Why Removed HBO Max Originals Return in Other Formats

A Guide to which works are available, where, and why

Oct 06, 2023

Earlier this year, Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies was removed from its home on the Paramount Plus streaming platform. The sudden yanking of the show, which came on the heels of its cancellation, prompted showrunner Annabel Oakes to proclaim in a widely quoted, yet later deleted, Instagram post (courtesy of Digital Spy):

“…unless it finds a new home you will no longer be able to watch it anywhere… The cast, my creative partners, and I are all devastated at the complete erasure of our show.”

Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The event appeared to be yet another instance of “Streaming Originals” - shows and movies developed specifically for streaming platforms like Netflix, Max, Peacock, etc - being erased, a process that began back in July 2022, when Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) began purging content from HBO Max.

But just a month later, Grease was suddenly back on video, courtesy of Paramount Plus’ sister company Paramount Home Entertainment. Viewers could now purchase either individual episodes or the entire season on Apple TV and other digital retailers. Moreover, it would get a physical DVD release later on November 7, with a bonus feature or two to boot. Curiously, however, its return received very little coverage in the mainstream entertainment press, especially compared to that of its ‘erasure.’

I bring all this up, as it is a perfect example of a general tendency in media articles and think-pieces to prematurely declare works removed from Streaming Platforms ‘erased,’ ‘deleted,’ or ‘vanished,’ while largely ignoring their current availability in other formats or not commenting on their later reissuing. As a whole, this has the effect of misleading the public about the true significance of a Streaming Original’s removal, and its larger industrial, historical, and cultural impact.

The fact is that a work removed from a Streaming Platform does not automatically vanish forever. Even if it’s not already available, it is more likely to soon be reissued on another platform than locked away in a vault to never be seen again. To illustrate this, I will first explain what exactly a ‘Streaming Original’ really is and how many different types of Originals exist. I will then discuss what the removal of a Streaming Original can actually do its distribution and accessibility.

Next, I will provide tables that track the availability of the HBO Max Originals that were removed from July to December 2022, which includes 48 Original TV Series, 7 Original Films, and 2 TV Specials. Among other things, I will show which of these works are still available and where to find them. Finally, I will explain why Removed Streaming Originals are reissued, and offer thoughts on what this means for the future of streaming platforms, as well as the film and television industries.*

* Please note that my study specifically covers Streaming Originals. This means that my findings do not necessarily apply to other works removed from HBO Max, such as archival Warner Bros. titles from HBO, TBS, TNT, etc.. It also does not take into consideration works that were commissioned by Max only to be canceled prior to their completion or arrival on the platform, such as in the case of the unfinished Batgirl movie.

Contents

The Different Types of Streaming Originals

The term ‘streaming original’ refers to any work, be it a film, TV series, or special that has ever been branded as such by a contemporary streaming video-on-demand service platform, such as Netflix, Apple TV Plus, Max, etc. Shows like Orange is the New Black, Ted Lasso, or Love Life are all Streaming Originals of their respective platforms.

As a rule, a streaming platform primarily serves as a second-run market for pre-existing film and television content.* Companies like Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal and Paramount leverage their extensive libraries or catalogs to fill their respective platforms with works that subscribers can watch on demand. The “Streaming Original” designation thus came to distinguish the newer, never-before-seen works from library titles that had been re-released on the Streamer.

*The obvious exception to this is Apple TV Plus, which at the moment offers nothing but original titles.

Consequently, the branding fosters the impression that the work in question is made by the streamer for the streamer. As in, the streaming platform should own it and/or carry the exclusive right to show it. These characteristics reflect its purpose, which is to basically attract new paying subscribers while simultaneously retaining current ones, thereby increasing the overall revenue generated by the platform.*

*Arguably, the thinking is that giving the consumer access to a lot of old movies and TV shows from a media company’s archives simply isn’t enough. Even if one refreshes the library with new stuff, the viewers continuously need to get new original stuff that is ONLY available on the Streamer to keep them glued to the Streamer. And this tremendously benefits the streamer, who in owning the Original-Exclusive-Content makes more money.

In theory, this is all quite simple. In practice, however, it is more complicated. The fact is, there are at least three different kinds of Streaming Originals, and each has somewhat different relationships with the streamer in terms of production, distribution, ownership, and monetization.

Acquired Originals (Acquisitions)

**Screencap:** from *Orange is the New Black*. Image courtesy of Lionsgate Television and Netflix.

Perhaps the most common type of Streaming Original, an “acquisition” (or as I like to call it, an “Acquired Original”) is a work that the Streamer had commissioned another company/studio to produce for it or a wholly finished work that ends up premiering on the Streamer. Either way, the Streamer or, more accurately, its parent company does not own the Original, but only exclusively distributes/exhibits it by paying a licensing fee (and sometimes possibly the production fee) to the actual owner, which is the studio or company that had produced it. So, even though the work may be produced specifically for the Streamer, it is not produced by the Streamer.

Most Netflix Originals, for instance, are (or at least used to be) acquisitions from other studios. House of Cards was licensed from Media Rights Capital (MRC), while Orange is the New Black was licensed from Lionsgate Television. In 2019, it was estimated that Netflix actually owned less than 10% of its original content.*

*Those stats have likely changed since then, especially since Netflix has been building up its in-house production capabilities by purchasing studio space in New Mexico and New Jersey.

An acquired Streaming Original cannot be streamed in perpetuity as the licensing agreement between the Streamer and the Producer lasts for a finite amount of time, typically a few years. When it reaches its expiration date, the Streamer and Producer can renegotiate and renew the deal. But should the deal lapse, the Streaming Original then must leave the Streamer and rights to it revert to the Producer, who then has the option of finding it a new exhibition venue.*

*Despite being Netflix Originals, a number of MCU-related shows (eg. Daredevil, Jessica Jones, etc.) that had been produced by Disney were later taken off Netflix. Disney did not renew their licensing agreements with Netflix to move these shows over to their own platform.

Moreover, in such cases, the owner also usually holds onto a lot of rights related to the ancillary releases of the Original, such as home video and syndication. This is a key reason why you can, in fact, find a LOT of Netflix Originals on video. Particularly illustrative here is this quote from a Variety article about Ted Sarandos at the time Netflix had sealed the $100 million deal for two House of Cards seasons with MRC:

“Sarandos also emphasized that the deal does not put Netflix in the original programming business because the company doesn’t produce the show or invest in development; those responsibilities remain with MRC, which also holds onto rights for syndication, home video and international sales. As Sarandos sees it, the company is essentially acquiring rights to content just as it does any other library film or TV show — only in this case the assets don’t exist yet.…”

House Originals

House Originals are basically the opposite of acquisitions.

In this case, one branch or division of the company produces the show, while another branch of the same company distributes it, with the work remaining wholly in-house.* This means the same parent company both owns the Original and has the exclusive right to distribute it. (Even if a work is a co-production with another studio or production company, it still qualifies as a ‘House Original.’) Because of this, there are theoretically no limits as to how long it could be streamed.

*For example, Paramount Television Studios produced Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies, while Paramount Plus streamed it. Interestingly enough, the series was originally produced for HBO Max before coming to Paramount Plus due to Max dropping it.

In such cases the Streaming Platform still has to pay a licensing fee to the production studio even though they are parts of the same company. Regardless, the House Original is the one that a Streamer’s Parent Company has the most control over. It owns all the rights to its distribution on Streaming and in ancillary markets (eg. home video) and so is entitled to all revenues from it.

Co-Originals

“Co-Originals” is a broad category that refers to instances when the Streaming Platform has a semi-exclusive license that allows it to distribute a given work only in select territories. Because of this, the work may be labeled as a “Streaming Original” in some countries or markets and not in others or can be considered even a different company’s Original, if another streaming platform has the exclusive license in a specific territory. Consequently, whether or not a given work constitutes a “Streaming Original” can depend on when and where it premieres.*

* Even if a work is co-produced by the Streamer and/or its affiliate companies, yet distributed in some areas by a different company, then it is a Co-Original. The Streamer may be one of several ‘owners’ of the property yet not exclusively or entirely its distributor. The distinctions between the categories, however, are not always clear-cut. Sometimes an Original might start out as in the ‘House’ or ‘Acquired’ category, only for the Streamer to later sell licenses to a local distributor. Love Life, for example, was licensed to Canadian Streamer Crave, yet retained its status and branding as an “HBO Max Original.”

In many cases, the Original is produced or co-produced by a foreign company and so in turn distributed by it in international (non-US) markets, such as Europe or Canada. The general producer/licensor-distributor/licensee relationships outlined previously should apply here as well, though the specific details of who produces the work and who distributes or licenses it can differ from project to project.

Some examples:

The Good Place, a US series that premiered and aired on NBC, is a “Netflix Original” in countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia.
The Tourist, a BBC/Max co-produced series, premiered on the BBC One network in the UK in January 2022 (and later streamed on I-Player) before premiering in the US on WBD’s Max as a “Max Original.”
WBD’s Titans premiered in the US on the now defunct DC Universe streaming service, but was released as a “Netflix Original” overseas. By its fourth season, it was still a “Netflix Original” internationally, but a “Max Original” in the US.

Of course, there are many potential variations and permutations across all three categories, with the specifics of distribution, monetization and ownership depending on the specific terms and provisions of a given work’s deal. All these factors can impact what happens to an Original when it’s removed from Streaming.

*Titans* Season 2 international poster. Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Discovery.

What Removal Actually Means

From the perspective of the subscriber, when a Streaming Original is removed, there is a loss of access to the work and with that a diminishment of the streaming service’s value. Quite simply, we are no longer getting quite the same bang for our buck. The volume of content we can watch on demand has become smaller, but the price we pay for the service remains the same.

From the perspective of the Originals themselves, there is a loss of distribution and thus exhibition. What this usually translates to in practical terms is a termination by the Streaming Platform of the licensing agreements, deals, and contracts that allowed the Original to be streamed by the service and so to be defined as an “Original” in the first place. In effect, following removal, the work tends to lose its “Streaming Original” branding and identity.

Unless the licensing deal signed by Producer/Licensor and Distributor/Licensee had been really short and the Streamer just allowed it to lapse before removing the Original, the Distributor is basically pulling the plug on the lease prematurely, which means it may very well be in violation of the original terms it had agreed to when it signed the contract. Now, I say, may be in violation, as licensing deals for streaming could carry provisions that authorize the Streaming Platform to pull the work “at any time for whatever reason,” as a Netflix movie contract demonstrates.

Still, even in such situations, it is likely the Licensee’s decision to pull the Original early would in turn lead the Licensor/Owner to terminate the agreement. So, some form of contract termination is essentially guaranteed. However, this does not necessarily result in the the work becoming completely unavailable.

It is not that uncommon for Streaming Originals to be released on other formats such as cable or video while still remaining available on a service. Thus, when the Original is pulled from streaming, it can remain accessible via those formats.
If the Streaming Original has from the outset different licensing agreements in different markets, then getting pulled from the Streamer only impacts its availability in select territories. This is typically the case with Co-Originals.
If the Streaming Original was only available on its respective service and nowhere else, its removal results in the work becoming completely inaccessible to the public. In this case, it might be valid to claim that it is erased. At the same time, however, there is always the possibility of it being reissued, meaning that its erasure is not necessarily permanent. This depends on whether or not the Owner secures for it a new licensing agreement and/or distribution deal.

Case Study: WBD’s Max (aka HBO Max)

Since July 2022, WBD removed 48 Original TV Series, 7 Original Films, and 2 TV Specials from (HBO) Max. The following tables compile information about which removed Max Originals were available on alternate formats at the time of removal, which were reissued or recovered post-removal, and which are still not available.

 Notes and Abbreviations

SkyShowtime is a European SVOD (Streaming Video On Demand) Service. This means that like Max, Apple TV+ etc., it allows one to choose what they want to see on demand in exchange for a paid subscription.
ROKU and TUBI by default are linear FAST (Free Advertising-Supported Streaming Television) Services, meaning users cannot choose what they watch and when, similar to a television network. However, they can also have AVOD (Advertising-Video-On-Demand) options, which allow users to pick what they want to watch with commercials.
“Other Digital” refers to digital TVOD (Transaction-Video-on-demand) retailers in addition to Apple TV and Amazon, such as VUDU, YouTube, and Google Play, which allow you to purchase individual film and television titles online.
‘MOD’ means “Manufacture on Demand,” a system wherein a product, such as a DVD, is made specifically when ordered by a buyer
I’ve strived to make the information in these tables as accurate as possible but there is always the possibility that some details may have been overlooked. If I later locate any errors, I will make the necessary corrections.

Tables

1. All Removed Max TV Originals Available In Other Formats

2. Pre-Removal: Max TV Originals Reissued In Other Formats

3. Post-Removal: Max TV Originals Reissued In Other Formats

4. Removed Max TV Originals Still Unavailable

5. Removed Max Original Movies and Specials

Statistics and Findings

Of the 48 Removed TV Originals, the Most Commonly Removed Shows are Unscripted (15), Animated (8), Comedies (7), and Foreign (15). The ‘Foreign’ category includes an unscripted foreign series and 3 animated foreign series.
Of the 48 Removed TV Originals, there are 22 Acquired Originals, 17 House Originals, and 9 Co-Originals.
As of October 2023, 30 Removed Original Series are currently available in other formats (about 62.5 percent), while 18 are still unavailable.
The 30 available series break down into 12 House Originals, 9 Acquired Originals, and 9 Co-Originals. 18 of them can be found on video. The ones most commonly available in other formats are animated and scripted foreign programs.
Of the 18 unavailable series, 11 are unscripted (63.2%), and 7 are scripted (36.8%).
Of the 7 unavailable scripted series, at least 3 are acquisitions that were reported as being shopped to other distributors.
Of the 7 Original Films, 6 were reissued on Home Video formats, with 5 getting physical MOD DVD releases. Also notable is that the Original Films have a greater degree of availability on video in international markets, especially the UK, rather than in the domestic US market.

Inferences About Post-Removal Reissues

It wasn’t until January 2023, almost six months after the initial round of HBO Max content removal took place that the post-removal reissues began in earnest, with foreign-language Original content going to SkyShowtime in Europe on January 10, and English-language content arriving on FAST channels in the US on January 31.

This is illustrative of the fact that new distribution deals for ex-Originals need time to close, meaning a removed Original may spend some time in limbo before returning. Some works, however, are able to return sooner than others. New deals to reissue House Originals can be made relatively quickly, as the streaming rights for the produced works revert to another branch of the Streamer’s Parent Company.

Acquired originals, by contrast, typically require more time, as the Owner and distributor are separate entities. The onus in such cases to return the Original into circulation is on the Licensors/Owners, who usually regain the streaming rights and possible other distribution rights when the licensing agreement is terminated.

It is common for the owners to strike new licensing deals with other outlets, be it for streaming or otherwise, rather than continue working with the initial distributor. This is why you hear news about certain series, such as Gordita Chronicles and Made for Love, being ‘shopped’ to other streaming services or in search of ‘a new home.’

However, the Streamer and its Parent Company can also work out new deals either before or after the removal with the Owner of the Acquired Original, continuing their partnership. This is why a number of former Max Acquisitions, such as Raised by Wolves, reappeared on WBD’s ROKU and TUBI Channels.

Particularly insightful about the nature of these licensing complications is a Deadline article that revealed Warner was in talks about licensing cancelled and removed series (from both HBO and Max) to the FAST platforms in December 2022.

“The company is taking these shows, most of which were previously known to be canceled (only Finding Magic Mike is newly scrapped), off the platform and instead put together a package of shows to license to third-party FAST channels. While many of these shows are produced by other studios including the likes of Scout Productions and STX, sources said that arrangements have been made even if complete deals haven’t closed.
Westworld, the Warner Bros TV-produced series that Deadline revealed was being lined up for free streaming, is also among this list of shows, alongside The Nevers. Meanwhile, the rights to Gordita Chronicles, Love Life, Made For Love, The Garcias and Minx, which have been canceled, are reverting to the producers and studios behind them. The company said that it is speaking with studio partners about opportunities to “further expand the reach of the shows, including but not limited to licensing the series to third-party FAST platforms”.

At this point, WBD had already worked things out with some Licensed Original Crea-tors and was still negotiating with others. It’s possible then that a deal could’ve been reached with the producers of Gordita Chronicles, Love Life, and other Acquired Originals, allowing them to also reappear on ROKU and TUBI as WBD programming.

**Screencap:** Gordita Chronicles remains in limbo, but Sony Pictures Television could very well find a new home for it in the future. Image courtesy of Sony.

From all this, we can infer that many early claims pertaining to the erasure of Original Max Streaming content were exaggerated.

As Tables 1-3 illustrate, many removed TV Originals were already available in other formats prior to their removal from Max, while multiple others became available after. Figure 5 similarly points to how all removed scripted Max Original Films have received some sort of video release and so did not completely vanish.

Admittedly, there is no guarantee that everything will return. Going by Table 6, the Max Originals most at risk of prolonged or permanent erasure at the moment are ‘unscripted’ works, such as reality shows and documentaries. They compose nearly two thirds of Unavailable Originals and are not, to my knowledge, being shopped around to other distributors, unlike several of the scripted unavailable series.*

* Given the dearth of new content that is going to occur in 2024 due to the Writer’s Strike and the Actor Strike, it’s not unforeseeable though that a new demand for these and other removed unscripted works will arise, creating an opportunity for their repurposing.

Nonetheless, it is fact that much of the Removed Max Original Content has been commercially repurposed before or after removal, with works appearing or re-appearing on FAST outlets (Roku and Tubi), network television channels affiliated with or owned by WBD (CW, TBS, TNT), digital home video platforms (Amazon and Apple), physical video platforms (DVD and Blu-Ray), or foreign subscription-based Streamers like SkyShowtime and Crave.

Clearly then, WBD didn’t remove so many Streaming Originals just to let them rot away on some digital shelf or banish them forever into its archives. But If WBD wanted to continue commercially exploiting these Originals, why remove them from Max at all? Why ‘erase’ them from streaming, only to keep them around or reissue them later on other formats? I’d say there are three-four potential reasons.

Why Originals Are Removed and Repurposed

 Cost Savings

Look around the web for an answer to the question of why exactly legacy media stu-dios like WBD are removing Originals (not to mention other works) from streaming and you’ll get a lot of really similar responses, with slightly different emphases. Some say the main concern of WBD et al. is to avoid paying residuals to cast and crew. Others claim it’s about saving on the licensing fees, even when it comes to House Originals.* Then, there are proponents of the idea that it all really comes down to the tax write-off or ‘impairment charge’ that residuals and license fees contribute to.1

*I cannot fully confirm this at the moment, but the way I understand it, the Streamer and the Owner typically sign a multi-year licensing contract, yet the Streamer doesn’t pay everything upfront. Instead, he pays the Owner on a year-by-year basis. By terminating the agreement early then, the Streamer saves money on all the remaining unused years of the license. However, the Streamer then has to pay an early termination charge to compensate the Licensor for backing out prematurely. Eg. Terminating after only 1 year has passed on a 10-year license gives you 9 years of savings minus the termination charge.

The overall impression this creates is that the rationale behind the mass removals ultimately boils down to cost-saving: studios have figured out that streaming isn’t all that profitable really, and now after all the profligate spending of the past several years, they have to suddenly SAVE, SAVE, SAVE by removing and writing off the stuff that they believe isn’t really that valuable.

In my mind, this conclusion is not entirely correct. For certain, mass cost saving is certainly a crucial factor here but it should not be considered in isolation from the others, especially from the performance of the Original for the Streamer.

(Relatively) Poor Streaming Performance

“This isn’t a tax write-off. Rather, it’s about the cost of carrying those titles compared to the value they brought to the service… If engagement suffers, perceived value declines, and churn increases. The dilemma is particularly acute at Warner Bros. Discovery, which is about to merge two massive catalogs—HBO Max and Discovery+—while trying not to disrupt the average user experience. That means eliminating shows with low engagement, that are costly to carry relative to their engagement value, and which would otherwise be buried in the merger.
Source: Julia Alexander (Parrot Analytics), Aug 22 2022, “Zaslav’s Disappearing Act”

To reiterate what had been established earlier, the goal of a Streaming Original is to basically attract new paying subscribers and/or help keep current ones from unsub-scribing. It follows that the more paying subscribers a Streaming Original helps the platform gain and/or retain, the more successful and valuable it is to the Streamer.

Its removal then can be taken to mean that the Original in question has not succes-sfully achieved its goals and that, by whatever metrics WBD uses to determine value, the Original’s value contribution relative to the expenses of producing, hosting, or licensing it has not been enough to justify keeping it on.

Now, how exactly streaming services determine the specific value of a work tends to be rather complicated and opaque, especially as media companies keep a lot of their viewing and engagement data close to the vest. One thing, however, that I’ve been able to gather from reading multiple sources on the matter is that many of the removed Originals apparently did not have high viewership.

Of course, viewership is not the only metric that determines engagement value when it comes to streaming, but it’s probably safe to conclude that if nobody is watching your show, it’s not really helping to drive new subscriptions or retain existing ones. From this perspective, the Original is removed because it’s not pulling its weight.

Better Revenue Opportunities on Other Platforms

Finally, a Streaming Original might also be removed is because the owners of the Streamer have calculated that it can be comparatively more profitable to release it elsewhere. Each new format, platform, or venue provides potential access to new audiences plus additional, sometimes more direct ways of monetizing the work.*

*For instance, you can take the number of physical or digital video copies a film or show sells, and multiply that by each copy’s price to calculate the approximate revenue it has generated. Subtract the expenditures from that, and you might either get a profit or loss.

Ancillary revenues generated by video sales, TV broadcasts, fees from licensing out content to another streaming service, etc. can surpass that of the initial release and so offer a better return on investment. Consequently, a low-performing Streaming Original might find success upon reissue.

In some cases, the removal may be a prerequisite to reissuing the Original, meaning it may not be possible to exhibit the work simultaneously on the Initial Streamer and in another format due to the conditions of the initial licensing agreement.

For example, if WBD originally streamed a Max Original under an exclusive licensing deal, then logically it would need to terminate that deal and remove the work from Max before being able to send it to another Streamer, be it an SVOD platform like Netflix, or a FAST platform like ROKU, for exhibition.*

* An article by Matthew Belloni for Puck indicates that if a company like Disney takes an impairment charge after removing a Streaming Original from its Streamer, then it can’t put it back on the initial streamer, at least the duration of the ‘impairment.’

Formerly a Cartoon Network series, *Infinity Train* was rebranded as a Max Original for its final two seasons. Though pulled from Max, it remained on video. Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Even when this is not the case, the initial removal may still be deemed necessary, as it can bolster the commercial prospects of a work in a new market or on alternate format(s). A textbook case is that of Infinity Train.

When the animated series was pulled from Max, its sales on digital video platforms (where it was already available) skyrocketed, leading to it becoming a top seller on Apple TV. It’s not impossible then that some of the WBD removals may have been intended to artificially drive up the ancillary sales of the Originals.

Any combination of the above

I feel I must repeat that none of the reasons listed above are necessarily solely respon-sible for removal and reissuing of a specific work. Rather, it is some combination of factors that drove the HBO Max purges. Overall then, the removal of multiple Max Originals can be said to reflect a desire on the part of WBD to both save money on streaming and make money off-streaming, to minimize losses and maximize revenues.

Assuming other legacy companies like Disney and Paramount are following WBD’s example, this rationale can attributed to them as well. As a result, the Streaming Service is becoming increasingly similar to a classic broadcast television network: it will hold onto your work as long as it performs well, while reserving the right to suddenly cancel it and then send it for reruns elsewhere when it doesn’t.

Conclusions

The removal and reissuing of HBO Max Originals, coupled with the recent pruning performed by Paramount Plus and Disney suggests that the relative importance of a Streaming Original in the content hierarchy is diminishing. Originals are becoming less and less bound by platform exclusivity, with studios treating them not as brand-defining paywalled content that helps sell the service but more as regular content that can be moved, sold, shared, or reissued.

In and of itself, I wouldn’t see this as necessarily a bad thing, as it means that some Streaming Originals may actually become more accessible than before. For example, Disney+ Originals (eg. The Mandalorian and Loki) used to be impossible to watch outside the streamer’s paywall. But in the face of diminishing subscriber numbers and massive overspending on content production, Disney has chosen to finally start releasing them on home video, even as they also remain available on streaming.*

* This can also be taken as a sign that the currently unavailable works like Willow will likely be reissued on video or another platform in the near future. It would only make logical sense for the company to do this, assuming it wants to increase its revenue streams.

More interesting is that this points to a larger shift by the legacy media companies (WBD, Disney, Paramount, NBC) away from the policy of content hoarding that defined the 5 years or so before the Max Streaming Purge of 2022.

By increasingly centralizing their film and television works on Streaming Platforms in a failed bid to emulate the success of Netflix, studios had turned away from the tried-and-proven monetization systems that saw works dispersed and repurposed across multiple exhibition windows, platforms, markets, and formats. Now, they appear to be re-embracing them, which means that for a little while at least, streaming platforms will be de-emphasized and content hoarding will give way to content sharing.

But what do you think? 

Were the claims of erasure exaggerated? Will the unavailable Max reality shows make a comeback or remain permanently inaccessible? 

Did you find the tables helpful or informative? And do you also think Disney will bring its removed Originals or other works back in some way? 
Any info you’d like me to correct? Please,

Textual Variations

Discussion about this post