Agreed, but it still sucks. I think it probably drives lots of people to pirating. I’d personally prefer a much more open environment for streaming - ease of access will drive people to actual pay for this stuff. If Netflix offered a package where I could get access to other services (such as HBO or Disney), I’d be happy about that. It’s more of a pain to have to manage and pay for access to multiple platforms.
4 Likes
Lots of Disney stuff still on Netflix though. HBO seems to prefer partnering with Amazon Prime streaming video for now (in addition to each company’s standalone services).
Between Netflix and Amazon Prime I already have access to far more titles than were ever available at my local video rental store. It would be convenient to have a one-stop-shop for all media ever made but then again that’s how monopolies are made.
4 Likes
Well, for now. It’s going away soon when Disney starts their Disney Plus. I’m not a Disney fan, so I’m not going to buy in just to be able to see Marvel and Star Wars films. It’ll be waiting for the DVDs instead.
We don’t have Amazon prime, either.
But it’s entirely true that we as consumers do have far more access to far more content than ever before, so this is very much me complaining about a first world problem.
Well, it’s be a monopoly if Netflix (or whoever) owned not only the platforms, but all the content providers, too. I’m more suggesting that the streaming services work together more and recognize that they will likely only benefit from that cooperation (because it means that people like me are paying in via netflix or what have you). I think ease of legal access is really the only means of cutting down on pirating that they keep harping on…
2 Likes
You had me at “Tom Waits”. that film looks @#! beautiful.
That’s… ah… kinda the point? No? And you can always just pay for one month, watch the one film, cancel, and it will cost you less than a movie theater visit (well, assuming more than one person watches it).
I want more shit on Netflix, because going to the movies is a ridiculously expensive endeavor for two hours of enjoyment.
Can’t say I totally approve of that either, but there are differences.
Going to disagree with both of you there - I love the Ladykillers and the soundtrack is one of the best that T Bone Burnett has ever put together
I made a trip to Natchez Mississippi once just because it was used for exteriors in that film (and I’m glad I did)
1 Like
But that sounds a lot like the current cable TV model, no? If Netflix is the one place to go for the vast majority of streaming media then they are basically Comcast for the digital age. Comcast doesn’t own HBO or ESPN, but they get a cut if you subscribe to a cable package that includes that content.
(Just thinking through the pros and cons here)
1 Like
Different business models but the goal is the same as it’s been ever since circuses started putting up tents so only ticket-holders could see the action: “find ways to get audiences to pay for the entertainment we provide.”
I will watch it when it is accessible (to me, I live in a rural location that will not be in the limited release) OUTSIDE Netflix. My wife has an account–she watches Turkish soap operas, we watch Portlandia reruns) but full-length US features beling in cinemas. Coen brothers made a bad decision.
PS: Of all the Cien Bros. Movies , I like Miller’s Crossing best. True Grit #2, Raising Arizona #3, The Man Who Wasn’t There #4
3 Likes
Welcome to BoingBoing!
2 Likes
Clancy Brown as well!
2 Likes
this is sort of why I was puzzled by the original posters “objection” which is then cryptically added upon again.
We have two basics parts of the system here: Creation and Distribution. And in the case of someone like HBO, Netflix, and Amazon…they are doing both. In fact the pioneer in this was always HBO and everyone has realized “Hey…that model works fairly well, we should do it too!”
The positives for consumers is: you get mass produced content still by large and small studios alike and you get niche content that doesn’t rely on mass appeal, support, or distribution. Stranger Things, Game of Thrones, Last Week Tonight, Man in the High Castle…all examples of the later.
The negatives are you either have to subscribe to their specific services or you to the distribution services they choose to network with. 10 years ago for example…you had to have cable or sat to get access to pay for HBO.
The landscape shift where these companies are now allowing you to disconnect from cable and get them directly is a GOOD thing, despite the inconvenience of managing multiple subscriptions and such. I agree its a pain…but I will take this imperfect step for where this eventual evolution is heading. It in fact destroys the monopoly that Cable and Sat companies have held…we can begin getting our media services elsewhere and we can then pick and choose which ones suit us best: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Disney, HBO, etc etc.
The idea or notion that somehow Netflix is purposefully withholding their content from mass market just to con someone into signing up for their service is utterly absurd and ridiculous and holds no water whatsoever.
Many folks here are saying “I love Coen Brothers films…awesome!” but the mass market doesn’t. True Grit was their biggest box office at $252m. Their last film Hail, Caesar made $64mil. The mass market doesn’t want these films!!! So Netflix and HBO and these others are what help get these things made…the price we pay is having a smaller service to subscribe and get access to it. That is where the media world has been headed for anything that is not a big summer blockbuster or mainstream network show.
The quote above “this too shall pass” …oh fuck no it won’t. And thinking so, is merely screaming at a mountain to move. This is the future for content development and distribution.
3 Likes
That was my comment from when I saw this on another site. It really is quite the cast.
1 Like
The difference I’m suggesting is that you can make the choice and pay an extra fee to get, say HBO through netflix. This benefits both companies at the end of the day. I"m not suggesting that only netflix should do this. As you note Amazon prime does it to an extent. Hulu could also do it. The problem with cable is local monopolies, which drives up prices.
2 Likes
I mean, tell that to HBO, circa 1972?
1 Like
I guess it comes down to execution. “Paying extra to get HBO added on to your service” is how traditional cable monopolies do it. Service providers often use their market position to strongarm content providers into exclusive distribution deals.
What I’m saying is whatever happens we all get screwed if there aren’t one or more strong competitors to Netflix, and that becomes more difficult if Netflix becomes a one-stop-shop for all the content anyone could want.
Agreed, but I’m not suggesting that Netflix become the only streaming service, more that there is more cooperation between different services and production companies. Right now what seems to be happening is that each content producer is starting to have their own streaming service (in addition to Disney, there is also CBS which is literally the only place to get the new Star Treks until they come out on DVD). If that trend continues, we’ll have a ton of different streaming companies tied to content providers, so it will be worse than cable, because you have to buy a bunch of different services to get all that you want. See what I’m saying? They are making access harder for no reason. Again, I think this drives people to pirate content instead of paying for it…
1 Like
But, but… “Blood Simple”, something, something…
1 Like
Could you say we have a plethora of mutants?
Raising Arizona was my first love, watched it like a hundred times on VHS.
1 Like
