It’s expensive, often less comfortable than my own home, and I like theatre in which the crowd plays a part in the experience,
This is why I don’t understand the “big action movies need a cinema, small comedies you can watch at home” argument. My home theatre can replicate the big-screen action experience just fine, but a comedy with a crowd is immediately 35% funnier.
…which side of this argument are you on?
“There’s no benefit to physical media.” “Yes there is.” “Why are you defending corporations?”
…what?
This is false. Firstly, because people don’t subscribe to everything forever. But even in some Netflix utopia where everyone has a Netflix subscription, and they keep it forever, then what? Now you can’t make any more money, you’re making the maximum amount of money your business model can make. But you can keep people subscribed to your service by continuing to add new things, while also making extra money from those who would like to own physical copies.
Subscriptions detach income from titles, meaning all the service needs to do is exist and have things on it. There’s no budget to actually create anything special. Physical offers a way to reconnect those, making something that is more expensive and in return making more money.
The ad-based plans everyone is introducing run on the same logic. Subscriptions aren’t sustainable.
Clicking the link in Boost just opens it in my web browser. How do I actually subscribe?
You are, in fact, wrong.
No? Words mean things. Enshittification is a deliberately driven business model, you’re using it to describe random happenings.
Enshittification is a specific business model, not just “things becoming shit”.
“Enshittification” has an actual meaning, and this isn’t it.
It’s unambiguous that it’s not a person’s actual name.
Making double your budget is basically breaking even, once you account for marketing costs and the cinema’s cut of the take.
Video evidence is far more convincing than someone’s say-so.
Streaming doesn’t pay out per view, they just pay a lump sum up front to licence. If you’re not already a hit, that lump sum will be low, and if millions of people stream the film it makes the studio exactly zero dollars.
No it isn’t.
When I first saw the trailer on TV, I assumed it was a cat food ad spoofing movie trailers.
My understanding was that “millennial” was first coined to refer to those graduating in 2000.
None of the planes shown in the film ever left the ground.
Top Gun 2 was full of CGI…
Trailers have been full of spoilers since at least the 1930s.
There were people suggesting given the age of Bruce Wayne in Joker, that the Phoenix character probably wasn’t The Joker, merely an inspiration for him. Harley showing up in the sequel would seem to refute this theory.