08-20-2003, 09:37 PM
If you can believe this one... a little article about how the MPAA is pushing off the blame for this year's summer flops from expected blockbusters..... and what do they push the blame onto?
TEXT MESSAGING!
TEXT MESSAGING!
08-20-2003, 09:37 PM
08-20-2003, 09:40 PM
I call Shennanigans
this should be in entertainment!!!
that being said,
there is some validity to this.
I think the internet and cable channels have more to do with it though.
word of mouth does spread a lot faster now.
this should be in entertainment!!!
that being said,
there is some validity to this.
I think the internet and cable channels have more to do with it though.
word of mouth does spread a lot faster now.
08-20-2003, 09:49 PM
I know i am going to end up on the RIAA list. Just a matter of time.
This is ridiculous though, if the movie sucks people are going to find out one way or another.
This is ridiculous though, if the movie sucks people are going to find out one way or another.
08-20-2003, 09:53 PM
That's because all those movies they mentioned sucked. They need to start making quality movies then they will start making money.
08-20-2003, 09:57 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kindred
That's because all those movies they mentioned sucked. They need to start making quality movies then they will start making money.
:rofl:
Like that's going to happen.
08-20-2003, 10:08 PM
Gee, I was about to see The Hulk, but one person happened to text message me the exact second that I was about to buy my ticket (as opposed to telling me an hour after) so I told my date that we were going to the Commack Motor Inn instead.
Funny how they don't mention that it costs $10 to sit in a crappy theater now. Not to mention the fact that the first "Charlie's Angels" and "Tomb Raider" sucked ass.
Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that to combat people saying that a movie sucks, you should try making one that doesn't suck???
Funny how they don't mention that it costs $10 to sit in a crappy theater now. Not to mention the fact that the first "Charlie's Angels" and "Tomb Raider" sucked ass.
Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that to combat people saying that a movie sucks, you should try making one that doesn't suck???
08-20-2003, 10:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kindredWell, not <i>all</i> of the movies mentioned were bad. I, for one, happened to like <i>Hulk</i>, even though I suppose most folks argue against its "artsy" style when compared to <i>Spiderman</i> and <i>X-Men</i>.
That's because all those movies they mentioned sucked. They need to start making quality movies then they will start making money.
But you're right abourt the rest. The movie industry would rather rehash the same old tired shit/ideas/stories/plots, using the same 15-20 actors (how many more movies does Colin Ferrell really need to star in this year?) over and over again, and then sucker a couple of weekends of moviegoers' money out of them before word-of-mouth keeps folks out of the theater. Then they start the process all over.
08-20-2003, 10:24 PM
Quote:(how many more movies does Colin Ferrell really need to star in this year?)
Honestly, he should milk it for all he can before people realize how awful he is and can't nab a gig anymore.
08-20-2003, 10:29 PM
Not to switch the convo from the MPAA to the RIAA or anything, but I have a question.
When I got my new system, I didn't bother to transfer all my mp3s over. Now I'm kinda missing some of them and want to get some back. What is the exact ruling on what you are allowed to do and not allowed to do? I don't want to risk downloading them again if I'm gonna be monitored for getting at most up to 100 songs and I sure as hell am not paying to download.
When I got my new system, I didn't bother to transfer all my mp3s over. Now I'm kinda missing some of them and want to get some back. What is the exact ruling on what you are allowed to do and not allowed to do? I don't want to risk downloading them again if I'm gonna be monitored for getting at most up to 100 songs and I sure as hell am not paying to download.
08-20-2003, 11:27 PM
Well atleast J-Lo and Afflick have something to blame Gigli on now :lol: