Actually, Blockbuster's just as bad or worse now, but it took Netflix becoming terrible to get me to reconsider giving BB my business in the first place.

I just wish you'd admit that Blockbuster is much worse than Netflix ever was

Fine, other than a four-month period earlier this year.

It's way cheaper to go to a Redbox or just wait for ABC Family to air whatever you're interested in

Libraries are even cheaper. Get around 90% of my viewing that way.

And with ILL that percentage can get pretty darn close to 100%, at least for NTSC stuff.

I'm a great fan of library borrowing as well but it's all but stopped recently because of Netflix. You can't beat watching an entire series in bed, for instance, on a Netflix app. I'm enjoying all nine episodes of the RSC's Playing Shakespeare on my Nook now - and, in keeping with the spirit, (a Criterion title!) Arnaud Desplechin's A Christmas Tale.

I'm going to have to stop reading this thread, clearly.

It's time like this when we must turn to a voice of reason.

I don't even have to click on that to know what it is, and yes, his words become ever more vital.

Ando, c'mon, dude, fess up. You are actually Reed Hastings.

great clip.

Lighten up, fellas. Most of Netflix' content is made to be watched on a cellphone. I wouldn't watch Tarkovsky on a Nook, obviously, but something like the BBC's Blue Life looks (and sounds, with a good set of earphones) incredible on an android tab.

Lynch's disgust reminds me of Yusef Komunyakaa's maxim to aspiring poets; namely, that you can't write poetry on a computer. Now, if he meant that a poet has to have a life in order to write, that's one thing. But you write where you can. Similarly, you watch film where you can. The definition of 'cinema' is far more fluid and pervasive - in terms of the culture - than a large darkened room with an audience and a projected image. That doesn't reflect the reality of how people receive the most imaginative forms of information now.

I wouldn't care how you watch your own stuff, ando, except that in the long run it makes it harder for those of us who need movies to look good. People who watch things on an iPhone or a Nook and think they've actually seen something are the 21st century equivalent of the old anti-letterbox crowd who wanted the movies to fill up their whole darn TV screen.

Well, You've missed the point, entirely. And your analogy is poor. How is the proliferation of potable media devices a threat any optimal viewing experience?

My concern is that if they continue to proliferate, manufacturers will have less incentive to make HD options available (whether on Blu-ray or via streaming). You demonstrated this in your own post -- you chose to stream A Christmas Tale on a seven-inch screen instead of watching the Criterion Blu-ray on a screen that will do it (and the film) justice. Will we continue to see as much content offered in HD if Nooks and iPhones become the predominant platform for home viewing?

Plus, I mean, you're here so you're obviously a serious movie fan ... isn't a future in which people walk around watching Citizen Kane (or even Hugo) on a palm-sized LCD screen too depressing to contemplate?

Apparently Netflix stock is back on an uptick following reports that people don't care what there is to watch or how it looks as long as they don't have to get up from their couches to select and watch a movie. I know this because I got an earful from my father-in-law last night, after my complaining about their declining service a couple weeks ago apparently prompted him to drop some of his stock, causing him to lose out on much of those sweet corporate profits.

Also, I thought this was supposed to be a secret:

Dammit, Swo, you made me click on a Huffington Post link. I hate them even worse than Netflix!

Interesting reading in the comments threads here and here. A fair number of people urging Netflix to continue supporting DVDs at the former, but a resounding "yes, we do watch movies on two-inch screens!" in response to the blogger's somewhat disbelieving query at the latter. Groan.

I take a local bus (shuttle, really) to a train to NYC everyday. People are always looking down and can't go 3 seconds without playing words with friends, watching videos, etc.

I honestly saw a guy on the train at 7:30 in the morning watching the New Karate Kid (Jackie Chan version) on his iPad. I don't know if he was streaming or what, but the more people seem to be able to do at their finger tips, the happier they seem to be (/old man rant)

Evidently much, much clearer, since the people in the comments are mostly worse than the Hacking Netflix guy! "Facepalm," as the kids would say.

There seems to be some kind of deal-making going on, both there and in this thread, along the lines of, oh, I'll watch According to Jim on my telephone but save Spartacus for the plasma screen (or more likely, a 14-inch LCD; I love how one of the Hacking Netflix commenters says his telephone is only a last resort ... for when he doesn't have his laptop). But, if it's only worth watching on a 2-inch screen, is it actually worth watching at all? Read a fucking newspaper, to paraphrase David Lynch.
The death of cinephilia in one sentence.

To be fair, there are a lot of movies that seem like they're best suited to being viewed on the toilet.

Yeah, until he mentions Salo specifically, I'm not buying it as an exercise in meta.

They should just go ahead and take a dump on the movie, and multitask for real.

I'm fine with people watching movies on their phones if they want, I just don't want that to be the only option.

Am I allowed to mock them, at least?

Go for it, but I'd rather watch a movie on a plane than sit there and read the SkyMall catalog over and over again