From: rachel <rachbl71@qmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.unit0.net!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rachel <rachbl71@qmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:35:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: <p59q2m$tun$3@news.mixmin.net>
References: <qSWdC.4239$YR7.3667@fx34.iad> <p59er1$tun$2@news.mixmin.net>
<suXdC.3377$hW2.3334@fx26.iad>
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: news.mixmin.net; posting-host="205c914d1de122ef231d5f6c45b958a95f20d6da";
logging-data="30679"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@mixmin.net"
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:
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/05/the-cloverfield-paradox
>> 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?