Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[bhampton]

My neighbor gave me her Netflix info because she wants me to watch Cobra Kai

I put it off because I hate Netflix but I need to give it a view at some point

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Now available

Cobra Kai: Season 3 - Netflix

Yes I watched the first two seasons, looking forward to Season 3....The Karate Kid!!!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Now available

Cobra Kai: Season 3 | Official Trailer | Netflix - YouTube

Originally Posted by bhampton

My neighbor gave me her Netflix info because she wants me to watch Cobra Kai

I put it off because I hate Netflix but I need to give it a view at some point

Originally Posted by alchav21

Yes I watched the first two seasons, looking forward to Season 3....The Karate Kid!!!

Bought first two seasons on Blu-ray. Can’t wait to add this.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

No, I call Disney+, Netflix, HBO Max and others in that category pay TV because I have to pay for them. If I stop paying for any of them they stop my access, exactly the the same as when I had HBO via DirecTV or Dish Network.

So what do you call Amazon Prime, because I can add or access to my Collection on there? If the primary way to access is through Streaming, it shouldn't be in a separate category from other Streaming Providers. Is it because you want to justify your Streaming needs?

[sapiendut]

Amazon Prime is still considered as PPV. And a bad one at that.

[JohnAV]

From another thread

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Yeah I'm wondering if disc nostalgia will happen, more than likely as a result of over saturation of streaming subscription services. And thus people remembering fondly the likes of Blockbuster.

I think streaming has caused a huge decline in film literacy rates over the last few year's in the main as well.

One way or the other though, I think it's a given Blu-ray media is going to become a very expensive thing to collect eventually. But with a cheap entry price, given the number of playback devices and HDMI inputs not going anywhere.

I hadn't really thought about that aspect but it is certainly the case with recent times well before the pandemic.

Film literacy can be defined as:

• the level of understanding of a film;
• the ability to be conscious and curious in the choice of films;
• the competence to critically watch a film and to analyse its content, cinematography and technical aspects; and
• the ability to manipulate its language and technical resources in creative moving image production.

See FILM: 21ST CENTURY LITERACY :A STRATEGY FOR FILM EDUCATION ACROSS THE UK AND BRADFORD’S PRIMARY FILM LITERACY PROJECT - Bradford City of Film

It is accepted that society has a responsibility to ensure that children learn to read and write in order to empower them to live their lives to the full as active citizens. In 2013, in an age when children and young people receive much of their education, information and entertainment via moving images it is suggested that children and young people should similarly be enabled to be media literate too. Film literacy enables them to understand how the film and moving image texts that they consume make meaning, encourages them to watch films from a variety of sources and inspires them to create films of their own. In so doing they are empowered to be culturally literate – to be able to ‘read’ the films and moving image texts they see every day and ‘write’ their own for others to watch too.

In some ways I look at streaming content as being too available, so that people are just not really enjoying or thinking about what they watch anymore even if it based on literature. Its more of just a entertainment distraction. It doesn't make one think afterwards, like waiting to see a film in the movie theaters, and then thinking about all you saw while watching the movie on the big screen.

[cheez avenger]

If one were a minimalist or into minimalism, digital streaming could be one of the components in that way of living.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

So what do you call Amazon Prime, because I can add or access to my Collection on there? If the primary way to access is through Streaming, it shouldn't be in a separate category from other Streaming Providers. Is it because you want to justify your Streaming needs?

Amazon Prime is many things. It is not simply an SVOD. Amazon Prime offers a lot of content that can be streamed at no extra charge as just ONE benefit of membership.

Amazon also offers pay per view rentals and digital purchases like any digital seller would.

Amazon Prime also offers music streaming, Prime Gaming, Amazon Photo storage, Amazon Kids, Prime Reading, discounted magazine subscriptions, Prime Wardrobe, and, obviously, lots of free and discounted shipping perks.

An Amazon Prime membership includes all of that stuff and more; you can't just pick and choose which features you get only those which you actually use. Amazon Prime is more like a buyer's club, or like a Costco membership, in that it includes so many different things.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

From another thread
I hadn't really thought about that aspect but it is certainly the case with recent times well before the pandemic.



See FILM: 21ST CENTURY LITERACY :A STRATEGY FOR FILM EDUCATION ACROSS THE UK AND BRADFORD’S PRIMARY FILM LITERACY PROJECT - Bradford City of Film



In some ways I look at streaming content as being too available, so that people are just not really enjoying or thinking about what they watch anymore even if it based on literature. Its more of just a entertainment distraction. It doesn't make one think afterwards, like waiting to see a film in the movie theaters, and then thinking about all you saw while watching the movie on the big screen.

Ok kids, today we are going to be watching The Musketeers of Pig Alley as part of the history of the cinematic vernacular.

Hey that short was made by a racist! How dare you make us watch this!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

From another thread
I hadn't really thought about that aspect but it is certainly the case with recent times well before the pandemic.



See FILM: 21ST CENTURY LITERACY :A STRATEGY FOR FILM EDUCATION ACROSS THE UK AND BRADFORD’S PRIMARY FILM LITERACY PROJECT - Bradford City of Film



In some ways I look at streaming content as being too available, so that people are just not really enjoying or thinking about what they watch anymore even if it based on literature. Its more of just a entertainment distraction. It doesn't make one think afterwards, like waiting to see a film in the movie theaters, and then thinking about all you saw while watching the movie on the big screen.

Much the same thing was said when cable TV began to offer hundreds of channels of TV. Channel surfing in a trance like state is much like wading through endless thumbnails and trailers at a SVOD service. Vegge out with cable TV or vegge out with streaming; it is all the same behavior.

Movies and TV shows, then as now, can be enjoyed at a superficial level or be the subject of a doctoral thesis and every where in between. The level of engagement has always been the choice of the viewer and having a wide selection, from whatever source, makes more cinematic art available to the viewer and I see that as a positive however involved a viewer chooses to be with the content watched.

[meremortal]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

If one were a minimalist or into minimalism, digital streaming could be one of the components in that way of living.

I've been looking into this more as time goes on. It's just really tough since I've enjoyed collecting since childhood. But I can definitely see how fewer material possessions could be a lot less stressful in addition to the obvious of reducing clutter. I've thought of moving into a really small space to kind of force myself to better adapt to a more minimalist approach. Plus, I'd love to be in walking distance to everything. I actually lived in a place for way too long because I was overwhelmed with the anxiety of moving so much stuff and quite frankly it was fairly intimidating to the point where I had to pay for several months of public storage. Definitely envious of people who have few attachments and can pick up and move on a moment's notice without having to really plan for hauling a bunch of stuff.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Much the same thing was said when Cable TV began to offer hundreds of channels of TV. Channel surfing in a trance like state is much like wading through endless thumbnails and trailers at a SVOD service; the behavior is the same.

Movies and TV shows, then as now, can be enjoyed at a superficial level or be the subject of a doctoral thesis and everything in between. The level of engagement has always been the choice of the viewer and having a wide selection, be it from cable TV or streaming providers, makes more cinematic art available to the viewer and I see that as a positive however involved a viewer chooses to be with the content watched.

While one can have hundreds of TV channels, you still have to look harder to find good content. Thats not necessarily the case comparing a streaming host that displays hundreds of shows to watch as a single episode or up to several series. TV viewing is a lot more random on what you settle on to watch. Can't say that at all with streaming. There is more information about the content to get you to watch it, like trailers or text descriptions about it.

Now you talking about someone enjoying content superficially or really critically watching it, where is the incentive to lean to the latter, if so much of the content is not great? I actually prefer some streaming hosts as offering weekly episodes of something highly desirable to watch. Its does help a lot on maintaining that particular shows worth, as well as maintain subscribers. Netflix been experimenting with that, certainly Disney +, and likely Amazon also.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Amazon Prime is many things. It is not simply an SVOD. Amazon Prime offers a lot of content that can be streamed at no extra charge as just ONE benefit of membership.

Amazon also offers pay per view rentals and digital purchases like any digital seller would.

Amazon Prime also offers music streaming, Prime Gaming, Amazon Photo storage, Amazon Kids, Prime Reading, discounted magazine subscriptions, Prime Wardrobe, and, obviously, lots of free and discounted shipping perks.

An Amazon Prime membership includes all of that stuff and more; you can't just pick and choose which features you get only those which you actually use. Amazon Prime is more like a buyer's club, or like a Costco membership, in that it includes so many different things.

Amazon Prime membership also gives you access to IMDb TV an AVOD with additional movies and TV shows not found on Prime. IMDb TV is owned by Amazon.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Ok kids, today we are going to be watching The Musketeers of Pig Alley as part of the history of the cinematic vernacular.

Hey that short was made by a racist! How dare you make us watch this!

How about the Black Hand?

The Black Hand (1906) - World's 1st Mafia Movie - Wallace McCutcheon - YouTube

Certainly have to pay more attention to silents to get the gist of the film.

[Lee A Stewart]

Content, be it books or movies or TV shows or music: likes and dislikes are subjective. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. One man's junk is another man's treasure. That's why I take people's opinions about them with a grain of salt and assume they will do the same with mine.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

While one can have hundreds of TV channels, you still have to look harder to find good content. Thats not necessarily the case comparing a streaming host that displays hundreds of shows to watch as a single episode or up to several series. TV viewing is a lot more random on what you settle on to watch. Can't say that at all with streaming. There is more information about the content to get you to watch it, like trailers or text descriptions about it.

Now you talking about someone enjoying content superficially or really critically watching it, where is the incentive to lean to the latter, if so much of the content is not great? I actually prefer some streaming hosts as offering weekly episodes of something highly desirable to watch. Its does help a lot on maintaining that particular shows worth, as well as maintain subscribers. Netflix been experimenting with that, certainly Disney +, and likely Amazon also.

Browsing a cable TV menu is similar to browsing an SVOD menu. People look until something catches their eye and they watch it. Either menu can be searched for specific titles if desired. Cable TV menus provide information about the programs offered, too, maybe not trailers, but definitely text descriptions.

The majority of content has never been "great." Finding great content is like finding that little nugget of gold after sifting through many pans of plain old dirt. You have to want gold to find gold.

Popular shows are what SVODs want to offer. Popular content drives and sustains subscriptions. Popular and great are not necessarily one and the same thing.

Much of what is on cable TV is mediocre, even outright crap, and the same is true with streaming. Viewing well, like dining well, is the choice and the responsibility of the viewer. You can lead a horse to great movies, but you can't make them watch.

[JohnAV]

AT&T's Reluctance to Sell DIRECTV Is a Bright Red Flag - The motley fool

New streaming priorities, but a mountain of debt
The slow death of DIRECTV prompted AT&T to buy Time Warner -- which owns Warner Bros, HBO, and the Turner networks -- for a whopping $85 billion in 2018. AT&T subsequently launched a new streaming ecosystem based on those media assets, which now includes HBO Max and AT&T TV Now.

But AT&T still remains far behind Netflix and Disney in the streaming wars. AT&T ended last quarter with 38 million HBO and HBO Max subscribers in the U.S. and 57 million premium subscribers globally, but it didn't disclose how many of those subscribers were watching HBO's streaming service instead of the cable channel.

In their latest quarters, Netflix had over 195 million paid subscribers, while Disney topped 120 million paid streaming subscribers. Netflix is profitable, but Disney's streaming business isn't. AT&T doesn't disclose its streaming revenue or profits separately, but it's likely racking up losses as it spends billions of dollars on licensed and original content.

Meanwhile, AT&T ended last quarter with $153 billion in long-term debt, which actually rose from $151 billion at the end of 2019. It accumulated most of that debt from its purchases of DirecTV, AWS-3 spectrum licenses, and Time Warner.

AT&T suspended its buybacks earlier this year to conserve cash, but some analysts believe AT&T might need to cut its dividend -- which costs about $15 billion a year -- to shore up its free cash flow

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

AT&T's Reluctance to Sell DIRECTV Is a Bright Red Flag.

Yes I Retired from AT&T, and a stock holder too. It was a mistake for them to buy an Obsolete Satellite Technology, and all they should do now is dump it. I thought two mistakes they made were Copper U-Verse and DirecTV. They should concentrate now on WarnerMedia, Gigabit Fiber, and 5G....With Infrastructure and Content that Debt should Melt Away!!!

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

If one were a minimalist or into minimalism, digital streaming could be one of the components in that way of living.

If you want the minimum possible quality.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Yes I Retired from AT&T, and a stock holder too. It was a mistake for them to buy an Obsolete Satellite Technology, and all they should do now is dump it. I thought two mistakes they made were Copper U-Verse and DirecTV. They should concentrate now on WarnerMedia, Gigabit Fiber, and 5G....With Infrastructure and Content that Debt should Melt Away!!!