Movie Theaters Were Already in Trouble. With Disney's Fox Deal, It's Double (bloomberg.com)

Guess who isn't doing their job! by Gravis+Zero · 2017-12-25 19:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yep, it's still the Federal Trade Commission!

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Faaln · 2017-12-25 20:40 · Score: 2

This has nothing to do with protecting theater chains and everything to do with an overly consolidated market. It shouldn't be approved; it moves too much of the market to a single company.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 20:44 · Score: 0

This has nothing to do with protecting theater chains
Isn't that the focus of the article?
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 20:55 · Score: 1

you're getting the fcc and ftc mixed up there, bub. but yes, don't expect this administration's agencies to protect normal folks. they will embrace this fully, in hopes that some little shit murdoch spawn ends up being iger's replacement to shift disney/abc/espn/etc to the 'right'.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 21:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yep, it's still the Federal Trade Commission!
Guess who are the idiots that voted for this administration ?
Stupid asshole voted for conmen and criminals, and those conmen and criminals are doing their jobs just right.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 23:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

As magusxxx pointed out down below:

When Iron Giant came out my local multiplex showed it only one day a week at about 10-11am on Saturday. That's it. All the employees including management said the same thing, "If we don't do this then Disney won't give us their next big animated release."
This deal doesn't change much. Disney have been too large for a long time now.
For a functional capitalism you don't just need competition, you need so many competitors that the customer always can take their business elsewhere.
If you can count the competitors on your hands then they can get away by being equally bad.
For competition to work you need so many actors that they can't keep track of each other.
You need a situation where there is always someone who doesn't want to play ball.
By the time someone takes more than 10% of the market and you can name all the major players by the top of your head it is already too late.
The market should have been regulated before it came to that.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:13 · Score: 0

Please. This was going to happen no matter what administration was in. You morons who act like party politics really have that much sway over your personal lives are proof that the species hasn't evolved half as much as it'd like to give itself credit for.
Big Hollywood helps keep the Democratic party afloat while Republicans take donations under the table to play nice. This is the way it is in every large industry with the players paying and playing in fashions to keep dolts like you thinking that there's a difference in how they operate.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 02:51 · Score: 0

>
By the time someone takes more than 10% of the market and you can name all the major players by the top of your head it is already too late.
The market should have been regulated before it came to that.
So you don't want freedom if it means any one player gets more than 10% of the pie.
Fuck off and die.
(and give your piece of the pie to someone else, i don't want it)

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by geoskd · 2017-12-26 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please. This was going to happen no matter what administration was in.

Just like the dismantling of net neutrality was going to happen under a democrat?
Both parties are beholden to the large donors, there is no doubt about that, but republicans are proud of their heritage of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Trickle down economics doesn't work, and yet they insist on continuing these broken policies every time they are in office. Net neutrality and mega-corporation mergers are just symptoms of the larger problem.
The republican party sold themselves to the voters as the party of fiscal conservancy, and yet they just voted to increase the budget deficit by $150B per year, and *give* more than half of that money to the wealthiest people. That is not fiscal conservancy, that is maxing out your credit cards to buy luxury items and pretending the bill will never come due. If republicans were really about fiscal conservancy, they would cut the military budget down to the same levels as the rest of the world. The US spends more money on the military than the next highest 8 countries combined. The republicans could have cut defense spending by that $150B per year, and given that money to the rich and been heros, instead they insist that those who must foot the bill are the poorest Americans (by cutting their health care), and all of our children (by racking up a huge deficit). If ever there was proof that the tea-party was bullshit, every single tea party congressperson voted for this thing. Your personal share of the bill for this tax cut will be $7,500. Add that on top of the existing debt, and every single american owes close to $75,000. Someday that bill will come due, just like it did in Greece and Spain. Remember that the next time you go out to vote for one of these guys.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re: Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:08 · Score: 0

No. The gp is saying that when there is a oligopoly, and no competition, that takes away freedom from everyone else. I.e. power tends to corrup.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:13 · Score: 0

Please stop acting like Hillary's administration would be better in this scenario. A lot of people voted against her because they knew she was corrupt. It was dumb of the DNC to back Hillary instead of Bernie when Bernie was just this guy who came out of nowhere yet he was getting so much support (which says a lot about Hillary).
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:36 · Score: 0

Seeings where you cannot address the matter at hand in a meaningful way I think the point of the GP was proven very nicely.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by paiute · 2017-12-26 03:44 · Score: 1

So you don't want freedom
There's freedom and there's freedom. More than a century ago the people decided that unfettered capitalism was taking on a dark edge and took steps to regulate against the consolidation of assets in one entity. Had they not, we would only be able to go to movies made by Standard Oil Studios. We would drive there in our Standard Oil Rockefeller Steamers and pay for it with our Standard Oil Card.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:57 · Score: 1

Quite honestly, that isn't far off of what we have anyway. Maybe removing others' freedom doesn't always do what we expect it to do.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re: Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 04:46 · Score: 0

nobody is taping your eye lids open and making you watch Disney movies. the entertainment industry has limitless amounts of competition.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 05:41 · Score: 0

Great idea. I hear Mandarin is a fun language.
Re: Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 05:44 · Score: 0

And yet Iron Giant is an excellent movie, much better than 95% of the other Disney tripe
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 05:45 · Score: 0

Please. This was going to happen no matter what administration was in. You morons who act like party politics really have that much sway over your personal lives are proof that the species hasn't evolved half as much as it'd like to give itself credit for.
Big Hollywood helps keep the Democratic party afloat while Republicans take donations under the table to play nice. This is the way it is in every large industry with the players paying and playing in fashions to keep dolts like you thinking that there's a difference in how they operate.
Whining is not helping. The democratic party is a hell of a lot better than the republican, and if you don't like that run yourself.
The democratic party wouldn't have put in place the bush tax cuts that screwed us over financially, though once they lost the majority Obama kept the ones on lower income permanent.
The democratic party sure as hell wouldn't have put these new tax cuts in place which screw us over for the forseeable future, with some temporary cuts to keep the mob at bay.
The democratic party sure as hell wouldn't have tried to partly pay for those tax cuts by cutting the mandate in the theory that less people buying insurance means more cash for the rich. People without insurance end up dead or seriously messed up, but that is just fine as lock as the rich get richer.
The democratic party sure as hell wouldn't have greatly cut the inheritance tax, because if you parents owned more than ten million, well it is perfectly fine to tax some of that. Dynasties do not serve us well.
The democratic party wouldn't have gut net neutrality.
The democratic party wouldn't have gut the EPA because they give a fuck about well breathing and the environment.
The democratic party wouldn't have been the only one left out of the biggest environmental agreement probably ever made. They would help lead, not stick their heads in the sand.
The democratic party wouldn't try to destroy the FBI to save their own skin.
The democratic party wouldn't fucking seriously consider electing a known child molester or making excuses for a pussy grabber like that orange ass hat.
I don't know if your a troll or just a dumb arse, but the democratic party is a hell of a lot better than the republican.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by liquid_schwartz · 2017-12-26 05:58 · Score: 1

Unfortunately Disney has been able to buy government before and they are only larger now, so I expect they can do it again if needed.
Citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 07:04 · Score: 0

The number one goal in electing Trump was to stop mass immigration. Those fucking business owners want to replace all their employees with foreigners.
Ideally, a Disney Fox merger would be stopped on the basis that Hollywood is a bunch of anti-conservative asses, but Comcast-NBC Universal merger somehow got through. I blame the True Conservatives.
As far as tax bills are concerned, this one is fucking with some rich people (only allows a $10,000 write off for state and local taxes and they have to choose sales, income, or property). It also prevents house flipping by limiting tax-free home to sales to five years after purchase instead of two.
Re: Guess who isn't doing their job! by Falos · 2017-12-26 07:36 · Score: 1

>limitless
Didn't TFS just say 60%?
Use more subjective words to shill.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 08:23 · Score: 0

The Democratic party has historically been very friendly to the likes of the MPAA, RIAA, the movie and music industries in general (big players, not indie of course), and of course very pro-DRM.
I don't think they would have had any problem with Disney becoming a media monopoly.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 11:38 · Score: 0

Yeah, you keep bullshitting yourself about all that, child. Keep on pretending "your side" is better. They're all shit and you don't want to admit it.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Sir+Lurkalot · 2017-12-26 12:53 · Score: 1

Upvoting you since there are no mod points giving to us low watt individuals
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 19:51 · Score: 0

>Just like the dismantling of net neutrality was going to happen under a democrat?
What do you think the REASON hillary never commented on that was?
>republicans are proud of their heritage
They're not PROUD of it, they just don't care about it being obvious.
>they just voted to increase the budget deficit by $150B per year
The dems were *all for* that military increase.
>Remember that the next time you go out to vote for one of these guys.
What you should ACTUALLY remember: is how the Democrats machinated to get Trump/Cruz and Carson to the front in the Republican Nomination.
When you're supporting a party that actively architected *its own demise*, you should at least BE AWARE OF that fact.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 03:04 · Score: 0

Just like the dismantling of net neutrality was going to happen under a democrat?
If our corporate overlords desire it, it's going to happen regardless of who is in office. Have you forgotten SOPA already?
Re: Guess who isn't doing their job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 07:43 · Score: 0

Name a major industry in America past the early stages of it's key product's life cycle where there are soany small players you need a program to keep track of them. Given the US version of capitalism the market consolidates or grows to have a single dominant firm with one maybe two main competing firms that are s distant number two and three firms. Look at Soft drinks, old Ma Bell.
Re: Guess who isn't doing their job! by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-12-27 11:26 · Score: 1

And yet it was a flop. Despite critical acclaim and high viewer ratings it did a mere $23 million in US box office against a $70 million production budget. It's impossible to know what all the reasons for its financial failure were, but if theaters were refusing to give it a full range of screening times (including adult-friendly ones) that is surely part of the story.
Re:Guess who isn't doing their job! by eric_harris_76 · 2017-12-27 13:43 · Score: 1

Regulatory capture is a bi-partisan phenomenon. It would even be non-partisan, if the deck were not stacked in favor of two (those two) parties. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=regul...

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.

Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by SeaFox · 2017-12-25 19:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

With control of more blockbusters, not only does Disney gain more leverage over theater chains such as AMC and Carmike Cinemas...

I'm shedding so many tears for those multi-million dollar theater chains.

Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 19:54 · Score: 0

You think that is how it works? Priceless!
George Carlin always said think about how dumb the average guy is, then realize half of them are dumber than that!
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 20:11 · Score: 0

You think it's the owners of the chains who suffer, eh?
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by DivineKnight · 2017-12-25 20:24 · Score: 1

George Carlin didn't understand how the mean (average) works in math, or was saying it ironically to see who would agree with that statement.
Mean, median, mode...
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Paradise+Pete · 2017-12-25 20:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or, ya know, he was making a joke. Not all jokes are scientifically accurate.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by SuricouRaven · 2017-12-25 21:11 · Score: 2

The usual measure of intelligence in population studies is IQ. It's an awful measurement, but it's also easy to measure and analyse when you have thousands of subjects to process. IQ scores follow a normal distribution - and always will, because they are intentionally normalised to make sure of it. So, in this case, it doesn't matter. Mean, median, mode, all the same.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by magusxxx · 2017-12-25 21:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

I know you're being sarcasm, I can tell by the font you're using...except there is an issue I haven't seen addressed yet.
When Iron Giant came out my local multiplex showed it only one day a week at about 10-11am on Saturday. That's it. All the employees including management said the same thing, "If we don't do this then Disney won't give us their next big animated release."
This is EXACTLY the reason why the studios were told to sell of the theaters back in the 70's. Because independent movie studios weren't being allowed to show their movies in better theaters. And it'll only get worse if the deal goes through.
Oh, and to answer your topic question...Sorry, I don't know. But it did reproduce The Red Violin very well. :D

--
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 23:52 · Score: 0

The usual measure of intelligence in population studies is IQ. It's an awful measurement, but it's also easy to measure and analyse
"Citation needed"
It is really really hard to make IQ tests that doesn't make assumptions about culture and education.
You often see IQ tests using questions involving money and change. Those doesn't translate well between different countries and mostly measures your experience with handling it rather than IQ.
Sometimes rarely used words are used. It has nothing to do with IQ but makes it harder for people lacking education.
Then you have the numeric pattern recognition. The more math you know, the more results that makes sense you find.
IQ is damn hard to measure.
You can pretty much assume that all studies comparing IQ between population groups are wrong.
Re: Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:35 · Score: 0

Or just get the POINT of what Carlin was saying and stop being a dense cocksucker-motherfucker-tits.
Re: Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Paradise+Pete · 2017-12-26 01:43 · Score: 1

Perhaps then he should have said that in the first place, instead of talking about Carlin's understanding of it.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:48 · Score: 0

The IQ tests I always took had more to do with patterns than math. For example, I'd be given a set of two-color cubes with diagonal slash-cut half-coloring on some sides and be asked to arrange these cubes to make a given pattern. That assumes nothing about culture or education. It may make assumptions about physical capability to some small extent. The point is that IQ tests are not always designed to put certain people at a disadvantage.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Desler · 2017-12-26 01:58 · Score: 1

Since IQ is on a normal distribution those things are all the same. If you’re trying to pedant you might want to actually be correct.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Desler · 2017-12-26 01:59 · Score: 1

Except the joke is accurate. One of the points of a normal distribution is that the mean, median and mode are the same.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-12-26 02:25 · Score: 1

I know you're being sarcasm, I can tell by the font you're using...except there is an issue I haven't seen addressed yet.
When Iron Giant came out my local multiplex showed it only one day a week at about 10-11am on Saturday. That's it. All the employees including management said the same thing, "If we don't do this then Disney won't give us their next big animated release."
I'm not disputing that you were told that, but that doesn't actually make it correct. Please note that Iron Giant was a Warner Brothers film, not Disney. I know it's always fun here to blame Disney for everything possible, but I am not seeing at all how Disney could possibly dictate terms to a theater chain about a film a competitor had and everybody would go along with it. I discovered Iron Giant years after it came out and it's a great film, but honestly it wasn't promoted all that well at the time and it didn't do well in the USA, making less than a third of its estimated budget. I'm just not buying that Warner Brothers allowed Disney to push them around and just took it. If you watch the extras on the recent Blu Ray release people on the staff talk about how poorly it was promoted and the fact that Warner basically shut down the animation department but allowed the staff to finish the film didn't help matters any.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Paradise+Pete · 2017-12-26 02:48 · Score: 1

I don't think it means that half the people are dumber than the mean though. Presumably there's a bunch of people on the mean.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Paradise+Pete · 2017-12-26 02:53 · Score: 1

But clearly we're just picking nits at this point. It's a good joke. It's the kind of joke where, once heard, everybody thinks they could have and should have thought of it first.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 02:55 · Score: 1

I've seen some people that could not do that, and I don't mean from a physical disability point. Hell, there's videos on every news site with people too dumb to figure that out.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-12-26 03:09 · Score: 1

I don't think it means that half the people are dumber than the mean though.
Yes, it does. The mean is the same as the median in a normal distribution and the median is by definition the middle point which means 50% of all data points are above it and 50% are below it.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-12-26 03:12 · Score: 1

But George Carlin is actually correct so there really aren't nits to pick. DivineKnight was trying to be pedantic and failing at it as he is clearly ignorant of how a normal distribution works.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Paradise+Pete · 2017-12-26 04:07 · Score: 1

is by definition the middle point which means 50% of all data points are above it and 50% are below it.
Do you mean like 1,3,5?
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 05:49 · Score: 0

Yes, and if the cinema showed the WB film more than that, the Disney distribution system would blacklist them.
Re: Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 08:09 · Score: 0

No, he means like 1,2,3,4.
If you were actually meausing intelligence to the thirty fifth decimal place in some hypothetical perfect system, the average IQ would be a number that would definitely no be the same as any on person: everyone would be above or below, with none equal. You'd probably create some brackets to talk about it though.
While we don't have exactly that situation, we end up with a similar ones, with a bunch of numbers around 100 being averaged together. Pedantically speaking, Carlin is correct here. If you were instead gonna pick brackets, he wouldn't be off by much. But by the ruels of math the joke is 100% true.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by AvitarX · 2017-12-26 09:37 · Score: 1

I'm going with he didn't understand, as in my observation very few people intuitively grasp the difference or why it matters, and many struggle even when it's explained.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 12:45 · Score: 0

...and that's the whole point of an IQ test. Win!
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 12:54 · Score: 0

That's only three data points, and they're not in a normal distribution.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Agripa · 2017-12-26 17:57 · Score: 1

When Iron Giant came out my local multiplex showed it only one day a week at about 10-11am on Saturday. That's it. All the employees including management said the same thing, "If we don't do this then Disney won't give us their next big animated release."
It works the other way also. Edward's Theaters in southern California would refuse to show a movie unless they got it exclusively within their area for a couple of weeks before other theaters were allowed to show it.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 20:04 · Score: 0

"...people on the staff talk about how poorly it was promoted and the fact that Warner basically shut down the animation department but allowed the staff to finish the film didn't help matters any."
And how many of these people went on to work for Disney?
It's the same as the WWE. Wrestlers won't bad talk the company in case they have to get a job there.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by luis_a_espinal · 2017-12-26 23:00 · Score: 1

With control of more blockbusters, not only does Disney gain more leverage over theater chains such as AMC and Carmike Cinemas...
I'm shedding so many tears for those multi-million dollar theater chains.
And their employers, the majority of whom are teenagers learning the ropes of what working is all about. I don't shed tears when markets evolve, but it does concern me that little by little opportunities for teenangers or on-the-side part time jobs are becoming more and more scarce.
It affects us all. There is no easy solution, that's for sure.
Re:Does Dolby Atmos reproduce a tiny violin well? by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-12-27 12:05 · Score: 1

If Carlin was referring to the median guy, he was mathematically correct by definition: half the people in the world are less intelligent than that median guy. But intelligence is distributed in a bell curve with most of the population clustered in the center, so a lot of those less intelligent people would be only a tiny bit less intelligent, with only a relative few being a lot less intelligent. The same logic applies in the other direction: most of the people who are more intelligent than the median guy are only slightly more so.
If Carlin was referring to the hypothetical mean guy (in the mathematical sense rather than being a comment on how vicious he is), his statement isn't a tautology. But given the way intelligence is distributed in the population, it would not be far off. The bell curve observation still applies as well.
There is a third type of average, the mode, which is the most common value of a variable. There is no fully objective way to measure intelligence and the various tests that we do have produce slightly different results, so determining the mode value of intelligence is probably not meaningful. To the extent that the concept has any meaning at all, the mode is likely to be somewhere near the peak of the bell curve; there is no reason to believe that there is a large discrete spike at some other value.

Double Done? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 19:39 · Score: 0

Or Double Trouble? Double dutch? Or is that four x? I know, let's ask Trump. What ever he says, it's the opposite!

Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 19:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Disney is becoming the Wal-Mart of Hollywood: huge and dominant,"

This is just another example of how monopolies are taking over the US on every level and your elected leaders are facilitating it. You guys really need to take over and purge and then reform your two party system. Doing something similar to the judiciary would probably help too since it has been loaded up with corporate mercenaries right up to the SCOTUS. That is to say, if you don't you'll find yourselves living in a de facto monarchy before middle of the century which I suppose some people on the extreme right wing might find appealing. One dear leader, infallible, above criticism....

Re:Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 02:35 · Score: 0

This is just another example of how monopolies are taking over the US on every level and your elected leaders are facilitating it. You guys really need to take over and purge and then reform your two party system
That's code for "You guys really need to stop and purge conservatism from America. Elect only Democrats, and their many caucuses will hash out the details"
Every time that's tried, it always turns into a shit-show; they eat their own. Admittedly, it's fun to watch from afar so long as you don't have to live with the results
Re:Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:12 · Score: 2

I find it amusing that people are so upset about a store chain that started a few decades ago, and rose to dominance because of low prices. No one forced you to go to Walmart, there are other stores with any product type they have on the shelves, and we all have seen the "Walmart shopper" pics.
If you want to go to another store, do so. I make the choice every week which store I want to give my money to.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by CanadianMacFan · 2017-12-26 05:58 · Score: 1

Monopolies are great for democracy. Politicians only have to go to one place for their bribes^H^H^H^H^H donations and they so much more free time to not read the bills they vote on.With all of that extra time they can help the economy by going to restaurants or getting a game of golf in. Monopolies are wonderful!
Re:Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 07:11 · Score: 0

"No one forced you to..." - it's just that endless efforts have gone into nudging people and manipulating people into behaving in certain ways, until the alternative dies out, and then again nobody forces you to choose the only option.
Re:Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by AlanBDee · 2017-12-26 07:45 · Score: 1

The problem is that to "fix" our political system we would have to rewrite parts of the constitution. I don't have faith that they would actually make it better. Remember that both Russia and North Korea have "elections" but they lack the protections that prevent a dictator in all but name from running the country. CGP Grey has a lot of really good YouTube videos on how we could improve the U.S. elections to get away from a two party system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Lets also remember the same group of people who voted for Trump. Their logic is less government is better and if you try to change the constitution there will be a civil war.
When Trump was elected I seriously considered moving to Canada or the Neatherlands (my ancestry) but would it actually be worth it? My quality of life is really quite good and I wonder if I would just end up with a different set of problems to complain about?
Re:Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 11:34 · Score: 0

... you to go to Walmart ...

Walmart rose to dominance by externalizing costs to its suppliers and employees (unpaid holiday/sick leave). People didn't care, low prices rule capitalism. If people did care, they'd be paying $10 per coffee or chocolate block, and ensuring that money went to the farmer.
Predatory marketing (AKA loss leaders) also creates low prices, or the appearance of low prices, until the corporation buys the competition and stops pretending. This is why the government enforces, or should enforce, punishment for anti-competitive activities.

... which store I want to give my money to.
The 'invisible hand' or, what seems to be the 'invisible hand' of the market, doesn't save consumers from the avarice and dishonesty of corporations. A consumer can make a decision, such as avoiding 'mum and dad' shops, which is detrimental to the market and ultimately, herself.
Re:Oh joy, yet more oligarchization... by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-12-27 16:06 · Score: 1

If you want to go to another store, do so. I make the choice every week which store I want to give my money to.
I would, but they are in empty strip malls now, or have been razed.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Remember Yahoo and MySpace? by Botnet-of-People · 2017-12-25 20:34 · Score: 2

Compared to buying real property (property that you can hold in your hand or step on with your boots), the buying of IP is almost like somebody selling you the Brooklyn Bridge. Whether Disney manages to increase or collapse the value of the "property" depends largely on management making the right moves to promote it. With many real properties, say like gold or until recently steel mills, the buyer comes looking for you. Netflix could very well create B-movie franchises worth more than the combined paper cost of the Fox properties simply by acquiring the right source materials and adapting them well for broadcast. Who knows, maybe Netflix, Amazon, or even GooTube can create their own empires of emptiness out of fringe graphic novels, manga or user-generated short-form videos, adapted properly (read, not shamelessly prettified with Disneyesque princess endings) for the variable playing times needed for the multiple (big, medium, small) screens that everybody now seems to have. I'm thinking of movies that can be viewed both episodically on your smart phone during a long commute or in one popcorn session with your SO.

Disney is smart by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 21:17 · Score: 0

This is Business 101 level stuff at Trump University. What is the problem here? Our Cheeto in Chief would do the same thing given the opportunity.

Trump 2018

Re:Disney is smart by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:23 · Score: 0

This is Business 101 level stuff at Trump University. What is the problem here? Our Cheeto in Chief would do the same thing given the opportunity.
Trump 2018
Translation to English: My butt hurts so much. My snowflake friends feel the pain, especially in their pussy hats. We love Hillary, despite the lies, criminal activity, and repeated sexual attacks by her husband. She deserved the White House, since we cheated her out of it last time for a lazy idiot who happened to be (kinda) black.

Surprised they lasted this long. by SuricouRaven · 2017-12-25 21:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only reason I think cinemas exist at all is for people who want to watch new releases rather than wait for them to come out on disc.

The cinema used to offer something no other place could: A gigantic screen, supremely clear images, and an audio system that'd give you powerful volume from the chair-rumbling explosions to the chirping giggles of children. Then home cinema technology advanced. What does a cinema offer now that you cannot get just by having a big screen TV (or, as we call them now, a TV) and some half-decent speakers? You can't go for the social experience. Comfort of other viewers mandates watching in silence, so you might as well watch alone.

All they can offer now is the time to drive out there, a captive audience to show trailers and advertising, the crying child behind you, the tall man in front, and the fat person who tries to squeeze past you mid-film to get to the toilets.

Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Pseudonym · 2017-12-25 22:02 · Score: 1

Cinemas can give you all that without the space requirement of a large TV.
Also unlike TV screens, cinemas can give you 3D in a way that is actually compatible with human eyes.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 22:14 · Score: 0

... they can offer now is the time ...

Sometimes it's fun to watch a movie with all the other fans: A shared experience among strangers. Most times it's smarter to wait a week and go to an off-peak screening (about 4PM or 9PM): Even a popular movie will be half-capacity.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by mccalli · 2017-12-25 22:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Devil's advocate time. They also offer a place to concentrate on watching the film, not wondering whether you should do the washing up or checking social media. They offer a change of scenery - simply getting out of the house can be good. They offer an event, a bit of...well....theatre. They give an audience too - watching films in a cinema is different to watching them at home, particularly comedies or popcorn-munching dumb action films. It's a different atmosphere.

I like going to the cinema. Smaller cinemas I really wish would work on their sound more but I enjoy going, I enjoy sitting and knowing that I'n going to be watching a film - not doing something else, not talking or being expected to talk through the story. Just a difference, a break for a few hours in an environment where someone else is going to take care of it for you.

I know people will now reply with tales of horror with uncaring audiences who are talking on their phones during the film or that time the projection was out of focus or misaligned (happened to me on a 3D viewing - horrible) or...or.....Yes. I know. They're imperfect. But, in my experience at least, for the vast majority of the time those things don't happen and I get the experience I'm looking for. I enjoy it.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 22:21 · Score: 0

No one seriously uses 3D anymore.
The space requirement for a large TV is minimal these days. In the CRT days, they'd be huge and heavy. LCDs are far thinner and lighter. One person could move a 48" screen and probable a 60" as well (though maybe with some difficulty). Viewing distance would be a bigger problem. Even then, you'd have to be in the tiniest, one-bed loft apartment for that to be an issue.
And if you want a social experience, you can always sync the video other people and chat over Discord or something.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by thomst · 2017-12-26 00:17 · Score: 1

SuricouRaven theorized:

The only reason I think cinemas exist at all is for people who want to watch new releases rather than wait for them to come out on disc.
Have you actually been to a multiplex recently?
The principal reason for cinemas to exist is to provide a place for teenagers to take their dates.
Sure, there are families who come to see PG stuff on weekends, but otherwise it's adolescents all the way down ...

--
Check out my novel.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 00:38 · Score: 0

"If you can't do that at home, either you're weak, or your partner is an asshole and they should really learn to fuck off while you're watching something."
Yeah, you sound like a real winner. Shouldn't you be cleaning the Cheetos dust from your neckbeard? Fucking moron.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:01 · Score: 0

Cinemas can give you all that without the space requirement of a large TV.
You mean a wall?
I think most people who can afford a large TV can also afford walls. (I would hope so at least)
Those unfortunate people without walls are likely more concerned with the cost requirement of a TV, not the space requirements. Fair enough, for them the cinema offers a cheaper option.

Also unlike TV screens, cinemas can give you 3D in a way that is actually compatible with human eyes.
Where might this be? What technology? To my knowledge no such thing exists on that scale.
Every theater I've seen, including state-of-the-art IMAX, all require glasses to see the 3D effect.
3D requiring glasses is by definition 3D that is not compatible with the human eyes.
But if you wish to use glasses based 3D as your claim, you should be aware that most TVs support the exact same technology.
In fact for a number of years there "most" was 90-95% of all TVs on the market, which came with it by default like it or not. It wasn't easy to find a TV model that did NOT have 3D included.
Today its closer to 50% (thankfully IMHO) but even there I don't see much of any price difference worth mentioning to get a TV with 3D.
There certainly are cases where the cinema wins out over a home setup but these are not good examples.
Also the entire point of the argument is that these cases are becoming more and more "edge cases" as time goes on.
About the only remaining common case is cost.
A cinema is the cheaper option if you don't already have a home theater setup. For those that do not wish to or simply can't afford a home theater, you can go to the cinema a fairly large number of times with minimal expense before hitting the break-even point. Those trips can also be spread out far over time such that for any given sample of time (that isn't measured in multiple years) it will be far cheaper.
But just like most things in life, going the cheaper route is almost always "settling" for a lesser experience. You can only have the nicer option if you can pay more.
If you only see one movie a year or less, it would be pretty stupid for a high end, or any, home theater setup.
If your job doesn't pay well, things like food and a home with walls should be the priority, not movies.
And at least in the US our economy is still pretty split and divided, with a surprisingly large segment being poor. Here it makes much more financial sense to skip the home theater all together and use the cinema a couple times a year instead.
Re: Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:27 · Score: 0

You're right. Ever since I installed an 80 foot IMAX screen in my living room I've never felt like trekking out to the theatre.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Pseudonym · 2017-12-26 01:29 · Score: 1

You mean a wall?
Not an option for many renters.

And at least in the US our economy is still pretty split and divided, with a surprisingly large segment being poor. Here it makes much more financial sense to skip the home theater all together and use the cinema a couple times a year instead.
Yes.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:35 · Score: 0

Also I still remember that the theater was the only place you could:
1) Watch what you wanted more or less when you wanted when you wanted
2) Actually watch the whole picture and not a version edited to fit in a TV time slot with all objectionable content edited out or overdubbed.
Obviously that is not the case today
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:57 · Score: 0

Best Buy keeps emailing me daily ads going "43-inch 4K TV for $280! 55-inch 4K TV for $400!" They're literally selling those RIGHT NOW, TODAY. I live in a house with a fairly small den where a huge TV may not be quite appropriate, but I still have one (I got it for free by repairing the power board though, me so frugal). $400 is pretty easily within reach of even lower-middle class people that save up some cash or have a sufficient credit card lying around. The TV has been the center of spare time burning in American households for decades and people will MAKE room for a large television. Mine sits on a simple $99 flat-topped television shelf that can be bought at any local Walmart.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by nctritech · 2017-12-26 02:00 · Score: 1

I have this older (chunky compared to the new stuff) Vizio 43" LCD HDTV that I got for nearly free. I routinely lift and move it alone. It's thick enough that I don't have to worry about splitting the LCD down the middle and it doesn't really weigh much; most of it is empty space in there, it's basically just a hollow plastic frame that supports the LCD.
Re: Surprised they lasted this long. by cyber-vandal · 2017-12-26 02:08 · Score: 1

I have a 3D TV and I have only used that feature a handful of times because it was very difficult to sit at the correct angle for it to work properly.
Re: Surprised they lasted this long. by dskoll · 2017-12-26 02:15 · Score: 1

Not just teenagers. My BF and I love going out to movies and we are in our 50s. Getting rid of communal entertainment spaces will make people even more isolated and less engaged than before, continuing the atrophication of social skills kicked off by smartphones.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by thegarbz · 2017-12-26 02:16 · Score: 1

Then home cinema technology advanced. What does a cinema offer now that you cannot get just by having a big screen TV (or, as we call them now, a TV) and some half-decent speakers?
Let me answer this for you with a quote:

A gigantic screen, supremely clear images, and an audio system that'd give you powerful volume from the chair-rumbling explosions to the chirping giggles of children.
If you think even the best of home entertainment systems can match a cinema for this, you have an incredibly shit selection of cinemas. My local cinema has 4 different of cinema on offer, the second from the bottom being IMAX.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by thegarbz · 2017-12-26 02:18 · Score: 2

People in general will complain about the occasional bad experience discarding all the good ones. As someone who goes to the cinema 3-5 times a month I can count on one hand the number of times the experience was unpleasant. They do occasionally exist but often they don't last long. Last time I saw a guy as much as use his mobile phone silently, he was kicked out within 5min. The one time we had an out of focus projection they fixed, it restarted the film and gave us a 50% discount card for our troubles.
Re: Surprised they lasted this long. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-12-26 02:28 · Score: 1

I have a 3D TV and I have only used that feature a handful of times because it was very difficult to sit at the correct angle for it to work properly.
Unless your TV is junk or your eyes have problems, this is not true. I also have a 3D TV and it works well even for people sitting off center. Over the years I've read and heard a lot of complaints about 3D in home and theaters by people with eye issues and they don't understand that the vast majority of humans have eyes that work perfectly fine for 3D viewing. Those with such problems complain loudly and don't understand that they are the exception not the rule and most people don't have the kind of problems they do, so they always express disbelief at how anybody can enjoy 3D because they don't.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 02:45 · Score: 0

Hey dumbass, 3D is dead....AGAIN...
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by DigiShaman · 2017-12-26 02:48 · Score: 1

That entirely depends on the theater, time of day, and where it's located. Let me get to the heart of the issue, I would gladly spend double if only to weed out the riffraff and ghetto trash for an adult only venue. I'm firmly believe that if you raise the price, it will raise the bar of the audience whom wishes to take the movie watching / dating experience seriously. No cell phones, no crying kids, no making out, annoying self-centered outbursts..none of that bullshit. Either I'm looking for a nice watching experience for myself, or out on a date.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-12-26 02:57 · Score: 2

The only reason I think cinemas exist at all is for people who want to watch new releases rather than wait for them to come out on disc.
The cinema used to offer something no other place could: A gigantic screen, supremely clear images, and an audio system that'd give you powerful volume from the chair-rumbling explosions to the chirping giggles of children. Then home cinema technology advanced.
Well, that's not all ... society changed.
No, it was never perfect, but I know that audiences were better behaved, in general, when I was a kid. Who wants to pay top dollar to watch a movie with a bunch of rude jerks?
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:26 · Score: 2

Also unlike TV screens, cinemas can give you 3D in a way that is actually compatible with human eyes.
That's called "a play", and it is in a different theater. Possibly a school auditorium.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:29 · Score: 1

Who rents houses that don't include walls? Like this one?

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:33 · Score: 1

... they can offer now is the time ...
Sometimes it's fun to watch a movie with all the other fans:

Not for some people.

A shared experience among strangers.

Yes, that's my point. Some of us don't enjoy that option.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:38 · Score: 1

Wow, someone learned some new words in school last week. Good job using "prowess" and "negative".
As to your rant, some of us simply don't like being in crowds of people, don't like paying $30 apiece to be in crowds, and are content to stay at home to avoid those crowds, which are usually populated by carbon copies of you.
Role models? Where we have gone, we don't need role models.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re: Surprised they lasted this long. by cyber-vandal · 2017-12-26 05:06 · Score: 1

My TV is really good otherwise and I don't have problems watching 3D at the cinema. I've spent ages messing with the settings and couldn't get a decent experience with the 3D. Don't take my experience personally. It hasn't made any difference to my life one way or another.
Re: Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 05:18 · Score: 0

There are differing technologies for 3D which make for different experiences. Don't assume that what works for you and your setup is the same for everyone. I have a 3D plasma with active-shutter that does do a pretty good job anywhere in the room, but can be flakey if you're outside the optimum viewing range. Passive 3D doesn't have the distance issue but doesn't offer as wide of a viewing angle. Competing versions with different benefits are part of why 3D home theater didn't take off, and is largely on its way out of relevance.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by drinkypoo · 2017-12-26 05:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, you sound like a real winner. Shouldn't you be cleaning the Cheetos dust from your neckbeard? Fucking moron.
I don't come in and shit on my partner's viewing experience when they are watching something I find annoying, because I'm a considerate human being... unless maybe they've got it cranked and I'm being subjected to it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by antdude · 2017-12-26 10:03 · Score: 1

Disc? They also can be streamed these days. Yeah, I prefer to warth at home. I also can be in control. My old body sucks so I have to pee and poop a lot. I had to pee twice during SW:TLJ on the 15th so I missed a couple scenes! :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re: Surprised they lasted this long. by thomst · 2017-12-26 10:52 · Score: 1

dskoll disagreed:

Not just teenagers. My BF and I love going out to movies and we are in our 50s. Getting rid of communal entertainment spaces will make people even more isolated and less engaged than before, continuing the atrophication of social skills kicked off by smartphones.
I used to love going to movies. Then, beginning in the 1990's, theater chains decided to stop enforcing basic movie-going civility - for fear that they would drive their teenage customers away.
Since then, going to see movies has become a more and more tooth-grindingly irritating experience for me. Finally, about 2007, I decided I'd had more than enough of assholes carrying on conversations with their friends, shouting advice to the characters on the screen, and (the very last straw) taking and even making calls on their cell phones. I'm sure smartphones have made the problem even worse in the intervening time.
I'm sorry to have lost the experience, but I simply can't accept spending however much money a movie ticket now costs to have my experience utterly ruined by narcissistic jackasses who don't know or care how negatively their oafish behavior impacts other patrons. And they're right that it's okay - because theater owners have allowed it to become okay. That sucks balls.
So now my wife and I watch movies and TV shows on the 55-inch flat screen TV in our living room, with our 7.1 sound system handling audio duties (and it's not one of those weenie, little deals with the juicebox-sized surround speakers, either - our mains have 15" woofers, and the surround and rear speakers are bookshelf speakers with 8" woofers that I'd've been happy to have as my mains back in my 20's), and we've learned not to miss being part of a larger audience.
But I definitely remember what it was like to sit in the dark, surrounded by strangers, all of whom were as enthralled as I was by the spectacle on the screen. Hell, I recall attending the Cinerama premiere of 2001: A Space Odessy in Honolulu (one of only six theaters it played in for its first week in domestic release). That was a freakin' magical experience - as was seeing Star Wars: A New Hope on its first night at the Oakland Paramount Theatre, back before they carved it up into a multiplex. Hell, even seeing Koyyannisqatsi at the UC Theatre in Berkeley was a blast, and that place was always a hole.
Okay - I do miss being part of an audience. But I'll never go back to the multiplex, because I simply can't lose myself in the moviegoing audience experience when every teenage dimwit in the crowd is doing his/her level best to take me out of that experience ...

--
Check out my novel.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Pseudonym · 2017-12-26 12:40 · Score: 1

Plenty of people rent houses where you aren't allowed to drill into a wall.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 15:13 · Score: 0

whom wishes
hurr durr, grammer, derp derp
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by havana9 · 2017-12-26 19:06 · Score: 1

I have bought a new laptop and the give me as a christmas special twelve movie ticket to use in a couple of nearby movie theathers. One is a big multi projection in a mall, two are tiny one projection small movie theather, that sometimes are also making live theather or conferences, and one is specialized in art films.
After ten years or so I never put foot in a movie theather I watched some movies. What I could say is that the experience in the tiny theather was vaw more pleasant than the one in the mall one, no popcorn smell, the cafeteria made a decent espresso at a reasonable price, whereas in the big mall there was half an hour of advers and a stink of popcorn that was terible, not to mention gals using the phone during the film.
Have to try the art film one, but I think there will be some automatic selection when you put a japanese movie.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 10:17 · Score: 0

Cinemas give you the "experience" of watching a movie on a big screen with your local community, and nostalgia for the 1920s movie palaces. They are also truly "pay-per-view" so you don't have to enter into any noxious DRM contracts with the publisher. And some people don't have home entertainment centers, just a boring small TV. I've been watching movies in theaters for the past twenty years for this reason.
But right now they're really straining my patience and I'm on the verge of not going to them. Why should I pay $10 now that the first half hour is commercials, the screen has gotten smaller, and the only value-added product the theater can offer is corn-syrup Coca-Cola and candy? I signed up for a chain's loyalty program one year and it was a joke: they only thing it offered was online ticket-stub images, upgrades on junk food, and maybe one free ticket if I purchased enough. If theaters really want to get my business, they'd start offering nutritious food.
I make an exception for small family-run owners that have "rescued" an old golden-age theater. My first choice is their theaters, and I buy their tea.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-27 10:39 · Score: 0

Cinema 3D can make characters appear to pop out of the stage over the people in front of you toward your eyes. It's usually used for silly things so I'll no longer pay extra for it, but it is something live theater can't do. I've often thought that realistic 3D would be a perfect feature for a nature documentary.
Re:Surprised they lasted this long. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-12-27 16:14 · Score: 1

>
All they can offer now is the time to drive out there, a captive audience to show trailers and advertising, the crying child behind you, the tall man in front, and the fat person who tries to squeeze past you mid-film to get to the toilets.
You forgot the guy texting, the woman talking to her friend and what's that weird stuff on your seat and the sticky stuff on the floor?
At home, I have a nice reclining chair, a soda holder and good priced snacks. I can't think of a reason to get the "theater experience". Probably why I haven't been to one in years.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Drumpf's fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 21:56 · Score: 0

Only a retard with a name like Drumpf would think this is a good idea. He is probably getting a supply of Cheeto dust from Disney so he will allow this to happen. Only racist neo Nazis could think a mergination between Disney and fox could be a good thing. Stop the hate. Impeach the fucking Cheeto and have Hillary Clinton take his place as president of the United States.

Re: Drumpf's fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:05 · Score: 1

This is the most concise summary of the average social media feed in 2017 I've ever seen.
Re:Drumpf's fault! by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-12-26 01:11 · Score: 1

Impeach the fucking Cheeto and have Hillary Clinton take his place as president of the United States.
No-one except idiot right-wing trolls are putting forth this nonsense, so just give it up already.
The election is long since over, and if Trump gets impeached today, we'll have President Pence tomorrow. Actual Democrats understand this.
Meanwhile, trolls like you keep going round projecting your butthurt over the popular vote onto them. This is completely transparent to anyone with a brain, and so you might as well stop wasting your time.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Drumpf's fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:19 · Score: 0

The election is long since over, and if Trump gets impeached today, we'll have President Pence tomorrow. Actual Americans understand this.
TFTFY.
Re:Drumpf's fault! by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-12-26 01:25 · Score: 1

The election is long since over, and if Trump gets impeached today, we'll have President Pence tomorrow. Actual Americans understand this.
TFTFY.
Point taken.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Drumpf's fault! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:44 · Score: 1

You actually think anyone other than Hillary sycophants gives a shit about the popular vote?
One group of special snowflakes is butthurt, and it's not the team that won.
btw, read my sig once or twice.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Drumpf's fault! by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-12-26 05:39 · Score: 1

I think the agents provocateurs tossing about the idea that impeaching Trump somehow reverses the outcome of the election have never, ever sat the civics class that's a requirement for graduation from all US high schools. That's what I think.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Drumpf's fault! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 05:52 · Score: 1

You miss the point of being agents provocateurs. Sticking to reality while riling their opponents isn't required.
And several* Hillary supporters spent the three months after the election trying to convince themselves and the rest of us that they could do just what the OP claimed. Some might have known it wouldn't work, but the majority certainly seemed like they believed they could force it because of """the Russians""".
*Several, meaning dozens of them on every news or opinion site I visit routinely.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Theater Bandwidth by mentil · 2017-12-25 22:24 · Score: 2

Big-budget films shown in theaters nowadays are played off of hard drives (shipped to the theater, encrypted), on a Windows PC connected to a digital projector. The bitrate of these files can be much higher than what even a UHD Bluray can offer, as the latter is limited to 100GB and hard drives can be had that are 100x+ that capacity. That means video quality can be much higher than what you can get for your home cinema. Even with gigabit internet you can only stream just over 1TB over the course of a 2.5 hour film (and of course no streaming service offers anywhere near gigabit streams). One might argue this kind of bandwidth is unnecessary for film, but the emergence of lightfield photography, and VR video, can make use of it easily. Lytro's top-quality lightfield video currently uses 500GB/minute, for reference. People who care about top-end video quality will still come to theaters. VR can simulate the experience of watching a film in a theater (with other people in it, if you wish), from your home, albeit with reduced fidelity. Watching at home will almost always be about convenience, with some quality tradeoffs.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.

Re: Theater Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 22:43 · Score: 0

And yet my 75 inch looks better than any theater I have been to minus imax. Factor in the inconvince of going to a theater and the relatively tiny visual improvements that are largely theoretical and my choice of movie venue is pretty easy to make.
For me the theater offers only one feature and that it gets releases earlier than video. 99.99% of the time I would rather just wait for video.
Re:Theater Bandwidth by TheDarkMaster · 2017-12-25 23:31 · Score: 1

The problem is that most theaters are not equipped for this level of quality. For example, where I live theaters insist on using obsolete and really bad projectors, the price of only one bag of popcorn is enough to buy kilograms of popcorn in any supermarket and finally the quality of the image and the sound are mediocre compared to quality and sound of a good TV these days.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:Theater Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 00:58 · Score: 0

People who care about top-end video quality will still come to theaters.
Will they?
If you're dragged along by your partner to see the latest Jennifer Aniston chick-flick, or by friends to see the latest Adam Sandler "comedy", will a higher quality picture improve them ?
IMHO the average film isn't worth going to the cinema for. Hollywood churn them out with all the care that McDonalds make their burgers, weak plots, over reliance on CGI and constant remakes/reboots/prequels and 'plot twists' that you weren't supposed to see coming, but did because everyone does it thesedays.
Frankly, I can't remember the last time I saw a film at home and thought 'Gee, I wish I'd seen that at the cinema'
Re: Theater Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:00 · Score: 0

Problem with IMAX is there are very few REAL IMAX theaters left. IMAX got watered down about a decade ago when they started allowing digital projection and just about every AMC theater began popping up with "IMAX" screens. Digital 4k which is the best they had at the time they started doing this is shit compared to the old huge film prints of REAL IMAX. And the screens were still smaller than a real IMAX too.
In the Tampa Florida area I live in the only real IMAX screen left is the dome theater at the Museum of Science and Industry. But since this is a dome screen it is inappropriate for watching normal IMAX films on. The only other real IMAX screen we had was an IMAX in the channelside development but that got scrapped about the time they started allowing the digital IMAX. As far as I know the only other place for a real IMAX experience is a drive across the state to Kennedy Space Center for the two IMAX screens they have there, but that will cost you gas, the admission ticket to get into KSC, and I am not sure that they show IMAX feature films there. Possibly just the space related films they play.
Re: Theater Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:12 · Score: 1

http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-theatre-real-imax-liemax/
Re:Theater Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:16 · Score: 0

Who cares? It's all still garvage anyway. Change won't come until people really cut the cord and stop consuming crap as part of their daily mental diet.
Re:Theater Bandwidth by thegarbz · 2017-12-26 02:29 · Score: 1

Don't confuse where you live and the word "most". Pretty much every decent sized city was equipped to handle the hobbit in HFR 3D, my own city (500000 people has IMAX cinemas, Dolby cinemas in 2 different locations and 4DX cinemas.
Maybe people in your city aren't that interested in going to the cinema and thus don't get nice ones as a result.
Re:Theater Bandwidth by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-12-26 02:31 · Score: 1

The problem is that most theaters are not equipped for this level of quality. For example, where I live theaters insist on using obsolete and really bad projectors, the price of only one bag of popcorn is enough to buy kilograms of popcorn in any supermarket and finally the quality of the image and the sound are mediocre compared to quality and sound of a good TV these days.
This is a perfect example of flawed reasoning from the specific to the general. I'm sorry that in your specific small town that this is true, but it's not true everywhere.
Re:Theater Bandwidth by TheDarkMaster · 2017-12-26 02:51 · Score: 1

This is a perfect example of flawed reasoning from the specific to the general. I'm sorry that in your specific small town that this is true, but it's not true everywhere.
Wrong. This is actually a good example of what happens when some guy like you in a hurry to make others look foolish ends up making yourself look foolish by not asking yourself what the scope is and what size would be what I described as "where I live" before commenting. Tip: Not all countries are like the US or like in Europe where I imagine that you might actually get a good theater around every corner.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:Theater Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 13:04 · Score: 0

If the story and acting are any good, an old 35mm B&W print is infinitely better than terapixel streaming with 10.2 channel Dolby SuperSound with a crap story and crap acting.
People who only care about gosh-wow SFX care about top-end video quality. For those of us who like good acting and good storytelling, good video quality is a nice bonus but rarely justifies the inconveniences of commercial theaters.
Re:Theater Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 23:01 · Score: 0

Nonsense - you can't distinguish 8K from 4K from UHD on your home TV as it is.

AMC owns Carmike by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 22:26 · Score: 0

https://www.amctheatres.com/carmike

Re: No its you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 22:42 · Score: 1

STOP giving the mouse your shekels!

The only sensible reply to an irrational destructive force like MegaCorps is STOP GIVING THEM MONEY. Fuck your kids and what they want. This is the war for all the future.

Theaters are Doomed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 22:44 · Score: 1

I managed theaters for both ABC and another chain in Florida. In 1968 we all knew full well that theaters were a dying industry. Cable TV was really the announcement of doom. There even petitions that patrons were asked to sign to make cable illegal. i can recall in Mississippi the kid's price was 10 cents and the adult tickets were 25 cents in 1951 and the theaters had audiences. The food was also rather inexpensive. A man and wife could spend the evening get some pop corn and sodas and still not spend $2.50 for the night. There was no color TV back then so if you wanted color it was in the theaters. So color TVs hurt the theaters badly. Then cable came along. Next we had issues with acquiring addresses and building or renting a theater now costs so much money that the ticket prices went up. Regulations also increased. For example I had to install a 180 degree hot water heater and plumb it to the candy stand. The county insisted we have 180 degree water but we had nothing at all that we washed. There was large popcorn spoon that was simply wiped down with a cloth at closing and scrubbed with salt a bit to assure no oils remained on the spoon. So we were forced to spend a lot of money for a water heater that did absolutely nothing. The folks I feel the worst for were the projectionists. The better houses had hard working and intensely skilled projectionists. They did sophisticated electronic work as well as being responsible For very high quality sound systems. It took a lot of training to do what they did and their trade was simply destroyed by the use of newer, inferior equipment.

Re:Theaters are Doomed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 02:40 · Score: 0

Theaters have been dying since 1968. Yet AMC just announced record revenue.
Re:Theaters are Doomed by Not-a-Neg · 2017-12-28 03:05 · Score: 1

Over $5 Billion gross just for a single studio in a single year is far from being a dying industry. Disney is never going to give up that much revenue, shareholders would mutiny.

--
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!

We are Legion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 23:13 · Score: 0

I am proud, proud citizen of the fruitful and glorious kingdom of the Netherland; soon to be holders and protectors of a global hegemony the likes never seen before. Our mighty ships, our mighty crews, they will set fire to the lands beyond. A fire no mortal can put out. Such is the power of the powerful nationstate "Holland": Saviours of the Just, protectors of the Golden Child.

Competion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 23:19 · Score: 0

Competition - to some degree it is a matter of choice. I have seen most Disney plots so I chose to not view the new re-spins of old plots. I now prefer to view plots from a non western culture - they suffer the same problem with re-spinning old stories into new plots, but at least they are not ones I have seen before. I do have to put up with subtitles. shameless plug for an alternative source of entertainment Viki

Re:Competion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 02:45 · Score: 0

Honestly, I'm a big fan of shounen anime. The stories may be similar, but at least it has character development, with all its flaws. "Thanks to this lack of inner conflict, Rey is a cipher, a bland character with less development than an underwritten shonen anime protagonist."
Re:Competion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 11:55 · Score: 0

I'll raise you NyaaTorrents - Live Action (English-Translated) (just learn what titles are sentai/"masked hero team" type stuff and skip them, anything with "ranger" or "rider" or "ultraman")

A certain mouse and copyright protection by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-25 23:51 · Score: 1

If you think that either political party is going to protect you from Disney's shenanigans, you need to put down the pipe. Disney has been gaming the government for decades. You can be certain this deal will be approved without questions from either side.

Wait till Fox News gets bought by RT by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 00:02 · Score: 0

You wait till Fox News get bought out by Russia Today, then I'm sure the FTC will spring into action to rapidly give their permission to the merger.

1%ers need not apply or respond by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 00:17 · Score: 0

> Then home cinema technology advanced. What does a cinema offer now that you cannot get just by having a big screen TV (or, as we call them now, a TV) and some half-decent speakers?

What percentage of the population can afford home cinema? Maybe 10% or less. Anyone living in an apartment cannot install the required system and run it at the correct volume because it will disturb the neighbors. Think you can get away with this in a condo? Not if your "cinema room" (likely lounge room) is a shared wall.

What you speak of from the comfort of your plush home does not correspond to most people out there. Most people cannot afford big screens nor the surround sound system that is required to do a film justice.

For you, the 1%er, that has a big clear screen at home and where you don't have to worry about disturbing the neighbors, sure, the cinema has no benefit. But for the 99% who don't have such luxury at home, watching a movie in the cinema is better than at home.

Re:1%ers need not apply or respond by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 00:44 · Score: 0

What kind of rock have you been living under? large LCD screens are sub $1000 products now. You can go even bigger sub $1000 with a projector. For under $1000 you can also setup a pretty damn good surround sound system. Sure the issue still exists of sound issues in a multi family building, but you can tone down the bass some and still have a pretty good at home movie watching experience without being the asshole next door.
In my own apartment I have a ceiling mounted projector, throws across the living room to create a 10foot screen. Sound provided by some cambridge sound works 5.1 speakers with a Dolby Digital decoder built into it's amp. I can attach the SPDIF or optical toslink to my dvd/bluray player for true DD5.1. The whole setup cost me under $1000 off ebay. No it's not top of the line, but it's a pretty damn good setup and I enjoy it for move watching as do friends that come over to visit.

Select-theater showing works for some chains by adosch · 2017-12-26 01:43 · Score: 1

The small, single screen theater I typically go to in a town just north of where I live specifically boycotted bringing in this latest Star Wars as the premier or any showing on the premise of 'Disney wants too much of a cut, and we aren't screwing our patrons over with our costs.' Now this is one of many 1 to 4 screen theaters owned by a local company in our state, so they clearly picked up 'Star Wars' in the bigger cities where they can offset the cut back to Disney with more foot traffic. However, this idea of 'Fuck Disney and their monopolization' is a small case worked.

Honestly, I am like most here, most movies anymore are complete shit and the 2+ hours I sit there hardly was worth the $8-10 or whatever a ticket is now. The small theater I go to, $5 for an adult, $3 for a child, and on certain bargain nights, it's $3 to get in for an adult. I want the 'theater experience' to stay in tact; our theater is a renovated 50's style decor --- it's fun to take the family out, get popcorn, get a soda and watch something on the 'big screen' even though we have ultimate consumer control to stream it in damn near the damn HD/UHD quality in a matter of weeks after it hits the theater in some cases.

In the era of 'having too many choices' now and I can consume most anything I want from a media perspective with a couple of screen taps and a credit card, guess what Disney? I'll just wait, because I value the theater experience more than you turning hand-over-fist profits.

Re:Select-theater showing works for some chains by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:07 · Score: 0

I paid to see "Star Trek: Into Darkness."

Fuck me. Never again. At least "Riddick" was okay, but I haven't been to a theater since.

Movies are expensive by MoarSauce123 · 2017-12-26 01:44 · Score: 2

Not too long ago taking the family out to the movies was cheap entertainment. These days it is a major investment and if we go we make sure that there is a very high chance of us liking the movie. If it gets any more expensive I will ask for my money back when the movie sucks. It's not the theater's fault, they just resell defective merchandise. They should charge the distributor and film studios.

Re:Movies are expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:33 · Score: 0

Tickets have been around 8-12 bucks for many years.
If you're talking about popcorn and all that garbage.. well, that's on you. Try talking to your fat smelly kids about going more than an hour and a half without eating for once.
Re:Movies are expensive by CrashNBrn · 2017-12-26 05:37 · Score: 1

That is said a lot, it's not really true. The cinema was never "cheap entertainment."
The average cost of a movie ticket in 1977 was $2.23, and inflation alone puts that at $9.25 today.
Except the average ticket price is $8.93 in 2017 - multiple sources confirm this.
Remember Pulp Fiction? The $5 shake. Seemed so outrageous, a $5 dollar shake?!
Inflation bitches.

60% How about 90+% by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 01:47 · Score: 3, Informative

I worked in a movie theater in high school for a large theater chain and got to know one of the assistant managers pretty well. He said that they had to pay 90-92% of all ticket sales for Star Wars episodes 2 and 3 to the studios. There's a big difference between 60% and 90%. He said that the tickets paid for the building payments and utilities. The concessions paid for everything else.

Re:60% How about 90+% by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 03:49 · Score: 1

and if they didn't expect to make a profit on those movies, they would have refused to show them. They have that option.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:60% How about 90+% by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 12:22 · Score: 0

I love getting my order in before concession clerks can successfully try to upsell me. I cut off those attempts in one long sentence.
Re:60% How about 90+% by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 13:00 · Score: 0

That rebate to the studio is usually only on the first couple weeks of release. That's the bulk of the total revenue but it's not all of it. The theater's incentive for showing the movie is the long tail of revenue after that initial period. And also concession sales, and the fact that the mere presence of the blockbuster on the marquee may give patrons a favorable impression of the theater and make them more likely to watch other movies there.
Re:60% How about 90+% by Agripa · 2017-12-26 18:02 · Score: 1

I worked in a movie theater in high school for a large theater chain and got to know one of the assistant managers pretty well. He said that they had to pay 90-92% of all ticket sales for Star Wars episodes 2 and 3 to the studios. There's a big difference between 60% and 90%. He said that the tickets paid for the building payments and utilities. The concessions paid for everything else.
When Terminator 2 was showing, the theater chain my friend worked at as a projectionist had to pay 110% of the ticket price for like the first couple of weeks. This is hardly unusual.

Monopoly by JBMcB · 2017-12-26 02:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Current movie studios:

Disney/Fox
Warner Bros.
Universal
Columbia
Paramount
Lionsgate
MGM
Amblin
Weinstein

And a few dozen smaller studios, as well as the foreign studios (Toei, Canal, Gaumont, Pathe)

So is Disney using their, erm, not-really-monopoly power to keep other movies from being made? No? Then why would the FTC step in?

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:57 · Score: 0

Don't taze my narrative bro.
Re:Monopoly by wwphx · 2017-12-26 06:07 · Score: 1

There's undoubtedly many movie studios. What would be more meaningful is a breakdown as to how many movies they've released over the last decade and their grosses and to see how that's trended. Then merge Fox in to the Disney numbers and see what that looks like. The complaint is mainly that Disney, through its acquisitions, has disproportionate power for one company and that this merger will further distort the market.

--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Re:Monopoly by nctritech · 2017-12-26 11:46 · Score: 1

What is really needed there is how many movies of theirs end up in theaters. Lots of people make movies but most of those never grace a silver screen. My short films are really not worth putting in a theater but if I went the extraordinary lengths needed to made a decent feature film I can guarantee you it'd never be able to compete with the latest Star Trek abomination that has Roddenberry spinning in his grave so hard they're using him to generate electricity.
Re:Monopoly by epine · 2017-12-27 04:35 · Score: 1

So is Disney using their, erm, near-monopoly power to nearly keep other movies from being made? Absolutely. Then why would the FTC step in?
Don't worry, it won't. Under prevailing ideology, any form of token competition constitutes a sufficiently free market.
Re:Monopoly by JBMcB · 2017-12-27 09:31 · Score: 1

So is Disney using their, erm, near-monopoly power to nearly keep other movies from being made? Absolutely.

In what way, exactly, are they accomplishing this? Are they signing deals that prevents movie theaters from showing other studios' movies?
I assume you have some pretty solid evidence of this taking place, and links to back it up.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:Monopoly by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-12-27 11:53 · Score: 1

The question is not whether the big studios are preventing movies from being made by others. Plenty of movies are being made. The real question is whether the big studios are using monopoly power to prevent other movies from being exhibited widely, and there is some reason to believe that is happening. Any film that is relegated to art house release will never reach a large audience.

Yeah, but... by fyngyrz · 2017-12-26 02:43 · Score: 2

The problem isn't just the mouse. Not the movie theater's problem, anyway.

The problem with movie theaters is the onslaught of ads, the uncomfortable jammed-in seating, the stunningly overpriced snackage and tickets, and the lack of great new movies in favor of Yet Another Retread Idea.

Some of this comes from outside pressure: the constant devaluation of currency and increases in taxation, demands for more and more income from the movie producers, the conversion of the stock market into a "must increase profitability" hammer.

Or in other words, pretty much on every front, greed.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:Yeah, but... by zifn4b · 2017-12-26 04:08 · Score: 1

The problem isn't just the mouse. Not the movie theater's problem, anyway.
The problem with movie theaters is the onslaught of ads, the uncomfortable jammed-in seating, the stunningly overpriced snackage and tickets, and the lack of great new movies in favor of Yet Another Retread Idea.
Don't forget that for a very reasonable price $3000-4000 you can build a pretty nice home theater that when coupled with a blu-ray player is very similar to a movie theater experience. The movies tend to come out 2 months-ish after movie theater release so it isn't that long to wait. I only go to the theater when it's something I really want to see and can't wait. But TBH it's not about the movie theater experience. In fact, I like the experience in my home theater much better. I have comfortable seating (roomy and reclining even), surround sound speaker set up with a powered sub-woofer (explosions shake the room), decent TV and a blu-ray player. I didn't buy top of the line gear but I guarantee you most people can't tell the difference between my setup and one that costs 10x as much. Also, I can cook my own food that is much better than what is offered at the theater and much cheaper. And on top of it all, I can pause the movie when I need to use the bathroom.

--
We'll make great pets
Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 09:52 · Score: 0

I just spent over $100 to take my family to see the new Star Wars movie. That was with medium soda and popcorn, not the large. There is a reason this will be the only movie we see in the theater for a while.
Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 12:49 · Score: 0

With you on the ads and overpriced snackage, but around here there's the opposite problem to jammed-in seating.
Local movie chains ripped out their old but still comforable seats and replaced them with double-wide fancy reclining seats (probably to accommodate the fat asses of those who supersized their popcorn and took advantage of the free refills (on that $10 bucket)). This cut the actual number of seats available by about 67%, which in turn meant they had to go to a reserved-seating model.
Fuck it, I'll wait till it comes to Netflix or Redbox.
Re:Yeah, but... by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-12-27 11:49 · Score: 1

The onslaught of ads and the expensive snacks are caused by the power of the movie studios. Theaters can't make much money selling tickets because the lion's share of that price goes to the studio, so they have to make their money in other ways.
As for the endless sequels, the studios will keep making them so long as people keep buying tickets. And that's not just us people in the US, it's also the global market. Overseas markets seem to have even more of an appetite for Yet Another Sequel than the American audience does, and less interest in original products. Contrast, for example, Get Out (30% international) with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (78%), Transformers: The Last Knight (79%), and The Fate of the Furious (82%). (For comparison, an average wide release these days runs between 50% and 65% international.) Those last three probably wouldn't have even been made if the US market were the whole story; those franchises were already showing signs of serious domestic decline before the latest installments.

Expect a phenomenal increase in piracy by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-12-26 02:46 · Score: 1

Disney will probably try to go back to their artificial scarcity shenanigans that worked so well for them till then 90s. Not any more. If they try that again, it will probably backfire on them spectacularly.

Re:Expect a phenomenal increase in piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:16 · Score: 0

Already has.
Some countries introduced reclining seats (extra) 3D (Extra) and extreme Screen (Extra)
Friday/weekend no discounting (extra) while ice creams and popcorn got more expensive AND 20 minutes of annoying ads. Free parking became - paid parking.
My local put the price up to $20 ticket, then back down to $14 when numbers died, when others were 10-12 range.
As a cook said - places thrive on the holiday peak season crowds, but the ones that stay in business don't piss off the locals. But Disney is not good on variable pricing -park admission only rose, and people brought in their own food and drink, then demand dried up. The middle class is dying, with McD's and Walmart going backwards - and now Coke?
To me its join the university movie film group and watch the big screen titles 4 months later if there is no 80 inch private screening by a friend before then.

Bad news for Netflix by HalAtWork · 2017-12-26 02:54 · Score: 1

A good chunk of content will be taken out of netflix for Disney's own streaming service. With content being split up again and viewers not wanting to go back to cable with its appointment based viewing schedule, it looks like piracy will probably be on the rise again.

--
Twinstiq, game news

Re:Bad news for Netflix by Agripa · 2017-12-26 18:04 · Score: 1

A good chunk of content will be taken out of netflix for Disney's own streaming service. With content being split up again and viewers not wanting to go back to cable with its appointment based viewing schedule, it looks like piracy will probably be on the rise again.
They can just take back their content from the pirates. Problem solved!

Not exactly true by ne7minder · 2017-12-26 02:55 · Score: 1

My brother owned a movie theater until a couple years ago when he sold out to a big chain. He never got a dime from the blockbuster movies, 100% of the first 1 or 2 weeks ticket sales went to the distributor. _IF_ the movie hung on the next 2 weeks he would get 20-30% of the ticket sales. It didn't hit 50% until week 4 or 5. That is why popcorn costs $10, it was his main source of income.

Re:Not exactly true by Scott+Tracy · 2017-12-26 04:11 · Score: 1

I think the submitter got confused on distributors versus movie theatres. Studios get half, the distributor gets half. The theatre chains negotiate with the distributor for whatever cut (if any) they get. But that's why they say a movie has to make at least 2x its budget just to break-even.

Welcome to the club theaters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 03:19 · Score: 0

You and I both had a good run of it, but the amount of rude people and boogers on the common areas have killed us with the advent of acceptable, not perfect or as good as our experience, home entertainment. There is no going back. Maybe in 20 years or so, some hipsters can open up wildly overpriced themed bars after our former model. It has been a good run through.

Sincerely,
The Arcade.

Re:Welcome to the club theaters... by Geekbot · 2017-12-26 14:45 · Score: 1

That's exactly the example I was giving people after seeing Star Wars. Home is better than away now. Games are better at home. Movies are better at home.
Is a bigger screen better? For Star Wars I sat in the front row with a sore neck barely able to see the screen. I had to pee of course so I missed 10 minutes of the movie. Then I got to hear my kids complain about the noisy person next to them and the stupid kids behind them kicking the seat.
If it wasn't for the fact that every time I see my Google feed there are 5 articles with spoilers in the title of the article I wouldn't even go see the "blockbusters".

Home theater by p51d007 · 2017-12-26 04:15 · Score: 1

With many people having pretty much a home movie theater, other than the draw of the HUGE SCREEN, what's the advantage of going to the movies? High price for the tickets & concessions, putting up with people in the theater yacking and what not, parking, gas to/from the theater, traffic, hot/cold/rain/snow. With online streaming, it's almost a benefit to just wait it out, stay at home and watch it in the comfort of your own home.

Re:Home theater by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 12:28 · Score: 0

Yep! I used to go to the Cineplex every Friday night. Now we stay home and watch the projector. We can have a beer, the floor is less sticky, the seats are comfier, people check their phones less, and we can pause at the half-way mark if we want to and not miss anything (see beer).
And with the crap being produced these days, I'm much happier watching restored classics, which aren't in the theatres anyway.
I painted my wall (1/2 flat white, 1/2 Martha Stewart silver), and set my projector on it's widest settings. I guess it depends on the room and the projector, but I wouldn't really want a bigger screen. Having said that, one of these day's I'll grab one of those old Russian anamorphic projector lenses off of eBay and watch Laurence of Arabia properly.

Just how much is James Cameron worth?! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 04:36 · Score: 0

Is he funding these Avatar sequels himself? I could maybe understand one sequel, but FOUR is insane for a film that wasn't much more than a novelty. Are there actually people out there who give a damn what happens next to the space smurfs and Dances With Wolves?

Re:Just how much is James Cameron worth?! by AvitarX · 2017-12-26 09:52 · Score: 1

I kind of wanna see the prequel (which I assume will happen) where it shows how and why the Navi developed their biotech.
I agree that four movies seems crazy though.
Betting against Cameron similarly seems a bad idea based on history though. He is responsible for two movies in dramatically different genres that were the highest grossing movie of all time when they came out, along with the highest grossing R rated movie when it was released.
Even if his stuff isn't your thing, he has a knack for getting asses into seats.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

Antitrust laws are evil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 05:29 · Score: 0

Here is an idea:

If you have a problem with a business, do not buy their stuff. Take responsibility yourself instead of running to government to force other people to do what you want.

https://fee.org/articles/breaking-up-antitrust/

Re: Antitrust laws are evil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 06:59 · Score: 0

That's nice but it doesn't work.
Most people who are interested in a given movie don't know who gets what cut of the cinema revenue or streaming revenue.
They won't know it's a problem until theaters start closing everywhere... then it will be too late for that industry.
I don't have a huge concern about whether theaters continue or not, I can enjoy a movie very well at home, but I do have a concern about any company being rich enough to influence laws in its favor, which Disney has already demonstrated.
That alone should be grounds to prevent the merger, roll back the law they bought extending copyright to obscene number of years, and enact new legislation that makes sense.
Re:Antitrust laws are evil by Falos · 2017-12-26 07:34 · Score: 1

>If you have a problem with a business, do not buy their stuff.
He said triumphantly, standing over the remains of a walmart, exulting in the success of his "do not buy their stuff" genius, hero of his local 2005 stores, which didn't shut down after self-destructive undercutting.
Either (1) that actually happened or (2) you're a dumbfuck who is ignoring reality due to reasons of malice and/or incompetence.
Here is an idea: Discuss shit that actually happens and matters in the real world.
There's definition criteria to your "free market" masturbation - y'know, that follow-up paragraph you skipped right over? That mentions definitions like consumers aware of their sourcing options?
Or having options at all.

You don't live in the South or Mid-West by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 07:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

do you? And what forced people to shop at Wal-Mart was 40 years of declining wages. They leveraged the low prices to try and maintain their standard of living long enough to see their children on their own so they could free up that money to again, just barely hold on. Those prices were low because Wal-Mart is a predatory business in a largely unregulated economy.

Basically, you're making a lot of choices that others don't have an assuming because you personally have them that everybody else does. If people could just do anything anyone else does without regard to birthplace we'd all be billionaires.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:You don't live in the South or Mid-West by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-12-26 08:29 · Score: 1

So you are claiming the people in the south and midwest would be better off if they only had stores that sold more expensive products.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:You don't live in the South or Mid-West by Geekbot · 2017-12-26 13:40 · Score: 1

Yes they would. Because more of them would have jobs. And they would have jobs at better wages and more hours. And because of that they could shop at better stores. And spend more money wherever they wished.
This is not just some thinking experiment. This was tested when cars were coming out. This one guy had an idea that if he paid his workers more then they would have enough money to buy his product.
So Walmart is a great example of the opposite. And it is not in some kind of dispute about what it does. It is very well documented what it does. Move into an area. Sell at a loss or incredibly low margin to shut out competition in the area. When there is little competition they make sure wages for work drops, prices can increase to the amount they want them, but the supply side really suffers because now supplier X has no other store in the area to sell their product. So now supplier X has to drop their price and their profit margin because Walmart demands it. Walmart now controls to some extent what the market can bear and it can also control what split of the profits they make from the supplier.

Mod parent up some more by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 07:10 · Score: 1

Disney forced the chains to put Star Wars at least 4 of their best screens, whether there was enough ticket volume or not. They'll use Fox's assets to further push their competitors out.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Mod parent up some more by Agripa · 2017-12-26 17:59 · Score: 1

Disney forced the chains to put Star Wars at least 4 of their best screens, whether there was enough ticket volume or not. They'll use Fox's assets to further push their competitors out.
Fox did the same thing with Star Wars. This is not uncommon with major movies.
Re:Mod parent up some more by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2017-12-27 03:05 · Score: 1

Forced? Pretty much any cinema that wanted to make mad Star Wars bucks was going to do that. Guaranteed blockbuster. They want that first-week cash. There was no "forcing" about it.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump

I don't think inflation tells the whole story by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 07:12 · Score: 1

Real wages are way, way down. e.g. raw buying power. Inflation takes _everything_ into account. That means consumer electronics, which thanks to China got dirt cheap, factor in. It throws the numbers off for just about everything when a 32" TV is now $100 bucks instead of $5000.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Four Avatar sequels? by rnturn · 2017-12-26 09:39 · Score: 1

Me and the rest of the family can only envision one being something we'd go to see. Since creativity in Hollywood has been dead for years, what could they possibly do in three others that wouldn't be boring?

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M

Not the only reason by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 09:59 · Score: 0

If the movie theatres stopped treating their customers like crap that would help to.

Last week I went to watch star wars. The movie was to start at 9:45. Instead I had to watch 20 minutes of advertisements, and the movie started at 10:05. I did not appreciate that.

Being force fed ads is yet another reason I don't feel much sympathy for the movie theatres.

You bet by fyngyrz · 2017-12-26 10:57 · Score: 1

Don't forget [...] you can build a pretty nice home theater

I'm not likely to forget. :)

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Slashdot Mirror

Movie Theaters Were Already in Trouble. With Disney's Fox Deal, It's Double (bloomberg.com)

193 comments