Looks Like You'll Never Own Movies Again

[BluMunk]

On 8/1/2023 at 9:38 PM, bill5 said:

Exactly. I'm glad I won't live in a "rent only" or "cloud only" world. It's not just about quality or the stupid pricing model, though there's that. There's the tactile thing of truly having that thing. Taking that away is somewhat dehumanizing IMO. Now get off my cloud lawn. Oh wait, it's not really a lawn, never mind.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it's cloud illusions I recall. I really don't know clouds at all.

[ProfD]

18 hours ago, Anderton said:

I see that as well. It seems the more recent the generation, the less interested they are in ownership...

Every generation seems to be less interested in ownership especially from the previous generation. 😁

 

At one point in time, it was natural for folks to pass down jewelry, furniture, tools, etc., in heirlooms.  Those days are gone.

 

How many times have we heard, "they don't make anything like they used too".

 

Again, planned obsolescence has made everything disposable.

 

Welcome to the Cloud. All digital belongings will be stored right "over there"...01110000111100011.🤣😎

[Anderton]

5 hours ago, BluMunk said:

I've looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it's cloud illusions I recall. I really don't know clouds at all.

 

Well-played, sir!

[Anderton]

24 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Again, planned obsolescence has made everything disposable.

 

Maybe at least pop culture is supposed to be disposable. From wax cylinders until the CD, every playback medium was inferior compared to the capture medium, and deteriorated over time. It's just the way things worked. Storage media for digital data deteriorates, but the data itself doesn't. As long as you clone it before its storage media dies, that data remains pristine.

 

Suppose every Johnny Carson show was available somewhere. Would anyone here watch it? Probably not. Besides, most people wouldn't recognize the people he had on as guests. Archival material is of interest to historians and sociologists, but how much does it matter to the population at large? How are we going to preserve several decillions of data? Should we? Who's going to refresh it as the storage media deteriorates? How easy will it be to retrieve data? I have no idea.

 

We don't know much about pop stars in the Roman Empire, but I don't think that makes much difference in today's world. 

 

(However, I am glad Giorgio Moroder did a restoration of Metropolis, although his "improvements" were not without controversy. Then again, most critics other than purists thought his additions enhanced the movie.)

 

 

[The Real MC]

I own my own physical media and I store them in a cloud at least four feet above the floor

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

Maybe at least pop culture is supposed to be disposable. 

 

Archival material is of interest to historians and sociologists, but how much does it matter to the population at large? How are we going to preserve several decillions of data? Should we? Who's going to refresh it as the storage media deteriorates? How easy will it be to retrieve data? I have no idea.

 

We don't know much about pop stars in the Roman Empire, but I don't think that makes much difference in today's world. 

Bingo. 

 

Everything is disposable. 

 

In the grand scheme of things, the importance or significance only really matters to the consumer(s). 

 

Basically, most things are just like food. 😁

 

We enjoy it for a period of time and then....🤣😎

[RABid]

Real preservation is not in the recording of a performance. It is passing a script to the next generation who then performs it again. 

[Anderton]

4 minutes ago, RABid said:

Real preservation is not in the recording of a performance. It is passing a script to the next generation who then performs it again. 

 

Excellent point. Still, I do wish we had recordings of Bach, so the question of whether swing was used so commonly it wasn't even notated could be answered.

[bill5]

 

3 hours ago, RABid said:

Real preservation is not in the recording of a performance. 

 

[jazz] poppycock! [/jazz]

 

[rock] you go brother! [/rock]

 

😉   

[Notes_Norton]

6 hours ago, Anderton said:

Maybe at least pop culture is supposed to be disposable. From wax cylinders until the CD, every playback medium was inferior compared to the capture medium, and deteriorated over time. It's just the way things worked.

 

I've watched a few silent films and other movies from before I was born that were pretty darn interesting to me.

 

I'm glad a lot of it has been preserved.

 

6 hours ago, Anderton said:

We don't know much about pop stars in the Roman Empire, but I don't think that makes much difference in today's world. 

 

But Virgil, Ovid, Horace, and a few others are still appreciated.

 

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Shostakovitch, Dvorak, Rossini, and quite a few others have been preserved on treeware media and still performed today. They were pretty popular in their day.

 

On the other hand, I don't think anyone is going to want to hear “Surfin' Bird” or “Who Let The Dogs Out” in 100 years.

 

I suppose well over 90% of history's pop culture never made the cut, but for some reason, others shine on.

 

I don't save DVDs and LPs for the next generation. When I go, it goes to a public library to do what they want with it. It won't matter to me. Let someone else decide if it's worthy enough to put on the shelf, or does it belong in the dumpster. I hope to time my dying to the week before I would have spent my last dollar.

 

In the meantime, I like owning the media that I own, LPs, DVDs, Books, and a couple of movies. I like that I can access them any time I want, in the fidelity that I'm used to, and I don't have to be concerned that someone in the cloud will pull it because I'm one of the few who like it.

 

I don't own many movies, because there aren't but a few that I want to watch again and again. However, there is a lot of music that I wouldn't get tired of, no matter how many times I hear it. But that's just me.

 

A couple of days ago, I woke up with “Chicago Serenade” in my head. I don't know why, I haven't listened to that in years. So I put on Jimmy Smith's “The Cat” and listened to the CD in its entirety. Delightful eargasms followed. I didn't have to boot up, open the app, search the archives and stream a less than stellar, compressed version of the album. Look on the shelf, under S for Smith, stick it in the tray and push play. From the 15" woofers to the tweeters, sonic bliss of a jazz performance that is preserved for my personal delight.

 

BTW, I highly recommend that album. It's a 60s era jazz masterpiece, IMO.

 

But there isn't anything wrong with the folks streaming, either. It's a good way to be exposed to something new that one may have missed and might even want to purchase and own—or not. It's nice to have both.

 

Notes ♫

 

 

 

 

[o0Ampy0o]

On 8/1/2023 at 1:15 PM, Anderton said:

 

From a marketing perspective, isn't "cloud" kind of an unfortunate term to imply permanence? 🤣

 

Shopping for new names, "death" encompasses the consequence of its adoption and is the ultimate permanence.

 

 

[analogika]

9 hours ago, Notes_Norton said:

So I put on Jimmy Smith's “The Cat” and listened to the CD in its entirety. Delightful eargasms followed. I didn't have to boot up, open the app, search the archives and stream a less than stellar, compressed version of the album. Look on the shelf, under S for Smith, stick it in the tray and push play. From the 15" woofers to the tweeters, sonic bliss of a jazz performance that is preserved for my personal delight.

 

BTW, I highly recommend that album. It's a 60s era jazz masterpiece, IMO.

 

 

The only Jimmy Smith album I really, truly love. And that's due in no small part to the magnificent Lalo Schifrin. 

 

Our track, "Cat Call", is an homage to the opening track from that album ("Theme from 'Joy House'"). (Available on vinyl and CD, too, natch. 😉)

 

 

[16251]

I recently purchased Marvel compilation on DVD of 1st three phases. 23 movies for $39.95.  That's a $1.74 each.

[eric]

This is a fascinating thread.

 

I was recently trying to reconcile my various subscriptions, some of which are shared across family members that wanted them for a particular reason and they are now underutilized. We currently subscribe to Amazon Prime (including Unlimited Music, which I like a lot), Netflix (paying for four family members), Discovery+, Disney+, AppleTV / Apple Music, plus some things that are bundled with the Comcast subscription like HBO Max and a few other channels. It is exhausting trying to figure out who is using what and where the most value lies. I believe one of my daughters recently canceled the Disney+ as I told her she'd have to pay for it if she really wanted it.

 

I envision a time in the not-too-distant future where ONE provider serves as the umbrella for ALL the others and folks are beholden to a single subscription or something where they choose from a menu and pay based on what they want/need. I think this could simplify things, though it opens a Pandora's box of legal / copyright / licensing issues until Amazon or Netflix or Walmart etc. simply owns everything.

 

Speaking of having ways to play back older mediums, I swear by my large vinyl collection and turntable. Not long ago I invested in a rack mount CD player, as my stereo CD player died and aside from the CD player in my car and a boom box or two, I didn't have a great way to listen to my large CD collection. All of my DVD players are slowly dying. I think I still have one that works in my basement. I have a VHS player that works, though it isn't currently connected to anything and we rarely have a need for VHS.

 

I miss the old Blockbuster days of going to select a movie for the weekend. Streaming is certainly very convenient, though it feels a bit soulless to simply ask the TV for a show and boom, there it is. Or not, in the case of "only on Hulu" or something that isn't in my subscription list.

[AnotherScott]

On 8/2/2023 at 8:04 PM, Anderton said:

I see that as well. It seems the more recent the generation, the less interested they are in ownership, and the more interested they are in experiences.

 

But is that a bad thing? Maybe it's those of use who want to build up an owned-library of physical books/music/movies --90% of which may well be unlikely to leave their shelves for the rest of our lives -- who have it all wrong. We can be obsessed with "stuff." And having your money (and physical living space) tied up with these things "just in case" you may want to experience them again in the future is, in a sense, not really so different from, as analogika put it, paying for "the POTENTIAL ABILITY to access something — not the actual access itself."

 

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

But is that a bad thing? Maybe it's those of use who want to build up an owned-library of physical books/music/movies --90% of which may well be unlikely to leave their shelves for the rest of our lives -- who have it all wrong. We can be obsessed with "stuff." 

 

What I said was meant more as an observation, not a value judgement. That's why I said a possible solution might be download to own. Once you own something, you can put it into something physical, or your own cloud server. Personally, I don't want to own a lot of stuff. But there are some things I do want to own!

[Notes_Norton]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

Personally, I don't want to own a lot of stuff. But there are some things I do want to own.

Agreed.

 

That is why I don't own many DVD/Blu-ray discs and am happy to rent. For Mrs. Notes and me, most movies are good once, perhaps again in a few years. I certainly don't need to own those. With a few exceptions, like Jeff Beck Live at Ronnie Scott's. I've learned some guitar technique watching that, and amazed by what is still way advanced for me.

 

On the other hand, music. I want to own what I own and more. I want to listen whenever, wherever and however. I want to be able to loan, share, and if I get tired of them, give them to the local library.

 

I do the same with books. Books are better as treeware for us. You can leap forward and back, slip bookmarks in for places you want to go back to, and a soft light on paper is much easier on the eyes than the screen. When we are done with a book, if we don't want to keep it, we just donate it to the library.

 

<Conspiracy theory time >

 

It seems corporate media doesn't want you to own. After all, if you buy the Blu-ray for Barbie you can watch it, loan it to your neighbor, give it to your sibling who can watch it and give it to your mother, who can give it to one of the ladies in her bridge club, who can give it to her granddaughter, who can share it with her classmates, ... ... ... and Warner Brothers, the writers, actors, and everyone who gets a percentage only makes that money only once. Sounds like it's more profitable not to let you own the media, like it was in the days before VCR machines.

 

</Conspiracy theory time >

 

Notes ♫

[bill5]

 

4 hours ago, eric said:

very convenient, though it feels a bit soulless 

I think that sums it up right there; convenience comes with a cost, and sometimes a somewhat hidden or unrealized and even profound cost. More convenient isn't always good IMO. It's almost like a drug addiction. You know it isn't necessarily good, but you can't help yourself. 

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, Notes_Norton said:

It seems corporate media doesn't want you to own. After all, if you buy the Blu-ray for Barbie you can watch it, loan it to your neighbor, give it to your sibling who can watch it and give it to your mother, who can give it to one of the ladies in her bridge club, who can give it to her granddaughter, who can share it with her classmates, ... ... ... and Warner Brothers, the writers, actors, and everyone who gets a percentage only makes that money only once. Sounds like it's more profitable not to let you own the media, like it was in the days before VCR machines.

 

I haven't done the math, but if you figured out what Barbie was making from watching it once one a streaming service, and compared to what they make from selling one piece of physical media, even with all the sharing you describe they might make more from the Blu-Ray than they would if all those people streamed it. I dunno...

[Anderton]

58 minutes ago, bill5 said:

I think that sums it up right there; convenience comes with a cost, and sometimes a somewhat hidden or unrealized and even profound cost. More convenient isn't always good IMO.

 

Experience 1: Browsing through LPs at a record store. Checking out the cover art, seeing all the other vinyl fans, finding titles you never knew existed.

Experience 2: Going to music.apple.com. 

 

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, Notes_Norton said:

It seems corporate media doesn't want you to own. After all, if you buy the Blu-ray for Barbie you can watch it, loan it...and Warner Brothers, the writers, actors, and everyone who gets a percentage only makes that money only once. Sounds like it's more profitable not to let you own the media, like it was in the days before VCR machines.

The corporation made their profit from each copy sold and bought. Sharing has already been factored into the sale price. 

 

A newly released DVD doesn't have to cost $25. Especially not on a blockbuster movie that grosses over $1 billion dollars at the box office.  DVD sales are extra profit.

 

The music and movie industries are almost Vegas-like in that the house never really loses.😎

[Notes_Norton]

The conspiracy theory section was tongue-in-cheek, hence the  

 

I don't know how much money they make. But if I do know one thing about corporate culture, whatever they do is to increase profits. There is no sense doing something that won't increase profits. The stockholders demand ever-increasing profits, and the corporate management make big bonuses for increasing profits. So I figure streaming has to be more profitable. How? That's what I wonder about.

 

I check out DVD and Blu-ray discs and books from my local library. I don't know how many times they have been watch/read without paying additional royalties, but I guess for some titles, hundreds if not thousands. Can't do that if the movie isn't pressed on physical media.

 

I of course just go with the flow for things I cannot change, but I just like to speculate about things

 

Does anybody else have a half-baked suspicion on how streaming can be more profitable to the studios?

 

Notes ♫

 

 

[bill5]

tbh I don't know or care. I do whatever works best for me and screw them. I look at making profit (or avoiding more cost, same diff in the end) too.  

[ProfD]

19 hours ago, Notes_Norton said:

The conspiracy theory section was tongue-in-cheek, hence the  

 

Understood. Still source material for a diatribe.😁

 

18 hours ago, bill5 said:

tbh I don't know or care. I do whatever works best for me and screw them. I look at making profit (or avoiding more cost, same diff in the end) too.  

The consumer connundrum ultimately comes down to...F it....take my money and give me what I need/want.🤣😎

[RABid]

Just watched Start Trek: The Motion Picture again on BluRay and remember why I came to dislike physical media. The desire of manufacturers to force their customers to watch previews of other movies in the catalog while taking away the simple steps of bypassing these previews. Hit the skip button and get a message saying this feature has been disabled. Hit the main menu button and either get the same message, or be bumped to the top menu where the process starts over. I've had disks where the only option was the fast forward through the previews. On this one they did slip up and allow the "pop up menu" to work. I had a Samsung bluray player that I had to disconnect from my network because Samsung was selling a service to the movie companies. For a price they download extra previews from the internet connection and force the customer to watch them before they can watch the purchased movie. I realized this one day when the programming got in a loop and just kept downloading more previews, and those previews were for movies that did not exist at the time that I bought the Disk. I've learned not to let any of my Samsung devices connect to the internet. My Samsung curve TV was especially insistent that I let it influence what I watch.

 

Anyway, I wonder when streaming services are going to ramp up the marketing. I'm already aggravated at some of the services for inserting a preview before the show I want to watch. Last night I watched an episode of "So Help Me Todd" on Paramount+ and it inserted a preview and would not allow me to skip it.

[ProfD]

37 minutes ago, RABid said:

Anyway, I wonder when streaming services are going to ramp up the marketing. I'm already aggravated at some of the services for inserting a preview before the show I want to watch.

It's never too late to untether from TV or cable or the internet.😁

 

The ability to entertain oneself is another upside to being a musician.😎

[bill5]

3 hours ago, ProfD said:

The consumer connundrum ultimately comes down to...F it....take my money and give me what I need/want.🤣😎

I like that except the take my money part. 

[bill5]

2 hours ago, RABid said:

The desire of manufacturers to force their customers to watch previews of other movies in the catalog while taking away the simple steps of bypassing these previews. Hit the skip button and get a message saying this feature has been disabled.

I HATE that. Even worse is occasionally I'd get one with an initial commercial you couldn't skip wth? It's BS like this that just fans the flames of piracy. 

[Notes_Norton]

Most of the time, on DVD/Blu-ray I like the trailers, but if there is one I don't want to watch the >>| button will usually move to the next one. One of the two menu buttons usually skip them all, but as you mentioned, some of the disc authors want to force you to watch something.

 

What I think I'll miss with streaming, are the extra features on the discs. Sure, some are lame like the “Aren't we great” features, but others can be really interesting and/or informative.

 

Notes ♫

[David Emm]

It also struck me that owning physical media of films can be a hindrance as much as a gain unless we get into the Criterion Collection or its British kin. I saw "Lawrence of Arabia" re-mastered for a modern in-the-round venue and it was not unlike seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey" in Cinerama. I was utterly immersed in it all. You can build a potent home system and it still misses a meaningful slice of what a large venue brings to the table.

 

By contrast, I would not at all mind being able to take a push broom to several tons of the bad cinema clogging that corner of my brain. For example, my first 3-D experience was "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein," featuring crapulent early glasses. My main memory is a scene of a man bring run through the back with a pike. As it pokes through, his wiggling liver is suddenly right between your eyes. Oh yeah, I could have done without that.