Home Cable

The 3 Laws of Starting a Streaming Service

Apple, and Disney, have been teasing their streaming services for some time. Instead of launching, they're following 3 laws for starting a streaming service

| Posted by:

Category: Business Internet, Cable, Entertainment, Humor, News, Reviews, Streaming, Technology, TV | No Comments


The 3 Laws of Starting a Streaming Service
Apple, much like Disney, has been “working” on launching a streaming service for quite some time. Most recently, on August 23, they announced they’ve greenlit a series based on Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” series. It’s expected to debut in March of 2019. This is all well and good, but they could have launched this already. They seem to be following a set of rules, or laws, to starting a streaming service. These laws are great for starting one, yet, laws on launching a streaming service seem to be missing. Instead, we’re just getting more and more updates on series while Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu, continue to increase their content offerings, as well as solidify their subscriber bases. It’s somewhat frustrating. The good news is that Asimov’s “Foundation” series will get some series power behind it.

Who’s Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov was a prolific writer of science fiction. He saw the genre as a place where true intellectualism could reign. Ideas could be thought over, developed, and allowed to expand without anyone putting restrictions on them. Asimov was also a curious one and loved science fiction from a young age. He taught for some time at Boston University and wrote on the side. But when income from his writing surpassed his professor’s salary, he went to writing full time. If only we could all be so lucky.

The Three Laws of Robotics

Asimov created and developed The Three Laws of Robotics. It's also what he’s most well known for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z7a8MTYrDE
  1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. Robots must obey orders given to it by human beings except when such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First and Second Law.
These laws have become commonplace among the die-hard science fiction fan. Not only do they provide a basis for robotics to behave, they also provide constraints. Without constraints, there’s no conflict, and even robots need conflict. Asimov developed the laws for his Robots stories. A series of short stories and novels that revolved around the autonomous creations was also where the term “Robotics” was birthed. Asimov saw robots as another character in his stories. At the time this was a novel concept and one that remained solely within science-fiction for some time. These robots, man-made though they were, developed their own personalities. As a result, some were good, and some were bad. While he does have a long list of published works, he’s most well known for writing “I, Robot.” This was turned into a summer blockbuster in 2004, starring Will Smith. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6RRIOZyCM And then the FX Network put it into syndication until it was overplayed. I heard there might be a sequel, but nothing new has come of that rumor. “Foundations”, though not as popular as “I, Robot”, has its own cult following. And now it’s part of Apple’s promised lineup of original content for its streaming service. Which leads me to believe that there are three laws for starting a streaming service.

The Three Laws

While Asimov’s three laws were meant to govern robots’ behavior and interaction with humans. The laws were a safeguard as well as a means to keep the robots in check. As displayed in I, Robot, even these laws have their loopholes which can be exploited. Beyond that, robots were free to live as they wanted. It’s different when it comes to streaming services. Especially when launching one. It seems every company these days has already launched a streaming service or is working on it. Those that have already done so have paved the way. Streaming services, as exciting as they are, still require a means to enter the world. Growth, oddly enough, needs assistance. Hence, the three laws.

The First Law

Build up hype. Streaming services are not created in a vacuum. To get one started, there needs interest among the general public. It doesn’t matter if it’s an entertainment company, a software company, or a retail giant, anyone can launch their own streaming service…well, almost. There needs to be a lot of money first to get the production companies involved, scout out properties for original content, and set up the service itself. To justify such costs, the company in question will announce they’ll be making their own streaming service. And that’s it. They just have to announce it and put out there a vague deadline somewhere off in the future. Walmart has set a definite deadline for the rollout of its pumped-up Vudu service. Disney and Apple, however, have taken their time. The deadline for each is a blurry date somewhere off in the future. But at least they’ve got the hype going for them.

The Second Law

Find an intellectual property that’s not too popular, but just popular enough. Asimov, in the science fiction community, it a well-regarded name. To those outside that community, he may be known, he may not be. But his name is tied in with some big movies, so there’s that. Now, the streaming service must create the original content to populate its new lineup that’s set to debut…sometime in the future. To ride the hype they’ve created, they need anchor content to build on. But most of the major production companies, and other streaming services who haven’t been sitting on their butts, already hold the rights to popular stuff. Unless they’re willing to shell out a lot of cash, they’ll have to go find their anchor content somewhere else. This is why Apple went for “Foundation”, and Disney has promised a live-action Star Wars show. Since Disney owns Star Wars, this is a no-brainer. They’ve got the rights and the money to do a series like that the right way. For Apple, they need something that can compete with Star Wars, and other sci-fi shows, without looking like a rip-off. Luckily, they’ve got Asimov. His work is original and already has a loyal fanbase. It also helps that Asimov consulted on the Star Trek movies. That fact alone differentiates “Foundations” from Star Wars.

The Third Law

Pack Big Names behind Anchor Content. With the hype rolling and the intellectual properties secure, a few big names are needed. John Favreau is behind Disney’s Star Wars show. Foundations will be headed by David S. Goyer, the story writer for Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, among other highly known properties. The purpose of these big names is not only to ensure these properties are done right but to also give fans the hope that they will. Favreau and Goyer are big names. They know how to create, write, and produce content that resonates and entertains. When it comes to adapting content that’s not their own, they’ve proven themselves already. This is good news, as there are a few series out there that have been soiled by big names. I’m not going to name names directly, but Star Trek got ruined by JJ Abrams, and Superman and Justice League were messed up by Zak Snyder. Just because A big name is attached to a project does not mean it is the RIGHT big name. Think I’m wrong? Just jump on Netflix, or Amazon Prime to watch these films yourself. Make sure you’ve got the best internet and cable deals first. This way you’ll save money. But you might get a headache, so consider yourself warned.

Applying the Three Laws

For Disney and Apple, they seem to be following these three laws pretty closely. And doing a good job of it. You will notice, however, that there is no law requiring a definite start date. Instead, that’s assumed. Somewhere, off in the future, we’ll get to see these streaming services. In the meantime, we’ll make do with Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and the other services that have already gotten their act together.

3 Reasons Hulu is Helping Disney

Hulu is going to be owned by Disney soon. Good news for Disney, if they're okay with losing $1 billion. Yet, Hulu is actually helping them. Here's how...

| Posted by:

Category: Apps, Business Internet, Cable, Entertainment, Deals & Packages, News, Streaming, Technology, TV | No Comments


3 Reasons Hulu is Helping Disney
Hulu, one of the big three streaming services, is going to be owned by Disney soon. Well, 60% of it will be owned by Disney. And this will happen after Disney completes its purchase of Fox Entertainments assets. Good news for Disney. Except when Hulu costs them about 1.3 to 1.6 billion in losses. Yet, this isn’t a bad thing. Maybe not at first. Disney, like any company, wants to make money on its assets and not have those assets lose them money. Especially when that amount starts with a ‘b.’ The positive here is that Disney is going to be enjoying the returns on Hulu’s efforts. Sure, in the short term, Disney is going to lose some money. Some. It’s a big amount, no doubt about it. I’ve never owned $1 billion. I doubt I will ever be worth that much in my lifetime. Disney, on the other hand, is dealing in multiple assets and properties across the globe. A billion here, a billion there is an acceptable loss for them. At least, it is from my perspective. They’ll most likely earn that $1 billion back in a month from all the merchandise they sell. What’s really happening here is a training or an upgrade montage.

The Upgrade Montage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBGGEZSAfyY Nearly every action movie has a training or an upgrade montage. Sometimes both. This montage is a series of clips of the hero, or team of heroes (as in the case of the Big Hero 6 clip above), get some new trinket, ability, or skill. Then they figure out how to use it and use it well. If Big Hero 6 isn’t your type of movie, then check out others on the streaming service of your choice. Or on cable. But first, save yourself some time and money by checking out the best internet deals and packages. Now go watch an action movie right up to when the hero gets the upgrade. Then stop. It’s not enough to get the upgrade, the hero(es) in question must use it and in the right way. Time is at a premium when it comes to movies, however. Audiences are not going to sit and watch hours upon hours of training, mistakes, learning, mistakes, frustration, mistakes, more frustration, learning, mistakes, and on and on. That’s real life. People who are training themselves want a break from the monotony of training. They don’t want to watch it in a movie. To get around this issue, producers put all that training and upgrading into a quick montage. Little scenes with quick action, one-liners, some slapstick comedy, and then show the little wins. Once the little wins are established, they show bigger and bigger wins. By the end of the montage, the hero(es) are proficient in said new skill/ability/talent/technology. A big part of the training montage is the song. Sometimes it’s an instrumental piece, written to highlight the difficulty of the training and/or upgrading. As the montage progresses the keys change to a higher key, signaling an emotional uplift. This comes right as there’s a small win. The music then builds as there are bigger and bigger wins. Once the hero(es) manage to reach a predetermined level of aptitude, the music crescendos, and the montage is over. Case in point; Fallout Boy’s “Immortals” is edited down to fit the montage for Big Hero 6. The key changes are kept in to signify when there’s a small win, and on and on until all six members of Big Hero 6 reach the appropriate level of aptitude. Fallout Boy was a good choice for the film, playing to the younger audiences and the hip feel of the movie. If they went with a different band or sound, it would have taken away from the overall feel of the movie. In real life, unfortunately, there are no training montages. It’s a day-in, day-out grind to train and keep training. As people work towards a goal, there’s no background music. If there was an option to have a full orchestra playing while I worked, I think I would take it. Nothing like hearing music firsthand to really stoke the creative fires. For Hulu, they’re in the middle of their training montage. There’s no music, no short clips. But we are past the hard part.

Small Win

The Handmaid’s Tale won Golden Globes and Emmy’s this year, making it Hulu’s first original content to take home such honors. To capitalize on this, Hulu has begun to put money and effort into more and more original content. Endeavors such as these take time and money to pull off. About $1.3 to 1.6 billion in money to be exact. But it’s not a bad thing for Disney.

Long-Term Gains Over Short-Term Revenue Goals

Any new endeavor takes time. The Handmaid’s Tale is a signifier that Hulu is onto something that works. It may not be perfect, but it’s successful. And successful is better than perfect. What the drama has done is show Hulu what to do, how to do it, and where to improve the formula. Sure, Disney has their revenue goals, as all companies do. But to enjoy bigger revenues in the future, maybe taking a $1 billion loss will be worth it? From the lowly perspective of a content manager, that makes sense. Of course, we’re talking about large sums of money in the abstract. I can’t begin to understand how the accountants involved in dealing with the real money feel right now.

Better Strategy

Making money for the sake of making money is a bad strategy. I’ve taken jobs before simply for the money. Sometimes it was because I had to. There were bills to pay and children to feed. So I took a job I hated because it meant my children wouldn’t starve. Then there were the jobs that I took because I thought “Hey, more money, should be fun, right?” But I was wrong. So, very, wrong. This “more money” type of job came with a boss who had unrealistic expectations of me, not to mention he wasn’t completely honest with the requirements of the job. It also didn’t help that other people within the company were incompetent and that just made more work for me too. But I’d be making more money, right? That didn’t matter. After all the time I spent on the job, I barely had time, or energy, to enjoy the fruits of my labor. So I quit. Hulu is doing it differently. They’re focusing on what works and improving that than just focusing on what makes money. This comes back around for them. By focusing on what works, they will be making more money. And more efficiently too.

Calculated Risk

Everybody must take risks in life. Otherwise, life would be very boring. Companies must take risks too. Yet, companies need to be wise in the risks that they are taking. For now, Hulu is risking billions of dollars in losses for Disney to fill out it’s stable of original programming. They aren’t doing this recklessly though. As stated before, they know what works and they’re using that as a guide for further endeavors.

Montage Ends

Hulu has their small wins and as they continue to duplicate them, there’ll be more mistakes. It’s easy to say, “mistakes will happen, learn from them.” But for those who make mistakes, and must pick up the pieces afterward, it’s not so easy. Mistakes can be demoralizing. Learning from them isn’t always fun either. Hulu is doing just that, making their mistakes, picking themselves up, learning from them, and trying again. Maybe when it’s all over they can make their own movie about it and have their own upgrade montage to show the process. Should be interesting.

Has Disney Lost the Streaming War?

As Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu continue to expand their streaming services, other players are getting involved too. But where, oh where, is Disney’s?

| Posted by:

Category: Business Internet, Cable, Entertainment, News, Reviews, Streaming, TV | No Comments


Has Disney Lost the Streaming War?

As Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu continue to expand their streaming services, other players are getting involved too. Walmart’s pumping up Vudu to compete and even Vizio has launched a streaming service of their own. But where, oh where, is Disney’s?

The official word has been that Disney will launch their streaming service sometime next year.

In the meantime, other forces—ahem—other streaming companies are allowed to expand and amass subscribers. Moreover, Disney is still working on getting entertainment assets from Fox. Add to this the fact their Star Wars spin-offs came to a grinding halt following the flop-better-known-as-Solo.

Will we ever get to see a streaming service put on by Disney?

This slow reaction is vaguely reminiscent of history.

General George McClellan

On April 12, 1861, Fort Sumter was fired upon.

Historians have set this as the official date the Civil War started in the United States.

Abraham Lincoln, the president at the time, called up Union forces to head south and quell the rebellion. Unfortunately, most of the generals at the top of his list decided to fight for the newly-formed Confederacy.

Lincoln found himself with few options.

Though not the first one he chose, General George McClellan was put in charge of the Army of Northern Virginia. McClellan assumed command after the previous two commanders either performed poorly in battle or retired.

McClellan, who saw himself as a “Young Napoleon,” took his time to train and organize his men. He also complained that he didn’t have enough weapons and ammunition to supply his troops with.

While he waited for the extra supplied, he drilled and trained his men.

Training men for battle was a good idea, but the Confederates weren’t going to sit around and wait for someone to come to them.

It would take an executive order from Lincoln himself to get McClellan to move.

Kind of sounds like what Disney’s doing now.

History Repeating Itself?

The Empire that is Walt Disney seems to be moving slowly.

Sure, they’re creating movies, TV shows, and other content. Don’t forget their parks, cruises, and merchandise.

However, it doesn’t seem to be moving quickly.

Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, however, are putting out new content almost daily.

Walmart, through subsidiary Vudu, is getting into the streaming game as well.

Moreover, now Visio has a new streaming service too.

It’s not anywhere near Hulu or Amazon, but it is a start. Vizio has taken a selection of OTT (over-the-top) channels and made them free through their TVs. A bold move. Sooner rather than later, they’ll probably have a channel with original content on it.

Yet, Disney has done nothing.

Much like McClellan, they’re sitting there doing the same thing day in and day out. While McClellan drilled and trained, Disney is rebooting movies and turning movies into shows.

A good plan, no doubt, but it’s not groundbreaking. At. All.

It appears they think they’ll be able to ride their name brand until the sun dies out.

But history proves that to be a foolish idea.

Disney’s Late to the Party

Netflix does have a lot of Disney content, as well as Disney-owned properties available.

Moreover, that seems to be working for them.

Rumors were circulating years ago that Disney would launch a streaming service. Those rumors have been proven correct. However, it’s still been years.

Had Disney committed to the new streaming service even two years ago, it would have happened by now. Instead, they seem content with trying to get most of Fox’s entertainment assets and create Star Wars spin-offs.

 While I can’t speak with much authority on the first item, I can speak about the second.

The Dark Side

When I first saw Star Wars, I thought it was awesome. And what seven-year-old, growing up in the early nineties, wouldn’t love Star Wars?

Then the special editions came out, and I thought those were cool. Episode I was next, and I was sure we were on the cusp of a new era in movies.

It turned out that we weren’t.

The prequels didn’t do too well, and even in my young age, I got a feeling that these movies weren’t all that they could be. Looking back now, maybe I was too harsh.

Think about it for a minute.

A young man, going through the awkward years of his life, looks to the heroes of yesteryear to inspire him. That inspiration doesn't come.

Instead, we got a whiny Anakin, and Jar Jar Binks.

It was as if Hollywood reached down from their stacks of money and slapped me across the face. “The force is not going to be with you, ever!”

Well, you learn to live with it and move on.

When Disney bought Star Wars, I had a little hope.

Then they hired JJ Abrams.

All hope was lost again.

When they started producing spin-offs, I thought they might have some merit to them. By that time I had kids to take care of and going to the movies wasn’t high on my priority list.

When Solo debuted, I was curious…then I saw the headlines. I couldn't help myself when I read what they had to say, and I laughed.

The film didn’t perform as expected. As a result, the future spin-offs found themselves on pause.

I guess the force wasn’t strong with them?

What Disney Can Do

Derek Thompson of the Atlantic Monthly pointed out how Disney could rise up and become the dominant entertainment company once again.

In his article, “Disneyflix is Coming. And Netflix Should Be Scared.” Thompson detailed how the behemoth could indeed show its size.

Instead of launching just another streaming service, Disney could pull all of its content off of the other streaming services, as well as it’s cable channels, and put it all onto one big streaming service. Add in their original movies and the Star Wars, and they’d have a unique offering.

Netflix and Amazon might lose about 10% each from their subscriber base, but both companies don’t seem to be worried about this.

Thompson takes it a step further.

Make merchandise available through the streaming service. Do you want tickets to a Disney park or a cruise? Put that on the streaming service as well.

Now Disney wouldn’t have just another streaming service. It would be everything under one roof.

Thompson has dubbed it “Disneyflix.” I call it “Disney on Steroids.”

While such an endeavor would be a boon for the company, there could still be problems. Putting everything under one roof may work for Netflix, but Disney hasn’t operated like that.

To pull their content off other streaming services would mean consolidating. To make it work, Disney would have to market it as they’ve never marketed before.

However, what am I saying? Disney’s a huge company, they should be able to pull off a move like this and make it work.

That is if they decide to do it.

The streaming service has been set to launch in “late 2019.” A lot can happen between now and then. People could change their minds, and Disney may decide not to go through with the plan.

Whether Disney launches a streaming service or not, you at least have the option of finding the best internet and cable bundles. This way you save some cash and cut down on the number of bills you have.

Eventually, just like McClellan, Disney will be forced to move.

By then, hopefully, they’ll have a solid plan in place.

 

 

4 Things to Know about CBS

CBS is experiencing some amazing growth…and a couple of serious problem. There's good news, but will it be enough to outweigh the bad news?

| Posted by:

Category: Business Internet, Cable, Entertainment, News, Streaming, TV | No Comments


4 Things to Know about CBS
CBS is experiencing some amazing growth…and a couple of serious problems. The Columbia Broadcasting Service, CBS, has been home to iconic shows. Their current content offering is no different. Yet, they’ve made a couple of big mistakes. But let’s talk about two pieces of good news first.

CBS News To Launch Local News Service

CBSN Local, as it will be called, is a new venture by CBS to connect local news providers with cord cutters. This is a smart move on CBS’s part. While customers are getting rid of cable and switching entirely to streaming services, the concern for local news stations have been “who will watch us?” To combat this, CBS News will have market-specific streaming news available. Local CBS affiliates will get to produce and stream their local news while alongside CBS’s original content. This streaming service will eventually be part of CBS All Access in the future. Not all affiliates are getting their own streaming services right now. Only the largest markets will get some first. Other cities will get their own as they roll out the service more and more. It’s a great idea, but with a downside. What if some people, namely the author of this post, are not CBS watchers? What if they get their news from somewhere else and are fine missing the local CBS newscast? CBS may be up a creek with that one. Then again, that may not be an issue.

CBS All Access and Showtime OTT Subscribers are Rising

CBS All Access, their exclusive streaming service, and their subsidiary Showtime have been showing strong numbers. These numbers are so strong that analysts have predicted they’ll break 8 million for All Access and 8 million for Showtime by 2022. Simple math means that will be 16 million new subscribers by 2022. That’s a big number and something to get excited about. That is if their forecasters aren’t mistaken like Netflix’s did last July. The good news is that CBS is adapting to the era of Peak TV better than most of their competitors. For a broadcast channel that produces shows watched mostly by the over-50 crowd, that’s pretty impressive. Let’s hope it’s enough to outweigh their bad decisions.

More Star Trek Without Avery Brooks

CBS debuted Star Trek: Discovery exclusively on All Access. This new show is supposed to be a prequel to the new Trek movies that have come out under JJ Abrams. I haven’t heard much about the show itself. Nor have I had any inclination to. And for someone who grew up watching Star Trek, that should be shocking. While it would be easy to blame JJ Abrams for this, in truth, it’s not his fault. It’s the fault of the executives and producers who decided he’d be a good choice to take control of the franchise. Since I don’t know their names, it’s just easier to blame Abrams for my distaste with the current direction Star Trek has been going. It wasn’t made any better when I learned that Patrick Stewart was getting another Trek show. Now, I don’t hate Patrick Stewart. He’s a phenomenal actor. As Jean-Luc Picard, he brought a certain panache and dignity to the role of a captain. You’ll notice there are very few Trekkie jokes that make fun of his talking style if there are any at all. Not to mention he did a great job as Professor Xavier in the X-Men movies, despite the horrible turn they took. No, the issue here isn’t Patrick Stewart at all. Jean-Luc Picard was his role and he made the character what it is today. If he wants to go and make another show based on the character, then that’s his choice. What I really want to see, and what I’ve been dying to see since 1999, is Avery Brooks step back into the role of Captain Benjamin Sisko.

Who’s Avery Brooks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3fObaejFOE For those asking that question, I am deeply saddened. Avery Brooks played Benjamin Sisko of Deep Space 9. This spin-off came after The Next Generation, which is what Stewart is known for. Instead of being set on a ship, they set the show on a space station. And not just any space station, but the space station once held by an oppressive regime. Deep Space 9 wasn’t like the other Star Trek’s, nor any others after it. It dealt with heavy issues like faith, war, and fatherhood, to name a few. DS9, as its called by its die-hard fans, also tossed out the episodic format and set up a mythic arc for the entire series. There were episodes that were "one-offs" like the time Bashir had "James Bond-like" adventure in one of the holosuites. This idea was ahead of its time. It also made DS9 is perfect for binge-watching. And yet, no movies, no reboots…nothing. And why is that? Just as Deep Space 9 was ending, I expected to see at least one movie where they brought back the entire cast, just like they did for The Next Generation. But they didn’t. Instead, they made more movies with the TNG cast. While those movies were fun to watch, I eagerly awaited them to finally give DS9 it’s big budget time on the screen. But they didn’t. Instead, someone decided to never go that direction and junk all that story potential. And for what? A reboot of the tired old series where we see reinterpretations of characters that we’ve seen a lot of already. Again, this has nothing to do with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, or the cast of the new Trek movies. They’re great actors, and this is not a reflection on them. Nor did I entirely hate the new Trek movies. They were entertaining at least. It’s a reflection on the absurdity that’s allowed to reign at these production companies. And it’s no more obvious than with this next bit of news

Les Moonves Is Still There

The CEO, who’s had multiple counts of sexual harassment against him, has been allowed to stay. While there’s been a long list of offenders who’ve been kicked out for sexual misconduct, and even worse, Moonves name isn’t on that list. The specifics of the case aside, it’s sending a message that with enough power, men like this can still be allowed to retain their positions of authority. And I find that unacceptable. While I didn’t watch a lot of CBS programming, to begin with, I doubt I’ll be doing much of it now. Maybe one day I’ll get around to watching Patrick Stewart’s new Trek series, but I’m not forking over money to a company that refuses to do the right thing in the name of profits. Nor will they make a Star Trek: Deep Space 9 movie. Or reboot the series. So much potential and such a waste. Until then, I’ll have to make do with watching reruns of DS9 so I can see one of the best actors, nay, one of the best roll-models I’ve ever seen, get a chance to act on screen. For the rest of us, it’s a free country. If you want to subscribe to CBS All Access, I’m okay with that. It is, after all, your right. Just make sure you save some cash first by checking out the best cable and internet packages. Knowing that someone will be saving money will at least make me feel a little better. And that will have to do until they finally make that Deep Space 9 movie.

4 Great Things Coming to AMC Networks

AMC Networks is going to be getting bigger, and better. Here's four great things coming to AMC Networks, and they all involve murder.

| Posted by:

Category: Streaming, News, Business Internet, Entertainment, TV, Cable, Service Providers | No Comments


4 Great Things Coming to AMC Networks
AMC Networks, owner of the eponymous channel that’s home to “The Walking Dead”, “Better Call Saul”, and “Preacher”, is working on acquiring RLJ Entertainment. RLJ owns Acorn TV and Urban Movie Channel, which means AMC is going to be getting bigger. And offering more for their streaming customers! RLJ has a huge library they’ll bring to the table. This means even more shows and movies that AMC customers will get to see through the networks bevy of channels. The best part? RLJ Entertainment owns 64% of the Agatha Christie Limited, the media rights and literary management company set up by the great author herself. If this doesn’t excite you, here are four reasons why it should.

Agatha Christie

Long hailed as the murder mystery writer, Agatha Christie wrote sixty-six detective novels and fourteen short story collections. Born in 1890, Agatha took up writing poems and short stories. It wasn’t until a cousin recommended a murder mystery that Agatha attempted to enter the genre. If there hadn’t been that one suggestion, the murder-mystery genre may not be what it is today. Her writing style, use of tropes, red herrings, and characters have helped define what makes good murder mystery writing. She’s also credited with starting the Golden Age of Detective Fiction. Her works, though dated, have been adapted and many authors are updating them to reflect more modern writing styles. At least one lucky author, Sophie Hannah, has been given authority to continue writing Hercule Poirot mysteries. Of her sixty-six works, three detectives stand out.

Tommy and Tuppence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DcAxJ9aORA The lesser known of her famous detectives, Agatha enjoyed writing Tommy and Tuppence novels the most. These Partners in Crime were her first detectives, and the duo aged with her. Partners in Crime follow Tommy and Tuppence Beresford as they find themselves constantly getting involved with dastardly plots. The pair didn’t set out to solve crimes at first. Because there were no other jobs, they started up Young Adventurers Ltd. “Willing to do anything. Go anywhere…No reasonable offer refused.” Those reasonable offers came with a mystery to solve. While I haven’t read or watched any of the works, if its Agatha Christie, then I at least know it’s good source material. As for the adaptations of the works themselves, again, I’m in the dark here. Given there have been multiple interpretations of the characters, it’s safe to say the crime-solving pair are entertaining to watch. One novel was adapted into a silent movie in 1928 then a series of radio dramas on the BBC in 1953. The late Richard Attenborough provided the voice for Tommy too! In 1984, Partners in Crime was finally adapted for the small screen. James Warwick and Francesca Annis took on the titular roles and reprised the roles again in 1985. No new adaptations were made until 2005, this time in France. The names of the characters were changed, though the source material remained faithful to Christie’s original vision. In 2008, another French adaptation was made. David Walliams and Jessica Raine took on the roles in the 2015 mini-series, Partners In Crime. No news as to whether another adaptation is in the works.

Miss Marple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ytnco5p-Y Miss Marple seems to sit quietly in the background, knitting away. This turns out to only be deception, as the elderly spinster is quietly observing, assessing, and analyzing everyone and everything around her. This is what makes her a remarkably effective sleuth. The list of actresses who’ve played Miss Marple is practically a “whos-who” of classic acting; Gracie Fields, Margaret Rutherford, Angela Lansbury, Helen Hayes, Joan Hickson, and June Whitfield. Most recently, Geraldine McEwan starred in the role in 2004 with Julia McKenzie assuming the role in 2009. I haven’t had the chance to catch these adaptations, though I did see a stage production of A Murder is Announced when I was in college. Being a Division III school, they didn’t do too bad.

Hercule Poirot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq4m3yAoW8E The most well-known of Agatha’s sleuths was Hercule Poirot (pronounced “pwa-ro,” it’s Belgian French). If it wasn’t because of his skills as a detective, then it was most definitely the mustache. The idea for Hercule Poirot is said to not been based on any one person. There is speculation, however, that a specific Belgian refugee who fled to England and settled in the countryside is the true catalyst for Agatha’s most notable detective. There’s another claim that he was based on two other fictional detectives of the time, Hercule Popeau, and Monsieur Poiret. And still, another that he was based on Sherlock Holmes. The mystery of who really inspired Agatha Christie to create the character will remain. When it comes to who did the best job of portraying the character, there is less speculation needed.

Who's the Best Poirot?

From Charles Laughton to Hugh Laurie, there have been too many Poirot’s to list here. In 2017 Kenneth Branagh stepped into the role for Murder on the Orient Express. Given the film’s high production budget and Branagh’s Shakespearean experience, the movie was amazing. Fun to watch, keeps you guessing (if you haven’t already read the book), and great performances by an all-star cast. Yet, for me, the standard of Hercule Poirot will always be set by David Suchet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r92jpQ8-UA True, Suchet’s mustache is more downplayed than Branagh’s. Branagh had the advantage of a big budget and having to only wear the titular facial hair for a relatively short time. Suchet, on the other hand, played the role for thirteen years. And yet, the mustache's even more endearing than Branagh’s. The ear-to-ear handlebars that Branagh sports are impressive, but only from a production standpoint. From a character standpoint, it’s just a defining feature. Suchet’s is where it’s at. Though subtler, his mustache adds the dramatic flair that is Poirot. To keep that kind of facial hair going for that long takes a rare level of commitment. To get into the mindset of such a literary behemoth, Suchet took character notes. By the end of his run, he had over 90 traits written down that made Poirot Poirot. Branagh only had to stay in character for a few months. And that closes that case.

Find Agatha Christie

It’s unclear if AMC Networks will just air reruns of the great Christie works or if they’re going to create original content from them. Given the recent resurgence in her work, I would hope they’d opt to remake some of her work. They could even go the Holmes route and update her characters. If that were to happen, then Vincent Cassel would be my first pick to step into the role of a new Poirot. Of course, Dame Judi Dench would be great as Miss Marple. For Tommy and Tuppence, I’d name James Marsters and Lucy Davis. Hollywood may go a different direction, and they often do. It's not the first time I've been ignored by Hollywood. And it won’t be the last. The good news is that getting access to current Agatha Christie works is simple. First, look for the best internet and cable packages. This way you’ll save money and headache when it comes to watching all the shows and movies based on Agatha Christie’s books. Second, get to a library or a bookstore and go find Agatha’s actual work. Every library is bound to have at least one. Third, if reading a book isn’t your thing, then get the Overdrive app or any number of audiobook apps. There’s a few that offer free titles as well. This way you’ll get to read Murder on the Orient Express, and others, before watching the movie. This will enhance your viewing experience. Once you’ve read an Agatha Christie, then watch a movie or a show, then it’ll be no mystery why her work has lasted so long.