Frankly I can't begin this blog any other way than by being blunt about this, I don't think anyone is shocked about the news that Paramount+ has dropped Big Nate and the Rugrats Reboot from their service. We can be upset, honestly I think we're even allowed to be offended, but surprised? After the multiple HBO Max purges? After the Disney+ purge? After the fact that it has been established that this is how streaming services work for years now? Frankly, it is not shocking, and the worst part is that it is not shocking.
I've made it clear that I am not a particular fan of the era of streaming we are currently in. To be clear, I am very much in favour of Streaming services, I think they are a cheap, convenient and accessible way to watch thousands of movies and TV Shows... or at least they were. Over the years, every advantage streaming has had over physical home media has been completely ruined by asinine decisions, over-abundant greed, and a huge misunderstanding of what made streaming so appealing in the first place. What was a promising new way to watch your favourite movies and shows became, let's be one-hundred percent honest here, the new cable.
Remember cable? All the annoying packages and bundles that gave you channels you didn't want just for one channel that you did want? Tell me, how is that any different from subscribing to one streaming service just to watch one movie or TV show? Streaming faces the same problem any service that has nearly endless content will face, a glut of content, specifically content you don't actually want to watch. So the argument of "You get accesses to a lot of crap" really is not the ringing endorsement that companies think it is. Why should I get Paramount+ if I only really want it for Star Trek? Why should I recommend Disney+ if they're only going to watch The Simpsons? Likewise, why should anyone get a cable package if the only channel they want out of the whole thing is some cooking channel?
This has led to streaming services trying to have that one "killer app" that proves that you need this service far more than you need the other one. Disney's The Mandalorian, HBO Max's Our Flag Means Death, Paramount+'s, Star Trek: Picard, shows that were made solely to entice viewers into choosing their service over the others, and let's not forget about "Original movies", Luck, Beavis and Butt-Head Do The Universe, The Tiger's Apprentice, Turning Red, and the less said about Netflix's originals, the better. Not all of these shows and movies are bad, but it's very clear that they only exist because the companies behind the services want a carrot on a stick to dangle in front of their audience, a new Star Trek Reboot, the latest Pixar movie, and it absolutely makes sense why they would be baiting viewers with original programs, since all of their other content can just disappear.
This isn't really the fault of most streaming services, particularly ones that predominately rely on third party content like Netflix or Tubi, but services that have predominately first party content, like Disney+, HBO Max or Paramount+. When Netflix takes something off their service, it's usually because their rights expired and they need to renegotiate, but Disney or HBO Max removing their own content from their own streaming services, at best they're just doing a modern day equivalent of the Disney Vault, and at worst... well we're hoping it isn't another Coyote vs Acme case.
Yet what really irritates me, and others, is the digital storefront. Many companies are using digital storefronts as more digital rental shops. In that when you "buy" and item from the store, the company still retains every right to it, and can remove it from your library without your consent. This has happened with music and some video games as well (Screw you Konami), and it's slowly becoming apparent that "ownership" is something that we very well me never have in an all digital distribution world. So, any convenience and accessibility we got out of streaming and digital distribution has been made completely moot, but what about the price?
Clearly paying X amount of dollars a month for unlimited access to potentially unlimited content is way cheaper than paying one to three hundred dollars for a DVD or Blu-Ray player, anywhere from twenty to fifty dollars for a Blue-Ray and of coursed the fifteen dollars plus concession for the movie theatre. Except, you're only really getting the better deal if you are using one streaming service, if you are only paying about $185.88 a year for one streaming service, it's probably fine. If you're paying that, plus other subscriptions, it's much more of an issue. Streaming services seem to be under the delusion that when it comes down to utilities, rent, food and entertainment, that they'll be safe from any budget cuts the audience members have to make. Besides, you can find equipment and movies for much cheaper at thrift stores and local libraries, public amenities people, you pay for them for a reason.
At the end of it all, I can easily imagine a future where we talk about streaming the same way we talk about cable, a relic of a not-to-distant past that we dropped in favour of something better. I remember when we all thought that home media releases were gonna be obsolete because of Netflix, but as we are still seeing DVDs and Blu-Ray in stores today, it's very obvious that physical media is still holding on strong. The issues arriving with convenience and digital ownership make the purchase of a DVD seem much more appealing, you don't need wi-fi to access it, you need to pay for it more than once, and the only way it can be taken from you is if someone breaks into your house and steals it, which can be prevented. I will always be a champion of technological progress, but at the end of the day, I just can't keep heralding something that is inferior to what we had before. So, if you are able, buy as much physical media as you can, or rent it from your local library, because streaming is far messier than it needs to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment