|
|
Post by LuisV on Apr 7, 2021 12:59:09 GMT -5
Ha... you are too funny.  I can't see any adding cost or needing new hardware as Netflix, Hulu, Apple, etc. release their own shows, series, etc. and most are better than the latest releases from HollyWood. If Hollywood doesn't revamp their model, they will go away like Blockbuster did... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2021 13:03:22 GMT -5
Mostly agree. Though I haven't been in awhile, I still enjoy our country drive in. Missed going in my youth, so now it's kind of new for me & social - like I'd imagine tailgating if I were a sports fan. We have a nearby drive in too. Was thinking of upping the caliber of the car's audio system for this one purpose  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2021 13:12:38 GMT -5
Ha... you are too funny. I can't see any adding cost or needing new hardware as Netflix, Hulu, Apple, etc. release their own shows, series, etc. and most are better than the latest releases from HollyWood. If Hollywood doesn't revamp their model, they will go away like Blockbuster did... Remember that one guy that said he invited that special lady back to his place for a Netflix film? She responded, "I'll never subscribe to Netflix or view their shows"...... I married that gal! Ya know, I listen to people's gripes and I don't mind. Like sitting in a theater to have that special lady criticize others w/ phone screens on etc. I'm a firm believer that people will tell you all you need to know about them. We just need listen. I agree w/ you too but it comes down to money and having the right "muscle" on your side. Who's richer and can afford to muscle the other guys out? Doesn't matter whether this or that technology is superior......... Anyhoot, I'm going to watch Disney now - the source of my morality. Enjoy bro, William |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 7, 2021 13:28:20 GMT -5
The problem at the moment is that the model of what works is in flux. So, at this point, it's difficult or impossible to predict how things will shake out in the next few years. At the moment there are too many streaming services and not all of them are making money.
NetFlix is currently one of the biggest studios on the planet... And they've been delivering excellent shows and movies for quite some time... Yet this is the first year that they managed not to lose money on the deal... And you cannot survive forever on support by optimistic investors...
(And competition is getting more cutthroat by the day - with Disney+ coming up fast.)
Therefore it remains to be seen who will manage to stay afloat in the next few years... And who will be someday lie forgotten at the bottom of the swamp... (I'm personally voting for NetFlix since I was never a major Disney fan.... but we'll see.)
Physical movie theaters were already in a decline long before CoVid-19 came along... And I rather suspect the pandemic has just about put the last nail in the lid of their collective coffin... Once new big budget movies started being released on streaming and disc the same day they hit the theaters I think the game was over...
Unless theaters manage a heroic rebound when the restrictions are all lifted...
(And they'll really need to pull a whole passel of rabbits out of their collective hats to do that.)
Ha... you are too funny. I can't see any adding cost or needing new hardware as Netflix, Hulu, Apple, etc. release their own shows, series, etc. and most are better than the latest releases from HollyWood. If Hollywood doesn't revamp their model, they will go away like Blockbuster did... Remember that one guy that said he invited that special lady back to his place for a Netflix film? She responded, "I'll never subscribe to Netflix or view their shows"...... I married that gal! Ya know, I listen to people's gripes and I don't mind. Like sitting in a theater to have that special lady criticize others w/ phone screens on etc. I'm a firm believer that people will tell you all you need to know about them. We just need listen. I agree w/ you too but it comes down to money and having the right "muscle" on your side. Who's richer and can afford to muscle the other guys out? Doesn't matter whether this or that technology is superior......... Anyhoot, I'm going to watch Disney now - the source of my morality. Enjoy bro, William |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2021 13:43:20 GMT -5
The problem at the moment is that the model of what works is in flux. So, at this point, it's difficult or impossible to predict how things will shake out in the next few years. At the moment there are too many streaming services and not all of them are making money.
NetFlix is currently one of the biggest studios on the planet... And they've been delivering excellent shows and movies for quite some time... Yet this is the first year that they managed not to lose money on the deal... And you cannot survive forever on support by optimistic investors...
(And competition is getting more cutthroat by the day - with Disney+ coming up fast.)
Therefore it remains to be seen who will manage to stay afloat in the next few years... And who will be someday lie forgotten at the bottom of the swamp... (I'm personally voting for NetFlix since I was never a major Disney fan.... but we'll see.)
Physical movie theaters were already in a decline long before CoVid-19 came along... And I rather suspect the pandemic has just about put the last nail in the lid of their collective coffin... Once new big budget movies started being released on streaming and disc the same day they hit the theaters I think the game was over...
Unless theaters manage a heroic rebound when the restrictions are all lifted...
(And they'll really need to pull a whole passel of rabbits out of their collective hats to do that.)
Remember that one guy that said he invited that special lady back to his place for a Netflix film? She responded, "I'll never subscribe to Netflix or view their shows"...... I married that gal! Ya know, I listen to people's gripes and I don't mind. Like sitting in a theater to have that special lady criticize others w/ phone screens on etc. I'm a firm believer that people will tell you all you need to know about them. We just need listen. I agree w/ you too but it comes down to money and having the right "muscle" on your side. Who's richer and can afford to muscle the other guys out? Doesn't matter whether this or that technology is superior......... Anyhoot, I'm going to watch Disney now - the source of my morality. Enjoy bro, William The real corporate business model that works is lobbying - get the government involved to impose a standard or regulation on your behalf [just look at this pandemic and follow the money]. Ain't nothing more powerful in this country than having a State Senator or entire political party in one's back pocket. I think everyone should be entitled to films therefore I am a supporter of wealth distribution: free internet and Hollywood access... how else can I be educated? Lastly, it is amazing how the final nail in the coffin is the act of being forced closed for a year. Curious, could Emotiva survive? Who here has 12 months of income planned for and saved up to carry them should they be forced home w/ no work or revenue? Explain it to collections.. IRS included. If some of the comments said here in this thread towards movie theater ownership were applied to home owners - "meh, another home owner will take his place".  Enjoy gent, William |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 7, 2021 14:35:49 GMT -5
End of Pandemic 😷 = Return of the BLOCKBUSTER.....OR does one need to be a Rocket 🚀 Scientist?🤓
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 7, 2021 15:52:04 GMT -5
Covid had 2 effects on my movie watching. At first there was no going to a movie theatre, even if there were plenty of movies to watch, the alternative was I watched them at home. Mostly streamed with odd purchase, which tend to be "action movies", I don't buy "story movies" because once I know "the story" I don't need to see it again, but with most "action movies" there is always something extra that I notice on the 2nd or 3rd watching. That plus if they are part of series I tend to watch the previous movie/s before I watch the new one. So there is some justification in buying them because I know that they will be watched again and often again.
The second phase of the Covid effect was the lack of movies, for any type of watching. There are so many movies incomplete, filming not finished, editing halted, staff not able to go to work, studios closed, actors away hiding from the virus etc. It does not matter right now whether I want to go to the movies, stream them or buy them, there simply isn't the content. For example last weekend we were in the city to watch Hamilton (live performances are back on in Australia) and stayed overnight. We thought about going to the movies but quite frankly there was nothing on that we were remotely interested in seeing.
Movie producers, block busters or not, depend on revenue that is sourced from numerous sources, hence the cascading model of releases, commonly movie theatres, sales (hard copy or pay for download), then subscription streaming and finally FTA TV. I don't see that revenue model completely disappearing, but movie producers are more frequently going direct to their own in house service (pay for view). Which of course the movie studios (without in house streaming services) are going to resist heavily and that means supporting movie theatres as their first source of revenue. Interesting times ahead.
We are not there yet, I believe that it will take some time for the second effect to fully wash over, possibly as long as a year, until movie making returns to full capacity. So my library of "action movies" will be getting a workout for a few months longer.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2021 16:44:14 GMT -5
End of Pandemic 😷 = Return of the BLOCKBUSTER.....OR does one need to be a Rocket 🚀 Scientist?🤓 Are Rocket Scientist essential? Where have all the Rocket Scientist gone? Texas? w/ Elon Musk? |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Apr 7, 2021 16:48:08 GMT -5
If some of the comments said here in this thread towards movie theater ownership were applied to home owners - "meh, another home owner will take his place". Were you asleep during the post 2008 recession with the record number of home foreclosures due to job loss? How's the housing market now? |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 7, 2021 16:49:15 GMT -5
End of Pandemic 😷 = Return of the BLOCKBUSTER.....OR does one need to be a Rocket 🚀 Scientist?🤓 Are Rocket Scientist essential? Where have all the Rocket Scientist gone? Texas? w/ Elon Musk? You may be right!! |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Apr 7, 2021 20:49:14 GMT -5
End of Pandemic 😷 = Return of the BLOCKBUSTER.....OR does one need to be a Rocket 🚀 Scientist?🤓 Are Rocket Scientist essential? Where have all the Rocket Scientist gone? Texas? w/ Elon Musk? NASA has been tasked with helping out at the border. |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 8, 2021 11:30:03 GMT -5
Are Rocket Scientist essential? Where have all the Rocket Scientist gone? Texas? w/ Elon Musk? NASA has been tasked with helping out at the border. That’s because ALIENS 👽 that haven’t filed a flight plan are illegal  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2021 11:45:34 GMT -5
That’s because ALIENS 👽 that haven’t filed a flight plan are illegal undocumented. Slight correction... That'd depend on whether the aliens attempted to evade our legal processes or satellite detection/defense networks by stealth or brute force to gain entry. Then again, according to some w/out criminal intent no crime is committed  Put them in a "sanctuary" at Area 51 where the rest of the fallen angels are - there's a few experiments I'd like to conduct on them in order to develop better probes. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Apr 8, 2021 12:00:46 GMT -5
Ok my post was humor, not a political pulpit. Removing it now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2021 12:04:36 GMT -5
Ok my post was humor, not a political pulpit. Removing it now. I cannot confirm or deny there being any political and/or pulpit allusions whatsoever. I suspect as if I were someone that drew your intent into a literal artist's rendering of a critical lens in which you are under that you could be firing off pot shots taken at will until fire disciplined. Are you uncomfortable now? How so, as if you have to defend your position w/ conviction? The comments I made too were in humor as someone that I imagine who worked w/ Langley in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance long ago while serving in the U.S. military's 363d. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 8, 2021 13:13:11 GMT -5
As for theaters... I believe that theaters were already in a serious decline before CoVid-19 came along.
In a very few decades we progressed from: - movies released in theaters that eventually made it to television - movies released in theaters and then available on disc in a few months - movies released in theaters and then available on disc within a few weeks - movies released in theaters and then available on streaming a week later - movies released at the same time in theaters and on streaming services
It seems obvious to me that the folks releasing movies concluded that the real money WASN'T in theatrical releases. For a while they continued to release movies in theaters more to gain publicity and credibility than to drive sales.
(While a few major blockbusters made a lot of money on theatrical releases... more and more movies went straight to disc or stream.)
I think CoVid-19 drove the point home... But I think where we were headed was sort of obvious...
To me the only question is whether the end of CoVid-19 restrictions might impart a small short term boost to theaters... (with people so eager for social interaction that they're just happy to go anywher as a group).
On that other comment....
I think we must all bear in mind that "criminal intent" is not something that is defined in a vacuum... For example: If you consider your front yard to be your personal property... Yet, for some reason, I believe that "we should all have a right to camp wherever we like"...
The fact that I personally believe I have a right to camp on your lawn will not shield me from being charged with trespassing... And that would be even more certain if your yard was fenced and had clearly posted "Private Property" and "No Trespassing" signs...
Because, in legal parlance, "a reasonable person would have known that camping there would be considered to be a crime".
(If you knowingly disobey a law, then you have intentionally done something illegal, regardless of whether you think that law is fair or reasonable.)
That'd depend on whether the aliens attempted to evade our legal processes or satellite detection/defense networks by stealth or brute force to gain entry. Then again, according to some w/out criminal intent no crime is committed Put them in a "sanctuary" at Area 51 where the rest of the fallen angels are - there's a few experiments I'd like to conduct on them in order to develop better probes. |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Apr 8, 2021 13:50:26 GMT -5
NASA has been tasked with helping out at the border. That’s because ALIENS 👽 that haven’t filed a flight plan are illegal View AttachmentAnd we ain't gonna stop them either.🙂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2021 13:54:42 GMT -5
On that other comment....
I think we must all bear in mind that "criminal intent" is not something that is defined in a vacuum... For example: If you consider your front yard to be your personal property... Yet, for some reason, I believe that "we should all have a right to camp wherever we like"...
The fact that I personally believe I have a right to camp on your lawn will not shield me from being charged with trespassing... And that would be even more certain if your yard was fenced and had clearly posted "Private Property" and "No Trespassing" signs...
Because, in legal parlance, "a reasonable person would have known that camping there would be considered to be a crime".
(If you knowingly disobey a law, then you have intentionally done something illegal, regardless of whether you think that law is fair or reasonable.)
That'd depend on whether the aliens attempted to evade our legal processes or satellite detection/defense networks by stealth or brute force to gain entry. Then again, according to some w/out criminal intent no crime is committed Put them in a "sanctuary" at Area 51 where the rest of the fallen angels are - there's a few experiments I'd like to conduct on them in order to develop better probes. Ah, where the nature of man is concerned I begin to detect contradiction. Vacuum? I guess it depends on which source of law is referenced, "void" and/or made inadmissible? Take murder vs killing for example, one involves "criminal intent" while the other quite contrary is permissible by civil magistrates even extending to the citizen. However, generally speaking I'd say where "self" is the primary motivation some sort of law is violated. I mean is it a citizen's right to defend innocent life and property in an act of self-sacrifice putting himself in harms way in defense? If not property at the expense of life does not a thief/intruder/trespasser already decide to violate such principle by putting property above not only their own life but an other's? I yield back and emphasize who or what source of law is or is not admissible? Relativism as well as Post modernism can be applied not only to an individual but also socially as in community or nation. How do we defend against a post modernist which says to Law that what is right for you is not right for me? Or even a nation that says it is legal to murder kill [redefine intent] based on gender, race, or age? I yield back w/out exploring absolutes. Ignorance is always a defense as well as the notion that someone must be convicted in conscience of right and wrong doing for sentencing - as if they'd never choose wrongly if they knew. And I dig your analogy Keith, water rights or boundaries such as beaches etc are hot spots of controversy where I can really see your point. But I'd like to acknowledge your argument recently made its way into the court system near here in Boise Idaho where homeless think they have the right to camp anywhere in the city. Until then it was illegal.... as well as pan handling and vagrancy. Then again, Ya know, gent, if I were take a post modernist's principle and put it into examples of citizen defense in some sort of extension of castle laws and further to extend it outside their property to stand their ground.... one could claim in all forms of speaking all kinds of varying degrees that they felt threatened and shoot at will. Having said that, the one that attempts to make the defense that they have a right to gain access to any domain etc. probably would be found dead indefensibly by reason. I say this coming from a 2nd amendment sanctuary state which has the Firearm Freedom Act.
Always a pleasure, Keith,
William
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 8, 2021 14:42:47 GMT -5
Most interesting...
But, to take your example of murder...
When we go to a court to decide whether a killing is "murder" or "self defense"... In the end the decision always seems to come down to another one of those split hairs... For example, if I kill someone who is obviously attempting to kill me, then it's almost certainly "self defense"... And, in many cases, that would be true even if I was mistaken, "because I reasonably believed that my life was being threatened"... But it might still be left to a judge or jury to decide "whether my belief was reasonable or not"... Or "whether a reasonable person would have believed that their life was in danger"...
At which we're left with someone's opinion of who that reasonable person is and what they might believe...
As to your point about the relative value of life and property... Some folks would suggest that "mere property is never worth as much as a human life"... Yet many defenders of the Castle Doctrine would say that "life is worthless if I cannot keep safe what is mine"....
I'm not going to shoot a burglar because I think his life is worth less than my TV set... But I get up and go to work every morning in order to earn a living... And I have used what I earn to buy things, like my home, and that TV...
And, if that burglar can steal what I've worked to earn, then he can essentially deprive me of my reason to live... (What is the point of having property at all if we are not free to protect it if and when necessary?) And that is one pretty serious existential threat... and perhaps one that does justify killing him after all... And, beyond even that, once he has broken into my home, and demonstrated that he has no respect for my property or the laws that protect it... Is it really not reasonable for me to assume that he probably also poses a threat to my life? (That again comes down to a matter of opinion.)
And, yes, always a pleasure... But note that, in the end, we are both bound by the preponderance of the weight of OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS anyway.  On that other comment....
I think we must all bear in mind that "criminal intent" is not something that is defined in a vacuum... For example: If you consider your front yard to be your personal property... Yet, for some reason, I believe that "we should all have a right to camp wherever we like"...
The fact that I personally believe I have a right to camp on your lawn will not shield me from being charged with trespassing... And that would be even more certain if your yard was fenced and had clearly posted "Private Property" and "No Trespassing" signs...
Because, in legal parlance, "a reasonable person would have known that camping there would be considered to be a crime".
(If you knowingly disobey a law, then you have intentionally done something illegal, regardless of whether you think that law is fair or reasonable.) Ah, where the nature of man is concerned I begin to detect contradiction. Vacuum? I guess it depends on which source of law is referenced, voided and/or made inadmissible? Take murder vs killing for example, one involves "criminal intent" while the other quite contrary is permissible by civil magistrates even extending to the citizen. However, generally speaking I'd say where "self" is the primary motivation some sort of law is violated. I mean is it a citizen's right to defend innocent life and property? If not property at the expense of life does not a thief/intruder/trespasser already decide to violate such principle by putting property above not only their own life but an other's? I yield back and emphasize who or what source of law is or is not admissible? Relativism as well as Post modernism can be applied not only to an individual but also socially as in community or nation. How do we defend against a post modernist which says to Law that what is right for you is not right for me? Or even a nation that says it is legal to murder based on gender, race, or age? Ignorance is always a defense as well as the notion that someone must be convicted in conscience of right and wrong doing for sentencing - as if they'd never choose wrongly if they knew. And I dig your analogy Keith, water rights or boundaries such as beaches etc are hot spots of controversy where I can really see your point. But I'd like to acknowledge your argument recently made its way into the court system near here in Boise Idaho where homeless think they have the right to camp anywhere in the city. Until then it was illegal.... as well as pan handling and vagrancy. Then again, Ya know, gent, if I were take a post modernist's principle and put it into examples of citizen defense in some sort of extension of castle laws and further to extend it outside their property to stand their ground.... one could claim in all forms of speaking all kinds of varying degrees that they felt threatened and shoot at will. Having said that, the one that attempts to make the defense that they have a right to gain access to any domain etc. probably would be found dead indefensibly by reason. I say this coming from a 2nd amendment sanctuary state which has the Firearm Freedom Act.
Always a pleasure, Keith,
William
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2021 14:49:55 GMT -5
Most interesting...
But, to take your example of murder...
When we go to a court to decide whether a killing is "murder" or "self defense"... In the end the decision always seems to come down to another one of those split hairs... For example, if I kill someone who is obviously attempting to kill me, then it's almost certainly "self defense"... And, in many cases, that would be true even if I was mistaken, "because I reasonably believed that my life was being threatened"... But it might still be left to a judge or jury to decide "whether my belief was reasonable or not"... Or "whether a reasonable person would have believed that their life was in danger"...
At which we're left with someone's opinion of who that reasonable person is and what they might believe...
As to your point about the relative value of life and property... Some folks would suggest that "mere property is never worth as much as a human life"... Yet many defenders of the Castle Doctrine would say that "life is worthless if I cannot keep safe what is mine"....
I'm not going to shoot a burglar because I think his life is worth less than my TV set... But I get up and go to work every morning in order to earn a living... And I have used what I earn to buy things, like my home, and that TV...
And, if that burglar can steal what I've worked to earn, then he can essentially deprive me of my reason to live... (What is the point of having property at all if we are not free to protect it if and when necessary?) And that is one pretty serious existential threat... and perhaps one that does justify killing him after all... And, beyond even that, once he has broken into my home, and demonstrated that he has no respect for my property or the laws that protect it... Is it really not reasonable for me to assume that he probably also poses a threat to my life? (That again comes down to a matter of opinion.)
And, yes, always a pleasure... But note that, in the end, we are both bound by the preponderance of the weight of OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS anyway. Ah, where the nature of man is concerned I begin to detect contradiction. Vacuum? I guess it depends on which source of law is referenced, voided and/or made inadmissible? Take murder vs killing for example, one involves "criminal intent" while the other quite contrary is permissible by civil magistrates even extending to the citizen. However, generally speaking I'd say where "self" is the primary motivation some sort of law is violated. I mean is it a citizen's right to defend innocent life and property? If not property at the expense of life does not a thief/intruder/trespasser already decide to violate such principle by putting property above not only their own life but an other's? I yield back and emphasize who or what source of law is or is not admissible? Relativism as well as Post modernism can be applied not only to an individual but also socially as in community or nation. How do we defend against a post modernist which says to Law that what is right for you is not right for me? Or even a nation that says it is legal to murder based on gender, race, or age? Ignorance is always a defense as well as the notion that someone must be convicted in conscience of right and wrong doing for sentencing - as if they'd never choose wrongly if they knew. And I dig your analogy Keith, water rights or boundaries such as beaches etc are hot spots of controversy where I can really see your point. But I'd like to acknowledge your argument recently made its way into the court system near here in Boise Idaho where homeless think they have the right to camp anywhere in the city. Until then it was illegal.... as well as pan handling and vagrancy. Then again, Ya know, gent, if I were take a post modernist's principle and put it into examples of citizen defense in some sort of extension of castle laws and further to extend it outside their property to stand their ground.... one could claim in all forms of speaking all kinds of varying degrees that they felt threatened and shoot at will. Having said that, the one that attempts to make the defense that they have a right to gain access to any domain etc. probably would be found dead indefensibly by reason. I say this coming from a 2nd amendment sanctuary state which has the Firearm Freedom Act.
Always a pleasure, Keith,
William
I really enjoy and respect your response Keith, I've only one comment to muse upon, Having stated, "Some folks would suggest that "mere property is never worth as much as a human life"... If that's the case then no mere property or financial restitution should equal an innocent life taken. The other option is time as if a criminal's time is worth an innocent life. I say this as a student of the lex talionis. If no monetary amount or time can equal innocent life then the only option which holds life so dear is a sanctity of life argument - life for a life. Enjoy, William |
|
