This week, Hulu took its shot. Although the streaming platform has offered up a handful of original programs before, the J.J. Abrams-produced James Franco vehicle 11.22.63 is certainly the most high-profile Hulu project to date. Armed with big names like Abrams, Franco, and Stephen King (author of the novel on which the event series is based), a Reddit-ready time travel premise, and solid enough reviews, it’s not difficult to view 11.22.63 as Hulu’s House of Cards.

If Hulu had its way, the chatter preceding 11.22.63’s premiere would center on this potential coming out party. But recently, folks in the TV-obsessed corners of the web were talking about Hulu for entirely different, less celebratory reasons. According to the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner is considering buying a 25 percent stake in Hulu and, in doing so, trying to limit the company’s next-day streaming of new episodes. That’s right; there’s a theoretical future where Hulu simply stops doing the one thing that users want it do, forfeiting its strategic advantage over primary competitors like Netflix and Amazon.

Whether or not Time Warner actually buys into Hulu and/or ends next-day streaming remains to be seen (but for the record: even if the former happens, I don’t predict the latter will). However, that the maybe-possible stock purchase is just as important as the premiere of a tentpole series reflects Hulu’s odd, compelling internal struggle to combine television’s past with its future.



When Hulu launched in 2008, it seemed like a necessary and cool evolution of TV’s migration to the web. The iTunes store and individual network portals were fine, but Hulu offered a one-stop shop of broadcast and cable programming, for free. The initial partnership between three corporate giants—News Corp/Fox, Disney/ABC, and NBC Universal—was and is unheard of, especially for such a transformative venture. Yet, despite the utility of Hulu for (American) viewers, it’s fair to say that the platform primarily served as an attempt by its tripartite ownership to stay afloat amid declining overnight ratings, the proliferation of high-speed internet, and more on-demand options. To that end, it wasn’t surprising that Hulu initially tried simply to replicate the experience of traditional TV in a new space, relying exclusively on advertising to generate any profit.



As an extension of viewers’ jam-packed DVRs, Hulu makes sense. But advertising-only profit models don’t always work, and Hulu unfortunately realized this after the big, hulking Netflix machine began to grow. To Netflix’s credit, it recognized that an unbelievably crowded marketplace, exclusives and originals spoke most to viewers. While Hulu has long held the advantage with next-day streaming, by 2011 Netflix offered more full seasons and series, taking advantage of binge-watching in a way Hulu couldn’t always do with five-to-10 episodes of current seasons. Netflix also benefitted from its less fragile corporate structure, freeing it to make distribution deals with anyone and everyone; Hulu, conversely, had to serve a crew of uneasy masters simply trying to hold on.

That’s not to say Hulu hasn't done some wonderful things over the last half-decade. The company has done a low-key fantastic job of importing international series like Misfits, Rev, Prisoners of War, and an array of anime and telenova offerings. Its documentary and film libraries—complete with a major partnership with the Criterion Collection—has methodically grown into the best of its kind on the web, Netflix and Amazon Prime included. The next-day options are still immense and and Hulu has smartly begun gobbling up the exclusive rights to shows like Fargo, UnREAL, Seinfeld, and Fear The Walking Dead. As a result, the subscription plan has been relatively successful: Hulu had just 5.1 million paid subscribers in 2013, 7.5 million in 2014, and over 9 million as last reported in mid-2015.



But the tension between old and new models of TV has still been there. While Netflix and Amazon started spending like crazy to attract big names and develop splashy originals, Hulu hesitantly tried its hand with mostly fine-to-bad—and most importantly cheap—exclusives. (Do you remember Quick Draw? Me neither, but apparently I reviewed it.) Some of those originals, like Casual, The Awesomes or the criminally underrated Battleground, were worth watching, but they importantly didn’t challenge any of the other shows on Hulu—those already owned/produced by Fox, ABC, NBC, and the like.



Meanwhile, though the next-day options have only increased over time, they’ve also been migrated behind paywalls, commonly only accessible to Hulu subscribers or cable customers (well, and those who share passwords). The corporations that own Hulu are so entrenched in generations-long agreements with cable and satellite companies that they no longer want to offer next-day access for free, effectively encouraging further cord-cutting. That’s what makes the Time Warner news not that surprising; Hulu has already been trying to save old TV anyway.

Which brings us back to 11.22.63. While an eight-week event series might not signal to viewers that Hulu is fully ready to take on Netflix, it’s a smart step forward. The subject matter and the King of it all should appeal to a sci-fi-friendly audience, which should at least build the subscriber base a little bit (yes, the show is only available to subscribers; Hulu is learning). More interestingly, Hulu is pushing back against the new normal of streaming releases and offering episodes weekly instead of all at once. That’s a smart strategic choice, especially for a genre show that could foster fan discussion, and frankly, it’s perfect for a platform that has tried to keep the familiar models of TV alive.

If 11.23.63 succeeds—not that we’ll ever know—Hulu has a bunch of interesting projects in the works to build on its momentum, including the Aaron Paul/Michelle Monaghan/Hugh Dancy vehicle The Path and other projects starring Hugh Laurie, Jeffrey Donovan, Susan Misner, and Alex Kingston. Even together, these projects are unlikely to help Hulu catch Netflix as far as revenue or subscriber numbers go. Last time I checked, fewer than 10 million subscribers is just a bit away from 45 million subscribers.

They also might not stop some of the awkward moments that exist solely because of Hulu's novel corporate ownership. A library dominated by other companies’ programming, even if owned by a corporation that also shares a chunk of Hulu, would only keep Hulu tethered to a different era of TV. But as we've seen with Netflix, Amazon, and all of cable long before them, big original series that garner online and maybe even awards attention go a long way in establishing a company's identity. The industry still loves Netflix and talks about it as a triumph even though the company just recently starting making money. Hulu is primed to offer a library that combines the best next-day options, international exclusives, and buzzworthy originals while also mixing different release schedules and revenue models. And that? Well that's what futuristic dreams are made of—for viewers and Hulu alike.



