Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2019 November 24

= November 24 =

Disney+
Would it make sense for Disney to stop releasing their new movies in the theaters to focus on an early release on Disney+? Ericdec85 (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It might, or it might not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That answer was useless. -- Ericdec85 11:40, 25 November 2019‎ (UTC)
 * You got something better? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your question asks for opinions, which we're not supposed to do here. Whatever you think of Disney, there is 100% agreement that they know how to make money; you can rest assured that they'll do whatever they think will help them do that. But consider this: their movies have high replay value (as you can see by their DVD/BD sales), so there would seem to be little to gain by not having films release to theatres and then grabbing the replay dollars via Disney+ (while still grabbing some via physical media sales due to their continued use of the dreaded Disney vault). Matt Deres (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oscars
I am a big fan of films, and would like to know where to get the best Oscar predictions. Who has, historically, been the best at predicting Oscar winners and nominations?68.129.97.180 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

YouTube rumors
I was watching some videos on YouTube. There were quite a few indicating it'll be history in 2020. Are any of them true or are they rumors?2604:2000:1281:4B3:54E4:510A:625:39E2 (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the exact wording? Or can you post an example? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some channels which were intended to make money for their creators haven't been making enough. (Mine wasn't intended to make money.) There are also rumors people plan to storm the YouTube headquarters. Their intentions are to prevent the company from demonetizing some stuff.2604:2000:1281:4B3:54E4:510A:625:39E2 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you get this story of someone "storming the YouTube headquarters"? Is that the same source that talked about storming Area 51? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's on the internet so it must be true. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe this stems in part from YouTube saying something along the lines of if you get a certain number of subscribers you will get paid X. However they are now saying that if you simply re-post other people's material without substantially changing this or adding to it, you will not get paid. This has caused many popular channels to no longer be economically viable. I doubt any action will be taken against YouTube but suspect that many will move to Patreon. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure YouTube has never paid people simply for having a high subscriber count, at least not in a consistent fashion. Youtube only ever pays people for ad views on their videos, along with whatever they do for Youtube Red or whatever the heck it's called now, and channel membership. You do need to meet some subscriber and other requirements to become a partner so you can even be eligible for payment/monetisation [//support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851], but that's a different point. Likewise creating content for Youtube Red also requires Youtube/Google to let you. And being able to join the channel membership programme has its own requirements [//support.google.com/youtube/answer/7636690]. The last is I guess the closest thing to being paid simply for having subscribers (and on Twitch etc they tend to be called subscriptions), but in this case people are paying Youtube to pay the person, it's not really that different from Patreon except may with different eligibility requirements and features. Youtube can and does change their rules for joining and staying in the partner programme (and other programmes), as well the which videos are eligible for monetisation etc. And this can have quite a significant effect on those relying on them. But again, this isn't the same thing as Youtube promosing to pay people simply for having subscribers. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think Anton's comment may be some further confusion over [//9to5google.com/2019/11/11/youtube-terminate-channels-not-commercially-viable/]. I'd note that according to that source, it was simply some confusion over an update T&C. And second, even if Youtube did start to regularly terminate channels for not being "commercially viable" it doesn't change the fact channels only got paid for ad views etc on their videos rather than simply for having a certain number of subscribers. As I said above, joining the partner programme is only the start of the monetisation process. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, my channel on YouTube wasn't intended to make money. I joined to explore and be creative, that's it.2604:2000:1281:4B3:68CD:3578:16B:24DB (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So are you going to be among those "storming the headquarters"? The building seems to have fairly narrow entrances, so you might have to storm it in shifts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm in New York. YouTube headquarters is in the San Francisco Bay Area.2604:2000:1281:4B3:5509:1B0A:1E61:D8E3 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well regardless of all this, AFAICT, the storming stuff arises from similar confusion to Anton although I assume most of those who were concerned did at least somewhat understand how monetisation worked. May I suggest that if anyone is still concerned even after the clarification, and still talking about storming Youtube's headquarters let alone nonsense like Youtube being dead in 2020, perhaps they aren't worth watching except for comedic relief? Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)