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

'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#81

Post by esseph »

radley wrote: post #69
righthand wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you use the app you’re only streaming from Apple servers. That Apple server copy can be revoked at any time. And 60% is not 100%, my point stands you need an expensive device just to purchase and watch it. Probably multiple expensive devices if you want to actually watch it on your TV. When can I download my movie onto my Linux laptop and play it through an HDMI cable?

> When can I download my movie onto my Linux laptop and play it through an HDMI cable? Probably because the Linux market is too small to support an iTunes for Linux. By my understanding, the Linux market prefers free, open source, community effort. So essentially the real question is: why aren't you making movies yourself and sharing them free with your Linux peers?

> So essentially the real question is: why aren't you making movies yourself and sharing them free with your Linux peers?

This is always the dumbest style of argument.

P1: Healthcare sucks!

P2: Oh yeah? Why aren't you a doctor?

Be serious. It's perfectly fine to criticize things and the answer is extremely rarely change your life and become a domain expert in something else to meet some kind of "oh yeah, be the solution" nonsense by somebody that often themselves refuses to get off the couch for anything meaningful.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#82

Post by slg »

simonbw wrote: post #73
slg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just opened the Apple TV app on my phone and "$4.99 Essential Movies" is listed prominently just under the top charts and new releases. I'm not trying to be rude, but this whole thread has people just speculating on stuff with limited self-awareness. The reason you aren't building a big film library is probably because you aren't that passionate about films, it isn't because no one is providing you a list of cheap…

You might be right. I think the other thing is that there are a ton of free things for me to watch on various streaming platforms.

>I think the other thing is that there are a ton of free things for me to watch on various streaming platforms.

Yes, I think it's just people today have more options for entertainment. There are lots of people in this thread trying to rationalize their declining interest in movies as the failing of someone else with "there's no Steam for movies", "they don't make good original movies anymore", or "they don't hire talented people anymore" but that stuff is all happening and has been for a while. People just found other stuff to do with their time so they aren't seeking movies out as much anymore, but it's all out there if you put in a little effort to find it.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#83

Post by GeekyBear »

righthand wrote: post #51
extra88 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MSRP of an Apple TV device is $129. The iPhone's market share in the U.S. is already over 60%. But neither matters because the Apple TV app is available on basically everything and can be used to buy movies. https://support.apple.com/en-us/119890

But if you use the app you’re only streaming from Apple servers. That Apple server copy can be revoked at any time. And 60% is not 100%, my point stands you need an expensive device just to purchase and watch it. Probably multiple expensive devices if you want to actually watch it on your TV. When can I download my movie onto my Linux laptop and play it through an HDMI cable?

Steam games with DRM can be revoked as well.

We've also seen Apple upgrade 480p movies purchased in the past to HD which is an improvement compared to buying physical media.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#85

Post by peteforde »

cheschire wrote: post #72
peteforde wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the reaction of someone trying to keep an open mind, especially given that this isn't your usual cup of tea. If you can get over your preconceived notions, I'd bet that you'd really enjoy this movie. It's extremely well executed and genuinely unsettling without ever getting gory, comedic or stupid.

I must be the weirdo for not wanting to feel unsettled like that. Doesn’t reality have enough unsettling stuff? Why pile onto that? Give me comedy. Oh how I miss the 90 minute comedy movie.

What I find unsettling is that large swathes of mainstream society seem to consistently tack towards safe, unchallenging pablum. Why watch Parasite when you could watch a Happy Gilmore sequel?

I'm not saying this to be contrarian or give you a hard time. You should watch whatever makes you feel joy.

However, you shouldn't be surprised that for a lot of people, music, movies, television and books (I kid, I kid) that don't surprise, challenge, shock, confuse or inspire us feels vapid, hollow and intellectually insulting.

Long live the counterculture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujJ8talVp90

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#86

Post by Barrin92 »

ramenat2am wrote: post #12

That really shows the hunger for original stories and IC among cinephiles. Major studios were too afraid to produce something fresh instead of numberless sequels and reboots in the last decade or so.

it's the exact opposite of an original story. It's so successful because it is so strongly based on viral and meme-able internet content that is immediately recognizable to any person who spends time on the internet, it has its roots literally in creepypasta.

What A24 is doing with this movie is what the large studios have been doing, they're just doing it for a different audience. It's franchise driven content but simply 'gamer-coded' and sourced from Youtube or game-related media rather than from more traditional sources, mobilizing the gen-z fans of that content.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#87

Post by jtokoph »

Triphibian wrote: post #49
atleastoptimal wrote: post #31

All they had to do was simply hire a talented person who knows how to make compelling narrative art. This is lost on the movie industry, though Hollywood has been treading water for over a decade now, failing to examine its failures and coasting on inertia. In general, there is sooo much free money on the ground for large, hierarchical American corporations to do the following 1. Give young talented people resources…

I saw a Youtuber recently make a compelling argument that one of the features Hollywood has been missing is the pipeline of young, imaginative talent that music video direction used to provide. Backrooms, Iron Lung, etc. make a good case that YouTube can be that new pipeline.

My first thought is that it would be the very successful YouTubers that get approached by hollywood. And those people are already doing well for themselves independently and would most likely not want to move to the corporate culture without creative control.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#88

Post by [deleted] »

lazypenguin wrote: post #32
darth_avocado wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. Historically a lot of low and mid budget movies relied on DVD sales to recoup costs even if theater releases didn’t get you as much money as you expected. With the safety net gone, studios don’t want to take the risk. They make big budget movies with massive marketing budgets that rely on known IP and established fan ba…

It’s because nobody has made Steam for Movies. Let me have a movie collection that I can buy movies $1-$5 per movie and never lose it and I promise you I will buy a lot more movies. Just like people buy hundreds of steam games

[deleted]

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#89

Post by perching_aix »

lazypenguin wrote: post #32
darth_avocado wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. Historically a lot of low and mid budget movies relied on DVD sales to recoup costs even if theater releases didn’t get you as much money as you expected. With the safety net gone, studios don’t want to take the risk. They make big budget movies with massive marketing budgets that rely on known IP and established fan ba…

It’s because nobody has made Steam for Movies. Let me have a movie collection that I can buy movies $1-$5 per movie and never lose it and I promise you I will buy a lot more movies. Just like people buy hundreds of steam games

That description befits GOG a lot more than Steam. You can absolutely lose you Steam games, both practically and legally. Practically because of DRM, and legally because you only recieve a non-transferable, revocable license.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#90

Post by breezybottom »

spartanatreyu wrote: post #36

No spoilers below: The movie was great but it's not a stand-alone movie, it is a small piece of the full story so don't go in thinking that everything will be explained and tied up in a neat little bow. The movie takes place in Kane Pixel (the movie director's) youtube series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVAh-MgDVqvDUEq6qDXqO... It makes a lot more sense if you watch the full youtube series first.

I don't know, it made sense enough to me — movies don't have to explain everything to work. I actually appreciate that there wasn't a big lore dump, I don't care about any of that.
Post reply on HN