I always cancel disney until there is starwars
Why? New Star Wars is godawful.
Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
201–210 of 289 posts
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just want a complete list of what's available, alphabetically, and divided by broad genre. But apparently these services assume everyone is too dumb to scroll through a long list and find things on their own. So there's a landing page where the same titles appear in four different places on the same page, you have no idea what's available, items disappear without warning because of licensing issues, and the UI look…
If they do that then everyone will realize there's actually not that much content on the service
I don't see how that works. Problem: our library is small. Solution: Show people even fewer shows than we have.
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone has experience with cancelling and switching services periodically so that you can access all the content, but not at the same time?
We cancel each service as soon as we subscribe (easy through Apple subscriptions. Most of the time we don’t even realise the month has passed and the service has cancelled until we want to watch something on the service, then it takes 15 seconds to resubscribe.
This is very interesting, so basically from 30 days in it is free until you decide to watch something, so even if you subscribe every time to the same service you can squeeze one or two days for free once in a while.
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that soccer has a problem where the goalies are so effective that the game often comes down to attempting to shoot on the goal as many times as possible in the hope that eventually the goalie makes a mistake. Things are made worse by the fact that when the goalie gets the ball they generally throw it most of the way down the field; effectively resetting the state of the gameplay. As a result, any given segmen…
I dont have stats on hand but I promise you a relatively small proportion of goals are scored on keeper errors, even if you expand the category to "shouldn't be beaten from that angle" type stuff instead of an explicit error. I suspect you do not watch much soccer.
The point that I'm trying to get at is that, I agree with you that there's a sense in which different people are going to prefer different things, that people who are more invested in a given sport are going to be able to see more of the nuance in it, and that as someone who's not invested in soccer there's certainly a lot that I'm missing.
However, I don't think that it completely comes down to personal taste. There can still be areas where the flow of a soccer match can be more samey or less intrinsically exciting than in certain other sports.
For example, soccer doesn't have the same moment to moment, head to head, back and forth of something like tennis or boxing. That's not to say that it completely lacks those moments of conflict; say when a defender is staring down an oncoming striker. However, as far as I am able to tell, they are less dense compared to something like a tennis match where they take up the whole of the playtime.
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#205Basically there was a finite amount of content and a lot of it appeared on Netflix. Then 4+ services launched and a near fixed amount of content was divided by 4. Then they doubled the price. So now for a worse discovery experience you are effectively paying 8x the price.
The thing for me is that the media companies that thought they could just launch their own streaming services and keep all the money for themselves completely devalued the engineering of Netflix. It was "FAANG" for a reason. Viscerally, Netflix doesn't feel like it belongs alongside Google, but it did, because it was good. How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech c…
Not really sure what is so bad about the delivery of Disney+, if anything it’s categorizations are cleaner and simpler (perhaps in part because they have less content). The ui is imho less annoying then Netflix. But I have both services and in the end there’s really not much difference in how well they stream.
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of scripted shows tripled from 2009 to 2022. From 210 to 599. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/peak-tv-2022-co... !
This was also the period where Netflix et al discovered that shows become more costly to make and less likely to get brand-new subscribers around season 3. So it’s hard for me to give that statistic any weight.
[flagged]
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#207Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they do that then everyone will realize there's actually not that much content on the service
I don't see how that works. Problem: our library is small. Solution: Show people even fewer shows than we have .
People can’t make sense of the shelves in terms of an exhaustive list of content. Showing duplicate results and the top 5 for some category makes it seems like there is a treasure trove of content.
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that just a regular aspect ratio issue? If the content is filmed in 1:2.4 and you're trying to watch it on a 16:10 screen, it's always going to be letterboxed. In that case, if it doesn't look letterboxed then it's either stretched (deformed) or parts of the video are cropped/lost.
I think they're saying that the base content _itself_ has the letterbox "burned in", so that when they watch it on their TV (with an wider ratio) it has black borders on all four sides - at the sides because of ratio mismatch, and at the top and bottom because they're present in the base media.
This is correct. There’s a total black border on all 4 sides. Because the black bars are rendered into the top and bottom of the video. On a 1080p display it full screens fine but with a display with the native wide screen aspect of the actual video I can’t actually have it fill the screen.
But only on paramount+
This used to be a problem with VHS/DVDs when widescreen TVs first came out. TVs often (and maybe still do) had a mode to zoom in to cut them off.
Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
People expect black bats on the top or the sides but not both.
If it's "both" someone somewhere messed up, if you're in the 99.x% of users not experimenting with aspect ratios or resolutions.
It is both :)
The problem is the black bars top And bottom are rendered into the video. I happen to have a 34” ultra wide which is the native aspect of the actual video. But I can’t actually watch it full screen. But only on paramount+. Works fine on Amazon.