By Umi Caldwell
Every time I find a movie I want to add to my Letterboxd watchlist, I — like anyone else might — search what streaming service it is available on. I am used to the classics: Hulu, Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+, but I have become increasingly aware of the substantial amount of streaming services that are being created. Every day, it feels like there is a new ridiculously named streaming platform. Philo, Tubi, Roku, Sling, Fandango, all real services waiting for me to sell my soul (email address) to steal my data — all so I can watch “Mamma Mia” for the hundredth time.
Streaming services emerged as a convenient alternative to cable in the 2010s. Yet, as the market becomes increasingly saturated, the quality of on-demand streaming seems to be going down, morphing more and more into the cable system it was meant to serve as an escape from. Now, there are so many options that a person cannot stay up to date with the latest movie release or pop-culture TV sensation without having multiple streaming service subscriptions at once. Not to mention, if you spend your money on a streaming service for a specific show, you have to remember to cancel at the end of the month and get a new one as streaming services pass around your favorites from platform to platform.
Although early streaming platforms were a way to escape an onslaught of ads, nowadays every service implements commercial breaks. Even services that require payments now air ads before, during and after a show or movie. As companies pay for airings of their advertisements, I am forced to see the same Simparica Trio ads for a dog I do not have and Hims ads for the male pattern balding and erectile dysfunction pills that I have never needed in the past, nor will ever need in the foreseeable future. Repetitive and unnecessary ads make the viewing experience more and more disjointed and unenjoyable.
Along with that, the minute a show is not as profitable as a company wants, they will stop production and rip the hope of a new season from the watcher’s hands. Every show must be a global sensation like “Stranger Things” and “Squid Games” to warrant renewal, while I am left mourning the cliffhanger Netflix ended “I Am Not Okay With This” on. The profit-driven priorities of big streaming companies have left the consumers behind.
The prevalence of streaming services and their normalcy has led to an illusion of ownership. At any moment, a platform can remove a piece of content, not renew a show or stop a movie series at the second or third installment, leaving consumers on a cliffhanger. With the rise of streaming, people no longer own anything, relying on streaming rather than physical media. The elimination of the need for physical media has also eliminated the protection widespread ownership of physical media has from censorship. This leaves content at risk of being removed from public availability and thus becoming lost media. Censorship is becoming an increasingly discussed issue, and the reliance we have on streaming services to preserve the accessibility of movies and shows puts all media at risk. A CEO or copyright holder can decide to remove media from public accessibility on a whim, putting many loved and important media at risk of being lost. When HBO merged with Discovery+ in 2022, it removed 37 of its titles and original content, including “Infinity Train,” a popular animated anthology, and “The Not-Too-Late Show with Elmo,” a children’s educational talk show produced by the nonprofit Sesame Workshop. This removal makes popular and educational content harder, or even impossible, to access. This has jarring implications when it comes to political or controversial content that may be subject to dispute and censorship.
Freedom of speech is a right that, in the modern age, extends to digital expressions of opinion such as movies and TV shows. Digital media reflects and influences the zeitgeist of our nation in a feedback loop, with hit TV shows such as “Severance” commenting on the dystopian nature of modern workplaces in late stage capitalism and “The Handmaid’s Tale” on the commodification of women’s bodies and the rise of evangelicalism. The monopoly streaming services have over the production of and public access to these important pieces of media leave any media deemed unfavorable to CEOs and copyright holders threatened to be removed from the public sphere. As large corporations and wealthy billionaires have more control over what media is available to the public, the threat of censorship has extended from the hands of government to those of the highest class, increasing the possibility of the stifling of creatives’ freedom of speech. When writers’ and artists’ works are censored, everyone’s voice is censored, as filmmakers bring to light the opinions of the nation through the art of film.
The recent SAG-AFTRA strike has revealed how the rise of streaming services has financially affected actors, filmmakers, writers and artists. The revenue gap between actors and streaming studios was reported to be $480 million a year before the strike. Some progress was made with the results of the SAG-AFTRA strike.
“Payments have begun to be disbursed, and guilds say media companies have turned over their data on time. When the deal was made, SAG-AFTRA claimed the streaming bonus would bring in up to $40 million a year in additional residuals for actors,” the Hollywood Reporter said in an article earlier this year.
The deal that ended the strike included a streaming data release from audience measurement company Nielson.
“SAG-AFTRA intends to use the data to qualify for bonuses performers employed on hit movies and TV shows streaming on Netflix, Max, Amazon’s Prime Video and other platforms. Per the contract, actors are entitled to a bonus (in addition to residuals) if their program is viewed by at least 20% of the streaming service’s domestic subscribers within the first 90 days of its release,” Los Angeles Times reported in a 2024 article.
Although the streaming residuals gap has lessened between companies and artists, they are still not where they should be. Streaming services continue to deprioritize artists.
So what should the LC student do about streaming services? I am not saying everyone should cancel all their subscriptions because, admittedly, I have no plans on doing that. Still, you have options to support filmmakers and avoid losing media. Portland is an epicenter of arts, and film is included in that. There are many local theatres you can support in the Portland area. My favorite is the Hollywood Theatre, which shows blockbusters and indie film festivals.
Their official mission statement demonstrates their utmost dedication to upholding the art of filmmaking.
“Portland’s premier modern-historic movie palace, the Hollywood Theatre is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to entertain, inspire, educate and connect the community through the art of film while preserving a historic Portland landmark,” it reads.
It is a beautiful place with fun food and a movie-going experience you cannot get from home. They also have a video rental store called Movie Madness that has physical copies of movies and shows for you to bring back to the dorms. Starting a collection of DVDs and VHS is a great way to look cool in front of your friends while also preserving access to your favorite titles. If you live on campus, the lounge of Platt-Howard has a collection of DVDs and VHS available to students. Collecting physical media will not eliminate the undeniable role streaming services hold. The public needs to continue to call out the financial gap between CEOs and artists, and to show support for future and ongoing strikes in the media industries. When these platforms treat their creatives more fairly, both artists and consumers benefit, ensuring the future of film as an avenue for freedom of expression.
About the Author
