![[SUBS] Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) Streaming Jan 12 on Apple TV+](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/98/824798.jpg?h=65c9d823)
Release date announced for streaming Killers of the Flower Moon on Apple TV+
7.8 on IMDB and 89 Metascore
Runtime 3hr 26min đź‘€
Bracing myself for the comments
[SUBS] Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) Streaming Jan 12 on Apple TV+
1020
Related Stores
Comments
- 1
- 2
Blurays are $30 each… I would never understand the logic of someone buying blurays over streaming services when you'll pay a lot more money and spend a lot more time changing discs and shopping for blurays.
Agreed, as much as I love supporting the film making industry, it doesn't make sense unless you're a collector/pixel peep enthusiast.
Blu-rays are only $30 if you buy on the first day of release. JB has regular 20-30% off sales, second-hand market sells anywhere from $1-10 per movie, discs are owned and have higher quality than streaming and many movies that have physical copies aren't available on any streaming service.
Hence the question, how much you paying for streaming services? Add to that: how many movies do you watch a month? Two services is already pushing $30+ a month which is more than my monthly disc budget which may add me anywhere from 5 - 15 movies.
So you have to wait 6 months to pay $20 or buy second hand blurays of unknown quality and then deal with the whole facebook marketplace situation….
Yes Blurays are higher quality then streaming but how important is this for your average movie? How many people have a 100" 4k screen to really appreciate it?
Lets say I want to watch some below average movie, "Plane". I can spend 2 hours dealing with someone on facebook marketplace, withdraw cash, pay the $5, or just watch it on a streaming service in the time it took me to buy it… (I checked and its not even available second hand yet)
I pay $0 for streaming services so I have the best of both worlds, bluray quality without needing to put any effort into it (all automated). But if I had to pay, I would easily pay streaming services simply because everything else is insanely inconvenient.
The other issue with blurays is 90% of content is simply not on bluray or not sold anymore so it really ends up being a waste of time since you need to buy a streaming service anyway.
Your idea makes perfect sense prestreaming services.
90% less content is being produced, almost everything will be on bluray/dvd eventually so its relatively convineint to manage your viewing situation.
These days you are basically opting to watch 10% of the content while wasting hours of time every week.
@samfisher5986: There are so many movies that have released throughout history that I find myself rarely interested in having every modern release.
Also, when using time as an argument against physical media, I find it ironic stating you want to watch "below average movies". Seems like a larger waste of time that putting on a disc of a movie I may actually enjoy.
Also don't use the "unknown quality" strawman. Blu-rays have scratch resistant coating meaning that 90% of them are fine secondhand unless they've been buffed or severely mistreated. This was a DVD issue more than Blu-ray.
Also, CEX, eBay, cash converters, op shops, etc all usually have blu-rays at sub-$10 prices. No need to waste your time on marketplace or withdrawing cash. I don't even have Facebook, so that is also a non-factor.
And that "90% isn't even on Blu-ray" is another non factor as it is not a real statistic.
Your arguments are all very personal and specific. Not sure why you're somehow paying $0 for the services unless you're mooching off other people.
@Ninternet: You can't even see 90% of releases on bluray so you just don't know what you are missing.
Not everything you watch needs to be a highly rated.
The service I use isn't particularly legit but its better then all the streaming services and blurays combined.
If you want I can list some TV Shows and movies and you can tell me where you can buy the blurays but I can guarantee you can't, so much doesn't go to physical media anymore.
@samfisher5986: I cannot believe you posted this, such an effort to buy a movie, specifically for people who like to collect.
Then the exaggerations of what you need to justify ownership of said BR.
I'll let you in on a little secret, if it wasn't for the companies that make BRs, the ones that restore movies from film, an arduous process, then get the extras, interviews w/e. You would not have your beloved "streaming services" made available to you.
Where do you think these transfers come from, that they're magically uploaded to the interwebz from fairy dust?
There are companies doing the hard work to bring restorations of many many films, even newer films like Synder's etc.
You should be grateful that physical media exists, that's the reason, any reason that painstaking works have been achieved to benefit the woeful bitrates of "streaming services".So how is it you have a free streaming service with the same quality bitrates of a Bluray?
You think streaming services will give you 100Mbs movies?
Great so now our infrastructure of the net is over burden with people wanting to watch subpar bitrate movies?CD vs MP3, yeah I know which is better and why.
@[Deactivated]: You can load automatically downloaded blurays into Plex, so you have your own streaming service at a very high quality.
@samfisher5986: Downloaded Blu Rays?
That's not the same as a physical BR, no streaming company offers the same bitrate as physical media, that's a fact, by downloaded, do you mean pirated?Oh gotcha, you're one of those guys.
@samfisher5986: So you admit to piracy, you're the reason things cost so much.
This is OzBargains, not OzPirates.
@[Deactivated]: Smells like they be sailing the seas.. Arr!
$0 movie and “wasting” time buying and putting the disc in the tray
@NoisyMiner: They don't get any lower than this type.
I pay for everything, sometimes owning multiple copies of the same movie over various formats.
At least I respect the creators content, support what I think is the right thing to do.
I pay approx $25 a month and that includes Disney, Prime and Netflix. I share my Disney account with my sister and she shares her Stan account with me. So four services for $25. Considering I have prime more so for purchases and video streaming is a bonus, I could even deduct that.
Why would I waste my money and time to get 5-15 movies when I can easily access hundreds of movies plus plenty of TV shows to keep me going for years?
@tomsco: Justify that marketing concept. How many movies do you actually watch despite it's "convenience"?
@Ninternet: Probably one mid week and one weekend so minimum 8 a month (if not more), plus the series I watch through it.
Why are some people so against physical media, it’s great to have the classics whenever on the best quality and best sound. I recently got a Blu ray player and went to CEX and for $3 or $5 got some favourites to keep forever. I understand the convenience for streaming, but hands down Blu ray experience is not even in the same ball park
@NoisyMiner: I get people liking streaming. I just don't get why that accompanies an active dislike/distaste for physical media. The negs on my neutral comments seem really emotionally touchy
@Ninternet: You’re getting negs because you came to a streaming deal and started preaching physical media. That was you, not anyone else. Don’t act the victim.
@tomsco: "Negs on neutral comments"
I get people being enraged at my more direct remarks and personal takes on what I disagree with, but when I make a comment about the price of blu-rays in rebuttal to a broadly incorrect generalisation about prices, to receive downvotes feels like people not wanting to hear the reality of the market situation. It's not detracting from streaming, it isn't biased in any subjective form regarding placing physical media above streaming. It is neutral. It is factual to my experience. Hence the down votes seem more emotionally incentivised
@NoisyMiner: Get yourself a nVidia Shield if you can afford, get some HDDs, I have 4, 12TB, 10TB, 6TB and 4TB.
6TB cost me open box $170 of eBay, that's like the cost of 4 decent BRs that I cannot get locally, I mean obscure BRs.
There should be no doubt to why people collect BRs, if others cannot understand, then that's on them.
But remember how home video came out and why it paved a way for how movies were brought o market.
Streaming services never existed and have piggy backed off the successes of physical media, that's a resounding fact you can never change.@NoisyMiner: Becauae you can do the same without the blurays at the same quality if you know how, and if you dont its just so much easier to use a streaming service.
@samfisher5986: I know one of my mates rips movies onto their plex server, it’s great, but finicky. For me It’s much easier to put a disc in and press play. Even if you rip it it’s still from the “disc”. The only one I like that is available on streaming is the marvel movies with imax enhanced on Disney plus. The rest skimp on audio quality, 4k picture is great on some titles, but the rest are 1080p with the need of subtitles. 4K Blu ray audio is crispy clear. (Depends on audio gear)
@samfisher5986: No you mean piracy, which is against the law. In your case, for someone that cannot afford said services/products, against the lawl.
I remover buying blurays. Now they are still in 1080p and not 4k. What a waste
@onlinepred: No you get 4K Blu Rays, you must have missed this?
Blu Ray is the medium, not the format.@[Deactivated]: But I bought 1080p blurays prior to 4k, how do I convert them to 4k for free? What happens when 8k becomes the standard, do all your 4k blurarys update for free?
@onlinepred: Use a player that up converts them, which is pretty much every 4K player or TV.
Unless you need a new TV which is currently only 1080P?@onlinepred: Any physical media is better than streaming, the whole point of streaming is to reduce the bitrate, the resolution will always be the same as the physical media.
Streaming is supposed to reduce the size, the same way CD and MP3 exist.@[Deactivated]: Nice! And you get full atmos support added too?
Also streaming is much better than DVD/VHS. I've now had to buy my favourite movies in multiple formats. I would hate to have a large library that you need to constantly update. I just have a few that I really value. I only buy a few movies on physical media, everything else I stream. I would imagine that would work well for most, given most have LCD tv's, and watch movies in bright rooms haha.
CD and MP3 is a poor comparison, as 99.9% of the population couldn't tell the difference given their equipment/listening preferences.
CD and MP3 is a poor comparison, as 99.9% of the population couldn't tell the difference given their equipment/listening preferences.
No it's a perfect example given what equipment is used.
Now if you're going to do a apples per apples vs.
Then you fail to understand anything being discussed here. Compression is a bad thing to have when using a proper experience, that's what YOU fail to grasp.
99.9% is something you made up, again something all about compression and your lack of understanding.Nice! And you get full atmos support added too?
What sort of question is this even?
Atmos comes from the encoding of said material, Streaming services don't do encodings, companies who do transfers do.
Do you think Apple TV suddenly has the ability to encode a movie on their streaming service by the simply flick of a switch?@[Deactivated]: The same goes for Apple TV and Blu ray player. What I'm getting at, is 4k or atmos versions of movies come out, and get updated on streaming services automatically at no extra cost of the service. If you had a DVD, you would have to buy the Bluray, and then the 4k blurary, and then the 4k atmos bluray etc etc
Compression is a great thing for many reasons, lower bandwidth for streaming is a major one. Also storage is a huge one too.
I used to work at a recording studio, and the audio engineers often would have a game of "tell the difference" of masters vs encoded. If they couldn't reliably tell the difference, I don't understand how you think a random on the street will tell the difference. We are talking about a sound proof room, with dedicated studio equipment. Sure, you CAN tell the difference between 64kbps and 128kbps, but when you start getting into 320kbps, seriously you need incredibly hearing, terribly accurate hardware, and a sound proof room to tell the difference.
I entirely agree with you that masters will always be better, but the circumstance that they are better is miniscule as barely anyone has the correct setup to even tell the difference, or the time/effort/want to sit there and compare.
@onlinepred: You're talking out of your backside.
I used to work at a recording studio, and the audio engineers often would have a game of "tell the difference" of masters vs encoded
Sure they did. Compression is compression and with the right hardware, you will see/hear this every time with a lesser compressed alternative.
Given TVs are not that expensive especially size wise, you can see the differences straight away.
I once asked a projectionist what the size of the movie was that I was watching, he said 1TB.
Now we don't get the same version in home, but I'll guarantee you that your streamed version of the same movie which probably nestles at 17GB, wont hold a candle for the copy I own of 80GB.
You can stick with your subpar version, even the audio will suffer, but it's not how I intend to view my content, watered down for those 99.9% (made up figure) audience that know no difference.@[Deactivated]: I litereally said the movies I love, I have physical media of lol. Not sure what crawled up your butt.
I'm sure you have a 77" 4k OLED at 1.8m viewing distance in a pitch black room, have had it professionally calibrated and tested. Right?
I litereally said the movies I love, I have physical media of lol.
And?
I'm sure you have a 77" 4k OLED at 1.8m viewing distance in a pitch black room, have had it professionally calibrated and tested. Right?
No and you don't need anything like this to see the difference between physical media and compressed, especially with macro blocking or color banding.
99.9% of people!!!!
@[Deactivated]: You do, as to benefit from higher bitrate/colour, you need contrast…. What large LCD TV is as accurate as OLED?
You said it, you need the right hardware to tell the difference… and if you are comparing, you must have two TV's next to each other, as accurate as possible, and tuned correctly, analysing each section of the screen for differences. Honestly, if you think more than 0.1% of the population does that, you must only hang around fellow geeks like us
@onlinepred: Again you're talking out of your backside, I have a 65 CS OLED next to a C835 mini LED.
So much wrong with what you post.
Costs 2600 vs 1200, and you can see the difference of color banding on both panels quite easily.
Stop pretending you know, when you don't.@[Deactivated]: Why on earth did you buy a C835 mini LED if you care about quality source materials so much? It's like saying you like high quality music, so you bought airpods.
@onlinepred: Are you trolling for the sake of it?
C835 is perfectly fine, specifically for long term editing and gaming.
I get none of what we have been talking about makes sense to you, because logic isn't your forte is it?
@samfisher5986: So I guess you have a 1080P TV for all your 1080P content, otherwise you could not watch 1080P on a 4K panel without having to upconvert.
Personally I don't think you really know what you're talking about. But that's an opinion based on facts.@[Deactivated]: There is no converting, its simply resizing the image to fit the screen…
I think you have been confused by marketing where a simple and poor filter is applied to market it as "4k conversion"
@[Deactivated]: Its the same concept, anytime you view a video on a computer you are scaling.
Either way its the same original source image which you seem to fail to understand. They aren't making 1080p look any better.
@samfisher5986: On the contrary, you are clueless, some scalers better others, hardware scalers always better software.
nVidia Shield has AI scaler, but here you are the self confessed pirate that knows it all.@[Deactivated]: Yes and even the best live AI scaler which is from Nvidia is very average for anything but 480p low quality content.
There is very little difference for 1080p content and thats using Nvidia AI which is 1000x better then anything a TV will have.
The only way to do better then that is to put your $2000 GPU to work for 10 hours to use AI to improve it at least to a noticeable amount.
@samfisher5986: Again, you know nothing of which you speak.
1000x times better eh?
Somehow I think the pirate should walk the plank.@[Deactivated]: Yes because current TV's do basically nothing to to a 1080p video, it will look basically the same on a PC monitor in VLC.
I think you might have never seen a 4k video in your life.
@samfisher5986: You're actually wrong and this proves you're wrong.
Stick with what you know best, nothing.A TV's upscaling and sharpness processing are determining factors in how good an image of a given resolution looks on screen. This is especially important if you're watching low-resolution content from a physical player that doesn't have its own upscaling feature, like a cable box or an older DVD player. Good upscaling will accurately scale lower resolutions to the higher-resolution pixel count of the screen, maintaining fine details and delivering a sharp, clear image, with no noticeable defects. Poor upscaling and sharpness processing will do a bad job of translating this detail, rendering the image blurry or overly sharp.
@[Deactivated]: Yes, there is such as thing as poor upscaling which you have the same situation on computers.
But a good upscaler just means a 1080p picture is displayed correctly on the screen (which may not be an exact 1080p panel). This has nothing to do with the video quality itself which itself is the limitation.
@samfisher5986: Again where you're wrong, has everything to do with the video quality, specifically the bitrate.
What it is: How well the TV can take a low-resolution signal and enhance the edges or text to make it more defined without affecting the rest of the picture.
When it matters: When watching low-resolution or low-bitrate content. Creator's intent can be altered if the settings are set too high.
Or low-bitrate content
So there you have it folks, an expert who knows exactly nothing.
@[Deactivated]: You proved yourself wrong, enhancing existing content by sharpening edges etc can easily ruin it.
1080p content is 1080p content.
@samfisher5986: which needs to be upscaled to 4K if you're using a 4K panel, that's simply beyond your grasp as you don't even pay for your movies, self confessed too.
@[Deactivated]: A lot of content everyone watches is scaled no matter the screen size or streaming content, but that doesn't mean the picture is changed to a noticeable amount.
@samfisher5986: You are delusional.
1080 upscaled to 4K is 4 times the resolution.
Yes it's not much is it?Seems like you're doing a lot of back peddling here, I'd rather take Rtings technical advice than someone who pirates movies.
1080 upscaled to 4K is 4 times the resolution.
What you've said really demonstrates your lack of understanding and that post has demonstrated there is no way you have the capacity to understand.
@samfisher5986: No it is YOU that cannot comprehend anything.
When you do NOT display the content in its native resolution, you then alter the image, at what cost and what compromise depends on software/hardware solutions.
I've already posted that low bitrate streamed material is affected by upscaling too, this is directly from Rtings themselves, let me get that quote for you again.When it matters: When watching low-resolution or low-bitrate content. Creator's intent can be altered if the settings are set too high.
There you have it folks, science vs a pirate.
@[Deactivated]: You just can't accept it.
1080 upscaled to 4K is 4 times the resolution.
You are misinformed, you need to accept it and move on.
It's about ownership of something physical. I have blueray of Oz for example, because holding Chris Meloni and Adabesi in my arms helps me sleep better.
Abebisi lives
Haven’t thought about OZ for a while.
Time for a rewatch! J.K Simmons in all his prison brutality
It's the quality of the product 4k on disc which is better than streaming. As a collector that was my argument but now with retail stores drying up and costs increasing I'm at odds as to what to do. I want to save space but need to decide if I sell what I don't want now before it's too late or keep collecting until it ends up niche with prices akin to say like say laser disc…
So with BR you generally get a much better version than any streaming version due to bitrates.
Then add extras, for people who like to dive deep into the making of said film, then add the convenience of being able to rip said BR to your own collection.
I wait til most movies worth owning are below $15. Also the second hand, garage sale and op shop market for blu-rays is fantastic. I spend less than the monthly sub amount for a screening service and get more movies than I can watch in a month AND I own them forever.
Because when I want to re-watch my favourite movies I don’t want to have to figure out which streaming service has the rights to it and whether I have a current subscription to that particular one or not. I don’t buy blu-rays for all movies, just my favourites that I know I will rewatch
Thanks for letting me know you didn't read any other comments before typing yours
I have 1 streaming service, flixify and it covers almost everything.
7.8 on IMDB and 89 Metascore
Having watched it, I think thats generous
Damn, some serious DiCaprio fans on ozb :)
This may surprise you, but people who appreciate cinema don't always watch a film because of the "big star" actors attached to them.
This isn't the WWE.
Having watched it, I think it's spot on.
Yeah, it's one of those movies that were made to win awards. Entertainment is an afterthought.
Disagree, I think it’s very deliberate in its story telling and pacing. Other than Lily Gladstone don’t see it winning any other awards, and Scorsese has been clear he doesn’t give af about the Oscar’s.
I thought it was a masterpiece, but not very everyone.
don’t see it winning any other awards,
Dunno, DiCaprio might win 'Best Teeth'.
Both me, the people who walked out, and the dude snoring like a pig next to me at the IMAX disagree with that lmao
@ChillBro: Yeah I was woken up by my other half because I was snoring in this one. I felt bad, but then I saw 2 other people who were also asleep.
"7.8 on IMDB"
7.8 is not good on IMDB. I didn't know this until recently as well, but someone online told me "good" on IMDB is like 9.0 to 9.5+ rating.
after which point I realised how useless movie rating systems are because of how different movies can be for every person.the only real use for the rating system is telling movies which are absolutely terrible. e.g. usually something like a 2.3 or 3.4 rating on IMDB.
That’s true for TV, not for movies In my opinion - anything 7+ is worth watching on IMDB, around 7.8 is basically very good.
" In my opinion - anything 7+ is worth watching on IMDB, around 7.8 is basically very good."
yeah to be honest that has also been my experience, even some 6.8 rated movies I thought were good. but apparently that's not accurate. maybe I was talking to a real film buff. ÂŻ_( Í Â° ͟ʖ ͡°)_/ÂŻ
ya know the type who would give anti-christ by von trier a 9.999.
I agree. The ratings for TV are very different to film. >7 for film and >8 for TV is a fair threshold I think.
My experience is that anything below a 6.3 score is basically "unwatchable", above is usually a good barometer of at least something I will be able to sit all the way through…
Agreed. What a slog of an overwrought film. The bones are there, the rest… eh.
I agree, wife and I thought it was rubbish.
Thanks for posting OP. I was planning on purchasing or renting so saved me some bucks
Recently watched this - so be prepared…its approx 3hrs 20mins long…..
lorg of the rings is long. they couldn't fit it into one movie.
Just remember to clear your schedule for a few weeks. This movie goes on and on.
I'm generally not a fan of long movies as it's difficult for me to sit for that long, so I usually watch them over 2 nights (yes I just admitted I'm a pirate).
With that said I think it's a good movie, probably one of Scorcese's better ones of late.
Wot?
- 1
- 2
I hold out hope for the day Letterboxd is at least considered as "standard" as IMDb and RT for movie scores. Not that they really matter.
Also genuine question:
How many services y'all got and still trying to justify as more convenient than playing a disc?