ListNook

TheeAmateurArtist Apr 18, 2026 +616

Hulu could've had it all🙄

616

FX114 Apr 18, 2026 +328

My empire of dirt

328

NonnoBomba Apr 18, 2026 +8

I will let you down

8

WintersDoomsday Apr 18, 2026 +31

Cash or Reznor

31

Nujers Apr 18, 2026 +44

Why not both

44

EmpireStatePhotoDept Apr 18, 2026 -17

Because Reznor is streets ahead

-17

Hairy-Summer7386 Apr 18, 2026 +20

Get out of here Pierce. It’ll never catch on.

20

sunflower_love Apr 19, 2026 +4

I’d think more people would get your Community reference. Folks here must be streets behind.

4

SkivvySkidmarks Apr 18, 2026 +9

When Trent Reznor first saw Johnny Cash’s cover of “Hurt”, he said: “That song isn’t mine anymore.”

9

foraday Apr 18, 2026 +3

Damn. Just wait until he hears it.

3

grachi Apr 18, 2026 +2

Reznor, cause he wrote it

2

Gym_Dom 6 days ago +2

Cash, because he lived it

2

mininestime Apr 18, 2026 +3

Cash only because I dislike the harsh guitar ending on Reznor. Its too jarring for the end to the song.

3

Operation_Neither Apr 18, 2026 +4

Even Reznor says it’s Cash’s song now

4

ModeatelyIndependant 6 days ago +1

[Bowie ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhhEHuChFck)

1

Turbulent_Tale6497 Apr 18, 2026 +7

Just like Buffy and Bacall?

7

Bobby837 Apr 18, 2026 +2

Don't they? Or you mean the difference between a special that could lead to a new Malcom series, or the direct attempt at a Buffy sequel series that's died at pilot, for which the makers of don't want people talk about much less actually read? Cause they aren't the same.

2

calvinwho Apr 18, 2026 +2

Love that y'all broke out in song, but it's the only streaming service I've used consistently in some fashion (used to have free stuff) since it came out. They had the world and decided to spin it apart for short term profits.

2

ToonMasterRace Apr 18, 2026

Disney killed it to maintain Disney+. Basically Hulu absorbed Disney+ but kept the name of its new parasite

0

vocal-avocado Apr 18, 2026 +262

I’m watching Buffy and Angel for the first time and having a blast. Both shows are really fun.

262

OnTheFenceGuy Apr 18, 2026 +108

If you can manage to watch them so they chronologically match up, it’s a really cool ride.

108

SomeNoveltyAccount Apr 18, 2026 +82

Here's a good source for the correct viewing order by episode. https://josswhedon.blogspot.com/2012/04/buffy-and-angel-episode-viewing-order.html?m=1

82

JasonQG Apr 18, 2026 +26

To clarify, this isn’t actually the aired order. Some creative liberties have been made to this order. For the first two seasons of crossovers (Buffy seasons 4&5, and Angel seasons 1&2), the aired order is just alternating episodes with Buffy first. It gets more complicated after that when Buffy changed networks, and their hiatuses no longer matched up

26

powerlesshero111 Apr 18, 2026 +27

I'm a little jealous that you get to watch them for the first time. Fyi, I'm sorry when you get to "The Body".

27

shadrap Apr 18, 2026 +35

And so happy for you when you get to the musical.

35

JohnGillnitz Apr 18, 2026 +16

Best episode of TV ever. And I hate musicals.

16

BlessdRTheFreaks Apr 18, 2026 +6

And so sorry when you get to Hole In the World

6

Zestyclose-Novel1157 Apr 18, 2026 +9

It’s so funny because I never got into Buffy but absolutely love Angel.

9

vocal-avocado Apr 18, 2026 +23

They are actually very different shows.

23

an0nemusThrowMe Apr 18, 2026 +12

I think the BEST Buffy episodes are probably a bit better than the BEST Angel episodes. Overall, I prefer Angel over Buffy. (no, not like that....)

12

WhyTheMahoska Apr 18, 2026 +7

Buffy is consistently a much better show, but Angel S5 might be the best season of either series

7

an0nemusThrowMe Apr 19, 2026 +3

I found seasons 6 and 7 of buffy a slog to get through. They had some amazing episodes along the way though.

3

Eighth_Eve 6 days ago +1

After she kills gods what is left?

1

OnTheFenceGuy 6 days ago +3

Interestingly, I believe the exact opposite. Buffy was a much more “even” show that continuously put out good content. Angel was the opposite: a lot of bleh with an occasional episode that coupe easily fall into my top 10 tv episodes of all time. Although, the body and once more with feeling are both goated, as well.

3

Zitter_Aalex Apr 19, 2026 +2

Catching up to old shows over the recent years too. Crazy how much stuff got butchered for weekly releases, stick to 20-25/45 minute windows etc. but it’s great that there are so many episodes because channels needed content for months not 8 weeks weekly releases + year long reruns

2

vocal-avocado 6 days ago +1

Yeah although this also caused a ton of bad “filler”episodes that feel like a waste of time.

1

Sad_Locksmith_2904 5 days ago +3

Same but with Malcolm in the Middle. Didn’t watch it when it first aired, very pleasantly surprised how well the comedy holds up.

3

vocal-avocado 5 days ago +1

It’s superbly written. One of my all time favourites for sure.

1

TylerBourbon Apr 18, 2026 +231

And sadly i'm sure the casts of both shows have been screwed out of any residuals from that streaming revenue.

231

SalvaPot Apr 18, 2026 +160

They did, Reese's actor confirmed it.

160

KumagawaUshio Apr 18, 2026 +8

Revenue isn't profit, revenue is sales before all the costs you know running a streaming service which is incredibly expensive it's why they took so long to make any profit. Every time a subscriber watches a show on Disney+ it costs Disney in CDN (Content Delivery Network) fees which are not a fixed cost they charge based on gigabytes delivered. It's why Netflix makes so much more profit than the legacy media companies in streaming, Netflix built their own global CDN network so they wouldn't have to pay third party CDN's which legacy media companies have not done.

8

bannedagainomg Apr 18, 2026 +42

Same deals that they had with cable do not work on streaming tho, with cable whoever ran the episodes sold at least 3 ad spots an episode, ads before during and after with streaming its just whatever the users pay for the subscription Also doubt the numbers here are anywhere close, its an estimate by a 3rd party and they would have no way to know if that user subbed purely for scrubs for example. And the demo estimate is purely based on social media interactions.

42

TheCaliKid89 Apr 18, 2026 +17

Then it sounds like streaming services aren’t actually viable businesses if they can’t steal from the people who make the products they’re based on.

17

Ragamuffin_Raine 6 days ago +6

They aren't. Streaming or the way it's currently being implemented has slowly been killing the industry. It uprooted many of the ways the industry made money on film and television. Turns out subscriptions fees didn't replace everything 1:1. The creatives are fucked over and every year it gets harder and harder to make a living as a writer or actor in the current ecosystem.

6

Sir_roger_rabbit Apr 18, 2026 +26

If they did I'm gonna blame thier agents as we all know the Friends cast show got paid. Then again friends bargained like a union the entire cast as one all got paid the same.

26

OnTheFenceGuy Apr 18, 2026 +57

Not to mention that Friends was one of - if not THE - biggest shows in the world for a period of time. Both of these shows are awesome, and both have a huge following, but neither cast had anywhere near the leverage the Friends cast did.

57

Divine_fashionva Apr 18, 2026 +5

It’s still massive globally which is why their annual syndication sums are so good. It’s an anomaly and not the norm

5

ibite-books Apr 18, 2026 +21

modern family cast unionized, they got paid half a mil per episode and 250k to the child actors in the later seasons

21

waltertaupe Apr 18, 2026 +14

That's uninformed and stupid. Streaming was barely a concept when these contracts got written. Blame the studios who found the loophole to exploit the cast.

14

Sir_roger_rabbit Apr 18, 2026 +1

What like friends cast knew about steaming did they..? On wait those shows was on air at the same time as friend's..

1

Courwes Apr 18, 2026 +10

Where are you getting streaming residuals for the cast? Friends is still in heavy rotation on television. That’s where their residual money is coming from.

10

waltertaupe 6 days ago +3

Friends was the biggest show on TV. Malcom In The Middle and Buffy were not. The Friends cast, quite famously, decided to renegotiate as a bloc and because of that they were able to secure backend points against the entire show. The reason they made a fortune from Friends on streaming was because they had profit participation (and that it's still in heavy rotation across the world on broadcast TV, but thats much diminished 20 years later). That negotiation was a huge move when they did it, and some ensemble shows (Big Big Theory i think most notably) have gone the same route when they reach that level of cultural impact and revenue for the network. They do not get a fraction of a fraction of a penny every time someone watches an episode. They get a defined % of the profit whenever the streaming rights are renewed. Very different.

3

we-have-to-go 6 days ago +2

Don’t forget about the crew! Give them a slice of the pie

2

Turbulent_Tale6497 Apr 18, 2026 +1

Similar story to James Van der Beek (RIP), who basically got nothing from Dawson's Creek in the end

1

TheDarkCanuck1980 Apr 18, 2026 +1

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. You’re 100% right.

1

MidwestTroy92 Apr 18, 2026 +32

Not surprised on either of those honestly. Malcolm holds up way too well and Buffy still has people arguing about episodes 20 years later.

32

hart37 Apr 18, 2026 +201

Makes the decision to scrap the Buffy continuation all the more baffling

201

egorre Apr 18, 2026 +85

if the show isn't good it could damage the brand when it's inevitably gonna get rebooted in the future

85

matroska_cat Apr 18, 2026 +32

The thing is, 'Buffy' is 30 years old and fans are not getting younger. If they wait too long, new generations of viewers won't be interested in it anymore.

32

CarlThe94Pathfinder Apr 18, 2026 +13

I have to push back, I believe Buffy is actually gaining a lot of younger fans now that had previously never seen the show before.

13

ersusdrowkcab Apr 18, 2026 +8

Am 22, can confirm lol. Asolutely love Buffy/Angel and just got into it in the past 3 years or so.

8

pepperbet1 Apr 18, 2026 +20

For this reason, the next iteration of the IP that actually makes it to screen will likely be a hard reboot - a remake of Buffy's origin - rather than a follow-up to the OG series and all the baggage that comes along with that.

20

JustDay1788 Apr 18, 2026 -2

They got a script rewrite with their concerns addressed including more Sarah to before they cancelled it

-2

Takemyfishplease Apr 18, 2026 +1

What’s the stated reason, I’m ootl

1

Koppenberg Apr 18, 2026 +1

Fans hate everything except their sepia-hued nostalgia memories.

1

babyjaceismycopilot Apr 18, 2026 +4

It's not easy to modernize a show and keep the original vibe. Scrubs being a great example of a success.

4

Purple_Compote_386 Apr 18, 2026 +1

I still can't believe they pulled it off. All the promotional material was screaming nostalgia bait, but the result is basically an organic new season, just 16 years later

1

Radix2309 Apr 18, 2026 +108

Or the pilot just wasnt what they wanted. They will probably try and workshop another one. But successful shows dont always get good spinoffs. Like Friends with Joey.

108

coatimundos Apr 18, 2026 +58

I’m not sure SMG would like to do that roller coaster again. She did a lot to promote the reboot they did not go with, gotta suck.

58

Own_Faithlessness769 Apr 18, 2026 +20

I don’t think they’ll be including her in their plans.

20

Morgan-Moonscar Apr 18, 2026 +15

When one of the supposed complaints about the pilot was that it "didn't have ENOUGH Buffy/SMG in it"... how's that gonna work?

15

Divine_fashionva Apr 18, 2026 +11

It was but because she was vocally critical of the exec, they put out several hit pieces via Variety. It’s obvious they’re not happy with SMG or Chloe Zhao Which is why I don’t think they’ll include SMG in future plans. They released a statement saying they plan on rebooting it completely in the future and they’re holding onto the IP

11

NightWriter500 Apr 18, 2026 +11

A Buffy revival without Buffy is completely DOA. Especially if she wanted to do it and they didn’t want her. They could’ve had it, and they didn’t want it. So f*** them.

11

DonquixoteDFlamingo Apr 18, 2026 +2

True but a dope writer with a vision could do another slayer show

2

cynicalmarketer Apr 18, 2026 +8

They won't need her. You know what they'll do with the next attempt.

8

toughtacos Apr 18, 2026 +19

Sydney Sweeney?

19

ShamDynasty Apr 18, 2026 +13

A god honoring stay at home slayer

13

callingallboys Apr 18, 2026 +1

Who sets up her home business on OnlyFangs

1

not1fuk Apr 18, 2026 +4

No silly. It's gonna be Jenna Ortega. Shes collecting all of the horror franchise roles.

4

Danskoesterreich Apr 18, 2026 +13

I dont even think it would be a great idea to progress Buffy where it left off. I would rather see something new within the universe, perhaps in 18th century England. Or 1960 New-York.

13

Sir_Bantersaurus Apr 18, 2026 +25

Would that work? I think a big part of the appeal of Buffy was being contemporary, set in everyday teenage American life (albeit idealised). It was relatable teenage angst, but with vampires. If it becomes a period piece, you lose the grounding with the everyday world the audience relates to. It becomes a *very* different show. A modern Buffy would have to be set in the modern day and updated to reflect modern teenage life. Social media, influencers, smartphones e.t.c.

25

MustrumRidcully0 Apr 18, 2026 +6

But maybe it would need to be a different show, because we already have Buffy - trying to do the same thing again might just be foolish. Though, honestly, I think all the ideas you could have on what a new Buffy-show could be - in the end it mostly depends on the people executing it, do they have a good vision on what stories they want to tell, and do they have the people, the budget and the freedom to deliver it. And that could be Buffy: The New Series, Buffy: The Next Generation; Buffy: Deep Space Nine; Buffy: Willow or Buffy: New York.

6

Sir_Bantersaurus Apr 18, 2026 +3

Sure, but I think that's an argument for a different IP. You're without the main characters, and now with a show that has a completely different tone from the original. Its only link would be that it is a show about vampires, but that was always the least developed part of the show. They just served as different 'big bads' as the antagonists for the Scooby Gang, whose vibes and relationships were the backbone of why people loved the show. I think you have to retain the contemporary American high school setting. It would be like if the HBO Harry Potter TV show decided to change things up and set the school years in 1980s Dallas. It just wouldn't work. The Scottish castle, UK boarding school, vibes are essential to the tone and structure of it. It's why *Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them* never felt close to the Potter films and why they tried to go back to Hogwarts in the subsequent films.

3

pensivewombat 5 days ago +1

Yeah - the core of the show is the idea that "high school is hell." It's not about fighting vampires, it's about how going through life as a teenager *feels* like you're up against a supernatural force of evil.

1

Richard_Sauce Apr 18, 2026 +5

I get what you're saying, but how would the premise even work in a modern context when everyone has cell phones/social media? There is no way a slayer could keep their identity secret, or for vampires/demons to keep their existence hidden, even with the purposeful, and comic blinders the population of Sunnydale had on.

5

Sir_Bantersaurus Apr 18, 2026 +1

You would just have to have a suspension of disbelief, eventually you might have to lean into how social media makes the slayer's life difficult.

1

Danskoesterreich Apr 18, 2026 +1

But then you have to work with the established canon from the comics. As in a global slayer army organized by buffy Summers. I think what you suggest is a reboot in a modern setting, which would also be fine, rather than a new story.

1

Perpete Apr 18, 2026 +1

Prey proved that you could a different kind of Predator movie as a piece period. Sure, it's a movie, not a TV series and a period piece TV series would cost more than contemporary, but why not. As for the continuation between Buffy and that spinoff, you would have the "young teenager doing work against (mostly) her will".

1

V48runner Apr 18, 2026 +5

> I dont even think it would be a great idea to progress Buffy where it left off. I would rather see something new within the universe, perhaps in 18th century England. Or 1960 New-York. It should be Cleveland.

5

Danskoesterreich Apr 18, 2026 +1

Why Cleveland?

1

V48runner Apr 18, 2026 +11

That's where the other hellmouth is!

11

Fabulous-Appeal-6885 Apr 18, 2026 +3

There’s other hellmouths and a map depicted mystical zones in the watchers headquarters! They should do Florida

3

Danskoesterreich Apr 18, 2026 +2

ahhh, thats perfect. but i mean you could easily argue for that there previously were other hellmouths perhaps, at other locations.

2

ClappedCheek Apr 18, 2026 +5

If a corporate studio wants a project made, its writing will not be the thing to stop it. They have proven that time and time again.

5

SureNeedleworker2363 Apr 18, 2026 +11

An exec made it clear he didn't like the SHOW itself while they were shooting it. I don't think the quality of the product had anything to do with it.

11

moderatorrater Apr 18, 2026 +4

Wasn't he a producer and fiddling with it the whole time while bragging about not liking the original?

4

SureNeedleworker2363 Apr 18, 2026 +2

Yup.

2

UNC_Samurai Apr 18, 2026 +1

Joey lasted two full seasons, that’s more than the Hulu exec was willing to give Buffy

1

Divine_fashionva Apr 18, 2026 +1

But Joey had a premise that the original Friends creators publicly hated. One of the creators signed on to write for the show, he left after a few episodes because he was unhappy with the direction they took it in Ultimately the NBC execs actually killed Joey by ignoring the creator’s advice

1

Premislaus Apr 18, 2026 +12

My guess is they wanted a legacy sequel primary with the old cast like all their other millennial continuations instead of Buffy TNG.

12

TNWhaa Apr 18, 2026 +22

Legacy characters returning wasn’t really possible in the first place after Michelle passed away, Brendan Nicholas was never coming back before he passed, Marsdens coming back would force them to come up with some sort of off-screen Angel conclusion which would lead to people asking for an Angel conclusion and Anthony Stewart Head doesn’t really want to work in the US. It would just be SMG and Hannigan which could still work if they give it another go and actually take it seriously

22

Levitlame Apr 18, 2026 +12

They’d also have to explain immortals aging or just pretend it didn’t happen if they brought back any vampires or other demons.

12

TNWhaa Apr 18, 2026 +7

They’d have to finish the shanshu plot from Angel and they’d have to come up with a reason as to why Angel isn’t around since Boreanaz doesn’t seem to have any interest in playing him again

7

Charrbard Apr 18, 2026 +3

They don't have to do anything. If the show is good and entertaining most people wont dwell. "He gone." "He old." "Why?" "Magic." "Did you pay the electric bill yet?"

3

MaimedJester Apr 18, 2026 +2

There's already hundreds of Buffy and Angel Comics that continue the story/universe.

2

TheeAmateurArtist Apr 18, 2026 +14

They knew what they had planned before they even filmed.

14

TylerBourbon Apr 18, 2026 +9

and apparently what they had planned didn't' really have much Buffy in new Buffy the Vampire Slayer show, which is certainly a choice.

9

DesolateRuin Apr 18, 2026 +4

I'd pay money to see 56-year-old David Boreanaz and 63-year-old James Martsters reprise their roles as "ageless" vampires in their late-20s/early 30's.

4

Hopeful-Pickle-7515 Apr 18, 2026 +3

Better not spin off that a shit one. It seems that Disney has understand it lately, Malcolm and Scrubs have comeback with great results because the output is good and at the level of the original production.

3

Funandgeeky Apr 18, 2026 +3

The Malcolm revival was fantastic. And limiting it to four episodes actually works in its favor.

3

Greatsnes Apr 18, 2026 +9

Not really. Maybe it was just bad.

9

ALANJOESTAR Apr 18, 2026 +4

It was apparently really bad and it barely had any Buffy in it. She was apparently only going to be in 1 episode and the show in general did not make to much sense. Seems like it was poorly managed not done with the right intentions as something like the Malcom in th Middle continuation.

4

shakegraphics Apr 18, 2026 +12

I heard a breakdown of the script and it sounded like it sucked lol.

12

Saratje Apr 18, 2026 +6

More so the pilot. It's back in the workshop to become something else. They said they're continuing the franchise but that the pilot didn't work. The controversy was more about one of the cast (who normally doesn't speak out) saying that an executive producer went out of his way to stress how he never watched Buffy and didn't like what he saw. Whether the pilot was bad or a product only the fans could appreciate is unknown, but those decisions are often down to a majority vote so it might have been genuinely bad. The sad part is that Buffy's actress came back only due to really wanting to work with a specific director so they probably won't do a continuation without her, meaning the original reboot is possibly back on the table.

6

TelluricThread0 Apr 18, 2026 +3

Not really. The pilot sucked.

3

franlcie Apr 18, 2026 +4

The pilot was unfortunately absolutely trash. It really was not a good pilot or a good representation of a Buffy reboot

4

pressure_art 6 days ago +1

How do you know? Did it leak?

1

Muslim_Wookie Apr 18, 2026 +1

Are you a fan of videogames? That's a pretty big community, and videogame movie adaptions are a pretty well known thing at this point. If you're not a fan of videogames, ask someone else that is: Is there a movie adaptation you wish simply didn't get made? Something that perhaps poisoned the well for future attempts?

1

Linenoise77 Apr 18, 2026 +1

I mean 3.5 million a year over 6 years isn't too shabby.....but considering the cost of producing a show, its peanuts.

1

Rakhsev Apr 18, 2026 +1

Or it could damage that revenue if it's bad. Either way, better watch it on a local copy.

1

KathyJaneway Apr 18, 2026 +1

It was dog pile of sh*t ,that's why it was cancelled. The pilot was that bad.

1

[deleted] Apr 18, 2026 +55

[deleted]

55

NullOfUndefined Apr 18, 2026 +22

Maybe but they could also just look at how much revenue they got and divide it across how often the shows are played, it wouldn’t be hard for them to figure out.

22

nowhereman136 Apr 18, 2026 +8

These company collect all sorts of data on its customers so they can generate a profit. All they have do is check how many customers watched a show, what percentage of total hours watched was spent on this show, and how much they spent on the company in total. Lets say I spent $20/Month on Netflix. I spent 30 hours that month watching Malcolm, 20 hours watching Big Bang, and 0 hours watching anything else. Netflix can calculate that Malcolm has made them $12 and Big Bang has made them $8 off just one customer. Now do that again with every customer and every show

8

Prince_Uncharming Apr 18, 2026

That *way* over simplifies the analysis. New signups is also extremely valuable (like signing up specifically foe the Stranger Things finale, then spending *more* time watching other content). Retention brings in big money (staying subbed to watch the same series, but sporadically, over multiple billing periods). Simplifying how much a show makes by just taking the watch hours for every user is completely underselling profit calculations for these huge platforms.

0

nowhereman136 Apr 18, 2026 +2

Oh for sure. Like I mentioned calculating watch hours, it's more like watch minutes. They can also tell what time of day you watch, what episodes you skip, what you watch before canceling, etc. All that info is calculated into what is and isn't profitable. The article mentions a nice round number, Netflix probably has that number down to the cent

2

TheBurgareanSlapper Apr 18, 2026 +8

That was my thinking, too.

8

UserWithno-Name Apr 18, 2026 +8

Another thing: ads. Any ad ran during the streaming of the show counts toward this I bet. Somehow. Beats me how they determine the breakdown.

8

mormonbatman_ Apr 18, 2026 +4

> How exactly do they determine that an old show like those generates that much revenue for a streaming platform? Amazon had a metric called first stream which rated a show's success based on the order new subscribers watched shows after subscribing. I suspect all streamers divide the number of minutes watched by the number of ads played.

4

UserWithno-Name Apr 18, 2026 +3

I can say, some of it comes from licensing out to other services. Or even the licensing that they may pay to have it on D+/Hulu. That's typically when the parent company doesn't own the rights though and I feel like these shows are under the Disney umbrella etc...but for overseas licensing or if they ever allow it to be on other services that is direct payments. Like Netflix, they cut a check to nbc for stuff like how to train your dragon or Brooklyn 99 etc. And Disney does pay it to Warner or paramount or Sony for anything they use the rights to. So like that's how some of the money gets paid or generated off the "expense" they paid to have stuff on their streaming platform. Doesn't account for all the supposed revenue for sure though.

3

Clenzor Apr 18, 2026 +4

I’d guess it’s hours watched/revenue.

4

VelvetPressure Apr 18, 2026 +1

It’s more like: platform calculates how much of total watch time is Buffy/Malcolm, then allocates a chunk of subscription revenue + ads to them. Basically view‑weighted accounting, not your literal bill.

1

frustrated_dev Apr 18, 2026 +41

Does anyone know how they work this out? How do they attribute the 100 million to these shows specifically? Revenue / watch time?

41

bannedagainomg Apr 18, 2026 +52

It says how they came to this under one of the pictures they posted. Took reported sub amount before show got added, then after and some time later to see who kept it. Then used "audience signals" "search indicators" and "market specific dynamics" and it gave them this. Chances of it being accurate is quite low, wouldnt be the 1st time parrot analytics just made up random numbers.

52

magkruppe Apr 18, 2026 +33

tldr; they made it up. only way to really get a number is to sell the rights to a show and see how much others are willing to pay

33

soulsoda Apr 18, 2026 +1

Just for the public but it's not the "only" way. Streaming services know internally how valuable their franchises are because they have access to actual watch time data vs subs and how it's split across their service.

1

magkruppe Apr 18, 2026 +3

no they don't. they build models and have better data to base their guesses on. but ultimately, they are still guessing watch time does not equal value of a tv show. the value of a tv show comes from how many people it brings/keeps as a subscriber. which is nearly impossible to answer but you have to at least try

3

soulsoda Apr 19, 2026 +1

It's not as impossible as you think. Maybe to 100% accuracy it's obviously impossible but anything is to that degree. getting a very close and accurate approximation especially with years of data... it's calculable. You're underestimating big data. The article used parrot analytics model. They don't have actual insider access. True Internal data is a lot more revealing and far, far more accurate. It's also fiercely guarded because they don't want to pay creatives. >watch time does not equal value of a tv show. the value of a tv show comes from how many people it brings/keeps as a subscriber. Uh... No. Lol. Watch time is the primary metric in the business internally. Especially watch time generated within the first week or two. Then who is watching, and when are they are they watching it.

1

efs120 Apr 18, 2026 +2

It’s crazy how thin the data always is but people just eat it up and act like is has any merit to it.

2

pokemonfan1000 Apr 18, 2026 +12

Malcolm in the Middle is such a great, timeless show. It still holds up even after 20 years.

12

HeartMelodic8572 Apr 18, 2026 +6

Buffy was my comfort show for so long. Remember the episode with pedro pascal? ♨️

6

Bostonterrierpug Apr 18, 2026 +17

People hunger for more kitten p****!

17

MaherMcCheese Apr 18, 2026 +8

You play for kittens?!

8

warkidd Apr 18, 2026 +7

What? They're delicious!

7

MoiraBrownsMoleRats Apr 18, 2026 +4

Time is what turns kittens... into cats.

4

TheLastDesperado Apr 18, 2026 +9

With Malcolm it's probably a healthy mix of new people interested in the reboot, and old watchers just wanting a nostalgic refresher. But I'm really curious how many of those Buffy streams are new watchers.

9

TaylorSwiftkinsReid Apr 18, 2026 +21

Why would they have new Watchers? There's no new Slayers, and the Council was disbanded too!

21

TheLastDesperado Apr 18, 2026 +7

I secretly hoped someone would make a comment like this.

7

CarrowCanary Apr 18, 2026 +8

The council reformed, that's how Andrew shows up in Angel.

8

DimensionMediocre439 Apr 18, 2026 +3

Man, a 30 year old show aimed at teenagers and 20 year olds from that era. I highly doubt anybody under 30 is watching this in 2026 It would be like me watching Happy Days in 2004.

3

LeatherYoghurt196 Apr 18, 2026 +2

It blew up recently with younger people because of clips from the show getting uploaded to tiktok

2

ersusdrowkcab Apr 18, 2026 +1

Idk I'm 22, and literally watching Happy Days season 2 right now lol. Also have been a huge Buffy/Angel fan for a few years now.

1

UHeardAboutPluto Apr 18, 2026 +18

You‘re not the boss of me now

18

confusing_roundabout Apr 18, 2026 +25

I loved the revival but the decision to not play the full intro was dumb.

25

JealousAstronomer342 Apr 18, 2026 +4

That’s one of the worst aspects of the current era of TV. I love a theme song, Buffy’s gets me into the vibe perfectly, TNG’s fills me with dignified excitement, GoT represents the themes of the show perfectly with the repetition and variation, maybe it’s a cost cutting measure but I don’t get it.

4

MickKaine Apr 18, 2026 +3

What metric is used to determine this? Amount of subscribers who watched those shows, then divide the numbers of minutes the subscriber watched those shows versus any others then multiply by how much the subscribers pay each month?

3

echoshizzle Apr 18, 2026 +3

My thoughts exactly. How is this metric measured and how much are the actors making in residuals? Is TV streaming like music where legit pennies are paid to the talent?

3

smilbandit Apr 18, 2026 +2

I believe this is why someone leaked the avatar movie recently, promised theater release and was pissed when they decided on going paramount+.

2

Bananaman9020 Apr 18, 2026 +6

Yet the Buffy sequel got cancelled before production, life sucks

6

GoateeMinion42069 Apr 18, 2026 +5

You could say that it’s unfair

5

freedraw Apr 18, 2026 +6

And they still won’t spend the money for a decent Buffy remaster.

6

Agitated_Fortune7907 Apr 18, 2026 +2

with that revenue its insane to me that they didn't try harder with buffy reboot

2

LLVC87 Apr 18, 2026 +2

But only one gets a reboot 😭

2

grandpapotato Apr 18, 2026 +2

Malcolm is hilarious I'm 43 and still laughing hard. My daughter 11 is laughing even harder. It's amazing

2

Z3ppelinDude93 Apr 18, 2026 +3

Really a shame that [the Buffy remaster is so bad](https://youtu.be/oZWNGq70Oyo?si=iq8dV8E9vJw82gp-). Was really hoping the reboot would give streamers the right motivation to to take another pass at that, but now it probably won’t happen - maybe if a) someone’s streaming rights expire and it gets picked up by another streamer (à la Netflix Seinfeld 4K), or b) someone (not Mill Creek) buys the rights to put out new discs

3

OkOwl2839 Apr 18, 2026 +4

Buffffffffffyyyyyyyy

4

ToonMasterRace Apr 18, 2026 +2

Older shows are better

2

Classic-Rise-37 Apr 18, 2026 +2

Quick someone get Sarah on the phone!

2

Tomhyde098 Apr 18, 2026 +1

Is the streaming version of Buffy better than the DVD release? I found the complete series a while back at a thrift store and the DVD quality is horrendous

1

CarrowCanary Apr 18, 2026 +9

The streaming version is the HD remaster, which isn't great. It completely fucks with the lighting, and there's a lot of stuff on-screen that shouldn't be visible (random crew members and/or filming equipment, etc) because it's showing the entire 16:9 ration that was recorded, not the 4:3 it was intended to be broadcast as. Screenrant has a little breakdown of the various issues [here](https://screenrant.com/buffy-vampire-slayer-show-fox-hd-switch-bad-reason/).

9

Tomhyde098 Apr 18, 2026 +1

I’ve been thinking of just getting my CRT out of the closet and trying that out.

1

Morgan-Moonscar Apr 18, 2026 +2

The streaming is worse, the BluRay managed to be MORE horrendous (they chopped everything into widescreen and then accidentally exposed backstage crew in certain scenes)

2

bondfool Apr 18, 2026 +1

There is no Blu-ray

1

bensor74 Apr 18, 2026 +1

in Ba Sing Se

1

KnowerOfUnknowable Apr 18, 2026 +1

How do they measure the revenue? Ads? If I am not watching this show I would be watching something else so can the ad revenue really be counted towards that particular show?

1

Individual_Mess_7491 Apr 18, 2026 +1

wow thats a lotta dough

1

-Clayburn Apr 18, 2026 +1

That's impossible to know given how streaming revenue works. Aside from ads, revenue isn't tied to a specific show.

1

Charrbard Apr 18, 2026 +1

TV comfort food. It sounded like they were trying to market Buffy to a different audience. Nope. Do not do that. Most Millennials are depressed will drop money on something that makes them feel better. Gen Z/A dont watch anything longer than 18 seconds, apparently.

1

LdnParisNZ Apr 18, 2026 +1

I still need a buffy reunion

1

BlessdRTheFreaks Apr 18, 2026 +2

Man i need to rewatch buffy

2

KumagawaUshio Apr 18, 2026 +1

Key point the revenue is how much Disney is paying to licence these shows. So Disney paid $115,000 per episode of Buffy a year a comparison is Seinfeld when Netflix paid over $550,000 per episode per year in licencing and back end costs.

1

MrTwoPumpChump Apr 18, 2026 +1

How does it generate revenue? The ad plans?

1

simplym666 Apr 18, 2026 +1

They need a cross over. Buffy in the Middle

1

NeuHundred Apr 18, 2026 +1

So it's imperative they never make shows in that format again.

1

bickid Apr 19, 2026 +1

Who actually gets all that money?

1

Blue-Bologna 6 days ago +1

You make a good product, people will watch it and rewatch it.

1

DummyDumDragon 6 days ago +1

How do they figure this stuff out? Percentage of minutes watched by revenue since 2010?

1

Ronin22222 6 days ago +1

How many of the actors get residuals? Both of the original runs were before streaming, so it wouldn't be in their contracts

1

TributaryOtis 6 days ago +1

Maybe we can get a proper Buffy HD remaster then...

1

mcbeardsauce 5 days ago +1

Because new shows suck and we all want better content

1

chrisfarseer Apr 18, 2026 +1

So one company owned by Disney is paying money to another company owned by Disney?

1

jyaaknee Apr 18, 2026 +1

I’m sorry. I know that’s a long time window. But how is this true ? Subscriptions covering syndicated content cannot be bringing in that much.

1

Va1crist Apr 18, 2026 +1

People are starved for good sitcoms and the monster of the week 22-24 episode shows , streaming killed all of that

1

“Malcolm in the Middle” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” have each generated $100 million in streaming revenue since 2020

💬 Send a Message

193 Comments