Streamageddon vs. Discpocalypse

May 1, 2013


Nope, that’s not a SyFy original. Alas.

Here we go again.

Yesterday, the internet made a big deal out of the nearly 1800 movies that were about to disappear from Netflix’s streaming video library.  Netflix had disclosed a while ago that this was going to happen, so I was surprised at how viral the story went.  There was chatter about it pretty much everywhere I went on the net: social media, forums, blogs, Slate, C-Net, Gothamist (from whom I shamelessly swiped the above graphic, which, incidentally, I find hilarious: nuts to you, streaming family!), etc, etc.  The tone of the coverage was: these movies are disappearing tonight, so hurry up and watch as many as you can.

I’ve said my piece about Netflix ad nauseum, and I was on deadline yesterday, so I was initially planning not to weigh in. But much of what I’ve seen about this is either wrong or just wrong-headed so, as I said, here we go again. Sorry.

First, factually wrong: Initial reports claimed that these titles were expiring because they were going to move over to Warner Archive’s new, and competing, streaming service. Nope. Warner Archive has explicitly denied it on Twitter. The wording of Warner’s statement was a little strange, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were angling to license the 1800 catalog titles (which are mostly owned by MGM but were linked to Netflix via a third party called Epix; it’s complicated). But it definitely won’t be an immediate transition. I’ve been trying to trace the source of that rumor and I think there isn’t one. Probably some yob on the internet said, hey, Warner Archive is mostly old movies, and these are mostly old movies, so I bet that’s where they’re going! And that’s still being reported as fact, a day after Warner’s denial. So among other things, Streamageddon marks yet another dispiriting failure of online journalism.

Second, wrong-headed.

Let’s start with this: Any time movies go from being more accessible to less accessible, that’s a bad thing.  In that sense, I’ll join with the Streamageddon mourners.

But, as we’ve noted before, streaming is not a good way to watch movies.  Of course, streaming varies based on a lot of things, so that statement should be heavily qualified.  But let’s drill in on these 1800 movies.  Start with film critic Sam Adams’s selections of MGM-owned films that he’ll miss among the 1800 Netflix refugees.  I’m pretty sure that every one of those eighteen films is or has been available on DVD, and Netflix carries many of those DVDs.  Four of them (The Bed Sitting Room, Kes, and the two Bond films) are available on Blu-ray.  Kes is a even a Criterion Blu-ray, and it looks gorgeous.  Also, the longer, superior cut of Altman’s Vincent & Theo is available on DVD in the UK.

You can argue about the relative quality of a standard DVD vs. an HD stream, but let’s agree that for every film Adams mentions, that there’s a relatively convenient alternative that’s at least as good.  For many of those films, there’s a better option than Netflix streaming.  Streamageddon is not a crisis of the magnitude that some are claiming.

Let me put that a different way: If one single person ends up watching Goldfinger on Blu-ray instead of via Netflix streaming, then I think I’m actually in favor of Streamageddon.

Now, it’s true that there are rarer films that were among the 1800 that should cause a little more agitation.  Adams does not mention any of these, so I will name a few interesting ones: Philip Kaufman’s Fearless Frank (1967).  Robert Thom’s Angel, Angel, Down We Go (1969).  Norman Jewison’s Gaily, Gaily (1969).  Richard Brooks’s brilliant The Happy Ending (1969) and Looking For Mr. Goodbar (1977).  Jerzy Skolimowski’s The Adventures of Gerard (1970).  Walter Grauman’s The Last Escape (1970). John Boorman’s Leo the Last (1970).  Elia Kazan’s The Visitors (1972).  Bruce Geller’s Harry in Your Pocket (1973).  Robert Benton’s Still of the Night (1982).  Nicolas Roeg’s Castaway (1986). And so on.

(And I’m actually not sure about TV: Were any of the MGM-controlled TV series, like the Ziv action shows or Flipper, on Netflix Instant?  I do know that a handful of ’80s TV movies, such as Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal (1982), evaporated from my streaming queue.)

None of the films I listed above ever been available in the US on pre-recorded discs.  A few of them (Leo the Last, Harry in Your Pocket, and Still of the Night) were released by MGM as burn-on-demand DVDs, but those were mostly subpar.  In theory, those films would’ve looked better via Netflix streaming than through any other commercially available way to see them.  But there’s a catch: the Epix library was riddled with bad encodes.  By that I mean that the streaming copies of many films had severe technical glitches.  Early on I came across two films (Daniel Haller’s The Devil’s Angels and the Leslie Stevens oddity Fanfare For a Death Scene) that were corrupted at length by a severe digital stutter.  At which point I stopped futzing with the Epix library, because I don’t care to have viewing experiences ruined unpredictably and there was no good way to QC the streaming encodes ahead of time.  Incidentally, one film fan who works for MGM tried repeatedly to get the bad encode for another film, Beyond the Time Barrier, fixed, and no one would listen.

(Another factor to keep in mind is that most of those MGM films were on Netflix in HD because MGM created hi-def masters for its cable channel.  So it is or was possible to record your own copy of them, at the same quality level you would have gotten from Netflix.  And nobody can take that copy away from you.)

When Stuart Galbraith IV and I discussed this here a few months ago, one of our complaints about streaming was precisely this: that content could vanish en masse and without warning.  But I’m not crowing I told you so because that was never my main complaint.  Streaming simply looks lousy relative to the other options, so the disappearance of this content is a dubious loss.

If you’re resistant to that argument, perhaps you’ll counter with something like this: Yes, but most people don’t care about image quality and they find Netflix’s one-stop shopping convenient and they don’t have the time or money to look for the best available version of every movie. Well, okay: in any endeavor, you get in what you put out.  I get that.

But consider this: Netflix streaming (and the concept of an online streaming library in general) is a relatively new phenomenon.  It was only five years ago that selecting a movie to watch and finding that movie and getting it home required a certain expenditure of effort.  I’m not pushing nostalgia for that model, but I do think it’s alarming any time someone becomes totally dependent on a particular technology, and helpless when it fails.  The tenor of much of the Streamageddon comment I read was along the lines of: these movies are not just gone from Netflix but gone completely, and HELP.  I don’t think it’s healthy that movie lovers’ ability to find things to watch begins and ends with Netflix.  That deprives those viewers of some things they’ll like and it hurts the rest of us in that it gives Netflix too much power, and cuts off support to alternative (and superior) distribution channels.  Those 1800 movies will probably turn up somewhere else soon, but you’re going to have to look for them.  In fact, you’re going to have to look for a lot of stuff over the next few years.  Netflix’s acquisition of catalog titles (that is, older movies) was essentially flat for the last couple of years; now, it’s dropping.  That’s because Netflix, with its present emphasis on producing original TV series, is reshaping itself as an on-line competitor to HBO, not to the local video store it helpfully put out of business a few years ago.  The supply chain for old movies and TV episodes, both online and physically, is in the middle of a big shift. Any of us who watch a lot of stuff are all going to reacquire the habit of figuring out where our next rental is coming from. If Streamageddon is a wake-up call for anyone who has become too Netflix-dependent, then, again: that’s a big silver lining.

And let me put that a different way: if you’re a fan of Netflix streaming AND you’re complaining about the loss of these movies, that’s a contradiction you have to resolve.  Because huge swaths of disappearing content IS Netflix streaming.  It’s not a fuck-up or an aberration.  It is the nature of the beast.

And the most important point here is that Streamageddon is trivial compared to the Netflix’s more significant and still ongoing betrayal of its customers: its decision three years ago to stop adding to and replenishing its physical library of films.  Anyone who cares enough to notice that a bunch of catalog films disappeared from Netflix’s streaming supply should care even more about Discpocalypse.  And yet I didn’t notice any wailing from Slate or CNET or my Facebook feed or Twitter back when that started (or now).  Where were you guys when we needed you?

11 Responses to “Streamageddon vs. Discpocalypse”

  1. Marty McKee Says:

    What I liked about Netflix Instant was its catalog of obscure ’50s & ’60s features that are never on television, not on DVD, and maybe never on VHS. Stuff like B-westerns, THE CRUEL TOWER, Edward L. Cahn movies. That’s the material that really hearts, not stuff like BEACH RED that, as you say, can be found (maybe not easily) on DVD.

  2. Marty McKee Says:

    Oh, P.S. I had no trouble watching THE DEVIL’S 8 or FANFARE FOR A DEATH SCENE. Maybe my connection was better or maybe Netflix fixed the problem when I watched them.

  3. Stephen Bowie Says:

    My mistake: it was actually the Daniel Haller’s The Devil’s Angels, not The Devil’s 8. I will correct that above. I watched both in February 2011, and it was unambiguously a problem with the file, not the connection. The problem kicked in at the same point in each film, on different days and different devices.

  4. What’s weird to me is that one can find a huge number of movies for digital rental (including many of the options above) on, if one really prefers streaming (and I sometimes do). They’re ordered a la carte, so I suppose if one watched a lot of movies, that would be more expensive than a monthly Netflix payment, but I get the sense that for a lot of people, it’s less about cost and more about convenience. Three bucks to watch a movie isn’t so bad, and many of Amazon’s prices are lower than that, even.

  5. raito Says:

    As we agree, if you don’t possess a copy, you don’t control it.

    You’d think that by now the public would realize that single-sourcing is a big problem in our modern economy where giants come and go every few years like epochs of dinosaurs. But even when something like this happens, we do not learn or generalize.

    Facebook, anyone? What about when that gets deprecated?

  6. DB McWeeberton Says:

    The Sam Adams post on Slate in its original forms was ridiculous–it initially blamed Warner for the loss of the MGM titles that weren’t even theirs. Just looking at the titles I could immediately visualize the DVD covers with the MGM logos on the top. It’s much more worrisome that all those titles might be disappearing in disc form. like the Paramount catalog did a few years ago.

    • Stephen Bowie Says:

      Not that I looked very hard, but I don’t know where that Warner rumor originated. (I noticed a mention of it on the Criterion Forum the day before Adams’s piece ran.) And the extent to which Warner Archive proactively denied it via social media is interesting in and of itself — an exception to the usual cluelessness and opacity with which media distributors operate. It was also pretty hilarious — they had nothing to do with it, and yet they’re the bad guys while Netflix comes off (in some accounts) as the victim!

      Ironically, a lot of the Paramount stuff is apparently back in print … via a deal with Warner Archive. But, you know, it’s just a holding action against the disappearance of physical media. Any time I start looking, I see discs that used to be Netflixable but are now out-of-print and scarce. Even with something like a five-year backlog of stuff to watch on the premises, I find it keeps me up at night.

  7. bobby J. Says:

    In my opinion, this whole streaming element for the watching of movies is one of the greatest rip-offs of modern times. The one simple benefit of it was that some utterly rare film was – for a short time – made available. That’s it. It’s the closest thing to real crappy, cheap, scummy, additive-laden junk food for film-lovers. Once you’ve seen it, do you get to keep it on your hard-drive? What happens if the hard-drive crashes?

    There was a recent case involving mp3s downloads, where someone who had download a tune wanted to sell it on and it went trial. They lost. The music provider held the rights.

    Now, let’s consider the opposite strand, collecting dvds/blu-rays.

    1/ If a film is worth watching, a truly great film, it’s worth watching again and again. Not sure how many times a film can be watched again and again on Netfleece. A physical format makes it’s presence felt on the shelves, reminding one to watch on the spur of the moment.

    2/ There is a deep-seated collecting ethos – possibly an off-shoot of our evolutionary heritage of hunting and gathering. If the ultra rich can collect paintings of Monet, van Gough, Rembrandt – then I can collect Wilders, Wylers, Welles, Powell and Pressburgers. An place them in year of release on the shelves.

    3/ Films and books, art objects and paintings in the house are who a person is. It’s the things that draw me in a room and are brilliant to spur conversation. Bring a date around to the house, have her help in the cooking and when she sees the film films, suggest a watch. ;-) And the better your taste in movies and great TV shows and the stories behind them, makes you a far more interesting person. Also, I remember a young fellow worker scoffing at the idea of me watching BW films, so I passed along ‘Double Indemnity’ and ‘Citizen Kane’. He could stop talking about them, asked for more and more. Not likely that had I suggested a link to them, him paying for something he’d never seen, it would have happened. So discs are gateways, the same way authors or directs are to literature and cinema.

    4/ Once I own them, they are mine – for as long as I’m alive. Not some faceless corporation whose relationship is being the “Indian-Giver”. It’s like going into the British Library or The Library of Congress and taking any volume you desire and keeping for as long as you want or need. And I can, if times were bad, sell them on and recover the outlay.

    5/ Also, I’ve noticed that well-to-do upper-class families pass on the love of literature by having shelves and shelves of books, the way that they pass on Shakespeare. Films and TV shows are like that too, so long as they exist in the physical realm where they can be watched on a rainy day. A library of books can be passed on from generation to generation, the same way 1,000s of classic movies can too.

    6/ Lastly, in a cyber world, the tactile touch, texture, look and feel of a disc is important for me. I’m sure that it’s a long way from the days where a spool of film had to be run through a projector but it’s just another little element here that allows for the senses to be engaged.

    7/ It also employs a legion of people in a virtuous chain that keeps them with a roof over their head and food on their table.

    So, what have discs ever done for me: something that’s instantly there for me, re-watchable, great for dating, marvellous as a gateway for friends to get into a director’s canon, very good for conversation, tactile, it’s cost effective, I own it and can sell it on, kids can be brought up with the best of the best of the past, it’s classy, it fulfills my need for gathering and collecting and I can pass it on.

    Beats having a black box in the corner that might crash and make me lose all the data that I hadn’t remembered to watch or the supplier disappear ovenight.

    • Neville Ross Says:

      Considering that TCM and Criterion are teaming up to launch Filmstruck (and also that most of the left-wing is blabbering about how our over-producing-and owning-things is messing up the environment) I think that your complaint’s beyond the pale (and if you want to see more DVDs be bought with less steaming going on, you’d best be voting for presidents and other politicians that approve of things like a higher minimum (should be maxmum, of around $20.25 USD) wage so that people will have enough money to buy DVD’s, Blu-Ray’s, and 4K discs.

      Even better, try and admit that time (and tech) marches on, and more entities will be getting into streaming (like CBS, Disney, 20th Century Fox, plus a whole host of others, and see if you can deal with this.

  8. Gary Says:

    It’s not as if Netflix streaming is THE place one goes for obscure titles, right? Considering quality isn’t apparently an issue, heck you can find obscure full length films on YouTube. Not to mention, I’m guessing there’s at least 5 movies on TCM any given month that can fill this void. And as far as the more mainstream titles, using your example Stephen of Goldfinger: seriously, is there anyone on the face of the earth who doesn’t have at least one friend that (a.) owns Goldfinger on Blu-Ray (b.) would watch it with you, provided you bring the beer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: