Skip to main content

Paramount+ Review and Breakdown


Paramount+, the rebranded CBS All Access streaming service from ViacomCBS, launched today. It got me thinking about this photograph. Are you familiar with it? 

If you aren't, perhaps you're wondering why Tom Cruise is standing next to Charlton Heston who is standing next to Penny Marshall who is standing to Bob Hope who is standing next to Victor Mature who is standing next to
*squints* Elizabeth McGovern who is standing next to Robert De Niro. The whole photo is full of weird combinations like that - Shelley Long next to Jimmy Stewart, Molly Ringwald next to Dorothy Lamour, Gregory Peck next to Debra Winger. This photograph was taken in celebration of Paramount's 75th anniversary in 1987. But you're forgiven if you didn't guess that, because who looks at all these people and thinks immediately that what they all have in common was working for Paramount at one point? Certainly not I. 

And therein lies the problem with Paramount+'s marketing strategy. Paramount, unlike Disney, does not have the kind of unified brand identity that you need to get people to automatically recognize it. Except Paramount+ isn't even using illustrious and glamorous movie stars to market the new service, but rather what they've cynically termed "brands".  You've probably seen the terrible ads - Gayle King hanging out with RuPaul, Dora the Explorer, and a Klingon. Huh? What does that tell us about what this streaming service is and how it is different from the others?

When I ranked all the streaming services a couple of months ago, I listed many problems CBS All Access needed to address if it wanted to compete with Netflix and HBO Max. It has not taken my advice. Paramount+ is just CBS All Access with a new (worse) name. There have been no changes, let alone improvements, to the interface. If there's additional library content, I haven't noticed it. It's the most disappointing launch for a new service because it's not a new service. 

I must ask: why rebrand now? I'd understand if they had some Mandalorian-level show that they could launch with. But they don't. (They do, however, have a new Spongebob movie and a reunion of the cast of the first season of The Real World, if you're young enough to enjoy the former or old enough to enjoy the latter). Last week, the execs behind the service announced a slew of shows in development, including a reboot of Frasier and a bunch of shows based on Paramount movies. They also announced that linear channels a la Pluto will be coming to the service at some point (Remember, after ViacomCBS bought Pluto, they put Pluto's Tom Ryan in charge of all their streamers). But why didn't they wait until they had these selling points to launch this rebranding? There is no reason anyone who wasn't interested in CBS All Access would be interested in Paramount+ as it is now.

You'd have difficulty locating movies with just about any of these golden age stars from the 75th anniversary photos. Paramount's classic film library isn't being utilized at all. Also, they don't even have all of the Star Trek movies! How can they market themselves as the streaming home for the Star Trek universe when Hulu has just as many Star Trek shows and movies? It speaks to ViacomCBS's larger strategy, which is to get money where it can by making licensing deals with other streamers. They sold the streaming rights to Yellowstone to rival Peacock, which is why you won't find that hit show on Paramount+. That's a fine strategy, but they can't do that and also want a highly competitive streamer of their own. Streaming services need exclusive content to be competitive, both original and library. The fact that ViacomCBS hasn't equipped Paramount+ with significant amounts of either is laughable. 

It's obvious that ViacomCBS isn't willing to write the kind of checks that Paramount+ would need to compete with Netflix in terms of producing new content. But why can't they spruce up the interface, or at least give us a watchlist? I mean, why even bother changing the name at all? They would have been better off focusing on growing the free, ad-supported Pluto and keeping CBS All Access' appeal niche. But, they went with Paramount+ instead. Let's see how this works out for them.

If you would like to see me talking some more about Paramount+, subscribe to my brand new YouTube channel!


Popular posts from this blog

"My Mind Turns Your Life Into Folklore": Why Taylor Swift's "Gold Rush" Is a Song About Songwriting

"My mind turns your life into folklore." That line, from the song "Gold Rush," is the only time the word "folklore" is spoken on either of Taylor Swift's 2020 records, Folklore and Evermore , the latter of which is where the song appears. The presence of the line indicates that "Gold Rush" is a pivotal song not only in Swift's lockdown duology, but in her maturation as a songwriter.  Swift's early albums often drew heavily from her own experiences, with fans and the media scouring her lyrics for clues as to which ex-boyfriend her numerous breakup songs referred. Her tumultuous dating life made as many headlines as her music, in part because it informed so much of the music. The discourse was often ridiculous and reductive, and thankfully, that period of her career is over (Swift has been in a relationship with the actor Joe Alwyn since 2016).  Both of her 2020 albums have their fair share of autobiographical songs, but they also see

Ranking the "Mission: Impossible" Films Worst to Best

The Mission: Impossible movies, based on the 1966-73 television series, are about Ethan Hunt and the Impossible Mission Force doing something that seems impossible at first, but always ends up being possible. Tom Cruise stars in all the films as Ethan, and other members of the team are Luther (Ving Rhames) and Benji (Simon Pegg). I like the Mission: Impossible movies because each film has a different director and thus each one has their own distinctive feel. Sure, there are a couple of constants (Cruise is in them all, they all are spy/action movies, and they all have people wearing masks - a nod to the TV show),  but going into a Mission: Impossible movie you are never quite sure what you are going to get.  Sometimes it's a silly fun spy franchise, other times it feels like nothing more than an excuse for Tom Cruise do to some sort of crazy stunt. Since the first film was released in 1996, there have been five movies, with a sixth on the way. Here's how I would rank the m

Vanessa Redgrave in "Camelot": Review

Classic Film Review: Camelot (1967) The following post is a part of the 2017 TCM Summer Under the Stars blogathon, hosted by  Journeys in Classic Film . In celebration of Vanessa Redgrave day on TCM (which will be showing her movies all day long August 14th), I decided to revisit one of my all time favorite movies, Camelot . The 1967 film is an adaptation of the 1960 musical of the same name by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe. The musical, which was based on T.H. White's retelling of the Arthurian legend The Once and Future King , which was a huge box office success and won four Tony Awards. The original cast recording was the best selling record in the country for over a year. A movie version was inevitable.  That movie came seven years later. Directed by Joshua Logan, Camelot starred Richard Harris as King Arthur, Vanessa Redgrave as Guenevere and Franco Nero as Lancelot. When the King of England decides to use might for right and establish a new order of chival