According to the most recent studies on the subject, the average American now subscribes to four different streaming services. Many subscribe to five or six, or even more. Netflix alone has 325 million subscribers, which almost equals the entire population of the United States, not counting illegal aliens. And yet the surveys, and our own experience, tell us that most people aren\u2019t satisfied with these services, and are only becoming less satisfied every day. We all have the impression that it\u2019s just too much, there are too many of these platforms, and they\u2019re only getting more expensive, as the service declines, and the one major promise of streaming \u2014 that we wouldn\u2019t have to deal with ads \u2014 has been almost entirely abandoned at this point.<\/span><\/p>\n What\u2019s more, it seems that these services are bad for movies themselves. The art of filmmaking has declined. While streaming services are ubiquitous, the movies and shows themselves feel somehow more marginal, less relevant than ever before. The Oscars happened this past weekend, and nobody noticed or cared because nobody noticed or cared about any of the movies that were nominated. So what\u2019s really happening here, and why? We have done a series of deep dive explorations into various facets of American cultural life, trying to figure out why the quality of everything is on the decline. <\/span><\/p>\n In a word, everything kind of sucks now. <\/span><\/p>\n Why is that? What\u2019s going wrong? That\u2019s what we\u2019ve been trying to figure out. Well, speaking of things that suck, these streaming services certainly fit the bill, and so do most of the movies and shows they charge us exorbitant fees to access. Why? Let\u2019s explore that question.<\/span><\/p>\n Start with the fact that everything is bundled now. Roughly 85% of subscribers to Amazon Prime Video are also subscribers to Amazon Prime, which supposedly gets you faster shipping on some items. Relatively few people subscribe to Prime Video all by itself. <\/span><\/p>\n Meanwhile, millions of people have access to Netflix and Hulu through a deal with their cellphone carrier, usually T-Mobile or Verizon. The reason that the streaming services offer these bundles is that they\u2019re worried about \u201cchurn,\u201d which means losing customers. Churn is reduced \u2014 by a significant margin \u2014 when customers have Netflix or Hulu as part of a bundle with their carrier. Bundles are complicated to cancel, for one thing. They might be presented as a \u201cfree add-on,\u201d when in reality, you\u2019re definitely paying for it. And maybe most importantly, when you have a Netflix\/T-Mobile bundle, you\u2019re likely to be less demanding about the content on Netflix. Over time, you naturally come to see Netflix as a component of a larger, necessary contract with your phone carrier. And that\u2019s exactly how Netflix (and the other streaming services) want you to perceive things. Amazon doesn\u2019t have to justify its cost increases if everyone thinks of \u201cPrime Video Ultra\u201d as a necessary component of \u201cAmazon Prime.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The other part of the problem \u2014 one of the reasons why it\u2019s hard to evaluate the value of the various services \u2014 is that they lose the rights to shows and movies all the time. Netflix acquired the rights to \u201cSeinfeld\u201d in 2019, but you have no idea if they\u2019ll have the show in 2027, because the licensing deal expires at the end of this year. On top of that, even when a show is available, you have no idea if it\u2019s going to be the original version. There\u2019s no streaming service that offers \u201cScrubs\u201d as it originally aired, for example. The licensing rights to the music \u2014 which is a big part of the show \u2014 were simply too big a hassle to renew. <\/span><\/p>\n To give another example \u2014 the version of \u201cSeinfeld\u201d that\u2019s on Netflix is widescreen, even though the show was never intended to be widescreen. For the Netflix version, they simply cropped the original image so that it fits widescreen TVs. That means they deleted<\/em> some of the content on the top and bottom of the image, in every frame. And the result is that the show looks very different from how it originally aired. That may seem like a small issue, and maybe it is in the grand scheme, but it\u2019s more significant than you might think. If we look at films and shows as pieces of art \u2014 which they are, or should be \u2014 then it\u2019s a problem that these services are making alterations to the art, as they see fit.<\/span><\/p>\n The only way to avoid these kinds of changes is to buy physical media that streaming services can\u2019t mess with. You can buy \u201cSeinfeld\u201d on 4K Blu-ray, for example, complete with the original formatting and a bunch of special features and so on (And indeed, a lot of people are doing that now. There\u2019s a whole market for physical media that\u2019s undergoing something of a renaissance at the moment). But as it stands, there\u2019s simply no legal way to stream this show in its original broadcast format.<\/span><\/p>\n Unless you\u2019re an extremely devoted \u201cSeinfeld\u201d fan, you probably weren\u2019t aware of this. And you probably aren\u2019t aware of the many, many other ways that streaming services mess with the content you think you\u2019re getting. <\/span><\/p>\n On Hulu, you can\u2019t access five episodes of \u201cIt\u2019s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,\u201d because they were retroactively \u201ccanceled\u201d during the BLM hysteria. Basically, any episode where a character appears in blackface \u2014 even if the point of the gag is to mock Danny DeVito for wearing blackface \u2014 has been erased from memory. If you subscribe to Hulu, this is never explained to you. They act like you\u2019re getting the whole show. But you aren\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n Many other shows have similar banned episodes, for similar reasons. NBC removed four episodes of \u201c30 Rock\u201d for depictions of blackface (which, again, weren\u2019t even endorsing the idea of blackface, but whatever). The \u201cCommunity\u201d episode entitled \u201cAdvanced Dungeons & Dragons\u201d was nuked from streaming services as well, because the Asian comedian dressed up as a \u201cDark Elf.\u201d And Comedy Central\/Viacom took five episodes of \u201cSouth Park\u201d offline because they depicted Mohammed in an unflattering manner, which is a capital offense in the Muslim world (which we\u2019ve now imported to the United States). So they decided to stick to mocking Jesus, Christians, and Trump voters instead. This is one of the reasons comedy is dead, by the way. All of the comedians are cowards.<\/span><\/p>\n What\u2019s important to emphasize here is that, while it\u2019s obviously very bad that these streaming services are censoring shows (without even admitting it), this censorship is a symptom of a much larger problem. The problem is not simply that wokeness has run amok, or that Left-wing DEI bureaucrats have taken over the entertainment industry \u2014 although that\u2019s all true. The real problem is, in part, that all of this content exists in the ether, and you access it through subscriptions. Even if you \u201cbuy\u201d a streaming movie on Amazon, you still only have access to your purchase as long as you have your Amazon subscription. The death of physical media means that nobody owns any particular piece of media anymore.<\/span><\/p>\n When I was a kid, we had a physical library of physical copies of our favorite films. We would watch those films over and over again. What this meant was not only that the movies couldn\u2019t be retroactively changed or censored, but also that we got to know these movies; they became a part of our lives in a way that no movie today ever will be, because it always exists in the digital cloud, one bit of content in an endless scroll of other bits.<\/span><\/p>\n This is how it works now across the board. In every area of life, we\u2019re confronted with an infinite number of options. This plagues society at every level. You go to the store for ketchup, and there are like 97 different types and brands. The same is true of cars, watches, dating apps, clothing, and so on. It\u2019s too many choices. It\u2019s overwhelming, overstimulating. You commit to one and then worry that maybe that one or that one or the other one would have been better.<\/span><\/p>\n And along the same lines, as mentioned, there is no communal experience of film anymore. Everyone\u2019s watching different things. We aren\u2019t experiencing the stuff together. The movies at the Oscars today aren\u2019t necessarily worse than Oscar movies 30 years ago. Sometimes they are. But it\u2019s more that they exist in a fractured cultural landscape, so none of them make any real impact. That\u2019s why it was so weird to see them win awards the other day. Say what you want about a movie like, say, \u201cTitanic\u201d (an example I\u2019ve used in the past), but that was an absolute cultural sensation in a way that no film today is or probably ever could be.<\/span><\/p>\n To give you an idea of what I\u2019m talking about: Here are just some of the movies that received Oscar nominations in 2004, more than two decades ago. <\/span><\/p>\n See how many of them you\u2019re familiar with: \u201cThe Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,\u201d \u201cSeabiscuit,\u201d \u201cMaster and Commander,\u201d \u201cThe Last Samurai,\u201d \u201cMystic River,\u201d \u201cLost in Translation,\u201d \u201cFinding Nemo,\u201d and \u201cPirates of the Caribbean.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Even though these are now relatively old films, there\u2019s a pretty good chance you\u2019ve seen several of those movies, and you\u2019ve probably heard of all of them. Many of them are classics. <\/span><\/p>\n Now let\u2019s look at the major Oscar nominees from 2026. Here\u2019s what we have: \u201cSinners,\u201d \u201cMarty Supreme,\u201d \u201cOne Battle After Another,\u201d \u201cBlue Moon,\u201d \u201cThe Secret Agent,\u201d \u201cSentimental Value,\u201d \u201cBugonia,\u201d \u201cIf I had Legs I\u2019d Kick You,\u201d \u201cZootopia 2,\u201d \u201cArco,\u201d \u201cWeapons,\u201d and \u201cF1.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Again, these aren\u2019t all necessarily bad movies. Some of them are. Some of them, like \u201cWeapons,\u201d are actually pretty good. And all of them are technically sophisticated filmmaking. They\u2019re all \u201cwell made\u201d from a technical perspective. But most people haven\u2019t heard of about 90% of them. It\u2019s not just that most people haven\u2019t seen them. Most people don\u2019t know they exist. And we certainly won\u2019t be talking about any of these films in 20 years. They\u2019ll be forgotten because we\u2019re all watching different things, and there are so many choices, such an infinite array of options all the time, that no particular piece of content can remain in our consciousness for very long. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s why ratings are down, by the way.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is <\/span>from<\/span><\/a> The Hollywood Reporter:<\/span><\/p>\n Sunday\u2019s 98th Academy Awards drew 17.86 million viewers on ABC and Hulu, based on Nielsen\u2019s big data plus panel ratings. That\u2019s down about 9 percent from last year\u2019s Oscars, which drew 19.69 million viewers for a post-pandemic high, and the smallest audience for the awards since 2022, when 16.68 million people watched. The show delivered a 3.92 rating among adults 18-49 (equivalent to about 5.34 million people in that age group), a 14 percent decline from last year.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So they dropped 14% in the key demographic, and that\u2019s including streaming numbers. They tried to boost the numbers as much as they could, and it\u2019s still a big drop. Unless some kind of stunt is involved \u2014 say, someone gets slapped on stage, they announce the wrong \u201cBest Picture\u201d winner \u2014 then there\u2019s basically no one who even pretends to care about the Academy Awards anymore. <\/span><\/p>\n For comparison, the Oscars had around 45 million views in 1996, the year \u201cBraveheart\u201d won. And they had more than 34 million viewers in 2016, just a decade ago. Now they\u2019re down to 18 million, including a streaming audience, which mostly isn\u2019t paying attention. Is \u201cBraveheart\u201d a better movie than the ones that were nominated this year? I think it certainly was, yes. But this isn\u2019t just about it being a better movie. The point is that \u201cBraveheart\u201d was a cultural phenomenon in a way that no Oscar movie today is, or ever could be. The proliferation of streaming and the internet generally has destroyed the communal experience of movie watching so much that it\u2019s almost impossible for any film to be enjoyed, known, and loved by a majority of Americans. None of them can imprint themselves onto the zeitgeist the way that films of the 90s did.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n And yes, it\u2019s easy to point out that the Oscars implemented DEI, and they won\u2019t give awards to productions that aren\u2019t \u201cdiverse\u201d in some way. That\u2019s obviously a problem. But even without that handicap, these numbers probably wouldn\u2019t be much better. I\u2019m not going to wax poetic about the Blockbuster days, but the fact is, a lot of people are starting to think about how things were different back then. <\/span><\/p>\n I saw a post on X saying that this is a trailer for one of the most popular indie video games right now. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s a game where you play as a clerk at a video store like Blockbuster.<\/span><\/p>\n Two indie devs made a game where you run your own video store in the early 90s. It\u2019s currently the #5 top-selling game on Steam.<\/p>\n \u2013 Rent out VHS tapes & manage customers It\u2019s called Retro Rewind \u2013 Video Store Simulator pic.twitter.com\/LIrpX4QI9M<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Indie Game Joe (@IndieGameJoe) March 17, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Source: @IndieGameJoe\/X.com<\/p>\n You just stand behind the desk, hand out the movies, make sure people hit the \u201crewind\u201d button, and so on. That\u2019s what passes for entertainment today, apparently. So the video game industry is in even worse shape than I thought.<\/span><\/p>\n But actually, there\u2019s a reason that game is so popular. People are nostalgic for the pre-smartphone, pre-streaming era. It used to be that, if you wanted to watch a movie, you had to make a commitment. You had to plan your night around it. You had to physically drive to a store, scan the shelves, do some research yourself, talk to the clerk, and bring it home. It was an experience. There was a sense of community in it. And then you would take the movie home \u2014 just the one, or maybe a couple \u2014 and you\u2019d watch the movie you rented. Actually sit and watch it, with no other screens distracting you. If you liked it, maybe you\u2019d watch it again the next night. And then you\u2019d return it. Or you wouldn\u2019t return it, and you\u2019d rack up late fees until you had to go get a membership at the Blockbuster across town under a fake name. But either way, the experience was very different. It was a different experience because watching a film was an experience in a way that it isn\u2019t today.<\/span><\/p>\n By contrast, as Matt Damon recently pointed out, modern streaming services have a very different audience. Their audience puts zero effort into finding a show to watch. They just throw it on the screen while they scroll through TikTok on their phones. And the streaming companies realize that. So they have to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.<\/span><\/p>\n Watch:<\/span><\/p>\n Matt Damon and Ben Affleck on Rogan taking about how Netflix has changed filmmaking.<\/p>\n \u201cyou re-iterate the plot 3-4x in the dialogue because people are on their phones.\u201d![\"DailyWire+\"](\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2025\/09\/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\u2013 Charge Late & Broken Fees
\u2013 Upgrade & customise your store<\/p>\n\n
pic.twitter.com\/YxybQJQubE<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"FilmLA](\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2026\/03\/LA-pic-395x576.jpg\")
<\/p>\n