Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The MPAA knows it has a flawed business model

By autonomous in Media
Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 10:29:07 PM EST
Tags: Movies (all tags)
Movies

The Motion Picture Association of America is a group that represents the interests of hollywood. This rant confirmed what I had always suspected, the MPAA has a flawed business model.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
As most people know, the United States is quite proud of the "Free Market" economy it sports. The gist of this economic system is that the laws of supply and demand, and proper management work to regulate the businesses and persons who operate within it. If a business knows its market and can create quality goods of value to the consumer they will be profitable (assuming there is also a system for distribution).

Now, the government has stated that instead of government regulation much of the market should be regulated by the ebb and flow of consumer will. Which is a good idea, there is no reason that governments should legislate unprofitable business into existence (or a continuance of existence), if a business is viable it will make due on its own. However, when we look at the rant the the Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, we realize that this is a group of people willing to defend their flawed business model to the death, and will pay the requisite number of crooked politicians to make it happen.

The rant basically states that because movies can be stolen, Hollywood is in danger of collapse, the government should pass laws to make this impossible, and while they are at it, they should require every computer have an unhackable (by force of law, not by technical merit) box to ensure nobody can steal the wondrously expensive intellectual property of this industry. I think they are looking at the issue all wrong, they state that only 2 in 10 movies make up their production costs in domestic distribution. That statement says to me that the industry is either not producing a quality product or, is not under good management and the product is too expensive for the market to effectively carry.

There are a good number of reasons to suspect both are the case, I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a good movie in a long time. I quite enjoy watching movies, but with only a few exceptions in the past few years I have repeatedly walked out of theater thinking about what that 8 or 10 or 15 dollars should have been used for instead. Poor writing, poor production, and the expectation Hollywood seems to have that I will drop my money just because they repackaged the same story line they used last year (or last week, or for the last 10 years). Couple that with the poor acting we see rewarded with a mind numbing fortune, couple that with the mind numbing among of money spent on making things explode, couple that with expensive soundtracks, couple that with the industry that has sprung up around Hollywood to rip money from the movie industry. Making movies has become unsustainable expensive and the product that is produced is of increasingly poor quality.

However, when movie producers try to reduce the cost of movies by moving them to Canada, or to smaller areas that don't yet have an industry setup to tear money from the movie industry as Hollywood does, they face an ugly protest from politicians, actors and the industry that sprung up to take advantage. I think this is an industry that needs a radical overhaul in order to survive, the internet and theft is not dooming this industry, it has doomed itself with a bad business model and poor management. Perhaps instead of insisting that stars make the movie, they should start insisting that script writers make the movie, and no longer neglect character development so they have time for that extra explosion. We heard the same terrible predictions when video tape came about, it will kill the industry, movies as we know them will cease to exist. In reality it lead to a rather booming movie rental industry that has become a crutch to recoup movie production costs. There is no copy protection, and yes, movies have been stolen, but I would be amazed if this amounted to even 1/100 of 1% of the number of movies rented yearly. There has always been theft, there will always be theft. The only reason this is making news now is because the computer is a new magical box that makes mundane things suddenly worth documenting in mainstream newspapers. I doubt the tale of users swapping videotapes using the telephone is really news.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o This rant
o Also by autonomous


Display: Sort:
The MPAA knows it has a flawed business model | 44 comments (37 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Equilibrium (4.00 / 6) (#3)
by Bad Harmony on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 01:57:19 PM EST

I would expect Hollywood, and the movie industry in general, to produce a large proportion of movies that are bombs. Consider that a hit movie can make many times the cost of production. As long as the potential profit is greater than the risk of failure, it is a viable business. If I make 10 movies at $20 million each, 2 of them are hits, and 8 of them are total losses, if the hits generate $400 million in profits, who cares about the 8 movies that bombed? With those profit margins, it may be worthwhile to produce even more movies, with marginal scripts and actors. The odds of success may be less, but still good enough to produce an overall profit.

5440' or Fight!

Real creativity is hit-and-miss (4.00 / 3) (#26)
by gidds on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 11:25:31 PM EST

If it came to a choice between studios making the same well-worn proven-audience-grabbing crap time and time again and having a hit with each one, or taking risks with original, creative, different scripts and techniques and having one or two hits out of ten, then I for one would much prefer the latter!

Shame we seem to be getting the worst of both worlds right now...

Andy/
[ Parent ]

Why 2 of 10? (4.00 / 8) (#5)
by karb on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 02:35:50 PM EST

It's just a free market thing. You don't need 20 million dollar salaries to field a basketball team. But after you've created a enormous financial juggernaut of a basketball league with mountains of TV contracts, merchandising, season ticket sales, etc., you bet your asteroids you need 20 million dollar salaries to field a basketball team.

In short form, if movies weren't distributed overseas, Everybody Who Made Movies Would Just Get Paid Less, and only 2 out of 10 movies would still get made. There are plenty of foreign movie markets that do just fine without overseas distribution.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

I think you're attacking the wrong problem (3.33 / 3) (#13)
by jesterzog on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 05:50:50 PM EST

In short form, if movies weren't distributed overseas, Everybody Who Made Movies Would Just Get Paid Less, and only 2 out of 10 movies would still get made. There are plenty of foreign movie markets that do just fine without overseas distribution.

Could you please clarify what you mean here. Certainly US movies are marketed overseas, but this happens because people in overseas countries want to buy them. And yes they do pay in money.

How would restricting the Hollywood movie industry's ability to sell to this market help anyone? All it really does is prevent the industry from bringing a whole lot more money into the US economy.

If the problem is with how that money is distributed once it's in the US then deal with that.


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
Oops, sorry (3.33 / 3) (#14)
by jesterzog on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 05:59:43 PM EST

Sorry, I think I mis-read your comment in the wrong context. If you're saying that a free market isn't a bad thing in this case then I guess I agree with you.


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
hee hee (4.50 / 6) (#17)
by karb on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 07:28:16 PM EST

yep ;)

Not proposing restricting US movies to domestic only, just saying that by expanding out to more markets, making more money, and consequently paying your people more and making more expensive movies is an artificial inflation, and not a basis for crying for regulation to save you.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

Nothing flawed about "some of them work" (4.33 / 3) (#10)
by seebs on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 03:16:40 PM EST

Venture capital has always used that model, too; most new ideas aren't worth it, but the ones that are make up for all the others. We've been using that model since the first person came up with an irrigation system that drowned the crops! It's not unique to hollywood, and it's not a sign of a "bad" industry. It's about par for a creative industry.

Good example, but you're proving his point. (4.75 / 8) (#20)
by Ranger Rick on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 09:44:05 PM EST

When the "internet bubble" venture capital firms realized that not enough of the companies they were incubating were going to make money, they dumped the extra ballast and became more picky.

This caused a minor recession in the short run, but will keep the VCs from heading down the spiral that Hollywood has already gone too far down. Hollywood is still churning out new films the way VCs churned out implosive IT companies 2 years ago.


:wq!


[ Parent ]
"Expensive soundtrack"? (4.28 / 7) (#11)
by Kasreyn on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 05:17:51 PM EST

Ok, maybe you just pushed one of my personal buttons... I don't know if you realize this, but film music composers ain't exactly rich men. Not that many of them are even getting employed these days, what with more and more producers thinking that slapping some big-name rock band all over the movie and assuming that it must be better art just because it's better publicity. Spare me from people snapping up "soundtracks" to movies like MI:2 and The Matrix, neither of which albums contained one second of original music.

Unless you mean, of course, the big glitzy sound effects budgets of most movies, which are indeed ridiculously overblown. Not to mention painful on the ears; good grief, do they use deaf people to test and calibrate the sound systems in theaters before they let the public in for the first showings? Since when did the worshippers of the Cult of the Volume God take over the theaters? It's hard to enjoy a movie when it feels like railroad spikes are being driven into your skull through your ear canals.

The rest of your article fails to say anything new about the failed (note I don't say flawed) business model of the RIAA and how they expect society to pick up the slack on their inability to do their own damned job right. Movies suck today, are overpriced, underthoughtful, overhyped, all alike, yadda yadda, heard it all before, but realized it myself even earlier (I can fix my total loss of all faith in / liking for Hollywood to a precise date: Oscars '94, though it was certainly slipping before then). Since your article lacks anything in closing to suggest what should be *done* about it, it comes across as more useless K5 hands-wringing and I'm tempted to -1 it even though I agree with you.

But I'll just leave this one to the other voters.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Oops, replace that "RIAA" with "MPA (3.50 / 2) (#12)
by Kasreyn on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 05:19:39 PM EST

Sigh, so many evil megacorp coalitions, just can't seem to keep them all straight any more. Must be old age setting in.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Small nit. (3.66 / 3) (#16)
by kwsNI on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 07:09:11 PM EST

Spare me from people snapping up "soundtracks" to movies like MI:2 and The Matrix, neither of which albums contained one second of original music.
That's technically incorrect. I understand the point you are making, but I know at least some of the songs on those soundtracks were original songs (I Disappear by Metillica is the first that comes to mind).

kwsNI
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
[ Parent ]
Metallica??? (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by schrotie on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 08:23:40 PM EST

Apologies in advance: Metallica hasn't made anything mightily original for a decade or something. I must admit though that they play fantastic Metallica cover versions.
Original film music is pronounced Goran Bregovic (to give just one example. No, right: not Hollywood, what'd you expect?).

Regards

Thorsten

[ Parent ]

Philip Glass? (3.50 / 2) (#23)
by Robert S Gormley on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 11:18:37 PM EST

Who did the Koyaanisqatsi soundtrack - awesome film btw.

[ Parent ]
Right (4.33 / 3) (#24)
by gidds on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 11:20:31 PM EST

Indeed. ; I'm holding here the CD of the Original Motion Picture Score of The Matrix: over 30 minutes of original music composed, orchestrated and conducted by Don Davis.

Okay, it's not a lot, and it's not particularly tuneful, but then it was written to support and enhance the movie, not to stand on its own, which is how things should be.

Andy/
[ Parent ]

Scores can score. (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by static on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 05:06:13 PM EST

A really good movie score will mean you can relive the movie by just listening to it. The score for Princess Mononoke can do that, and so can the score for The Wings of Honneamise (though you'll have to copy that off the DVD :-).

Wade.

[ Parent ]

The greatest for that: (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by kwsNI on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 09:58:10 PM EST

Jurrasic Park (John Williams). Every time I put on that soundtrack, I can just watch the movie in my head as the soundtrack plays. It's great for driving.

kwsNI
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
[ Parent ]
Great for *WHAT*???? (4.00 / 1) (#41)
by gordonjcp on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 10:34:56 AM EST

I really hope you never drive anywhere busy, if you're mentally watching Jurassic Park... :-)
(He said, going off to pilot an elderly Citroen down the M80 to Glasgow, at ridiculous speeds, listening to Dark Side of the Moon, while visualising The Wizard of OZ...)

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Expensive soundtrack (4.33 / 3) (#18)
by wiml on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 08:08:15 PM EST

Perhaps I should let the original poster speak for themselves, but I assumed that the reference to "expensive soundtracks" in the article was a reference to "slapping some big-name rock band all over the movie and assuming that it must be better art".

[ Parent ]
Forget the soundtrack (4.00 / 5) (#21)
by Tatarigami on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 10:33:40 PM EST

What you want is the score of the movie -- if it has one. Soundtracks are just one more piece of merchandising stamped out by the movie revenue cookie cutter, the score is the music composed for and used in the movie itself. Just as an example, the Bladerunner score by Vangelis is considered to be one of the finer efforts of the 20th century in this arena (though quite difficult to get hold of at one point).

After hearing the Blade soundtrack, which contained one song from the movie (the mainly instrumental techno piece Confusion by New Order) and a whole passal of hip hop tracks 'inspired by' the movie, I hurled it across the room and swore never to buy another soundtrack.

[ Parent ]
Yeah.. (3.00 / 2) (#27)
by Danse on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 11:33:47 PM EST

My girlfriend bought me the Blade soundtrack sometime shortly after we saw the movie. I basically had the same reaction as you. It sucked, horribly. I've avoided soundtracks ever since too.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
On "soundtracks" vs. movie scores (4.00 / 2) (#32)
by 87C751 on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 09:25:50 AM EST

I heartily agree. Remember the big flap over the Batman "soundtrack", which contained not one second of Danny Elfman's wonderfully dark score?

I was really surprised a year or so ago, when I saw 'Girl, interrupted'. The score was really compelling, and I decided to take a chance on the soundtrack, if only to remind me of the incidental music. To my wonder, the CD contains the full score of the movie!

Sometimes they get it right. (just not often enough)


My ranting place.
[ Parent ]

Darren Aronofsky and Kronos Quartet (3.50 / 4) (#22)
by Pseudoephedrine on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 10:39:45 PM EST

I think you might like Pi and Requiem for a Dream, two movies from Darren Aronofsky, then. He has all of his music specially written and played for him by the Kronos Quartet, and it's absolutely fantastic. Watching Requiem for a Dream the other day reminded me of just how much a truly great soundtrack can elevate a great movie just that little bit more. It's probably not a coincidence that he's basically an art-house director outside the Hollywood machine.

If you buy only one CD this year, pick up RfD's soundtrack and be pleasantly surprised.


"We who have passed through their hands feel suffocated when we think of that legion, which is stripped bare of human ideals" -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
[ Parent ]
Close. (4.00 / 3) (#30)
by Mr Tom on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 06:03:44 AM EST

Aranofsky's films featured music written by Clint Mansell, from Pop Will Eat itself. Pi alos had a lot of other music, from Massive Attack, Autechre, and the Aphex Twin.
The Kronos quartet played on the R4AD soundtrack.
However, both are excellent films, with equally excellent soundtracks.
Also: Aranofsky has 2 films in the works at the moment. The second of which is the next Batman film. Sometimes, I have hope for the film industry. :-)
-- Mr_Tom<at>gmx.co.uk

I am a consultant. My job is to make your job redundant.
[ Parent ]

Not about the art (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Bear Cub on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 03:26:47 PM EST

Not that many of them are even getting employed these days, what with more and more producers thinking that slapping some big-name rock band all over the movie and assuming that it must be better art just because it's better publicity. Spare me from people snapping up "soundtracks" to movies like MI:2 and The Matrix, neither of which albums contained one second of original music.
Actually, I know someone who worked for many years as an executive in the music industry. A while back we were talking about how soundtracks seemed to be on the rise. Her explanation went like this:

It's hard to promote a record. Unless it's a complete runaway hit on radio and MTV, you don't have much chance of making that pile of cash you're looking for.

On the other hand, a whole lotta people see a hit movie. If you can use that movie to sell them a compilation soundtrack (which can have something for everyone, and costs $0 to produce), you're now talking about extremely effective marketing of an extremely profitable product.

Anyway, that's how she put it. Using a movie to sell a soundtrack can be extremely lucrative. Slapping the latest techo-crap over the opening credits has nothing to do with art. The movie studio sold that slot like Superbowl comercial time.

------------------------------------- Bear Cub now posts as Christopher.
[ Parent ]

Worth Noting (3.66 / 3) (#15)
by Neuromancer on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 06:57:52 PM EST

Is that this is another attack at a policy that they tried to set into place last year though a standards organization (it was ANSI or ISO, I don't remember which).

Innovation (4.50 / 6) (#25)
by LilDebbie on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 11:22:48 PM EST

As for the third charge -- that copyrighted movies are destroying digital innovation -- what the critics mean by "innovation" is legalizing the breaking of protection codes, without which there is no protection.

It appears that Mr. Valenti's idea of what innovation isn't would lead us to a world where simple, letter replacement encryption is the norm because it should be illegal to think of anything better.

Oh well, more preaching to the choir...

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Die, Hollywood, die! (4.40 / 10) (#28)
by JWhiton on Tue Feb 26, 2002 at 11:46:21 PM EST

Forgive me if I take a minor point in the article and run with it, but you say that Valenti claims that Hollywood is in danger of collapse because of people getting free movies over the Internet.

But frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. I think the world would be a much better place if Hollywood shriveled up and died tomorrow.

Most movies that hit the US cinemas these days are formulaic tripe. Most moviegoers care more about the, uh, "meta" aspects of a movie ("Who's in it?" "Are there any people I know that are going to it?") rather than the quality of the movie itself. The "star" aspect is especially important: People will see movies that have big-name actors/actresses in it regardless of whether sucks or not. Hollywood has known this for its entire existence. To borrow a phrase from Neal Stephenson, it's all about putting asses in seats.

What Valenti is trying to tell the public, and what most of America will believe, is that if Hollywood becomes a ghost town tomorrow, there will be no movies in the future. Ya might as well just stare at the wall on Saturday night, and Julia Roberts et al will be forced to get real jobs.

Most mildly intelligent people realize this is hogwash. They know that you can make movies without a gigantic corporation giving you blank checks and without the latest schmuck who graced the cover of People magazine in the lead role. (*) Furthermore, you can make good movies without those elements. A great example is the movie Clerks. There are only a couple of different settings, and none of the actors were even remotely famous. But it launched Kevin Smith's career, and it was a great movie.

I can't wait for the day when film studios can't use the Brad Pitt's of the world to make the unwashed masses flock to their movie. Maybe then the only movies people see will be movies like Clerks, where someone actually cared about the quality of the film. If it takes a total collapse of Hollywood, then so be it. I sure won't miss it.

(*) Haha, if you ever need proof of my geekiness: When I wrote that sentence, I saw I used the word "without" twice. I immediately thought, "Hey, I could factor that!" Time to lighten up on the math homework...

Not all Hollywood movies stink (none / 0) (#44)
by humpasaur on Tue Apr 02, 2002 at 04:52:24 AM EST

I can't wait for the day when film studios can't use the Brad Pitt's of the world to make the unwashed masses flock to their movie. Maybe then the only movies people see will be movies like Clerks, where someone actually cared about the quality of the film.

I know what you mean about star power driving crappy movies, but I am slightly amazed at how many movies Brad Pitt has been in that are actually really good.

I mean, Fight Club obviously...And Kalifornia if only for the Lucky Lager line...


----

*sigh* Must I explain FURTHER?
[ Parent ]

The other night (3.87 / 8) (#29)
by RandomPeon on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 04:45:31 AM EST

I recently paid a relatively good chunk of money ($45) to see a good live theater performance. Looking throught the program, I noticed that the theater receives a few million dollars a year in donations. Got me thinking: Hollywood makes pretty good movies, charges a lot less, and needs no handouts.

Compared to movies, live theater is incredibly inefficient. You need to execute the performance dozens of times, your audience size is constrained by how many people will fit around the stage and replicating the performance in simultaneous locations is prohibitively expensive. Film is so superior from a cost perspective - act it once, and each additional performance costs almost nothing. Live theater survives only because of handouts and snobs who think it makes them special that they paid too much for a ticket (oh, that's me).

And that's the way it should be. New technologies almost always have disruptive effects. Mr. Valenti is concerned about what broadband will do to his business. But the film industry's rise directly lead to the downfall of live theater. That's the way of the world, whatever economic system you live - technology changes things.

Suppose live theater once had the clout of the MPAA. They'd demand legistlation that made it illegal to show films more than 30 miles from where they were made. After all, new technology shouldn't be an excuse to drive somebody out of business....

Oh wait, that would be incredibly fucking stupid. And Cisco's annual losses alone from the SCSSA mandates would exceed the grosses of every film made last year.

I don't think I can agree with you (4.00 / 5) (#33)
by autonomous on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 10:27:09 AM EST

I'm sorry, I must be a snob, I quite enjoy live theatre. In fact, I enjoy live theatre so much I married a theatre actress. In reality most theatre shows get very very little money, they must make it all back on ticket sales. I regularily attend 3 different theatre groups performances, and although they have all run for more than 15 years, they have never received even $10,000 in arts grants. Basicly, their arts grants pay for the paper to print the tickets on each year.

As for product, I've found there is nothing better than a well written show from a good playwrite. Without special effects, and the ability to do thousands of takes and vary camera angles these people have to resort to things like story, characterization and acting to keep people interested. And even better, many of the playwrites are accessable, you can call them up for coffee after a show and discuss the meaning of their play. (Ok, that might be just me) All in all for dollar spent on entertainment I think live theatre is a much better way to go.
-- Always remember you are nothing more than a collection of complementary chemicals worth not more than $5.00
[ Parent ]
lesson in Missing The Point (nt) (2.66 / 3) (#36)
by speek on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 12:35:05 PM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

The Great Lie (4.75 / 4) (#31)
by Nomad on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 06:48:01 AM EST

The movie industry has always banged on about how few movies make money. They used to always quote the figure of 1 in 10. I see that it has now doubled to 2 in 10.

Whatever. The fact is that this is the Great Movie Industry Lie. Most movies end up making money. May be not at the box office, but certainly once they are out on video and cable. The 2 in 10 figure is artificial partly because of the cross-subsidy accounting practices they use. It is also useful for them in a financial sense because the industry can offset their 'losses' against the gains made by the 2 in 10.

Moral of the story: don't believe anything they tell you.

Note also (4.00 / 1) (#35)
by Wah on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 12:11:09 PM EST

that the 2 in 10 statistic is for domestic distribution. It doesn't even account for theatre revenue from the other 95% of the people on the planet. Nor any other of the many revenue streams available.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
The Great Lie is NOT a Lie (4.00 / 1) (#37)
by hardcorejon on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 03:01:24 PM EST

The "2 in 10" figure is probably true.

What is misleading, what they don't tell you, is that those 2 movies that made money made MAD FAT CASH - much more than enough to cover the 8 that lost money.

There are a lot of industries like this: wildcat drilling for oil, venture capital investments etc. The business model is such that you EXPECT to have a lot of flops, but the few times you hit the target, you rake in the dough.

- jonathan.

[ Parent ]
Don't go to movies. (3.33 / 3) (#34)
by Icehouseman on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 11:38:36 AM EST

I will not go to a movie unless:
1. It comes highly recommended by more than two movie critics.
2. I have multiple number of friends who have seen it and liked it.
3. It's a big movie like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.
Since December of 2000; I have only seen: Cast Away; Shrek; K-PAX; Monsters, Inc.; LOTR:FOTR; and Black Hawk Down in Theaters. I just wait for video for most movies; it's cheaper. The only reason I went to K-Pax because my friends wanted to go and there was nothing else to do on Sunday Night. I didn't like it. So to sum up if you don't want to see it; don't.
----------------
Bush's $3 trillion state is allegedly a mark of "anti-government bias" on the right. -- Anthony Gregory
Filthy Critic is a good movie-crap-filter for me (3.00 / 1) (#38)
by hardcorejon on Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 03:05:58 PM EST

I usually let the Filthy Critic do the legwork for me. He calls out the hollywood bullshit pretty well. There have been only a few movies that he didn't like that I though were worthwhile.

- jonathan.

[ Parent ]
Eventual problems with #2 (none / 0) (#43)
by Mitheral on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 01:23:48 PM EST

The only problem with number 2 is if everyone you know starts apply this critria you end up with a chicken-egg situtation.

[ Parent ]
The MPAA knows it has a flawed business model | 44 comments (37 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!