Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#61

Post by gdulli »

pmoriarty wrote: post #44
gdulli wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockbuster never "censored" or "cut" videos as you said. Blockbuster chose not to carry NC-17 or x-rated movies. There are alternate cuts of just about all movies and TV shows for different venues. I see people complain about Netflix having a different version than the one they remember. Some SNL episodes on Netflix run only about 30 minutes. It's not Netflix or Blockbuster doing any editing, they just buy what's av…

Even with films that were originally R-rated, the Blockbuster versions had scenes that were missing. I don't know if Blockbuster did the editing themselves or just bought alternate versions, but the fact is that they had cuts, while the versions in other, independent video stores did not. I watched almost no X-rated or NC-17 movies at all, so the movies that I saw that had cuts were R-rated.

Your fuzzy memories from decades ago don't amount to evidence. A cursory search tells you this wouldn't even be legal for Blockbuster to do.

The studios have alternate versions of movies and some of the TV edits may have gotten into the Blockbuster stock but your portrayal of Blockbuster as being the originator for reasons of censorship are wrong.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#62

Post by deelowe »

martinald wrote: post #40
mjcl wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of “Enron Broadband” seemed ridiculous to me at the time.

Enron didn't have any last mile broadband capability. How did this deal get done?

Is it because telco was a lot different back then with all the clecs and the bells sharing co space?

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#63

Post by burger_moon »

scarface74 wrote: post #41
lotsofpulp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the malls around rich people are doing okay. You can spot these by searching for Apple and Nordstrom’s, also where you will find the wealthier side of any urban area.

Even those traditional closed in malls are being upended by pedestrian friendly upscale mixed uses communities with stores and townhomes. The local Apple Store just moved from the local mall to one of those communities. It also has the standard cliched collection of yuppie stores - a Tesla showroom, Whole Foods, Gap, Bonobos, Container Store, Pottery Barn, a Pilates Studio, etc....

What you described is literally the same thing SouthPark makes fun of in the Sodosopa episodes. https://imgur.com/gallery/Xgea4Ot

It's amazing how on the nose they are.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#64

Post by duxup »

pmoriarty wrote: post #5

Blockbuster used to have a really crappy selection of mostly mainstream movies, but often it was one of the closest video rental stores around, as they seemed to be everywhere. They also censored and cut their movies, which was really annoying. I don't know what their agenda was on that front, and why they couldn't just let mature adults watch the full films. My friends and I used to much prefer going to independent…

I used to wander the isles at blockbuster and wonder why with all that space ... there were so few movies.

And like you said hit and independent place and you could do some discovery.

Netflix with DVDs in the early days with user reviews (that were seriously well written) was so great for discovery. Now.... nope, discovery gone.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#65

Post by pmoriarty »

gdulli wrote: post #61
pmoriarty wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with films that were originally R-rated, the Blockbuster versions had scenes that were missing. I don't know if Blockbuster did the editing themselves or just bought alternate versions, but the fact is that they had cuts, while the versions in other, independent video stores did not. I watched almost no X-rated or NC-17 movies at all, so the movies that I saw that had cuts were R-rated.

Your fuzzy memories from decades ago don't amount to evidence. A cursory search tells you this wouldn't even be legal for Blockbuster to do. The studios have alternate versions of movies and some of the TV edits may have gotten into the Blockbuster stock but your portrayal of Blockbuster as being the originator for reasons of censorship are wrong.

Many companies do illegal things all the time. Often they get away with it, or just eat the bad PR and fines when they're caught. So just because it might have been illegal doesn't mean Blockbuster didn't do it.

Also, media companies censor all the time. Take a look at youtube, which will not allow porn, ostensibly because it'll affect their brand and image. Blockbuster was probably trying to do the same thing to keep its "family" video store image. They certainly did not allow hardcore XXX porn in the store because of that, and may very well have stocked censored videos for the same reason.

Finally, you don't have to rely on just my memories. There are others discussing Blockbuster's practices of at least stocking censored films. Whether they cut the scenes out of those movies themselves or just bought censored films is immaterial. The fact is that their customers had to watch censored films. That is a fact supported not just by my memories but the other people who talk about this happening, some of which I linked to in my previous post.

If you are really interested in getting to the bottom of whether they censored or not, you could probably find and contact some former Blockbuster employees and others in the industry who can give you a more authoritative account of what happened.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#66

Post by scarface74 »

burger_moon wrote: post #63
scarface74 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even those traditional closed in malls are being upended by pedestrian friendly upscale mixed uses communities with stores and townhomes. The local Apple Store just moved from the local mall to one of those communities. It also has the standard cliched collection of yuppie stores - a Tesla showroom, Whole Foods, Gap, Bonobos, Container Store, Pottery Barn, a Pilates Studio, etc....

What you described is literally the same thing SouthPark makes fun of in the Sodosopa episodes. https://imgur.com/gallery/Xgea4Ot It's amazing how on the nose they are.

That's frighteningly close to the place I was referring to...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5BOoS3ihA

http://www.experienceavalon.com/

I just watched the video of "sodasopa". If they didn't have the South Park characters in it, I would have thought it was a real ad for either Avalon or one of the other areas in Atlanta.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#67

Post by jcranmer »

pmoriarty wrote: post #65
gdulli wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your fuzzy memories from decades ago don't amount to evidence. A cursory search tells you this wouldn't even be legal for Blockbuster to do. The studios have alternate versions of movies and some of the TV edits may have gotten into the Blockbuster stock but your portrayal of Blockbuster as being the originator for reasons of censorship are wrong.

Many companies do illegal things all the time. Often they get away with it, or just eat the bad PR and fines when they're caught. So just because it might have been illegal doesn't mean Blockbuster didn't do it. Also, media companies censor all the time. Take a look at youtube, which will not allow porn, ostensibly because it'll affect their brand and image. Blockbuster was probably trying to do the same thing to kee…

It is not immaterial who is producing the different editions; at the very least, it tells you to whom you should be directing your anger.

Blockbuster was almost certainly not doing any editing itself, simply for the cost of running a VHS/DVD production workshop at that scale. Doing its own editing without permission of the video owner would have been outright copyright infringement, and they would have had the pockets and visibility to be sued for doing so.

Another thing worth pointing out: rental editions are generally produced and released before retail editions. It's very possible that mistakes identified in a rental edition could have been rectified for the retail edition, and Blockbuster in particular is unlikely to have replaced its rental edition stock with retail edition stock if such changes were made. Just because a change exists doesn't mean that one copy was intentionally censored.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#68

Post by thebigspacefuck »

pmoriarty wrote: post #5

Blockbuster used to have a really crappy selection of mostly mainstream movies, but often it was one of the closest video rental stores around, as they seemed to be everywhere. They also censored and cut their movies, which was really annoying. I don't know what their agenda was on that front, and why they couldn't just let mature adults watch the full films. My friends and I used to much prefer going to independent…

I never had a problem with the selection of blockbuster but I was a kid, so maybe I didn't know any better. One summer as a teenager my mom got me a pass to have any five movies checked out and I loved going back to the store to pick out something else.

Blockbuster had its own competitor to Netflix DVDs and the cool thing was that you could exchange them at the store for another movie when you were finished. Personally I wouldn't mind having a video store near me again combined with the ability to order pretty much anything on disc. It's a shame it didn't last. There is or used to be a local video store within 30 minutes of me but I've never made the drive. It would be great if streaming wasn't so expensive either. Sometimes I look at movies for rent on my AppleTV and find the most intriguing titles, but I can't bear to pay $4 for them. They would make so much money from me if every movie was $1 or $2.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#69

Post by Dylan16807 »

scarface74 wrote: post #26
pmoriarty wrote: post #5

Blockbuster used to have a really crappy selection of mostly mainstream movies, but often it was one of the closest video rental stores around, as they seemed to be everywhere. They also censored and cut their movies, which was really annoying. I don't know what their agenda was on that front, and why they couldn't just let mature adults watch the full films. My friends and I used to much prefer going to independent…

Blockbuster used to have a really crappy selection of mostly mainstream movies, And that’s what most people buy and rent and that’s where the money is. That made perfect sense for Blockbuster. I strongly suspect that the new AMC Stubs subscription program will be a long term success even though it costs more and you really only get access to mainstream movies. Many of them rarely realize how crappy the selection of N…

A movie being popular is half quality and half marketing. Unless we abolish huge advertising budgets, there's no reason to assume that the mainstream viewer would actually give the best ratings to mainstream movies.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#70

Post by Dylan16807 »

mikekchar wrote: post #33
mjevans wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You /really/ need to talk to a copyright lawyer in your country about this. I am almost positive it'll run against SOME stupid copyright law even if you do an ethnically correct thing similar to having a human insert a disk in to a real video playback device and streaming the output to a merely a single very long distance connected display device.

I'm not a lawyer, but the Canadian copyright act is actually quite readable: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/ As a programmer, I'm someone who depends on copyright for my living, so I always thought it was a good idea to understand what it says. While, the advice to get a lawyer is a good one, I think it's actually pretty clear that it is not legal. It falls pretty clearly under "(f) in the case of any l…

It's not at all clear that it's 'to the public', when it's only being sent to the renter. But that won't stop you from getting charged anyway.
Post reply on HN