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

‘The Spongebob Movie: Search for Squarepants’ Review: Adventure Romp Soaks up a Good Time for SpongeBob Fans of All Ages

Published

on

‘The Spongebob Movie: Search for Squarepants’ Review: Adventure Romp Soaks up a Good Time for SpongeBob Fans of All Ages

I’m convinced that each SpongeBob movie released on the big screen serves as a testament to the current state of the series. The 2004 film was a send-off for the early series run. Sponge Out of Water symbolized the Paul Tibbitt era, and Sponge on the Run served as a major transitional period between soft reboot and spin-off setup. The team responsible for Search for SquarePants, which consists of current showrunners Marc Ceccarelli and Vince Waller, as well as the seasoned Kaz, is showcasing their comedic and absurdist abilities. The sole purpose of the film is to elicit laughter with its distinctively silly and irreverent, whimsical humor. More so than its predecessor, it creates a mindless romp. Granted, there are far too many butt-related jokes, to a weird degree.

Truthfully, I am apprehensive about the insistence of each SpongeBob movie being CG-animated. However, Drymon, who directed the final Hotel Transylvania film, Transformania, brings the series’ quirky, outrageous 2D-influenced poses and expressive style into a 3D space. Its CG execution, done by Texas-based Reel FX (Book of Life, Rumble, Scoob), is far superior to Mikros Animation’s Sponge on the Run, which, despite its polish, has experimental frame rate issues with the comic timing and is influenced by The Spider-Verse. FX encapsulates the same fast, frenetic pace in its absurdist humor, which enables a significant number of the jokes to be effective and feel like classic SpongeBob.

With lovely touches like gorgeous 2D artwork in flashback scenes and mosaic backgrounds during multiple action shots, Drymon and co expand the cinematic scope, enhancing its theatrical space. Taking on a darker, if not more obscene, tone in the main underworld setting, the film’s purple- and green-infused visual palette adds a unique shine that sets it apart from other Sponge-features. Its strong visual aesthetic preserves the SpongeBob identity while capturing the spirit of swashbuckling and satisfying a Pirates of the Caribbean void in the heart.

The film’s slapstick energy is evident throughout, as it’s purposefully played as a romp. The animators’ hilarious antics, which make the most of each set piece to a comical degree, feel like the ideal old-fashioned love letter to the new adults who grew up with SpongeBob and are now introducing it to their kids. This is a perfect bridge. There’s a “Twelfth Street Rag” needle drop in a standout montage sequence that will have older viewers astral projecting with joy. 

Search for SquarePants retreads water but with a charming swashbuckling freshness.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Latinos continue to be underrepresented in streaming shows, new UCLA report finds

Published

on

Latinos continue to be underrepresented in streaming shows, new UCLA report finds

Latinos remain severely underrepresented in the television industry, according to UCLA’s latest Hollywood Diversity Report.

Released Tuesday, the report examined the top 250 series available on streaming, including both library offerings and current titles. Overall, it revealed a steep fall in cultural diversity among 2024’s top comedies and dramas, as well as fewer projects created by people of color and women.

For Latinos, representation on screen and behind the camera is scarce. Only 1.1% of the top streaming scripted shows were created by Latinos. Of the top streaming comedies and dramas, 3.3% had Latino lead actors and 5.2% were co-led by Latino actors. When looking exclusively at current streaming shows (excluding library titles), 1.1% were created by Latinos and 6.2% were led by Latino actors.

UCLA’s Hollywood Diversity Report dates back to 2014. The first iteration of the study used data that had been collected since 2011. Ana-Christina Ramón, UCLA’s director of the Entertainment and Media Research Initiative, says that this level of underrepresentation across all kinds of media is nothing new.

Advertisement

“It’s a consistent finding in our reports. But the numbers are such a stark level of underrepresentation because of the fact that we’re almost 20% of the population,” said Ramón. “Even when the numbers are a little bit better, they’re never close to where they should be.”

This lack of representation isn’t exclusive to the Latino population. The report found that four out of five leads in the most-watched streaming comedies and dramas were white actors, and white men account for nearly 79% of all show creators — leaving nearly every other race and ethnicity severely marginalized.

The downward trend comes at a time when President Trump has consistently targeted and called to end all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. As a result, much of Hollywood has followed his lead. Paramount Global changed its staffing goals related to gender, race, ethnicity and sex; Warner Bros. Discovery restated its DEI activities as “inclusion”; and Walt Disney Co. got rid of its “diversity and inclusion” performance standard used to calculate executive compensation.

These findings generally defy American audiences’ preference for diverse content. The research shows that “a relatively diverse cast and diverse credited writers often resulted in higher ratings,” especially when these stories from diverse communities are live-action and scripted.

This trend isn’t isolated to television — eight of 2024’s top 10 streaming films and 14 of the top 20 streaming films featured casts with more than 30% people of color, according to previous UCLA research.

Advertisement

Despite the lack of Latino representation, Netflix’s narco-drama starring Sofia Vergara, “Griselda,” was the fifth-most-streamed television of 2024. In Latino households specifically, it reached third place, behind children’s TV shows “Bluey” and “Bebefinn.”

“The silver lining is that [‘Griselda’] was very popular, and though it’s a stereotypical topic, because it was made by the same people that made ‘Narcos,’ it had a prestige factor that gets passed along,” said Ramón.

She finds that the shows that tend to do well have to have a well-known lead actor, be of an interesting topic and be attached to something that is already established or popular. In 2023, the report included Netflix’s “Wednesday” at the fourth-most-streamed show and “The Last of Us” at No. 7, both shows featuring Latino lead actors.

All three titles “have a high production value and are familiar stories” — as “Griselda” was based on a true story, “Wednesday” builds off the IP of “The Addams Family” and “The Last of Us” is based on a video game.

“Regardless of which [ethnic] group you’re talking about, it really has to do with these very specific pieces,” said Ramón. “The very promising finding is the fact that underrepresented stories, which include Latinx stories and other BIPOC stories, tend to do better than shows that don’t, in terms of reviews and ratings.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – Cartoon characters can devolve into dullards over time. But some are more enduringly appealing than others, as the adventure “The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” (Paramount) proves.

Yellow, absorbent and porous on the outside, unflaggingly upbeat SpongeBob (voice of Tom Kenny) is childlike and anxious to please within. He also displays the kind of eagerness for grown-up experiences that is often found in real-life youngsters but that gets him into trouble in this fourth big-screen outing for his character.

Initially, his yearning for maturity takes a relatively harmless form. Having learned that he is now exactly 36 clams tall, the requisite height to ride the immense roller coaster at Captain Booty Beard’s Fun Park, he determines to do so.

Predictably, perhaps, he finds the ride too scary for him. This prompts Mr. Krabs (voice of Clancy Brown), the owner of the Krusty Krab — the fast-food restaurant where SpongeBob works as a cook — to inform his chef that he is still an immature bubble-blowing boy who needs to be tested as a swashbuckling adventurer.

The opportunity for such a trial soon arises with the appearance of the ghostly green Flying Dutchman (voice of Mark Hamill), a pirate whose elaborately spooky lair, the Underworld, is adjacent to SpongeBob’s friendly neighborhood, Bikini Bottom. Subject to a curse, the Dutchman longs to lift it and return to human status.

Advertisement

To do so, he needs to find someone both innocent and gullible to whom he can transfer the spell. SpongeBob, of course, fits the bill.

So the buccaneer lures SpongeBob, accompanied by his naive starfish pal Patrick (voice of Bill Fagerbakke), into a series of challenges designed to prove that the lad has what it takes. Mr. Krabs, the restaurateur’s ill-tempered other employee, Squidward (voice of Rodger Bumpass), and SpongeBob’s pet snail, Gary, all follow in pursuit.

Along the way, SpongeBob and Patrick’s ingenuity and love of carefree play usually succeed in thwarting the Dutchman’s plans.

As with most episodes of the TV series, which premiered on Nickelodeon in 1999, there are sight gags intended either for adults or savvy older children. This time out, though, director Derek Drymon and screenwriters Pam Brady and Matt Lieberman produce mostly misfires.

These include an elaborate gag about Davy Jones’ legendary locker — which, after much buildup, turns out to be an ordinary gym locker. Additionally, in moments of high stress, SpongeBob expels what he calls “my lucky brick.” As euphemistic poop gags go, it’s more peculiar than naughty.

Advertisement

True to form, SpongeBob emerges from his latest escapades smarter, wiser, pleased with his newly acquired skills and with increased loyalty to his friends. So, although the script’s humor may often fall short, the franchise’s beguiling charm remains.

The film contains characters in cartoonish peril and occasional scatological humor. The OSV News classification is A-I – general patronage. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG — parental guidance suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children.

Read More Movie & TV Reviews

Copyright © 2025 OSV News

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending