Ads
More Ads
Trailers
20 minutes of that shit (despite paying for the movie!), movie finally starts. Now this happens:
People talking during movies
People watching phone during movie
People eating candy (loudly) during movie

On top of this, what are the odds the movie will be good? I think ive been disappointed by almost every movie this year, so thank god i didnt watch them in a cinema.

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago

Modern cinema is an elongated television episode. The era where it made sense for many people to congregate to watch a film like a theater play ended long ago. Now TV is best seen alone or with friends (or family)

[–] Hyperrealism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I should point out that the cinema experience used to be better. People have become more selfish.

Also, it heavily depends on the kind of movies you're watching. Trash attracts trash.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah people think its confidence to act like shit in public.

[–] Hyperrealism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Which often results these same people to think that polite or nice people are weak or don't pose a threat. Which can be a very stupid mistake to make.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah. People have been surprised many times when my patience finally runs out. :) Sounds like the same for you.

[–] flamiera@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 days ago

You're right, that was my understanding too.

Why pay $15 a ticket just for that shit?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wait, we have to learn this again?

Did we not do this... 20 years ago, with the music industry?

[–] flamiera@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 days ago

With the music industry, it's two-ways.

The first is getting the artist recognition. Indie bands had took up BitTorrent by torrenting their material for people to download, check out and possibly support.

Othertimes, it was a way to sample other music sources so people can then decide to support and even go to concerts of said band.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 13 points 3 days ago

Not the first study to support the theory that piracy actually helps sales instead of hurting them.

Another study showed that pirates spend more on media than the average person too.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This literally happened for me with the movie(s) Wicked. I didn't watch the first part just to have it end half way through the story and be told to wait until next year. Then the second half comes out, and after the opening weekend where a couple downtown theatres had busy double feature special events, Part 1 was playing in theatres literally nowhere in my city. And no way I'm signing my life away for Bezos BS just to watch this. (Does a stream even earn the movie studio anything significant? The theatres get nothing...)

I only bought a ticket to watch Part 2 because I viewed Part 1 by other means. The theatres missed out on an opportunity for me to watch the first one in succession with the second. And if I didn't watch the first, then I wouldn't have watched it at all and the theatres and publishers would have missed out on a sale.

If the copyright industry calls missed sales "stealing", the theatres and publishing licensors steal from themselves by making it difficult to view the full story.

[–] Drbreen@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago

Movie industries version of DLC.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago

We help revenue, but don't care about it.

They hurt revenue, but don't care about it.

Nobody cares. End of the day, it's just a fucking power thing.

[–] jlow@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Cory Doctorow could have told you that 15 years ago (but it's not like anybody who needs to hear this will listen to it anyways).

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

Neil Gaiman (yeah, yeah, I know, but death of the author and all that) also had a good video on how piracy actually improved his books sales.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 11 points 2 days ago

Nice try, MPAA. You and your reverse psychology.

You're not tricking me to stop pirating so that it cuts your box office revenue at the movies that easily.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sounds weird. I started pirating again because the companies are fucking greedy. So nothing they do will make me pay again, until they stop being so greedy - if they all consolidate into one streaming service for a price of like $10, I'll probably stop pirating again, because at that point it's easier to not pirate.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Thing is, you'll talk to people about the shows and movies you liked. You'll recommend them. You'll discuss them online. Maybe just upvote a post talking about them, make it more visible.

And someone who doesn't pirate will see that, and pay to watch it. (And, in turn, also promote it like you did.)

If the product is good enough (and if people are pirating it it probably is), piracy is free publicity.

And if it's not good enough, people won't be pirating it anyway.

So, given that you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, it works out that piracy provides a net benefit for the producers... and for society as a whole, since it incentivises them to make their products good enough to attract pirates, thus raising the average quality of entertainment.

EDIT: also, for the same reason they should be giving their product for free to reaction channels and even paying them (like game companies — Nintendon't excluded — already do with YouTube reviewers), since it's cheaper and more effective than normal advertising.

[–] dil@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Ppl that pirate are prob more vocal with their opinion online

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If they consolidated it all into a streaming service that was 30, even 40 bucks a month, I'd seriously consider it. Provided it was ad-free at that price point.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, my main motivation in setting up Jellyfin was to have everything in one place.

No more having to check which service has it, only to find that 20 year old movie can only be rented for £6.99.

I'd probably pay the cost of 2 streaming services, in order to have a single service that has literally everything on it, and keeps it on it.

[–] dil@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

even if they conslidated, they cycle stuff in and out and some stuff never gets cycled in

[–] gointhefridge@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

collapsed inline media

[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 1 points 2 days ago

Came here for this

[–] dil@piefed.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I always thought it should be monitored and shared, ad companies place ads within movies, those are still getting viewed even when pirated

[–] eggdaddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

They already have product placement in TV and Movies. They are getting eyeballs on those even when pirated. They need to realize the ad/commercial way to make money is the line in the sand with pirates that they won't cross but we happily ignore product placement.

[–] flamiera@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 days ago

Does it, really?

When I last knew, people pirated movies because the shit being shoveled out wasn't worth paying the expensive ticket prices for. It was also a way to see something first before anyone else did before release time.

I mean, it won't convince the MPAA any either case, but that was my belief since the 2000s of online piracy. The try-before-buy method was more true for games, books and software. But usually when it came to music and movies, people pirated for keepsies.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

"Attention economy" benefit, I guess.