Slashdot Mirror

"If Netflix wants an Oscar then they need to show the film in a cinema."

You're obviously not aware that Roma (and others) had a theatrical release before they started streaming it. So, Spielberg's sour grapes amounts to, uh, sour grapes.

There's also no proof of review bombing despite all of the media outlets reporting that's the case.

Yeah, that frustrates me too. Rotten Tomatoes is no longer showing "do I want to watch this?" so I can't make any assessment. I'd want to know whether the volume of "do I want to watch this" ratings for Captain Marvel is significantly different from that for other MCU films. If it is, that suggests trolling/bombing. If it's not, that suggests genuine sentiment.

Before rottentomateos scrubbed it the main "not interested" group was made up of old accounts greater than 8 years. Feel free to look up the archived snapshots if you want, wayback, archive.co, whatever go have fun.

Oh that's a good idea! I did just that. Here are how many people voted yes or no on the "I want to see this movie" button on rotten tomatoes, as of 10 days prior to each movie's release:

• Captain Marvel - 44,735 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
• Ant Man and the Wasp - 11,503 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
• Avengers: Infinity War - 10,536 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
• Black Panther - 33,540 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
• Thor Ragnarok - 49,917 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
• Spider Man Homecoming - 52,536 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
• Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 - 53,872 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
• Doctor Strange - 47,723 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...

These numbers flat out don't make sense. I don't know much about MCU but my perception of the hype was that "DrStrange (47k), AntMan+Wasp (11k), CaptainMarvel (45k)" were all minor films about minor characters, while "GOG2 (54k), BlackPanther (34k), InfinityWar (11k)" are major films that were massively hyped.

Oh speaking of how well is the moving going to do? They've already revised the opening weekend downward twice, and now are expecting it to not clear $100m on opening weekend.

I wanted to understand your claim in context. Here's some good context, from two weeks ago:

https://deadline.com/2019/02/c... (Feb 14th)
Outside of Iron Man‘s $102M and Black Panther‘s $202M, no other Marvel origins film has opened to north of $100M, particularly those in the deeper universe, i.e. Doctor Strange ($85M) and Guardians of the Galaxy ($94.3M)...
Another box office industry source informed us on Captain Marvel‘s $100M start: “Give or take $20M”.

http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/... (Feb 14th)
early tracking data suggests the Brie Larson-helmed superhero film is heading toward a $100 million opening-weekend haul at the box office. That would make it one of the highest-grossing Marvel-movie openings of all time, and put it close to the $103 million earned by DC’s Wonder Woman film during

I don't mind if there is some evidence to back it up

There is. Twitter CEO admitted prevalence of Left among the employees, to the point, where the Right-minded do not feel safe expressing their views.

He then proclaimed, that "need to remove our bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement" — which is like a Boston referee promising to not favor Red Sox...

So, yes, Twitter are biased, that's a fact. It is also a fact, that it is legal for them to have such a bias.

Finally, I think it is self-evident, that they should not be biased — both for reasons we have the First Amendment in the first place (the Amendment does not apply to them, but the reasons do), and because it hurts their business. And here Jack Dorsey agrees with me, thankfully...

Ratings were down another 10% this year

"The Last Jedi was an enormous performer for Disney, with a $1.3 billion global gross"." Notice the 1.72 return on cash (no financial force wizardry involved). If that's doing bad for a movie then I'd be happy as a much worse director!

Authoritarians are so thirsty for liberal approval. They are always whining that athletes and hollywood types with political opinions should just STFU but they embrace d-listers like scott baio, reagan, sonny bono and trump like they are the second coming. And when Kanye runs his mouth without thinking, they rush to kiss his ass too.

Even the dead-eyed Dana Loesch of the NRA wanted to be in hollywood but got rejected and had to settle for making propaganda videos instead.

On cable, yes - Fox News wins. However, Fox's 2.5 million primetime viewers is well behind ABC's 8.8 million viewers. All the OTA news channels crush anything on cable - and would most likely have a LOT more influence due to their much larger viewerships.

Yes I'd say Deadpool 2 was the major competition, in fact I was going to see it the day I went to see Solo but changed my plans because I was bringing a friend who wasn't fond of excessive cursing. Deadpool 2 drew the crowds, the numbers don't lie.

In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.

But there was a sale. Redbox paid for the item it purchased. The meeting of the minds is between the seller, say Walmart, and the purchaser, Redbox. Walmart said "I have this box and I'll sell it to you for $14.99", an offer Redbox accepted.

The judge appears to have found that Disney's language was insufficient to create a binding shrinkwrap contract.

Deadline has this by way of explanation:

“The phrase “Codes are not for sale or transfer” cannot constitute a shrink wrap contract because Disney’s Combo Pack box makes no suggestion that opening the box constitutes acceptance of any further license restrictions,” the judge wrote.

So absent a shrinkwrap agreement with Disney, you're left with regular copyright law in its place. Alongside that, the purchaser, Redbox, has all the rights that go with the First Sale Doctrine.

Otherwise he wouldn't be doing it.

Easy. A computer big and huge enough that it can someday house his consciousness when his astonishingly healthy body someday craps out, so he can continue to MAGA for all time until America was won so much even his most ardent, NFL-hating MAGA fans are tired of winning. It will be huge. It will be gold. It will be huge and gold, and they will call it the "BFC T-1000" and it will rule and it will be incredible, people, believe me.

Reed Hastings has been quoted on a number of occasions saying exactly that. "There's a reason we didn't call the company 'DVD-by-Mail.com.'" They also nearly screwed it up entirely with the whole "Qwickster" debacle, which Hastings also discussed. There's also more than a little cherry picking going on here. Picking a few "winners" and then extrapolating that because they didn't seek "disruption" as part of their business plan makes this kind of a puff piece. Not to mention the egregious use of other stupid buzzwords like "paradigm shift" in the description. I'd also like to believe the reason the Bodega folks got in hot water what that it was pretty easy to see that they were going down the Jucero path by over-engineering and hyping what amounts a vending machine -- a technology that's been with us a really long time, and that can already do pretty much everything they were promising. Source for dvd-by-mail: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/1... Source of Qwickster debacle: http://deadline.com/2014/05/re...

What's not to believe?

Promises only takes you so far. And it's one thing to fulfill a promise, another to maintain it.

It would be fun to see where we end up at the next election. I think it's hard to find a candidate wilder than Trump.

The people behind House of Cards even complains that Trump stole all their ideas.

Was disappointed many, many times before JJ put the nail in the coffin. The magic is gone, long long gone and ain't coming back. Yet Paramount (or whoever owns them this time) keeps trying to press more life out of a series that the suits thought to kill back almost 40 years ago. Fuck. Nearly everyone who had anything to do with TOS that inspired such unprecedented fandom in syndicated re-runs are now, quite literally, dead - and yet studio execs slap a Trademark on a pilot and stick a few Trekkie easter-eggs in the script, and it's gotta get the green-light.

I've learned my lesson. If they have to slap "Star Trek(R)" and related paraphernalia on it to make you give it a second look, it's junk designed to take your money. There's better stuff out there like The Expanse or Oasis that don't need to name-drop to a 40-year old three-season TV show in order to get people to wanna watch it.

Trek Is Dead. Let it rest for fuck's sake. But you can't stop studio suits from squeezing "value" out of a Copyright and a Trademark property. Shit, Netflix is working on doing a remake of *cough* Lost In Space for fuck's sake. You could have a stroke thinking what sludge could spill out of that, but they're gonna produce it, probably at the expense of something original and good.

MSMBC ginning up fake Tea Party is racist story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Katie Couric documentary deceptively edits gun supporters to make them appeared stumped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN "shorthanded" call for taking black riots to suburbs as call for peace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

NBC edits call to make Zimmerman look racist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The New York Times and the narrative:

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watership_Down_(miniseries)
http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/681125-animated-watership-down-mini-series-coming-from-bbc-and-netflix
http://deadline.com/2016/04/watership-down-miniseries-john-boyega-james-mcavoy-bbc-netflix-1201745167/

I'm sure the Russian government recruits computer talent in the many ways listed in the article. I would suspect the U.S. government does much the same.

The fake part comes in: Why publish this piece now? Why not, say, during the massive OPM breach?

Simple: Publishing it during the OPM breach would have harmed Obama, whom the New York Times and it's employees almost universally adore, while publishing it now helps prop up the false narrative that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not a disgruntled Democratic Party insider, and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the New York Times and it's employees almost universally loath.

Remember, among the revelations to come out just after the election were how the Times abandoned objectivity to go after Trump and how the entire newsroom is dedicated to driving a predetermined narrative rather than carrying out an objective search for truth.

This story was published because it fits an (unproven and probably false) narrative that Russia "hacked the election" because it theoretically harms Trump.

Further reading here and here.

Like the NY Times ... and at least try to be objective.

Did you really use "NY Times" and "try to be objective" in a single statement?!?!?!

Because... not so much...:

For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”

What was that you were saying about the NY Times and objectivity?

How do you think they got so embarrassed by Trump's victory? Note well where that reporter that wrote the linked story previously worked: the LA Times, hardly a bastion of alt-right support. Yet the LA Times was one of the few media outlets that pretty much nailed Trump's victory from the beginning. Got the stones to wonder why the LA Times got it right, and the NY Times was EMBARRASSED? Think it might be that the stories in the LA Times are driven by facts while the stories at the NY Times are driven by editors who demand a narrative?

Well, actually, Melania Trump has said he can be easily manipulated by C-list celeb gossip show hosts...

(But yeah, if the Republican leadership thought he was a manipulable puppet, why haven't they started yet?)

Ps your studio propaganda about Redbox is WAY outdated, and it wasn't even true back in 2008-2009 when the studios were saying that.

In fact, Redbox reports that 50% of their rental revenue goes to the studios. Most often through a revenue- sharing deal like the one they have with Warner Brothers:
http://deadline.com/2015/03/wa...

Back in 2008, and today for Disney, Redbox stocks (buys) enough DVDs and Bluray discs to meet demand. If a lot of people rent Disney movies from Redbox, then Redbox buys a bunch of Disney disks to keep their machines stocked. If fewer people rent a particular movie, Redbox might put one copy in half of their machines. (Ever had to drive to a different Redbox location to find the movie you wanted? This is why. Only the most popular releases are in every machine.) If few people want to rent a movie, Redbox doesn't stock it at all, so they buy zero copies.

In short, the more people want to rent a movie, the more copies Redbox needs, so they buy more - which means more money for the studios.

Law enforcement will still try to justify their existence by "catching" people for a crime they didn't commit.I remember back in 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for just such an offense. Those men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.

You can only survive so long that way. After 5 years, they were eventually caught and court-marshaled for their crimes...
They eventually pled guilty and were executed for those crimes...

Or so we were led to believe... ;^)

Apparently they managed to escape execution and have plastic surgery and personality implants and resurfaced in Mexico in 2010. Overkill is underrated...

Yet rumor has it that one of more of them has had a sex reassignment operation.

After a while you wonder if siome crime against humanity was actually committed. And by who? ;^)

I remember the old Battlebots of 2001-2002. It was a really great show, and then the Robot Wars was made as a copycat about a year later. Now that Battlebots has been restarted, https://deadline.com/2015/02/battlebots-revival-reality-series-abc-summer-1201367663/ I see that Robot Wars is restarted as well, with the usual 1 year lag.

>> We busted up the mob years ago. They've got nothing to do with Unions now.

You must not live near Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philly, etc. or take a close look at who's involved in the pension plans then.

e.g., http://deadline.com/2015/09/mo...

YouTube took it down, and put it back up once the director, and Saban came to an agreement. What they wanted was a clear indication that Saban had nothing to do with it, and to reduce the chance that children mistake it for their kid friendly version. The video is clearly parody, and mocks the premise of recruiting child warrior a la Africa Child Soldiers. Clearly the author of the summary is under the mistaken belief that Parody must be funny Ha Ha, and probably thinks Black Comedy/Dark Comedy has something to do with race.

The reality is that US defense in the CyberWar already looks like US defense in the War on Terrorism.

We hand pick straw men, set them up as fall guys, and celebrate their defeat when they are captured.

As for CyberWar Games, those will look like CSI on the set of War Games, will be sponsored by Symantec and DeVry Institute, and shown on the "No More Fake BS" Discovery Channel.

My question is whether a Hollywood B movie is a cause worth anyone -- our military and diplomatic people, civilians movie goers -- risking their lives?

I hate to quote celebrities, but George Clooney makes a good point:

"With the First Amendment, you're never protecting Jefferson; it's usually protecting some guy who's burning a flag or doing something stupid."

You are forgetting the implications of tort law.

Even if a physical attack is very unlikely, the costs of the lawsuits which would occurs afterwards would make proceeding a rather risky thing either way.

Don't believe me? The lawsuit against the theater which didn't prevent the Aurora theater shooting continues: http://deadline.com/2014/08/ci...

I was thinking about this the other day. I tend to wonder if it would make sense to completely immunize companies from lawsuits over failure to provide adequate steps to prevent a terrorist and state-sponsored attacks as long as they comply with any direct government instructions and regulations. Victims of these attacks would be compensated by the government, which would be responsible for providing security.

The alternative is nonsense like this.

Companies should only be required to provide security to the extent that it is required by law. By all means pass laws like "you must have a state-certified security guard for every 300 people present on your property" or something like that, and then big venues would have to comply.

If Canada dropped 100 paratroopers on a hockey game and they proceeded to shoot up the place, would it make sense to hold the stadium responsible for failing to repel the attack? I don't see how terrorist attacks are any different, or how having warning makes a difference either. That just allows any nation to basically shut down operations in any other nation by making an idle threat. If the US threatened to bomb the next Olympics and did so, would it make sense to make any store in Rio de Janeiro liable if they stayed open?

If North Korea wants to threaten moviegoers they can publicize their threats themselves, and receive international condemnation in the process. If they just make semi-anonymous threats to the studio the studio should be under no obligation to publicize them, and face no liability if they choose to not do so. Moviegoers could then decide whether to stay away from the movies or not. This would actually deter attacks since the warning would probably have move of the desired effect than an actual bombing, but being forced to publicize the warning since nobody else would do it for them would hurt them. If they just sent a private warning that nobody heard and then bombed a theater, it would completely enrage the public and could very well lead to war.

If the original hack was state-sponsored (which I'm not convinced is the case, but I don't have access to the data), it will be interest to see what the response is. I saw some calling for a response of hacking the computers that were used in the attack, which would be completely pointless. First, being military in nature they're going to be very difficult to target at all, and they're almost certainly going to be backed up with the important stuff off-grid. Besides, the US has had no issues with mounting offensive cyber-war in the past, so to whatever extent that they can penetrate KP systems they're probably already doing it. KP is already under just about every sanction imaginable.

It seems like the only avenues of escalation would be along the lines of:
1. Ask China nicely to punish them.
2. Try to force China to punish them (likely via economic measures).
3. Ask the world (including China) to cooperate in some kind of firewall for nations that don't take hacking seriously. I could see this being some kind of treaty - signatories would grant/receive unfettered access to each other's networks. Non-signatures would be firewalled off (maybe force everything through an http+smtp proxy or the like). This would make network access a little more like other forms of border control.
4. Ask the UN's blessing on some kind of military action. (This obviously requires Chinese cooperation, but might be a way for them to save face - they would not actively support punishing No

You are forgetting the implications of tort law.

Even if a physical attack is very unlikely, the costs of the lawsuits which would occurs afterwards would make proceeding a rather risky thing either way.

Don't believe me? The lawsuit against the theater which didn't prevent the Aurora theater shooting continues: http://deadline.com/2014/08/ci...

The OP has it wrong. The theaters would be liable.

Remember the shooting that occurred at a screening of Batman: the Dark Knight? Well, some families of victims are suing the theater and the case is still ongoing. Because there's a chance that the theater may be found liable of not having "enough security" for a random shooting, and because it can be argued that the theaters in this case were "warned ahead of time of a potential attack," they could potentially be found liable should anything happen.

Keep in mind that Sony is only pulling the release after the five largest theater chains refused to show it. And the reason they refused to show it is because they could potentially be liable should anything happen anywhere in any of their theaters. Given the poor reviews the movie is getting they presumably decided that it just wasn't worth any risk as they're probably not going to make much anything off showing it anyway.

Granted! But it's going to be on That Other Network:
http://deadline.com/2014/09/ch...

Nope. No confirmation. It's not like the CEO and Chairman of Time Warner said it at an Investor Day presentation.

I'm reminded of John Oliver's closing segment about native advertising on Last Week Tonight, which covered the NYT's practice of this and loss of the wall between the two halves of the business.

The entire body of ad copy for MegaRed was repeated through the article, and the story was very conciliatory towards Facebook's advertising practices and their efficacy. Even though the article makes a point about how the jury is still out about fish oil supplements, it paints like a two sided issue and makes sure that it clearly represents MegaRed's version of things (which is repeated in other places for the purpose of the narrative). I don't think it's a two sided issue; nuturitional supplements are almost certainly unproven, with most of the research studies that marginally support them being paid for by the industry, and they have no business be discussed so blithely in a Science/Tech column. I wonder how much consideration or other under-the-table perks they got from those two corporations for running this "informative" article.

Governments don't create cable monopolies.

They absolutely do just that when they subsidize the creation of the network infrastructure with our tax dollars, then allow a handful of huge conglomerates to profit off of that forced community investment while gouging the shit out of us and fight back any competition via litigation. Yeah, in the US, not only does the gov't create cable monopolies, it protects them.

Dear AT&T,

Because you would stop losing customers. Commercials with people from a low rated comedy show will only get you so far.

You're aware that a strike doesn't have to act on a monopoly in order to be a strike, right? Most strikes don't.

A few years ago I picketed a studio that was hiring non-IATSE crews for projects paid for under a distribution agreement with NBC, a violation of NBC's contract. It was effective, it was definitely a strike, an no consumers were affected. Or do you think unions exist only to immiserate consumers?

And suddenly every patent produces negative profit just like movies.

No, the profit is exactly the same as it was before. It is simply allocated proportionately as to who invested the money into the research. If 80% public finance research then 80% back to the public. If 80% private research then 80% back to the corporation. That is exactly how business partnerships work for everything else.

You're missing his point. He is referring to "Hollywood Accounting" where in no matter how much money a movie makes, It didn't make any, according to the creative accounting. This keeps them from having to pay a percentage in royalties to nearly everyone involved in the film, as well as giving the studios additional tax write-offs.
Wiki has a nice summary
Harry Potter films made no money, despite grossing over $1 billion each.
In fact, Dave Proust still isn't getting anything from LucasFilm for playing Darth Vader because Return of the Jedi still isn't profitable.

So just like the movies, patents will suddenly not be making any money, according to creative "Hollywood Accounting."

Didn't you know? - Hollywood is all run by billionaire philanthropists for the love of the art of cinema. No Hollywood movie ever turns a profit. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix couldn't even turn a profit with box office takings close to $1B ; it booked a loss close to $170M - with beloved, multi week blockbuster smash hits like this one making a loss, the only conceivable reason that they make any movie is that those investor angels just love Tinseltown and it's output, because they sure aren't doing it for the money.

I'll be impressed when they can match ComicCon San Diego, who have a hard time finding a ticket sales service that can stand up to more than a few seconds before it collapses under the load. The only reason it took 93 minutes to sell out completely was the slow server response times. Not many wet sites can handle 140,000+ people trying to log in at the same time.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/what-hell-hath-disney-lucasfilm-wrought-star-wars-meets-extreme-home-makeover/

You can create studies that prove whichever point you're advocating. So while downloaders like this article, I'm pretty sure the movie industry will be pointing at things like this: best ever Thanksgiving weekend.

Alas, Hollywood is reporting the best Thanksgiving Day weekend ever. Did the demise of Megaupload make a difference? I doubt it, but I'm sure that TorrentFreak is only interested in datapoints that support its lifestyle choice. http://www.deadline.com/2012/11/thanksgiving-holiday-box-office-starts-so-so-rise-of-the-guardians-underperforms-life-of-pi-overperforms-red-dawn-as-expected-breaking-dawn-2-still-1-bond-skyfall-2/

Come to think of it, there are actually situations where someone could start getting net proceeds even when the studio is losing money -- particularly if the studio screwed up and sold distribution rights to territories or pay TV for a bargain-basement liquidation rate, and the film in question was some sort of sleeper hit and suddenly started making tons of money on those channels.

Just try to focus on the fact that net points are not a share of profit, they're something else. Go through the Order of the Phoenix statement, a lot of that stuff aren't legitimate costs, and a lot of the top-line numbers aren't realized revenue by the studio, they're actually a bit more inclusive, but if the guy who got this had a contract anything like the ones I've seen, everything there is on the deal he signed.

OTOH, I've never heard of a studio using a document like this to claim that "movies are losing money" when they go into a labor negotiation, or when they go to Congress to ask for tax credits, that's just not what this form is for.

The prodution budget is not the only cost, and since you deduct costs from the gross to determine the profit your numbers are incomplete enough to be useless.

There the $200 million distribution fees, the $131 million on marketing, the $57 million in interest, the $300 million on advances, and so on.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/

missed the part about Congress there didn't you?

Here are some copyright holders complaining about the people to whom they give money.

I can understand somebody being physically sick from watching 3D. Although I don't agree with the argument that 3D can't have artistic merit - that it's just a gimmick. If Martin Scorsese says that 3D has artistic merit, I'm inclined to be a bit more open-minded about it.

I'm getting squick and squee from this. The squick comes from the fact that Fox is famous for the way they give journalistic cover to right wing nutbars -- this looks like Fox might be trying to deflect some of that criticism as they ramp up their "coverage" of the 2012 American presidential race, and I'm horrified that the producers might have accepted huge barrels of money to lend their credibility to the Fox marque.

With that said, the squee is that I wouldn't be surprised if Seth McFarlane has managed to troll Fox. This quote from the show's producers is a bit of a give-away (emphasis mine).

the story of how human beings began to comprehend the laws of nature and find our place in space and time. It will take viewers to other worlds and travel across the universe for a vision of the cosmos on the grandest scale. The most profound scientific concepts will be presented with stunning clarity, uniting skepticism and wonder, and weaving rigorous science with the emotional and spiritual into a transcendent experience.

The original Cosmos series never tried to "unite skepticism and wonder." Rational people can be moved by a phenomenon and remain skeptical of the proffered explanations. If that is part of the stated goal of the producers, their target audience probably isn't rational thinkers, but rather irrational types who routinely point to emotional and spiritual experiences as proof of the existence of their deity. I expect McFarlane will jump the ID shark at some point in the series and force Fox to either pull the show, affirming that people who watch Fox are, by and large, irrational, or leave it on and force Fox to contend with confused, angry bible-thumpers flooding their call-in shows, which will still affirm that most of their viewers are, by and large, irrational.

Netflix is already entering the original content market. I fully expect more of this as time goes on.

Want more movies on iTunes, Apple? You've got the cash, so BUY a production house.

They did, it's called Disney.

for newspapers and will always exist

it will be a lot smaller, yes. and some superstar reporters will spin off from newspapers and become their own internet reporting gateways (see nikki finke: http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/ )

in this way the internet will "atomize" some newspaper reporting where the departments/ individual reporters will report directly to readers, unrelated to any particular newspaper, much like musicians don't need distributors anymore

but despite all the doom and gloom about newspapers and their fate, nothing on the internet can ever or will ever replace the service, for example, the poughkeepsie journal delivers for the residents of poughkeepsie, new york ( http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/ ). newspapers are reduced in prominence, income, and scope, yes. they are however, still indispensable and will always be important, especially in niche geographic areas, like poughkeepsie new york, where no one else can compete with them

if i were the new york times, i'd think about spinning off my state, international, and national bureaus into content gateways commensurate with their current importance and prominence, then i would focus on my city room and go head to head with the new york daily news, the current king of local city content (fuck the new york post and murdoch). but new york city is such a huge market, 3 daily local content bureaus will still do ok business

meanwhile, newsday is long island new york. this is still important and will always be important as a geographic niche. newsday is diminished, but secure

apple->music industry: conquered

apple->movie industry: hostile natives, sending in missionaries and evangelists of the "future"

apple->print industry: conquest being launched, lift off seconds away

genuine future:

internet->music: free*

internet->movies: free**

internet->print: free***

*creators will make money from live gigs, promotions, advertising, personalized content, etc. no distributors needed. distributors will evolve into hype machines and portals/ gateways delivering mass audiences to content. creators will continue to sign contracts to them for a cut of revenue, for delivering audiences. but its not necessary to sign a contract at all to become successful, its voluntary and usually for the pop bands

**the movie industry has always, and will always, despite every new tech threatening to kill it, fill cinema houses and make money thataways

***ad revenue is real and genuine for newspapers and will always exist. it will be a lot smaller, yes. and some superstar reporters will spin off from newspapers and become their own internet reporting gateways (see nikki finke: http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/ ). in this way the internet will "atomize" some newspaper reporting where the departments/ individual reporters will report directly to readers, unrelated to any particular newspaper, much like musicians don't need distributors anymore. despite all the doom and gloom about newspapers, nothing on the internet can ever or will ever replace the service, for example, the poughkeepsie journal delivers for the residents of poughkeepsie, new york ( http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/ )