TrooperDada326 wrote:
I honestly never have heard of VidAngel and I’ve been a cord cutter for 10 years. Constantly I see people in this community posting about generic channels they use. And now they go unsupported.
They were big enough for Disney and Warner Bros to sue.
TrooperDada326 wrote:
... But yet if you stick to legit channels such as Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max and others you have no issues. ...
Not everyone likes everything they offer. More choice is a good thing. PureFlix is a good and legal option available for Roku.
TrooperDada326 wrote:
... You people honestly need a filter system for your kids to watch TV? Interesting
I've seen plenty of movies that had gratuitous content. I read that Hitchcock even threw some in Frenzy because he was worried it wouldn't get a big enough audience. I don't know if that's a fact, or just an urban legend. Either way, the problem with Frenzy wasn't the lack of gratuitous nudity. The movie was no better for it, and would have been no worse without it. But Hollywood gonna Hollywood.
I have no issue with people wanting to filter what's seen by family, or by themselves. Keep in mind the filters could be for themselves. What doesn't make sense to me is filtering out the content, and Hollywood still getting money for it. All that does is convince Hollywood people want more of that. So there's more of that. I don't use such filters. If I don't like the content of a film, I won't watch the film.
Now, I do research a movie before I go to see it or purchase it. I'm not shocked when such comes on the screen, because I did my research. But most people don't. For that reason, I see the usefulness of a filter option. It's just not one I would use, not because of my prior research, but because if I want to send a message to Hollywood, I'll do it by not buying their filth.