Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[proserpina65]

On 5/21/2021 at 7:30 PM, Shannon L. said:

Is it an unpopular opinion to think that Sansa had a great character arc and loving how her story ended?  That girl deserved to be Queen after everything she went through and I loved watching her learn to manipulate those around her to get what she wanted (that's if I'm remember it correctly--I do remember, though, saying "Good for you" on more than one occasion). 

In some places it is, some it's not.  I personally think it shouldn't be unpopular.  It was a great story arc.

On 5/21/2021 at 10:35 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Well, I would have really loved for Dany and Sansa to bond over their mutual traumas and experiences and become allies instead of Dumb and Dumber pitting them against each other, but nooooooooooooooooo!

They would never have become allies because they wanted two diametrically opposed things: Dany wanted to rule the 7 kingdoms and Sansa wanted a free and independent North.  No way to reconcile that.

 

[JustHereForFood]

4 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Not to mention they all seem to be grateful for the show and most of them still see each other regularly it’s not like there is any bad blood there.

I really hope so. I might be becoming paranoid, with all the revelations about my favorite shows lately (Buffy, now Doctor Who). But I had this feeling for some time that not everything was right there. But it is just a feeling, I don't have anything to back it up. Even in the trailer, it seemed to me, as if they were forcing themselves to have a good time.

I guess I might watch it after all, if only to see if I have the same opinion from the full thing.

[Crs97]

UO:  Hallelujah is way overplayed as montage music.  Actually, it’s way over played period.  Too bad because I loved it once upon a time and now want to roll my eyes whenever I hear the opening bars.

[festivus]

Preach that. I can't stand hearing that song anymore. There are literally thousands upon thousands of other songs. Pick one!

[biakbiak]

Not to mention it’s like most people who use it haven’t listened to the actual lyrics and it’s meaning. 

[Blergh]

9 hours ago, Hiyo said:

“They're not getting ANY from me from watching the show or buying that elbow grease! That's my Friends UO!”

Er, ok...I guess there is an opinion in there somewhere if I squint hard enough...?

To sum it up: the Friends alums can make whatever monies they can collectively or individually legitimately make but NONE of it will be coming from me. Does that work for an UO?

[Hiyo]

Maybe. I don't know how many of us are purchasing elbow grease advertised by one of the cast...

I mean, to each their own, I guess my own UO is that I myself am also not subsidizing their lifestyles since I haven't watched everything they have been in since the show ended either.

To sum it up: my point of contention was comments about the cast becoming destitute if they didn't take this reunion gig, which definitely is not true. A point which others here agree with me.

[raven]

I couldn't make it past 3 episodes of either WandaVision or Falcon & TWS.

Though it was clever, I realized WV wasn't holding my interest because I didn't care about Wanda or Vision. 

I had been really looking forward to F&TWS but ended up being disinterested.  Still not really sure why; it wasn't as much fun as I was expecting.  It didn't have to be all fun but was just kinda there for me.  Maybe I am just done with the MCU in general.

[peachmangosteen]

I absolutely loved WV (the finale wasn't great though) but F&TWS borderline sucked. Bucky is probably my fave MCU character so I was looking forward to it but it just wasn't interesting to me.

[Bort]

2 hours ago, raven said:

I couldn't make it past 3 episodes of either WandaVision or Falcon & TWS.

Agree about Falcon & Winter Soldier but I absolutely loved WandaVision. You bailed one episode too early, I was scratching my head for the first three but the fourth one is where it all comes into focus and I thought it was really really good.

[Shannon L.]

4 hours ago, kariyaki said:

Agree about Falcon & Winter Soldier but I absolutely loved WandaVision. You bailed one episode too early, I was scratching my head for the first three but the fourth one is where it all comes into focus and I thought it was really really good.

My husband bailed after 2, so my son and I kept watching.  After the end of the 3rd one (I think--it was based in the 70s) we knew it was about to get good and after the 4th, we insisted that he watch it.  He bitched and complained about how the first two left him not caring at all, then finally gave in. After he saw episodes 3 and 4, he was all in and ended up really liking it.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Shannon L.

[Haleth]

21 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Not to mention it’s like most people who use it haven’t listened to the actual lyrics and it’s meaning. 

Especially people who gush when a young person sings it. Oh, isn’t that beautiful?  Um, no, not really. 

[Kromm]

On 5/24/2021 at 12:12 PM, Blergh said:

Well, what can I say? I've never even heard of Apple TV thanks to my being stuck in the 20th Century. 

Is it an unpopular opinion to say that being stuck in the 20th Century isn't going to be a viable option for much longer?  

I think the Pandemic did give network TV a temporary stay of execution, because even though streaming services gained FAR more during the past year, Network TV did have a captive audience during that period, even if a lot of content was repeats and/or lame insta-shows they could make with little effort. 

But the hourglass is almost out of sand, and it's nailed down and can't be flipped again.  Ad rates for network TV are plummeting. I think revenue from global syndication is the only thing holding American network TV together now. 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Kromm said:

 

But the hourglass is almost out of sand, and it's nailed down and can't be flipped again.  Ad rates for network TV are plummeting. I think revenue from global syndication is the only thing holding American network TV together now. 

Live sports also play a role in keeping NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN afloat.  ABC is bailed out by Disney and the ESPN sports profits.  

[biakbiak]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Live sports also play a role in keeping NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN afloat.  ABC is bailed out by Disney and the ESPN sports profits.  

Though even that is changing you can watch MLB on Hulu and Amazon Prime streams Thursday night football and you can get other streaming live sports packages. With streaming you can choose the games you want to watch and not be tied to the game that the network is playing which is usually location dependent. 

[Kromm]

WandaVision and Falcon and The Winter Soldier are interesting case studies in how divergent people's viewing expectations/reactions can be. 

I loved the first 3 episodes of WV almost beyond measure.  But saw all over the Internet so many people who were angry, bored, confused, or some combination of those. So I wound up in a minority for that, because even those later championing the show feel they have to urge patience, and I personally don't agree. 

I very much liked the following group of episodes, and didn't really feel let down until the final one, although even with that, I've come around a lot as more time has passed and I've been able to emotionally separate out expectations set by online guessing games and the realities the show had to operate under. 

I grew quickly bored with F&TWS. I actually haven't even yet gone back and watched the ending.  I've seen others saying similar, but I think we're outliers, because I've also seen a strong cadre of people who thought it was better than the "weird" WandaVision. 

[Kromm]

6 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Live sports also play a role in keeping NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN afloat.  ABC is bailed out by Disney and the ESPN sports profits.  

Apparently Streaming services (especially Amazon) are buying a lot more sports rights this year. I saw some big article on it recently, but can't locate it again. Let's just say, the traditional reliance on broadcast TV for that is threatened too, and even the traditional cable channels are losing some sports deals. 

Amazon, if I'm recalling things correctly, really wants to leverage the Prime membership (already gargantuan, almost 150 million just in the US) and boost it ridiculously by tying a lot of exclusive sports broadcasting to it. A lot of people will justify it because of the combination of benefits (sort of... "I really want the sports, and the free 1-2 day shipping will take it over the top" or the reverse, "the shipping will be nice, but all those sports as well clinches the deal...") 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

2 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Though even that is changing you can watch MLB on Hulu and Amazon Prime streams Thursday night football and you can get other streaming live sports packages. With streaming you can choose the games you want to watch and not be tied to the game that the network is playing which is usually location dependent. 

I was just looking over the new NFL deal, and the streaming stuff is a little confusing with each network having their own streaming platform.  It's easier to watch network TV or Sunday Ticket than to remember which platform goes to which network. Amazon has all Thursday night games, CBS or Paramount+ on Sunday for AFC games, Fox or Tubi (??) on Sunday for NFC games, NBC or Peacock for Sunday Night and ESPN or ESPN+ for Monday night.  Who has the time to keep track on which platform your game is on each week.  Also, what else is on Tubi to warrant me subscribing to yet another platform for the 2 games a year my Browns are on Fox.

[Kromm]

Tubi has been free as long as I remember it existing. 

That said, it's entirely possible they've created a Premium Tier, with extra content.  That's how Peacock handles things. 

Edit - Tubi still seems to be fully free.  They're ad driven.  So the "cost" is the same as network TV...sitting through ads.  But it's on demand.  Peacock's model is split.  Free with ads, or paid with no ads plus whole seasons of originals and other premium content.  Hulu used to be split model, but is all paid now, I believe.  The rest of the streaming world is pretty much all paid, I think (with the possible exception of Amazon, which some might consider "free" if they buy Prime for other reasons). 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Kromm

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Tubi has been free as long as I remember it existing. 

That said, it's entirely possible they've created a Premium Tier, with extra content.  That's how Peacock handles things. 

It’s still free with no premium tier which of course means ads but that isn’t really an issue with live sports.

Edited May 25, 2021 by biakbiak

[Irlandesa]

9 hours ago, Kromm said:

Is it an unpopular opinion to say that being stuck in the 20th Century isn't going to be a viable option for much longer? 

I would almost think the opposite opinion is true--that the death of network TV is greatly exaggerated.  I say that as a veteran of the "ebooks are going to make print books obsolete" wars.  That didn't happen.  Reader preference is still with print. 

Network TV is free.  Cable is not.  Streaming is not.  People forget that there are a lot of people out there who can't afford premium television services.  They aren't going away.  Eventually, growth will slow for the streaming services and we'll start to get crackdowns on password sharing. That will lead some to pay but others to seek content out elsewhere.

We need more data as well.  Streamers don't release how many people watch their shows unless they want to.  Netflix's metrics are how many people watch a very small portion of their series.  What I do know is that very old network shows and movies trend on Netflix's Top 10 when they're added to the service--often times beating out Netflix's original programming. Reruns basically. 

Quote

But the hourglass is almost out of sand, and it's nailed down and can't be flipped again.  Ad rates for network TV are plummeting. I think revenue from global syndication is the only thing holding American network TV together now. 

But broadcast networks don't necessarily get that global syndication money unless they own the show.  That goes to the production companies.  NBC doesn't get paid for Friends in Europe--Warner Brothers does. 

And that's another factor to consider.  Networks have leaned heavily into wanting to own the shows they air so they diversify their revenue streams beyond ad rates.  They want that global syndication money.  They want the domestic syndication money.  And they want that streaming money.  They're creating their own streaming services. 

 

[JimmyJabloon]

On 5/24/2021 at 7:09 PM, JustHereForFood said:

To be fair to her regarding that, she was fed the narrative her whole life about how the Baratheons and Lannisters unjustly killed her family and how there are common people who still pray for her family's return. It's not like she had access to Westeros social media to check that nope, common people just want to be left the f*ck alone, whoever sits on the throne.

That wasn’t my main issue. My problem was with the audience cheering and rooting for it. If Dany didn’t know, the people watching the show did and still go “Yeahh Dany!” whenever she went on one of her annoying delusional rants.

[JimmyJabloon]

On 5/20/2021 at 10:59 PM, proserpina65 said:

I don't think he was stupid.  He just wasn't equipped to perform the role Robert coerced him into accepting.  That was the only really stupid thing he did; he should have stuck to "no, I will not be Hand of the King, sorry".

But Ned didn’t really take the job because of his obligation to Robert. He took it because he thought Lannisters were plotting to murder him. He went there to protect him but got him killed instead. With his stupidity.

Edited May 26, 2021 by JimmyJabloon

[JimmyJabloon]

I like friends too, but couldn’t care less about the reunion. If it were in an episode format where they showed us where the characters were now then I might have been interested.

[Ambrosefolly]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJabloon said:

But Ned didn’t really take the job because of his obligation to Robert. He took it because he thought Lannisters were plotting to murder him. He went there to protect him but got him killed instead. With his stupidity.

Plenty of other people -Tyrion, Littlefinger, Cersei, Jamie did plenty of stupid things that could have backfired and gotten them killed earlier on, (sure as shit got their kids killed) but because of plot armor they lived to the end of the series. 

My unpopular opinion was the Starks weren't really an more or less stupid then anyone else, just more unlucky.

[JimmyJabloon]

32 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Plenty of other people -Tyrion, Littlefinger, Cersei, Jamie did plenty of stupid things that could have backfired and gotten them killed earlier on, (sure as shit got their kids killed) but because of plot armor they lived to the end of the series. 

My unpopular opinion was the Starks weren't really an more or less stupid then anyone else, just more unlucky.

I agree. Tyrion wasn’t as smart as the show wanted us to think. Cersei could have been smart but she was too short sighted, narcissistic and over estimated herself. Little finger made mistakes but he was careful for the most part. Jaime was supposed to be the stupidest Lannister anyway. These people had less stakes(most of the time) when they made mistakes afair.

 

But Tyrion in s2 did what Ned should have done in the first place. He wasn’t a player and didn’t want to be one of those people so he should have treaded carefully, he was openly careless instead. And he knew he was dealing with much more vicious people than the others. He knew what lannisters were like.
 

Littlefinger didn’t have to worry about Lannisters outsmarting him because he knew he could play them. His only real mistake was underestimating starks and he did lose his life for that.

 

Anyway, as I said, I agree. Everyone did stupid things. But Ned looked stupider because he went into the lion’s den expecting them to act like wolves. The others usually knew what they were dealing which is why they survived as long as they did. 
 

I thought the real plot armour nonsense started in s7. Both Jon and Jaime should have been dead in s7.

 

Sorry if you have trouble making sense of this post, I’m not articulate.:(

Edited May 26, 2021 by JimmyJabloon

[DrSpaceman73]

6 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I would almost think the opposite opinion is true--that the death of network TV is greatly exaggerated.  I say that as a veteran of the "ebooks are going to make print books obsolete" wars.  That didn't happen.  Reader preference is still with print. 

Network TV is free.  Cable is not.  Streaming is not.  People forget that there are a lot of people out there who can't afford premium television services.  They aren't going away.  Eventually, growth will slow for the streaming services and we'll start to get crackdowns on password sharing. That will lead some to pay but others to seek content out elsewhere.

We need more data as well.  Streamers don't release how many people watch their shows unless they want to.  Netflix's metrics are how many people watch a very small portion of their series.  What I do know is that very old network shows and movies trend on Netflix's Top 10 when they're added to the service--often times beating out Netflix's original programming. Reruns basically. 

But broadcast networks don't necessarily get that global syndication money unless they own the show.  That goes to the production companies.  NBC doesn't get paid for Friends in Europe--Warner Brothers does. 

And that's another factor to consider.  Networks have leaned heavily into wanting to own the shows they air so they diversify their revenue streams beyond ad rates.  They want that global syndication money.  They want the domestic syndication money.  And they want that streaming money.  They're creating their own streaming services. 

 

The cost of streaming is going down though and the options are expanding. 

Network tv isn't dead anytime soon but it's a slow death.  

There is only one primetime network tv show I watch now, sharktank.  All scripted shows I watch are streaming.  There is jeopardy and wheel of fortune, plus sports.   That's what keeps me attached to network tv.  And even sports it's actually becoming more and more limited in terms of those not on cable. 

 

Even the network tv stations are moving to streaming platforms. 

Network tv is not dead bit it's now pretty niche markets : news, sports, reality shows, game shows.  Scripted shows are dominated  by streaming.  Network tv has some but few big ones or huge rating shows   10 years ago it was just the opposite.  

[DoctorAtomic]

I still watch the Sunday night shows on Fox, and shows here and there, and pbs. I have Hulu, Netflix, and prime. I'm fine with what I have. What I like about Hulu is they have network shows on after they are broadcast over the air, so I'll find some shows that I didn't know were on. I also watch SNL on Hulu on Sunday morning. 

I think it's a mistake to move sports to streaming. I didn't watch any Champions League because it was on CBS whatever, but I watch the NBC premiere league game of the week every Saturday. Champions League had been on tnt and they did a good job with it. 

I have zero interest in the NFL Thursday game, but I will watch the Sunday night game over the air too. 

Other than that, I don't see there much more incentive to content that's going to want me to pay more. 

I have a friend that just has a regular antenna and Disney + because she's a huge mcu fan. She's not hurting for money so I can buy there are a lot more like her. 

 

[Irlandesa]

12 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

The cost of streaming is going down though and the options are expanding. 

For who? For providers as technology improves or for users?  None of the services I subscribe to have dropped their prices.  Some have created "less expensive" ad tiers but most of them have increased their costs.

And increased options means the more services someone has to subscribe to if they want access to all the content that is being put out there.  That's not cheaper to me.

12 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Even the network tv stations are moving to streaming platforms. 

But that's why I don't think broadcast TV is going to die.  They're changing their business models.  Instead of relying on ads only, they're owning the shows and the streaming platforms where they rerun as opposed to licensing shows and recouping costs via ads. 

Yes.  Live viewers have decreased as more options opened up--just as they did with the explosion of cable. But I'd still bet that more people watch NCIS on CBS than every episode of the biggest streaming hit. But we don't know because Netflix doesn't tell us.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Irlandesa

[proserpina65]

21 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Though even that is changing you can watch MLB on Hulu and Amazon Prime streams Thursday night football and you can get other streaming live sports packages. With streaming you can choose the games you want to watch and not be tied to the game that the network is playing which is usually location dependent. 

I hate that.  I had to sign up for Peacock Premium to watch the last Arsenal match of the season, and I'm dumping it before my free trial expires.  I do not want to have to pay for 47 different streaming services just to watch the things I want to watch.

11 hours ago, JimmyJabloon said:

That wasn’t my main issue. My problem was with the audience cheering and rooting for it. If Dany didn’t know, the people watching the show did and still go “Yeahh Dany!” whenever she went on one of her annoying delusional rants.

But that's on the fans, not the showrunners or the writers.  There were plenty of people who weren't rooting for it, at least to judge by various threads I visited at the time, but we tended to be less vocal and post less.

11 hours ago, JimmyJabloon said:

But Ned didn’t really take the job because of his obligation to Robert. He took it because he thought Lannisters were plotting to murder him. He went there to protect him but got him killed instead. With his stupidity.

And it's my opinion that Ned wasn't stupid, just ill-equipped to do what the job needed.  Naive, yes, willing to put too much trust in people who turned out to be untrustworthy, absolutely, but I do not think he was stupid.  He simply was not a political animal, and surviving that mess in Kings Landing required being very political.

5 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

The cost of streaming is going down though and the options are expanding. 

Not enough if you have to get a lot of different services in order to watch everything you want to watch.

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think it's a mistake to move sports to streaming. I didn't watch any Champions League because it was on CBS whatever, but I watch the NBC premiere league game of the week every Saturday. Champions League had been on tnt and they did a good job with it. 

Yep, I didn't see a single CL match this season, and missed too damned many Arsenal matches because NBC put them on their premium service.

 

[DoctorAtomic]

My cable comes with NBC Sports so I can watch what ever matches they have on. I watched most of the last week matches during the weekdays. And on Saturday, they had all the matches on USA, Golf Channel, etc. 

[Kromm]

5 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think it's a mistake to move sports to streaming.

A mistake by who?  By the sports associations or by the streamers getting the rights? 

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

And it's my opinion that Ned wasn't stupid, just ill-equipped to do what the job needed.  Naive, yes, willing to put too much trust in people who turned out to be untrustworthy, absolutely, but I do not think he was stupid.  He simply was not a political animal, and surviving that mess in Kings Landing required being very political.

8 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Ned was the kind of guy who would have been the hero in a lot of other similar stories, cutting through the petty backstabbing by being honorable and doing the right thing etc., it seems to me. People often loves those stories, but this wasn't one of them.

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't think viewers will en masse pay more to watch sports they used to watch with existing cable and broadcast. 

Hardcore fans might, but that's not your majority viewing audience. 

[biakbiak]

56 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't think viewers will en masse pay more to watch sports they used to watch with existing cable and broadcast. 

Hardcore fans might, but that's not your majority viewing audience. 

Well viewing audiences for many sports have been in steady decline for a long time.

[kiddo82]

I've said this about streamers vs basic cable in the past, and I'm sure this is a minority opinion, but I love syndication roulette.  I love stumbling upon random episode of old shows that I used to love or of shows I haven't tried yet and becoming interested enough to see more.  I pay for HBOMax but I am much more likely to watch a string of reruns of Friends on TBS than seek out those same episodes on the streamer.   Same for current shows that I wouldn't necessarily be inclined to watch.  Sometimes you catch a rerun or an old episode in syndication and that is your gateway.  That is not going to happen for me with Bridgerton.  It's just not.  It works for movies too.  Who among us hasn't gotten lost in the back half of whatever movie FX was playing on a Sunday afternoon?  A movie we probably wouldn't have sought out or pushed play on otherwise?  It's interesting that EPL and the Champions League has been brought up because for me, that's the perfect example of something I will watch right place/right time but am 99% certain I wouldn't pay extra for.  I'm a Yank through and through so the EPL wasn't even on my radar until about 10 or so years ago but it's the perfect low stakes sporting event for me on a Saturday morning at 7:00 a.m.  I can follow the big stories around the league, adopt a team (or just root for Pulisic), and know that no matter what happens the outcome won't ruin my day.  They've definitely got my attention, however, not enough of my attention if it's all behind a pay wall.  Basically if everything became a streaming service tomorrow I'd never actually pick anything, get discouraged, and go outside or read a book or something.  

[Irlandesa]

14 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I've said this about streamers vs basic cable in the past, and I'm sure this is a minority opinion, but I love syndication roulette.

Me too.  I bought so many DVDs that I never watched.  If I know something I've seen is always available, I put starting it on the backburner.

Nothing makes me happier than stumbling on a random L&O to see if I've seen it. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Annber03]

34 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

Sometimes you catch a rerun or an old episode in syndication and that is your gateway. 

Yep. Syndication is how I've discovered quite a few shows. Either that, or it's a great opportunity to revisit a series I haven't seen in years. 

It's hard for me to adjust to streaming, too. I'll do it if a show I like is on a streaming site, or when I have the money to subscribe to a service, but yeah, I much prefer the old method of just watching stuff on TV itself, or, if I've got the DVDs of a series, watching it that way, too. It's just what I'm more used to. 

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, kiddo82 said:

or just root for Pulisic

Allowed. 

I do miss syndicated shows - not reruns of network shows. I mean first run bshows in syndication, sold to local stations. Highlander was one. Xena. It may have aired Saturday at 2 for me, but Thursday at 11 for you. 

Those shows. You had to find them. No one gave you an alert. 

[kiddo82]

40 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Yep. Syndication is how I've discovered quite a few shows. Either that, or it's a great opportunity to revisit a series I haven't seen in years. 

It's hard for me to adjust to streaming, too. I'll do it if a show I like is on a streaming site, or when I have the money to subscribe to a service, but yeah, I much prefer the old method of just watching stuff on TV itself, or, if I've got the DVDs of a series, watching it that way, too. It's just what I'm more used to. 

I don't buy nearly the TV series on DVD/BluRay that I used to, but I still buy movies on BluRay if I care enough about the movie to not have to rely on it staying on whatever streaming service I happen to subscribe to.

 

Tangentially related, last summer I had no WiFi for about 5 days.  I made myself pluck from the back of the DVD stack.  The waaay back.  The movies that I would buy used from Blockbuster for $5.  I watched Double Jeopardy like it was 1999 again and it was awesome.  Simple pleasures.

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't think viewers will en masse pay more to watch sports they used to watch with existing cable and broadcast. 

Hardcore fans might, but that's not your majority viewing audience. 

Yea, I am interested in seeing what happens there. ESPN notoriously made a ton of money just because they were in like every cable package and even if you didn't watch it they made subscription fees off of you. I watched a documentary which talked about with how much money ESPN pays the NFL, each Monday night football game is basically like a $100 million+ production. If ESPN has less money to spend on that sort of thing, and league revenues go down do player salaries and spending on fancy stadiums go down too?

16 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I don't buy nearly the TV series on DVD/BluRay that I used to, but I still buy movies on BluRay if I care enough about the movie to not have to rely on it staying on whatever streaming service I happen to subscribe to.

I stopped buying dvd tv sets for a long while, but with the cheapness and ease of picking stuff up on Facebook marketplace I kind of have again. Especially since I can usually find stuff I can't find on streaming or don't want to pay for another expensive service to get. For example I picked up the Band of Brothers BluRay set for $15. Even if I only watch it once $1.50 an episode is totally worth it. I also picked up the first 5 seasons of The Sopranos for $25.

[Annber03]

Yeah, I always get DVDs so I have a physical copy of shows I like on hand, too, just in case. 

Plus, sometimes there might be specific episodes or seasons of a show that I'm in the mood for, so it's always good to have the DVDs for that reason, too. I can just pop them in and go directly to the ones I want to watch :). 

[Constant Viewer]

I also buy DVDs of movies. I teach, and one of my recurring nightmares is promising the class we will watch a movie, and having the wifi going out.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Constant Viewer

[kiddo82]

7 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Yeah, I always get DVDs so I have a physical copy of shows I like on hand, too, just in case. 

Plus, sometimes there might be specific episodes or seasons of a show that I'm in the mood for, so it's always good to have the DVDs for that reason, too. I can just pop them in and go directly to the ones I want to watch :). 

Which is why I don't get the bugging out when a popular series (Friends, The Office, etc) switches from one streamer to another.  It's not as if there aren't other options to watch it.  Yes, buying series DVDs might be a big ask for someone financially but it's cheaper in the long run than subscribing to yet another service.  And the price really has come down over the years.  Or you can get the episodes you like digitally a la carte.  No one used to complain when a movie would fall out of rotation on HBO.  You either got the home media or you had already recorded it off the channel anyway.

Edited May 27, 2021 by kiddo82

[Ohiopirate02]

11 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

  Basically if everything became a streaming service tomorrow I'd never actually pick anything, get discouraged, and go outside or read a book or something.  

It would be difficult for me to if cable disappeared.  I hate attempting to find shows on the various platforms.  All of them suck.  Yesterday after work, I went on Netflix looking for a specific documentary series that dropped that day and even with using the search function, it took 10 minutes to find.  I eventually found it, and I think Netflix was just being glitchy, but that is still too long.  I hate that the work around to bad algorithms and bad search functions is going on a desktop to create a list of shows you want to watch.  It's so unnecessarily difficult.  The major streaming companies are making bank, but refuse to do any UX research to make it easier for the average person to find anything.  I think one of the reasons why everyone watches the same shows on Netflix is that they are too lazy to search for anything or do a search longer than 2 minutes, so they just click on whatever loads at the top.

Then there's the issue of finding the one episode you want to watch of a particular show.  I know some fans memorize the titles of the show and know exactly which one, but I only remember the plot.  So for example, I want to watch the one episode of Friends where Joey puts Little Women in the freezer, how do I find that?  I know Friends episode titles are all formatted the same, but I highly doubt that particular episode was titled "The One Where Joey puts Little Women in the Freezer."

 

8 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

I also buy DVDs of movies. I teach, and one of my recurring nightmares is promising the class we will watch a movie, and having the wifi going out.

With the way streaming  platforms drop movies and shows, this is the best course of action.  I assume you have a set list of acceptable movies for your classroom that add to your curriculum.  

[Zella]

Would just like to note if you want to watch stuff on DVD but don't have the money to buy the set yourself, check your local library. They may have whatever you are looking for on DVD. 

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Then there's the issue of finding the one episode you want to watch of a particular show.  I know some fans memorize the titles of the show and know exactly which one, but I only remember the plot.  So for example, I want to watch the one episode of Friends where Joey puts Little Women in the freezer, how do I find that?  I know Friends episode titles are all formatted the same, but I highly doubt that particular episode was titled "The One Where Joey puts Little Women in the Freezer."

 

I do often find it amusing how Friends titles are meant to be the way people would refer to them later, but sometimes they're so obviously wrong. Like the episode that's called The "One With the Embryos" should obviously be The One With the Quiz Game or something, because people remember it by the game they play about how well they know each other.

And yes, of course the episode you refer to should be called The One Where Joey puts Little Women in the Freezer" or at least something referring to either books in the freezer or Little Women. Instead of being called..."The One Where Monica and Richard are Friends" as if anybody would remember it like that. 

I don't like Richard, btw, but I think I already probably said that here.

[Danny Franks]

2 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I do often find it amusing how Friends titles are meant to be the way people would refer to them later, but sometimes they're so obviously wrong. Like the episode that's called The "One With the Embryos" should obviously be The One With the Quiz Game or something, because people remember it by the game they play about how well they know each other.

Or even "The One Where Phoebe Has a Storyline No One Gives a Shit About." Because that whole pregnancy thing was not great, but setting her embryo implantation against what is probably the best single episode A-plot the show ever had, was a no win situation for her.

[biakbiak]

25 minutes ago, Zella said:

Would just like to note if you want to watch stuff on DVD but don't have the money to buy the set yourself, check your local library. They may have whatever you are looking for on DVD. 

In that same vein you should see if your library is partnered with Kanopy or Hoopla which offer digital movies, tv, and music (in addition to books and magazines) for free. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by biakbiak

[proserpina65]

23 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

My cable comes with NBC Sports so I can watch what ever matches they have on. I watched most of the last week matches during the weekdays. And on Saturday, they had all the matches on USA, Golf Channel, etc. 

If you're talking about the Premier League, at least half the final day's matches were on Peacock Premium and not on any of NBC's tv channels, including the Arsenal match.