Why streaming TV series seems to partially or not completely released on DVD

[numberthirty]

The question is what you actually own, and the distinction is fundamentally important.

"Fundamentally..."?

Unless you are a lawyer who works for the outfits that own the IP?

I'd say that "Fundamentally..." is up for debate.

[numberthirty]

Suppose I'm just a consumer who wants to know I can always watch my favorite movie or series when I want to no matter what happens with a streaming service - why should I care about the question you've posed?

We know why they don't release these things physically - doesn't mean we should like it, or that we can't complain and wish otherwise so we could own a copy.

It's also not a completely level playing field where everyone has ready access to the infrastructure that would go into streaming the shows in question.

Most folks, on the other hand, can make it out to buy a dvd set at a Target/Walmart/You Get It.

[Powerboy]

Everybody who wanted to? No one has taken my vhs tapes or dvds that I'm aware of.

There was a period of time in television, everything before the 1980s for all practical purposes, when you watched it when it aired or not at all. Then VHS's got cheap, then DVDs came along. Now, we're in the streaming era.

But, apparently, JL-SC will be released on DVD in some countries in May. So, it stands to reason there will eventually be a DVD of it in the States when they think the streaming has reached most of it's profit potential and a DVD equals some more profit.

As to ownership, yes, that's getting needlessly into semantics since "own" in this case clearly means "Watch it whenever you want to without continuing to make payments".

[Vakanai]

The question is what you actually own, and the distinction is fundamentally important.

Not really. We're not getting into technical legality "ownership" pedantic definitions - you know exactly what I've meant all along. What use of it is it to anyone for me to have to be super specific and say "I own only a physical copy of this or that movie or show on disk whereas the movie itself is owned via whichever complexity of studios/companies/corporations involved whereas the actors' may technicaly own their likenesses via yada yada legalese"? I just don't get the point. Like you know what I mean, but want to argue specific definitions for some pedantic thing? I don't know. What is the argument here, that none of us own the media on our physical media? Who cares? Heck, I never even said I own those movies or shows, I said I owned my "entertainment". If those dvds are a part of my entertainment then it all works by the strictest definitions.

(that sounded angry, but it isn't. Just seems like you want to argue a point I'm not interested in and seems pointless)

It's also not a completely level playing field where everyone has ready access to the infrastructure that would go into streaming the shows in question.

Most folks, on the other hand, can make it out to buy a dvd set at a Target/Walmart/You Get It.

This too. I didn't get wifi at my home until late last year. A streaming service was out of my reach before then. I had to wait for a lot of content to go physical before I could watch it.

[thwhtGuardian]

So suppose you personally owned the 20th highest grossing streaming series in history, as well as the company that streams it. Your market research shows that you would make 40% on DVD sales than you do on streaming subscriptions. What decisions would you make?

I mean, the reasoning is obvious, and it's also obvious as why they eventually all also get released on DVD's as well.

[FFJamie94]

Maybe this will sound a little silly, but I have fear that streaming only shows will one day become lost. At least with phsycial media, we know the entertainment is there.
But I was thinking the other day, how long do those Marvel shows on Netflix have left? Netflix may own those shows, but they may decide that they don't want to pay Disney however much was in that deal to keep them there.
Disney may decide that they are irrelevant and decide they don't really care about them being up.
And that's for the bigger shows. I know this scenario is unlikely to happen, but there's the small chance it could that worries me.

I then look over at the DVDs I have, they are all very easily playable.

That and I just prefer owning physical media. It looks better on my shelves.

[babyblob]

The question is what you actually own, and the distinction is fundamentally important.

It is a moot point that is in no way important. I know I dont own the rights to the MCu movies. I do not care. I know that I can sit down and watch any of the movies I want any time I want because I own the DVds That is all I care about. Pretty sure Disney is not going to break down my door and take my copy of Civil War, but they could take it off Disney + for what ever reason and I am out watching it. So I would rather own Dvds or whatever. I dont think and I doubt any one on this site thinks they own the rights to any of the shows or characters they have on DVD so I really dont see what point you are trying to make by saying we dont own them. We know that, we just own the ability to watch them when ever we want.

When my friend said hey I own Endgame I didnt think Holy Crap my friend is rich because clearly he owns the rights. I though oh cool he has it on dvd. because that is how everyone who hears that (but you it seems) view that statement.

[skyvolt2000]

So suppose you personally owned the 20th highest grossing streaming series in history, as well as the company that streams it. Your market research shows that you would make 40% on DVD sales than you do on streaming subscriptions. What decisions would you make?

One MAJOR disadvantage to streaming is what do you do when you wifi got out?

Also not everything stays on streaming services. Some stay there for x amount of time.

Also at least with older stuff-not all of it is in it's ORIGINAL versions. Some countries get the syndicated versions.

And NOT everything is on streaming. I can't stream all of Power Rangers, Gatchaman or Robotech good thing I got those dvds.

Lets not forget Muppet Babies & Alvin & The Chipmunks (80s) BOTH have episodes that have not aired in now 30+ years and are NOT on the streaming services. A season worth for both.

Oh isn't the biggest hit of Netflix STRANGER THINGS on dvd and bleu-ray? Oh yes they are as I own both seasons.

And they toss out stuff on dvd and blue ray for another REASON-it's called the public library. Who will PAY to get those dvds and blue rays.

And FINALLY they do it to make MORE money.

Lets take Snyder Cut SCREW the movie-how much EXTRA stuff from unfinished footage to interviews, scripts and so on can they toss on a blue ray set and charge over $100 for?
How many variant sets to sell at Target, Game Stop, Wal-Mart, B&N and Best Buy can they make?

That is just Snyder Cut.

[lwhitehead]

Third Season of Stranger Things hasn't bin released yet, Amazon Prime TV hasn't released there TV series on DVD yet, like Man in the High Castle and the The Boys.

The reason I need to get my hands on DVD of unreleased Streaming TV series is that most of it is of Marvel Phase series, when I collect I like complete series or sections.


LW

[Donald]

Suppose I'm just a consumer who wants to know I can always watch my favorite movie or series when I want to no matter what happens with a streaming service ...

And have access to everything. A couple shows have pulled episodes from streaming due to various controversies.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Maybe this will sound a little silly, but I have fear that streaming only shows will one day become lost. At least with phsycial media, we know the entertainment is there.
But I was thinking the other day, how long do those Marvel shows on Netflix have left? Netflix may own those shows, but they may decide that they don't want to pay Disney however much was in that deal to keep them there.
Disney may decide that they are irrelevant and decide they don't really care about them being up.
And that's for the bigger shows. I know this scenario is unlikely to happen, but there's the small chance it could that worries me.

I then look over at the DVDs I have, they are all very easily playable.

That and I just prefer owning physical media. It looks better on my shelves.

I can see your point. However almost everything on streaming platforms will get released on physical media. At present, the model is to keep something "streaming only" to entice viewers to maintain their subscriptions. Once the figures for something like WandaVision starts declining, it will get a physical release. Because it is another revenue stream.

I prefer physical media as I can watch something when I want to watch it. Subscription based services may only keep certain shows/movies for awhile before removing them. Original content will likely stay there forever on those services.

[Vakanai]

And have access to everything. A couple shows have pulled episodes from streaming due to various controversies.

This too. I prefer to decide for myself whether I want to watch something controversial or not for myself, I don't want that decision made for me. If I have the series on disk, they can't pull episodes. If I have the movie, they can't censor or edit scenes.

[lwhitehead]

That's how I feel Vakanai I don't like how things are getting yanked due to simple fact it upset some groups of people, I understand why they do it the Owners and Production Companies want to make money with out fuss but creative freedom goes down the drain.

Still I want those series on DVD box sets,

LW

[Somecrazyaussie]

This too. I prefer to decide for myself whether I want to watch something controversial or not for myself, I don't want that decision made for me. If I have the series on disk, they can't pull episodes. If I have the movie, they can't censor or edit scenes.

Because people are lazy. Instead of sitting kids down and going, "okay, this is why they are doing or saying this, this is why it was acceptable then, this is why it is not acceptable now". They'd much rather have to pulled or edited out. It sets a dangerous precedent. What's next? Censoring colonisation or slavery in the US in history books?

[Vakanai]

Because people are lazy. Instead of sitting kids down and going, "okay, this is why they are doing or saying this, this is why it was acceptable then, this is why it is not acceptable now". They'd much rather have to pulled or edited out. It sets a dangerous precedent. What's next? Censoring colonisation or slavery in the US in history books?

Just have them put up a small blurb or require parental authorization. There's still solutions that lets adults choose what they and/or their family can handle.