The future of film streaming

Sad Professor

It's looking a bit bleak, no? Netflix seem to be focusing more and more on television rather than films. Their catalogue of older titles isn't as good as it could be. My main interest is classic and world cinema (everything else I see in the cinema or buy on DVD/Blu-ray) and there's not a whole lot left on there that I want to see.

Streaming looks like it's going to be a replacement for cable/satellite television. In other words, your viewing will still be largely dictated by the service. Netflix almost discourage you from browsing, searching their catalogue. As a result, I don't see how streaming can be a real substitute for renting.

Is Laser still in business?

Anyway, I'm just rambling here. What does everyone else think?

Duggy747

There's great potential for streaming though the time might not yet be right for it.

I tried Netflix and found their service to be pretty good, very mediocre catalog and a terrible search function though. Never had a problem viewing any of the material though, no buffering / stuttering / near-HD quality / etc.

Streaming companies need to get a hold of more material (especially up-to-date stuff) so they can vastly open up their library.

Netflix is broadening itself out what with shows like Arrested Development which a tactful marketing ploy. Similar to what Sky did years & years ago by securing the rights to The Simpsons ahead of other channels. Depending how this venture goes for them they could very well end up like an online TV channel.

Sky consider Netflix to be a dangerous competitor and had warned about them to other companies years ago when it first began. Sky themselves are supposedly looking into streaming service like Netflix (SkyGo is sort of their pet project at the moment)

I think it's too early yet to call streaming's future. Broadband services will be a massive factor, nobody will sign up to a streaming service if they have a relatively tight cap on their line.

johnny_ultimate

I've been getting a bit pissed off with Netflix's limited selection recently too. Especially after the S&S poll, there's a lot of films I've knocked up my to watch list, but most of them are frustratingly hard to track down for streaming (only four out of the top 25 from the poll on Netflix US, for example). I can't afford to be buying too many Criterion or Masters of Cinema Blu-Rays / DVDs at the moment (where you have to go to find lots of these films), and alas it seems as if Netflix's palette is rather limited. Not to say it isn't worth 7.99 for at least another few months - there's just enough on there to justify it (was looking for a Leos Carax film yesterday, and Netflix had one). But as I said before, you could watch every single film Netflix has to offer and still have massive gaps in even a basic knowledge of cinema. It's definitely better than nothing, and tends to be quite good for contemporary independent cinema, but the more time you spend with it the more obvious its current limitations.

I'd like to see Mubi expand their catalogue significantly - they have a lot of world cinema and classics to offer subscribers, but only really enough to justify a month or two subscription. A lot is still restricted to on demand services like Curzon or iTunes, which again is standard rental procedure and quite expensive to boot. A big problem is that a lot of films simply aren't available digitally yet in any form. BFI is one distributor that would really benefit through offering their films online somehow - rental or subscription service. I know they still can charge a premium for DVDs, and rights issues on many films are likely quite complex. But I know there's lots of films I'd be very willing to watch for a fiver online over spending 15-20 euro on a DVD.

Oh, and Laser are still around for rentals. Their retail store was meant to close down, but their closing down sale seemed to last about a year and now its just back to normal :pac:

Discostuy

I think its all ready to boom, I just think the studios are the ones holding everything back.

They seem very reluctent to play ball. iTunes is slowly getting more and more content but it seems to require big money deals.

They seem to be very stuck in the past. It's almost like they want to squeeze as much as they can from cinema and DVD releases, and only allow the likes of Netflix to have the content once its been milked dry.

They also have big money deals (especially in the states) with cable companies so they tie people in, similar to Sky. Its probably more lucrative having people pay multiple subscriptions for content (movies, sports, drama etc) that the simplicity of a streaming service sounds like a money loser to them.

If something like Netflix was to offer the latest content (HBO type shows) when its released, I would ditch Sky tomorrow.

I think this would have a major impact on downloading/piracy as well. Who wants to wait months for RTE to have a premium HBO show that they will televise at 11pm on a Friday night when you can download it today?.

I think Apple might just crack it first. I think they will create the enviroment and force the studios to join in.

Myrddin

I wonder how long it'll be before Netflix & the likes become infected with intrusive advertising. That'll be the day I wave goodbye to it. Although its lilmited, it is a brand new service here that is up against some big player cable providerss.

It's expanding though, & its userbase is growing. I say give it time, by this time next year or so I'd expect tto see a vast improvement in the catalogue.

Sad Professor

I was talking mostly about film streaming rather than television. Things are looking pretty good for tv streaming IMO. You might not be able to get the latest HBO show, but Netflix is good for most other things. I just feel that when it comes to films all the available streaming options are kinda crap at the moment and I don't really see that changing much. Netflix are going after the cable/satellite companies and as a result are trying to cater to everybody. So you get a bit of everything in their catalogue. If you are a cinephile looking for an Ozu, Mizoguchi or Antonioni film, forget about it. Hell, you'd think there would at least be a decent selection of John Ford and Howard Hawks on there, but nope, it's pretty crap.

I keep reading about how digital downloading and streaming is going to wipe out physical formats in the next 5 years or whatever. It's nonsense. I firmly believe we'll still be watching DVDs 10 years from now. Yet all the rental shops are either gone, a shadow of their former selves or ridiculously overpriced.

There are loads of smaller streaming services popping up, but they are all pretty much crippled due to DRM. I'm not paying 5 euro to watch a film on my laptop. I'd love to be able to use iTunes more frequently, but Apple look like they've hit a brick wall with the content providers. I reckon their eventual all-in-one tv solution will mostly try to bring together all the different services in a single box.

Sleepy

I'd imagine the likes of the UPC "On Demand" service is more likely to bring streaming to the mass market.

Most people want to watch movies from their couch in the living room and simply aren't interested enough to put the effort into connecting their telly into their router via a media box of some kind, configure it for Netflix. They want to just press the button and go.

Now, the current On Demand service is buggy, badly catalogued and awkward to navigate. Maybe we'll eventually see them source content via Netflix or something similar but unless Netflix finds a more direct route to the living room TV than they currently have, it'll plateau fairly fast.

krudler

I dont know why more tv stations dont take the initiative and charge per episode or buy a season pass for something you can watch legally online, like look at how much torrenting goes on for Breaking Bad or Game Of Thrones, I'd happily pay 2 quid an episode or something to watch it in HD legally, but since I cant and am sure as hell not waiting over a year to see it on these shores have to get it other ways.

Netflix accounts for something like 10% of all internet traffic in the States, thats mental. Its probably never going to cater to cinephiles or have really obscure stuff as its probably not worth the effort it takes to acquire those films that lets be honest, only a select audience are going to watch, I'm not sure if title popularity has any effect on Netflix's revenue but given the choice between some Ozu film or a summer blockbuster they'll most likely take the one that will get the most views.

I like netflix in general, I had a massive dvd collection that I got rid of for space and money purposes and lot of them are on there so its like having all those titles back for a few quid a month, its the price of drink really I dont even notice it coming out of my bank account.

Sad Professor

Another thing I don't like about Netflix: I felt like watching an old Tony Scott film the other night and did a search. Not one bloody result on US Netflix. All I could find on UK Netflix was Top Gun. Unstoppable and Man on Fire were definitely on there a while ago, so it looks like the studios pulled his films after he died.

stevenmu

Discostuy wrote: »

I think its all ready to boom, I just think the studios are the ones holding everything back.

They seem very reluctent to play ball.

I think that they are scared of loosing control of the distribution channels.

With the current system, only the big studios really have the money to fund big marketing campaigns, this in turn drives cinemas to show their films and DVD sellers etc to give them large displays and prime shelf space.

Mid to large size indie studios are consigned to smaller cinemas at off-peak times, worse shelf space etc.

Smaller indies and amateurs/hobbyists are stuck with web streaming, but because the big name films (and TV shows) are only available via the traditional media, that's where the mainstream mass market's attention stays.

If it was suddenly easy to (legally) stream the latest Hollywood blockbusters (and top tier tv shows), then within a year or two you would probably find that your average Joe Moviegoer would be streaming all of their movies. But, when they're done watching "ScaryAdventureRomCom Movie 7: The Remake", they're only a couple of clicks away from thousands of other movies and shows, and maybe next time instead of watching "ScaryAdventureRomCom Movie 8: SomeGuy Returns", they might just click on something else instead.

So by avoiding streaming, or by keeping it limited, the big studios are keeping the mainstreams public attention locked into the media forms that they can dominate. If (or when) they cave in and allow better streaming, they'll have to compete against people that they could otherwise just ignore. That is possibly actually a bigger threat to them than piracy.

indough

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the likes of the UPC "On Demand" service is more likely to bring streaming to the mass market.

Most people want to watch movies from their couch in the living room and simply aren't interested enough to put the effort into connecting their telly into their router via a media box of some kind, configure it for Netflix. They want to just press the button and go.

Now, the current On Demand service is buggy, badly catalogued and awkward to navigate. Maybe we'll eventually see them source content via Netflix or something similar but unless Netflix finds a more direct route to the living room TV than they currently have, it'll plateau fairly fast.

there are already tv's which are capable of running netflix without another box. they are expensive enough at the moment but i would imagine it will become the norm in time as the price goes down.

Sleepy

Oh, I'm aware of that. Joe Q Public, however, isn't and most likely doesn't care.

The subscription model Netflix operates on will only ever work for mainstream content as there's so little demand for niche content, the royalties Netflix can offer content producers wouldn't make it worthwhile for the copyright holders to digitise things). As such, they're going to eed to branch into some degree of pay-per-movie, iTunes-like model in order to sate the niche markets.

Of course, Hollywood being Hollywood, the studios will want to use this mechanism for all their releases (which is presumably why Neflix haven't yet branched into this). And, to be fair, there'd be an argument for allowing a premium for new releases. The trick is managing to deal with the lawyers here and finding a balance that allows for niche movies to charge a permanent premium whilst the mainstream stuff become "free" (i.e. covered by the subscription) a year or two after release.

In terms of TV, I can see the average viewer watching the older series that are currently covered by their subscriptions and waiting for new series to become "free" whilst the hard-core fans will pay premiums to see the new content first. Once the service is good enough and the price-point is right on this (say 50c - €2 per episode for the latest series), I can see torrent users paying that premium purely for convenience.

bullpost

I have Netflix for a good few months now but find I am watching less and less on it.

Since UPC added Sky Arts 1 & 2 to their channels , it seems to have enough content to keep me with something to watch (I've built up a backlog of recordings ) most of the time.

Am now considering ditching netflix and getting UPC HD for extra fiver a month instead.

Tipsy McSwagger

Should rename the thread 'I dont like Netflix anymore'. I still think its brilliant and I would pay the monthly fee just for the documentaries alone.

KenSwee

I miss my DVD rental.
Sky, Netflix and all the other providers give half baked selections. I also think they are only concern with replacing TV box sets.

So will we never see Star Wars online?
If so, then there is no point.

Technocentral

The UPC one is pathetic and seriously overpriced, loads of their stuff is on tv regularly anyway, there are about 5 films worth watching on it and I have those on dvd/blu ray, the new ones mostly consist of muck like Battleships and John Carter with hardly any decent classics.