I’ve Spent Years Writing Movie Guides and Yes, Streaming Is Getting Worse
Netflix’s streaming era began back in 2007, around the time the company mailed its billionth DVD (a copy of Babel to a woman in Texas ). This year, the company began developing an app that will let you watch video on demand on your TV, rather than in your PC window through Internet Explorer—or whatever the hell browser you were using during the George W. Bush administration.
Internet speeds and interest grew, and by 2011 the company abandoned the DVD-by-mail business entirely as streaming took on a life of its own. While the distribution rights for streaming content were, and remain, completely different than for physical copies, the potential of streaming was clear: Netflix offered something like the breadth and depth of its DVD library, minus the “shipping things back and forth” part.
There was a value proposition here, too: As cable prices skyrocketed and we were all forced to pay for an endless supply of channels we mostly didn’t watch, the promise of Netflix (and Hulu, which was slower to grow but debuted around the same time) was compelling—a vast library of movies you could watch anytime—and cheap: In 2011, you could get a streaming subscription for about $8 a month. It was a good deal even during the Obama administration.
Despite a few caveats—you may have had to increase your Internet connection speed and cost, and you still needed a separate DVD subscription to watch some older movies —it seemed like a future full of endless possibilities was just around the corner.
A decade and a half later, we all know the future was a lie, especially if you’re a movie buff.
The rise of “streaming originals”
Netflix’s first foray into original programming was the direct-to-consumer political thrillerHouse of Cards, directed by Kevin Spacey and produced by David Fincher, which debuted in 2013. The decision to continue the show—and outbid all the traditional cable and broadcast networks—was almost entirely data-driven, and was a harbinger of what was to come: Netflix saw that audiences liked Kevin Spacey ( obviously it was a different era) and David Fincher. movies! House of Cards had both.
Data has always been the Holy Grail of entertainment programming, but Netflix had data that was better, more specific, and more relevant than any focus group could hope to provide. Gone are the days of survey extrapolation: Netflix knew who was watching what and when with unparalleled accuracy, and thus streamers’ ability to give people what they want would be unprecedented. It would also force them to focus more on developing their own series and films rather than negotiating large licensing deals for things owned by other studios.
And the deals were massive: Netflix spent hundreds of millions of dollars annually to fill its servers with “content.” But as other studios launched their own streaming services in pursuit of the money they used to sell movies on cable, Netflix’s library began to shrink, from 11,000 titles in 2015 to just 6,000 by 2022.
The Golden Age of Streaming
Still, it was hard to complain too much when Netflix’s competitors seemed willing to do anything to compete. While Disney once kept tight control of its library, putting films into the Disney Vault so it could re-release them theatrically and on video every decade or so, with the launch of Disney+ in March 2020, the studio offered hundreds of its classic films at once —a treat for animation buffs and a boon for parents who no longer had to endure their kids watching the same handful of DVDs on repeat (in theory, anyway).
Not to be outdone when Warner Bros. launched what was then called HBO Max, it seemed like a pandemic-era gift: The studio went all out to build out its massive catalog—one of the largest and most enviable in Hollywood, including classic films, the latest blockbusters, animated favorites and shows handpicked from a bevy of cable networks. Along with major successes such as securing the rights to all of Japan’s revered Studio Ghibli films , something its capricious co-founder Hayao Miyazaki swore would never happen, Warner Bros. turned to its history, loading the service with hundreds of classics from across decades.
For a while, browsing through the lists of movies coming to these services each month was fun—sure, no one service offered every movie, but there was a good chance that what you wanted to watch was available somewhere, and the monthly subscription was cheap enough that most people would sign up for some of them.
But this golden age of streaming was short-lived.
Shrinkflation is available for streaming
Even during this period of explosive growth, streamers have begun to follow the Netflix model, pouring more money into original content and leaving the catalog on the backburner. After all, it’s hard to create buzz around films that are 50, 20, or even ten years old when you could be promoting something shiny and new instead.
However, the reckoning only truly came in 2022, when inflationary pressures, including rising interest rates, coupled with unexpected subscriber losses, caused Netflix’s share price to plummet , falling from over $600 to under $200 in a matter of months.
Suddenly, every streaming service is worried about profits, and it seems like the easiest way to cut costs when it comes to digital offerings is to trim down your library. Over the next year, struggling entertainment companies announced plans to begin removing vast amounts of old content from their services —often even as they raised prices . Just like spending more money on a smaller bag of chips at the grocery store, shrink inflation has come to streaming.
Where have all these films gone?
Remember the data I mentioned earlier? The downside is that the numbers seem to have shown streamers that customers don’t care much about older films – or at least don’t care much about any one film due to their lack of availability to make a difference when it comes to subscriptions. So why give people free access to content that most people won’t watch when you can make some money instead?
While some of these films have been sent to ad-supported services like The Roku Channel and Tubi, watching a movie with a ton of commercial breaks isn’t a movie buff’s dream.
Digital Rental: I’ve been writing streaming guides for Lifehacker for five years, suggesting movies you can watch based on your mood or a specific topic. And, ironically but undeniably, these movie lists are becoming less about “streaming” and more about reminding you of things you can pay to rent. Whereas before I could point you to a few dozen movies scattered across the major services, now my recommendations tend to include many more rental movies.
Broad categories of films, typically more than ten years old, are not typically included on any streaming service. If you want to watch them, you’ll have to shell out about $4 for a digital rental. This is true no matter how beloved a film is: as of this writing, films like Citizen Kane , Double Indemnity , All About Eve , The Shining , Back to the Future , Malcolm X and The Iron Giant are only available in theaters, meaning you’ll have to pay extra on top of any streaming fees you’re already paying. This list of movies was completely off the top of my head – I was looking for them based on my belief that since they were over a decade or two old, they would only be available for a price.
Netflix still has a classic movie section, but it’s pretty anemic. While the rotation changes, the oldest film currently in the lineup is 1957’s An Affair to Remember —not ancient by classic movie standards, but certainly venerable. It’s labeled “Leaving Soon.” Beyond that, there are only a dozen films from the 1970s (almost all Bollywood classics) and a few more from the 1980s and 90s. Of the dozen or so films on offer from the 1980s, several are labeled “Coming Soon,” including The Karate Kid films. (They have a 1984 James Garner film I’ve never heard of called Tank , if you have a couple of hours to kill.)
New content has pushed classic films into the background
My pick here is Netflix, with its relentless focus on original “content” and new releases, where the streamer reviews shows and movies, often before they have time to sign up. But the picture is about the same on Hulu, Paramount+, MGM+, etc., even if those others have slightly better libraries of current films.
Max remains a bright spot with a fairly well-chosen selection of films from the silent era, but even that has dwindled. In the past, the streamer has explicitly highlighted its affiliation with classic film network TCM as its own category. It’s still there, but now we have to dig. No one tracks the exact monthly number of old (I mean, sigh, ’90s or earlier) movies included in streaming, but, again, anecdotally, when possible, I try to recommend movies from a variety of streaming services. I think it’s good if any listing list includes options for everyone, and I know that for me personally, the additional cost of renting (on top of all the streaming fees) is a big barrier – no matter how badly I want to see a particular movie. And it’s much more difficult than before.
There’s a culture of relentless, exhausting novelty around streaming, in which shows and movies are considered stale once their first week delivery window has passed. This leaves us with a (very) limited selection of older movies, or we have to pay rent on top of streaming costs.
It’s hard for a film buff there.
The best streamers for movie fans
Max
While I still mourn the loss of HBO Max, Max—the app that replaced it—is still a major streamer with the best library of classic films, including a wide range of Warner Bros. films, from Casablanca to Goodfellas to The Lord of the Rings ; it includes popular favorites as well as some more artsy entries, including films from Studio Ghibli. A recent partnership with A24 Films has also made it a favorite destination for modern film buffs. Cost: Starts at $9.99/month with ads or $99.99/year.
Criterion channel
The Criterion Collection, an affiliate of boutique film distributor Janus Films, has for decades positioned itself as a purveyor of “important classic and contemporary films.” So, it’s no surprise that Criterion Channel’s streaming service is the preferred destination for anyone looking to watch films older than the Reagan administration. It has a rotating library of a couple thousand films, including many foreign and classic American films. You may have never heard of many of them, and that can be a plus or a minus, but they’re not all arrogant art films. Last year, for example, the channel aired a month of Razzie-nominated films including Showgirls , Gigli , The Blair Witch Project and even Freddy Got Too Much . Cost: $10.99 per month or $99.99 per year.
Mubi
Another boutique streamer, Mubi is somewhat similar to The Criterion Channel, but with a key difference: Because Mubi focuses more on its role as a distributor of new films (including the recent Oscar nominee Substance ), the catalog tends to be a little newer and a little smaller, but with a steady and carefully curated rotation. Cost: $14.99 per month or $119.88 per year.
TCM (Turner Classic Movies)
TCM is the gold standard for classic cinema, especially when it comes to Hollywood, and the curation here is very serious. TCM has introduced me to more classic films that I would otherwise never have heard of than any other service, but they are harder to find. Max has a limited selection of TCM-branded movies, but to get the full experience, including live films, interviews, host segments, etc., you’ll either have to suck it up and subscribe to cable, or the rough equivalent: YouTube TV offers TCM as part of its lineup, including on-demand content, like Hulu does with Live TV and Sling TV. However, sticker shock with these options is very real. Cost: Sling TV: from $45.99 per month, YouTube TV: from $82.99 per month; Hulu+Live TV starts at $82.99 per month.