15 votes

John Krasinski's 'Some Good News' sells to ViacomCBS following massive bidding war

32 comments

  1. [5]
    Deimos
    Link
    I legitimately don't understand why they'd even bother to buy it, if this is going to happen. It's clearly not going to be the same show any more, so is it really worth paying a lot to basically...

    The feel-good web series will have a multiplatform showcase across all of the conglomerate's brands, though the actor, writer, producer and director will no longer host it

    I legitimately don't understand why they'd even bother to buy it, if this is going to happen. It's clearly not going to be the same show any more, so is it really worth paying a lot to basically just get access to the name and the YouTube subscribers? They'll probably even lose a major chunk of those subscribers once it suddenly turns into a completely different show.

    Disappointing to see, regardless. It seemed like a really neat show he was doing to create some more positive news in the world, but it turns out it was just another product for sale.

    23 votes
    1. Omnicrola
      Link Parent
      Things that made SGN great: spontaneous non-commerical (no sponsors..... at least at the start) host is honest, has actual emotions embraces the viral nature of it, encourages fan art/ripoffs...

      Things that made SGN great:

      • spontaneous
      • non-commerical (no sponsors..... at least at the start)
      • host is honest, has actual emotions
      • embraces the viral nature of it, encourages fan art/ripoffs

      Things that will happen on a broadcast network like CBS:

      • completely planned, scripted
      • monetized as much as humanly possible
      • find the best looking host who people think is funny
      • platform lock-in to their streaming service, DMCA any youtube copies, discourage copycats

      So basically buy a new pet, then smother it in a bucket.

      15 votes
    2. elcuello
      Link Parent
      I completely agree and hope people boycott this shit on principle now.

      I completely agree and hope people boycott this shit on principle now.

      10 votes
    3. [2]
      NaraVara
      Link Parent
      Product owners with a (nearly) blank check to buy up whatever they can with a mandate to grow at all costs. It's a silly season for streaming media and lots of money is being thrown around without...

      I legitimately don't understand why they'd even bother to buy it

      Product owners with a (nearly) blank check to buy up whatever they can with a mandate to grow at all costs. It's a silly season for streaming media and lots of money is being thrown around without really understanding what they're getting into or what they need to do to be successful.

      I didn't see any dollar figures in the article, so if they didn't pay too much for it then it might be worth it to get a trademark and a YouTube channel. I'd be surprised if the John Krasinsky didn't retain an executive producer credit as well.

      4 votes
      1. Parliament
        Link Parent
        The article says he will remain as en executive producer btw.

        The article says he will remain as en executive producer btw.

        2 votes
  2. moocow1452
    Link
    All good things get bought out in the end, I suppose.

    All good things get bought out in the end, I suppose.

    12 votes
  3. [9]
    tomf
    Link
    Most aren't into this, but I think it'd be a great Sunday night release for CBS All-Access, positioning %whoever% as the John Oliver for feel good news. If they can maintain the calibre of guest,...

    Most aren't into this, but I think it'd be a great Sunday night release for CBS All-Access, positioning %whoever% as the John Oliver for feel good news. If they can maintain the calibre of guest, it'll be a nice, light watch.

    I can't blame Krasinski for making a quick buck off of a goofy concept that wasn't going to be longterm anyway.

    This would be a great little gig for Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell.

    9 votes
    1. [8]
      mrbig
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I do. It’s inherently immoral to make a quick buck by selling out a show created under the guise of making something for the greater good during the largest pandemic of human history.

      I can't blame Krasinski for making a quick buck off of a goofy concept that wasn't going to be longterm anyway.

      I do. It’s inherently immoral to make a quick buck by selling out a show created under the guise of making something for the greater good during the largest pandemic of human history.

      5 votes
      1. [7]
        tempestoftruth
        Link Parent
        Doesn't it make more sense to blame the massive inhuman corporation that bought out what was supposed to be something good in dark times in order to make a quick buck? I get that you can blame...

        Doesn't it make more sense to blame the massive inhuman corporation that bought out what was supposed to be something good in dark times in order to make a quick buck? I get that you can blame them both, but Krasinski is just a person whose actions correspond to the system corporations have built i.e. promising start-ups and new ideas get a lot of attention and investment, corporations that are obscenely wealthy come along and buy them out, rinse and repeat. Seems to me the fault lies elsewhere than with him, or the fault should be distributed among many bad actors (but just my two cents).

        7 votes
        1. [3]
          mrbig
          Link Parent
          What’s wrong with that?

          I get that you can blame them both

          What’s wrong with that?

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            tempestoftruth
            Link Parent
            I believe it's more productive to blame systems than individuals. If you recognize that Krasinski was going along with what the system incentivized him to do, (and we are all just responding to...

            I believe it's more productive to blame systems than individuals. If you recognize that Krasinski was going along with what the system incentivized him to do, (and we are all just responding to those incentives, we are not that different from him, unless you are a hermit living in the mountains), then you can stop focusing on an individual's "failings" and focus on the shortcomings of the system of which we are all a part. You can engage in a broader systemic critique rather than focusing on "fixing bad people," for example.

            A good example is prisons. If we, as a society, stopped focusing on individual "crimes" and realized that "criminals" are just responding to incentives society has created for them (e.g. racial capitalism facilitates poverty in poor Black neighborhoods which incentivizes getting into drugs/gangs to support yourself because the system won't support you) then we could engage in a systematic critique not just of prisons, but also the system that creates poor Black communities, and possibly change the system for the better, instead of putting Black and brown people in jail for drug use.

            The two situations are not quite the same thing, Krasinski is obviously a rich white man who has little in common with poor Black folk, but the principle is transferable, in my opinion.

            1 vote
            1. mrbig
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              There's nothing unique about a large corporation doing what large corporations always do. Unless we had access to privileged information, our contributions would be trivial if not cliche. I...

              You can engage in a broader systemic critique rather than focusing on "fixing bad people," for example.

              There's nothing unique about a large corporation doing what large corporations always do. Unless we had access to privileged information, our contributions would be trivial if not cliche.

              I believe your prison comparison is ineffective partly for reasons you pointed out yourself.

              Krasinski is an individual in a privileged position, well known for his charismatic persona. He used a tragic situation to convey an altruistic message – only to sell its platform to a heartless corporation. That was unexpected and deserve comment. Scorpions, on the other hand, will always be scorpions.

              3 votes
        2. [3]
          mrbig
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          And I obviously have different standards for individuals and large corporations. One big difference is that I already expect large corporations to bum me out. That said, I have nothing personal...

          And I obviously have different standards for individuals and large corporations. One big difference is that I already expect large corporations to bum me out.

          That said, I have nothing personal against him. I merely disapprove his decision.

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            tempestoftruth
            Link Parent
            I just think blaming Krasinski precludes the chance of the broader systematic critique I mentioned in my other comment, but that's fair, it's certainly changed my opinion of the man (to the degree...

            I just think blaming Krasinski precludes the chance of the broader systematic critique I mentioned in my other comment, but that's fair, it's certainly changed my opinion of the man (to the degree I had one before, I suppose).

            2 votes
            1. mrbig
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I disagree. There’s infinite space for outrage. Besides: a major corporation did what major corporations do. It wasn’t egregious in the slightest from that standpoint. Media conglomerates buy IP -...

              I disagree. There’s infinite space for outrage.

              Besides: a major corporation did what major corporations do. It wasn’t egregious in the slightest from that standpoint. Media conglomerates buy IP - that’s kinda their job. They did not betray any implicit commitment with the audience. Krasinski did.

              1 vote
  4. cptcobalt
    Link
    Looks like it’s not all good news.

    Looks like it’s not all good news.

    12 votes
  5. tlalexander
    Link
    This makes me want to link to the YouTube video by “Some More News” discussing “Some Good News”. https://youtu.be/QW7LBc9Q4GA

    This makes me want to link to the YouTube video by “Some More News” discussing “Some Good News”.

    https://youtu.be/QW7LBc9Q4GA

    1 vote
  6. [4]
    mrbig
    Link
    That doesn’t make any sense.

    That doesn’t make any sense.

    5 votes
    1. [3]
      knocklessmonster
      Link Parent
      And in the best way. "You made a thing, we want to take it, gut it, and put it on TV as a completely different thing."

      And in the best way. "You made a thing, we want to take it, gut it, and put it on TV as a completely different thing."

      11 votes
      1. [2]
        Grzmot
        Link Parent
        They didn't take it though, Krasinski sold it.

        They didn't take it though, Krasinski sold it.

        3 votes
        1. knocklessmonster
          Link Parent
          Take doesn't have to imply force. If you buy something, you take it with mutually agreeable conditions.

          Take doesn't have to imply force. If you buy something, you take it with mutually agreeable conditions.

          2 votes
  7. [11]
    Kuromantis
    Link
    Krasinski's decision just screams the word (forgive the 4chan language) cuck. That or he wasn't really serious about the thing and isn't actually an optimist/didn't want to create a bubble of...

    Krasinski's decision just screams the word (forgive the 4chan language) cuck. That or he wasn't really serious about the thing and isn't actually an optimist/didn't want to create a bubble of optimism for his fans for years on end.

    Tangentially related: There is nothing more depressive than 'positive news'

    Also if Krasinski sold it that should probably be reflected in the title.

    5 votes
    1. [3]
      NaraVara
      Link Parent
      Of course he wasn't serious about the thing. It was basically a podcast he threw together to keep himself amused while in quarantine. If someone offered you money for the effort equivalent of you...

      That or he wasn't really serious about the thing

      Of course he wasn't serious about the thing. It was basically a podcast he threw together to keep himself amused while in quarantine. If someone offered you money for the effort equivalent of you goofing off with your friends for a few weeks, you'd have taken it too.

      15 votes
      1. [2]
        Omnicrola
        Link Parent
        You're right, I probably would. What really puts sand in my short is the collision of that thought, with the heartfelt sendoff Krasinki had in his last episode speaking about how much it has ment...

        If someone offered you money for the effort equivalent of you goofing off with your friends for a few weeks, you'd have taken it too.

        You're right, I probably would.

        What really puts sand in my short is the collision of that thought, with the heartfelt sendoff Krasinki had in his last episode speaking about how much it has ment to him. Having created and participated something he purports mean so much to him personally, and then selling it to a large corporation just seems really disingenuous to me. But I don't work in show business so selling my creations isn't something that's normal to me. It's one thing to create something for a corporation, knowing how it will probably be marketed and distributed. It's different to create something, have it be popular, then sell it. It feels opportunistic and hollow to me as a viewer.

        10 votes
        1. imperialismus
          Link Parent
          I’ve spent many years making various creative things on the internet for free. Some of them were even a little successful. None of them made any money, nor did I really set out to do so. But if...

          I’ve spent many years making various creative things on the internet for free. Some of them were even a little successful. None of them made any money, nor did I really set out to do so. But if someone would have offered me a whole bunch of money for any of those passion projects, I would have taken the money and thought, now I’m free. Now, I can do whatever I want, because money’s taken care of for the foreseeable future. Unless that was the only idea I was ever going to have, or someone was trying to buy it and turn it into a Nazi propaganda platform or something, I’d take it and be free to continue doing creative things out of passion.

          Maybe Krasinski really is so rich already that he doesn’t need to do that. But passion is a luxury afforded by money. How many aspiring actors, authors, musicians are working at McDonald’s or Starbucks? Sure, most of them are probably terrible actors, authors or musicians, but one of them could be your new favorite artist, if only they didn’t have to flip burgers or brew coffee for indifferent zoomers. I don’t think selling a concept deletes the passion and love that was put into it, even if it turns into something else. Especially if you were only doing it in the first place due to temporary special circumstances, and weren’t planning to make it your life’s work. Financial freedom can allow you to really do things purely for the love of them.

          You could call it selling out. But you could also call it buying yourself the freedom to create whatever you want in the future, free of such boring, plebian concerns as ‘how will I feed my family’ or ‘what am I gonna do about this mortgage’.

          7 votes
    2. [2]
      kfwyre
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      There gets to be a point where, no matter who you are, the money gets too good to ignore. A simple thought experiment: take something you care deeply about or love or a value you hold deeply...

      There gets to be a point where, no matter who you are, the money gets too good to ignore.

      A simple thought experiment: take something you care deeply about or love or a value you hold deeply sacred. How much money would someone have to give you in order for you to go against your values or never see /do the thing you love ever again? Lower numbers are easy to shrug off. $100? Pffft. Fat chance. $1000? No way. Keep scaling up though, and you'll see how appealing the money gets. $100,000 is two full years of my income. $1,000,000 is twenty years of my income. I could effectively retire with that money, right now, and get freedom of time and freedom from economic uncertainty with that money. That is a very hard thing to say no to. Go even higher, and it gets even harder. Two million is more than all the money I will ever likely make in my entire lifetime. Ten million is unfathomably large. I legitimately don't even know what I would do with so much money. I could ensure financial stability for myself and nearly every friend and family member that I have with that money.

      I don't care who you are or what you care about, when you're staring at a deal that good, you will almost always take the money. Our principles guide us up to a point, but there is no upper limit on money, and it has the power to transform our quality of life far more than anything else. Even if I have to give up something I love, I would do it for the right amount of money, and I suspect nearly everyone else would too. I can find other things to love with my new financial stability and freedom.

      Granted, Krasinski doesn't need this money, right? He's a bankable star in the entertainment industry, right? Well, I would still bet he, just like me and everyone else, is tired of working too. Also, we definitely shouldn't be looking to anyone in the entertainment industry as paragons of virtue -- it is arguably the most money-driven industry there is! So when someone comes along and offers him a fat check and a producer role (and we know the deal was good for him -- there was a bidding war, after all), they're basically saying "here's a lot more money for a lot less work". He took it. I would take it. You would probably take it. The people over on 4chan calling everyone "cucks" would absolutely take it.

      Plus, from Krasinski's end, there's a chance he sees this as a good thing. Maybe he looks at how many people will be employed as a result of it going "legit" and sees that as jobs he's helped to support and create for people with considerably less money than him. Maybe he's glad to have the focus off of himself so that the news is more about the news itself and less about the bankable Hollywood star conveying it. Of course, there's the flipside too: maybe Krasinski was trying for this sort of outcome all along, knowing that much of movie and TV production has shut down right now, so he used his bankable Hollywood star status and the focus on the ongoing crisis to continue his income during the hiatus. We can't really know, and it's easy to look down our noses at Krasinski, but how many of us would have made the same choice in his shoes? I know I undoubtedly would have.

      8 votes
      1. Kuromantis
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Yeah, I admittedly mostly agree, and I mostly came here to circlejerk a bit (I don't watch SGN) and this isn't a particularly serious comment/complaint and it mostly presumes he was serious about...

        Yeah, I admittedly mostly agree, and I mostly came here to circlejerk a bit (I don't watch SGN) and this isn't a particularly serious comment/complaint and it mostly presumes he was serious about the series and wanted to do it long-term. If he wasn't, we shouldn't have been either.

        1 vote
    3. [5]
      TheJorro
      Link Parent
      I have no idea what is meant by the term "cuck" here but I can't imagine it's anything good.

      I have no idea what is meant by the term "cuck" here but I can't imagine it's anything good.

      7 votes
      1. [3]
        callmedante
        Link Parent
        It's worth pointing out that cuck is used almost exclusively by the alt-right. It gained prominence online in the past few years, predominantly by its usage in alt-right/Trump memes on 4chan,...

        It's worth pointing out that cuck is used almost exclusively by the alt-right. It gained prominence online in the past few years, predominantly by its usage in alt-right/Trump memes on 4chan, Reddit, and the like.

        11 votes
        1. Chexmax
          Link Parent
          I don't know if this might help lift the connotations of the word, but it's spread far past the alt-right, and I'd argue a lot of the people using it now might not even know of their connection....

          I don't know if this might help lift the connotations of the word, but it's spread far past the alt-right, and I'd argue a lot of the people using it now might not even know of their connection. Cuckolding has always been a somewhat common word. They talked about cuckolding on The Office. Cuck is just newer slang, and anyone can guess at it's meaning without knowing where or how it's risen in popularity. I'm not saying you're wrong that those groups use the word, but to think that they use it almost exclusively is far from accurate

          2 votes
        2. Kuromantis
          Link Parent
          Yeah, hence me saying "forgive my language" because it comes from 4chan so the alt-right using it isn't exactly surprising.

          Yeah, hence me saying "forgive my language" because it comes from 4chan so the alt-right using it isn't exactly surprising.

          1 vote
      2. Kuromantis
        Link Parent
        There this slightly charitable meaning: If he was serious about SGN this would describe him very well. If he were to be serious about SGN (not too likely since IIRC he got his news by asking the...

        There this slightly charitable meaning:

        Cuck is used by many races for someone who is spineless (5th meaning)

        If he was serious about SGN this would describe him very well.

        If he were to be serious about SGN (not too likely since IIRC he got his news by asking the comment section in his community tab, making all of this a hypothetical), he would have cucked himself for money:

        males who are unwittingly investing parental effort in offspring

        Krasinski making SGN

        that are not genetically their own.

        Krasinski selling it to CBS.

        He would knowingly be sacrificing his product to CBS at the cost of all the originality and quality that he put in SGN for money. He couldn't trust CBS to be a reliable partner nor could he trust CBS to treat him as an equal.