MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Has Streaming Made Things Better or Wors...

Has Streaming Made Things Better or Worse?

posted a year ago by FilmBuff (7435)
64 replies | jump to latest

I'm not a fan of the streaming model as it currently exists, for a number of reasons. I wonder how others feel about the current state of affairs.

One of the main drawbacks of streaming is that it is causing people to stop going to the movies. I could write an entire post about this, but in short, movies are better on a big screen. It's fine if some want to watch at home, but with movies streaming soon after their cinematic release, and sometimes on the same day or even in lieu of a cinematic release, it gives people more reason to watch at home. This is likely to lead to many theaters closing, meaning those of us who do appreciate seeing a film in a cinema will no longer be able to do so. It also tears at the fabric of our community, as people no longer all watch together, and instead watch at random times, and alone.

Another one is the cost. If one wants to subscribe to the major streaming channels (Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, Max, Paramount+, Showtime, and Apple TV+) the cost is $103 per month. Add in another $73 a month if you want YouTube TV, or similar, to give you the networks and basic cable channels, and you're looking at $176 per month before tax.

In the days of videos stores, you could watch whatever and whenever, and probably not rack of $176 worth of rental fees.

Assuming you do pony up $176 each month-- you still have access to barely a fraction of the films you may want to see. There are thousands upon thousands of films that are not available on any streaming site. Many are on Prime-- for an extra $3 or more each-- but most simply are not streaming anywhere. Whereas, once you could rent them, you now either have to find a low-res YouTube version, if it exists, or spend massive amounts of cash for an out of print DVD or Blu-ray, if you can even find one, or locate the VHS release. Good luck with that.

Finally, I think streaming is going to lead to fewer films, and lower quality films, being made, as the revenue just won't be there without box office money to recoup costs. Despite the high cost to consumers for the streaming services, the revenue isn't even close to what used to be made on theatrical releases. We're already seeing this, as studios are focusing almost solely on blockbuster action fare, and/or sequels or reboots of familiar properties. Gone are the medium-budget films aimed at adults.

I'm curious to hear what others think about this.

[–] BKB (11280) a year ago

Without even reading this, I'd say worse.. In the beginning of this so called Pandemic, I could understand releasing movies to Netflix and streaming in general, but that's over and I feel it's business is business and people have to go back to the movie theatre now.. There are simply movies that are meant for the big screen and not just home entertainment..

[–] FredBurroughs (22266) a year ago

Why does this scenario have to even be framed as binary? Just watch the movies that you seek out. If you can't name at least five in the last six months, I'll assign them to you and expect a report back.

[–] mechajutaro (2788) a year ago

"Why does this scenario have to even be framed as binary?"

Marvel and Disney have graced us with the knowledge that life really is just as simple as good and evil, black and white

[–] FredBurroughs (22266) a year ago

Good luck with figuring out how to be funny with that frame of reference. What's next, the Bible?

[–] mechajutaro (2788) a year ago

The Bible is pretty hilarious in many sections

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

It doesn't need to be framed as binary, and we are all free to share our thoughts. I'm sharing my opinion that I think it has overall been detrimental to the film-watching experience. That isn't to say that nothing about it is good, but rather that its overall effects have been in my opinion negative.

I'd like to watch the movies that I seek out, but more often than not when I find a film I'd like to watch it is not streaming anywhere. As there is no longer a network of local video rental shops where I may be able to find the film to rent, I'm left with the choice of either buying it on DVD or Blu-ray, if I can both find a copy for sale and afford it, or simply not watch it.

[–] FredBurroughs (22266) a year ago

These are valid points, and I think the real thing to recognize here is that, like any distribution model, streaming has its tradeoffs. You are going to encounter an infinitely wider array of selection compared to a physical media outlet, but due to market factors that selection will be less judiciously curated.

Something else to note is that with each successive generation of media there will be works lost by the wayside. Then we have the matter of physical media ownership. There's a lot on the spectrum here.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

I believe the selection was greater before streaming. As I pointed out in a reply to someone else,

Netflix has about 3,800 movies available at the moment. Only 38 of them are from before 1981. Compare that to what was available in the video store era. Blockbuster stores averaged 10,000 titles, and had a policy that stores had to carry at least 7,000 different films. The largest, and best, video store near me had over 30,000 films in stock. I just read about a shop in Austin, that closed in 2020, that had 130,000 discs and tapes. Some may have been duplicates, but likely not that many.

I think someone who went to a great video store in the year 2000 not only had access to more films than someone who has a few streaming services today, the films were laid out in a way that allowed him to better browse and choose films.

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

AS A LIFELONG COLLECTOR AND LOVER OF PHYSICAL MEDIA...STREAMING CAN SUCK MY DICK.

[–] RoboReCop (3379) a year ago

They say some warn to not cross streams, while others cross swords...

[–] sslssg (35143) a year ago

I think it's gotten worse.

I use these numbers all the time, and I'm sure it's somewhat annoying, but if we look at the number of movies released each year, it stands to reason that just because there are more movies, it doesn't mean there are more good movies.

In 2023 there were 18,797 movies released world wide.

If we compare that to movies released in 2007 when Netflix first started streaming, and well after direct to video releases were popular, we had 8,906 movies released that year. Now Netflix didn't start making their own movies until years later, but the numbers of movies being released started rising quite a bit after that. By 2010 the number of movies jumped to 12,690 that year. I'm guessing that it more profitable for those productions to start churning them out and dumping them on streaming services than the video store.

So I think quality has gone down for sure, which I think is making things worse. I know that's not exactly what you are getting at, but maybe just a little. I think sooner or later producing content is going to break some of the streaming services. I don't know if Netflix will remain sustainable. Especially if other studios are bought up by one of the big guys (Disney I'm looking at you) and none of those movies will be available on other services.

It's weird how streaming was supposed to be a way to cut the cord and save money, and now it's more expensive than cable ever was if you want to be able to see everything that's coming out.

I also like to own movies that I like. With streaming, dvds and cds are pretty much going away. Yet, a streaming service can lose the rights to something and then "poof" it's gone, even if you paid to buy the movie, tv show, or album, it doesn't matter. You no longer have access to it.

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

I PREDICT SOON THERE WILL BE A SINGLE SERVICE YOU PAY...WATCH WHAT YOU WANT FROM EVERYTHING...AND THEN YOUR MONEY IS SPLIT AND DISPURSED TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHTS HOLDERS....EFFECTIVELY THE STREAMING VERSION OF CABLE.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

That's part of what I dislike, and was trying to address it in the final paragraph of my post. Streaming has lead to fewer films being made, lower overall quality of films, and less variety in the types of films of being made.

And yes, when Netflix pulls a film, it can become impossible to see it. Try to watch Hush, for example. It was released in 2016 and distributed by Netflix. It never had a physical release, and now that it's gone, it's gone. Perhaps there is an illegal stream somewhere, but if so, its existence only underscores the problems being caused by streaming.

[–] sslssg (35143) a year ago

I disagree that fewer films are being made as there were about 10,000 more films released last year than there was in 2007. Even if only 10% of those films are worth seeing, how do you find them?

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>It's weird how streaming was supposed to be a way to cut the cord and save money, and now it's more expensive than cable ever was if you want to be able to see everything that's coming out.

Is this financially true?

"Using data from a variety of public sources, the site found the average monthly cable package is now $217.42 per month. That’s more than the average household’s monthly cost of $205.50 for all other major utilities combined."

https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/saving-and-budgeting/articles/how-much-is-cable-per-month

I don't think Netflix, Apple, Disney, HBO, Amazon combined get that high.

And sure, you wouldn't get *everything* there but there's way more TV being made than in the 00s and 90s. More international productions too.

>I also like to own movies that I like. With streaming, dvds and cds are pretty much going away. Yet, a streaming service can lose the rights to something and then "poof" it's gone, even if you paid to buy the movie, tv show, or album, it doesn't matter. You no longer have access to it.

Sail the high seas

[–] sslssg (35143) a year ago

Cable is not that expensive where I live, which is strange as I thought Canada had some of the highest costs in the world. I could be wrong as I haven't had cable in years, and it included internet.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

why do collectors buy movies they are never going to watch?

[–] sslssg (35143) a year ago

I'm not sure I'm the person you should be asking this question to. I don't buy movies to never watch them. I buy movies that I want to watch over and over again and never want the to be taken away from me.

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

TO SOME PEOPLE THE COLLECTING IS THE HOBBY...TO OTHERS THE COLLECTING FACILITATES WATCHING...SOME ARE A COMBO...I AM A COMBO...LEANING MORE TOWARDS WATCHING...I INTEND TO AND DO WATCH EVERY TITLE I PURCHASE...AND IF I RATE IT AS LOWER THAN A 5/10 OR SO I DON'T KEEP IT...UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

[–] Mustang (5569) a year ago

I like to watch what I want when I want to so it all suits me fine.

Whether people should or shouldn’t go back to the cinema isn’t really the point. The fact is they don’t seem to be wanting that for various reasons.

Possibly in part because the cinemas aren’t showing what they want to watch.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

I also like to watch what I want when I want, which I used to be able to do before streaming. Now, many, if not most, of the films I seek out are not on any streaming sites. That used to mean a quick trip downstairs to one of the dozen or so video stores within walking distance of my apartment. Now it means I simply can't watch that movie.

Netflix has about 3,800 movies available at the moment. Only 38 of them are from before 1981. Compare that to what was available in the video store era. Blockbuster stores averaged 10,000 titles, and had a policy that stores had to carry at least 7,000 different films. The largest, and best, video store near me had over 30,000 films in stock. I just read about a shop in Austin, that closed in 2020, that had 130,000 discs and tapes. Some may have been duplicates, but likely not that many.

I think people aren't going back to the cinema because most humans are stupid and lazy. Harsh though that may sound, it's true. Anything they are given that makes their life easier, even if it is worse for them, they will adopt. Why do so many people have fast food handed to them through a car window, then sit in the parking lot and eat that food? The same reason they stream films at home.

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

I KNOW WHERE YOU CAN FIND 30,000 TITLES ON PHYSICAL MEDIA...MY HOUSE.😎

[–] JoWilli (21595) a year ago

with an average of paying $3 a movie, you have spent over $90,000 and yet you cant afford a $8 movie tkt.

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

MORE LIKE A DOLLAR A MOVIE...OR LESS...FOR THE MOST PART...WITH PURCHASES SPREAD OVER 30 YEARS...PHYSICAL MEDIA COMES BEFORE THEATER EXPERIENCE ANYWAY.

[–] JoWilli (21595) a year ago

so thats $30,000 wasted and you cant afford a 8 buck movie tkt. lol

whats your home set up?

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

CAN FFORD...CHOOSE NOT TO...SONY FLATSCREEN,A DOZEN SONY BLU RAY PLAYERS...ONE MULTI REGION...HALF A DOZEN SONY VCRS.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>I think people aren't going back to the cinema because most humans are stupid and lazy. Harsh though that may sound, it's true. Anything they are given that makes their life easier, even if it is worse for them, they will adopt. Why do so many people have fast food handed to them through a car window, then sit in the parking lot and eat that food? The same reason they stream films at home.

No, I think people are instead watching longer serialised shows on Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc. That are more indepth than most movies.

[–] Mustang (5569) a year ago

There are lots of ways of finding what you want and bypassing Netflix etc which doesn’t offer much for me anyway.

YouTube have plenty of free old films for example as do other sites. You can still buy physical copies of films off eBay and other places.

I think it’s unfair to blame the consumer for not wanting something like the cinema. It’s like Disney blaming poor box office numbers on sexist fans lol.

At the end of the day the seller is responsible for their sales. If people don’t want the cinema than than the seller needs to come up with ways of making it appealing again.

Sometimes things just die out. Drive ins were once a huge cultural icon, now there aren’t many around and honestly why would you want to sit in your car and watch a film when you could sit on your comfy couch and watch at home?

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

Films on YouTube are hard to watch due to the low quality, and though you can sometimes find DVDs or Blu-rays, you can't always, and when you do they sometimes cost $100+ due to being out of print.

I don't think it is unreasonable at all to blame consumers. Most people really are dumb and lazy. That's fact, not opinion. When you give people an easy choice, many will take it, which is bad for the smaller number of people who want something of quality.

Things die out. Sometimes that's not bad, other times it is. In this case, I think it is extraordinarily bad for society.

[–] Mustang (5569) a year ago

They can be but not every film has to be watched multiple times and if that is the only place you can find a film than I will tolerate it.

Are consumers dumb and lazy or do they just know what they want and don't want? I haven't been to a cinema for a long time. I don't like the idea of the crowd, the audience possibly being jackasses and disruptive, the prices etc. I don't care about the huge screen experience.

I'm happy at home. I have heaps of movies, physical and otherwise. I have heaps of TV shows too. I can source plenty, more actually than I will probably ever watch.

What exactly is it that you are wanting to watch? I don't watch mainstream stuff either, I tend to prefer older films and TV shows.

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

I like streaming. In theory. Mubi, Criterion and Tubi are like the best stocked video stores I've ever been in.

But the current business model just doesn't work and isn't sustainable. The market is too fragmented. All the rights holders got greedy and set up their own 'walled garden' services in a failed bid to destroy Netflix.

That's beginning to break down. The 'streaming service wars' are over. People are turning their thoughts towards profit rather than increasing subscriber bases for potential future profit.

Most of them have lost oodles of money by making too much (mostly low quality) content to attract and hold subscribers. And now they're starting to cut back on 'content creation' while simultaneously introducing subscriber tiers with advertising attached. And folk like Disney are starting to licence some of their properties to other streaming services again.

But that won't entirely work to make it profitable either, because there are just too many players in the market. The market cannot bear that many services. Most customers subscribe to an average of three at any given time, and tend to rotate around them.

All of this is extremely bad for consumers -- both in terms of cost and access to content.

It will change. We've already started to see mergers. That will continue until there's only a handful of services remaining and we'll start to see more shared content again. It'll be the films that rotate through services rather than the customers.

The Amazing Criswell has spoken.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

Mubi is one of the best streaming services, but only covers a fraction of what a typical video store used to offer. Criterion is a close second. I didn't include either in my list because they are more niche, and I was trying to limit my list to the services the average person would subscribe to. (Tubi I can't do because I can't enjoy a film with ad breaks.)

I hope things change, but I'm old enough now to have noticed that things never seem to improve once they fall apart. Some things do get better over time, don't get me wrong, but all the important aspects to our culture that I've seen decline and fall during my life-- video stores, book stores, record stores, and now cinemas, to name a few-- never came back once they'd been destroyed.

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

Mubi is one of the best streaming services, but only covers a fraction of what a typical video store used to offer.

You must have been in different video stores to me. I never went in one with such a good arthouse / foreign language selection. I think my local video store growing up had... a single shelf dedicated to that stuff probably labelled 'Weird Crap We Don't Care About'.

And, to be clear, the situation won't change because the current model is hurting us, the consumer.

It'll change because it's hurting the corporations and their bottom lines. They've been losing billions. They're going to have to figure out a way of making streaming profitable and sustainable. And that will mean some of them will just have to throw the towel in and licence their content to someone else's platform.

I don't think we'll ever have a 'Spotify for movies', so I think the dream of being able to watch whatever you want whenever you want is probably dead. But I do think the entire market will look very different in five or six years' time. There may only be Amazon, Netflix and a couple of others left.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

I was likely blessed with great video stores. I was in California, and there were some amazing stores within walking distance of my home with massive collections of silent films, studio era films, foreign films, etc. One had entire sections called "Car Chase," "Women in Prison," "Spaghetti Western," etc., with hundreds of films to choose from in some obscure categories.

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

Yeah. That sounds awesome. We had nothing like that where I grew up in provincial England. If you didn't have the most mainstream of tastes, you weren't well-served by video stores. Maybe in that there London, but not where I was.

Television was better: Channel 4 and BBC2 catered to those arthouse sensibilities -- that's where I got a lot of my early film education -- but video stores? Nah. No chance.

That changed with the DVD retail market. Things became easier to get hold of then.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>I don't think we'll ever have a 'Spotify for movies', so I think the dream of being able to watch whatever you want whenever you want is probably dead. But I do think the entire market will look very different in five or six years' time. There may only be Amazon, Netflix and a couple of others left.

This is actually really stupid, if you think about it. Obviously the Spotify model doesn't translate to TV/movies. Spotify doesn't really commission artists to share music. Bands and record labels just upload music to the service because they need Spotify more than Spotify needs them. The preferable, more viable model is that of Steam.

Think about how video games have been fundamentally transformed. You can buy the majority of video games on Steam (or just use other similar apps). They're all basically released everywhere on day 1. They're automatically yours forever (until such a potential when Steam goes down - but you can easily extract and secure the files if you worry about that).

The same is not remotely true with TV. I understand that multiple streaming services were obviously going to emerge as TV production expanded. I understand that expecting to be able to watch everything on Netflix for £9.99 a month was never going to be realistic. But alongside these streaming services, a Steam-type client should've emerged allowing people to just buy seasons of content on the services. For people who want to legally keep what they watch, paying something like £5-15 per season (with sales much like Steam). No geoblocks. No restrictions.

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

Well, it's not that stupid -- it's just a third party app to which rights owners licence their content; it was more or less starting to emerge in Netflix before the rights owners decided they could keep the whole pie to themselves by setting up their own services and sequestering their catalogues.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

I suppose you should at least be able to buy, digitally, shows you want from Netflix, Disney, Apple etc. Some people would absolutely pay £10 a season to keep it.

A hypothetical Steam service would exist alongside streaming, not replace it.

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

Well, yeah. A one-stop shop -- let's say it's Netflix -- for films still wouldn't be actual Spotify. I'm not suggesting that (almost) everything ever made would be available on it at any one time. That's just not realistic. It would just be a third party site buying licences and/or sharing the profits from views with the relevant rights owners.

And, yeah, you'd have tiers.

So you'd be able to rent and buy through Netflix, initially at a high price, a bit lower later on, and then later on those titles would drop into the subscription tier rotation. It'd be a bit like the old process of things going from cinemas, to home video / DVD and then later on to television.

And I suspect something like that is workable. Moreover, I suspect that'll be more or less how the market develops -- except not down to just one major player, but a handful with overlapping content.

The current silos idea where Warner Bros are over here, and Disney is over there, and all the foreign language films are somewhere else... it's just not profitable. And it's a pain in the arse. It won't be sustained.

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

I KEEP WAITING FOR WHAT SEEMS TO ME...TO BE THE NEXT STEP...A THIRD PARTY SERVICE THAT BILLS YOU A MONTHLY FEE...YOU WATCH WHAT YOU WANT FROM ALL THE STREAMING OPTIONS...THEN THIS SERVICE'S PROGRAMMING DETERMINES HOW MUCH ARE WHERE YOU WATCHED AND SPLITS YOUR FEE UP AMONGST WHOMEVERS CONTENT YOU WATCHED.

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

I think a third party service -- like a Spotify for movies -- is exactly what they've been trying to avoid. But I think something close to that (with just a handful of options showing more or less the same stuff) is the only way it'll ultimately work out.

[–] sslssg (35143) a year ago

Even spotify doesn't have everything. It's even worse when you put a song in a playlist, go back and its no longer available.

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

Yeah. They'll never allow everything to be available. But even imagining everything that's currently available across all the streaming all in one place would be a hell of a lot better.

It's almost tribal at the minute. People need variety. We need to be able to stumble across stuff that's not maybe what we'd normally watch but looks interesting... instead of seeing that something interesting and finding out it's on a different service and... eh, it's not that interesting to me that I'm going to sign up for the free trial that I'll forget to cancel, so screw it... I'll watch this thing I've seen twice before instead.

[–] M1sterDoct0r (4536) a year ago

Streaming was supposed to be the answer to not only the expensive & ad riddled cable but also piracy.

Gonna be honest, I used pirate, a lot, in my youth. But thanks to Netflix & Hulu, almost everything I needed was there for a small fee a month. Looking for an old show, a just completed season or the new episode(s) you missed, they got you covered.

But now, I have to subscribe to a minimum of 3-5 services just to watch my shows or whatever film I wanna check out. While hiking the prices every few months. Ya, fuck this shit.

Reject streaming, embrace physical media. Which they wanna take away from us. And by that I mean not release shows on physical anymore.

Man, these corporations can eat shit.

[–] Kowalski (78914) a year ago

💯👍🏾

[–] capuchin (3362) a year ago

Man, these corporation can eat shit.

If you ever run for public office, that's your campaign slogan right there.

[–] andersonb85 (2395) a year ago

It's made it easier to see many things at a glance with streaming but the downside is that physical media is disappearing as the years go by.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

I feel the opposite. With streaming you really only see what the algorithm puts in front of you. Same with Spotify, YouTube, Amazon when it comes to music and books. In a physical store you can walk the shelves and see thousands of titles at a glance. But yes, you are spot on that despite the current resurgence seen in the past few years, physical media seems to be on the wan.

[–] andersonb85 (2395) a year ago

I've been able to find just about anything on youtube if I search for it. I have an extensive DVD/blu ray collection and some 4K titles too but it has been a good while since I put one into the player.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

Youtube has a lot, but most is unwatchable in terms of the picture and sound quality. For someone who wants as close to a cinematic experience as possible at home, it's pretty much useless.

Interesting that you aren't watching the films you own. My family seems to always have discs going, either in one of the two players or in the car.

[–] andersonb85 (2395) a year ago

I'm sort of a news junkie these days and can find it all on youtube when I'm ready to watch. It's harder for me to find the time to sit in front of a TV for 2-3 hours watching a movie lately. I just don't seem to have the time like I did during the pandemic & before.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21709) a year ago

Honestly I think physical media boutique releases of cult film are on the rise. We are living in a time where releases are coming out that I would never have dreamed possible just 10 years ago.

A prime example is The Sensual World of Black Emanuelle boxset that includes 24 films on 13 Blu-rays and 2 soundtrack CDs.

https://insidepulse.com/2023/04/28/the-sensual-world-of-black-emanuelle-boxset-arrives-in-july-from-severin/

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

This is definitely a golden age in terms of unusual and obscure films being released, but it's very hit or miss, and it's nearly impossible what to expect. But when it comes to finding a specific film on DVD or Blu-ray things are much more bleak. I'm certainly grateful for all the indie companies that release new titles on the regular, though I worry they will slowly die out. As an example, Wild East was a great resource for Spaghetti Westerns, but they were unable to afford to release Blu-rays, and eventually went under.

[–] sslssg (35143) a year ago

I totally agree with Spotify's algorithm. I want to discover new music, hear something I haven't heard yet, but any of the daily playlists they give me are all songs I already have in playlists. It's so annoying.

[–] FilmBuff (7435) a year ago

In general, the algorithms do a terrible job. I assume they will improve over time, but right now Youtube, Spotify, and the rest have very transparent methods. Anything I watch once I will be bombarded with until I watch something else, at which point they will shove that down my throat. The end result is that when I open Youtube I see a hundred videos that have no interest in watching, even though I understand exactly why Youtube put them there, and Spotify is the exact same thing, except with songs.