« Not Thrilled With This One... | Main | Boy Is It Quiet Out There »
March 28, 2006
Why Doesn’t Patrick Goldstein Get It?
It’s an interesting turn of events that Patrick “Blogs Are Evil” Goldstein is also such a progressive thinker in terms of new delivery systems. But here’s the problem. His grasp of the facts is a classic case of Reverse Overanalysis.
His great uncle’s company, Wometco, was a major force in many entertainment spheres in Miami as Patrick and I both grew up. But either to make a point (inaccurately) or because he now really believes this, Patrick misleads his readers into thinking that the company got into television as an alternative to theatrical exhibition. Wometco launched their station in Miami, not in “the 50s,” but in 1949. They were the only station in Miami and one of fewer than 125 in the entire United States.
No question, Wometco was taking a big risk on TV and would reap massive rewards. But that was their history. The company, launched in 1926, also built theaters, bottled soda, owned vending machines, erected and rented billboards, invested in land, and eventually bought The Miami Seaquarium. One thing about television, unlike movie theaters, in which Wometco competed with other companies, was that they maintained the television monopoly on not only Miami, but in parts of neighboring Broward County until 1957.
Moreover, the two most significant events in movie history in 1949 were not about television. One was The Paramount Decision, which forced the studios to break up their monopolies controlling talent, production, distribution, and exhibition. The second was the release of Winchester ’73, the landmark for talent operating outside of a multi-year-exclusive studio contract and receiving a percentage of revenues. It was these two events, not television (which did decrease audience numbers), that would lead to the complete collapse of the old studio system over the next 20 years.
It is true that, as Patrick states in his piece, that the industry often withdraws from new technologies at their own peril. But what Patrick forgets is that the industry has also survived new technology repeatedly… and more than a few times has had to survive its excessive zeal to embrace new technology. That 3-D is where it’s at… or is it Todd-AOVision… or Cinerama… or the AMC multiplex tiny box theater…
Why is Patrick, dancing to the same tune as many film writers right now, so anxious to move into the future? My argument remains the same. They are people over 40, with demanding jobs and families, that want the convenience of day-n-date delivery… which is really the only issue, since no one – not Dan Glickman, not Sid Ganis, not theater owners, not me - is actually arguing against new technology, but really, only about when the new technology (and current Home Entertainment technology) becomes a part of the equation.
It is a 100% false argument to say that the MPAA or anyone other than true Luddites are being technophobic. Patrick is arguing, as loud as he can, for New Coke and many of us – more every day – are saying, “Let’s make sure we aren’t giving Pepsi (in this business, other forms of entertainment) a license to steal a significant percentage of ‘our’ business without being sure about what we are getting ourselves into.”
Patrick’s family did not abandon its theaters when it went into television anymore than it determined that television was going under as a medium when it sold out to KKR in 1984.
But none of this really seems to be about the industry. It seems to be quite personal. Patrick writes, “No institution has more fiercely protected its right to watch movies on DVD than the academy, whose members are treated to Oscar screeners every holiday season, while we get a lecture about how we should settle for endless pre-show ads and overpriced popcorn.”
Well… hmmm… do you remember The Academy suing the MPAA over screeners? No. Because they didn’t. Of course, Academy members have major entitlement issues. They pale in comparison to the entitlement issues of the HFPA. And it was independent producers, ironically the same group that now endlessly hums about day-n-date release as a savior, that sued the MPAA.
But that distinction aside, the part I love is, “…We get a lecture about how we should settle for endless pre-show ads and overpriced popcorn.” We. The Royal We? Nah. The Media Imperious We.
The fact is, Patrick is a columnist and entitled to be about himself. What chaps my ass is that he, as many do, pretends to be objective. We!
Damn those Miami Dolphins! They expect me to settle for a stadium with uncomfortable seats, no air conditioning, no instant replay, and a ticket price of between 36 and 86 dollars apiece. I can stay home and watch the game on my wide screen TV! I can’t even see the entire field clearly from a seat in the stadium. Are they crazy?!?! How can they insult me like this?
And here is my thought… stay home. Watch your DVDs on your $10,000 home entertainment system that you and less than 15% of America have afforded itself, and enjoy!
Nobody likes pre-show ads or high priced popcorn. We also don’t like paying $100 for a balcony seat on Broadway, $12 for a mediocre drink at bars, $2.75 for a gallon of gas, $4.50 for valet parking, etc, etc, etc. But oddly, the response has not been to shut down Broadway, temperance, abandonment of the SUV, or even walking three or four blocks to the restaurant.
The next 1500 words after the jump...
It is also a bad misread, which could only come from not listening to Dan Glickman and many others, to suggest that the industry is not aware of the concerns over theater pricing and ads, among other complaints, and serious about addressing them. But really, give up on theaters, because Patrick Goldstein wants to watch his DVDs at home and he wants to watch them now!
Patrick also has badly mistaken how the web works in his analysis of NBC’s handling of “Lazy Sunday,” from SNL. He writes, “Whether the NBC move was driven by uptight lawyers or a desire to force Web surfers to view the clip on the network's own site, it was yet another paranoid misreading of the Internet, whose ability to expose the clip to millions of connected computer users would give a much-needed boost to an aging TV comedy franchise.”
Uh, no. There is no indication of that. The internet and internet buzz is a powerful form of narrowcasting. But broadcast TV operates under different rules. (See: Snakes On A Plane) Success in broadcasting and in studio-budgeted movies is wider than any web niche.
And have you noticed, they didn’t advertise that Natalie Portman’s SNL Digital Short would be on her episode of SNL… and they placed the video in the last hour, where they normally (just for the last few decades) put the pieces they consider the weakest on the show. If there is so much value to the show because of these viral clips, why aren't they being advertised? And for that matter, why isn't the Natalie Portman rap on iTunes for $1.99.
The only place you can see the Portman video right now is on the NBC website. And on the page, it says, “Now, instead of searching the web for "borrowed" NBC highlights, you can go to the source! We've taken your viral favorites and gathered them into one convenient location. Watch. React. Tell a friend.” Get it?
The only reason this link is not on YouTube is that YouTube presumably doesn’t want to support NBC’s effort if it doesn’t point to YouTube’s bottom line. A link is a link is a link. And by the way, YouTube plays its own form of this game by running many of its clips in streaming video that can’t be downloaded. So when Defamer, for instance, runs the clip, YouTube is branding in a proprietary way, with its name and player, with source material that they do not own.
Then Patrick goes back to the idiotic OTX report which is based on self-selected interviewees who are asked questions about what they think they did and what they think they will do… which is hideous survey technique. If you look at the box office last summer, there is no indication at all that teenage boys are the soft spot in the box office. But Patrick and others seem to want to believe it… so believe it… just keep believing’…
Patrick then goes to the digital film argument… which is completely off the point. Digital photography, once it became comparable on the quality level and price competitive on the hardware level, was destined to kill film photography because only a small percentage of the public has the ability to distinguish on quality and the convenience of digital is an exponential improvement. This is also true of digital projection. But no one will ever go see a movie because it is digitally projected. No one chooses a camera for their vacation because it is digital. They choose it because they don’t have to pay to process every shot, the capacity is virtually limitless, and they don’t have to carry around or load film. But there is no comparative issue of quality between theatrical exhibition or Home Entertainment. They are very different experiences. And no matter how big your home TV gets, it will be a different experience.
For decades now, the vast majority of movie tickets have been sold to fewer than 20% of the potential audience. Going to the movies has not been “everyone’s choice” since the television entered our homes. And that is pretty easy math to figure out. If the only cheap entertainment is the movies, people are desperate to go. In those days, they showed up at any time and got hours of entertainment for the price of a ticket. Since the 60’s, we’ve gotten hours of entertainment from The Box and going to the movie was an alternate choice. Technology hasn’t changed that. What has changed is the quality (up), cost (down) and speed (faster pussycat, kill, kill) of delivery. Just because Patrick doesn’t want to go any more doesn’t mean that everyone wants to stay home and watch TV, no matter how hard he argues the point. And wanting to go out and to watch a film on a 60-foot screen instead of a $5000 60-inch screen doesn’t make moviegoers into deluded antiques.
Patrick even misreads Fox’s effort to sell High Def satellite… which their DirecTV division has not been terribly successful in selling… by using special access to some programs as bait, as a larger wave. Of course, if they were so sure of Home Entertainment, going day-n-date with The Hills Have Eyes would have been a good, relatively cheap test. Nope.
Only people who are selling or who don’t really understand the sociological imperative of technology show the kind of passion for shifting everything based on technology that isn’t actually an improvement, but only a time shifter. It is infinitely more complex than Patrick seems to understand… or wants to understand. He likes to say others are in denial, but his lack of acknowledgement of how well the film industry has already milked the public with DVD and other technologies that were brand new just 5 years ago, is breathtaking. He knows better. It seems that because he wants to watch his movies on his couch and he doesn’t want to wait 3 months or 4 months or 5 months, the industry is a fool not to service him. I’ve said it a million times now… Patrick is no longer the key demographic for this business. Neither am I.
And maybe he – and others who agree with him – can answer a few key questions. How much will you spend on day-n-date delivery in your home? How much more will you spend on movies if you have day-n-date than you spend now? If you have kids, are you not buying DVDs of the movies they want to watch again or for the first time because they come out three months (or if they came out 5 months) after release?
I know what you want. You want what you want when you want it. So does everyone.
One last example.
DirecTV has an exclusive right to sell NFL Sunday Ticket, which shows all the games that are not on broadcast or cablecast networks each Sunday. They would have a lot more NFL Sunday Ticket customers if it was available on all cable systems, but DirecTV pays billions to maintain the exclusive. That is business. For DirecTV, less is more.
Now… the NFL is trying to beef up the value of its TV package and also has launched their own cable network that they want every cable and satellite company to carry. So what do they do? Well, on opening week of 2006, they have a Thursday opener, a Sunday night game and a Monday night double header. Figuring my local station will play three games in my market, my payment for NFL Sunday Ticket is delivering only nine games that week instead of eleven. My premium purchase is lessening its value. On the other hand, the vast majority of football fans in America are getting the best free (basic cable) service from the NFL they have ever had in history, increasing the games in that week that they can actually watch from four to six. Progress or regress? It depends on your goal.
In recent years, the NFL has expanded its season to 18 weeks, even though no team plays more than 16 games. Viewers can see even more games. Progress or regress? It depends on your goal.
I pay $249 for the season of Sunday ticket games… just under $14 a week. Would it be smarter for them to offer a per-game rate of $10 per game? Would more people buy? Would people dump the Sunday Ticket?
What football fans want is any game, any time, for the price the vast majority is used to paying… zero dollars and zero cents. But what are the economics?
The technology exists for the NFL to do whatever they think they want to do with these games. They can deliver them any way they want to deliver them. But they make choices. And every year, the league grows.
They don’t shut down the stadiums because more than 90% of net revenues come from TV. They don’t give the audience everything the audience wants because the audience wants it. They don’t wire every player with a microphone or a camera because the technology exists. They sell out Chicago’s winter games and Phoenix’s September games without domes.
Fifteen of the league’s thirty-two teams had losing seasons last year, much like every year. Still, every year, TV pays more. Every year, ticket prices rise and stadiums keep selling out.
Those poor deluded bastards.
Posted by poland at March 28, 2006 03:31 PM
Comments
"And have you noticed, they didn’t advertise that Natalie Portman’s SNL Digital Short would be on her episode of SNL…"
How were they supposed to? No segment on SNL is a sure thing for broadcast -- that's why the SNL ads are pretaped stand-ups. The only time you'll see footage from sketches in an ad for SNL is on Saturday nights, when they have dress footage to use.
Also, "Lazy Sunday" originally aired during the last hour of the show as well.
Posted by: James Leer ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 28, 2006 03:55 PM
But thr SNL Digital Shorts are completely pre-taped, so they have to shoot on Wed and/or Thurs and could have been included in promos starting Thursday night... if the show wanted to do it.
SNL does not really do promos that tend to be that specific. But my point was that if the tool was that powerful, it could have been used more effectively.
Posted by: David Poland at March 28, 2006 04:05 PM
The shorts are shot ahead of time, yes, but they really aren't making definite decisions about which material to use -- including pre-taped stuff like commercials and shorts -- until that night. Check out the digital short that aired during the Steve Martin episode, and how it co-starred Scarlett Johannson -- it was clearly shot when she hosted and originally intended to air the previous week.
Posted by: jesse at March 28, 2006 05:22 PM
But you are missing my point... if SNL and NBC felt that these shorts were of major marketing value to the show, they would be used as bait. Yes, decisions are made after dress. But other decisions can be made. For instance, they know they are doing Update every week, whether it is good or not.
Oy... 2500 words and this is the discussion...
Posted by: David Poland at March 28, 2006 05:57 PM
SNARK ALERT:
Maybe if you had written 1500 words instead of 2500, more people would have read the article.
Posted by: jeffmcm at March 28, 2006 06:23 PM
Maybe.
Maybe if I ran lots of pictures of Jessica Simpson, everyone would be happy!
Posted by: David Poland at March 28, 2006 06:25 PM
Sorry for the sarcasm, big guy.
Posted by: jeffmcm at March 28, 2006 06:27 PM
Jessica Simpson? Uh, no, not really. But photos of Helen Mirren? Hell, yes.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at March 28, 2006 07:14 PM
"Jessica Simpson? Uh, no, not really. But photos of Helen Mirren? Hell, yes." If those pix are from "Excalibur," you may be on to something. As a totally unrelated aside, we need a good new movie version of the Arthurian legend.
Helen Mirren is in the process of pulling off the unusual double of playing both Queens Elizabeth. Is she the first?
Posted by: Blackcloud at March 28, 2006 07:31 PM
Is this some kind of wacky twins movie like Big Business? Will she do a mirror routine?
And SCENE, on the fastest and farthest digression on a thread about new media and duelling columnists.
Posted by: jeffmcm at March 28, 2006 07:36 PM
"we need a good new movie version of the Arthurian legend"
i remember someone saying that to Joseph Campbell when i was a kid and he laughed. alot.
I wonder if it will ever come to pass. Maybe Campbell would not have thought that sentiment so funny had he lived to see Smoke Signals, another subject dear to his heart that finally had a "good movie" version--indians. There is hope.
I have to say, after I saw First Knight (oh the despair and laughter) and Tristan & Isolde I wonder if we will ever get anything more than either A) heavy metal or B) Goth
Posted by: Lota at March 28, 2006 07:40 PM
Jessica Simpson? A girl? Ew, no thanks.
Posted by: waterbucket at March 28, 2006 08:00 PM
Sorry, she's not playing them in the same production. I should have been clearer about that. My bad.
Lota, I haven't seen those two movies. I'll tell you what I have in mind: an adaptation of White's "Once and Future King." That's one of my favorite books ever (it's better than LOTR if you ask me). I'd love to see someone do it justice. It can be done.
"i remember someone saying that to Joseph Campbell when i was a kid and he laughed. alot." Was that before or after "Excalibur"? I like "Excalibur" a lot, and it was a smart idea jumping on the "Star Wars" bandwagon like that. But: I'd like to see a movie with the Galahad version of the Grail quest; and, great as it is, "Star Wars" is not a movie version of the Arthurian legend.
"I wonder if we will ever get anything more than either A) heavy metal or B) Goth" Just shatter my dreams, why don't you? *Sniff*
Posted by: Blackcloud at March 28, 2006 08:02 PM
Helen Mirren WAS hot in Excalibur.
And Black, surely you can't be saying Boorman's film is not a great great GREAT version of King Arthur?
Posted by: Crow T Robot at March 28, 2006 08:02 PM
after Excalibur sonny, I aint that old.
If I remember properly, and I may not, I think Joe C liked the way Boorman showed the world of chaos (Uther Pendragon) and the binding peace of a myth worth believing in.
I thought Excalibur very good at several things: showing men and women very childlike from their fears and their almost acceptance of being helpless in a world of chaos, and the dry annoyance of Merlin who knew what was to become of himself, and the perpetual self-doubt Arthur had as well as his complete inability to see duplicity in people he felt love for or duty towards. In other words--Boorman captured the emotional side of the tale. What was hard to do was condense it down to a reasonable running time. Had he made it a BBC mini it would have been the mini to end all, not even Pride and Preju 1995 could topple it.
Aye, Once and future king is a brilliant piece of writing. Miniseries or 2 2h movies.
Posted by: Lota at March 28, 2006 08:23 PM
By the way Dark.
Do not ever ever see First Knight. I dare you to read about it on IMDB without laughing and crying hysterically. I mean look at the knight's costumes. They were like updated royal blue neoprene star trek jobs. With heavy metal hair or glam mullets.
Sean Connery gave one of the most phoned in perfs ever to match the useless utility suits the Duran Duran knights of the round table were wearing. I kept waiting for dance numbers to break out (wait that already happened--oh the lusty month of May...but Camelot did have some nice eye candy unlike First Knight).
Posted by: Lota at March 28, 2006 08:28 PM
I agree Dave. All this talk of straight-to-the-home movie availability is just talk from people who want the Next Big Thing to get here now! Yesterday! The experience of watching a movie unfold in a theatre is vastly different than watching it at home. I think the "general public" realises this--certainly, my friends do. The movies they choose to watch in theatres are those that benefit from either the spectacle, or from the "shared experience". Watching a horror movie in a theatre makes it an unstoppable experience--I can't press pause if it gets too intense--and i share in the reactions of those around me. Although the movie is flawed, the experience of watching "Signs" in the theatre is one of my favourites--the sound design was fantastic. You could have heard a pin drop in that theatre during those cornfield scenes, people were listening so carefully for alien noises. I've since watched it at home, but the effect is dulled by having people washing dishes in the kitchen, the sun reflecting off my dumb-ass tube screen and me getting up to go to the bathroom when it gets too intense. Secondly, there is such a buzz in the theatre during opening night of a big tentpole movie, i can't imagine that with 3 people sitting in the living room. The kids love that excitment! that's where the money is...
Posted by: Kambei at March 29, 2006 06:12 AM
Dave, I know you think I'm nitpicking and missing the point, but I think it makes sense to really look at your examples. You're saying "the point is, if the shorts were a huge marketing force, they'd find a way to use them." And I'm saying, realistically, the marketing/production details of SNL haven't changed much in the past 30 years, and so I'm not sure if it's safe to say that.
And I do agree with you that straight-to-home-video releases have gotten a lot of journalist hype not based on much of anything in the way of logic. Like that study you cite (as being bogus) about how teenagers are spending their money/time on other things than theatrical releases... which I guess is how/why like half a dozen horror movies have topped the box office in less than a year. All those teens... staying home with their videogames?
Posted by: jesse at March 29, 2006 07:51 AM
Kambei, you are right on. While I'm sure some people would love to rent KONG on opening night and watch it on their flat-screen psuedo-home-theater setups or whatever (based on the number of people who seem to blind-buy DVDs, and then brag about it in the office on Monday morning, people do like going out to the movies and understand that it can be a lot more fun (even with all the uncontrolled and completely rude audiences) than sitting on your couch. This extends beyond tentpoles -- some of the most mobbed, sold-out-around-the-clock shows I've checked out in NYC since moving here have been at places like the Angelika where smart, film-loving people wanted to see this or that small-ish, less than "spectacular" (as it would have to be to look good on the Angelika's small-ish, not particularly nice screens) new indie or semi-indie.
Posted by: jesse at March 29, 2006 07:55 AM
Good point, jesse. I think Dogville was a movie i would not have sat through in my living room, but was an excellent (and sold-out) theatre experience. Of course, some people would not have sat through that movie if they were paid. heh. I like George Lucas' comments when asked about the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD battle. He said the battle is inconsequential, as the next step he sees the public getting behind, is the linkage of the computer/tivo/tv type of system, where one "downloads" the movie/show/music of your choice to your harddrive/server and watches on the tv/computer/iPod of choice. That's years away for the general public--though a few friends have their systems set up for that now--and it *still* won't replace the movie theatre...
Posted by: Kambei at March 29, 2006 10:27 AM
Well, you are nitpicking, Jesse... in part because there are other marketing opportunities than the 2 commercials they shoot for SNL to run in primetime each week.
For one thing, the coming element could be promoted before the show via web placements, talk show buzz, etc...
And for the record, In the year when I worked there, on the unit making the short films, there was not a single pre-taped piece we produced that didn't end up on air.
But mostly, you are speaking to an issue that isn't my point... does post-show internet distribution of a segment create new interest in watching the 90 minute live show. Or does it, conversely, argue that if you are on the web daily, any good stuff that was live will filter to you so you NEVER have to watch the show?
Posted by: David Poland at March 29, 2006 12:21 PM
"That's years away for the general public--though a few friends have their systems set up for that now--and it *still* won't replace the movie theatre..."
While I agree it won't replace the movie theatre, (nothing will. It will always have at least a niche market)
I have to disagree the technology is years away. It's here right now and it hasn't been brought to you by Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba. But it has been brought to you by....Hackers and open source.
Yes my friends, I didn't believe it myself until I went to a friend and industry collegue and saw his "soft modded" X-Box.
Yes, he popped in a disc - flashed the bios and the disc rewrote the OS and has made it a virutal media center.
He downloads any movie off of his PC and streams it directly through his X-Box to his HDTV. I saw a DVD perfect quality copy of Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang running at 720p, downloaded to the PC and streamed through the X-Box to the HDTV.
It also can play every Itunes or MP3 file from your PC to your Home Theatre setup through your X-Box with a visual dashboard and the software automatically displays the artists album cover. All the while you can have any RSS feed of your choice running along the bottom of your HDTV while listening to your music.
My friend will download the Eastcoast feed of any TV show for the night and watch it early on his HDTV through this modded X-Box.
Then there's my favorite - If you're a gamer, he basically installed emulations for every game console and arcade ever created and increased his videogame library from 125 to 11,000+. Now I may never get around to playing a fraction of those games anymore (I'm a graphics whore) but I love the idea of knowing I CAN if I want to.
Yes friends, that "future" box that can DO EVERYTHING, that they've been talking about that is "years away". It's here, it's been made, It's practically free and it gathers and distributes your content to your home theatre setup at the highest quality, in any medium - FREE (piracy issues aside, the focus is on technology and innovation)
And because it's open source code, people are constantly making it better. That is the future. The little guy, the hacker, not waiting around for corporate BS - takes matter into his own hands and makes the product he wants for himself without waiting for them.
As soon as I can afford an X-Box 360 I am modding my old X-Box (you lose your Live service with the Mod) and having that "virtual media center" they keep promising that's years away...today.
Posted by: THX5334 at March 29, 2006 12:31 PM
THX is right... but his friend is a very small part of the market. The mass market is well behind that kind of power accessing.
But I would still paint that as 5-10 years. Remember, most of the mainstream tech hardware providers are in bed with the studios/conglomerates and move slowly.
I had a pal who was getting any DVD he wanted from someone in his office 6, 7 years ago. And you could buy a 300 hour Tivo years ago... but not from Tivo or any other official manufacturer.
But the world of media must be organized and monetized soon. Niche, niche, niche.
The perfect example lately is the Ricky Gervais podcast on iTunes, which they say was the most downloaded podcast ever. It was free... then as old content, became a fee based thing... now is free again. But how do the media companies wrangle all those eyeballs and what are the concrete benefits? The podcast was not an iTunes thing, but a Guardian thing. How does that all work. Is the web viral enough that The Guardian didn't need iTunes or is that port critical to a spread to the US. And if people come to a site for Gervais, but never have to come back to get each week's podcast, are they slitting their own neck?
Many, many, many questions even before you get to your pal's Super XBox
Posted by: David Poland at March 29, 2006 12:43 PM
That's long been the problem with film exhibition. Too many people that can't agree on something that is better for consumers. So we wait for them while the technology gets better and people outside the system beat it. I don't think Patrick is right in the sense that the studios have to suddenly drop their revenue streams in favor of something unproven. But I think his article should have been aimed more at the You Tubes of the world that are going to be the new exhibition powerhouses...with or without the studios.
Posted by: palmtree at March 29, 2006 12:45 PM
Wish you were as savvy about pro football as you are about movies.
The NFL has had regular Sunday-night games since 1983 and a Thursday-night season opener since 2002. This year's season opener (Dolphins-Steelers on 9/7) and first Sunday-night game (Colts-Giants on 9/10) are the first "official" NFL games for NBC since Super Bowl 32.
ESPN takes over Monday Night Football this year; that doubleheader in Week 1 is a plum as the Raiders are in the late game.
NFL Network has games on Thanksgiving night (Broncos-Chiefs this year) plus 8 games after that (5 Thursdays, 3 Saturdays).
The Cardinals have not sold out many home games since moving to Arizona. This year the club opens its own stadium and expects sellouts as a result.
Also, the regular season is 17 weeks (16 games + 1 open date).
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at March 29, 2006 01:34 PM
I wonder if you feel similarly towards music (yes, I know they are a different realm, but bear with the analogy).
When a new song comes out, we can hear it free on the radio and then go buy the single or download it free from iTunes, where you can often watch the music video free as well. There are no windows there, or very very short ones at least. Is the comparable argument then that this concentration on singles has hurt album sales or has hurt people's appreciation of albums as cohesive artistic expression or has hurt the revenue streams on what would have been album sales?
Or am I just stretching the analogy?
Posted by: palmtree at March 29, 2006 01:46 PM
I want this X-Box dead! I want its family dead! I want to go out at night and piss on its ashes!
Posted by: Crow T Robot at March 29, 2006 02:04 PM
There have been several pre-taped pieces on SNL this season that have not ended up on the air, or have been bumped from the show they were supposed to appear on. I'm thinking specifically of one where Andy Samberg was a suicide jumper and also the ScarJo clip which aired a week late, though I know there are more.
Most of these pieces were still slotted to air as late as the dress rehearsal (which is how it's known they exist if you read SNL messageboards) but got bumped. Promoting it would do no good as it's literally not decided what sketches will make it to air until the day-of, and even then, sketches will get cut right before they're supposed to be performed.
Posted by: James Leer at March 29, 2006 03:57 PM
It's very hard to compare the film industry with football. There's no gambling on films. Which counts for much of footballs popularity. The league makes a decision NOT to charge people to watch games. The League Pass is one of the cheapest things out there for a fan. If you even like football a little bit it is worth it. And most every bar in the country gets the service knowing how much people desire seeing every game. Could they make every game PPV and bang out everyone for 25$ a game? Sure can. The backlash would be horrific but they could. Better to be fan friendly to the people who are your customers. Something the film industry conveniently forgets day after day.
Posted by: Richard Nash at March 29, 2006 04:52 PM
Whoever came up with the funny tagline for the story entitled "Remember 1963?" got their facts wrong. Henry Hill and I buried that fucking rat Billy Batts in 1970, not 1963. Get your shit together.
Posted by: Jimmy the Gent at March 29, 2006 08:55 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)