Hold On Tight To Your Physical Media Collection

[Professor Echo]

Article quoted below is from the Chicago Tribune, October 23, 2019. If ever a case was made for maintaining a healthy physical media collection, this is it.


The serendipity of randomly catching a movie on TCM now comes with an additional price tag!

By Nina Metz

Chicago Tribune |
Oct 23, 2019 | 3:22 PM

Earlier this month, Comcast quietly pulled Turner Classic Movies from its basic cable subscription, making the channel available only to TV viewers who pay an additional fee to subscribe Comcast’s Sports Entertainment Package.

Comcast did not respond to an inquiry from the Tribune, but on its website it does provide some background on the decision: “Viewership of TCM is low, as over 90% of our customers watch less than two movies per month. Given this, we decided to move TCM to the Sports Entertainment Package, which will help us manage programming costs that are passed on to our customers.”

You can take that at face value. (TCM also declined to comment.) Or you can wonder, as TV reporter Tyler Hersko did at IndieWire, if there’s something else at play. Namely, the launch of competing streaming services and the trend among media companies to “take back” their content.

TCM is is owned by WarnerMedia, which is gearing up to launch HBO Max where (in theory) the TCM library will be available to subscribers.

Comcast, which is the parent company of NBCUniversal, has its own competing streaming service coming, called Peacock.

Is it possible, as Hersko speculates, that this competition in the streaming marketplace has “incentivized Comcast to gate Turner Classic Movies channel behind a more expensive television package”?

Maybe. Or maybe it’s the other way around: Maybe WarnerMedia made it unattractive for Comcast to continue offering TCM for “free” on its basic package precisely as a way to nudge viewers to cut the cord and subscribe to HBO Max.

Either way, viewers will be paying more.

It’s an especially bad look for all involved when you consider that TCM recently made a significant stride with the hiring of Jacqueline Stewart. A Chicago native and professor of cinema at the University of Chicago, she is host of TCM’s “Silent Sunday Nights” and the first black woman host in the network’s history.

“The fact that we’re still talking about black firsts is frustrating,” she told WTTW last month, because it “points to long histories of exclusion. At the same time, though, I feel this is something to celebrate.” She’s right. And it’s a shame that it suddenly became more expensive for TV audiences to see her in this new position. Simply put, fewer people are going to be exposed to her expertise.

Film critic Kristen Lopez, whose work appears in Forbes, Remezcla and other publications, writes specifically about older films at her website Journeys in Classic Film. “With classic film access already being so limited, TCM kind of remains this last bastion of classic film access for anyone who wants to discover these movies,” she said.

“It’s always very weird with TCM, which is commercial-free. Longtime fans are always worried about things like, when are they going to start adding commercials? Or every time they do ‘31 Days of Oscar’ and they start showing Oscar-nominated movies from 2010 people are like, ‘Is this proof that they’re going to start showing newer movies and it’s going to become like AMC, where you’re not going to be able to see anything classic?’ So people always get concerned. And now they’re putting it behind an additional paywall, for lack of a better description.”

I’ve been thinking about how people generally think and talk about classic films because earlier this month, an interview that ran in Esquire with pop culture writer Shea Serrano about his new book “Movies (And Other Things)” sparked some back and forth on the topic of these films and their value (or lack thereof).

Serrano isn’t a film critic — he is best known for his writing about hip-hop and basketball — and it was specifically his comments about older films that touched a nerve on social media.

He was interviewed by Esquire’s politics editor Jack Holmes, who noted that Serrano’s book focuses on movies from the ’80s and beyond and asks: “Are you like me in that you don’t see a ton of appeal in movies older than that?”

Serrano replies: “I’m with you on that. I watch old movies and I’m like, ‘No thanks.’ They’re not fun. It’s clear that they were still trying to figure out how to do things. Some of them, of course, were undeniable, like a ‘Jaws’ or ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Indiana Jones.’ You watch those and you go, ‘Oh, I see in this the bones of what eventually became whatever action franchise.’ Or ‘Alien.’ [But mostly], they’re just not that fun to watch.”
Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell in the 1951 film noir/comedy "His Kind of Woman."

As surreal as it is to hear him list those titles as “old” (he’s right; “Raiders of the Lost Ark” came out nearly four decades ago), there’s room enough in the media landscape to like what you like and avoid the rest. It seems odd to discount all of film history pre-1980, but Serrano is voicing something we’ve all heard before: The perception that films made during the first half of the 20th century are dull.

I remember maybe 10 or fifteen years ago seeing 1957’s “A Face in the Crowd” for the first time — courtesy of TCM — and being blown back by how dark and cynical and disturbingly insightful it is, about a guy (Andy Griffith) who manages to exchange every ounce of integrity he might have once had for an empty life of celebrity, wealth and power. Patricia Neal plays the radio producer who discovers this rakish con man, only to regret sending him down this path, and the fact that a woman is playing this role in 1957 feels surprising in all the right ways. Plus, any film with Walter Matthau grumbling his way through his lines is worth your time.

That serendipity — of randomly catching a movie on TCM — now comes with an additional price tag.

Nearly all these movies are in black and white and I think for many, that’s the ultimate turnoff. But there are other reasons.

“There’s the concept of: Older movies are racist, they’re misogynist and there’s no way I see myself in those movies,” Lopez said. “And that’s a valid critique. Not all classic films are that way, but there’s this heavy history of, this is what Hollywood spent a lot of those decades doing. So if you’re a person of color who wants to see yourself represented in classic cinema, it’s very difficult. As a disabled woman, I don’t often see myself represented in classic cinema, but I talk a lot about ‘Freaks’ from 1932 as this landmark that we have not seemed to improve upon on the decades since.”
Andy Griffith and Patricia Neal star in "A Face in the Crowd."


One of the more consistent resources for classic film screenings locally is the Chicago Film Society, which has wonderfully eclectic taste and a real talent for unearthing obscurities. This week the film society screens the 1928 silent “The Sideshow” and as per usual, the blurb they’ve written includes just enough context to get you interested: The movie follows a trapeze artist who takes up with a traveling sideshow troupe and its circle of outcasts. Starring “Little Billy” Rhodes, who, as a little person in Hollywood, was frequently relegated to comic relief but here he plays a role with real depth. (Dennis Scott will accompany the film on the Music Box organ.)

“Unfortunately I think for a lot of people when they hear ‘classic film’ it just means old, especially in a way that means they’re not interested," said Rebecca Lyon, who is a programmer with the film society. “But we’ve shown musicals that are some of the weirdest films I’ve ever seen. I think some of the strangest and darkest stuff I’ve seen on film falls in that period of classic film.”

You have to actively look for those kinds of pictures, she said, which the film society does. “We want people to walk away and be like, ‘OK, this movie I just saw from 1940 is one of the trippiest things I’ve ever seen — more so than anything I’ve ever seen this year.' People in the 1940s were just as weird as we are. We showed a musical called ‘Yolanda and the Thief’ from 1945, it’s directed by Vincente Minnelli and it’s got Fred Astaire in it. On paper it seems like the kind of movie those guys in that Esquire interview wouldn’t want to watch, but it’s one of the weirdest things I’ve ever seen (laughs) and it’s fun and just really bizarre.”

Because of the ease-of-access streaming provides, it feels like we should be able to watch more films than ever. That’s just not the case with older films, especially if you chucked your DVD player years ago. Kanopy is an on-demand streaming platform used by public libraries across the country and is one place to start; the Chicago Public Library, however, uses a different platform called Hoopla and it does not appear to have any classic films listed. Other places to look, per Lopez: “Amazon Prime has some insanely great classics. (On) YouTube you can find less-than-legit options. Places like archive.org and there’s the whole Library of Congress website. And Pluto TV or Tubi TV."

As for TCM, Lopez thinks the recent change is “just going to force more people to cancel their cable. Sling and Hulu still have TCM On Demand and you can just watch it through those.

"Or the saddest thing is it will cause even more people to say, ‘I don’t necessarily need that channel anymore,’ and that in turn justifies this belief that TCM is no longer valid.”

[AaronJ]

Good post.

Of course, if you knew me then you'd know that telling me to hold onto something I own is really unnecessary. Heh. Just to put it into perspective, I have every box to every iPhone I've ever owned. That's not a big deal, except that I've had every iPhone since the 3G which came out in 2009. Why do I still have those boxes? Who knows?

Back to this change, it's unfortunate for a lot of people, there's no doubt. Personally, I'm sort of excited about HBO MAX, depending on how it turns out. But it seems like that puts me in the minority, and I understand that.

But yeah, me getting rid of anything is ... well, not likely.

[I KEEL YOU]

But digital is so much more convenient. All you need to do is subscribe to 17 different streaming services and do some research on which of those services has the movie you want to see. And boom, you're watching the movie.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

But digital is so much more convenient. All you need to do is subscribe to 17 different streaming services and do some research on which of those services has the movie you want to see. And boom, you're watching the movie.

Is that ever the truth. And don't forget that when you finally find the movie you want to see, you discover that the streaming channel removed it the day before.

[sandman slim]

Bigger problem is that none of these classics are streaming anywhere. I've found only a few on Netflix, like "The Bishop's Wife", "The Stranger", & "Who's that Knocking at My Door?".

Amazon has a lot more, but good luck finding them; a search for "classic films" comes up with a list that includes everything from "Stagecoach" & "To Kill a Mockingbird" to "Boo2! A Madea Halloween", and the 2016 World Series Championship film.

Classics, indeed.

[lilboyblu]

Maybe this is new in Chicagoland, but TCM (and other former basics) were walled behind higher priced Comcast packages in the Minneapolis market several years ago already.

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Is that ever the truth. And don't forget that when you finally find the movie you want to see, you discover that the streaming channel removed it the day before.

Or if you do find it, lag/buffering, pixelation, low bit rates, and tinny audio. Awesome!

[AaronJ]

A number of the streaming services I have are ones which I would have because I have the "mother service" to start with. A perfect example is Amazon. Even if I had absolutely zero interest in their streaming offerings I would still have Amazon Prime. HBO Go is another good example. It's not as if I wouldn't have HBO otherwise.

Now, with stuff like Netflix, that's different. But with all their new original programming I can't imagine getting rid of it these days. I mean, where would I be without "Black Mirror" for instance?

For people like me, who rarely leave the house to be frank, streaming is great. I think it really depends on how one generally lives one's life.

[monwobbbo]

well cable is going to be a mess and it looks like streaming will as well. everyone wants a piece of the pie and those pieces seem to be getting smaller all the time. as for TCM sadly the target audience is dying off. i like older films but TCM rarely shows old horror or sci fi films (except during Halloween). while the occasional 30's gangster film etc is viewed (by me) i can see why the view that people aren't really watching is there. my mom loves the channel but she is 80. i can also see that films from 1980 are considered "old" they are 40 years old (ok in a couple of months) and that does qualify. with movies and music i've noticed that what is considered "old" soley depends on the age of the viewer (or listener). to a kid that is 15 a movie that was made 7 years ago is "old", after all it was made almost half their life ago.

[Professor Echo]

The saddest part for me is the immense loss of access and choice. I love movies and TV from all eras, not just from after I was born. The scariest thing to me is that eventually we may lose the opportunity for people who do have a genuine curiosity to explore media outside of their comfort zone to actually be able to find it. We see and read everyday about censoring our collective past and that's only a few steps away from denying it completely which a lack of any access will only become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I want to say who cares if a teenager today has never heard of Alfred Hitchcock? I know who he is and the ignorance of younger generations has nothing to do with me. But it does once a studio decides that their most important youth demographic has no interest in something and they become pandering enablers. Or, even worse, their most important youth demographic grows up to run the studio someday. We all sooner or later are at the mercy of ignorance and it's not a good place to be.

No, the sky is not falling. But I myself find I can't face this brave new world of streaming without a robust physical media collection to shore up my defenses.

[happydood]

I've been doing Sling TV for almost four years now so I can still have TCM and a couple other channels that we watch and I've never looked back. The on-demand function is great and I don't even bother with dvr as most everything they show will turn up on-demand with the introductions within a day of its original airing, so there is ALWAYS something to see that I haven't seen yet. I don't know how sustainable Sling is, but I'm content with it. If TCM goes away, though... there are no words.

As for that Esquire bit, I've always thought that people who don't value books and music and movies of EVERY genre and EVERY period of recorded history can be safely ignored.

[bkbluray]

I see all the time people selling their physical copies of Blu or DVD's and they're going all digital. I like to have the 4K or Blu-ray package because you get the digital copy which is convenient but then if they ever shut off Vudu you would always have the disc. And the disc often provides better audio at least.

As for streaming subscriptions, I agree it is a crap shoot. Netflix is losing The Office, well the joke's on them because we've watched it from DVD and Blu-ray for years and don't pay for a subscription. We mainly just watch physical movies or our owned digital collection, or owned TV shows.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

If ever a case was made for maintaining a healthy physical media collection, this is it.

There's a flip side to every argument, and the alternative to your conclusion is that with the advent of streaming, classic film titles will attain greater availability combined with a much lower cost.

Given what is known of Filmstruck's demise, we can expect an TCM HD channel as one of the HBO Max tiers by next year.

For any lover of classic film, you can stream thousands of films, many if not a majority unavailable on physical media, via TCM for less than $100 per year. The same is true of the Criterion Channel. I'm a subscriber, and although I continue to purchase physical and build my collection, I could very easily restrict my viewing to CC and still not watch a fraction of the content which interests me.

For the math compromised, that's less than the cost of five Criterion titles, on sale no less.

The overwhelming majority of people are not interested in multiple viewings of the same film, ergo interested in owning physical media.

You can't stem the tide with a broom, or a shiny bit of plastic for that matter.

[Page14]

TCM is the main reason I have cable, period. And I am not a fan of streaming at all.

I'm in a situation similar to what lilboyblu mentions a couple posts back. My cable company (Charter then, which is now called Spectrum) forced me into a certain tier years ago in order to get TCM. But even after doing that, my latest bill shot up $10 with no explanation. I chalk it up to corporate greed.

I'm paying way too much to be getting essentially the only channel I watch consistently ... other than the local channels for news and sports. I don't need or want a gazillion channels. So for me, I need to find whatever service will allow me to watch TCM.

I don't want to just have access to the movies TCM shows ... I want to see the intros and outros too, just as I would see them on cable (and in the same time slot). It sounds like that isn't even possible anymore on cable TV (without paying through the nose), no matter which company you're with. So us TCM fans are being forced to stream or pay through the nose to watch our favorite channel on cable.

It's all about greed.

[Member-222782]

Eh, I'm not worried.

If I were to make a list of all the unwatched movies in my collection, I'd probably have a coronary. Just the other day I was thinking to myself there's stuff I'm NEVER going to find the time to watch, which is sad, but my point is, if physical media were to die next week I have my vast personal collection to savor for years and years. Even if I do run out of stuff to watch from my collection, there's still LOTS of movies I can revisit over and over. I realize I belong to a small minority of consumers of filmed entertainment who still purchase physical media and couldn't care less about streaming but, even in small numbers we still represent a good sized chunk of consumers who want to purchase physical media and still make the studios and boutiques plenty of money. So, no, I'm not worried.

Also, as the years roll by, we're going to see more and more like that Serrano guy who don't care about "old" films and dismiss them entirely - that's fine. It's THEIR loss but it's still not going to make physical media go away.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

There's a flip side to every argument, and the alternative to your conclusion is that with the advent of streaming, classic film titles will attain greater availability combined with a much lower cost.

If you really believe this and trust the studios/copyright owners/streaming outlets to fulfill this prophecy, I can only say more power to you. It would be nice if that happens.

Speaking only for myself, I will continue to buy physical media. As someone who worked for the studios in Los Angeles for years, I'm afraid I can't put much trust in them on any level. But you can only do what feels right for you.

[FragnitoM]

Barely ever watch TCM though only movies in standard ratio because FiOS STIIIILL doesn’t have an HD channel version so everything in widescreen has black bars on all sides and stretching cuts off the picture

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Page14

TCM is the main reason I have cable, period. And I am not a fan of streaming at all.

I'm in a situation similar to what lilboyblu mentions a couple posts back. My cable company (Charter then, which is now called Spectrum) forced me into a certain tier years ago in order to get TCM. But even after doing that, my latest bill shot up $10 with no explanation. I chalk it up to corporate greed.

I'm paying way too much to be getting essentially the only channel I watch consistently ... other than the local channels for news and sports. I don't need or want a gazillion channels. So for me, I need to find whatever service will allow me to watch TCM.

I don't want to just have access to the movies TCM shows ... I want to see the intros and outros too, just as I would see them on cable (and in the same time slot). It sounds like that isn't even possible anymore on cable TV (without paying through the nose), no matter which company you're with. So us TCM fans are being forced to stream or pay through the nose to watch our favorite channel on cable.

It's all about greed.

The Sling service I have contains all the intros and outros in the on demand function in addition to offering a seamless live stream of the channel. VERY VERY rarely, there will be a 2 hour block for a movie that's not available due to licensing or whatever, but everything turns up on demand usually within a day of airing if you don't catch it live there. You can add 5 bucks for dvr and have the recordings indefinitely as well. I don't work for Sling, I just get it because it's my way of getting TCM and it doesn't have a bunch of extraneous channels I don't need.

[Page14]

Originally Posted by happydood

The Sling service I have contains all the intros and outros in the on demand function in addition to offering a seamless live stream of the channel. VERY VERY rarely, there will be a 2 hour block for a movie that's not available due to licensing or whatever, but everything turns up on demand usually within a day of airing if you don't catch it live there. You can add 5 bucks for dvr and have the recordings indefinitely as well. I don't work for Sling, I just get it because it's my way of getting TCM and it doesn't have a bunch of extraneous channels I don't need.

Thank you. It sounds like just what I'm looking for (except for the streaming part).

I don't know if it's normal or if my TV settings are wrong, but whenever I try to stream (using an Apple TV device), the picture doesn't look as sharp and the colors don't seem as natural as with the reception I get through cable. It's a big reason why I don't like streaming.

[Member-222782]

If I didn't need internet service at home I would've cut the cord a long time ago. Odd that there aren't ISPs that aren't cable conglomerates.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Page14

Thank you. It sounds like just what I'm looking for (except for the streaming part).

I don't know if it's normal or if my TV settings are wrong, but whenever I try to stream (using an Apple TV device), the picture doesn't look as sharp and the colors don't seem as natural as with the reception I get through cable. It's a big reason why I don't like streaming.

It looks great on my set-up, but ymmv. I have a 4k set and stream directly on it, but I did use an Apple tv for a minute and didnt always love it. Spectrum cable looked horrible, so this is loads better. Of course, blu-ray is my preferred way to watch movies, but I get introduced to a lot on TCM.