4 ms·

Because you've been tricked into thinking $30 isn't so bad compared to $100, when you should be demanding $20 for the cinema for all four of your family, instea

Because you've been tricked into thinking $30 isn't so bad compared to $100, when you should be demanding $20 for the cinema for all four of your family, instead of rolling over and saying, "Jeez, I sure got a deal." That's what the Overton Window is all about: making one option artificially bad so that you don't negotiate and take whatever other option they give you. But if everyone just shuffles along and opens their wallets to whatever the studios ask for, they will absolutely charge more.

criddell 5y ago
When I mentioned $100, that was for food and the movie. Second, we can all go to the movies for $20 and even less if we are willing to wait. There are "dollar" theaters where tickets are less than $5. But, if we want to see a new movie and want to go to the modern theater with a full menu, comfy seats, and a great sound system, then it costs more. $12 / ticket for 90+ minutes of entertainment doesn't seem out of line. The same goes for watching movies at home. We can get plenty for free if we are willing to sit through commercials or watch one of thousands we have available through services we subscribe to. But if we want to watch the new thing tonight, it's $30.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  > if we want to watch the new thing tonight Which is what 1/2 of the article we are discussing is about: The way we are herded into spending our hard-earned money on the need for "the new thing" by marketing and manipulation. Your position is "I need to entertain myself and my kids and they want the new shiny thing", my position is, "You're being conned out of your money for shit you don't need." I'm being wildly judgemental because I look at people who need "the new thing" as suckers, aaaand I also think it brings us all down, because now all the money goes into paying Scarlet Johansen $50M to make the same movie five times and we miss out interesting/engaging cinematography.
  - criddell 5y ago
    > Your position is "I need to entertain myself and my kids and they want the new shiny thing" No it isn't. It has nothing to do with need. > we miss out interesting/engaging cinematography When was a better time for movies and television? 2021 was a bad year, but before that there were more than two movies released every day in the US. You couldn't find anything interesting in those 800 titles?
    - SavantIdiot 5y ago
      Huh? Well, since you replied: I'm not the one spending $30 on top of my monthly fee to rent some cheesy remake of the same bland film and calling it a bargain. I prefer my fun a little less canned and a little more engaging. But I don't have kids so I don't know how to entertain them, and perhaps I'd feel the same way if for some reason I found myself with four kids. Although I'd probably be like my friends who make board games with their kids and have banned TV (good luck to them when the kids hit 13).

criddell 5y ago

When I mentioned $100, that was for food and the movie. Second, we can all go to the movies for $20 and even less if we are willing to wait. There are "dollar" theaters where tickets are less than $5. But, if we want to see a new movie and want to go to the modern theater with a full menu, comfy seats, and a great sound system, then it costs more. $12 / ticket for 90+ minutes of entertainment doesn't seem out of line. The same goes for watching movies at home. We can get plenty for free if we are willing to sit through commercials or watch one of thousands we have available through services we subscribe to. But if we want to watch the new thing tonight, it's $30.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
> if we want to watch the new thing tonight Which is what 1/2 of the article we are discussing is about: The way we are herded into spending our hard-earned money on the need for "the new thing" by marketing and manipulation. Your position is "I need to entertain myself and my kids and they want the new shiny thing", my position is, "You're being conned out of your money for shit you don't need." I'm being wildly judgemental because I look at people who need "the new thing" as suckers, aaaand I also think it brings us all down, because now all the money goes into paying Scarlet Johansen $50M to make the same movie five times and we miss out interesting/engaging cinematography.
- criddell 5y ago
  > Your position is "I need to entertain myself and my kids and they want the new shiny thing" No it isn't. It has nothing to do with need. > we miss out interesting/engaging cinematography When was a better time for movies and television? 2021 was a bad year, but before that there were more than two movies released every day in the US. You couldn't find anything interesting in those 800 titles?
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    Huh? Well, since you replied: I'm not the one spending $30 on top of my monthly fee to rent some cheesy remake of the same bland film and calling it a bargain. I prefer my fun a little less canned and a little more engaging. But I don't have kids so I don't know how to entertain them, and perhaps I'd feel the same way if for some reason I found myself with four kids. Although I'd probably be like my friends who make board games with their kids and have banned TV (good luck to them when the kids hit 13).