Connect with us

Entertainment

What you need to know about the new sports streaming service

Published

on

What you need to know about the new sports streaming service

Three major media companies rocked their industry this week when they announced they are banding together to offer a sports-driven streaming service aimed at consumers who don’t want to pay a big cable bill.

But as the dust settles, there are still a lot of questions about the unnamed venture from the Walt Disney Co., Fox Corp. and Warner Bros. Discovery, which they plan to launch ahead of the 2024-25 NFL season start in September.

The three media conglomerates will have equal ownership shares in the new service, which will carry the suite of ESPN channels, ABC, Fox and its cable sports channels, and WBD’s TNT, truTV and TBS. Whether they provide enough value for the consumer while generating sufficient revenue to cover the escalating costs of sports rights remains to be seen. Here’s what potential customers need to know:

What sports will be offered?

Everything on 14 sports-carrying channels owned by the three partners. For Disney, that means all the coverage — such as NFL “Monday Night Football,” the NBA Finals, and the Stanley Cup playoffs — and content produced on ESPN. Many major events are now carried by broadcast network ABC. WBD’s Turner Sports shares the rights to the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, the NHL, the NBA and Major League Baseball. Fox has the NFL’s Sunday package, the World Series and the World Cup. Both Fox and ESPN have a heavy schedule of college football and basketball.

Advertisement

What’s missing?

A lot. Comcast and Paramount Global, whose NBC and CBS networks are not included, have half of the NFL schedule and several Super Bowls over the next 10 years. NBC has Triple Crown horse racing, the Olympics and PGA Golf. CBS is the longtime home of the Masters and shares the NCAA Tournament with Turner, which highlights a major shortcoming in the new streaming venture. Consumers who bid for the Final Four will only get the games carried by Turner Sports, not CBS.

Comcast and Paramount Global were excluded as a means to keep the price of the new service low. But the gaps have already drawn the attention of Wall Street analysts.

“The service would have a better chance of success with those two joining in with their rights; it would be a big consumer win to be able to have one service that includes all sports,” Doug Cruetz, an analyst for TD Cowen said in a report.

Who is the target audience for the service?

Advertisement

Fox Corp. Chairman Lachlan Murdoch told analysts this week that the service will be aimed at the 60 million households who are not subscribing to a pay TV service, a number that has been steadily escalating as more consumers are content with watching video through online streaming platforms. Every consumer who bypasses cable means lost revenue for the networks that have come to depend on pay TV revenue. It’s not just cord-cutters, as a generation of viewers have grown up without the linear television experience of their Gen X- and baby boomer-aged parents and grandparents. “For us, it accesses a whole new market and really drives a tremendous amount of new reach that we weren’t servicing before,” said Murdoch.

Walt Disney Chairman Bob Iger also cited the need to reach consumers who have never signed up for a pay television subscription. “This gives them a chance to do so at a price point that will be obviously more attractive than the big, fat bundle,” he said.

How much will the new service cost?

Pricing has not been announced, but Wall Street analysts are speculating the service will cost around $50 a month. Like a cable or satellite subscription, the sub fees would be paid by TV operators to owners of the networks in exchange for the rights to carry programming, with ESPN likely getting the biggest cut (pay TV operators would pay around $9 per subscriber for it).

Getting the pricing right will be critical as the service is meant to attract the cable-less consumers that Murdoch cited. If the monthly fee goes above $50, the service will be in competition with other streaming cable substitutes such as YouTube TV and Sling, both of which carry CBS and NBC stations in most markets.

Advertisement

Not everyone is convinced that young consumers who have discovered other means to consume sports content online or avoid live TV in general will be eager to drop $50 or more a month for another streaming service. Casey Lewis, who tracks Gen Z consumer trends in her After School newsletter, told CNBC: “I don’t not think this will be terribly impactful for young people. Many of us have streamer fatigue as it is.”

Will I be able to get my favorite local teams’ games on the service?

Only if they are playing in a national or regional telecast offered by one of the partners. Consumers who want access to every game in their markets will need a pay TV service or a subscription streaming service if their team offers one.

What’s the business rationale for three competitors banding together?

The companies are in the grip of paying escalating costs for sports rights while their revenue sources are under threat from cord-cutting and shrinking ratings that are driving down ad revenues. Fox, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery know that sports TV is the most reliable attraction for audiences and live in fear that major properties will eventually be poached by deep-pocketed tech companies such as Apple and Amazon. Apple has the exclusive rights to Major League Soccer while Amazon holds the rights to the NFL’s Thursday night package and is considered a major contender for at least a piece of the next media deal for the NBA currently held by Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery. The venture is aimed at bringing in a new source of revenue that can help the partners remain competitive for media rights going forward.

Advertisement

Will consumers still be able to stream live sports on existing platforms such as ESPN+ and Max?

Yes. Even with the new venture, Disney is going ahead with a plan to provide the ESPN channels in a streaming offering that does not require a pay TV subscription. The new direct-to-consumer product will be available by August 2025.

What will the new service mean to the future of the cable bundle?

Nothing good. The venture is clearly an acknowledgment that the cable bundle, which provided a steady stream of revenue to media companies for years, is on borrowed time.

“This is a realization that they have to somehow develop a new revenue stream apart from traditional pay TV,” said Lee Berke, president of LHB Sports, Entertainment & Media.

Advertisement

Sports, followed by news, has long been the top reason for holding on to to a pay TV subscription in the new media landscape that has moved toward streaming video. The success of a lower-priced streaming option for sports fans could accelerate cord-cutting among the 70 million homes still left in the U.S. — a number that 10 years ago was well over 100 million.

Are there any regulatory issues that could keep this venture from happening?

“We tend to doubt it,” Cruetz said. The streaming venture would feature content that would still be available through pay TV operators, streaming platforms and in many cases over-the-air television received free with an antenna.

But Fubo, a New York-based streaming TV service designed to provide live sports-carrying channels at a lower cost than cable, is saying the service could ultimately force people to pay more to watch sports.

“Every consumer in America should be concerned about the intent behind this joint venture and its impact on fair market competition,” the company said in a statement. “This joint venture spotlights a concerning trend where an alliance with significant market share, reportedly controlling 60-85% of all sports content, could dictate market terms in a manner that may not serve the broader interests of consumers.”

Advertisement

Fubo’s stock dropped 26% after the new venture was announced on Wednesday.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

Movie Reviews

Six 100-Word Movie Reviews

Published

on

Six 100-Word Movie Reviews

Pizza Movie (2026) Director: Nick Kocher and Brian McElhaney, Star: Gaten Matarazzo and Sean Giambrone

Somehow, I got through an hour of this movie. I was seconds away from turning off in the first fifteen minutes because of the juvenile humor. Pizza Movie is too silly, repetitive, and the characters are annoying. Stranger Things Gaten Matarazzo and Sean Giambrone star as college friends, Jack and Montgomery. College angles are rarely seen in films right now, and that’s the one saving grace of the film. Similar to high school, people are also trying to fit in. The story and visuals were too corny. You can only watch someone’s head exploding for so long without letting yours.

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie (2026) Director: Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic, Stars: Chris Pratt, Charlie Day, Anya Taylor-Joy

I never saw the first Super Mario Brothers Movie when it was out, but I heard it got positive reviews. My brother always loved playing Super Mario video games as a kid, and I’d watch him. I tagged along with my friends to see Super Mario Galaxy Movie, and it’s a cute and fun film. I like it when movies explore the video game world. The animation creates unique worlds and characters. The characters are split into their own storylines, and for me, I felt like it worked. It adds more action, especially for kids who are seeing the films.

Emily in Paris Season 5 (2025) Creator: Darren Star, Stars: Lily Collins and Ashley Park

Advertisement

After a bright spot in season 4, I thought season 5 of Emily in Paris would continue its growth in the story and its protagonist, but no, it’s all drained out in the usual Emily (Lily Collins) mishaps. Ashley Park (Mindy) has become too good for this show. Emily and Mindy waste several opportunities because of their love lives. The whole relationship angle is ruining it. I don’t understand why Alfie (Lucien Laviscount) is still in the show. I thought writers learned their lesson, but by the last episode, they’re continuing to bring the past into an apparent season 6.

Sarah’s Oil (2025) Director: Cyrus Nowrasteh, Stars: Naya Desir-Johnson and Zachary Levi

There’s always history lurking right beneath our noses. Sarah’s Oil (2025) tells the true story of Sarah Rector, an Oklahoma-born African American girl who became the first black female millionaire in the U.S. Naya Desir-Johnson is fierce and driven as Sarah. Zachary Levi is also along for the ride as Bert, a man who helps Sarah. Kate (Bridget Regan) was another favorite character as an intelligent woman. Cyrus Nowrasteh was drawn to the subject for its story and its themes. Nowrasteh’s direction is compelling as he unearths a hidden story from history. The film is streaming on Amazon Prime.

Jack Goes Boating (2014) Director and Star: Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Ryan

Jack Goes Boating (2014) didn’t quite work for me, largely because of its slow pace and uneven storytelling. The film stars the late Seymour Hoffman as Jack, who also directed the film. This was Hoffman’s first and only time in the directing chair. Amy Ryan also stars in the film, giving a solid performance. This was also based on a play that Hoffman starred in. Jack wants to participate in a swim championship. That’s hardly what the film is about, tracking other characters’ stories. While the film aims for quiet intimacy, it ultimately drags, making it an underwhelming viewing experience.

Advertisement

You Kill Me (2016), Director: John Dahl, Stars: Ben Kingsley, Tea Leoni, Luke Wilson

Meet You Kill Me (2016), yet another film that I found in the museum of underrated gems. The concept revolves around Frank (Ben Kingsley), a hitman, who is sent to an A.A. meeting to get his mind focused again. A different story happens, where Frank falls in love with Laurel (Tea Leoni). Leoni is one of my favorite actresses. It also stars the funny Luke Wilson. I liked the trio’s dynamics. You Kill Me is a mental health movie. It’s okay to make changes if you’re not happy. I recommended that you keep an eye out for this movie.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Review: Trigger warning? ‘For Want of a Horse’ gives new meaning to the term ‘animal lover’

Published

on

Review: Trigger warning? ‘For Want of a Horse’ gives new meaning to the term ‘animal lover’

“For Want of a Horse,” a play by Olivia Dufault receiving its world premiere in an Echo Theater Company production at Atwater Village Theatre, wants to have a rational conversation about a taboo topic that can provoke instant outrage.

The subject is zoophilia, not to be confused with bestiality, though for many of us it will be a distinction without much of a difference.

Calvin (Joey Stromberg), a good-looking, mild-mannered married accountant, has harbored a secret for much of his life. He has a thing for horses. His erotic interest began at an early age, and all his efforts to lead a normal life have left him depressed and contemplating suicide.

His wife, Bonnie (Jenny Soo), is a permissive kindergarten teacher who’s having difficulty restraining a girl in her class who has discovered the joys of masturbation. Worried about her husband, she discovers through his browsing history that he’s once again visiting strange animal sites.

She suggests he keep a horse, explaining that she doesn’t want to end up a widow or divorcée. Calvin is taken aback by her generosity but has come to recognize that his preference is more than a kink. It’s part of his identity — and maybe the only part that makes his life seem worth living.

Advertisement

Joey Stromberg and Jenny Soo in “For Want of a Horse” at the Echo Theater Company.

(Cooper Bates)

A horse named Q-Tip (Griffin Kelly) enters the couple’s lives. A stable is secured, and the mare, who senses that something strange is going on, is indulged with apples and caresses.

Kelly, a statuesque presence in a dress, harness and boots, brings the horse to life with wild, unpredictable movements. The sheer size of the animal poses a threat to humans. One kick, as Q-Tip herself explains in one of her thought-bubble monologues, is capable of penetrating a steel wall. But controlling an animal’s food supply is an effective way of winning over its trust.

Advertisement

Calvin has found support in the online zoophilia community. PJ (Steven Culp), a man whose current inamorata is a bichon frise, is considering moving to a country where zoophilia isn’t illegal. He’s tired of the shame and the secrecy. He’s proud of his attachment to pooch, even if his thing for dogs has cost him contact with his daughter and ex-wife.

Dufault doesn’t shy away from sexual details. For PJ, intimacy depends on peanut butter. Calvin describes the physical signals that reveal Q-Tip’s erotic satisfaction. The play occasionally descends into sitcom humor. (PJ says he’s considering creating a human-dog dating app called Rin Tin Tinder.) But mostly the subdued tone steers clear of sensationalism.

The production, directed by Elana Luo, is scrupulously well-acted by the four-person cast. Stromberg makes Calvin seem not only reasonable but surprisingly sensitive. Soo’s Bonnie sweetly embodies the excesses of a kind of progressive piety. As PJ, Culp gruffly embraces his role as the play’s polemical fire-starter. And Kelly’s Q-Tip, in the production’s most physically demanding performance, straddles the human-animal divide with theatrical aplomb.

Steven Culp, left, and Joey Stromberg in "For Want of a Horse" at the Echo Theater Company.

Steven Culp, left, and Joey Stromberg in “For Want of a Horse” at the Echo Theater Company.

(Cooper Bates)

Advertisement

The open-mindedness that Dufault, a trans playwright, brings to the play creates some dramatic slack. Possibly the same fear of making value judgments that has inhibited Bonnie from imposing common-sense discipline in her classroom has robbed “For Want of a Horse” of a propulsive point of view.

The play moves monotonously between Calvin and Bonnie’s bedroom and the stable. Scenic designer Alex Mollo has worked out an efficient way of shifting between these realms by employing the same set of wooden trunks. But the argument of the play doesn’t so much build as elapse.

Time takes its toll, and Calvin eventually has to make a decision. But the character who interested me most was Bonnie, whose reality is only glimpsed. The play tacitly uses her husband’s threat of suicide as a trump card. Zoophilia isn’t merely a fetish for Calvin but a nonnegotiable part of his identity.

This questionable assumption can be psychologically scrutinized not only from Calvin’s point of view but also from his wife’s. The play wants to have an intelligent debate, but it doesn’t want to interrogate certain political positions too skeptically.

At one point, Bonnie objects when Calvin compares his situation to that of homosexuality, but the conversation ends there. The reality is that the right wing has been making a similar claim, arguing that same-sex marriage opens the door to bestiality, polygamy and incest. “For Want of a Horse” inadvertently lends legitimacy to this line of reasoning.

Advertisement
Griffin Kelly in "For Want of a Horse" at the Echo Theater Company.

Griffin Kelly in “For Want of a Horse” at the Echo Theater Company.

(Cooper Bates)

Not that extremist positions should be off limits, but they ought to be more rigorously addressed. Similarly, Bonnie’s concern about the issue of consent — how can a horse say yes to intercourse with a human — is introduced only to be dismissed in a shrug of mild-mannered bothsidesism.

While watching “For Want of a Horse,” I recalled a program on PBS called “My Wild Affair” that wasn’t about zoophilia but about the problematic nature of human bonds with untamed animals. Relationships with a seal, an elephant and a rhino, for example — obsessive, protective, loving friendships — all seemed to end if not in outright tragedy, then in shattering heartbreak.

Q-Tip is rightfully given the play’s last word, and Kelly, an actor (HBO’s “The Book of Queer”), writer and comedian, is the production’s driving force. We can never know what’s inside this mare’s mind because Q-Tip’s brain has evolved so differently from our own. Kelly plays the anthropomorphic game while retaining some of the inscrutability of a four-legged creature.

Advertisement

It is through language that we, as humans, traverse the chasm separating us from one another. That’s not possible with animals, even with our closest domestic companions. (Try explaining a necessary medical procedure to a cat.)

“For Want of a Horse” sets out to speak about the unspeakable, but its construction may be too tame for such a wild subject.

‘For Want of a Horse’

Where: Echo Theater Company, Atwater Village Theatre, 3269 Casitas Ave., L.A.

When: 8 p.m. Fridays, Saturdays, Mondays; 4 p.m. Sundays. Ends May 25

Advertisement

Tickets: $15-$42.75

Running time: 1 hour, 30 minutes (no intermission)

Info: echotheatercompany.com

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – Desert Warrior (2026)

Published

on

Movie Review – Desert Warrior (2026)

Desert Warrior, 2026.

Directed by Rupert Wyatt.
Starring Anthony Mackie, Aiysha Hart, Ben Kingsley, Ghassan Massoud, Sharlto Copley, Sami Bouajila, Lamis Ammar, Géza Röhrig, Numan Acar, Nabil Elouahabi, Hakeem Jomah, Ramsey Faragallah, Saïd Boumazoughe, and Soheil Bostani.

SYNOPSIS:

An honorable and mysterious rogue, known as Hanzala, makes himself an enemy of the Emperor Kisra after he helps a fugitive king and princess in the desert.

Advertisement

With aspirations of being a historical epic harkening back to the sword and sandal blockbusters of yesteryear, Rupert Wyatt’s seventeenth-century Arabia tale is about as generic and epically dull as one would expect from a film plainly titled Desert Warrior. Yes, there appear to be real locations here, and there are some admittedly sweeping shots of various tribes storming into battle on horseback and camels, but it’s all in service of a mess that is both miscast and questionable as the work of a filmmaking team of mostly white creatives.

The story of Emperor Kisraa (Ben Kingsley, a distracting presence even with only one or two scenes) rounding up women from other tribes to be his concubines, which inevitably became the catalyst for a revolution led by Princess Hind (Aiysha Hart), uniting all the divided clans and strategizing battle plans for flanking and poisoning, is undeniably ripe for cinematic treatment. The problem is that what’s here from Rupert Wyatt (and screenwriters Erica Beeney, Gary Ross, and David Self) is less than nothing in the primary creative process; no one seems to have a connection to Arabic heritage or culture, but they have made a flat-out boring film that is often narratively incoherent.

Following the death of her father and escaping the clutches of oppression, the honorable Princess Hind joins forces with a troubled, nameless bandit played by Anthony Mackie (he totally belongs here…), who seems to be here solely to give the movie some star power boost without running the risk of white savior accusations. Whatever the case may be, it’s jarring, but not quite as disorienting as how little screen time he has despite being billed as the lead and how little characterization he has. It is, however, equally disorienting as some of the other names that show up along the way.

As for the other factions, Princess Hind talks to them one by one, giving the film an adventure feel that fails to capitalize on using beautiful scenery in striking or visually poignant ways at almost every turn; the leaders of these tribes also often have no character. There also isn’t much of an understanding of why these tribes are at odds with one another. This movie is filled with dialogue that consistently and shockingly amounts to vague nothingness. Nevertheless, each tribe doesn’t take much convincing to begin with, meaning that not only is the film repetitive, but it’s also lifeless when characters are in conversation.

That Desert Warrior does occasionally spring to life, and a bloated 2+ running time is a small miracle. This is typically accomplished through the occasional fight scene between factions that also serves to demonstrate Princess Hind coming into her own as a warrior. When the tribes are united in a massive-scale battle, and that plan is unfolding step by step, one certainly sees why someone would want to tell this story and pull it off with such spectacle. However, this film is as dry as the desert itself.

Advertisement

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Robert Kojder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending