Over the years, I have picked up used DVD copies of "Apocalypto" at Goodwill and given it to family and friends - none of whom had ever seen it or even heard of it. I always tell them, "You've never seen anything like this." That's because the movie uses imagery that is altogether unfamiliar to most of us. I think some of the best movies, regardless of plot - "Apocalypto" is hardly complex - give us new mental images, even if they're inspired by a culture a thousand years old.
I hate watching the Bulwark on Youtube- In fact, it makes the podcasts unwatchable.
The number of commercials that randomly interrupt people mid sentence is jarring.
I will take my laptop or tablet and set it on the kitchen counter if I am doing dishes . If I watch thru the TV, I will use screen mirroring that Apple offers. The audio and video are slightly out of synch but I am not usually glued to the screen anyway.
I will say there is alot of content on You tube. Endless numbers of videos like " the most obscure songs of 1985" etc!! You can go down rabbit hole hell to view content about almost everything.
I compete in agility with my dog and the competition venue live streams the event on Youtube for the approximately 9 hours each weekend day. Those 9 hours are streamed commercial free and archived on their Youtube channel. I love that but maybe they pay to air it?
It's odd that some videos have no commercials and some like Colbert and Kimmel have an annoying number in a 12 minute video.
Charlie Sykes hour long podcast is commercial free on YouTube. I wonder if he picks up the tab?
I wish Bulwark would have commercial free YouTube for paid subscribers or at least have an app that could be used on ROKU for example ( which I use even though my TV ha preloaded apps- ROKU offered way more apps)
I won't be watching the Oscars on Youtube- I just don't care about it that much.
Thanks- that is what I watch here. I pay for the subscription on half a dozen people on substack and I watch their podcasts on their substack channel so I can watch ad free.
Substack does not have an app for ROKU which is where most of my streaming services live.
All the substackers show their podcasts on the YouTube app which is full of commercials - every 5-7 minutes it seems. Aside from Charlie Sykes, even if I am a paid subscriber, I have to watch commercials on their Youtube pods. As you know, the Bulwark is full of pods but I won't watch them on YouTube. I drag my computer with me like I am now as I wrap Christmas presents. I would rather wrap in from of my TV but will settle for my 14 inch laptop.
As someone who was born in 1949, I have witnessed the evolution of television from b/w to color, and from limited offerings that everyone watched at the same time to almost unlimited, asynchronous selections on multiple platforms. Movies were generally seen in a theatre vs. on TV. These days I watch very little on network TV. Like most everyone else, I subscribe to multiple streaming services, and watch what I want when I want! I always follow the Oscars, and am not bothered that they will be on YouTube. I just googled who owns YouTube and learned it was Google/Alphabet! I guess I'm mostly concerned about the monolithic corporations who control the programming!
I pay to not have ads on YouTube, haven’t had cable for decades. I watch YouTube on Apple tv and my iPhone, for news and commentary, painting and embroidery lessons, cooking channels, everything. In fact I’m kind of addicted and have been trying to slack off a bit. The only thing I can’t get that I’d like is baseball.
I'm going to be honest here. The quality of content on YouTube is orders of magnitude better than it is on cable television. The politics on cable TV is positively toxic. The history available is third grade analysis soaked in horrifically garbage production values and maudlin scores.
YouTube is a vastly superior platform for almost every single interest you can have. For a small fee or does not have commercials. You can easily find a two hour video on the Franco Prussian war.
Film criticism is better on YouTube. Legacy media has so massively shit the bed on quality that's it's doomed itself. It's unwatchable. There is exactly one reason to ever watch something on a network broadcast.
The New York Knicks. And even Knicks analysis is tremendously better on YouTube.
One point about YouTube’s streaming power is that Netflix is going to be pointing at YouTube as a monster competitor in their space to explain that their acquisition of WB won’t give them as big of a monopoly as it would appear if you just count the traditional TV streamers. Are all these platforms competing in the same digital arena for time-spent metrics? Or, do you only count those creating and distributing studio content?
The future of TV may very well hinge on how our legal system answers that question. If you count YouTube, Netflix’s acquisition means very little. If you exclude YouTube, it means a dominant monopoly that should probably be blocked. (*Assuming a more traditional DOJ and court review process and not how a Trump DOJ will likely review it.)
You can make a case that people are watching YouTube as a substitute for streaming TV and offer comparable viewership experiences. But you can also argue that the process for generating that content is radically different and that process should define the parameters of which competitors get counted. And stuff can get blurry real quick, like when YouTube carries sporting events or everybody carries podcasts.
One surprising use of YouTube is that the nascent Professional Women's Hockey League (PWHL) puts all of its games on YouTube for viewers outside of Canada. And it's not just one camera pointing back and forth; it's the same broadcast produced by Raycom (a big name in college sports) for Canada's broadcasters and the regional sports networks in the four US markets the PWHL plays in. And the league's explosive growth is attributed, in part, to the fact that fans can watch all the games for free, far more easily than you could with any other streamer.
So funny that Bill Simmons multiple times on the F1 pod called Pitt’s character Sonny Bunch not Sonny Hayes.
Haha really? That is funny. It’s in my queue!
Hahaha I’m listening to it at the gym … cracking me up.
Over the years, I have picked up used DVD copies of "Apocalypto" at Goodwill and given it to family and friends - none of whom had ever seen it or even heard of it. I always tell them, "You've never seen anything like this." That's because the movie uses imagery that is altogether unfamiliar to most of us. I think some of the best movies, regardless of plot - "Apocalypto" is hardly complex - give us new mental images, even if they're inspired by a culture a thousand years old.
I'm in the minority of commenters here so far....
I hate watching the Bulwark on Youtube- In fact, it makes the podcasts unwatchable.
The number of commercials that randomly interrupt people mid sentence is jarring.
I will take my laptop or tablet and set it on the kitchen counter if I am doing dishes . If I watch thru the TV, I will use screen mirroring that Apple offers. The audio and video are slightly out of synch but I am not usually glued to the screen anyway.
I will say there is alot of content on You tube. Endless numbers of videos like " the most obscure songs of 1985" etc!! You can go down rabbit hole hell to view content about almost everything.
I compete in agility with my dog and the competition venue live streams the event on Youtube for the approximately 9 hours each weekend day. Those 9 hours are streamed commercial free and archived on their Youtube channel. I love that but maybe they pay to air it?
It's odd that some videos have no commercials and some like Colbert and Kimmel have an annoying number in a 12 minute video.
Charlie Sykes hour long podcast is commercial free on YouTube. I wonder if he picks up the tab?
I wish Bulwark would have commercial free YouTube for paid subscribers or at least have an app that could be used on ROKU for example ( which I use even though my TV ha preloaded apps- ROKU offered way more apps)
I won't be watching the Oscars on Youtube- I just don't care about it that much.
The ad free Bulwark podcasts are available on Substack.
Thanks- that is what I watch here. I pay for the subscription on half a dozen people on substack and I watch their podcasts on their substack channel so I can watch ad free.
Substack does not have an app for ROKU which is where most of my streaming services live.
All the substackers show their podcasts on the YouTube app which is full of commercials - every 5-7 minutes it seems. Aside from Charlie Sykes, even if I am a paid subscriber, I have to watch commercials on their Youtube pods. As you know, the Bulwark is full of pods but I won't watch them on YouTube. I drag my computer with me like I am now as I wrap Christmas presents. I would rather wrap in from of my TV but will settle for my 14 inch laptop.
If you pay a premium, you can watch YouTube without YouTube ads (which I do). But the Bulwark puts a few of their own ads in on YouTube.
As someone who was born in 1949, I have witnessed the evolution of television from b/w to color, and from limited offerings that everyone watched at the same time to almost unlimited, asynchronous selections on multiple platforms. Movies were generally seen in a theatre vs. on TV. These days I watch very little on network TV. Like most everyone else, I subscribe to multiple streaming services, and watch what I want when I want! I always follow the Oscars, and am not bothered that they will be on YouTube. I just googled who owns YouTube and learned it was Google/Alphabet! I guess I'm mostly concerned about the monolithic corporations who control the programming!
I pay to not have ads on YouTube, haven’t had cable for decades. I watch YouTube on Apple tv and my iPhone, for news and commentary, painting and embroidery lessons, cooking channels, everything. In fact I’m kind of addicted and have been trying to slack off a bit. The only thing I can’t get that I’d like is baseball.
I'm going to be honest here. The quality of content on YouTube is orders of magnitude better than it is on cable television. The politics on cable TV is positively toxic. The history available is third grade analysis soaked in horrifically garbage production values and maudlin scores.
YouTube is a vastly superior platform for almost every single interest you can have. For a small fee or does not have commercials. You can easily find a two hour video on the Franco Prussian war.
Film criticism is better on YouTube. Legacy media has so massively shit the bed on quality that's it's doomed itself. It's unwatchable. There is exactly one reason to ever watch something on a network broadcast.
The New York Knicks. And even Knicks analysis is tremendously better on YouTube.
One point about YouTube’s streaming power is that Netflix is going to be pointing at YouTube as a monster competitor in their space to explain that their acquisition of WB won’t give them as big of a monopoly as it would appear if you just count the traditional TV streamers. Are all these platforms competing in the same digital arena for time-spent metrics? Or, do you only count those creating and distributing studio content?
The future of TV may very well hinge on how our legal system answers that question. If you count YouTube, Netflix’s acquisition means very little. If you exclude YouTube, it means a dominant monopoly that should probably be blocked. (*Assuming a more traditional DOJ and court review process and not how a Trump DOJ will likely review it.)
You can make a case that people are watching YouTube as a substitute for streaming TV and offer comparable viewership experiences. But you can also argue that the process for generating that content is radically different and that process should define the parameters of which competitors get counted. And stuff can get blurry real quick, like when YouTube carries sporting events or everybody carries podcasts.
Apocalypto might be a great movie, but it's got Mel Gibson's stink on it.
It's a fantastic movie though. The pacing of that film is nearly perfect.
Dude’s nuts but he knows how to tell a story.
He knows how to tell a story as long as it involves torture. At this point it as much of a kink as Tarantino and feet.
I was surprised by how entertained I was by Apocalypto. It's batsh*t crazy, but I enjoyed seeing a recreation of Mayan civilization.
One surprising use of YouTube is that the nascent Professional Women's Hockey League (PWHL) puts all of its games on YouTube for viewers outside of Canada. And it's not just one camera pointing back and forth; it's the same broadcast produced by Raycom (a big name in college sports) for Canada's broadcasters and the regional sports networks in the four US markets the PWHL plays in. And the league's explosive growth is attributed, in part, to the fact that fans can watch all the games for free, far more easily than you could with any other streamer.
And yes, the games look great on my 50" TV.