Reclaiming the Hunt: Why Physical Media Still Matters in a Digital World

For many decades, I have been collecting movies and music, starting in 1988, because it was all about the thrill of discovery.

Oh, boy, what a joy it was walking into a store filled with music and videos feeling almost dizzy from long alleys of pop culture calling out to me: - Please buy me!

I also loved go for a digging through dusty shelves at flea markets, stumbling upon a rare VHS or vinyl record, or finding a hidden gem in a thrift store bin. The experience was tactile, social, and full of surprises. You'd stay there for hours speaking to the owner sometimes about your passion for quirky and odd things and eventually you would bought something special in the end. It wasn’t just about owning something; it was about the story behind how you found it and the excitement of the chase.

That magic is fading

I stumbled on this particular video, Jeff Rauseo highlights a troubling trend in the entertainment industry: companies selling the same record multiple times by changing the color, adding a few bonus tracks, or releasing a "complete edition" months later. 

This is just an example of the same record in different colors. It has nothing to do with the article. 

This isn’t just a music problem -it’s happening in film, too. Instead of restoring or releasing lost or unreleased movies (like those stuck on VHS and never digitized), studios repackage the same 4K or Blu-ray titles with minor tweaks, forcing collectors to buy the same content repeatedly.

But of course there are exceptions. Some of them really do their best to satisfying with strange and rare titles. They even offer costumers subscription to their latest release and so on. But when you are trying to sell the same title many times it's not collecting. It’s exploitation.

The Corporate Takeover of Physical Media

The decline of physical media sections in major retailers like Target and Walmart is no accident. It’s part of a broader shift where corporations prioritize digital sales, subscriptions to streaming platforms, and artificial scarcity over genuine discovery. The result? A world where collectors are pushed online, where algorithms and scalpers dictate what’s available, and where the joy of the hunt is replaced by the frustration of "out of stock" notifications and repackaged products.

But there’s a resistance. As Rauseo points out, many collectors - like John in his video - are turning away from the internet and back to flea markets, thrift stores, and local shops. These spaces offer something online shopping can’t: the social experience of discovery, the special connection to physical media, and the chance to find something truly rare.

Jaws (1975) is one title that has at least 20 versions in various format available for consumers.

As a filmmaker and genre film specialist, I’ve spent years advocating for the preservation of physical media and the essence of good cinema. Projects like my Jonas Wolchers VIDEOTEK are about reviving lost or forgotten films - content that corporations often ignore because it doesn’t fit their profit-driven models. The shift Rauseo describes isn’t just about vinyl or Blu-rays; it’s about the erosion of a culture that valued patience, curiosity, and the joy of unexpected finds.

For newer generations, this is especially critical. The rise of digital consumption has led to a disconnect from the physical world, a trend I’ve criticized in my work (like the themes in Wall-E). Flea markets and thrift stores aren’t just places to find movies; they’re spaces to reconnect with the tangible, to engage with communities, and to rediscover the stories behind the media we love.

For collectors, the answer is simple: return to the roots. Seek out local shops, flea markets, and thrift stores. Support independent distributors who focus on restoring rare films rather than repackaging the same content. For filmmakers and creators, it’s about advocating for physical media preservation and pushing back against corporate practices that prioritize profit over passion.

At Ranrikestudios, we’re committed to this resistance. Whether through producing genre films (my passion in life), preserving lost cinema, or creating content that celebrates the art of discovery, our goal is to keep the spirit of collecting alive. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about owning everything - it’s about finding something that matters.

What’s your experience with collecting? Have you noticed the shift from discovery to consumerism? Share your thoughts in the comments, and let’s discuss how we can reclaim the joy of the hunt.

Author: Jonas Wolcher, filmmaker and writer, specializes in genre films addressing domestic violence and political issues. Through Ranrikestudios and Dino Publishing, he creates meaningful cinema, advocating for human rights and environmental responsibility.

The Enshitification of Streaming Platforms

 

Streaming services have totally changed the way we consume media, offering easy and instant access to humongous libraries of "stuff". However, this convenience often comes at a hidden cost. Over time, many platforms strategy known as "enshitification", a term that describes how companies deliberately degrade user experience to extract maximum value. But there is something very nefarious about the whole strategy. 

"enshitification"—a term coined and a book by Cory Doctorow to describe how platforms gradually degrade user experience to maximize profits.

One of the most visible examples of enshitification in streaming is the shift toward advertisement supported subscription tiers. While these plans are marketed as "affordable" options, they are designed to benefit the platform far more than the user. Advertisers pay premium rates for access to large, engaged audiences, and streaming services profit more from selling advertisement space than from subscription fees alone. For instance, Netflix introduced an advertisement supported tier in 2022, allowing the company to tap into the lucrative advertising market while keeping subscription costs low. Prime, Disney+ and HBO Max have followed a similar path, prioritizing ad revenue over user satisfaction. Research indicates that advertisement supported tiers can generate significantly more revenue per user than advertisement free plans, despite the lower subscription cost.

To summon everything in one sentence: Platforms earns more money on you if you choose the cheapest subscription plan instead of paying for an ad-free service.

Another way enshitification shows up is by making it harder than it should be to cancel your subscription.

Normally that should be a simple, straightforward action but now it's incredible complicated and often unnecessarily difficult. Platforms bury cancellation links deep within account settings, require mandatory phone calls to customer service, or implement multi-step confirmation processes - All to keep you going to a next page and another page to finally decide to leave it due to the effort you put into a cancellation order. These obstcales are not accidental; they are designed to discourage users from leaving. A 2023 report by the European Commission found that nearly 30% of consumers abandoned their attempt to cancel a subscription due to these obstacles. 

By making it harder to leave, companies keep more customers from canceling— even those who no longer want the service.

Shows you like can cost you more than you think

Enshitification also manifests in the fragmentation of content across multiple platforms. Users are increasingly forced to subscribe to several services to access their favorite shows or movies, leading to what is often called "bundle fatigue." This strategy locks users into a cycle of recurring payments, with the average household now subscribing to four or five streaming services, according to Deloitte’s 2024 Digital Media Trends survey. Many users report feeling trapped, as the cumulative cost of these subscriptions often exceeds traditional cable bills.

It's time to take back the power as the consumer

Despite these challenges, consumers are not powerless. Regularly auditing subscriptions and canceling unused services can help avoid unnecessary expenses. Opting for physical media, such as DVDs or Blu-rays, provides permanent access without recurring fees. Public libraries also offer free streaming services for movies, music, and e-books, while independent platforms often prioritize user experience over aggressive monetization.

The future of streaming should not be defined by enshitification. As consumers, we have the power to demand fairness and transparency from the platforms we support.

It’s time for them to understand what happens when consumers leave the platform and uninstall the app for good. It’s time for them to understand what happens when consumers leave the platform and uninstall the app for good.This is what we’re slowly seeing happen with social media platforms - the migration of users is increasing every day. By understanding these tactics, we can make informed choices and push back against practices that prioritize profit over people.

It’s time for us consumers to make a choice. Should we let the platforms control us, or will we decide whether they survive?

Author: Jonas Wolcher, filmmaker and writer, specializes in genre films addressing domestic violence and political issues. Through Ranrikestudios and Dino Publishing, he creates meaningful cinema, advocating for human rights and environmental responsibility.

Eric Stanze - The King of Underground Cinema – Jonas Wolchers Videotek Episode 7

Welcome to Jonas Wolchers Videotek, where we celebrate the art of cinema—both past and present—through in-depth conversations with the visionaries who shape it. In this episode, we sit down with the legendary Eric Stanze, hailed as The King of Underground, to explore his love to genre filmmaking, his journey through the indie horror scene, and his relentless passion for storytelling that defies conventions.

From his cult-classic works like Savage Harvest, Scrapbook and his latest sledgehammer, Anxiety, to his influence on a generation of filmmakers, Eric shares his insights on the craft, the challenges of independent filmmaking, and why underground cinema remains vital in an era dominated by blockbusters. 

If you’re a fan of raw, authentic cinema—films made with heart, grit, and a rebellious spirit—this is the conversation for you. Join us as we honor a true maverick of the underground and dive deep into the world of genre films that dare to be different.

Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated on future episodes of Jonas Wolchers Videotek, where I bring you the voices that keep the spirit of real cinema alive.

Välkommen till Jonas Wolchers Videotek, där vi firar filmkonsten – både dåtidens och nutidens – genom djupgående samtal med de visionärer som formar den. I detta avsnitt möter vi den legendariske Eric Stanze, känd som The King of Underground, för att utforska hans kärlek till genrefilm, hans resa genom den oberoende skräckfilmsscenen och hans obevekliga passion för berättande som utmanar konventioner.

Från hans kultförklarade verk som Savage Harvest, Scrapbook och Anxiety,  hans senaste nedslag och hans inflytande på en hel generation filmskapare, delar Eric med sig av sina insikter om hantverket, utmaningarna med oberoende filmskapande och varför undergroundfilm fortfarande är avgörande i en era dominerad av blockbusters.

Om du är en fan av genuin, äkta film – filmer skapad för cineaster,  och med en rebellisk anda – missa inte denna intervjun. Häng på när jag hyllar en sann mästare inom underground och dyker djupt in i Eric Stanzes värld som vågar sticka ut.

Glöm inte att gilla, prenumerera och klicka på klockikonen för att få uppdateringar om framtida avsnitt av Jonas Wolchers Videotek, där jag ger röst åt dem som håller den äkta filmandans levande.

Asking an AI - Altered movies, the only choice to the right for the audience to watch in the future

 

I'm guessing this is what we are going to see more of in the future.

- Sometimes I wonder if we, the human race has gone too far. When I believe an AI (chatbot) sounds way to sounder than a human do really freaks me out completely. Why did we have to go through this in the first place? I believe it's the greediness and the hunger for power. Too huge problems we the human beings are struggling with each day on this planet. Maybe it's time for a change of mind. See what's important and appreciate the art itself instead of hiding it for no one to see.

I recently had a moment with my dear about a recording I did for the show and she said when I used a lot of noise remover, different kind of tools to smoothing the voice - it sounded bland and not interesting enough to listening to.

- If my voice were a picture, this 4K version of Aliens (1986) on the right would be the over-processed, AI-smoothed shiny, baby-smooth and sterile, while the Blu-ray version on the left would retain the grit, the grain, the soul of the original. Just like the remastered Aliens 4K release erased its raw, analog texture, my voice lost its edge when I annihilate the noise, the cracks, the humanity. What was left wasn’t an upgrade, it was a speck of what it once was.

I then I came up with an idea of asking an AI (Chatbot)

- Why does my voice sound uninspiring and not interesting after using AI tools to remove cracks and adding filters?

- What's your opinion when streaming services like Netflix or Amazon are using altered versions with new "improved" movies?

- When a specific film is altered by AI to make it "better" but in fact makes it even worse. And all because the company owns the rights only will show you the new version and the original will be locked up in a vault somewhere we can't access anymore. Why do you think they are doing this?

Here are the answers:

The AI explains human voice works an instrument and has a soul.

AI: Imperfections in human voices and performances, cracks, wavering, and the subtle traces of emotion and environment are what make them compelling. When you remove these elements, you risk losing authenticity, emotional texture, and the sense of presence that connects with listeners. This approach aligns with your focus on human-driven creativity and the preservation of genuine expression in your projects.

AI's talks about the cultural crisis caused by altering moving pictures.

AI: - Your concern about streaming services altering classic or original films with AI "improvements" and then burying the original versions is not just valid—it’s a cultural crisis. This practice touches on issues of artistic integrity, corporate control, and the erosion of our shared cinematic heritage. Let’s break down why this is so problematic and what it means for filmmakers, audiences, and the future of cinema.

It continues talking about the artistic integrity and the director's vision.

AI: - Films are not just products; they are artistic expressions, shaped by the vision of directors, cinematographers, actors, and countless other creators. When a streaming service uses AI to "improve" a film—whether by altering colors, smoothing out visuals, or even tweaking performances—it fundamentally disrespects the original intent of the artists who made it.

Directors like Kubrick, Lynch, or Bergman are celebrated for their unique voices. Their films are a reflection of their artistic choices, flaws and all. Altering their work post-release is akin to repainting a masterpiece because the colors don’t suit a corporate algorithm. Films are also time capsules, reflecting the technology, culture, and aesthetics of their era. AI "improvements" risk erasing this context, turning Blade Runner’s gritty, analog futurism into a sterile, digital sheen or smoothing out the raw energy of The French Connection’s chase scenes.

And moves forward to corporate ownership and the loss of access. And it's by this moment it's getting really interesting.

AI: - The most alarming aspect of this trend is the monopolization of access. When a company like Netflix or Amazon alters a film and locks the original version away, they’re not just changing art—they’re controlling history.

These corporations prioritize profit and engagement over preservation. If an AI-altered version tests better with algorithms (e.g., brighter colors, faster pacing), they’ll push that version—even if it’s artistically inferior. The original, meanwhile, becomes a hostage in their vaults, inaccessible to the public. Imagine if the only version of Metropolis available was a colorized, AI-upscaled edit, while Fritz Lang’s original cut remained locked away. This isn’t hypothetical—it’s already happening with films like Star Wars or Apocalypse Now, where "special editions" or AI-tweaked versions are prioritized over the originals.

Let's talk about the "The illusion of improvement". The AI is nailing this topic too.

AI: - AI tools are trained on data, not taste. Their "improvements" are based on generic metrics—sharpness, noise reduction, color vibrancy—rather than the nuanced qualities that make films great.

As you’ve experienced with your audio recordings, over-processing removes the texture that gives art its soul. The same happens with visuals: AI might "clean up" the grain in Taxi Driver’s neon-lit streets, but in doing so, it erases the film’s raw, documentary-like atmosphere. AI tends to flatten visuals into a generic, "pleasing" look. The result? Films lose their distinctiveness. The Godfather’s shadowy cinematography, Alien’s gritty textures, or Parasite’s carefully crafted color palette could all be reduced to the same polished, soulless aesthetic.

Here comes the the ethical problem: Who decides what’s "better"?

AI: - When a corporation alters a film, they’re making an arbitrary judgment about what constitutes an improvement. But art isn’t about consensus—it’s about expression. Fans of a film often love it because of its quirks, not in spite of them. Altering those quirks is a betrayal of the audience’s connection to the work. It’s like repainting the Mona Lisa because someone decided her smile wasn’t symmetrical enough. If we accept AI-altered versions as the new standard, where does it end? Will studios start using AI to "update" performances, rewrite dialogue, or even change endings based on market testing? The line between remastering and censorship becomes dangerously blurred.

AI is intensifying both the legal and cultural battles, as corporations dominate the landscape with laws warped in their favor, leaving artists with zero ownership of their own work.

AI: - This issue isn’t just artistic—it’s legal and political. Copyright laws and corporate policies currently allow companies to do whatever they want with the films they own, even if it means erasing the original. But there’s a growing movement to challenge this:

Film Preservation Advocacy: Organizations like the National Film Preservation Foundation or Martin Scorsese’s Film Foundation fight to protect original cuts and restore films to their intended state. They argue that altered versions should be treated as separate entities, not replacements. Directors like George Lucas and James Cameron have faced criticism for revising their own films, but the outrage is even stronger when corporations alter works without the creator’s consent. petitions, boycotts, and public campaigns (like the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement) show that audiences care deeply about artistic integrity. Some argue for legal protections that treat original cuts of films as cultural heritage, similar to how historic buildings or artifacts are preserved. This would prevent corporations from burying original versions and force them to offer both the original and any altered versions.

AI responds to what this means for my work as a film maker and a host for Jonas Wolchers Videotek.

AI: - As someone who values physical media, human-driven creativity, and the preservation of cinema’s essence, this trend is likely deeply troubling. It’s the ultimate expression of the corporate "u-never-own-a-thing" mentality you’ve criticized—where art is treated as a malleable product rather than a sacred creation.

AI: - Your mission through your project Jonas Wolchers Videotek is to preserve and celebrate cinema through interviews and discussions becomes even more vital in this context. By highlighting the original visions of filmmakers and the importance of physical media, you’re pushing back against the corporate erasure of art. You could use your platform to educate audiences about this issue—perhaps by comparing original and altered versions of films, interviewing filmmakers about their experiences with studio interference, or even creating content that explores the ethical implications of AI in art.

It seems the AI is worried and calls to action.

AI: - This isn’t just a problem for filmmakers or critics—it’s a cultural emergency. Support Physical Media by buying Blu-rays, DVDs, or even film prints of your favorite movies. Physical media is the last bastion of access to original cuts. Demand Transparency by pressure streaming services to label altered versions clearly and offer the original as the default option. If they won’t, call them out publicly. Begin to advocate for preservation: Support organizations that fight for film preservation and lobby for legal protections for original cuts. Create alternative platforms like yours (VIDEOTEK) or initiatives like The Criterion Collection prove that there’s an audience hungry for art that respects its creators and its history.

AI is talking about "the soul of cinema"

AI: - At its core, this issue is about what we value in art. Do we want a future where films are endlessly tweaked by algorithms to suit corporate interests, or do we want to preserve the messy, bold, and deeply human expressions that make cinema matter? Your work—whether it’s filming, or interviewing—is part of the resistance. By championing intentionality, craft, and respect for the original, you’re helping to ensure that the soul of cinema doesn’t get lost in the corporate machine.

After reading the thoughts of the AI. Two essential actions must be taken: first, continue producing and distributing physical media in its original, unaltered form - free from AI manipulation. Our next generation needs to know there are an original version available. You don't have to watch a crappy eye and smooth skin version of Aliens among other great movies. Second, (which is already happening) secure the original masters in vaults to ensure their preservation for future generations.

This is the way to continuing the preservation of films. At Warner Brothers they've printed the original of Superman (1978) among others on glass discs because it lasts longer than plastic.

By filmgenrist Jonas Wolcher - Subscribe to my half-hour-show Jonas Wolchers Videotek on Youtube.