criterionforum.org

Been a while since I posted on this thread but when watching THE GAUNTLET yesterday I noticed that after the credits (2.35 Panavision) it defaulted to the "golden mean" (1.85). I reported last fall that this had been occuring with Columbia scope titles but this is the first time I've noticed it on WB scope product and I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever seen this occur on a new HD transfer. While the compositions didn't suffer too noticeably (except the car-mount two shots of Eastwood and Bill McKinney through the windshield) it certainly lacked the epic width I remembered so vividly on first release. I mentioned it to a friend and he reported that the same thing occured when viewing DIRTY HARRY lasted fall and another WB Eastwood seen in the interim. Both were recent HD transfers as well. I can understand this (somewhat) on commercial or cable TV but this does not bode well for the future of download viewing. One wonders if Eastwood is aware of this situation.

Now Netflix is claiming, vaguely, that they're going to "stop de-emphasizing" DVD functions. I'll believe it when I see it.

The article alludes to the whinging many of us have been doing in various on-line spaces about the big DVD suck of recent years, although of course the Netflix guy does not acknowledge that as an influence.

A bunch of Nickelodeon shows are up in their entirety, including the excellent Rocko's Modern Life, but no sign of The Adventures of Pete and Pete. Seems to only be those licensed by Shout!. Also, the entire series of The Twilight Zone in HD! as well as Futurama, Scrubs, and South Park.

I wonder if it's telling that only 8 titles out of Netflix's current Top 100 are available for streaming. Obviously the "de-emphasizing" of DVD functions is not actually stopping people from renting them. People have to get their Bucket List fix somehow.

Wow, their new Watch Instantly layout is basically impossible to navigate. You have to scroll through dozens of pages of seemingly randomly sequenced titles, and can no longer organize the listings by year, title, or anything else.

Yeah, I just spent the last while trying to download the update for the PS3 (since I couldn't continue without it) and was horrified at the layout change. The hell!? Thankfully I just wanted to watch The Twilight Zone and it was right there, but I probably would have given up if I had to go looking for it. Even the search feels more cumbersome.

Netflix is being sued by the National Association of the Deaf because they don't subtitle their streaming movies. I'm totally on board with this, and I hope Netflix caves- ideally, it might also push others to subtitle things they haven't been bothering with, like Warner on their Archive releases.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Netflix is being sued by the National Association of the Deaf because they don't subtitle their streaming movies. I'm totally on board with this, and I hope Netflix caves- ideally, it might also push others to subtitle things they haven't been bothering with, like Warner on their Archive releases.

Geez, you can sue for anything in America it seems. Not saying that I don't support subtitling for the deaf or the hard of hearing but to sue someone for not subtitling their streaming video is just asinine. Should they be sued as all their films aren't audio-described too?

It seems fairly well within the terms of the ADA- Netflix is essentially blocking access to their products to deaf people in a situation where making an accommodation is both reasonable and practical. The deaf would like to see that accommodation made. How is that asinine?

matrixschmatrix wrote:It seems fairly well within the terms of the ADA- Netflix is essentially blocking access to their products to deaf people in a situation where making an accommodation is both reasonable and practical. The deaf would like to see that accommodation made. How is that asinine?

You're suing someone for not putting subtitles on streaming video, think about it for a second. What exactly do they hope to achieve from this? That it becomes illegal for video content to be distributed on either disc or via streaming to not have optional subtitles? I'm sure the minor labels will love that.

Netflix isn't a public service of any sort. They shouldn't be obliged to waste resouces on subtitling all of their content if they choose not to. If they aren't interested in the HoH niche of the business then too bad, they're not forced to use their service. I would suggest these organisations engage with Netflix and encourage them to provide subtitles but, unfortunately, they already have and Netflix aren't interested. Why should they be forced?

I'd love all films to come with optional subtitles. I watch a lot of foreign cinema, so HoH subs in the original languages on foreign DVDs help me immensely at times. It would be great if every form of media came in alternate forms to help those with all variety of disabilities. At the end of the day, however, it'll just increase the time and the costs to distribute films. It's not as if Netflix could wave their hand and have subtitles immeadiately available on all their films and the next day the Burn-On-Demand discs will all came with subtitles also. It'll take more time and more money and will result in less films being released and the customer paying more.

Title III of the ADA demands places of entertainment and public services (places that provide services to the public, which Netflix absolutely is, not publicly-owned services, which Netflix isn't) provide equal access to their services to the disabled, where making accommodation is 'readily achievable'- in other words, where the expense of doing so isn't prohibitive. In practice, that means that Best Buy and Wal-Mart have to install wheelchair ramps, while tiny local stores may not.

Likewise, forcing Netflix to subtitle their releases would not automatically mean that tiny companies like Icarus or whatever would also have to subtitle- it's a question of how much money is available and how many people would be affected (meaning that even if the court ruled against Netflix, Warner would not necessarily have to subtitle their Archive releases.)

"If they aren't interested in your business then too bad, you're not forced to use their service" was the argument used against the ADA (along with a lot of other civil rights legislation) in the first place, and it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Basically, you aren't allowed to say 'well we don't want to sell to black people/Catholics/gays/old people etc.'- why should you be able to say that about the deaf?

In addition to that legalise (which automatically shouts down your argument) what you're suggesting is at best a libatarian approach to separate but equal discrimination. Especially with their move toward more streaming not having subtitles prevents many people from renting movies. An act of discrimination is bad no matter what even if righting that wrong might inconvenience a company. If an outfit as small as Second Run can give great subtitles to all of their material and live closed caption is available to television shows like the news this sort of prejudice has no excuse.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Basically, you aren't allowed to say 'well we don't want to sell to black people/Catholics/gays/old people etc.'- why should you be able to say that about the deaf?

I cannot be bothered debating with you if you're going to straw man like this: utterly pointless.

I presume you would want to see all video content come with audio descriptions in the future to aid the blind too, seeing as right now Netflix (and virtually every DVD company out there) are not wanting to sell to "black people"?

Accusing some one of something and immediately doing the same action isn't going to win any debates. Anyways the case with blind people and film or really any visual art has always been delicate. For deaf people in this case a regularly performed option is available.

TMDaines wrote:I cannot be bothered debating with you if you're going to straw man like this: utterly pointless.

I presume you would want to see all video content come with audio descriptions in the future to aid the blind too, seeing as right now Netflix (and virtually every DVD company out there) are not wanting to sell to "black people"?

It's not a strawman. The wording of the ADA is specifically based on the Civil Rights Act, and the idea that companies can be forced to accommodate people they don't wish to sell to is central to both pieces of law. Again, your counter-example is ignoring the fact that the law has a specific common sense clause, so coming up with unreasonable things companies might have to do as arguments why they should not have to do a reasonable thing is pointless.

matrixschmatrix wrote:

TMDaines wrote:I cannot be bothered debating with you if you're going to straw man like this: utterly pointless.

I presume you would want to see all video content come with audio descriptions in the future to aid the blind too, seeing as right now Netflix (and virtually every DVD company out there) are not wanting to sell to "black people"?

It's not a strawman. The wording of the ADA is specifically based on the Civil Rights Act, and the idea that companies can be forced to accommodate people they don't wish to sell to is central to both pieces of law. Again, your counter-example is ignoring the fact that the law has a specific common sense clause, so coming up with unreasonable things companies might have to do as arguments why they should not have to do a reasonable thing is pointless.

Being black, gay, old or religious isn't a disability where the company would have to do anything special to cater for them. Not selling to any of those groups is flat out discrimination, so what have they got to do with being disabled? No-one's being discriminated against here. Unfortunately there's just a small minority who cannot use a product because of their disability.

You are conflating two separate argument. One, which I was responding to earlier, was that companies do not have to cater to anybody they don't wish to. That, in America, has not been true at least since the Civil Rights Act, and it is a bad argument for the same reasons that the Civil Rights Act is a good piece of legislature. That applies to this situation insofar as the ADA extended that concept- that companies must accommodate everyone whom it is reasonable for them to accommodate- to the disabled.

The other argument you seem to be making is if Netflix has to cater to the deaf, they will have to cater to whatever other group, even if that is not. Again, that is not true. Subtitling is an eminently reasonable thing to ask- we have the technology, it is common practice, and (for instance) all live television must be subtitled/closed captioned (which is also a result of the ADA.) Failing to do so is discrimination, because it bars a group of people from using your product without overwhelming and compelling need to do so. Failing to do some wacky other thing you've just made up is probably not reasonable, so 'excessive cost' or 'insufficient demand' would qualify as an overwhelming reason not to do it.

My first thought upon reading this was that, yes, Netflix deserves to be sued, though not necessarily for failing to subtitle streaming content. (What about how they discriminate against people with discriminating tastes by not stocking new releases of classic films anymore?) Thinking about it a little more though, it makes sense. When the very small office where I work recently redid the tiling in our bathrooms, we were required by law to go to the extra expense of making the bathrooms handicap-accessible, even though none of us personally needed it and we don't take in customers from off the street. I'm not sure how much more this cost our office, but it was probably commensurate with the likelihood of us eventually hiring someone that would need to be accommodated in this way. In the case of offering subtitled films for the deaf, sure, films could be considered more of a luxury than, say, being able to go the bathroom, but given Netflix's presence in the industry at this point and the cost, relative to profits, of accommodating the deaf with subtitles, it would seem like they really can't get around the ADA here. Let's consider the costs of subtitling: A guy making, say, $20-30 an hour, with the proper training, could probably prepare fresh HoH subtitles for a film a day or so (if no translation is involved), so that's probably a few hundred dollars per film. But many films probably already have the subtitles prepared and available on the physical discs, which wouldn't take much more work for Netflix to extract than the film transfers themselves.

Netflix used to be all about its customers, even innovating ways to give them more value out of their membership (i.e. starting to ship on Saturdays without increasing the monthly fee) but this whole affair illustrates the new way of business at Netflix: move the emphasis to streaming, but put as little effort into quality control or customer support there as possible.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Title III of the ADA demands places of entertainment and public services (places that provide services to the public, which Netflix absolutely is, not publicly-owned services, which Netflix isn't) provide equal access to their services to the disabled, where making accommodation is 'readily achievable'- in other words, where the expense of doing so isn't prohibitive. In practice, that means that Best Buy and Wal-Mart have to install wheelchair ramps, while tiny local stores may not.

By this logic, movie theaters should be required to subtitle every film they show, too. And it's glib to say that it's OK to leave out audio-descriptions for the blind, since films are a visual medium. Film is a medium marrying visuals and sound. If it's illegal discrimination to leave out subtitles for the deaf, then it's just as discriminatory to not cater to the needs of the deaf.

Donald Brown wrote:By this logic, movie theaters should be required to subtitle every film they show, too. And it's glib to say that it's OK to leave out audio-descriptions for the blind, since films are a visual medium. Film is a medium marrying visuals and sound. If it's illegal discrimination to leave out subtitles for the deaf, then it's just as discriminatory to not cater to the needs of the deaf.

How many times do I need to repeat this: there is a specific commonsense clause built into the law. Things that are of unequal levels of expense or difficulty, or affect unequal numbers of people are not equally discriminatory, by the terms of the law. I did not in any way claim that failing to provide audio descriptions was more acceptable because film is a visual medium, and if it proved useful and practical to do so, I would certainly be behind doing it.

There is an enormous difference between optional and forced subtitles, and pretending that there is not one is disingenuous. Because of that difference, and because many patrons would find it annoying to have every movie subtitled, it would be an unreasonable accommodation to have every movie in the theater subtitled. This case is much more analogous to TV, which is indeed legally required to provide closed captioning- again, as an option.

Donald Brown wrote:By this logic, movie theaters should be required to subtitle every film they show, too. And it's glib to say that it's OK to leave out audio-descriptions for the blind, since films are a visual medium. Film is a medium marrying visuals and sound. If it's illegal discrimination to leave out subtitles for the deaf, then it's just as discriminatory to not cater to the needs of the deaf.

Not every theater offers captioned movies but in most major cities, you can find at least 3 captioned movies playing, changing every Friday. Take a look: Captionfish.

Netflix has admitted that there is no technological issue, then why deny its large base of deaf and hard of hearing customers?

Michael wrote:

Donald Brown wrote:By this logic, movie theaters should be required to subtitle every film they show, too. And it's glib to say that it's OK to leave out audio-descriptions for the blind, since films are a visual medium. Film is a medium marrying visuals and sound. If it's illegal discrimination to leave out subtitles for the deaf, then it's just as discriminatory to not cater to the needs of the deaf.

Not every theater offers captioned movies but in most major cities, you can find at least 3 captioned movies playing, changing every Friday. Take a look: Captionfish.

Netflix has admitted that there is no technological issue, then why deny its large base of deaf and hard of hearing customers?

The fact they could provide subtitles with their software doesn't necessarily mean they have subtitles sitting there ready to go for all films that they stream.

Make them then. As has been pointed out already television channels make subtitles all the time occasionally in real time for news channels. They have no excuse for not subtitling.

Well, this is utter BS

For those not interested in reading the whole thing:

[our lowest prices ever!]We're raising your monthly fee unless you drop some of our services[/our lowest prices ever!]