211–220 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It happens to me often enough. Might be a matter of taste in movies?
I’m sure it’s related. I’m curious for any examples
NBC: This Was the Week That Was. TV, aired 1963-1965. Someone found acetate audio recordings of two episodes and ripped them to YT. An act of culture, done in spite of rights holders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's down from it's heyday for the mainstream, but for the dedicated few, it's better than ever before. Gone are the days of manually searching for a movie on tracker sites, downloading them, organizing your library and watching stuff on your laptop. There are now open-source, self-hosted applications that automate that entire process, so it's as simple as requesting a movie on your phone and having it show up on you…
What are the names of these immoral piracy applications, so that I can know to avoid them if I happen to stumble upon one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm at the point where I just automatically assume any new movie is derivative, uninspired slop. Professional reviewers don't really seem trustworthy these days and user reviews are constantly being gamed based on fandom, political sentiments or just bots boosting or tanking reviews. I do love movies, particularly ones that are pre-2010 or so. I've actually started going to a local indie theater that curates excellen…
Because they aren't trustworthy: 1)Disney-adjacent properties. Look at the amazing spiderman 1, it was better than anything Marvel has released with Spiderman, it got trashed on for a very simple reason in my eyes, Disney wanted the rights for Spiderman and tried to force them to give them it (it worked) via giving it terrible reviews. Opposite thing happened with Star Wars, another Disney "product", the new trilogy…
TASM 1 was definitely well received when it was released. It was tarnished by the slop that was TASM 2, which lead to Sony being able to come to a licensing agreement with Marvel Studios, to use Spider-Man in the MCU. I think it's an extreme stretch to think Disney had any nefarious doings in the public opinion of those movies, Sony did that to themselves and has proven time-and-time again they cannot make a good quality movie with their Spider-Man IPs.
The Rise of Skywalker is at 51% on Rotten Tomatoes, that was universally acknowledged to be terrible, even by the "critics". Disney definitely was also not able to silence or drown-out the absolute outrage by the cast and fans of the treatment of Luke in The Last Jedi.
Why would Marvel / Disney spend any effort sabotaging the DCEU when Warner Bros. was good at doing it all themselves? If Marvel was worried about DC stealing their audience, they would have focused more on movies like The Batman, not some c-grade antihero most people have no idea about? The Rock fostered a lot of the ill-will towards that movie himself.
I say all this but I also think it's accurate still to say reviews are trustworthy but I don't think they ever have been. I don't think this is some new phenomenon, just people are more aware of the corruption embedded in the system.
I've been trying to watch old 80s-90s movies recently. I'm happy to pay $5 or whatever, and they just aren't available anywhere. Rental stores are dead, so I can't go rent them from blockbuster or whatever, and streaming sites have splintered to the point I'm not even sure what is a scam and what is a legitimate business anymore. Trying to even find availability of what films exist on which streaming sites has been a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Daily volume could just be more bluray high quality downloads with people with better internet. And not neccesarily larger number of people right?
I would be pretty surprised if the quality of rips since 2017 would account for a 20x increase in traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Schiff is (D) Worth noting that this was introduced by Zoe Lofgren (D) the 77 year old that represents a big chunk of Silicon Valley. Disappointing.
The fact that some Democrats are introducing bills that mandate creation of infrastructure that can be easily repurposed to censor political viewpoints, during this administration no less, tells you all you need to know about how much disdain they really have for their electorate.
It's a simple thing. Just a casual joke that means nothing to most people.
I worry because there are millions of young citizens who are going to have to work harder either for new political parties or to overturn this kind of language and jab.
We can't ever prove it's a higher level system that keeps every next generation in perpetual non-paying advocacy and grassroots political work. That's deeply unsettling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think so, but now I think they're just intended to make it easy to refer to the bill in a context people can recall quickly.
They're intended to be propaganda soundbites . The point is that people use them to refer to the bill because it's much easier than using the full title or describing what the bill actually does, and in doing so, they inadvertently propagate a specific perspective on the nature of the bill. "PATRIOT" act etc are good examples.
I think it's often, maybe always, quite advertent. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is precisely the problem, and the whole reason why we still pirate TV/movies. I would have no problem paying $XX to a unified service that has basically everything; I have no interest in paying a dozen different streaming platforms for effectively "cable packages" that often add/remove/shift content around. The music industry figured this out: I pay Spotify, they have 95% of music content I could ever way, the U…
>Why is this so hard for the film industry? It boils down to money. Movies & tv have higher monetary value to the studios than songs to the record labels. So the ip owners of video content get more revenue by restricting it as exclusives to their respective platforms rather than licensing it out to everybody and get a smaller fractional payment from an everything-unlimited-catalog video streaming service. E.g. HBO wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The length of time it takes for media to enter the public domain is absolutely absurd. It if didn't take over a century for works to enter the PD, we could say, "Eh, just wait a few years." But instead we hold these works of art captive for no reason, other than a few multi-billion-dollar conglomerates want to keep milking art for money again and again. If we had a more reasonable period like a decade, it would be a…
> But instead we hold these works of art captive for no reason, other than a few multi-billion-dollar conglomerates want to keep milking art for money again and again. In many cases, the conglomerates aren't even making money from them. How much do you think the movie company (and all the various middlemen) are making from some obscure movie from the 80s that they don't even make available on DVD or streaming anywher…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is precisely the problem, and the whole reason why we still pirate TV/movies. I would have no problem paying $XX to a unified service that has basically everything; I have no interest in paying a dozen different streaming platforms for effectively "cable packages" that often add/remove/shift content around. The music industry figured this out: I pay Spotify, they have 95% of music content I could ever way, the U…
I only understand the frustration with finding any legal avenue at all to see certain films. I don't really understand why disparate services are a big deal. You don't need to subscribe to multiple things all at once, and it's all done in a few clicks in the convenience of your own home. I'm concerned and curious about one thing, which is that tech giants have a monopoly on renting. If you want to rent a digital movi…
Renting is sucky compared to just buying things, you could watch any movie you want and have unlimited access to it instead of juggling 5 subscriptions and get frustrated with shitty products. And publishers that make actual good movies that people want to watch would be rewarded