Ideally they need both a reservoir of eminently rewatchable, popular existing shows like this and a schedule of at least one popular original monthly to keep subscriptions constant especially in the face of growing competition, so it doesn't have to be an either/or game. Hence why they just spent big on Friends while…

Weirdly they don't even have their own search engine anymore, they use a shittier version of Bing's.

Sadly Tumblr fanatics will be pouring revenue into Yahoo for years to come as well though.

Also Yahoo made an early investment in Alibaba that netted them billions in profit when that company went public last year, they'll be around for a good long time.

And yet sadly most browsing in the 90's was web portal based, and Facebook is the post-modern return to that nightmare for older people and mothers.

Sure, but there are plenty of people who don't have cable that would love it.

I've never seen a 4:3 show cropped to 16:9 on Netflix, Hulu, etc. So I wouldn't worry about that.

If you think about it though, long licenses on popular/long-running/eminently rewatchable shows like Seinfeld would be really helpful in keeping people around as constant subscribers, especially as they've yet to establish enough strong original programming year round. Also Netflix' content budget is in the billions…

Netflix is spending something like $2 billion annually on content licensing, it would make a lot more sense for them than for one of the others that is just desperate for attention and doesn't have the revenue to make up for it readily.

It seems pretty clear that he meant theatrical releases.

I'm assuming Paramount highlighted Abrams' television shows when announcing him as the director for Mission: Impossible III.

Actually a large portion of the higher ups in the studio were replaced following that disaster, and Andrew Stanton had to go whore out Finding Nemo to get back in their good graces.

You know Disney, things become less of an event when they come out this rapidly.

I'm not a big horror fan so I probably just haven't read those articles on here.

Which came out in what, 2001? This list is about the past 3 years.

I'm not suggesting they do. My point was more that not too many people are going into a slick horror film expecting to learn about reality. And those that do are probably a lost cause.

What goes around, comes around, since Spielberg promised Lincoln to Neeson for several years.

I think they wanted him for Luke Evans' role and he said no, then somehow they convinced him to play that character's brother the next time around.

The 2nd and 3rd Taken films made a lot more than the first did worldwide. A Walk Among the Tombstones was a very skillfully made movie that was unfortunately mostly a checklist of genre tropes and didn't give us enough about Neeson's character to elevate it all that much higher than his action work. It's not bad by…

Not all that big of a stretch when you see A Walk Among the Tombstones.