Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
I guess my ideal streaming service has a catalogue of movies based on what's good, not based on who died last week. The whole thing epitomizes capitalism in a way that flattens art into content and tragedy into a marketing signal. That feels icky to me.
|
Even the “good” streaming services do this where they can. I don’t really see it as negative as you do. They aren’t gaining anything by having these films available, and nothing is lost to anyone who would enjoy them otherwise. Those are three great films and maybe now more people can enjoy her work.
If it were taking something free and charging for it, or increasing prices after someone’s death, I think your point holds water and would qualify as trying to capitalize on someone’s death.
You can still watch those movies if you own them. Or you can buy them. And you aren’t being charged a cent extra to watch them on Netflix than you would have if she hadn’t passed away.
Making art more widely accessible is a good thing. Not a bad thing. Even if it’s not making it free.