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: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:08:19 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: <p5bnpj$5g3$1@news.mixmin.net>
References: <qSWdC.4239$YR7.3667@fx34.iad> <p59er1$tun$2@news.mixmin.net>
<suXdC.3377$hW2.3334@fx26.iad> <p59q2m$tun$3@news.mixmin.net>
<WL3eC.21880$d03.7886@fx37.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:08:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net; posting-host="205c914d1de122ef231d5f6c45b958a95f20d6da";
logging-data="5635"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@mixmin.net"
User-Agent: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
Print Article
Forward Article
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:11:17 -0600, trotsky wrote:

> On 2/5/18 8:35 AM, rachel wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Wow, that's quite a pile of shit.  So my little primer on distribution
> channels of movies went right over your head.

No, it was irrelevant. It was released direct to home-viewing, bypassing 
the theatrical release window. And it's a sequel. That makes it a direct-
to-video sequel. Direct-to-video sequels suck. And you even *agreed* that 
this particular one sucked!

Why are you now all frothy about it?