MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Does Anyone Else Hate Streaming Services...

Does Anyone Else Hate Streaming Services?

posted 2 years ago by HarveyManFredSin (4877)
35 replies | jump to latest

I made the same complaint a few years ago, and was derided for doing so, but I still maintain that they're annoying.

Back in the day, most films, unless they were TV movies or bad STV b-pics, would go into theaters for a number of weeks/months, then onto video/dvd about 6 months later, and within 3/4 years, they'd appear on network TV. Thus, there were plenty of opportunities to watch a movie, and even if one missed it at the cinema, and didn't bother renting it, was almost certainly going to get the opportunity to watch it on regular, free-to-view, TV (the only exceptions were some low-grade exploitation films, and, for a while, the Disney animated movies, which would get periodic re-releases in the theaters). But, nowadays, if you want to watch a particular film, you have to be subscribed to Netflix, Disney Plus, HBO Max (or whatever it's now called), and Paramount Plus etc. Who's got the money to subscribe to *all* those services? And, thus, one ends up missing out on a lot of films and shows.

Once again, what we refer to as 'progress' is in fact 'greed' and 'exclusivity'. *sigh*

[–] Bloodshot77 (14248) 2 years ago

I hate how there's so many of them. Most of the content is either garbage or just mediocre.

Signed, million man.

[–] Luffy (1236) 2 years ago

Watch not, want not. These companies evolved because brands were carefully cultivated, which encouraged people to be pro Star Wars or Star Trek, or pro DC or Marvel. I feel luckier, because I majorly watch anime, and I have no problem finding it under one platform.

[–] capuchin (3366) 2 years ago

The current streaming market is almost certainly unsustainable. There's too many platforms and probably too much 'content' too.

They probably can't all survive even into the medium-term because -- as you say -- nobody's subscribing to all of them.

There'll be winners and losers from this era. And it's not just the cost of subscribing to all of them either, it's the sheer bloody inconvenience of having everything scattered about all over the place. I think we'll see a few mergers and there'll ultimately be fewer options, but with bigger catalogues, swelled by titles licenced from some of the platforms that failed.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

MR.PHYSICAL MEDIA HERE...YOU FOUND A TOPIC WE CAN AGREE ON...STREAMING SUCKS...THE NUMBER OF SERVICES,THE SPREAD OUT AND HARD TO ACCESS NATURE OF PROGRAMS...THE FEES...THE VANISHING TITLES...ETC ETC ETC

FUCK STREAMING...FUCK IT IN THE STREAM.

[–] 123Guy (7840) 2 years ago

No. It's simple evolution. I can still go to theaters - and I do quite often - when I want to.
But life changes, advances, evolves. It's just how it is. Streaming is awesome once you sort it out to yourself.
People used to have to send letters on horse back too. Look how that evolved. Now you can video call instantly to anywhere in the world... for free.
Evolve or go extinct. Simple.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

THE EVOLVING YOU ARE DESCRIBING IS HUMANS EVOLVING TO BE LAZIER AND MORE SATIATED WITH LESS MOVEMENT AND EFFORT....WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF HUMANITY,CHIEF.

[–] 123Guy (7840) 2 years ago

and it's been happening for thousands of years and will continue

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

I PREFER TO PUT IN A BIT OF WORK TO ACQUIRE MY ENTERTAINMENT...PROVIDES ME WITH A GREATER LEVEL OF ENJOYMENT AS WELL.

[–] 123Guy (7840) 2 years ago

I feel you. I still by physical discs, but quality has now gotten to where I am comfortable buying online - which is so much nicer for my lifestyle: I'll be (legally) downloading 8 movies to watch on a plan... would be a PITA to converrt my discs to take with.

PLUS, all this access has created a new low quality for VIDEO ON DEMAND crack filler, garbage movies at alarming rate. which is sad pile of crap to sort through to get the decent films.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

THE MORE WE TALK THE MORE WE SEEM TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.

[–] AndyKing1967 (39852) 2 years ago

Basically, Wall-E.

[–] capuchin (3366) 2 years ago

Near as I can tell, the OP doesn't have a problem with the idea of streaming in and of itself.

It's the proliferation of streaming services and the way everything has become compartmentalised they take issue with.

Streaming is an evolution from home media and broadcast TV. Fine. The way it's currently organised and sliced-up may, however, not be in the best interests of consumers. I think that's his central point. And I don't think it's an unreasonable one.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

STOP MAKING SENSE.🤫

[–] 123Guy (7840) 2 years ago

true.
I feel, like anything, it will sort itself out down the road. That's why I said "once you sort it out to yourself." For me, I picked the best of the best TO ME, and only subscribe to 1 service that costs about 1 theater movie ticket per month. I watch a lot more and def get money's worth. but yeah, there's a ton of options in the evolution.
like cable TV and satellite, things will sort themselves out to the survival of the fittest (streaming service), like usual.

We'd have KILLED for these options 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 100 years ago...

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

ANY SERIOUS FILM/TV BUFF COULD NOT SURVIVE ON ONE STREAMER...I KNOW I CAN'T...ALL THE BIG BOYS HAVE THEIR OWN AND KEEP THEIR TITLES FOR THEMSELVES...PLUS...THE MADE FOR STREAMING ORIGINALS ARE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT WEAK AND UNDERFUNDED...IF IT'S A SHOW...FINGERS CROSSED THEY DON'T JUST DUMP IT...WHICH HAPPENS A LOT.

[–] capuchin (3366) 2 years ago

I suspect it'll sort itself a bit too. I think the whole market will look quite different in around five years time. I think what we have right now is basically unsustainable. But I think the current complaints from the OP and others in this thread are entirely legitimate.

I also still won't entirely trust whatever services are still available in five years not to 'disappear' content down the memory hole or keep their catalogues stocked with older titles that don't get so many eyeballs on 'em. There will always be a place, I hope, for physical media.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

WITH COMPANIES...LIKE DISNEY...BEING SO CLOSE FISTED WITH THEIR TITLES...A HIGH QUALITY BOOTLEG CULTURE IS SPRINGING UP...BLU RAY AND 4K HOMEMADE RELEASES OF THINGS OTHERWISE WITHOUT A RELEASE...THE QUALITY IS REALLY IMPRESSIVE ON MOST OF THEM.

[–] capuchin (3366) 2 years ago

Yeah. And I think that's inevitable. If they want to stop piracy, they have to offer people a reasonably priced and flexible way of accessing stuff legally. And they're just not doing that at the moment. So screw 'em.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

I HAVE HAD A STRICT NO BOOTLEG POLICY...30 YEARS OF COLLECTING,30,000 + TITLES...BUT WE HAVE HIT THE PLACE IN TIME WHERE I AM ACTUALLY ACTIVELY SEEKING OUT BOOTLEGS AT THIS POINT...STRANGE TIMES.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I respect your standards, and I 100% understand your breaking point.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Thanks capuchin for articulating the essence of my position. 👍🏼

It's that there are so many services, and thus to access the various content you want, you need to be subscribed to them all.

Admittedly, this is the epitome of a first world problem, but back in the day, any film worth watching would usually get a proper theatrical release. Nowadays, a lot of 'content' including films, is exclusive to a single streaming platform, and one has to basically choose between studios. Are you a Warner Bros person, a Disney person, a Paramount person, or a Netflix person, etc? As others have noted, it's expensive and cumbersome to subscribe to *all* of them, and so, you end up having to pick a single studio, or a couple of studios.

[–] capuchin (3366) 2 years ago

According to an article on the growth, or rather current lack thereof, in the streaming services market I read in the Guardian recently, three subscription services is about most people's limit. If they have more than three, they intend to cancel at least one imminently.

I currently pay for five. And would love to get rid of at least one, but other people in my household use it (It's Netflix). And one of the others is Amazon Prime, which I have for reasons other than their streaming video service, which just becomes a kind of add-on to me.

And a third is Now TV, which I have on a three month deal at 99p per month, and won't keep once that deal expires.

So, yeah, three sounds broadly accurate to me for the average consumer. Eventually the market will have to reflect that reality. At the moment, it really doesn't.

[–] TandyMan (11349) 2 years ago

Hate em. Don't use em. And they never have the great old movies you want to watch anyhow. They're all full of BS now. When this all first started Netflix was pretty dope. They basically had every single movie you could find in a video store. Soon all that content started getting divided with other services and eventually replaced all together with garbage original content. I know i'm in the minority here, but I flippin' love commercial breaks. That's when I get stuff done. I like laughing at the goofy edits they make to movies to turn them all into G rated entertainment. And I love owning physical media and having to watch the same movies over and over again cause it creates a greater bond and affinity with the film and the era in which it was created. I also don't like paying out the ass for internet for the privilege of paying more for streaming. Porno is the only thing keeping any of this technology afloat at all.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

AWESOME...WELL SAID...TOTALLY AGREE.👍🏾

[–] MaximRecoil (4849) 2 years ago

"But, nowadays, if you want to watch a particular film, you have to be subscribed to Netflix, Disney Plus, HBO Max (or whatever it's now called), and Paramount Plus etc."

For as long as I've had a PC and internet access (22 years now), I've been able to watch just about any movie I can think of, and I've never subscribed to any streaming service.

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

THAT IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS ILLEGAL.

[–] MaximRecoil (4849) 2 years ago

Not until a court of law determines that you've violated a copyright, which could only happen if the copyright holder wants to bother suing you. On this scale it's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's "illegal" in the same way that calling you a dumbass on this forum is "illegal" (a court of law could determine that that's libel, assuming you could prove damages and prove that you're not a dumbass).

[–] Kowalski (79128) 2 years ago

🤣

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

But, presumably you have to pay for *most* of those movies each time (although I know there are a few niche titles free-to-stream on YouTube and a few other sites, often, alas, in subpar quality).

[–] MaximRecoil (4849) 2 years ago

No, I've never paid to watch a movie except for when I've bought or rented physical copies, or have gone to a movie theater. And any quality you want is easy to find for most movies, up to and including 1:1 Blu-ray rips, which have a far higher bitrate than any streaming service uses.

Prior to the existence of Blu-ray, DVD was the highest available quality, and I usually downloaded 700 MB or 1,400 MB re-encoded-with-Xvid DVD rips. 1:1 DVD rips were often available (usually in the form of a .ISO file), but I didn't usually bother with them because they took too long to download at the time (they were usually around 6 GB) and also took up a lot of hard drive space (my first PC's hard drive in 2001 was only 20 GB).

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

i think they are convenient. i do expect there will be fewer of them.