From diarrhea to constipation

Welcome to my very own corner of hell. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ 25 / Ace / Will d*e for Obi-Wan Kenobi / Team Bucky for the rest of my life

[babyanimalgifs]

Little fish eats his foods 

(Source)

[bunigojade]

[gratuitous-aesthetic]

[bakersfield-row]

[wheredidalltheusersgo]

[dalkyum]

GOT7 Python MV

[dalkyum]

🥯🌿✂️💨🌶️📚🥟🤍 @spohkh

[nando161mando]

[dalkyum]

CHAERYEONG ✶ GOLD ending fairy, 241019

[dalkyum]

chaeryeong ✰ mr. vampire m/v behind

[cuoredimuschio]

if there's one good thing to come out of all this watcher drama, it's the reassuring knowledge that actually quite a few people also think that ghost files isn't nearly as entertaining as bfu

[moonlightspencie]

ive got something else to say actually

who the FUCK green-lit the video they posted either? they seem so weird and dejected in it after being all excited on social media with the countdown. not to mention all the corporate language and the fucking odd music choices. i thought it was a joke in the first five minutes until i started reading all the pissed off comments.

my first thought when i finished is that it seemed like a video shane and (possibly) ryan would have FLAMED back in the day for how self-important and tone deaf it was

[x-snickersnap-x]

watcher dickriders are so fucking annoying. like it feels like you're being contrarian just for the sake of it

their patrons, who at minimum are already paying $5 and could be paying up to $100 a month, aren't getting grandfathered into the new service. they're already paying them!!! they got a $40 discount; thats already less than the $5 the patrons are paying, so why not just give them access to the service in gratitude for what could be YEARS of support?

fundamentally the issue with people is that by shifting to a mandatory subscription service, which is an inherently predatory and corporate model, they have stepped away from being perceived as artists that rely on fan support to being perceived as a Company. and they will be compared to other companies. the amount of content you get for your money is relatively minimal.

[death-himself]

as someone who’s a very casual watcher viewer (i don’t think i’ve watched any videos in months) as well as being a media major, this situation is so fascinating to me

ghost files costing $50k per episode??? 25 employees??? what do you need a director for to make survival mode? it’s literally just a lets play

seeing people break down their expenses with flight costs, rooming, etc. is really interesting too, i need to ask my professor about this situation, it’s just so wild to me

[hotblondespanishclass]

the other thing i don’t get about the watcher defenders is… would you still be defending them if they were charging $8? $10? $25? $6 might be fine for you but it’s not fine for most people, actually. What are you gonna do when they mismanage their money AGAIN and have to put up prices? How can you trust them to care about you when it eventually does become unaffordable? When they’ve already shown they’re willing to dump 95% of fans for the 5% who will pay?

[p-eachbeam]

what i can't comprehend about the whole watcher fiasco is why they're in a rush to completely pull away from youtube when it's very clear that their company isn't a position to do so yet.

this is a four-year-old company who should be building more value to the watcher entertainment name. at this stage of their careers, they should be honed in on building a bigger and more consistent content library, reeling in more viewers, and finding ways to make watcher a household name.

but right now, they don't make enough content to justify a completely separate, paywalled streaming platform. they pump out new shows and new seasons every month, but their upload schedule is so sparse they can't even afford to upload new content for a full week.

and as much as this hurts to say, they don't even have a big enough audience to justify this decision. to the general public, they're still better known by the work they've done under a famous media conglomerate rather than the work they do now. that's not a good thing when you want to pull away from the biggest video sharing platform.

as someone who has been content creation adjacent for most of my professional career, the desire to be less reliant on sponsorships and make high-caliber content in a way that's sustainable is valid. i'm with them on this one. i want my favorite creators to be able to create the content they love without worrying about how they're going to pay their staff and how they're putting food on their table.

i'm just failing to understand how this is going to work out for them when a good chunk of their audience isn't in a position to shell out money for a streaming service. i don't know how they're going to find people who want to pay for watcher tv when their existing fanbase can't even see the value of their streaming service.

people more knowledgeable than i have pointed out that there are many ways for them to find people who are willing to pay to see the television caliber content they've wanted to make from the day they launched without pushing out the people who've also been there from the very start but don't have the financial means to follow them into this new stage of their company.

idk. i think i'm just more upset at how it seems like they didn't even try to find a middle ground between their vision and their audience.

[scottishstoner]

This is from the podcast 2 weeks ago, I was giving it a rewatch and a few things that stood out to me last time I’m going to point out;

1) Ryans “could be healthier” about the YouTube views etc

2) Stevens constant plugging listening/watching them other places other than YouTube was a big red flag I never noticed until now, yes they all say it but from being a regular watcher of the podcast I can confidently say Steven always pushes hardest about that (and I done it hearing it helped them at the time, I rated and reviewed the podcast on Spotify, apple etc but for some reason that beginning clip rubs me wrong)

3) Ryan saying his FAVOURITE part of Ghost Files being the trip they take there or spending time with the crew and Shane etc and not actually filming the content he’s suppose to love?? That hurt to hear man ngl

…. I have been re watching some of their podcast since they announced watchertv and I’m noticing a lot of entitlement sometimes, I did notice it well before now but it’s just right in my face now. There are so many examples of all of them not appreciating what they have smh, I might put a compilation video together of some of the moments I noticed them being very tone deaf in regards to people struggling, I noticed it first months ago when Shane was complaining about something so mundane and spoke about it as if he was entitled to it and he was annoyed this one store didn’t have it, it came off very entitled to me at the time even if played as a joke for many episodes

[artblogbyelizabeth]

[annarowyn-deactivated20241222]

Shane said share passwords.

Only for there to be a three screen limit.

It’s because it’s not their own platform, it’s not their own streaming service. It’s Vimeo and they now have to oblige by that platform’s rules.

This is what I meant when I said that claiming to be starting your own streaming service when you’re just using Vimeo, isn’t what they claimed they were doing.

It’s like embedding your tweets on a website and claiming you started your own social media platform.

Having a channel through a platform is not the same as creating your own platform/service.

I don’t have a problem with people doing this, my issue is the constant feeling of dishonesty. The feeling of “well if we spin the paywall like it’s our own platform we’re building they’ll love it!” It doesn’t feel good them thinking we’re easy to manipulate.

[grimrester]

sometime yesterday people on reddit figured out that the new watcher entertainment platform is not a website they have full creative control over (as implied in their video) but instead is from Vimeo OTT. this is why their new platform looks identical to dropout's. vimeo very likely just has a couple templates you pick from and they picked the same one.

this is FASCINATING to me for a few reasons:

it's not unusual for a company to obfuscate how their new web product is built out. "we're using vimeo's content paywall platform" is not nearly as impressive of a statement as "we're launching our own subscription service." this decision sometimes blows up in a company's face though. in this instance, being more candid about the process probably would have helped to mitigate the blowback, because vimeo could have been pinned by the audience as the evil scapegoat company and people wouldn't be feeling stupid when they create accounts and realize all the videos are hosted on vimeo. it also explains why they encouraged password sharing but their subs limit playing videos on more than three devices. it's just a function of the platform they don't control and didn't think about it when they said that.

i really wonder if they made this decision entirely on their own, or if vimeo has recruiters out there trying to make their platform bigger. obviously the watcher guys are responsible for this decision either way, but it sure would explain a lot about why they jumped to this solution to make more money if they had someone at vimeo pitching it to them.

how fucking funny is it that they posted a dramatic "goodbye youtube" video talking about wanting more control and wanting their own special platform just to go to youtube's direct competitor. lol