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

Millie Bobby Brown leads frothy sleuthing caper

Published

on

Millie Bobby Brown leads frothy sleuthing caper

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’
| Photo Credit: Netflix

Enola Holmes 3sees Philip Barantini (Adolescence) take over direction from Fleabag’s Harry Bradbeer while Jack Thorne (another Adolescence alum) continues as writer from the first two films. The supposed darker take is not very apparent in this tale featuring the consultant detective’s sister.

Based on Nancy Springer’s charming The Enola Holmes Mysteries, Enola Holmes 3 opens with a wedding in Malta. Enola (Millie Bobby Brown), the younger sister of Sherlock (Henry Cavill), and a detective in her own right, as we have seen from the earlier films, is getting married to sweet, idealistic Lord Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge).

Sherlock is in Malta for the wedding which he strongly disapproves, believing Enola will not be able to pursue her career as a detective once she marries and becomes Lady Tewkesbury. Enola has her own doubts about the marriage — not about Tewkesbury but about his world, the people in it and their expectations.

Enola Holmes 3 (English)

Director: Philip Barantini

Cast: Millie Bobby Brown, Louis Partridge, Himesh Patel, Sharon Duncan-Brewster, Henry Cavill, Helena Bonham Carter, Susan Wokoma

Advertisement

Runtime: 105 minutes

Storyline: As Enola prepares to marry Lord Tewkesbury in Malta, her brother goes missing and the game is afoot

When she finally gets into the carriage for her wedding, she realises she is being followed by a masked rider. After a thrilling chase involving the dropping of many bridal veils, the pursuer is revealed to be Dr Watson (Himesh Patel), Sherlock’s flatmate, friend and chronicler (not yet, though). The mask, the good doctor explains, is for allergies.

He was thundering after Enola because Sherlock has vanished, probably kidnapped, as he was working on another case. When Enola’s future mother-in-law, Lady Tewkesbury (Hattie Morahan) also goes missing, the wedding is forgotten as Enola races against time to solve the mystery.

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’
| Photo Credit:
Netflix

The pieces of the puzzle include the Battle of Khost in Afghanistan, looted gold, the Maltese fight for independence in the person of Mikiel Mizzi (Joe Azzopardi) from the Partito Anti-Riformista, and the criminal mastermind Moriarty (Sharon Duncan-Brewster).

Advertisement

Enola’s mother, Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) and her friend Edith (Susan Wokoma) are skulking around giving Enola invisible support as Eudoria is in trouble with the law for her dynamite-forward ways.

Enola Holmes 3 zips by in a series of frantic action sequences, quips and callbacks. The storybook look is propped up by those amazing pop-ups. Darker themes arrive in lines such as Moriarty saying “There are few British names that are not tarnished with the pain of its empire.”

Brown has created an endearing heroine in her Enola, even if her habit of breaking the fourth wall, while definitely reduced, has gone way beyond twee to be outright annoying. Cavill’s Sherlock is brave and beautiful and just that little bit cross, while Carter’s Eudoria walks the line between gently eccentric and decidedly odd as she dispenses gems of wisdom including “the puzzle is always as devious as the setter.”

Fast, fun and eminently forgettable, this is popcorn entertainment at its most efficient.

 Enola Holmes 3 is currently streaming on Netflix

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Entertainment

When, unlike our upcoming 250th anniversary, a bicentennial mattered to orchestras

Published

on

When, unlike our upcoming 250th anniversary, a bicentennial mattered to orchestras

A century and a half ago, Richard Wagner was running out of cash as he was preparing to stage his four momentous nights of opera known as the “Ring Cycle” when he got a message from the Women’s Centennial Executive Committee in Philadelphia. It offered him a princely $5,000 (around $150,000 today) to write a triumphant 12-minute orchestral score to open the Centennial Exposition in Fairmont Park celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

On May 10, 1876, Theodore Thomas, perhaps America’s most famous conductor at the time (he would go on to head the New York Philharmonic and help found the Chicago Symphony), led the premiere of Wagner’s “Grosse Festmarsch” with a 150-member orchestra, its brass and percussion so impressive that the addition of cannon fire Wagner suggested was not needed. The crowd was said to number well over 100,000. President Ulysses S. Grant attended and invited Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil to join him along with members of Congress and Supreme Court justices for what remains a unique Declaration of Independence spectacle and debacle.

The “Centennial March,” as it came to be known, turned out to be dreck. Even Wagner, who carelessly tossed it off in a couple of weeks, said the best thing about the score was the fee, which he had demanded to be paid in gold. But what sounds like something AI might come up with if asked to write a pompous march in the style of Wagner began the American obsession with celebrating the Declaration of Independence, the words and deeds of our presidents, our very democracy with the assist of the symphony orchestra and opera.

One hundred years later, the country was awash with federal, state, city and philanthropic funding for a music-happy bicentennial of exceptional ambition. “With millions available in hand and more money to come,” Time Magazine wrote in 1975, “the Bicentennial is the biggest bonanza for the American composer since Hollywood discovered the musical.”

Advertisement

And so it was. The centerpiece was the National Endowment for the Arts Bicentennial Orchestra Commissioning Project. That funded America’s six top orchestras to each commission a major work that all six would play. In addition, the NEA offered further support to 34 American orchestras for dozens more new scores.

Everyone got into the act. The New York State Council of the Arts alone sponsored 68 commissions. Orchestras everywhere came up with striking projects. The Pittsburgh Symphony, for instance, premiered L.A. composer John LaMontaine’s opera/oratorio “Be Glad Then America” that featured the folk singer Odetta as the Muse of Liberty and enlisted ROTC students to reenact the Battle of Lexington overhead the orchestra.

The National Symphony commissioned symphonies from Roy Harris and William Schuman as well as Alan Hovhaness’ “Ode to Freedom,” a lovely short violin concerto written for Yehudi Menuhin. The list goes on.

We are obviously not seeing or hearing much like that in a semiquincentennial year when our government’s green gets the most attention for promoting algae. Even so, the NEA does indeed have an “America250” project (though it does little to publicize it, let alone fund it on the scale of 50 years ago) that is promoting more than 50 artworks. In music, they range from the Montgomery Symphony’s premiere in February of Nkeiru Okoye’s oratorio “A Time for Jubilee,” commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights marches, to a New West Symphony premiere last weekend of Michael Christie’s “A Ronald Reagan Portrait” at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

The major East Coast orchestras are paying some attention. The New York Philharmonic premiered David Lang’s luminous “the wealth of nations.” The National Symphony got the most attention in its attempt to commission Philip Glass’ “Lincoln” Symphony, which the composer pulled in opposition to an un-Lincoln-like presidential takeover of the Kennedy Center. Glass then gave the rights to the Boston Symphony for a July 5 first performance.

Advertisement

The National Symphony did pull off the premiere of Peter Boyer’s “American Mosaic,” and it was to the Altadena composer that Philadelphia, this time around, entrusted its Declaration of Independence commemoration. Boyer’s multimedia oratorio, “A Hundred Years On,” was given its premiere by the Philadelphia Orchestra last month at the orchestra’s outdoor summer home, the Mann Center.

Upcoming will be a few repeat performances. Next month, “the wealth of nations” lands at the Aspen Festival, as does the “Lincoln” Symphony at the Cabrillo festival (with an L.A. Phil performance next season). “American Mosaic,” of which the Pacific Symphony was a co-commissioner, had its West Coast premiere in Costa Mesa last month and was scheduled to be performed at the Hollywood Bowl by the National Symphony in August, but that has now been replaced by Dvorak’s commonplace “New World Symphony.”

None of this comes close to comparing with the attempted civic zest of 1976. The NEA made it a matter of admirable policy that commissioned new works get multiple performances. Yet despite several of these being substantial works by some of our most noted and venturesome composers, few bicentennial commissions have survived. Even odder is that many of the composers did not necessarily feel compelled to explore nationalist themes. For them, American liberty implied freedom to simply write the kind of music they cared about.

The six works for the six orchestras were David del Tredici’s irresistibly over-the-top “Final Alice” (Chicago Symphony), Elliott Carter’s arrestingly impenetrable-on-first-hearing “Symphony for Three Orchestras” (New York Philharmonic), John Cage’s irrepressibly come-what-may “Renga” (Boston Symphony), Morton Subotnick’s brilliant electronic-landscaped “Before the Butterfly” (Los Angeles Philharmonic), Leslie Bassett’s introspective “Echoes From an Invisible World” and Jacob Druckman’s abstract-modernist “Chiaroscuro” (Cleveland Orchestra).

No orchestra has brought back its commission over the last half century, and only Chicago and New York recorded their commissions. No recording at all exists of L.A.’s, although Subotnick’s inventive uses of electronic music with a standard symphony orchestra went on to have considerable influence. None of these works, it appears, are likely to be heard anywhere in America this year, with one sort-of exception.

Advertisement

An explanation for that may be that, while 1976 was a fraught time for America — the country was recovering from the Vietnam War, we had a president and vice president who were not elected, there was runaway inflation, etc. — the music of the time represented optimism. Many works around the country explored new electronic music technology. It was the year Glass wrote “Einstein on the Beach” and Steve Reich created “Music for 18 Musicians” — the composers’ first masterpieces — demonstrating that Minimalism mattered.

That sense of liberation is clearly behind Del Tredici’s “Final Alice,” an hourlong romp around the ending of “Alice in Wonderland” for superhuman soprano and orchestra. It is so obsessively and addictively wild that its tamest moments sound like Richard Strauss on LSD. It does have a cult following although performances are few and far between.

Cage’s score is an abstract work based on the Japanese form of collective poetry known as renga, in which each poet attempts to write a line that is as distant as possible in meaning from the preceding line. Cage translates that to an independence of instrumental parts. While “Renga” can be performed alone Cage further suggests it be played along with an actual bicentennial work he wrote separately, “Apartment House 1776.” That is what Boston and the other orchestras did.

Indeed, “Apartment House” got the lion’s share of bicentennial attention and ridicule. When Zubin Mehta conducted it at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, the L.A. Philharmonic did not take it seriously and many walked out on it.

The work features four vocal soloists who represent Native American, Sephardic, African American and Protestant religious traditions, along with instrumental music based on early American hymn tunes. Everything is cut up and put together through chance operations into what Cage called a Musicircus. Under the circumstances “Renga” was hardly noticed, although two decades later, “Renga” came into its own when Michael Tilson Thomas famously conducted it with the San Francisco Symphony and the surviving members of the Grateful Dead.

Advertisement

Still the idea that “Apartment House” need not stand alone, that our traditions and those of long-ago Japan belong together, represented for Cage a future for America. We need not act like a superpower, he noted, but merely be one nation, no more and no less, among many.

We are obviously not that nation. A half-century later, “Apartment House” tends to exist mainly in its own right. An excellent London new music ensemble calls itself Apartment House. Detroit Opera recently staged it with a 2026 need to give the singers the opportunity to select their own music rather than reflect on our heritage. If American music in 1976 represented a collective, inquisitive, inventive American spirit of discovery, the semiquincentennial in the age of social media has become more about the individual identity.

As a sign of how we think about ourselves, the Los Angeles Philharmonic begins its Hollywood Bowl season five days after the 4th with a program of American music conducted by Thomas Wilkins that opens with Valery Coleman’s “Fanfare for Uncommon Times,” which was written five years ago.

But for now, the work that stands out is Lang’s “the wealth of nations.” It balances harsh thoughts of how the promise of capitalism has failed society and how racism remains with music of stunning beauty and glory, to gently but forcefully show us, in our age of American dissatisfaction, the direction in which we might go to make us proud again. It needs many performances.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Sender

Published

on

Sender

In Sender, writer-director Russell Goldman’s high-anxiety debut, the filmmaker expands on his 2022 short Return to Sender, in which Allison Tolman starred as a woman who receives packages she didn’t order. That may not sound like a premise that would result in a paranoid, darkly comedic thriller, much less a feature. But in extending his story from 18 minutes to just over 90, Goldman follows a maddening scenario involving an online retailer called Smirk, a fictionalized Amazon counterpart. More significantly, he captures the frenzied mindset of his protagonist, who grapples with staying sober and several other major life changes—all compounded by a layer of justifiable paranoia brought on by the endless packages. Goldman’s tweaky style and elusive scripting create a peculiar, out-of-whack presentation that destabilizes the viewer, firmly placing us in his main character’s perspective. However, by the end, the journey through this cine-manic headspace doesn’t add up to much, and the potential character study at the center feels somewhat lost in the mechanics of the conspiracy. 

Britt Lower (AppleTV’s Severance) stars as Julia, who has just lost her job and moved into a rental home to get her life on track. She is backed financially by her overbearing sister Tatiana (Anna Baryshnikov), who occasionally comes nosing around to verify that Julia doesn’t backslide. And she doesn’t. Julia attends regular Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, where she meets the steely Whitney (Rhea Seehorn), who isn’t interested in being her sponsor. But at home, Julia receives a Smirk package with her brand of lipstick. The problem? She didn’t order it. She calls customer service, and the representative doesn’t help much before telling her, “Be sure to stay alert and aware.” Wait, what? Sender is loaded with nagging, unplaceable details like this. They’re often amusing, intriguing, and exasperating in the same moment. But these pieces don’t complete a whole picture, at least not a narratively satisfying one. 

The Smirk packages, delivered by the outwardly helpful, nice-guy driver Charlie (David Dastmalchian), contain a random assortment of objects, from drum kits to protein powder. The squirrelly Julia, already coming apart at the seams from her recent drama, doesn’t know what to make of it. She’s convinced there’s some plot against her, perhaps by someone at Smirk. To what end, she doesn’t know. But Goldman gives us a glimpse of the long-term consequences of her ordeal in the prologue, which features Jamie Lee Curtis (also a producer) as Lisa, a woman in circumstances similar to Julia’s. Lisa’s response to receiving a box of soil with a broken shin pad (with “Can’t Can’t Can” scrawled on it) entails an attempt to suffocate herself with the bubble wrap, only to do far worse with a sharp edge of the shin pad. To show Lisa’s fate, Goldman’s imagery becomes twisted and surreal but also cryptic. 

Sender’s disorienting mood is matched by a skewed formal presentation. Cinematographer Gemma Doll-Grossman’s wide-angle lenses and arch angles might feel at home in a Ken Russell or Terry Gilliam feature such as The Devils (1971) or 12 Monkeys (1996). Julia’s half-remembered drinking binges, accented by blurry close-ups, suggest she may have slept with any number of coworkers. She can’t remember, and it embarrasses her. Her rental is dressed in simple if shabby décor, which gives way to Julia’s erratic collage-like overhaul. Melisa Myers’ stuffed production design makes the most of heightened colors and banal, cluttered rooms that lend a normality to the bizarre, ever more disturbing predicament. Nathan Ruyle’s erratic music delivers what must be described as a soundscape rather than a traditional score, with collusive sound effects and tones driving our certainty that Julia is onto something. Along with Marco Rosas’ discordant editing, Goldman’s technical approach effectively reflects Julia’s fragmented, sleep-deprived mind. But his work as a writer hasn’t done enough to justify this level of technique. 

After Julia makes a revelatory discovery that small cameras have been embedded in the products from those mysterious packages, the eventual explanation about what has been happening and why strains logic and underwhelms. It also raises even more unanswered questions. Although well-made and acted—Lower and Seehorn should be on track to movie stardom—Goldman’s script could have used another draft to better work through what unfolds. Sender doesn’t give us enough of its characters’ inner lives beyond the situation at hand, so Julia, Charlie, Tatiana, and Whitney feel like devices in a scenario rather than well-drawn human beings. Even so, Goldman fills his film with deeply broken people who try to gain control of their lives by controlling others, exposing and preying on their weaknesses. Despite the material’s potential resonance, Goldman’s style is overpowering. Still, his kernel of an idea and the way he explores it demonstrate his clear skill, and for much of Sender, its sheer oddball energy earns admiration.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending