For the
nth time, 'the industry' is not monolithic. There isn't some collective bargaining agreement tying up the rights of all the films you want to watch but which are held hostage by mustachio-twirling villains. Every film offered for commercial sale is a separate financial asset of a company, typically the
sole asset of the company that owns it, which then licenses it to a distributor within individual countries. Publication and distribution are largely separate economic entities, due to a combination of legal history (studios forbidden to own exhibition chains in the US), regional market knowledge, and language barriers (no studio has the capability to produce subtitles/dub tracks in every potential market). All the legal paperwork for a small independent film is very substantial, and would fill most of a typical bookshelf. I shudder to think what the legal paperwork for a blockbuster looks like, it's probably enough to fill several bookcases.
Of course it would be nice if one single service/platform was able to deliver any movie imaginable to some objective standard of quality. But it's not going to happen absent some sort of compulsory licensing scheme, which would run into huge legal/constitutional obstacles in many jurisdictions. Imagine you're the publisher of the film and SuperFilmPlatform.com can start start streaming it without your permission and without you having any say in what you get paid - you'd want to bomb their offices and/or exit the market. How would you ensure fair compensation in an environment that allowed compulsory licensing? Through government price controls? That's basically communism for artists/publishers, capitalism for the distributors. As you're no doubt aware, communism and free artistic expression have a poor record of compatibility.