The excuse for "bad physics becoming a pivotal plot point" is always story. If it serves the story, do it. I'd much rather watch a hugely entertaining film like Gravity with a few inaccuracies than one that gets the physics absolutely correct but suffers because of it. Whenever I watch a film that is not a pure documentary and set on/above Earth, I just imagine it's in a universe similar to ours, but has differences that just happen to help the plot. It is just entertainment, after all.
Because they can charge $4 for the 32 oz. "Small" soda. The actual soda costs pennies, so it doesn't matter much if they serve you 20 oz or 32 oz, they just want you to pay $4 for a soda. It's the same reason restaurants charge $20 for a meal that no average person could finish. They have a minimum they want you to spend, and as long as people keep paying for it, you end up with more soda/popcorn/food than is consumable.
That's my point. The movie is attempting to tackle a societal issue using futuristic technology - the premise at least is not "explosion porn". Whether or not is succeeds at tackling that is irrelevant to my statement.
I think the promotion is a side effect of legitimate questions being asked about its premise. Aren't you curious if this is possible in the foreseeable future? At least it's more "real" science-fiction than something like Transformers.
So it "certainly wasn't the blockbuster it was supposed to be" is now a flop? Flop implies disaster - an immediate loss with no hope of ever seeing a profit. Most of the movies people think of as flops just didn't meet expectations, and may make a profit or come close with foreign sales, merchandising, DVD/TV rights, etc... If you want to know what a flop is, look up Town and Country or Cutthroat Island.
Superman Returns made $200M+ domestically, was the 6th highest grossing film of 2006, and made more than Wolverine did 3 years earlier, which means it sold many more tickets. Just because it's budget was high doesn't mean a decent gross makes it a flop. I'm sure they wanted it to make a billion dollars, but close to $400M in 2006 was pretty good.
I explained Green Lantern in a post above. Still, it did gross over $100M. The poster's point was that flops of superhero movies happen, but they are rare.
Lone Ranger was a bad idea from the start - no name recognition with most of the movie-going audience, and your only star is unrecognizable? Plus, it's not a superhero movie.
The top two movies from last year were superhero movies. None of the X-Men movies or Avengers movies have flopped (arguably The Hulk was disappointing, but flop might be strong). The Spider-man reboot from last year made over $200M domestically, and that was a reboot of a franchise that was only 10 years old. The flops have been movies like Green Lantern, where any 12 year old could have told you it would flop before the script was written. And the real reason that was a flop is because they budgeted it like it was an Avengers movie and they expected those box-office numbers. If they had done a $50M Green Lantern movie with a decent script, it might have made a profit.
Stars don't have very much to do with how a movie does any longer. Look at After Earth, The Lone Ranger, or any of the last three Tom Hanks movies (total gross of all three $100M). Tom Cruise hasn't had a $100M movie that wasn't a Mission: Impossible sequel in eight years (maybe that's making your argument - is he really a star anymore?)
Re #3: The superhero movies/sequels haven't flopped. Look at Box Office Mojo. Those movies are doing very well. The movies listed for this article are neither superhero movies or sequels. The thing is, people usually want familiarity, and Hollywood movies that know that usually make money. That's unfortunate for those of us that like original movies, but it's not going to change anytime soon. If you really want great original writing, just look at the newer TV shows that critics love - most are better than any movie of the last five years.
Weird tastes? Just since the beginning of the year I have watched (by streaming) the following: Cheers, The Office, Breaking Bad, Psych, Burn Notice, Frasier, Archer, several not-very-obscure British series (Sherlock, etc...), and perhaps a dozen mainstream (made actual money when theatrically released) movies, Hunger Games and MI:4 included. I see nothing "weird" in that list. Perhaps you need to revisit Netflix.com.
The "savings on warehouse and postage" they "keep for themselves" is put towards the enormous bandwidth that this article is about, plus some profit that companies are supposed to make for their shareholders.
With streaming, you're paying for instant access. Yes, you can get any DVD from them for $8 a month, and you have to wait, at minimum, two days after you select your title, to arrive. Then you have to return it before they'll ship another. That's a big inconvenience compared to streaming. I also am on the DVD plan, but I consider it a nice addition to streaming, not the main draw.
If you were just on the $8 DVD plan, you could, at most, watch about 40 hours a month (a four hour TV disc every three days). With streaming, you can watch a significant portion of their catalog 24/7 all month. The value there is enormous.
Problem is, (1). surely the Police should be sorting out these problems rather than individuals taking the law into their own hands
As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." These individuals are not "taking the law into their own hands". They are taking their lives into their own hands.
And it is not the police's job to protect citizens. See Warren v. District of Columbia
> I don't think you know what "spurious" means. If you pay for three hours and stay 3:15, that's a legitimate overage.
If it's a free car park and it is there for the benefit of cinemagoers, yes I'd say a 15 minute overstay when it's a particularly long film is spurious.
Spurious: Not being what it purports to be; false or fake: "spurious claims".
There is nothing false about their claim that you overstayed the three hours. As I said above, 80 pounds is certainly an excessive charge for 15 minutes of parking, but it is in no way a spurious claim. If you had parked there for 2.5 hours and the company claimed you were there for 3.25, then that would be a spurious claim.
To relate it to the main topic, $7500 is too much of a fine for the offense, but if the person did download the movie illegally, then the fee/fine/penalty is unjust, not spurious.
> Also, can private companies issue a ticket in the UK, or are you saying they just request that you pay more with a piece of paper?
Private companies cannot issue a fine.
If they have suffered a loss for which you are responsible, they can ask you to reimburse them for the loss - but in this example, the car park is free. So what's the loss?
The loss is revenue to the owner and/or operator. If the parking is "free" to you, then the cinema is likely subsidizing your parking, and that allows you to park for three hours for free (or perhaps the parking company just allows the first three hours for free hoping people will park longer so they can collect additional revenue). If you exceed this limit, then the cost of your parking is no longer covered, and someone should pay, whether or not you think it's fair. If you don't like those terms, park somewhere else or don't go. There is a cinema that I attend regularly with this exact policy: three hours free to me because the cinema pays the parking company for the first three hours. I exceed this limit sometimes (getting there early, 2.5+ hour movie, etc...) and I pay the overage of a few dollars when I leave. That's fair to me and should be to anyone who appreciates capitalism.
The third-party company invents a spurious reason to ticket you. (eg. "You stayed over three hours in this car park!" when parking at to the cinema to see a film that is 3 hours 15 minutes long).
I don't think you know what "spurious" means. If you pay for three hours and stay 3:15, that's a legitimate overage. The amount "ticketed" may be excessive, but if you only are supposed to get three hours, pay more or leave before your time is up. Also, can private companies issue a ticket in the UK, or are you saying they just request that you pay more with a piece of paper?
For me, the ads aren't really the problem on webpages any longer. It's the awful cluttered formatting. Every article I read lately has several breaks in the text for unrelated videos or headlines for other articles, and 1/4 to 1/3 of the right side of the page is just a mess of other crap I'm not interested in. Plus, multi-page articles that are only six or eight paragraphs to begin with, just to get more page impressions. That is a sure way to get me to never visit your site again.
I'd really like a browser that just gives me the text that I want to read - I'll even take an old-school banner ad at the top if it gets rid of all of the other crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the writer of a decent show to watch Dexter.
Back to the Future
The excuse for "bad physics becoming a pivotal plot point" is always story. If it serves the story, do it. I'd much rather watch a hugely entertaining film like Gravity with a few inaccuracies than one that gets the physics absolutely correct but suffers because of it. Whenever I watch a film that is not a pure documentary and set on/above Earth, I just imagine it's in a universe similar to ours, but has differences that just happen to help the plot. It is just entertainment, after all.
You can always disable that key, or as at least one of my friends has done, remove the physical key from they keyboard.
He just verified the statement with the NSA.
Because they can charge $4 for the 32 oz. "Small" soda. The actual soda costs pennies, so it doesn't matter much if they serve you 20 oz or 32 oz, they just want you to pay $4 for a soda. It's the same reason restaurants charge $20 for a meal that no average person could finish. They have a minimum they want you to spend, and as long as people keep paying for it, you end up with more soda/popcorn/food than is consumable.
Like it or not, studios are out to make money, not great movies. For all they're concerned, every movie could be a Chipmunks sequel.
That's my point. The movie is attempting to tackle a societal issue using futuristic technology - the premise at least is not "explosion porn". Whether or not is succeeds at tackling that is irrelevant to my statement.
I think the promotion is a side effect of legitimate questions being asked about its premise. Aren't you curious if this is possible in the foreseeable future? At least it's more "real" science-fiction than something like Transformers.
I'd prefer a system in which every other year - let's say even years - are for passing laws and odd years are only for repealing laws.
So it "certainly wasn't the blockbuster it was supposed to be" is now a flop? Flop implies disaster - an immediate loss with no hope of ever seeing a profit. Most of the movies people think of as flops just didn't meet expectations, and may make a profit or come close with foreign sales, merchandising, DVD/TV rights, etc... If you want to know what a flop is, look up Town and Country or Cutthroat Island.
Superman Returns made $200M+ domestically, was the 6th highest grossing film of 2006, and made more than Wolverine did 3 years earlier, which means it sold many more tickets. Just because it's budget was high doesn't mean a decent gross makes it a flop. I'm sure they wanted it to make a billion dollars, but close to $400M in 2006 was pretty good.
I explained Green Lantern in a post above. Still, it did gross over $100M. The poster's point was that flops of superhero movies happen, but they are rare.
Lone Ranger was a bad idea from the start - no name recognition with most of the movie-going audience, and your only star is unrecognizable? Plus, it's not a superhero movie.
I'd hardly call the first two movies "recent". X-Men Origins: Wolverine Worldwide gross - $373,062,864; Domestic $179,883,157. How is that a flop?
The top two movies from last year were superhero movies. None of the X-Men movies or Avengers movies have flopped (arguably The Hulk was disappointing, but flop might be strong). The Spider-man reboot from last year made over $200M domestically, and that was a reboot of a franchise that was only 10 years old. The flops have been movies like Green Lantern, where any 12 year old could have told you it would flop before the script was written. And the real reason that was a flop is because they budgeted it like it was an Avengers movie and they expected those box-office numbers. If they had done a $50M Green Lantern movie with a decent script, it might have made a profit.
Stars don't have very much to do with how a movie does any longer. Look at After Earth, The Lone Ranger, or any of the last three Tom Hanks movies (total gross of all three $100M). Tom Cruise hasn't had a $100M movie that wasn't a Mission: Impossible sequel in eight years (maybe that's making your argument - is he really a star anymore?)
Re #3: The superhero movies/sequels haven't flopped. Look at Box Office Mojo. Those movies are doing very well. The movies listed for this article are neither superhero movies or sequels. The thing is, people usually want familiarity, and Hollywood movies that know that usually make money. That's unfortunate for those of us that like original movies, but it's not going to change anytime soon. If you really want great original writing, just look at the newer TV shows that critics love - most are better than any movie of the last five years.
Weird tastes? Just since the beginning of the year I have watched (by streaming) the following: Cheers, The Office, Breaking Bad, Psych, Burn Notice, Frasier, Archer, several not-very-obscure British series (Sherlock, etc...), and perhaps a dozen mainstream (made actual money when theatrically released) movies, Hunger Games and MI:4 included. I see nothing "weird" in that list. Perhaps you need to revisit Netflix.com.
The "savings on warehouse and postage" they "keep for themselves" is put towards the enormous bandwidth that this article is about, plus some profit that companies are supposed to make for their shareholders.
If you're getting internet from Comcast, you already get the OTA channels unencrypted for free - just plug in the coax to any tuner.
With streaming, you're paying for instant access. Yes, you can get any DVD from them for $8 a month, and you have to wait, at minimum, two days after you select your title, to arrive. Then you have to return it before they'll ship another. That's a big inconvenience compared to streaming. I also am on the DVD plan, but I consider it a nice addition to streaming, not the main draw. If you were just on the $8 DVD plan, you could, at most, watch about 40 hours a month (a four hour TV disc every three days). With streaming, you can watch a significant portion of their catalog 24/7 all month. The value there is enormous.
$8 is less than the cost of a matinee movie, and that's too much to pay monthly for potentially thousands of hours of video?
Problem is, (1). surely the Police should be sorting out these problems rather than individuals taking the law into their own hands
As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." These individuals are not "taking the law into their own hands". They are taking their lives into their own hands.
And it is not the police's job to protect citizens. See Warren v. District of Columbia
> I don't think you know what "spurious" means. If you pay for three hours and stay 3:15, that's a legitimate overage.
If it's a free car park and it is there for the benefit of cinemagoers, yes I'd say a 15 minute overstay when it's a particularly long film is spurious.
Spurious: Not being what it purports to be; false or fake: "spurious claims".
There is nothing false about their claim that you overstayed the three hours. As I said above, 80 pounds is certainly an excessive charge for 15 minutes of parking, but it is in no way a spurious claim. If you had parked there for 2.5 hours and the company claimed you were there for 3.25, then that would be a spurious claim.
To relate it to the main topic, $7500 is too much of a fine for the offense, but if the person did download the movie illegally, then the fee/fine/penalty is unjust, not spurious.
> Also, can private companies issue a ticket in the UK, or are you saying they just request that you pay more with a piece of paper?
Private companies cannot issue a fine.
If they have suffered a loss for which you are responsible, they can ask you to reimburse them for the loss - but in this example, the car park is free. So what's the loss?
The loss is revenue to the owner and/or operator. If the parking is "free" to you, then the cinema is likely subsidizing your parking, and that allows you to park for three hours for free (or perhaps the parking company just allows the first three hours for free hoping people will park longer so they can collect additional revenue). If you exceed this limit, then the cost of your parking is no longer covered, and someone should pay, whether or not you think it's fair. If you don't like those terms, park somewhere else or don't go. There is a cinema that I attend regularly with this exact policy: three hours free to me because the cinema pays the parking company for the first three hours. I exceed this limit sometimes (getting there early, 2.5+ hour movie, etc...) and I pay the overage of a few dollars when I leave. That's fair to me and should be to anyone who appreciates capitalism.
The third-party company invents a spurious reason to ticket you. (eg. "You stayed over three hours in this car park!" when parking at to the cinema to see a film that is 3 hours 15 minutes long).
I don't think you know what "spurious" means. If you pay for three hours and stay 3:15, that's a legitimate overage. The amount "ticketed" may be excessive, but if you only are supposed to get three hours, pay more or leave before your time is up. Also, can private companies issue a ticket in the UK, or are you saying they just request that you pay more with a piece of paper?
For me, the ads aren't really the problem on webpages any longer. It's the awful cluttered formatting. Every article I read lately has several breaks in the text for unrelated videos or headlines for other articles, and 1/4 to 1/3 of the right side of the page is just a mess of other crap I'm not interested in. Plus, multi-page articles that are only six or eight paragraphs to begin with, just to get more page impressions. That is a sure way to get me to never visit your site again. I'd really like a browser that just gives me the text that I want to read - I'll even take an old-school banner ad at the top if it gets rid of all of the other crap.
this looks more like a tiny cock is being swirled around the guy's mouth rather than tiny tongue.
We all see what we want to see!