From: rachel <>
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
Full headers:
From: rachel <>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:35:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: <p59q2m$tun$>
References: <qSWdC.4239$YR7.3667@fx34.iad> <p59er1$tun$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:35:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="205c914d1de122ef231d5f6c45b958a95f20d6da";
logging-data="30679"; mail-complaints-to=""
User-Agent: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
Print Article
Forward Article
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:46:32 -0600, trotsky wrote:

> On 2/5/18 5:23 AM, rachel wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:03:50 -0600, trotsky wrote:
>>> Doesn't sound too good:
>> review
>> It's being released direct to video rather than in cinemas first. You
>> expected better?
> You're confused.  Netflix produces their own movies now, and this is a
> new paradigm in the release channels for movies.  Previously they
> released "Bright" which was both well received and watched by a
> gajillion people.  It's weird how few people seem to have a grasp about
> how the business of movies is conducted.

Blah, blah, blah ...

Fact is, I don't recall this Cloverfield Paradox thing getting a wide 
theatrical release, or even so much as seeing an ad on TV for it.

A movie without a theatrical release is direct-to-video, by definition.

Now please tell me the last time a direct-to-video sequel of *anything* 
was anything other than utter crap?