[Captainstabbin]

(09-12-2017 05:37 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

If they stop making feminist puff pieces, remakes, sequels and utter crap, then people might shell out the megabus to set foot into the theatre with all the freaks and packet rustlers again.

But imagine the cash they would make if they let you download and watch new movies for $5 on your lounge in comfort.

It would be on the Interwebs within an hour and everybody would download it for free. Studios would lose a fortune.

[TooFineAPoint]

^
Doubtful.

Did Radiohead's In Rainbows album (digital download, pay what you want) lose a fortune?

Studios have become overspending, "Hollywood accounting", forecasting for the best possible 1% chance pieces of shit.

High quality artists who earn the respect of their audience can profit and have a career.

Just because they can't have late 90s DVD sales money doesn't mean it's not a success or enabling of future projects.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(09-12-2017 04:22 PM)Brother Abdul Majeed Wrote:  

(09-09-2017 08:45 AM)Vaun Wrote:  

(09-09-2017 08:33 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The industry exists to serve the propaganda war, not the other way around.

They can claim that the low box office sales are hurting their bottom line but the reality is that they'd find a way to produce all of this shit even if it ran at a perpetual loss.

I'd like to agree with you, but can you point to any substantial government funding of the film industry? Other than tax credits, I dont see much. Film projects are largely funded by PE.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this point.
Governments have made massive investments into the film and radio industry.
From an American perspective it might not seem so obvious, I'm sure it's hidden a lot better in the States, but I grew up in Canada and it was obvious. For some reason the government of the province of Quebec seemed to grant money to about half of all the shows and movies I watched growing up.

Government agencies give grants and kickbacks to a huge number of artists.

Plus there is a slant of all content - it explains why singers, song-writers, indie writers all have similar topics - trans, gay propaganda, anti-masculinity etc.

The indie and upcoming field is huge and those agencies have a massive influence. When some of the artists become successful, then they simply enter the fold of the big corporations and they have the identical level of propaganda. You have to realize in our world that big corpo and big Gov are identical and have created a new neo-Bolshevik-fascist system. So essentially both powers control an enormous chunk of the creative field - both indie, upcoming as well as big budget.

[Scoundrel]

I'm amazed that the theatrical film industry has held on as long as it has. Remember, movies got started in the pre-television era. In those days, if you wanted to watch something, you HAD to go to a theater.

In the age of flatscreens, surround sound, and infinite entertainment available at our fingertips, it's downright nutty to go out to a theater and pay exorbitant fees for the privilege of sitting among strangers to watch what is essentially a big flatscreen with surround sound.

Be sure to get there early, or you might end up with one of those crappy seats off to the side!

[polar]

^ I think you can make comparisons to the gym industry. Sure, you can buy your own power rack, 400# of plates, and whatever equipment you desire. For most, though, it's short-term cheaper and easier to pay by the month.

Likewise, though you could invest in a huge TV or projector, surround sound, and reclining leather chair, it's short-term cheaper and easier to hit the movies for a comparable experience.

[Rush87]

(09-13-2017 02:45 PM)polar Wrote:  

^ I think you can make comparisons to the gym industry. Sure, you can buy your own power rack, 400# of plates, and whatever equipment you desire. For most, though, it's short-term cheaper and easier to pay by the month.

Likewise, though you could invest in a huge TV or projector, surround sound, and reclining leather chair, it's short-term cheaper and easier to hit the movies for a comparable experience.

With the rise of smart phones, netflix and a range of other technological advances people are becoming more and more recluse, lonely and anti-social. Just like going to the gym, the biggest plus about actually going to the cinema is that you're around other people. IMO the shift towards cave dwelling isn't healthy.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(09-13-2017 03:08 AM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

I'm amazed that the theatrical film industry has held on as long as it has. Remember, movies got started in the pre-television era. In those days, if you wanted to watch something, you HAD to go to a theater.

In the age of flatscreens, surround sound, and infinite entertainment available at our fingertips, it's downright nutty to go out to a theater and pay exorbitant fees for the privilege of sitting among strangers to watch what is essentially a big flatscreen with surround sound.

Be sure to get there early, or you might end up with one of those crappy seats off to the side!

All of Hollywood is just 10 bio. $ in turnover per year!

That is peanuts to the world's billionaires - some companies make 10 bio. $ in quarterly profits. It is really amazing how much reach entertainment has for how little money. Mark my words - even if they make a net loss, then they will still churn out high-quality content, because the people have to be entertained. The road to the Brave New World is plastered with a lot of diversion and indoctrination.

[nomadbrah]

It seems Hollywood now are simply unable to make movies anymore. Just watched Anabelle:Creation which has a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and it was utter trash.

Hollywood has lost the plot completely. They've driven out the normal people and only have the hacks,pedos and sjws left.

[nomadbrah]

Add another one to the long list of anti-white filth peddled by jewish Hollywood to bomb at the box office:

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.812706

Quote:

Darren Aronofsky, one of America's most-celebrated filmakers has officially bombed at the U.S. box office as critics and viewers alike are blasting his new film, "mother!" Christian audiences are particularly enraged as they see the film, which is steeped in biblical imagery, as a blatant attack on their values from secular Hollywood. 

National Review film critic Kyle Smith called the film “the vilest movie ever released by a major Hollywood studio" and a “stain on the reputation” of Paramount Pictures. He slammed the film "as a macabre pastiche of people’s most cherished and deeply held beliefs" – a "grotesque spoof of the Nativity."

The horror film, which stars America's sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, cost $33 million to make and is projected to gross only $9 million at the U.S. box office its opening weekend. The film received an "F" rating on CinemaScore, a rare rebuke from movie goers. The film is currently 68% "Fresh," however, on RottenTomatoes.com.

Aronofsky, who was raised in a Jewish home in Brooklyn, is best known for his Oscar-nominated film "Black Swan" starring Natalie Portman.  
Rolling Stone described the film as a “biblical allegory, with intimations of 'Rosemary’s Baby,' while The Associated Press summed it up as “the Old Testament crashes into modern anxiety." 

Some critics have praised the film, with A.O. Scott from the New York Times writing, "Don’t listen to anyone who natters on about how intense or disturbing this movie is; it’s a hoot!"
"Nothing about mother! makes one lick of sense," writes Observer's Rex Reed, who also called the film "two hours of pretentious twaddle" and gave it zero out of four stars. Ouch.
The box office was dominated by another horror film over the weekend, after shattering September records, "It", based on the Stephen King novel of the the same name, is expected to top the North American box office for the weekend ending September 17. The movie brought in $123 million in its debut weekend last week.

It's not about entertainment anymore, it's only pure unfiltered hate.

[HD668B]

(09-09-2017 12:51 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

I usually only pay attention to the audience score. The rotten tomato score is often not accurate to my taste.

There is only way to truly find out if a movie is watchable.

It's not the review nor the aggregated score but instead the difference of points between male and female voters.
To find that out I usually go to IMDB and then click on the score itself to open up a page with detailed stats by age and gender.

Simply put, all the great movies always have a higher score by male voters. Correlation is basically perfect.