Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you do realize that how it works now
two big chains famous players and cinimax odion control virtually all the theaters in the marketplace. Theaters for the most part belong to one of those two chains, sure there are a few "independent" theaters in small towns (so small they only have one theater)
but even tiny cities like london have both chains supported.
look at the paper some times the movie doesn't appear on both chains screens it one or the other.
So your arguement against is total bs
even if you were right
30 miles is a whole 30 minute drive, big fucking deal.
if the 30 minute drive was to much you have other medium to choose from
mediums your completely denied now.
|
I live in one of those small towns. As does a very large segment of the population.
It wasn't that long ago you were arguing that your dad was too sick to even get to the theater and now you are telling me a 30 minute drive is nothing. What if I don't have a car? My local theater is a few blocks away, 30 miles is a long way.
All I am doing here is exactly what you do. Someone makes a point with you and your reply is IF this happened and IF this were the case. It is always IF IF IF IF until you find a loophole.
I'm just doing what the pirates do which is pick every little thing apart until you find some little loophole that lets you get it for free.
Quote:
again the current system would just change in time, it would be the ppv liciencing chains that would bid for the rights, and would sublicience
exactly the same type of eclusivity that currently exist
the only difference is that this medium would compete that it
|
But in the meantime you are going to force movie producers to potentially deny large chunks of their potential audience their product. Movie studios are so anal about making every dollar they can that they stress out over a few theaters somewhere having a power outage that costs them some ticket sales. How will they react when you and your fair use solution forces them sell their PPV movie to one provider thus denying it to 70% of the country?
Quote:
do you even know how the rating system works.
A movie is complete and sent to the MPAA for rating.
movies are usually shot to a level above the PG 13 ratng and then go thru a pain in the ass editing process to get down to the PG 13 version
which is a hell of a lot worse for the independent film maker.
parallel rating release would be way better
|
For starters not every movie is shot to a rating that is above PG 13 then edited back. Many of them shoot towards PG 13 and may have to make some tweaks. I won't deny that the ratings system is fucked. It is different for everyone. When the South Park guys make a movie they are treated differently by the ratings board than someone like Spielberg is.
You can be sure that Toy Story 3 was not shot towards an R and edited down. Because of this there would be no reason for a broadcast network to edit it unless it was for time. If they don't edit for time, I download a commercial free version and have the exact same product others are charging for.
Quote:
really how much you want to bet that when thor comes out on DVD they will have a directors cut version of the movie.
the concept of having a directors cut version as a way to sell the movie again to people who already saw it in the theaters is now an established principle
that principle would simply move back in time with ppv and theaters carrying the "director cut version"
while tv would carry the PG-13 version.
This is what i am talking about your so desperate to defend the abuse you actually ignore the existing system that already in place which solves your made up problem.
|
First off a "directors cut" or "unrated" version doesn't mean it is rated R when the original was PG 13. In the case of unrated it simply means they made a change to it and didn't resubmit to the ratings board. They then market it as if it it somehow dirtier or something more intense then the original. Same with the directors cut, he might change some stuff, but it doesn't mean it is now an R rated movie. Charlies Angels: Full Throttle the theatrical release was rated PG 13 and was 105 minutes long. The unrated version was 106 minutes long. So they added 1 minute of footage, it could be anything, and then they don't submit it for rating. it doesn't mean the unrated version is now rated R.
Sure they can then go back and market it again on PPV, but are you not against this? Don't you want it to be out at the same time? This is just the movie studio denying access to the content in an effort to stretch out their monopoly and control distribution. They should be forced to also release any future planned editions including directors cuts or unrated versions all on the same day that the movie is released. They should not be allowed to see if the movie performs well at the box office and then decide if it is worth the effort and money to release an unrated or directors cut version.