So many movies get released to streaming services exclusively, it seems like those are getting overlooked. It's a different world now, and theaters are in our homes now. It feels like some of the streaming originals should get front and center as well.
shareNo. In fact all sections should be summarily removed.
[none]
There's so much stuff being released onto so many streaming services that someone would probably have to make editorial decisions about what to add and what to exclude.
Theatrical distribution still means something. It still has a prestige that, say, a Tubi Original just doesn't.
So, no, I would not support this change.
"and theaters are in our homes now"
Not many people (percentagewise) have a setup that would be considered a "home theater." A typical setup is an oversized calculator screen (40- or 50- or 60-something inches) with tinny built-in speakers for a TV, perhaps supplemented by microwave popcorn.
A typical movie theater screen is 40- or 50- or 60-something feet and the image consists of reflected light, which looks a lot different (and a lot more natural) than looking directly at a light source like you do with a direct-view TV (because almost everything we see in real life is reflected light). Plus there is a massive sound system, and their popcorn is drastically better than microwave popcorn.
In any case, it's not really a "different world now." Direct-to-video (DTV) releases have existed since at least the 1980s. Streaming services are just another form of home video, and even that isn't new. Video-on-demand (VOD) services have existed since the early 1990s.
Streaming gets major studio release now. Direct to video generally didn't. Also, screen size is only relative to distance, so a 70 inch tv in a living room generally represents the same percentage of field of view, and I literally don't know anyone that doesn't ar least have a soundbar, particularly movie fans. Your comparisons don't really align with reality, no disrespect intended.
share"Streaming gets major studio release now."
So? It's still DTV.
"Direct to video generally didn't."
Now it does.
"Also, screen size is only relative to distance"
No, that's only part of it, otherwise holding a smartphone a few inches from your face to watch a movie would seem the same as watching a movie in a theater, and anyone who's seen a movie in a theater knows that's not the case; not even close.
"so a 70 inch tv in a living room generally represents the same percentage of field of view"
There's more to it than that (see above). There's a reason that humans can always tell the difference between something that's huge and far away and something that's small and near, even if they take up the same field of view. There would be no way to tell the difference if field of view were the only factor.
"and I literally don't know anyone that doesn't ar least have a soundbar, particularly movie fans."
I literally don't know anyone in real life, other than myself, who uses anything other than the built-in TV speakers when watching TV. The vast majority of people use their TV as-is and it's always been that way.
And a soundbar isn't necessarily any better than the built-in speakers, and might even be worse. It depends on what you get. And even if it's the best soundbar ever, if you don't have a good subwoofer to go along with it, it will still suck compared to a movie theater sound system.
I noticed you dodged the part about reflected light (projector) vs. light source (direct-view display).
"Your comparisons don't really align with reality, no disrespect intended."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
You probably shouldn't use the expression "non sequitur" until you understand how to use it. It just makes you look silly rather than clever, which was undoubtedly your intention.
share"You probably shouldn't use the expression "non sequitur" until you understand how to use it."
Ironically, this is yet another non sequitur from you, and in a double dose of irony, by claiming that correct usage of the term is incorrect, you established that you don't understand how to use it.
"Non sequitur" literally means "does not follow." Anything that doesn't logically follow from anything that preceded it is a non sequitur. Since your "Your comparisons don't really align with reality" assertion is false, it couldn't possibly have logically followed from anything I said, obviously.
"It just makes you look silly rather than clever, which was undoubtedly your intention."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and:
Comical Irony Alert: Part III
Also, since you didn't address anything I said (aside from "non sequitur"), your tacit concession is noted.
If you were as smart as you thought you were, you'd be dangerous. Fortunately, you aren't, so we are all safe. ππ π€£π€‘
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession regarding everything I've said is noted.
And:
Comical Irony Alert: Part IV
NO...THEATRES ARE STILL A THING....A MOVIE GETTING MASS RELEASE EARNS THE RIGHT TO BE CALLED THEATRICAL OR IN THEATRES.....A SECOND SECTION FOR NEW RELEASES SHOULD EXIST THOUGH.
share