Too many choices, maybe? So they all get spread out too thin.

Back when VHS and DVD's were the thing, you'd pretty much get a very finite amount of choices, and usually went with one of those. Of course, you had the huge rental stores with thousands of flicks, but in most places, the selection was just a small fraction of that.

20 years ago, we'd go to the rental store/kiosk/whatever, set on seeing a movie. So we picked one, of the maybe 30 titles. Could be good, could be bad, who knows.

Today, I spend probably 20 minutes browsing 5 different streaming services before I find anything. And I've probably browed through hundreds of titles in that amount of time.

I'm not sure how much the studios get for letting streaming services show their movies either, compared to the rental stores back in the day, or flat out selling DVDs to consumers.

I think what you're missing from Matt Damon was the expectation created around the DVD release - imagine you have a huge advertising push for the theatrical release, that isn't easily forgettable for those who watched and those who didn't for quite some time.

And then months later there it was available for everyone to see at their homes (with yet another advertising push).

Like he said, the DVD release was like another theatrical release. You could own the film, or rent it and watch it twice if you'd like to - this may sound odd, but it was almost like a ritual. At least for me, renting a movie on Fridays was a whole process.

But it wasn't a chore, it was quite enjoyable. Sometimes frustrating because you were waiting for films for months before they were available... imagine as a kid wanting to watch some Diney or Pixar movie, it could be quite painfull after watching months of advertising for the movie, for toys and merchandising, for McDonalds Happy Meals toys, etc.

Things had a different cadence, a different rhythm, and probably things were appreciated differently.

Mind you I'm not saying "oh those were the days!", I'm saying it was different and apparently it was more profitable for movie makers.

But for me sometimes browsing movies to watch on apps can become quite boring, there's something about the "i want this now, a lot of it, and fast" that I can't quite put my finger on it. Probably delayed gratification plays a role on this.

FWIW, for me, I find the delayed gratification just tempers it: I will almost never be more excited to watch a movie than the day I hear about it... if I can't watch it right then 1) I will almost certainly forget to watch it without a reminder (so they will have to pay for their ad at least a second time) and 2) I will have time to let my brain decide "well it probably will suck" (and it almost certainly wouldn't need to be advertising to me this hard if it were actually good: I'd hear about it from the first wave of people who see everything if it were!).

Well I was talking about a different time, where film distribution (literally) was still done by a lot of players, and movie theaters actually had several owners (before they closed down or got bought by big chains). A time when local theaters didn't have access to the movies for some months as well.

With that said, the majority of people won't forget it, especially with the media budgets used for advertising - promos, appearances, going on the talk shows tours, PR to news/magazines/, etc that's all coming out of the promotion budget. You probably don't realize it but you get in contact with movie promotional material several times before it launches.

Maybe you like just a particular set of movies, so the majority leave you little impression. I have movies that are completely oblivious to me, others that stick and leave me curious, but probably with so much content, noise and distraction it's normal to don't recall it all.

In my youth I recall that The Matrix, LOTR, Kill Bill, Harry Potter, all left me with big anticipation to watch them, for months if not years.

>Back when VHS and DVD's were the thing, you'd pretty much get a very finite amount of choices, and usually went with one of those. Of course, you had the huge rental stores with thousands of flicks, but in most places, the selection was just a small fraction of that.

Streaming has even less choices. The Netflix catalog for example is laughable, and they push even more for their own stuff.

I don't know if (Netflix catalog) has shrunk, but it seemed to be much larger back when they started out. I guess it's a result of too many steaming services, it's almost as we're back to the days of cable - but instead of various packages, we're paying $10/month to the various services.

Sad to say, but (semi-legal) services like popcorn time etc. were almost the pinnacle of online streaming. These days, I still have to fly the black flag, from time to time, if I want to find certain titles to watch on the go.

Netflix != streaming. You can generally stream almost anything, but it requires having the correct subscription: Netflix is just one of many many many. If you cobble together the 10-15 or so core streaming services, you effectively have re-built a cable television plan worth of networks, and there will be tons of choices, which you then access using something like the Apple TV app, which acts as the modern TV Guide and will automatically open the correct streaming service required to watch the movie/show you selected. Netflix was a disruptive service for DVD rental, but in the world of streaming it is only relevant because it saw the writing on the wall and used the money it had made to invest in building its own production studio. (Hulu has a slightly different way to bootstrap involving acting as the gateway infrastructure for networks while they built out their own tech; and Apple and Amazon exist only by shear force of cash combined with a level of competence Yahoo did not possess.) Off the top of my head, I have subscriptions with Apple TV+, Netflix, Hulu (with the Starz add-on), Peacock (NBC), CBS All Access, HBO Max, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video... but I am certain I have something like five more that I am forgetting (does Adult Swim have one maybe? I am not sure as I just buy Rick and Morty from iTunes; I know Paramount+ exists, but I don't think I subscribe yet... oh, I must have AMC+, right?).

Moreover, I’d expect DVD to have higher variable costs (physical, distribution, Blockbuster fees) that increase the time for breaking even. But maybe the revenue from streaming is much lower to undo all the cost savings.

I don’t have inside knowledge, but my impression is that streaming is moving spending from cable and satellite (basically zero-sum) while DVD sales have basically disappeared, without any new revenue stream taking over.