It doesn’t make the article wrong, but the Kevin Spacey movie is a terrible example to use here: “I’d argue that this paltry opening has nothing to do with the

It doesn’t make the article wrong, but the Kevin Spacey movie is a terrible example to use here: “I’d argue that this paltry opening has nothing to do with the objective quality of the film, but rather with no one wanting to be seen as the person they believe people would perceive them as if it were known that they paid to watch a movie starring an accused serial sexual abuser. Further, I’d argue that this film will do moderately well once it moves out of theaters, as those who are curious — but not curious enough to risk being perceived as Spacey sympathizers — will watch it in their homes, out of sight of the approval economy.” Quite obviously the film made no money because there was no promotion and almost no distribution. There was no attempt to make money. And equally obvious, of course more people will see it once it’s available outside of that tiny handful of theaters. That will be the first time any of those people will be able to see it at all.