4 ms·

I stopped buying movies and going to the movies for the same three reasons: 1. The often unskippable advertisements, anti-piracy warnings and FBI warnings on B

by od2m 13y ago

I stopped buying movies and going to the movies for the same three reasons: 1. The often unskippable advertisements, anti-piracy warnings and FBI warnings on Blurays. 2. Most movies now have 30 mins of advertisements before them in theatres. 3. Hollywood isn't making good films anymore. In other words, Hollywood is making shit products. They're just surprised that we're not buying them anymore.

vinceguidry 13y ago
You can't explain the decline of the DVD market with only your own reaction to the product. Most people aren't as unreasonable as you are.
- everyone 13y ago
  Yes anecdotal evidence is useless, but you consider not agreeing to sit through 30 mins of ads before you see something that you already paid €10 for is 'unreasonable' !? In that case I am far more unreasonable. I dont support MPAA, RIAA, etc. involved companies at all. My reasoning is that by supporting them you are supporting their lobbyists who will then introduce crazy laws like ACTA and SOPA. I'm just patiently waiting for them to die off.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    > Yes anecdotal evidence is useless, but you consider not agreeing to sit through 30 mins of ads before you see something that you already paid €10 for is 'unreasonable' !? Yes, I do. Ads are a cheap way to make something profitable that would otherwise not be. You should be thankful we even have theaters these days. If you think it is unreasonable, why don't you find something better to do with your time and money? You could make a nice dinner for two with €10 and have a much better time than you would being angry at ads and those rich assholes in Hollywood. Nobody's forcing you to watch films.
    - everyone 13y ago
      Well, I dont. As I said above "I dont support MPAA, RIAA, etc. involved companies at all" However I think yer man above who does goto the cinema is not being unreasonable. Though I do agree he would be better of doing as I do as u suggested and give it all a miss.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      >Yes, I do. Ads are a cheap way to make something profitable that would otherwise not be. You should be thankful we even have theaters these days. Nonsense. If I wanted to watch ads I'd be home watching television, not paying ten bucks a head in the theater.
      - vinceguidry 13y ago
        People pay for cable and it has ads. So do magazines, newspapers. EVERY form of media is ad-driven, whether you're paying out of pocket for it or not. Video games often contain ads for other games. Sorry to burst your bubble.
        tsotha 13y ago
        I don't see why you think anyone's "bubble" has been burst. In the long run theaters won't survive if they show ads.
        dagw 13y ago
        In the short run theaters won't survive if the don't.
        tsotha 13y ago
        Well then, if you own stock in a theater company you should probably sell, because they're doomed.
    - od2m 13y ago
      >If you think it is unreasonable, why don't you find something better to do with your time and money? You could make a nice dinner for two with €10 and have a much better time than you would being angry at ads and those rich assholes in Hollywood. Nobody's forcing you to watch films. You realize that's EXACTLY I and millions of others are doing right? That in fact that exact phenomenon which you suggest is what caused this article to be written?
- MostAwesomeDude 13y ago
  Current sociological research pretty heavily points to consumer disillusion and annoyance with the behavior of studios as the reason that they decide to pirate, to not go to theaters, and to pursue alternative forms of entertainment. Most people are just as "unreasonable" as the grandparent, which is to say that they are highly reasonable and you are the unreasonable one. I don't know if you remember a film from about forty years ago, where the general public was exhorted to admit that they were, in fact, "mad as hell," and as result, "not gonna take it any more." People are currently mad as hell, and now we're seeing them decide (unsurprisingly) to not take it any more.
- ams6110 13y ago
  I think it's quite obvious that the DVD market declined due to a combination of low perceived value, unreasonable inconvenience, and extremely fragile media. Assuming people are like me and rarely watch a movie more than once unless it's exceptionally good, why pay $20-$30 or more for a DVD when you can rent it at RedBox for a buck or watch it on demand or on Netflix. OK I bought the disk, but I can't make a backup copy or skip the ads and previews? Oops, I dropped it or my kids got ahold of it, and now there is a little scratch on the disk, and it's entirely unplayable. Tapes were far more rugged, if slightly bulkier.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    > I think it's quite obvious that the DVD market declined due to a combination of low perceived value, unreasonable inconvenience, and extremely fragile media. Why would you say DVDs are fragile? Disk media replaced tapes, which were much more so. Markets don't decline due to negative reasons. People are generally willing to put up with a subjectively poor experience if its absence would be worse. Instead they die when something else offers something better. In this case, Netflix. It is not poor DVD quality that stopped people from buying them, it's Netflix and competitors. If DVDs sucked, they never would have replaced video tapes.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      VHS tapes, being entirely enclosed in the cassette, are far more protected from accidental damage than are DVDs which are naked platters and will be rendered unplayable by minor scratches.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  >Most people aren't as unreasonable as you are. Surely you are joking? What about parent's position strikes you as unreasonable?

by od2m 13y ago

vinceguidry 13y ago

You can't explain the decline of the DVD market with only your own reaction to the product. Most people aren't as unreasonable as you are.

everyone 13y ago
Yes anecdotal evidence is useless, but you consider not agreeing to sit through 30 mins of ads before you see something that you already paid €10 for is 'unreasonable' !? In that case I am far more unreasonable. I dont support MPAA, RIAA, etc. involved companies at all. My reasoning is that by supporting them you are supporting their lobbyists who will then introduce crazy laws like ACTA and SOPA. I'm just patiently waiting for them to die off.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  > Yes anecdotal evidence is useless, but you consider not agreeing to sit through 30 mins of ads before you see something that you already paid €10 for is 'unreasonable' !? Yes, I do. Ads are a cheap way to make something profitable that would otherwise not be. You should be thankful we even have theaters these days. If you think it is unreasonable, why don't you find something better to do with your time and money? You could make a nice dinner for two with €10 and have a much better time than you would being angry at ads and those rich assholes in Hollywood. Nobody's forcing you to watch films.
  - everyone 13y ago
    Well, I dont. As I said above "I dont support MPAA, RIAA, etc. involved companies at all" However I think yer man above who does goto the cinema is not being unreasonable. Though I do agree he would be better of doing as I do as u suggested and give it all a miss.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >Yes, I do. Ads are a cheap way to make something profitable that would otherwise not be. You should be thankful we even have theaters these days. Nonsense. If I wanted to watch ads I'd be home watching television, not paying ten bucks a head in the theater.
    - vinceguidry 13y ago
      People pay for cable and it has ads. So do magazines, newspapers. EVERY form of media is ad-driven, whether you're paying out of pocket for it or not. Video games often contain ads for other games. Sorry to burst your bubble.
      - tsotha 13y ago
        I don't see why you think anyone's "bubble" has been burst. In the long run theaters won't survive if they show ads.
        dagw 13y ago
        In the short run theaters won't survive if the don't.
        tsotha 13y ago
        Well then, if you own stock in a theater company you should probably sell, because they're doomed.
  - od2m 13y ago
    >If you think it is unreasonable, why don't you find something better to do with your time and money? You could make a nice dinner for two with €10 and have a much better time than you would being angry at ads and those rich assholes in Hollywood. Nobody's forcing you to watch films. You realize that's EXACTLY I and millions of others are doing right? That in fact that exact phenomenon which you suggest is what caused this article to be written?
MostAwesomeDude 13y ago
Current sociological research pretty heavily points to consumer disillusion and annoyance with the behavior of studios as the reason that they decide to pirate, to not go to theaters, and to pursue alternative forms of entertainment. Most people are just as "unreasonable" as the grandparent, which is to say that they are highly reasonable and you are the unreasonable one. I don't know if you remember a film from about forty years ago, where the general public was exhorted to admit that they were, in fact, "mad as hell," and as result, "not gonna take it any more." People are currently mad as hell, and now we're seeing them decide (unsurprisingly) to not take it any more.
ams6110 13y ago
I think it's quite obvious that the DVD market declined due to a combination of low perceived value, unreasonable inconvenience, and extremely fragile media. Assuming people are like me and rarely watch a movie more than once unless it's exceptionally good, why pay $20-$30 or more for a DVD when you can rent it at RedBox for a buck or watch it on demand or on Netflix. OK I bought the disk, but I can't make a backup copy or skip the ads and previews? Oops, I dropped it or my kids got ahold of it, and now there is a little scratch on the disk, and it's entirely unplayable. Tapes were far more rugged, if slightly bulkier.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  > I think it's quite obvious that the DVD market declined due to a combination of low perceived value, unreasonable inconvenience, and extremely fragile media. Why would you say DVDs are fragile? Disk media replaced tapes, which were much more so. Markets don't decline due to negative reasons. People are generally willing to put up with a subjectively poor experience if its absence would be worse. Instead they die when something else offers something better. In this case, Netflix. It is not poor DVD quality that stopped people from buying them, it's Netflix and competitors. If DVDs sucked, they never would have replaced video tapes.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    VHS tapes, being entirely enclosed in the cassette, are far more protected from accidental damage than are DVDs which are naked platters and will be rendered unplayable by minor scratches.
obstacle1 13y ago
>Most people aren't as unreasonable as you are. Surely you are joking? What about parent's position strikes you as unreasonable?