6 ms·

*Cinephiles took the DVD boom era for granted The reason it ended is because the general public doesn't care.

openrisk 2y ago
since when is the "general public" arbiter of wisdom? The masses will embrace anything that smacks of short term convenience and will tolerate enormous amount of abuse because caring for anything actually requires effort. This starts with thinking, collecting objective information among the torrents of marketing and misinformation, agitating for your rights and (horror, horror) even sacrificing immediate gratification. Because the general public "doesnt care" we are in a world you can own nothing, control nothing, repair nothing, keep nothing a secret, do nothing without going through gatekeepers. In short, idiocracy.
- browningstreet 2y ago
  They're not the arbiter of wisdom, they're the arbiter of commercial success & market viability, which is always a bell curve to the bottom (see Stanley Cups and cupcake, boba, and dumpling retail [in the US]). I worked in the film industry, in DVDs, at the height of that market. Sales of DVDs tumbled. End of story. There was nothing for the studios to do because the ROI was dead, and their previous efforts (which were terrible natch) to manipulate the DVD market (cheaper, limited play product) were dumb. DVDs were great, streaming ate their lunch. Calling capitalism's market economics an idiocracy is.. tautological.
  - openrisk 2y ago
    > Calling capitalism's market economics an idiocracy is.. tautological. Thats definitely not true. The most ardent and smart defender of markets argued that they operate and optimize within the boundaries that society decides. If you legislate that people should be able to repair, own, exchange etc. stuff then markets will deliver exactly that. If you let them race to the bottom thats also exactly what you will get.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- infecto 2y ago
  On the flip side, this is one of the best times for people who enjoy movies/media. I can purchase near almost any movie to my hearts content. Streaming is super convenient, I don't have to think about how to store the digital media. I don't need the physical media taking up space. Heck I even love to pay for a 24-48hour digital rental. I can spend $3-4 and get a movie to watch instantly. I don't care about DRM. Its of course not all rosy, there is some nostalgia from living in a world of constraints, having to go to the Blockbuster on a Friday to pick out a movie, looking back there was something nice about it, it built a ritual. DRM is not great and you run the risk that the vendor you purchased the media from might go out of business. I will take those and enjoy my near limitless potential library.
  - openrisk 2y ago
    > living in a world of constraints kinda funny to think you are not subject to constraints when your access to the limitless potential library can be revoked at any moment. pressumably you also don't own any house, car, books, clothes, etc. as that gives you limitless potential to rent stuff.
    - infecto 2y ago
      I already acknowledged that your at risk of the vendor going out of business or any other way, losing access to the content. Except for the outlier movie fanatic, its never been better for the consumer imo. I enjoy movies and watch quite a few and I think its fantastic how easy it is for me to rent and stream what I watch. I have no desire to buy a film. Even physical media, the cost of purchase and storing it is too high for me. I recognize that some people enjoy it but I don't believe the majority of the market does and I don't believe its fair to effectively call them sheep for believing that. Unlike practically every example you provide, I am typically watching a film once. I may revisit it years later but I am not consuming it on a frequent basis.
      - openrisk 2y ago
        Anything streamed could also be delived as physical media at marginal extra cost, indeed for those that want it and can afford these few extra bucks. Actually on a lifetime basis and taking into account multiple viewings within family etc. it may even be advantageous. One can think many other use cases where having the media locally makes a difference. You are saying "it doesn't apply to me", which is fine, but it is hard to understand how not having an extra option is somehow better for everybody.
Neonlicht 2y ago
Yeah these articles are all written by people who owned hundreds of movies. I was thinking about this. Normal people bought maybe one or two Disney movies a year? Now Disney Plus cashes in 20 eurodollars per month and they don't have to share it with anyone.
- theandrewbailey 2y ago
  > Now Disney Plus cashes in 20 eurodollars per month We truly live in the Cyberpunk timeline.
walterbell 2y ago
> the general public doesn't care DVD "extras" help bootstrap film students. Less film students, less future films for general publics.
commandlinefan 2y ago
Did the cinephiles even like all of those "extra features" that the rest of us ignored? All of that stuff is (as it should be) free on the internet for anybody who cares.

since when is the "general public" arbiter of wisdom? The masses will embrace anything that smacks of short term convenience and will tolerate enormous amount of abuse because caring for anything actually requires effort. This starts with thinking, collecting objective information among the torrents of marketing and misinformation, agitating for your rights and (horror, horror) even sacrificing immediate gratification. Because the general public "doesnt care" we are in a world you can own nothing, control nothing, repair nothing, keep nothing a secret, do nothing without going through gatekeepers. In short, idiocracy.

browningstreet 2y ago
They're not the arbiter of wisdom, they're the arbiter of commercial success & market viability, which is always a bell curve to the bottom (see Stanley Cups and cupcake, boba, and dumpling retail [in the US]). I worked in the film industry, in DVDs, at the height of that market. Sales of DVDs tumbled. End of story. There was nothing for the studios to do because the ROI was dead, and their previous efforts (which were terrible natch) to manipulate the DVD market (cheaper, limited play product) were dumb. DVDs were great, streaming ate their lunch. Calling capitalism's market economics an idiocracy is.. tautological.
- openrisk 2y ago
  > Calling capitalism's market economics an idiocracy is.. tautological. Thats definitely not true. The most ardent and smart defender of markets argued that they operate and optimize within the boundaries that society decides. If you legislate that people should be able to repair, own, exchange etc. stuff then markets will deliver exactly that. If you let them race to the bottom thats also exactly what you will get.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
infecto 2y ago
On the flip side, this is one of the best times for people who enjoy movies/media. I can purchase near almost any movie to my hearts content. Streaming is super convenient, I don't have to think about how to store the digital media. I don't need the physical media taking up space. Heck I even love to pay for a 24-48hour digital rental. I can spend $3-4 and get a movie to watch instantly. I don't care about DRM. Its of course not all rosy, there is some nostalgia from living in a world of constraints, having to go to the Blockbuster on a Friday to pick out a movie, looking back there was something nice about it, it built a ritual. DRM is not great and you run the risk that the vendor you purchased the media from might go out of business. I will take those and enjoy my near limitless potential library.
- openrisk 2y ago
  > living in a world of constraints kinda funny to think you are not subject to constraints when your access to the limitless potential library can be revoked at any moment. pressumably you also don't own any house, car, books, clothes, etc. as that gives you limitless potential to rent stuff.
  - infecto 2y ago
    I already acknowledged that your at risk of the vendor going out of business or any other way, losing access to the content. Except for the outlier movie fanatic, its never been better for the consumer imo. I enjoy movies and watch quite a few and I think its fantastic how easy it is for me to rent and stream what I watch. I have no desire to buy a film. Even physical media, the cost of purchase and storing it is too high for me. I recognize that some people enjoy it but I don't believe the majority of the market does and I don't believe its fair to effectively call them sheep for believing that. Unlike practically every example you provide, I am typically watching a film once. I may revisit it years later but I am not consuming it on a frequent basis.
    - openrisk 2y ago
      Anything streamed could also be delived as physical media at marginal extra cost, indeed for those that want it and can afford these few extra bucks. Actually on a lifetime basis and taking into account multiple viewings within family etc. it may even be advantageous. One can think many other use cases where having the media locally makes a difference. You are saying "it doesn't apply to me", which is fine, but it is hard to understand how not having an extra option is somehow better for everybody.

Neonlicht 2y ago

Yeah these articles are all written by people who owned hundreds of movies. I was thinking about this. Normal people bought maybe one or two Disney movies a year? Now Disney Plus cashes in 20 eurodollars per month and they don't have to share it with anyone.

theandrewbailey 2y ago
> Now Disney Plus cashes in 20 eurodollars per month We truly live in the Cyberpunk timeline.

walterbell 2y ago

> the general public doesn't care DVD "extras" help bootstrap film students. Less film students, less future films for general publics.

commandlinefan 2y ago

Did the cinephiles even like all of those "extra features" that the rest of us ignored? All of that stuff is (as it should be) free on the internet for anybody who cares.