Slashdot Mirror

If box office is up 1% in revenues and inflation is 2.5% then box office is down.

Somebody mod that insightful.

The inflation rate in 2018 was 1.9% (this year, to Feb, was 1.5%) (ref: https://www.usinflationcalcula... ) So 1% increase in revenues is actually a downward movement, not up.

Since ticket prices have risen by more than 10% the nunber of butts in seats is down by more than 9%.

Yes, probably a better way to look at it. ticket prices are up. This site claims about a 5% rise in price 2017 to 2018 (44 cent rise in a year, on a ticket price of about 9 dollars): https://variety.com/2018/film/...

I'm no Apple fanboy, but I don't even know how to respond to this comment. I don't consider Netflix a threat by a long shot.

Why not?

They spent over $12 billion on original content last year.

This year they will spend about $15 billion...

On top of that, it's not like they are spending money without result - they have had huge hits with shows like Stranger Things, and more recently Bird Box.

Netflix at this point is a stronger force for original content than HBO, which has just a few hits on the level that Netflix has (though granted one of them is Game of Thrones - but that ends this year).

Except is there is no truth in what you wrote.
According to multiple sources Disney+ cannot do anything with those characters until years from now.
Also Disney does not get ownership of the current shows they stay with netflix.
Also Disnet+ has said it is not going for the age group these show go for. These characters will not be on Disney+. From what was said it might go to hulu or some other service.
Netflix has hinted at the reasons why they are doing it. 1) The cost they pay to Disney are too high; netflix has tried to renegotiate the deal. 2) These shows are not bringing in the new customers that netflix needs; they get an initial spike then a drop.
This is netflix decision.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/ne...

Here's a fun game. Go out on the street and ask 30 random people what planet has rings. My guess will be less than 5 say Saturn. However, for your fun game, the majority of 30 random people will still put out stupider than shit answers to most questions that people should learn the answer too in 9th grade.

https://variety.com/2013/tv/ne...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Not to be a Debbie Downer... but Obsidian is on Microsoft's radar for acquisition to be an XBox exclusive studio; so that may not be a viable future plan for Bethesda. One Source of many.

And again AV1 only has the backing due to the licensing issues.

No, it has the backing because it has better licensing and better quality at the same bitrate (or the same quality at a lower bitrate) than HEVC.

Netflix: I have a great idea,

The great idea is that Netflix accounts for 15% of downloads globally, so AV1's bitrate savings over HEVC are needed.

pretend to not be capable of VP8

I think you mean VP9. If you really are only blocking VP8 then you're probably using VP9 a lot without even realizing it.

It's amazing how well people use the unusable.

There's no value in the HEVC tax any longer. AV1 is the future. Might as well get on board.

On paper we're at full unemployment. But funny enough there's a ton of resentment around not having jobs in America. Of course, everyone knows the unemployment stats are nonsense. But we act like they're not.

This leads to some crazy political theater. For one thing we've got economists trying to come up with excuses about why wages aren't climbing despite "full" employment. And now we've got Trump needing to explain to businesses where they'll get workers needed to run factories when on paper those workers already have jobs. I mean, I suppose Trump could argue that he'll do mass immigration. I'm sure that'll go over swell at his monthly rallies.

Requirement will be for 30% EU content, not for specific country content. Some countries may require part of this to be their local productions, but its optional.

"Viola said that, starting in December, the EU’s 28 member states would have 20 months to apply these new norms and that countries “could choose to raise the quota from the 30% minimum to 40%.” EU nations can each choose whether the 30% includes sub-quotas on original productions in their countries and whether they want to follow the German model of adding a small surcharge on streamer subscription fees to support the national production fund."

source:
https://variety.com/2018/film/...

> men are choosing to enjoy video games rather than go out in the world, get married, have children, ...

Jordan Peterson calls (*) this behavior MGTOW Men Go Their Own Way.

It is not just him saying that.

There are certain men who refuse to work with women because anytime a woman claims she was harassed the man is automatically presumed guilty until proven innocent.

In Tim Pool's video he discusses a famous Fortnite YouTuber, known as Ninja, Tyler Blevins. Specifically, Tyler Blevins' decision where Tyler says would not stream with women because people would then harass his family and accuse him of having an affair.

Quoting the interview from Variety:

"If I have one conversation with one female streamer where we're playing with one another, and even if there's a hint of flirting, that is going to be taken and going to be put on every single video and be clickbait forever," Blevins said.

Blevins, who is married, says he also wanted to make "100% sure" that he was not connected to other women in the online world. He says that this decision was his, and not a decision made by his wife, Jessica "JGhosty" Blevins, who is also a streamer on Twitch.

If you redd the the comments in Tim Pool's video you will find tons of horror stories where a man was falsely accused and had to defend his integrity -- at great cost.

Can you blame them that some men just go "Fuck it. I don't need this drama."

(*) For the record Jordan admits he was dismissive of calling MGOTW as "pathetic weasels." It takes a man with integrityto admit he was wrong. Good that he owned up to that epithet.

--
Stupid Juvenile Whiners tactics Rule #3
3. Ad hominem fallacy -- start screaming insults at everyone who disagrees (Whine). i.e. "Haters going to hate"

Don't look now, but they're trying to get Safe Harbor eliminated in every currently negotiated trade treaty so they can force its removal from the DMCA as "harmonization".

That was my thought. However, the academy seems to have snubbed the online streaming services in the past. I remember that Beasts of No Nations didn't receive any nominations despite being well regarded and receiving nominations (and even wins) in many other awards.

Cannes even recently changed their rules to prevent anything that doesn't get a theatrical run in France from entering the competition. Normally this wouldn't be a problem as Netflix could just do a single theater release, except there's another strange French law that prohibits films from appearing on streaming services until 36 months after their theatrical release.

I suspect that some of it might also be as a potential way to recoup costs from big budget productions like Game of Thrones where you could do a theatrical release every few years that might pull in a few tens of millions of dollars that you might not otherwise get. Occasionally you make a 90 minute episode that gets a theatrical release. I bet that even people who own the subscription service would pay to see it on a big screen, especially if it's a kind of fantasy epic like Game of Thrones.

I already see a form of this. Before anything can be said that might even hint at not being 110% party Democrat faithful you must first point out that you voted for Hillary and second you must disparage Trump. If you could be required to show your receipt then it would absolutely be a requirement for all acting jobs, most newspapers, and many other areas where intolerant liberals group together. They wouldn't want to accidentally befriend a *gasp* non-liberal or they will be punished like this guy https://variety.com/2018/film/...

It's sad that they didn't think a show about a woman TimeLord would be good enough to stand on its own.

Interesting that you believe that about them. Though they have done spin-offs with female leads before, so no, you can't assume that. However, in this case, it's different. It's about the Doctor.

Instead, they had to transgender the Doctor into a woman to try to keep the old fans plus the news ones that would be thrilled with this.

Nope. They chose to consider what the Doctor, an established character would be like, if changed into, well, a female, for reasons of their own. Of course, the show being Doctor Who, not say, the Time Lord(s), kinda made them do that in the first place back in the beginning, so they're just continuing the tradition.

Why are you so opposed to that? Why do you hate them so much? Why do you not want to see them expand their options with their existing narrative concept? It'd be one thing if you stuck to criticism of their eventual story, but your opposition is towards the premise.

I don't think anyone is saying the mere presence of a woman is political and subversive but it says a lot about you that you think that is the issue.

Yep, what they're doing is saying what you're saying, or variations and extensions thereof. Aghast opposition to the idea which reflects more on your own thinking than theirs.

Was also the case for Janeway, Sisko, Annie, the 12 Angry Men, and even Spiderman.

I enjoy Blindspot, Buffy, Dollhouse, Alias, Fringe, the 100 etc.

And yet you are still dismissive of this instance here, aren't you?

Most shows nowadays have a strong female lead.

You'll want to check your statistics.

I agree that part of their plan was tracking their users, especially since the CEO bragged about it, but then they had to shut down that part of it when people complained, later calling it a glitch or something.

The other part of it, and I think this is the real key, is that MoviePass got tired of being a small fish in a nonexistent pond and decided to go huge in the hopes of being bought by someone else and having it be their problem. YouTube, for example, was hemorrhaging money because their bandwidth costs were doubling every single month. And then Google bought them and that became Google's problem (which wasn't a problem because Google has no problem getting the bandwidth it wants). I think MoviePass was hoping someone would buy them, either for the data part or to shut them down, and either way the founders cash out and leave.

I do have to say that the thing I despised about MoviePass was that anyone with half a brain could see either they were up to something or they were going to go out of business fast. This would be like paying a $20/month fee and getting a card that will pay for all the gas your car ever needs. Something doesn't add up here. But whenever you'd tell anyone they'd treat you like you were some asshole who wanted to ruin everything. And reading all these people who experienced surge pricing or who couldn't get their app or card to work or who had to photograph ticket stubs like they were submitting some corporate expense report... I'm glad I never signed up or bothered with it. They're going to be dead by the end of the week at this rate.

>charge of DirectTV over the last couple of years while it's been hemorrhaging customers.

Duh, that's the trend for all cable and satellite
https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/cord-cutting-2017-high-cost-cancellation-pay-tv-1202728922/

The cord-cutting numbers for 2017 are in, and they paint an increasingly dreary picture for pay-TV providers — which experienced their worst losses to date.

Analysts estimate U.S. cable, satellite and telco operators shed between 3.1 million and 3.5 million traditional TV subscribers last year. That’s a significant acceleration over the 1.9 million the sector lost in 2016, per Kagan, with the sub base shrinking 3.7% in 2017.

But there was growth in one sector:

While traditional pay-TV declined by a net 3.3 million subs in 2017, online pay-TV services added 2.6 million, according to Wall Street firm MoffettNathanson. The latter category included Dish’s Sling TV, AT&T’s DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, Hulu’s live TV package, and Sony’s PlayStation Vue.

Consumer are watching more content on their phones and cutting the cord on the old pay tv model. All Stankey is addressing is for those viewer HBO should produce content that can be consumed in 20-30 minute segments rather than the 1+ hour segment that most the HBO content is. The future of TV is content that can be viewed on phones.

Also what you and the other /. doomsayers leave out is that according to TFA Plepler agreed with Stankey even if he was a little defensive about needing to make more money.

His name is Seth Rich.

He died to expose the depth of the DNC and Obama Administration's corruption.

That is complete fucking bullshit.

Just because Fox made up some bullshit, doesn't make it true.

i think Mush may be exploring the world of strange .

iQIYI, one of the online platforms carrying the show, said that simultaneous views of the Gala reached a record 14 million, surpassing the company's previous record set during the 2014 soccer World Cup.

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

Accepting mussolini's propaganda as an accurate description of fascism is like taking The Democratic Republic of North Korea's word that they are a democracy.

Instead, lets take the word of more neutral sources:

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
Encyclopedia Britannica

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Oxford English Dictionary

> Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?

These players:
The people who absolutely lose their shit at the thought of black people kneeling that they walk out of a football game.
The television network that fired a reporter who would not toe the line on climate change reporting
Colorado Republican lawmakers want to punish striking teachers with jail time.
Harper’s Editor Insists He Was Fired Over Katie Roiphe Essay - The New York Times
Professor celebrating Barbara Bush’s death deserves to be fired | Fox News
Joyce Peterson on Twitter: "Happening in Nashville right now: lawmakers trying to penalize the @CityOfMemphis for removing confederate statues by slashing a quarter million dollars in funding. https://t.co/ZAg0ntZl30"
Law Enforcement Has Quietly Backed Anti-Protest Bills in at Least 8 States Since Trump’s Election
Memphis-Based Journalist Taken Into ICE Custody After Arrest While Covering Protest (Updated) - Rewire.News
Sinclair producer in Nebraska resigns to protest 'obvious bias'
‘Black-ish’ Political Episode on Kneeling Canceled Over ‘Creative Differences’ – Variety
Republican governor forced to stop blocking Facebook users who criticize him | Ars Technica
AprilDRyan on Twitter: "It is back again. Not called on today for a question. It has been how long? Oh, my last question was about @StormyDaniels! And, I was just told I am on a list. Whatever! I have been doing this for 21 years. I am not new to the rode
Trump attends event about campus political correctness crisis, accidental

It won't work anyway. the press is regulated, and expected to consider things like the public interest value vs. privacy.

Explain Fox "News". Regulation of the press in America is a pathetic joke.

Time will tell. As to china wanting to negotiate, really? What were they willing to offer to redress the US's grievances? What materially were they offering? Because we have a list here of things the US has been complaining about for well over a decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

This sort of shit is typical. Is china "actually" going to do anything about this sort of thing?

Or this:
https://variety.com/2017/film/...

or this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/6...

These are not "EVIL TRUMP" sources here, chum. The guardian... Variety... CBS News...

I can do this all day. What did the happy harmless did nothing wrong chinese offering? I'm dying to know "actually" what you're referring to here.

*gets popcorn*

How much did Magic Leap pay you to publish this?
Magic Leap Sucks it Colleagues and staff dry.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

https://variety.com/2016/digit...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/1...

Blackberry have had BBM as a messenger longer than anyone in the mobile phone business. I know it's easy to make uneducated snap judgements, but in this case it may be wise to wait and see what the findings are before we jump to conclusions on this lawsuit. Since people are piling in Blackberry already without even knowing what patents are in question:

http://variety.com/2018/digita...

Patents:

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,372,961; 8,279,173; 8,209,634; 8,301,713; 8,429,236; 8,677,250; and 9,349,120

Titles I can find:

System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread

Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application

Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment

Previewing a new event on a small screen device

User interface for selecting a photo tag

Method of public key generation

You just can't wait to prove what an idiot you are, can you? You just keep have to go back and make mistake after mistake that 10 seconds on Google would have corrected you on before you put on the clown mask once more.

"The iPhone X "surpassed our expectations and has been our top-selling iPhone every week since it shipped in November""

Said the SECOND LINK in my own Google search...

Again, we'll have to let the court rule on this. Argue with the judge afterward, not me beforehand.

So I can't argue your opinion with mine? What world do you live in?

What you're missing (or willfully ignoring) is that the code itself is a fact, not a copyrighted work. That it can later be used (once and only once, mind you) to obtain a copyrighted work is purely coincidental; the copy that is made and distributed as a result of entering that code is made and distributed by Disney's digital distribution partner who, ostensibly, is authorized to do so upon receipt of a valid code.

My point is that you've asserted that this true. I contest that it is true.

There, we agree. And when Disney's authorized partner makes and distributes a copy of the movie when a valid code (which only works once, mind you) is entered, nothing has been stolen.

Except in the exact facts of this case, Redbox did not obtain a valid copy from Disney. Redbox appears to buy combo sets from retail, split them up, and sell them individually. Such a move requires a license or agreement. If you think about it, can Target or Walmart or Amazon can split a physical box set into multiple discs to re-sell without permission of the copyright owner? No. Can I as a private individual? Probably not but Disney isn't going to go after me if I sell the DVD I don't use to a friend.

We agree, there, as well. Of course, it doesn't make Disney's authorized distribution partner any less authorized, either.

My point is that Redbox was never authorized to do this kind of digital distribution and all articles say that.

Actually, Movies Anywhere enforces this by only accepting a given code once.

Movies Anywhere has the support and backing of the studios including Disney to do this. Again, Redbox did not.

Either way, whether the wording I allude to exists or not (and in the complaint it is made clear that it does),

Your entire point was that the wording and terms are not present at the time of sale. If the terms were present at the time that Redbox buys a movie from Disney to be re-sold, then that destroys your point.

It doesn't apply for reasons already ruled on by the Supreme Court nearly 22 years ago.

And what case is that?

I do know what was on the packaging Redbox got for the DVDs in question, because the complaint plainly states such.

You mean the exact cases that specifically say that Redbox cannot do what they did.

According to Disney’s lawsuit, Redbox purchases Disney DVD and Blu-ray Disc “Combo Packs,” which include a code for accessing digital copies of the movies. Redbox then separates the physical discs (which it rents) from the codes, and re-packages the code inserts into Redbox cases for resale, the complaint states. Disney noted that the packaging on the Combo Packs include the notice that “Codes are not for sale or transfer.”

They're also the "family" that brought you the Star Trek fan film restrictions. How did these restrictions come about? For decades these restrictions did not exist and yet Star Trek made lots of money; fans made and distributed derivative works of Star Trek and all of this co-existed with the Star Trek shows and movies. Fans even collected money and donations used for making more fan fiction for all to see and share. But when Prelude to Axanar came along and piqued CBS/Paramount's interest, and CBS/Paramount sued Axanar's production claiming copyright infringement (including some remarkable overreach on what fell under copyright power). The fan film restrictions came out of this.

Now the restrictions exist and CBS/Paramount has made it clear they see anything other than their own Star Trek stuff as competition and not community-building. Is an organization you want to help fund knowing you're helping to fund an organization that treats their fans this way? Adding misleading labelling to adversarial treatment: CBS wants you to pay them to subscribe to their newly-launched Internet streaming service which, among other things, is advertised as "commercial-free" but will still contain "promotional interruptions" ("certain on-demand shows will include "promotional interruptions," CBS said").

What relationship does Fox have with Star Wars fans? I certainly wouldn't recommend Star Wars fan fiction now that Disney owns so much of that (an ever growing part of everything to do with Star Wars) since Disney is even more harmful helping fund a copyright term extension. If Fox treats their fans better, perhaps it's time to consider making The Orville fan fiction instead.

They are specifying CNN as a preferred source for a fact theme website? The same CNN that made the term fake news a household name. The same CNN that had a reputation for fake news bad enough to require a marketing campaign for damage control?

http://variety.com/2017/tv/new...

CNN alone gets over 6 million hits for fake news on google. To put this in comparison one of the few notable right wing sites, Breitbart has fewer than 700,000. Even with partisan politics in play that is a huge disparity.

If they want this site to have any credibility at all they have to do better than CNN. They have to get sites that at least make an effort not to be biased. As it stands this website is no better that an AP or Reuters news feed. They need to hire fact checkers that are not blatantly biased in one direction or another. Better yet they need to publish the bias of their fact checkers as well as the methods they use to for checks and balances against their fact checkers bias. At best this site is a cheap Snopes knock off with just as much political bias in play.

Acceptance as a source of truth requires credibility. Credibility requires owning and mitigating your bias.

To quote Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

Ask the producers of Amityville the awakening

Have you read NAB's response to this?

http://variety.com/2017/music/...

It is so delusional that I almost feel sad for them.

Pinker vs. Spelke

On 22 April 2005, Harvard University's Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative held a defining debate on the public discussion that began on January 16th with the public comments by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, on sex differences between men and women and how they may relate to the careers of women in science.

The debate at MBB, "The Gender of Gender and Science" was "on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes".

Apparently, nothing has changed. I thought Pinker argued the issues and Spelke mostly engaged in an end run, but the audience (a tweed of elite leftish sympathizers) voted for Spelke.

Spelke was among the strongest critics of Lawrence Summers and in April 2005 faced Steven Pinker in an open debate over the issue.

She declared that her own experiments revealed no difference between the mental capacities of male and female children ranging in age from 5 months to 7 years old.

Yeah, androgen is just a confound, leave it out.

Besides, only half the debate is about capacities. The other half is about drive and narrowness of focus. Women generally don't wish to be as mentally narrow as the most extreme men, and sometimes choose balance over advancement.

I get it. Women resent the past and present reality that choosing balance over wonk navel-gaze has such a striking impact on the pocketbook, at the top end of the curve.

Society can decide—collectively—to diminish the natural premium of an unconstrained market. And maybe we should (sometimes naked incentive is quite the bitch), though you won't get many of the more strident voices in this debate to admit that this is what we're actually talking about.

Here's the butt-naked truth: a lot of young males who aren't getting laid don't give a flying fuck about life balance.

I get it. It's hard to compete with testicles hell bent on a self-destructive war path of personality implosion.

Hitchens: Why Women Aren't Funny — 2007

This was written precisely to lampoon the cognitive morass surrounding this issue.

This is not to say that women are humorless, or cannot make great wits and comedians. And if they did not operate on the humor wavelength, there would be scant point in half killing oneself in the attempt to make them writhe and scream (uproariously). Wit, after all, is the unfailing symptom of intelligence. Men will laugh at almost anything, often precisely because it is—or they are—extremely stupid. Women aren't like that.
...
Fran [Lebowitz] responded: "The cultural values are male; for a woman to say a man is funny is the equivalent of a man saying that a woman is pretty. Also, humor is largely aggressive and pre-emptive, and what's more male than that?"
...
There are more terrible female comedians than there are terrible male comedians, but there are some impressive ladies out there. Most of them, though, when you come to review the situation, are hefty or dykey or Jewish, or some combo of the three. When Roseanne stands up and tells biker jokes and invites people who don't dig her shtick to suck her dick—know what I am saying? And the Sapphic faction may have its own reasons for wanting what I want—the sweet surrender of female laughter.

Natalie Morales Calls Christopher Hitchens an 'A–hole' for Saying Women Aren't Funny — 2017

The "Access Hollywood" and "Today" host ...

Awesome! Di

One, of all the networks, Disney is perhaps the only one with a catalog full enough to actually present a good competitor to Netflix.

Two, I think this is a reaction to Netflix buying up Millarworld.

Overnight Netflix went from being a popular platform for delivering Disney product to a direct competitor to Disney's very profitable Marvel IP. It was inevitable, really, Netflix is tired of being Hollywood's bitch over licensing properties and they've been very proactive about fixing that, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they don't buy out an actual studio. Regardless, Disney probably felt distinctly uncomfortable with the move, and knowing they do have a very large catalog of desirable properties felt safe launching their own service.

LOLZ

http://variety.com/2017/music/...

“SoundCloud has clumsily attempted to refute our TechCrunch article on its financial and morale problems by issuing a statement to Variety saying our post contains ‘extensive inaccuracies,’ yet its supposed ‘corrections’ simply repeat what we did publish, and refute something we didn’t publish. SoundCloud writes ‘SoundCloud is fully funded into the fourth quarter,’ which is the same quote we already included from its PR. SoundCloud writes ‘we continue to work with all employees who were let go to support them during this transition, with employment and financial assistance,’ but we never said it wouldn’t support these employees, merely that it uprooted people’s lives by hiring them and then laying them off weeks later. '

I think the point was Netflix is shielded from making their audience ratings public.

The thing is, Netflix ratings are public - no not Netflix provided ratings but the same crappy estimates that all other networks get for ratings, you can get for Netflix also. So it's not like no-one else has any idea what ratings of popular netflix shows are.

Now what could be said I guess is that Netflix is shielded from having to ACT on these public ratings, because they have far more perfect data. But to me that is till the opposite of saying Netflix is magically immune from ratings the same way other networks are.

Nothing like using biased sources. You see nothing wrong with using a cnn site as a source of truth about cnn? Seriously? Fox doubles CNN, and CNN gets bogus bonus numbers due to license agreements to be in airports, bus stations, etc... http://variety.com/2017/tv/new...

... when we say, "Don't go to the police," we mean it.

Soon after, another email from the Dark Overlord arrived at Larson. “They said they felt they owed us an explanation as to why they had done it,” said Jill Larson. In the email, the hackers argued that Larson Studios had broken the terms of the agreement by talking to the FBI. “So they decided to punish us.”

If you want to claim extensive copyright hurts creativity, you really should be looking at sequalitis.

The two shining film examples would be Sony and Universal.

Sony made more Spiderman movies by rehashing the origin story — seriously, how many times does Uncle Ben have to die? — to prevent the licensing rights from reverting back to Marvel Studios. The new Spiderman movie is the result of a cross licensing deal between Sony and Marvel that will expire in 2019.

Universal got copyrights for their classic monster movies as the monsters were never described in a real great detail in the public domain books, preventing anyone from making a movie that looks identical to the Universal Monsters and forcing them up with different designs (not necessarily a bad thing). They're remaking all their movies to prevent their copyrights from falling into the public domain. Although Tom Cruise may have killed the budding franchise with the newest Mummy movie.

Not quite, but close enough.

http://variety.com/2015/film/n...

Fox retains the right to reboot it 89 more times, but Marvel gets a turn as well.

Think about it then ask yourself, who has the biggest streaming platform on the internet?

Netflix?

https://variety.com/2015/digit...

Netflix, which already eats up the fattest chunk of downstream bandwidth, is taking an even bigger bite: The No. 1 subscription-video service accounted for 36.5% of all downstream Internet bandwidth during peak periods in North America for March, according to a new report. ...

By comparison, for the same time periods, YouTube accounted for 15.6% of downstream Internet traffic, web browsing was 6%, Facebook was 2.7%, Amazon Instant Video was 2.0% and Hulu was 1.9%.

Not for long, Chairman Pai says:

“I favor a free and open Internet, and I oppose Title II,” said Pai, referring to the FCC’s move in 2015 to reclassify broadband service as a common carrier. That was a regulatory maneuver that gave the agency a firmer legal footing to impose rules that bar Internet providers from blocking or slowing traffic, or from creating “fast lanes” for sale to deliver content at speedier rates to consumers. Major Internet providers have challenged the rules in court, but so far they have been upheld.

So the article says Hollywood is slumping and you're saying it's thriving and, somehow, either direction confirms we should all get to watch movies for free.

Well, to be fair, an article posted to slasdot from variety.com 3 days ago says Hollywood is thriving. Record revenues, even better than last year's record revenues...

The North American box office closed out the year with $11.4 billion in ticket sales, ComScore said Sunday. That marks a new record for the industry, bypassing the previous high-water mark of $11.1 billion that was established in 2015.

http://variety.com/2017/film/n...

Number of tickets sold peaked in the early 2000s at over 1.5 billion, and has been on a very gradual decline to around 1.3 billion per year since then (for North America).

The inflation-adjusted cost of a movie ticket soared in the 1960s. So you could argue this either way - that the new price is the new norm, or that the theaters have been gouging us for 50 years. I wasn't around in the 1960s so can't really speculate as to what caused the rise in prices then. But in the last 40 years I suspect the advent of cable TV and VCRs/DVDs, and now streaming has forced theaters into a higher-priced niche. They're now more about a viewing experience (e.g. IMAX, THX, 3D) rather than merely watching the movie.

Which brings us to an important point. You can't judge how well the movie industry is doing solely on theater ticket sales. Subscription services (e.g. HBO), and disc and digital sales and rentals are an important part of their revenue today. From what I could gather, theater ticket sales only account for about a third of the industry's revenue.

You can count on most old people to keep doing what they're doing (aiming the clicker at the teevee) up until they die, or get sent to a home and someone takes the clicker away from them. However, "TV viewing by 18-24-year-olds [...] has now fallen by 38% since 2011." (Oct. 5, 2016) And "In 2015, Netflix accounted for about half of the overall 3% decline in TV viewing time among U.S. audiences [...] Total viewing of networks from Time Warner, Scripps Networks Interactive, AMC Networks and Discovery Communications rose in 2015. A+E Networksâ(TM) viewing hours declined 15%, Viacom fell 13%, and NBCUniversal and Disney each dropped 5% overall." (March 3, 2016) So it looks like they are faring quite poorly indeed, and Netflix specifically is eating their lunch.

Wow a slight increase even though cinema prices have skyrocketed years. None of which changes anything I said.
The industry is spending more on marketing in a pathetic attempt to compensate.
They could try to make better movies but they seem to think spending more polishing a turd is better.
Maybe get your head out the movie industry's ass before commenting next time.

http://entertainment.howstuffw...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...
https://variety.com/2016/film/...

You have a point, but so far I haven't heard about Trump suing whoever released that recording of a private conversation.

He threatens lawsuits, but as expected, he doesn't follow through. Trump will never sue anyone for libel or releasing or reporting on a private conversation, because he worries about what would be learned in the discovery phase. This is a guy who was comfortable with his teenaged daughter being called a "piece of ass". He's a urinal cake.

https://variety.com/2016/tv/ne...

Google it yourself and you will find nothing of what you mention. In fact, what you find is this:

http://variety.com/2016/tv/new...

CNN issued a formal apology for putting a banner graphic on screen that appeared to give credence to extreme right-wing propaganda about people of the Jewish faith.

We've cancelled cable but last night decided to channel surf the airwaves instead of streaming something and the only thing remotely watchable was Lucifer on Fox. Everything else was dancing or singing competitions. The traditional stations don't appear to be even trying to make anything good.

The thing about those reality shows is that they are really cheap to make. What this is telling you is that the networks have given up on producing anything meaningful, and are just trying not to lose money.

I've found on business trips that the only channel that *ever* has anything interesting on is SyFy, but that's hit-or-miss.

The thing I found really telling was that Supergirl got moved from CBS to CW, and everyone associated with the show was happy about it. That's pretty damning. On CBS its average viewer age was over 55, and that was good enough to make it CBS's youngest demoed show. Think about that one for a minute. If you're watching a network show, this is who is in the audience with you.

The disclaimer was actually there. It was shown in infrared, but it's clearly readable with night vision goggles.

...but displayed so quickly, only your subconscious is aware of it: a warm fuzzy feeling of "ah well, it's just a movie, and $9 isn't that much money..."

It might be a nitpick, or it might not - but your 11 hours/day number is for all adults, not just millennials. This article seems to indicate that they spend 4 hours looking at screens.

Hi, Comcast Shill! How's life at the call center these days? Still shitty?

FYI, Netflix called it exactly that:

"It is extortion when Comcast fails to provide its own customers the broadband speed they've paid for unless Netflix also pays a ransom."