Amazon tends to beat the creative parts out of the companies they buy. I bet it's related to the financial efficiencies they apply to them. Creativity is expensive without any guaranteed return.<p>Most of the new prime video content, that I've seen, seems to have a very safe tone to it. Yes, it's new but it's safe. No one will be surprised or insulted by it. It starts to get boring very quickly.<p>As new owners, I hope they don't have such a hard hand that they ruin the brand.
I just want Jeff bezos to save Stargate like he saved the expanse. I can only hope that Amazon will protect The Stargate franchise from coming to the same fate as Star wars and Star trek.
What I don't understand is why Netflix hasn't been doing this already – use their vast wealth to buy some legacy entertainment companies. Gives you both the opportunity to get their legacy content library into your streaming service, and also existing stories to use as a basis for new content (Disney seems to be pretty good at doing the later recently)
> Amazon.com Inc. is nearing a deal to buy the Hollywood studio MGM Holdings for almost $9 billion including debt, said people familiar with the matter, a pact that would turn a film operation founded in the silent era into a streaming asset for the e-commerce giant.<p>What surprises me is that at $9 Billion, why hasn’t it been acquired by now?<p>Right now, video streaming is pretty much a solved problem, and it is content that differentiates one service from another.<p>If you are an Internet giant, $9 Billion seems like a pocket change to get access to a huge catalog.
What does Amazon get if they buy a Hollywood studio, besides the content library? Is MGM just a holder of copyright for various popular franchises or does the company actually make things?
Previous discussion from when it was reportedly rather than near: "Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B" <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194167" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194167</a>