• onlooker
    17·
    3 years ago

    Another negative point that anon hasn’t mentioned: on streaming services, you don’t own anything. Want to get an offline copy of your favourite show to watch it whenever? Too bad, bucko. Watch it on our terms or don’t watch it at all.

    • gun
      151·
      3 years ago

      You will own nothing and you will be happy -Netflix

    • m-p{3}
      10·
      3 years ago

      And then you want to rewatch your favorite show and it’s not on the platform you’re currently subscribing to.

      Fuck it, I’ll host it myself on Plex.

  • morashon
    12·
    3 years ago

    they want to pivot into becoming a production company production companies are threatened by this

    I thought it was the opposite, where all the production companies saw $$$ in Netflix’s business model and Netflix started producing to fill in their content because it was getting a little sparse for a minute. idk

    • yeolsongarak
      6·
      3 years ago

      Yeah you’re right, it was a realization for companies like Disney; “why are we letting them profit from our stuff when we can do it in our own terms?”

      I’m surprised music companies are not doing the same with Spotify, but I guess most of the music is under UMG (I think) anyway.

    • obbeel
      3·
      3 years ago

      Times we can never forget, if we wish to achieve perfection for the soul of the Internet.

  • dragnucs
    82·
    3 years ago

    I just stopped whatching movies altoghere for a few tears now. I am doing just fine.

      • dragnucs
        51·
        3 years ago

        They are great yeas, but they are also non essential. They are far from being essential.

        • wazowskiOP
          131·
          3 years ago

          yeah, but living life with only the essential stuff would be kinda boring, don’t you think?

          • dragnucs
            1·
            3 years ago

            There are short movies, sketches, real life shows, and things like Comedy Central but for other languages and cultures.

            Without bread, man dies of hunger. Without art, man dies of boredom. - A wriiting of someone I forgot who.

    • MerchantsOfMisery
      111·
      3 years ago

      I feel like movies are just too restrictive in terms of time, whereas TV shows give a story far more room to properly be told. Movies are like the visual equivalent of turning a 1000 page book into a 100 page novella and insisting nothing important has been left out.

      Of course, some stories can be told well in 1.5 to 3 hours but for the most part, I think movies are a poor format for storytelling.

      • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.ml
        81·
        3 years ago

        I think I can think of at least a thousand films which are worth watching and have very good quality, whereas when it comes to shows I don’t think there are more than a hundred. TV shows found its way into the media market because capitalism needs to needlessly expand the content in order to profit more without caring about actual storytelling needs.

        • MerchantsOfMisery
          9·
          3 years ago

          I feel like TV shows offer a greater amount of room for a story to be fleshed out. Movies jam pack content into 1.3 to 3 hours.

          In fact, I think your comment perfectly demonstrates my point:

          • 1000 films at an average length of 130 minutes is about 2200 hours worth of viewing time.

          • 100 TV shows at an average length of 42 minutes per episode, 20 episode per season, and 5 seasons per show, works out to be about 7000 hours worth of viewing time.

          I think it says something that when it comes to the top 1000 movies and top 100 TV shows, audiences are willing to invest far more time into well written TV shows than well written movies, because more detail and content can be expanded on in a TV series format.

          I’m not saying movies are an inherently bad format, I’m just saying they’re a more limited format in terms of how detailed a story can be told. And as such, I believe movies are a more limited medium for storytelling. A book format limited to 100 to 150 pages is inevitably going to have its limitations versus a book format that is limited to 1000+ pages. There’s a reason why books are typically regarded as higher than their movie equivalents by fans who have experienced both mediums.

          Also if we’re talking about capitalism… films have and continue to be considerably more profitable in the short and long run than TV shows. If you don’t believe me, I encourage you to look into this. One reason for this is that films tend to better among international audiences compared to TV shows. TV shows tend to be a little more culturally niche in terms of how they’re produced/written, whereas movies typically are about broader themes that require less of a heavy reliance on regional pop culture the way TV shows do.

          Translation-wise, it’s far less of a headache to have a single 130 minute movie translated for 15 languages than it is translating 14 hours (average TV season length) of an English TV show to 15 other languages, especially if that translation involves things like pop culture/political references. Censorship is another huge factor that is harder for companies to deal with in TV shows than movies because there’s a lot less moving pieces. There’s a good reason why Marvel focuses so much more on movies than TV shows-- the ROI is considerably higher and the risks are far lower.

  • obbeel
    4·
    3 years ago

    You wish people go back to piracy in masse. Try looking for MP3s online.