Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
On 2/8/2018 8:43 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 2/8/2018 6:15 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 2/7/18 7:59 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2018 6:14 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/18 5:30 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 2/6/2018 6:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/6/18 1:18 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> tCP now has 6.0 from 15,208. Fwiw, I do think Netflix confers a
>>>>>>> small pro-bias -- e.g., an anti-establishment sticking it to The
>>>>>> Anti-establishment? What the fuck are you talking about?
>>>>> In the movie biz, Netflix is (still) the upstart, the renegade who
>>>>> delivers what the big studios won't risk. We pull for Netflix.
>>>> Here is my advice: you shitheads need to start doing the necessary
>>>> research when talking about any aspect of the business of selling
>>>> movies, because you look like fucking third graders. Here's an
>>>> Disney Corp., one of the biggest entertainment conglomerates in the
>>>> history of the universe, has announced its "global streaming plan".
>>>> Guess what? Netflix is a streaming video channel. Hm, could it be
>>>> that Disney and others have recognized that streaming video is a new
>>>> paradigm in the release of its products and are acting accordingly?
>>>> Guess what else? If Disney is doing it it's just the opposite of
>>>> "anti establishment". Do you see your error yet?
>>> The future lies ahead. The present, however, is a concern about
>>> whether THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX's hundred minutes will prove
>>> rewarding (to me!).
>> No, we're not talking about your bullshit ways of evaluating a movie
>> without seeing it, we're talking about your bullshit comment about a
>> hugely successful company called Netflix is a "renegade" because they
>> have become successful as an alternate distribution channel for
>> movies. If this shit is over your head you should probably just avoid
>> the subject.
> "Evaluating a movie" is *different* from "evaluating a movie as a good
> bet". For instance, one of them requires *watching* the movie, while
> the other specifically *excludes* it. I hope this now helps you put
> that perennial soapbox to better use -- say, as firewood.
> Netflix, meanwhile, is afaics
You can't see two feet in front of your face then. Look, you're not a
bad guy and you're an enthusiast, that's the good news. The bad news is
you're mentally lazy and don't mind spouting ignorance. In case it
isn't clear I fucking hate that shit. Keep in mind that you were the guy
that held on to watching pieces of plastic, DVDs, as long as you could.
Old guys don't like to adopt new technology in general. I'm an
electronics junkie and I'm like that myself to some degree. However, I
do have a pretty good feel for what sells and what doesn't, so that end,
here's an article from last June:
> More people now subscribe to Netflix than cable TV in the US
> Jeff Dunn
> Jun. 15, 2017, 7:00 PM 7,604
> Netflix is becoming as much a staple of the American home as cable TV — even more so.
> In the first quarter of this year, the number of US Netflix subscribers overtook the number of
American cable TV subscribers for the first time, according to a recent study by Leichtman Research
Group charted for us by Statista. While Netflix has rapidly gained new subscribers, cable has been
slowly losing them.
So please, for your own sake, just shut the fuck up until you can get
even the vaguest grasp of the facts. Is this what you want, to sound
absolutely ignorant like a "RichA" or BTRwhogivesafuck? I'll bet you
don't. You sound REALLY stupid when a monstrous business venture such
as Netflix is described like it's some kind of gonzo pirate TV set up.
REALLY STUPID. Jeff Bezos is the richest guy in the world and yet I'd
bet money that he'd give his left nut to have Amazon Prime Video do what
Netflix is doing. Is any of this getting through to you at all?
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.