Forum - View topicINTEREST: GKids: Studio Ghibli Has No Plans to Release Films on Streaming Services
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beatdigga
Posts: 4545 Location: New York |
|
|||||||
That’s hilarious.
|
||||||||
al505
Posts: 25 |
|
|||||||
I wonder what GKids has to say about this?
https://kotaku.com/studio-ghibli-films-will-finally-be-available-to-stream-1839136537 |
||||||||
Animegunclub
Posts: 127 Location: AyeTeeEl, Jawhjah |
|
|||||||
Well, they tweeted the announcement. ... I've got questions tho... HBO is notorious for cropping aspect ratios, are they aware of that? I mean, as a company that believes the presentation is vital on their movies, are they aware of that? I know HBO Max isn't out there yet, but I wouldn't imagine they'd change that practice. |
||||||||
LegitPancake
Posts: 1308 Location: Texas, USA |
|
|||||||
Well this will be an embarrassment from ANN when they issue an update lmao.
From GKids Twitter:
|
||||||||
CatSword
Posts: 1489 |
|
|||||||
This is some hilarious timing. Info we knew for years that suddenly became invalid the day after the article was posted.
|
||||||||
Sakura Shinguji
Posts: 194 |
|
|||||||
Imagine trusting a Polygon article to be well-written, correctly-sourced, and based on due diligence.
|
||||||||
Expias
Posts: 176 |
|
|||||||
You mean Polygon? ANN's fault is just writing up an article based on Polygon's source and writing. |
||||||||
zrnzle500
Posts: 3768 |
|
|||||||
I would say instead that the average consumer does not value having the utmost highest quality A/V equipment as much as audiophiles/videophiles do. People do care about quality, but eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns. For video, the difference between the highest picture quality and 1080p is imperceptible unless you have a very large TV or sit very close to it (or have better than 20/20 vision), assuming the video was even made in that high of resolution to begin with. I'm sure there is also a point of diminishing returns for audio as well. If you want to spend your money on high end A/V equipment, by all means, but I don't think it's fair to expect people to spend hundreds of dollars on expensive headphones or speaker systems and hundreds or even thousands on a very large 4K or 8K TV or projector. Likewise, physical media is also much more expensive than streaming. A price of a single Blu-ray could cover the cost of a subscription to a streaming service for the better part of a year (depending on the service). There are certainly situations where physical media makes the most sense for someone, such as low internet speeds, but I think it is inappropriate to shame people for choosing streaming because it makes the most sense for them, and to act like they don't choose other options out of ignorance. |
||||||||
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||||
Equipment quality and hard numbers like resolution or bandwith are only part of the picture. Most of what I was discussing had to with how people choose to interact with the video, not the physical limitations of that media or the hardware being used to play it. The color depth of a movie doesn't really matter if someone is watching it on a tiny phone screen while they're riding the bus to work in the morning. The audio quality of a song doesn't matter if someone has it on the background while they're shopping for breakfast cereal. The fact that many people choose to consume media while not giving it their full attention is proof that its quality doesn't really matter to them.
Yes, there is certainly a big point of diminishing returns for audio too. I don't mean to put people down for not having the latest and greatest equipment; rather it's a tool we can use to see what people's priorities are. It's a data point to add to the behavior I mentioned earlier in this post. For example: Jenny spends $500 a month on clothes and watches netflix on her tablet while she does homework. We can conclude that Jenny cares a lot about clothes and very little about video. John's family has a 60" big-screen TV with a BD player in the living room; he rarely uses it and instead he watches movies on his laptop in his room. We can conclude that John cares more about his privacy or comfort than he does about video quality. There's nothing wrong with any of this, it's just an observation.
Oh, I didn't intend to "shame" anyone at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was just pointing out that different people have different priorities, and that most people seem to value convenience over quality in this context. I didn't intend to imply that this was a somehow a bad decision. It's neither good nor bad, it's just the way things are. And that "way things are" is rather different from the expectation that Ghibli's execs seem to have....or is it "had", now that we know that they are indeed going to be streaming their works? |
||||||||
zrnzle500
Posts: 3768 |
|
|||||||
^Like I said, I think quality does matter to people, just up to a point, and not as much as videophiles. People care if their video suddenly drops to Standard Definition or their headphones start going out from wear and tear. Just because they don't value it as highly as videophiles/audiophiles do doesn't mean they don't care about quality at all.
I'd be more inclined to read your previous post as a neutral observation and not a judgement of the average consumer if you hadn't by your own admission (perhaps half-admission) ranted about how things are on multiple occasions, as well as acting as if the average consumer is ignorant of video quality differences between streaming and physical media, and equating not caring as much as videophiles/audiophiles to not caring about quality at all. As much as I'd like to take your word for it that you didn't intend to give that impression you were looking down on the average consumer, I'm still skeptical. To avoid going too far off topic, I'll leave it at that. |
||||||||
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||||
I do not mean to say that the average person "doesn't care" about quality at all; it's simply that they prioritize convenience over quality. I think that's very hard to argue with given two factors: 1) how popular streaming content is compared to physical media these days 2) observations regarding how people use their tech (for example, watching a movie in a crowded public place as opposed to waiting to watch that same stream in a dark, distraction-free environment)
More poor word choice on my part leading to misunderstanding, I'm afraid. I find it curious, that as time progresses audio technology tends to trade-off convenience for quality. It doesn't bother me, and I don't "judge people" because of it, I just find it an interesting topic. I'll briefly summarize: consumer video tech, for the most part, tends to constantly improve. BD looks better than DVD, which was superior to VHS, etc. Modern streaming is also amazing compared to what we saw on the early days of internet video. Modern phone screens have far better resolution than very expensive big-screen TVs from a few years ago. For the most part, video just gets better and better and better. The same thing can be said for a lot of modern tech, really. Our cars are faster, safer, and use less fuel, to use one example. Modern video games are totally unrecognizeable compared to 1980's games. Our telephones now have more computing power than an early mainframe. But audio is a bit weird. It doesn't follow this trend; rather it's sort of a roller-coaster. It got better...then it got worse. Early audio recording, like Edison's first phonograph, was awful. It got better. LPs were much better than 78s. Reel-to-reel tape became better still (at least with high tape speeds). Then we had CDs. convenient? Absolutely. But not as good dynamic range as RtR or LP. DVD-A and SACD came out...they offered higher fidelity....both flopped because customers didn't want them. What do people use a ton of nowadays? Compressed audio, like MP3. That's yet another step backwards in the quality department (though totally understandable due to their convenience). I find this academically interesting; I don't judge anyone because of it--heck, I do it myself.
Yes, I do think that. Do you really think that the average person understands the difference between, say, 4:2:2 encoding and 4:2:0? Do they even know what those three numbers mean? I don't, and I suspect you'd probably call me an A/V snob. I have friends who own movies on BD yet they still stream them because it takes them less effort to use netflix than it does to get up and put a BD in the player. Surely those people cannot care much about the quality difference.
Yeah, that was my fault for giving that impression. As I wrote at the top of this reply, I meant that people (generally speaking) value convenience over quality, not that they don't care about quality at all. And to elaborate, I think this is pretty clear everywhere we look around us, not just with video either. How many people cook from scratch versus eating a convenience product like fast food or some kind of instant meal? |
||||||||
Kadmos1
Posts: 13597 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
|||||||
While the Polygon article has since been debunked, the following applies more generally: It is within movie company's legal rights to decide not to put their films on streaming services. However, from a practical standpoint, consider this: with a streaming service, you could potentially reach a wider foreign audience than a foreign movie theatre might. Of note, if a new movie is playing on 300 U.S. movie screens total and it is far away from someone who lives in a small town. Also, by having a streaming version, you could have a back-up version of sorts in the off-chance that the master print to a DVD/BD version gets lost.
|
||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group