But Is It on Netflix? - Streaming Video Service Thread: Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, Disney+, Peacock, YouTube TV, AT+T Watch, Philo, Playstation Vue, HBO Max, HBO Now, Facebook Live and many more

it is cool

Felt like watching Indiana Jones the other night. And of course, even though the franchise is owned by Disney, the rights remain with Paramount, who had been licensing out to Netflix, but now have their own bullshit service, so if you want to watch Indiana Jones you need Paramount+. And I'm sure that'll be true for the next thing I randomly feel like watching. Fuck all these services.

Josh, it makes you mad every time that you happen to decide that whatever movie you're interested in ought to currently be licensed to a streaming service that you happen to be subscribed to, at the moment it occurs to you to watch that movie. This continues to not be how anything works! It's like deciding on Monday that you want to watch Temple Of Doom on Friday, and sitting down to turn the TV on that night and flicking through the channels expecting to find it.

(It's cheaper to buy a DVD box set of all four Indiana Jones movies than it is to buy downloads of two of 'em fwiw)

I'm just mad that they keep moving around from exclusive deal to exclusive deal is all. of course nothing beats physical media, but if I subscribed to Netflix because I like Indiana Jones, and then Indiana Jones got bought by Disney so I subscribed to Disney, and then all the stuff ended up on Paramount's new service, I'd be even more annoyed.

If you had subscribed to D+ specifically in anticipation of the Indy movies showing up there, it would mean you didn't do your homework.

(You could also rent each movie for a few bucks; or sign up for a trial of Par+ and gorge on them all you want for a month...)

I'm just mad that they keep moving around from exclusive deal to exclusive deal is all.

THIS IS HOW FILM LICENSING WORKS

You can't turn on the TV whenever you want and see Raiders Of The Lost Ark! You can't go to the cinema every week and see Raiders Of The Lost Ark! Netflix doesn't even keep everything that Netflix makes up forever, and they've never had permanent licenses to films (though they probably never take Orson Welles' The Stranger down).

Netflix do have every Indiana Jones film on DVD, plus the TV series, though.

Support your local libraries!

Netflix doesn't even keep everything that Netflix makes up forever

And neither does Amazon. This may have changed, but I was surprised to read on another forum (and then find out for myself) a year or so ago that Whit Stillman's pilot for them had basically been scrubbed from the internet.

http://i.imgur.com/WBs64NK.png

though they probably never take Orson Welles' The Stranger down

It's public domain, so they can keep it up forever, although the Kino version they have/had up is the Library of Congress print, and that might have special issues.

That's exactly what I meant :)

(They seem to have held that one for prestige value for years - it's not like they have much (anything?) else that's OOC.)

lol I know how streaming services and film licensing works. And I know how to see anything I want to see. I'm still allowed to complain!

The one service I have almost no issues with is Criterion, because everything has been curated and stamped with an imprimatur of quality. It's not just a dumping ground for stuff. So sure, things come and go from the service, but I know they're being replaced by other good titles and not necessarily just, like, shuttled over to some other service because of some deal made five years ago. Doesn't mean I don't get frustrated that, say, the Criterion edition of "Rebecca" is currently *only* available to rent and own, but paying for all these different services that *should* have what I want helps me justify finding other ways to watch what they *don't* have, even if I understand *why* such and such film in not on such and such service.

Why "should" they have what you want? (And why are you complaining if you understand why they don't?)

Because I can!

But, like, just literally - and this is argument for argument's sake - I'd say ideally, if Disney owned Indiana Jones, then Disney+ *should* have Indiana Jones, and if Criterion puts out a great edition of Rebecca, then Criterion Channel *should* have Rebecca. Even though I know why they don't.

https://i.imgur.com/T0XyAZ8.gif

Why *should* copyright owners not be allowed to negotiate streaming and home video rights separately?

Look, the entire streaming landscape is such a steaming hellscape atm that I will endorse anyone's right to complain about it, whether their complaints are wholly coherent or not. Because it's not as if the logic behind streaming is wholly coherent.

And yet another call from yrs truly to help keep physical media a viable concern!

I had the distinct joy of trying to find something on my local PBS channel last week on a streaming service. That is a fucking hellscape.

PBS struck a deal with YoutubeTV (of course, I didn't have it, we do pay for HUluLive though; no dice, no PBS there). PBS app didn't have what we were looking for because it was specific to the local channel as part of their pledge drive. So I had to sign up for a trial of YoutubeTV to see that, and now Im annoyed now that I've discovered that PBS channels aren't available anywhere. Complained to my public media friend. He said he's been yelling about it for years. Apparently PBS were supposed to follow up the YouTube deal with Hulu, Playstation, and a variety of other streaming services in the years following that, but they didn't, because they move like molasses. He'd just had to explain the same thing to his elderly father the night before. Which makes me wonder: how much have local PBS channels viewership dropped off as people start cutting cable?

apologies for any missing apostrophes, that key on my keyboard appears to only work when it feels like it

you have to run as fast as you can just to stand still. the bbc is the best funded public broadcaster on the planet and they can still barely keep a foot in enough of the platforms that people choose to use now. with pbs’ teeny resources i’m not surprised that they’re finding it difficult. but you’d hope with the right deals they could shore up their threadbare finances.

What’s up with this term “day-and-date” for simultaneous releases that’s everywhere now? Seems redundant, the two words mean exactly the same thing in this context surely

It's been a thing since at least Soderbergh's "Bubble" in 2006. No idea if there's a storied etymology, but I've always vaguely assumed that the redundancy is the point, that it's underscoring two different releases happening at the same time.

(and maybe that eg VOD used dates on any day of the week, whereas film always used the "5th Thursday," "17th Thursday," etc?)

Interesting theories - my headcanon for this is “people in the biz are idiots”

I know there isnt much to either moan about nor to nitpick at those moaning about in the world currently but srsly why would anyone complain about the price/ease of access to material that is available free and extremely easily found and why would anyone else defend the pricing/access models when it is set up to be as fractured and expensive and as much of a pita as seems devisable

Its like standing in line at a gate where no fence exists with a few ppl also hanging round to explain how gates work

idgi

Suscribed to Arrow Player yesterday. Watched Wolf Guy w/ Sonny Chiba, which is v much the quintessential Arrow aesthetic. Lots of good yakuza flicks and horror stuff on there.

What’s up with this term “day-and-date” for simultaneous releases that’s everywhere now?

English speakers love an irreversible binomial!

“day and date” is studio/exhibitor terminology, means released in theaters & vod (or whatever other platform) at the same time

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_release

it was a big deal back in the early 00’s when redbox & netflix started up
studios like Disney and Universal always pushed for loooong windows between theatrical & say, dvd release

anyway its p nerdy & prob only interesting to distribution-heads anymore

I know what it means, I’m interested in how “released in multiple ways on the same day” became (the daft and nonsensical) “released in multiple ways on the same day AND the same date!”

I mean I think sic’s first guess is right but I don’t think it’s deliberately underscoring so much as someone knew they wanted to express “2 things happening at the same time” but (because dumb) mixed up what the things were and ended up expressing “the same time happening at the same time”. And then everyone else (dumb) picked it up w/o realising it made no sense

i thought "day and date" means the same day internationally? so same "date" meaning it happens at the same time in Japan or Haiti regardless of time zone? This was my working theory, no proof to show.

the day was meant to reference picking it up at redbox in the day to watch it at night, and the date represented taking a hot date to the cinema. day and date. what is there to be confused about it's perfectly understandable this thing i just made up

Finally a sensible answer

Fwiw, the term predates the VOD connotation—here it is in 2003, referring to int’l distribution strategy:

Fox’s unprecedented worldwide booty from the boffo bow of comics sequel “X2: X-Men United” is traceable to a recent trend in which event pics open overseas in ever-closer proximity to their domestic openings.

Yet precious few pics are likely to mimic Fox’s unprecedented 58-country bow of “X2” on literally the same date in all territories.

In most cases, distribs will stagger international openings over three-week periods following pics’ domestic debuts, which nevertheless are often referred to as “day-and-date” rollouts.

(My guess is, in that case, it had something to do with the fact that the same “date” is not necessarily the same “day” in every territory.)

Related - the death of the Netflix DVD library:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/netflix/netflix-dvd-service-plan-subscribers-discontinued-closing/

well it's on their front page anyway

This show Alone Together thats produced by the Lonely Island is pretty funny even if it has Chris Delia in it (not in a starring role) and I don't know if it's even still being made, but ran across it on Hulu and am enjoying it.

They only did two seasons of it, both premiering in 2018, and it was cancelled right after the second season aired.

We got another 3-month trial of HBO Max; their catalog of movies is somewhat interesting/random. There's good sprinkling of "cult / indie / foreign" titles, with an emphasis on the '80s and early '90s (for some reason); plus some older "classics" along the same lines. It's nothing that would impress a real film buff, but a young person just getting into it (especially, say, 20 years ago) may be interested. Or, I suppose, someone "our" age who has a hankering to watch Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down, followed by the early Jim Jarmusch films (they even have Permanent Vacation) and Godard's Weekend. Not much in the way of classic Hollywood, though they do have tons of Charlie Chaplin films and some others from that era.

(FWIW, I'm an hour into Mulholland Drive, which I've never seen. Their print has the Criterion Collection logo at the beginning.)

I rewatched the first episode of nu-Who on HBO Max and a) it's surprising how well it holds up; b) it's extra surprising how engaging and likeable Rose is given how insufferable she becomes later on

If you like quirky/foreign horror, Folklore on HBO Max has six episodes worth watching - "six tales of horror from six Asian countries in this series based on folklore from each country". Even the lackluster ones are interesting for the premise and country of origin. Tatami and Nobody were standouts, I thought.

well it's on their front page anyway

It does work if I paste it into a browser though

(the ilx auto-hyperlink losses the last / )

Well this looks fun

just got this frightening press email

IT COUNTS PEOPLE IN THE ROOM SO IT CAN CHARGE PER PERSON??!?!

capitalism is fucking exhausting pic.twitter.com/9hDEhor6UT

— Sean Aitchison (@Sean8UrSon) April 5, 2021

Ooof. To be honest, just the other day I wondered aloud to my wife why TVs didn't have face recognition yet to know whose streaming account to use. This is just one step further (and one step closer to streaming hell).

I'm hard-pressed to think of a product whose crushing, humiliating failure I'd like to see more.

Doesn't the Xbox or some other gaming system already do the facial recognition --> user account thing?

I assume the part where they claim it collects real-time "emotional" data for the content providers is below the fold.