film, esp. if there's sexy babes and EXPLOSIONS!

            mark "so, when are they going to do, say Bujold's Miles series, or Robinson's Mars series, or...."

Yahoo science-fiction (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 5 months ago | (#46869429)

Will they show a beautiful and responsive webmail interface in some episodes? Think of the speed we'll be able to run Javascript at in the future, when some new tech replaces silicon! We'll even be able to access the notepad feature in less than five seconds!

(plus o8e InforMative) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46869923)

backward5. To the

Alternate Dimensions, oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46870153)

Alternate dimensions and time travel are usually the fall back in pretty much all Sci-Fi series when they're running out of ideas and the series is going downhill. They're apparently starting out with it, not a good sign.

The streaming only... (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 5 months ago | (#46870343)

part kills it for a lot of potential viewers. I know in the neighborhood where I live in Seattle that no one I know has enough bandwidth for streaming video. Netflix is still a mail-only thing for this area.

Re:The streaming only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46870693)

You are correct. Here's my bandwidth from my house in Seattle:

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3470266505

The 0.29 Mbps down means most of Seattle will be excluded. To be honest, the > 500 ms ping time is more of a problem than the slow 290 kbps download speed.

Will Yahoo push it's agendas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46870561)

Yahoo seems to be pushing homosexuality for example by the shear number of stories about gays in their daily news feed. I'm assuming the plot will be something like "Holy Covenant UCC Homosexual Pilgrims married in space".

Microsoft is already doing it (1, Informative)

barlevg (2111272) | about 5 months ago | (#46870821)

I wonder how long it will be until Google, Microsoft, and Apple are also all producing TV shows.

Microsoft produces (or, at the very least, distributes) The Guild [kotaku.com] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?