"Stefan Persson" <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a2e3692@news.povray.org...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a2e2473$1@news.povray.org...

> > If a movie makes 50 million a weekend, you can call it rubbish all you
> > want
> > atop your high horse, but it shows people see value in it, and are
willing
> > to pay for their enjoyment. Fortunately, you cannot legislate taste or
> > force
> > yours on everybody else. Someone sells something, someone else buys it,
> > what
> > is it to you? Of course unless you are a closet fan but too cheap or
> > embarrassed to get in on the action through normal/legal channels.

> First thing, it's not stealing.

OK, it's self-entitling then. Whatever, we had that discussion before too.

> But I'm not going into that discussion here.
> If I read between the lines you accuse me of downloading the work.
> Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's beside the point. Where did I say I
> was pro-download? Nowhere.

You are correct. My mistake.

> I say that they earn those $50M because they are allowed to hype their
> product
> in a way that we have laws againts for other products.
> Taste has nothing to do with it. You have yours, and I have mine. I am
> saying
> that their delivered product should live up to what they promise.

What criterion, besides taste, do you have to judge fullfilment of promise?
Yes, you are arguing taste.

> And I also have to object to that you put $==Value. How many of those
> went out of the cinema and swore they would burn the movie company to the
> ground?

I did a quick Google earth scan, but didn't notice any of the movie theaters
being particularly bright, so I'd say not more than a couple of psychotics,
if that.

> Your figure doesn't really say what people thought of the movie,
> only
> what was reported by the box office.

People speak with their monies. The box office is an excellent measure of
the tastes of the populace. You might not like that the general public
prefers Dumb and Dumber over King Lear, but that's the way it is.

> So, what I ask (again) is that the product, in this case the movie, lives
up
> to what
> was promised me in the trailer. Not to much to ask for, right?
> Sure, I might not like it, but that's life. But if you market a movie for
> being the baddest,
> most scary and evil movie of all times, you'd expect some chilling
moments,
> wouldn't you?

Depends. I've grown out of my phase of being scared at movies. That genre
doesn't interest me, and I make an informed decision to avoid such movies.
But even if I were, I'm not a total idiot (you are probably using you as the
indefinite pronoun as well, but let's say it's about me) and I wouldn't
automatically assume that a movie poster claiming it's the "scaries thing
you have ever seen" is to be taken literally. Hyperbole is deeply ingrained
in art, and there's no universal yardstick for emotions that can be evoked.

> Of course not. And of course a first hand review by someone that really
was
> there
> should give you a fair picture of what it was like. I agree. But how does
> that give the Industry the right to lie? Or perhaps lie is a strong word.
I
> prefer hype in the very most negative of meanings.

Do you think WWE lies too?

> > I see that, but you need more consistent arguments and/or pick your
fight
> > more wisely and one at a time.

> I'm glad you are here to tell me these things.

Glad to be of service.

Post a reply to this message