Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Gimpdiggity

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
See also: The backlash Warner got for releasing all those delayed movies on HBO Max. Not everyone has streaming. Not everyone has the right streaming to get the thing they want to see. It's an exclusionary practice, unless one releases on all streaming platforms simultaneously, as well as (maybe lower-quality) over broadcast media, for those who don't have any streaming services -- or even internet at all.

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever read.

So you think that streaming services shouldn’t be able to release exclusive content? So NETFLIX shouldn’t be able to have any exclusive content? All of their original shows should be also offered on HULU, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, CBS All Access, etc?

On top of that, you think these things should be released over broadcast media as well?

I can’t even begin to understand the logic of this absurdity.

I mean, if this is the avenue you think things should go, why even have theatrical releases? Shouldn’t those just be released on every streaming service and thrown out on an OTA channel that I can pick up with just an antenna?

Of course things that get released by streaming services are exclusionary...ITS HOW THOSE SERVICES MAKE MONEY. If everything just released everywhere all the time, no money would be made. No money being made means no more films being produced.

Also...what kind of stupid idea is “I don’t have the right streaming to get the thing I want to see?” Like, seriously...that’s just dumb. If your current streaming service isn’t offering what you want to see, cancel it and get the streaming service that does have things you want to see. If there are exclusives on multiple streaming services, well, you’ve got some decisions to make:
A. Subscribe to multiple services at once
B. Subscribe to them one by one after your seasons are done and binge your shows (ie; Get Disney+ for a month to watch The Mandalorian after every episode has released, cancel after the month and subscribe to Netflix for Stranger Things, and so on)
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Egon Spengler

Master Member
November now? Honestly, at this point I'd be fine if it were never released. I keep forgetting it even exists because of the delays and well, we have two movies we already enjoy and the guys are forever youthful in them.
 

Inquisitor Peregrinus

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever read.

So you think that streaming services shouldn’t be able to release exclusive content? So NETFLIX shouldn’t be able to have any exclusive content? All of their original shows should be also offered on HULU, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, CBS All Access, etc?
I did not remotely say that. Films being released in cinemas was a fairly ubiquitous societal thing that multiple generations knew about and participated in. That same content now being released through channels many of those who went to the cinema even one year ago may or may not have access to or even know about makes a big difference. I know people in fairly urban areas who don't have good enough internet to allow streaming. I know people who refuse to pay money for something that has not much that they want to watch -- same argument as for cable for decades. I know people who have had Netflix for years, but don't want any more. I know people who still don't get how the internet works. And so on, in so many variations. But all of them went to the movies.

Just in this case, the people who don't want to pay for HBO Max are feeling screwed out of being able to see those movies. And a nonzero number of people who do have HBO Max don't want to watch these films for the first time in their living room when they were looking forward to seeing them on the big screen.

There is a huge difference between exclusive content created by a streaming service for that streaming service... and a film that was made by a studio that is at least not any of those streaming services by name (not going into who owns whom or any of that) intended for wide and general release -- regardless of which streaming service(s) got the rights to host it after its theatrical run.

On top of that, you think these things should be released over broadcast media as well?

I can’t even begin to understand the logic of this absurdity.
I'm old enough to remember when movies used to be aired on broadcast television. Certainly not first-run, and edited for time and content, but still. When I was a kid, with no cable and in a family with little spare money, that was how I saw a lot of movies I otherwise wouldn't have been able to. If one avenue of release is being restricted (cinemas closing down), the answer should not be a drastically-more-restricted release (a service that nowhere near everyone has or has access to). We're kind of in an unprecedented circumstance, here, so maybe one answer would be to make these new films more readily available and accessible to everyone who's living in fear or uncertainty or hardship right now.

I mean, if this is the avenue you think things should go, why even have theatrical releases? Shouldn’t those just be released on every streaming service and thrown out on an OTA channel that I can pick up with just an antenna?
Movies intended for theatrical release should absolutely have theatrical releases -- when there are theaters to release them in. THINGS ARE NOT NORMAL RIGHT NOW, so that norm can't apply.

Of course things that get released by streaming services are exclusionary...ITS HOW THOSE SERVICES MAKE MONEY. If everything just released everywhere all the time, no money would be made. No money being made means no more films being produced.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Again, I'm talking about movie studios limiting who has access to their films when theaters are closed down, not streaming services creating their own content.

Also...what kind of stupid idea is “I don’t have the right streaming to get the thing I want to see?” Like, seriously...that’s just dumb. If your current streaming service isn’t offering what you want to see, cancel it and get the streaming service that does have things you want to see. If there are exclusives on multiple streaming services, well, you’ve got some decisions to make:
A. Subscribe to multiple services at once
B. Subscribe to them one by one after your seasons are done and binge your shows (ie; Get Disney+ for a month to watch The Mandalorian after every episode has released, cancel after the month and subscribe to Netflix for Stranger Things, and so on)
There's... stuff I want to see on most streaming services...? (not CBS All Access or Peacock). And, for the most part, I don't mean, like, one or two shows/movies. Some people might be okay juggling services as you describe, but I am not one of them, and I don't think I know any who are. I'm fortunate to be in a living situation where I don't have to agonize over it. I have my Disney+ and am a student, so I get the discounted Amazon Prime. Others in my extended household have Netflix and Hulu (and I'm chipping in for the HBO Max upgrade). We plan to keep it at that until further notice. None of us have the time, energy, or interest in spending that much attention on managing subscriptions.

But, once, again, not germane. Someone who used to go to the movies once or twice a month may or may not have any interest in getting a streaming service to see a film they would have seen in the theater -- or know streaming services exist, or have the ability to get them. It's not a simple "one's as good as another" equivalency. Not even getting into the studio-side issues Dan described.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top